The Note: Obama Waits on Change for January
ABC News’ Rick Klein reports in Friday’s Note:
Change doesn’t have to wait until January.
Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, is gone. (A sign of a new day.)
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., is gone, partly, too. (A sign of a new order.)
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., isn’t going anywhere. (But she’s gone quite a distance to get there.)
Penny Pritzker leaves before she ever even arrives.
And the auto bailout came back to life after it was declared dead, only to die again. (It may yet rise again — though not until next month.)
As for President-elect Barack Obama — he is, for the most part, waiting for January.
Read the rest of The Note — and get all the latest on the 2008 election, Congress, the White House and the wide world of politics every day — from Rick Klein by bookmarking this link.
Thus far through the transition, we’re learning that Obama remains, at his core, a cautious and patient politician — one who can be quite stingy with his political capital.
Meanwhile, the stock market is in freefall, Detroit is near collapse, and Congress is in a stalemate. Obama has had nearly half of his Cabinet filled for him, without a single formal announcement.
(If you’re scoring at home, he’s now had more haircuts than press conferences as president-elect.)
Other than a few comments, Obama has chosen not to play in the current crisis: “With the stock market plunging and the credit market entering a new freeze, cries are being heard for a new government intervention to prop up major financial institutions before President-elect Barack Obama takes office,” Floyd Norris writes in The New York Times. “By resigning from the Senate before the current session began and allowing it to appear that a sense of drift could prevail until he is inaugurated, Mr. Obama may have missed an opportunity to exert leadership.”
“How much can go wrong in the two months before Mr. Obama takes the oath of office? The answer, unfortunately, is: a lot,” Paul Krugman writes in his column. “At minimum, the next two months will inflict serious pain on hundreds of thousands of Americans, who will lose their jobs, their homes, or both. What’s really troubling, however, is the possibility that some of the damage being done right now will be irreversible.”
“The problem is that nothing of significance can or will happen until the new President takes office in January, even though there is — finally — a great appetite for action in Washington. This is going to be a very frustrating few months,” Time’s Joe Klein writes.
Continue reading today’s Note by clicking HERE.
ABC News’ Hope Ditto contributed to this report.
Email




RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Penny Pritzker is gone???? I thought he nominated her for commerce.
Posted by: samhiguchi | November 21, 2008, 3:53 am 3:53 am
Aaaah. so in January he’s going to get rid of all the political insiders he’s invited to serve in his cabinet? Like we’ve been saying all along.. Obama is nothing but empty promises and catch phrases.
Posted by: howwouldiknow | November 21, 2008, 3:57 am 3:57 am
Why is the President-elect being held responsible for the current mess? Why can’t the CURRENT PRESIDENT DO HIS JOB?
Posted by: SG in PG | November 21, 2008, 4:56 am 4:56 am
Guys,
Don’t forget we still have a President.
He is called George W. Bush.
Is the guy asleep at the wheel as usual?
What is he doing about the current Market collapse?
Until Obama becomes President he can do nothing.
George Bush can use a single Executive Order to fix some of this crap.
Boy, who did we end up with such an incompetent like Bush?
Pathetic indeed.
Posted by: Steve_NJ | November 21, 2008, 5:01 am 5:01 am
President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military’s decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.
Posted by: This isn’t the Change I knew | November 21, 2008, 5:06 am 5:06 am
Don’t ask don’t tell is OK for now.
Why should the military wanna know if I am gay or not?
I think there are more important issues regarding the military that the new President has to tackle.
Posted by: Steve_NJ | November 21, 2008, 5:19 am 5:19 am
Obama’s Attorney General Wants to Regulate Internet Speech.
“The court has really struck down every government effort to try to regulate it. We tried with regard to pornography. It is gonna be a difficult thing, but it seems to me that if we can come up with reasonable restrictions, reasonable regulations in how people interact on the Internet, that is something that the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at.” – May 28, 1999 NPR Morning Edition
Pardon me, but I’m looking at the First Amendment, and I’m a bit confused. Where in this statement does it say that the government has the authority to impose “reasonable restrictions” on speech?
Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. That appears rather clear. It doesn’t authorize “reasonable restrictions”, or “reasonable regulations”, or what Holder really wants, “reasonable federal censorship.”
We apparently will have an incoming administration blissfully ignorant of the Constitution they will swear to defend. Barack Obama couldn’t articulate a coherent statement on gun rights despite his supposed status as a Constitutional scholar, Joe Biden couldn’t figure out what Article I actually establishes, and now Eric Holder hasn’t read the First Amendment. Maybe we should pass out more of those Robert Byrd Pocket Constitutions during the transition, and hold a test before Inauguration Day.
Anyone want to guess what form those “reasonable restrictions” might be? Perhaps, say, regulating content in the blogosphere? I’m guessing that will be Target One for the Holder-run DoJ.
Posted by: Censorship in the Age of Obama | November 21, 2008, 5:54 am 5:54 am
Steve_NJ,
Let us start with a really simple one, exactly WHAT do you think the President (Bush or Obama) can do with that executive order?
Instead of whining that every problem since the big bang is Bush’s fault, why are you not screaming at the DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS to get OVERSIGHT in place on the first bailout?
Pelosi & Reid are the ones asleep at the wheel and they were trying to run the whole country over a cliff until public pressure forced them to back off this insane auto bailout.
Posted by: Mike_C | November 21, 2008, 5:59 am 5:59 am
Still don’t understand the Clinton appointment, assuming the reports are correct. She’s not exactly among the steady hands I assumed Obama would tap.
Announcing the financial team on Monday will be a good move, however. Assuming management of the bailout plan will be the immediate challenge.
Posted by: Paul | November 21, 2008, 11:54 am 11:54 am
Censorship: “We apparently will have an incoming administration blissfully ignorant of the Constitution they will swear to defend.”
Lol, a little over-dramatic are we?
Posted by: Paul | November 21, 2008, 11:58 am 11:58 am
Nothing will improve in January, if anything, it will get worse. Pelosi, Reid, Franks, Dodd and now Obama and his joke of an administration are all a recipe for disaster.
Obama and all his “yes men” set the bar so high during the election that now they are coming out and telling everyone to lower their expectations. They know Obama isn’t really the Messiah they packaged him as to get elected.
Obama is hiding from the economic disaster because he has no idea what to do.
Obama supporters are suckas!!!
Posted by: S Adams | November 21, 2008, 1:06 pm 1:06 pm
“Obama is hiding from the economic disaster because he has no idea what to do.”
Well, yes and no. He can say what his plans are economically (maybe that’s part of the problem) but he isn’t president yet so he’s powerless. But, assuming that the president and congress can do anything much to help the economy (beyond lowering taxes) is an 8th grader’s way at looking at American economics.
Don’t believe the tripe Socialist historians have given you about FDR and the economy-his administration and Congress’s economic policies made the Great Depression drag on.
Posted by: Grand Old Party | November 21, 2008, 2:22 pm 2:22 pm
The economy is tanking seemingly as if no bottom in sight. There is absolutely no leadership, anywhere, to be seen.
You certainly cannot expect George W. Bush to come up with a great idea; after all, he is incompetent and a lameduck. The Congress of Pelosi and Reid has done nothing for two freeking years, except promoting their Affirmative Action candidate, ridiculing and ignoring correct solutions by people like Hillary Clinton.
Our Greatest Smartest Changest Leader, Pres. 0bama, took his first “present”, to have got his corned beef in answering a question about the economy, rather than taking an future leadership role and telling the american people what he is going to do.
Does he know?
Posted by: fat cat | November 21, 2008, 5:30 pm 5:30 pm
Obama is avoiding the current economic crisis. He could come out with what his plans for the economy will be once he takes office and the stock market will probably react in the positive. As long as he stays quiet, it will continue to take a downward spiral. No one likes the unknown.
Also, many companies are closing their doors in anticipation of the huge tax increases they will see under an Obama administration. With the economy already in the dumper, they know they will not survive with Obama at the helm of the U.S.
