As “Change We Can Believe In” morphs into “Continuity That Doesn’t Freak Us Out Entirely,” the continuity offered by Obama’s senior picks seem less continuity-ish.  Take David Gates at the Pentagon, for example.

Sure, Gates is staying on as Defense Sec, and that’s a very good thing in these tumultuous times. But good leaders require and depend on good deputies, and Gates’ deputies apparently are not too keen on working with the Obama team, or visa versa.

WaPo reports today that all of Gates senior advisers are heading out the door, and Obama-picked replacements are coming in.  Here’s the brief:

Deputy Defense Sec. Gordon England is out for sure and possible replacements include Obama campaign adviser Richard J. Danzig (Who as Clinton’s undersec and sec of the Navy oversaw a huge reduction in the Navy’s ships, from 454 to 341 - and he’s rumored to be Gates’ replacement!), transition team co-leader for the Pentagon Michèle A. Flournoy (who hopefully won’t be too French in her approach to defense) and former Pentagon comptroller William J. Lynn, who was appointed to that post by one William Jefferson Clinton.

Eric Edelman, Undersec for Policy is out in January and Flournoy is a possible replacement. Air Force Lt. Gen. James R. Clapper Jr. is out as the Undersec for Intelligence, and no replacements have hit the rumor mill yet. Undersec for Personnel and Readiness David S.C. Chu is also rumored to be “hitting the reset button.”

One prospect for continuity is Michael G. Vickers, who the Post says may keep one of the longest titles around - assistant secretary for special operations, low-intensity conflict, and interdependent capabilities. He oversees some of the U.S. military’s most sensitive operations - which hopefully will be continuing in AO1 (Age of Obama, year one).

To the loser goes … a team of losers.

Joe Biden announced his VP office staff today and what a staff it is:

Counselor to the Vice President - L. Douglas Wilder, who prepped Joe to lose in the debates and dished up primary-losing advice as Biden’s traveling campaign advisor.

Domestic policy advisor - Terrell P. McSweeny, advisor to three presidential losers:  Biden, Wesley Clark and Al Gore.

Assistant to the Vice President for Intergovernmental Affairs - Evan M. Ryan, who was deputy campaign manager for Biden’s losing campaign.

Good luck guys and gals - but you’re probably not going to need it since the VP is pretty much a do-nothing job.  So unlike your earlier jobs for Biden, this one offers one great benefit - you really can’t lose.

The Prez-elect has named his foreign policy team, and all kidding aside, there’s not much to howl about here - other than my previous Obama Drama piece on the vetting of Bill and Hil.

Hugh Hewitt’s response to the announcement reflects my view:

Conservatives should acknowledge that this is as strong a team as they have a right to expect having lost the election.

The biggest challenge facing the new president and his advisors after protection of the homeland is keeping Iran out of the nuclear club, with force if necessary.

The second biggest challenge is to maintain at least the status quo in the Middle East intact, with Israel secure and the emerging democracy in Iraq protected.

It is difficult to imagine any Democratic team better positioned to achieve both goals.  And that is a cause for celebration.

I’m sure there will be much more Obama Drama to report, but when he does something that is the best we can expect given the election, let’s give Mr. Prez-elect a tip of the hat.

What do you call the drones at the Office of the President Elect - Opies? Well, the Opies have their work cut out for them to recast Hillary from wannabe tea-sipper to foreign policy diva, all the while trying to do a disappearing act on the problems Bill Clinton brings to his wife’s nomination.

The NYT spilled the beans on the hardball negotiations that have been going on with lawyers from the transition team and Clinton’s team, revealing that there’s an 8-point agreement that won’t be made fully public until after Hillary’s Sec of State announcement has had its headline run.

Foremost among the points is Bill’s agreement to release by year-end the names of the 208,000 donors to the William J. Clinton Foundation, which raised $500 million to build his presidential library. The names that have already leaked out are troubling to Hil as Statemeister - Marc Rich’s wife Denise, the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, the governments of Kuwait and Qatar and the son-in-law of Ukraine’s former dictator.

