Where is the change?

Where is the change? These two articles outline the problems with Obama’s choices so far. First of all, the choice of Hilary as secretary of state does not signal a departure from conventional foreign policy considerations. The retention of Gates and appointment of Clinton might in fact signal the return to the politics of the first Bush administration (not all a bad thing actually).

“Ironically, Obama is likely to show more fidelity to George H.W. Bush's approach to foreign affairs than did the former president's own son. That's change, maybe even change we can believe in, but it's not the change so many expected.”

This article also supports Richardson for secretary of state. The main argument should be, and is, that he is the most qualified to be secretary of state. He has served in a previous cabinet level post, was ambassador to the UN, served in the House, and was special envoy to many international problem spots. On top of that, the choice of Hilary over Richardson is insulting to Hispanics who choose to buck institutional leadership and go with Obama. It’s a slap in the face to so many who stuck their necks out for Obama. It is also a slap in the face to Latin America, which might have received greater engagement with Richardson had he been appointed.

“This isn't about Richardson, who might be very happy heading for ribbon cuttings in Toledo while Clinton heads for blue-ribbon summits in Tel Aviv. This is about something larger. Richardson is the nation's only Hispanic governor and the most prominent Hispanic elected official in the country. And the way he was treated doesn't say much about Obama's respect for the Hispanic community. Nor does the fact that Obama seems to have filled his top four Cabinet posts — justice, treasury, defense, and state — and couldn't find a single Hispanic to put in any of them. America's largest minority took a chance on Obama despite the fact that the president-elect had no track record in reaching out to them and didn't break a sweat trying to win their votes. They deserve better.”

Is this really what we voted for? While I support the choice of Gates on practical grounds, it will not be the choice that will push for withdrawal from Iraq like so many expected and hoped. Clinton is an effective choice for the State department if Obama wants a free hand to deal with internal economic problems, but she does not represent the choice that many of us hoped for when we were expecting a new and different vision of American external relations. So I will ask again, where is the change? Why should we have hope if things will just remain the same with the same old people in charge? Don’t go to D.C. in January 2009 to celebrate the election of our first black president, go to D.C. to celebrate the retention of the old guard and the state quo.