What I find funny though, is that Emanuel is lowering expectations by telling Americans that Obama will be taking over the White House during the worst economic crisis this country has seen, so not to expect much once Obama takes over. Really? I guess since Obama won a majority of the votes, they are taking advantage of our ignorance. I believe that Reagan took over one of the worst economic crisis’ this country has ever seen from the Carter Administration. And a lot of the policies that Obama is embracing were the same as Carters!
A new documentary called “How Obama got elected” interviews many Obama supporters. When they were asked questions given multiple choice answers about Obama, most of them got them wrong. Shows how completely clueless and how low our standards have fallen. Oh, but when the question about who said they could see Russia from their house was asked most people said Palin, even though SHE didn’t say it. Tina Fey did in an SNL skit.
People took the lies the Obama supporters made up as factual, but don’t even know what the real facts are.
God help us!
Posted by: S Adams | November 21, 2008, 5:44 pm 5:44 pm
Mr. Obama addressed the nation and internet on Saturday to update us and to reassure us that he and his wise councelors are workiing on a two-year plan to provide jobs and to strengthen our economy at the same time. He can official do nothing until he is officially president. Mr. Bush is in the driver’s seat. Instead of trying to help us, he is ignoring us, waiting until he can official run away on January 20th. Before he leaves, he will dig our ditches even deeper with his “midnight” regulations.
Posted by: EgreenG | November 22, 2008, 5:53 am 5:53 am
Bob Woodward questions the Clinton pick as well. I think the quote attributed to him is ‘Obama must be smoking something.’
Beyond that choice, his transition is going well. Early reviews on Obama’s pick for Treasury seem positive.
Posted by: Paul | November 22, 2008, 6:19 am 6:19 am
If it turn out that Obama is not American citizen, and was born in Kenya, he can not take the presidental office,Who will be the president ? Joe Biden ?
Posted by: JOE | November 22, 2008, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm
I guess the Slogan for the
Obama Administation will be:
Change? What Change?
With Dashle, Richardson, and
Hillary leading the way it’s more like
“Back to the Future”!
Posted by: reaganfan | November 22, 2008, 4:01 pm 4:01 pm
For those who are still blaming Bush in today’s blog…A little tiring after 8 years, ain’t it? What are you going to do after January 20th, 2009? You got into such a habit of blaming Bush for everything, that I have to remind you to refrain yourself from saying such giberrish as, after January 20, 2009, “Look what mess Bush made for Obama clean up!” For there is no end of this from you, even until 2012 when Obama is voted out of the White House, and the Democratic Challenger? No other than the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. I am not saying that she will win though. For those Bush haters, watch out for your tiring language, we don’t like to hear broken record like yours. Retire your rhetoric, would you? I am looking for “CHANGE” in your usual blaming game.
Posted by: Jungle | November 22, 2008, 8:47 pm 8:47 pm
Obama’s transition is going smoothly enough. His cabinet and White House team are getting rave reviews, and he’s already been able to calm the roiling markets with the Geithner pick.
Posted by: Matt | November 23, 2008, 4:14 am 4:14 am
reaganfan: “With Dashle, Richardson, and
Hillary leading the way it’s more like
‘Back to the Future’!”
Lol, the Republican ability to spin has really been diminished, hasn’t it? I guess the whole party has been Palinized.
Anyway, let’s go through this again. Change doesn’t mean appointing a bunch of folks no one ever heard of. The president sets direction and his administration, which consists of appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president as well as career civil servants, works to execute that presidential guidance.
Consider a professional football team as an analogy. A new coach can promote a new playing style – say going from a running attack to a West Coast offense. That coach, however, isn’t going to attempt the new playing style with a bunch of players who had never before been in the NFL.
Posted by: Paul | November 23, 2008, 5:26 am 5:26 am
come on Barack! a smart man like you, can do better than uh” uh” David Axelrod for uh” “uh press secretary, uh? uh? dont you uh” uh ? think? I kind of hate to hearing this guy talk for the next uh ” uh” four years,and I am a life -long uh uh southern democrat! yall come back now, you hear!
