Explain to me please, how is it that the candidate that promised 'Change' has so quickly forgotten what he promised?
We're at election day + 2 and already it seems that one side's definition of change isn't even close to what I would have expected. Apparently, for Obama the meaning of change is change back to an administration filled with people from the Clinton administration.
Talk of Summers as Treasury Secretary, the decision to go with Rahm Emmanuel as the chief of staff, and talk of other potential members of the President-elect's administration has me thinking that the type of change that Obama was speaking of was apparently nothing more than changing from the people in these positions right not to someone, perhaps anyone, else -- except that apparently the anyone else part has to be "anyone else ... that formerly served in these capacities in the last semi-successful Democrat President's administration."
Seriously, in most ways I don't think I could care any less who Obama puts into most of the positions he'll fill as I expect whomever he puts into his cabinet will be people that we don't hear all that much from. Heck, I expect if you asked the average man or woman on the street they couldn't name more than 3 or 4 of the people serving in Bush's cabinet and I really expect Obama's cabinet will wind up the same. We'll recognize a few names, but for the most part we'll hear the names rarely and won't actually be able to remember them when asked. Such is the life of most cabinet members and administration underlings. The big cheese, aka the President, is the one who is supposed to be remembered and hey, after the fact that is as it should be with the buck stopping on their desk.
That all said, I'm still waiting to see where the change really is. Obama energized a lot of people in this country by preaching change. Wouldn't change imply we're gonna see some NEW faces in these positions rather than retreads (people that served previously).
Oh sure, there'll be people from the liberal side that will claim that things were much better during the Clinton administration. I've heard that already (heh, didn't take long really...) but what those people selectively remember is that the Clinton administration also brought us the stock market bubble that Alan Greenspan later burst.
We don't need the types of change that brought us the housing market bubble and free money for buying homes (as long as you -- hopefully -- eventually make a few outrageously high payments towards the sub-prime mortgage you took out :/). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were products of a congress primarily controlled by Democrats that wanted to deliver on the promise of home ownership for all. Apparently they forgot to disclose that the promise had a few strings attached and that when you get money for nothing it just doesn't last.
Anyway, all I can say is where's the change? So far I'm not seeing it. (Impatient S.O.B. aren't I? 
)
