Here's my naive, best possible scenario speculation on Obama's pre-inaugural choices.

[lumberjack_jeff]

Gupta, Warren, Dean. The treatment of all three individuals has served to mollify powerful groups who have been suspicious of Obama. Since we (the people who elected him) are already a sure thing, it's something he probably feels that he needed to do.

Best case scenario: he's provided himself with a little bit of slack, some political capital that he can use to implement progressive solutions to the economic crisis, to stand up for civil rights and to jump-start discussions on health care reform.

A kernel of truth, or simply trying to rationalize away that which really pisses me off?

Is he head faking big business and the religious right or was he a trojan horse?

[polichick]

1. Well, I sure hope it's a head fake...

...but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Danger Mouse]

2. I think the reality is somewhere in between.

[Occam Bandage]

3. Here's a better "best possible scenario."

Gupta was chosen entirely because he is trusted and well liked by a great many people, and because he has proven his ability to explain complex health issues to the American people.

Warren was chosen because he is popular among a great many moderate evangelicals, and the Obama transition team did not think that the activist wing of the party would develop a laser-like focus on his past comments on homosexuality (hoping, I'm sure, that his anti-poverty agenda would counter that), nor did they think that they would choose to make their first stand on a two-minute non-denominational prayer (hoping, I'm sure, that the benediction given by a gay ally would counter that). This was the first of what is sure to be a great number of dumb missteps and mistakes by the Obama administration, but really isn't that meaningful when you get down to it.

Dean is not being mistreated in the slightest, and the only people who are claiming that he is are people who are looking to exploit a nonexistent divide in order to draw eyeballs and mouse clicks. Conflict is interesting, after all.

[movonne]

4. I think your scenario is the closest to the truth....

[AtomicKitten]

5. Obama's national security team gives me indigestion.

I'm wondering if it's a message to the world that Obama intends to speak softly but, hey (pointing to his national security team behind him), have you seen their work?

:scared:

[SheilaT]

6. I'm somewhat irritated that Obama

did not do what Bush did, and make a whole lot of appointments that clearly signal changes to the Left/Progressive side of things. Bush never for one minute felt like he had to even pay lip service to the non extreme right, and I wish Obama were going more purposefully for true change.

[polichick]

7. I'm with you on that. Obama's need to be liked by the other side...

...is a big red flag imo.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. People respect vision, goals and principles. Even if they don't agree with 'em. nt

[Jennicut]

10. Bush also never listened to other's ideas. The Decider thought he knew it all

At least Obama admits he will looks at other points of view, even in the Dem party. Not that he needs to care about what Rethugs think but he is more humble.
The big problem for Bush was his arrogance.

[Uzybone]

9. How has Dean been mistreated?

This DUrban legend continues to linger.

As for Gupta: Is the SG a political position? Did anyone care who the SG was until he picked someone who was on CNN?

[Jennicut]

11. Worrying about Sanjay Gupta is not worth my brain cells