Posted by: Richard L. Parr | November 23, 2008, 6:48 am 6:48 am
Oh give me a break! Obama isn’t going to fix anything! How is he going to cut costs when his first plan of action once he gets into the Whitehouse is to tear out the bowling alley and build a gym so he can play basketball! What a waste of tax money!
Posted by: me | November 23, 2008, 10:45 am 10:45 am
Yesterday, Barack Obama’s surrogates fanned out across the talking-head shows to promote Barack Obama’s new jobs program. Obama promises to create 2.5 million jobs in the next two years through government stimulus packages and heavy reliance on public-works programs. Many, like the Washington Post, compare his vision to that of FDR — without pointing out that FDR’s programs failed:
The best stimulus package that Congress could offer would be a sharp reduction in government spending, accompanied by a decrease in tax rates on investment income — the capital-gains rate. While few will realize any capital gains in 2008, the commitment to low rates will signal investors to start putting their resources to work again. Best of all, it will also signal that the government won’t compete for projects that could be accomplished by private enterprise — projects that will get completed more quickly and with better quality than with heavily-bureaucratized government labor.
With Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress, though, Obama won’t likely see that kind of long-term stimulus to the nation’s economy. Instead, Congress will confiscate more capital to fund its own projects, making recovery more and more difficult. They’ll expand government spending while either hiking tax rates, expanding deficit spending, or both. In the end, that will be as effective as the CCC and the WPA was from 1933-1941. Hopefully, this time it won’t take American voters that long to reach that conclusion.
Posted by: Obama announces: Less Lincoln, More FDR | November 24, 2008, 5:14 am 5:14 am
Paul:
The Only Spin I see is coming from
you Obama Cheerleaders waving your
Pom Poms!
Obama said he was going to change the
way things are done in Washington!
It won’t happen with the Washington
Insiders he is choosing for his
Cabinet!
He is already backing off his proposal to
withdraw our troops in Iraq in his
first 16 months as president!
He’s backing away from the tax cuts
for 95% of the country that he promised
and is backing away from the pledge he
made to increase taxes on people
making more than $150,000, $200,000, or
$250,000 a year(hard to tell which is the actual figure).
Just another liar like all the rest.
Obama went from “change you can believe
in” to you can’t believe a word I say!
Posted by: reaganfan | November 24, 2008, 9:02 am 9:02 am
Well, it is your right to rant on, reaganfan. So have at it.
Posted by: Paul | November 24, 2008, 9:47 am 9:47 am
The seething, spittle-filled rants in this comment section just makes me giddy. I guess you guys are still reeling from November 4th, when you got trounced.
Obama’s nowhere to be seen? Oh, except for the weekly video addresses and daily updates from his change.gov website. Remind me again where our CURRENT president is making weekly statements about all this? Oh, that’s right, the last address he made was in April.
I used to donate to the campaign every time I saw a hate-filled rant with no reason or intelligence behind it. Since I can’t do that anymore, I’m just going to laugh at you instead.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Posted by: Michael | November 24, 2008, 2:17 pm 2:17 pm
What the heck does he care about now. He got your votes; you got a tanked economy and falling Stock Market.
You or your dad are not going to retire any time soon.
Now, we’ve got a cool PEBO.
Do you think our Greatest Leader felt your pain?
Posted by: fat cat | November 24, 2008, 2:42 pm 2:42 pm
Michael,
Good luck, and good night.
Posted by: expecting | November 24, 2008, 2:45 pm 2:45 pm
Still don’t understand the Clinton appointment, assuming the reports are correct. She’s not exactly among the steady hands I assumed Obama would tap.
Posted by: Paul | Nov 21, 2008 4:54:50 PM
————-
What you don’t understand.
Our Greatest Smartest Changest Leader is so afraid he will make so many boneheaded mistakes. He needs someone to safe guard his administration so that things will not go too wrong.
Hillary will do whatever she feels good for the country, and he skills in promoting global cooperation will help bring the world economy to a sooner recovery, which is a good thing to help lead our own recovery.
Hillary is the stability and reassurance that we and the world need now and in the next 4 years.
Posted by: fat cat | November 24, 2008, 2:50 pm 2:50 pm
Why is the President-elect being held responsible for the current mess? Why can’t the CURRENT PRESIDENT DO HIS JOB?
Posted by: SG in PG | Nov 21, 2008 9:56:22 AM
Posted by: fat cat | November 24, 2008, 3:00 pm 3:00 pm
fatcat: “Had he followed Hillary’s lead, putting our economy first instead of his own ambition, the Stock market might have been still in the 14000 range today.”
Lol, if you think that’s all it would take to get the Dow back up to 14,000 quickly, I suggest you buy equities now – all you can as quickly as you can.
However, if you have a little more understanding of our current economic mess, you might want to be more cautious with your investments.
Posted by: Paul | November 24, 2008, 3:43 pm 3:43 pm
Paul,
Do not try to deceive by talking about a different subject, as our Greatest Changest Leader always does.
I was talking about preventing it from going down more than ONE YEAR AGO.
You are talking about bringing it up after our Greatest Leader has equalized 95% poor and 5% rich by more than 50%.
They are different as you are well aware of. It is much easier to fall than climbing up.
Posted by: fat cat | November 24, 2008, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm
Change is in the Air. Great post here about “Energy Clinics” in Southeast Asia, why can’t we do in the U.S.??
Posted by: Virginia Cornue | November 24, 2008, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm
fatcat: “Do not try to deceive by talking about a different subject, as our Greatest Changest Leader always does. I was talking about preventing it from going down more than ONE YEAR AGO. You are talking about bringing it up after our Greatest Leader has equalized 95% poor and 5% rich by more than 50%. They are different as you are well aware of. It is much easier to fall than climbing up.”
True enough, but I’ll add that the markets were over-valued a year ago and had to come down, as this economy has been hollowing itself for years and perhaps decades depending on your perspective – rising public debt, diminished manufacturing base, etc.
The band-aids Clinton proposed were just that. My concern is that even the level of reaction Obama is talking about may also may prove to be just band-aids.
So, I guess I’m saying my original point is still valid.
By the way, why do you say it would be easier to keep the markets propped up than it would be for investors to raise them now? Is that from an econ 101 book or just something you made up?
Posted by: Paul | November 24, 2008, 6:18 pm 6:18 pm
Paul,
No, not necessarily from econ 101.
It is because there is a vacuum of leadership in Washington, while our Greatest Leader is hiding in a hole in Chicago.
Bush is not and cannot do anything besides pardoning some friends, and you do not want him to do anything any way.
The Congress only knows to bailout banks, tingling with the Market of to bailout and not to bailout of the 4 million jobs potentially lost in the auto Industry.
Our Greatest Leader keeps his cool silence, messing around with rumors of hiring his family crony friend Pritzker as Sect. of DoC, enough to lose the Dow for 900 points and more than 11% in just two days. Even with the two day rebounce after her withdraw we are still 200 points shy where it was Tuesday last week.
Our Greatest Leader has Zero capacity to understand this problem is his problem, and he needs to tell the world what he will do, specifically, exactly, for the economy, not just feel-good inspirational speeches now. The Market needs confidence, stability, reassurance to be stabilized. Our Greatest Leader is cool playing fire simply testing waters for his crony friends.
There are still near 60 days left, and there is no leadership anywhere to be found. That’s why it is hard to rise.
Posted by: fat cat | November 24, 2008, 6:39 pm 6:39 pm
fatcat – I think looking at the Dow or other market indices as a daily referendum on the president elect is a little silly.
Further, as an investor I’m much more concerned in business fundamentals than governmental action when choosing my purchases or sales. For instance, I think Christmas sales will have a greater impact on stocks as a whole than would the question of whether it was Obama or McCain or anyone else preparing to take office.
Posted by: paul | November 25, 2008, 6:36 am 6:36 am
P..as an investor who is concerned with business fundamentals more than governmental action, seems to me you voted for the wrong guy…me I could care less, I dumped my options when Obama became a serious contender fortunately I did not suffer losses; however unfortunately,others did and are. As for Christmas sales, don’t depend on them with a predicted 5 percent decline in shoppers. Any “serious investor” knows it’s all short-term gain…
Posted by: socalindep | November 25, 2008, 7:52 am 7:52 am
socalindep – if you’re buying options I’d say you’re not an investor. That’s trading territory.
I did sell about half my long positions more than a year ago. Fundamentals were turning south when oil started to sky rocket, and anyone who wanted to see it knew what was coming. I don’t claim to have foreseen the extent of the crisis we now find ourselves in – at least not occurring this soon – but seemed obvious to me the markets were heading for correction.
I had this conversation with a co-worker a while back. I still have a yellow sticky stuck to my office wall, with the numbers 14,198 and 11,358. The high number was the Dow that day, and in response to my prediction that we could be looking at a 20 percent drop, he wanted to hold me to that – so the low number was written.
The connection between Christmas shopping and the markets is well established. And while I’m not sure you’re numbers are correct, let’s say they are. Then retailers are now valued with that 5 percent decline factored in. Anything above that, and those equities will rise in value.
As an experienced “investor” I’m sure you know it doesn’t matter for the short term whether you make or lose money, so long as you beat estimates.
For the long term, we still have some serious problems. We don’t produce much as a nation. We are having trouble servicing our public debt, and at least one of the big three creditors has suggested the U.S.’s AAA rating might be in danger. Our individual families are carrying additional debt and haven’t been saving – being good ‘patriots’ they’ve been spending their money on more and more crap. And now credit is tight to non-existant.
And, oh by the way, the baby boomers have started to retire. While most people note the public strains that causes because of social security and medicare payments we can expect making, also consider what happens when that demographic bubble stops putting into its 401(k) and starts taking out.
Posted by: paul | November 25, 2008, 10:27 am 10:27 am
P..I don’t buy options, I earn them. The five percent decline stated previously is based upon the shopping public; example, for every 20 shoppers, one will stay home doesn’t sound like a lot however when you are talking thousands, well…..I truly hope I am wrong, but thus far I have been on the money so too speak. I want Obama to succeed in the worst way for my kids’ sake but I am not banking, excuse the pun, on the dem held congress and senate; therefore, I am putting my investments in reasonably safe securities and stocks ain’t one of them, for now anyway; perhaps in another 18 months to a year if he is the miracle worker everyone is saying…
Posted by: socalindep | November 25, 2008, 1:06 pm 1:06 pm
People who are saying Obama is asking washington insiders to serve with him must be stupid!!!!!!
Where do you want him to pick these individuals???
Maybe pick guys off the street?
Posted by: Crazy people | November 25, 2008, 7:28 pm 7:28 pm
A question from US News–not Fox–to Obama’s new Tresury Secretary:
“Please describe your role during the demise of Lehman.” “How has the AIG bailout been good for taxpayer?” “What role did Fannie and Freddie play in the subprime mortgage bubble?” “What role has government policy played in creating the housing and credit crisis?” “How does tax policy affect economic growth?” “What should be done to fix Social Security?” “Should the government more directly aid homeowners?” “What is the growth potential of the U.S. economy?” “Should unions represent more workers and how would that affect productivity?” “Should China be pushed to strengthen its currency.” “Does America need a stronger dollar?” “How do budget deficits affect real interest rates.”
But this is the most important one: “Mr. Geithner, the job of the New York Fed is to — now I am quoting its own web site — ‘supervise and regulate financial institutions in the Second District [includes Wall Street]. Its primary objective is to maintain safe and competitive U.S. and global banking systems.’ You have been in your current post since 2003 and during that time the U.S. financial system has come close to complete disintegration. WHY DO YOU DESERVE A PROMOTION?”
Posted by: Where was Timothy Geithner during the Wall Street meltdown? | November 26, 2008, 6:47 am 6:47 am
I need some leftover change Barry.
Posted by: Hippie Smasher | November 27, 2008, 12:31 pm 12:31 pm