Clinton also will agree to re-incorporate his foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative as separate corporations and, very interestingly, run his speeches by State and possibly the White House prior to giving them. He made over $10 million giving 54 speeches last year, so he’s not going to favor meddling he feels counterproductive to a major income stream.

The NYT opines (in its editorial columns) that releasing the donor names will “eliminate any concerns.” Fat chance of that. With the names being released before confirmation hearings, concerns will abound; it’ll be up to the GOP to decide whether to pounce on them or not. I believe some pouncing is in order.

Meanwhile, the Opies are trying hard to reinvent the record of the campaign, which saw the Prez-elect saying of his State nominee such things as:

“What exactly is this foreign policy experience?” Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no.”

And incoming White House Counsel Greg Craig saying:

“She did not sit in on any National Security Council meetings when she was first lady. There is no reason to believe … that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton administration.”

But that was then. Count on the Opies to quickly find the other side of Obama’s mouth and stuff it full of fine-sounding words about his problematic nominee.

I just heard a news report speculating that 5 million people might show up for the coronation inauguration of Barack Obama. The Fox reporter dutifully told us how much of the mall would be filled, how many Porta-potties would be required (buy Porta-potty stock now!) - all for a number the Obama-fawners have just pulled out of thin air.

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin asks, “Where are all the anti-Inauguration activists now?“ She reminds us of this coverage from not long ago:

Critics are calling on U.S. President George W Bush to scale back the glittering multimillion dollar parties planned this week in honor of his second-term inauguration, saying lavish festivities are unseemly at a time of war.

Bush is to be sworn in Thursday and feted with four days of pomp and party-going at a price tag of about $40 million. …

But critics insist that with U.S. troops dying daily in Iraq, the tone surrounding this year’s inaugural celebration should be more modest.

“I would have hoped they would have followed the traditions of President Wilson and President Roosevelt, who at a time of war had a very muted celebration,” said Democratic Representative Robert Menendez, speaking on CNN.

“I think when young men and women are dying we should think about the reality of how we conduct ourselves here at home.”

Hmmm. War’s still going on, isn’t it? And isn’t the Obauguration estimated to come in at far, far more than Bush’s $40 million - so massively expensive it may bankrupt DC?

Leftism is never having to say you’re intelligent … or honest.

Art: Moonbattery

It’s a testament to the media’s continuing love affair with Barack Obama that in all of Googledom, this is the one photo, the only photo, that shows Obama’s spiffy new Office of the President Elect logo. (It comes from a Fox story, natch.)

The rest of the media continue to write about how brilliant and well-oiled the Obama campaign was, largely overlooking the numerous flat and troublingly egotistical missteps it took: The “presidential” seal, the “President” embroidered onto his airplane seat, the quest to be JFKesque in Berlin, the massive flag over-kill following criticism that he wouldn’t wear an eensy-teensy flag lapel pin.

While Obama learned and adjusted throughout the campaign - you didn’t see a second Che poster in any campaign office, did you? - his egomaniacle compulsion to brand himself continues. No other president in the history of America has felt compelled to create an Office of the President Elect until now.

Is this just more change we can believe in, evidence that Obama is looking at the presidency in a new way, or is it just another negative character clue that makes us very nervous? While I appreciate the former, I find myself spending more time considering it as the latter.

The latest news tonight from The Times of India has six foreigners dead among the 101 killed by the Mumbai terrorists, and up to 40 Brits and other foreign nationals as hostages. Faced with this,

President-elect Barack Obama on Wednesday condemned the Mumbai attacks and said the United States must work to strengthen ties with India and other nations to “root out and destroy terrorist networks.”

“These coordinated attacks on innocent civilians demonstrate the grave and urgent threat of terrorism,” Obama’s chief national security spokesperson, Brooke Anderson, said in a statement.

“The United States must continue to strengthen our partnerships with India and nations around the world to root out and destroy terrorist networks.”

I’m all for closer ties with India; it’s a must-do.  The problem is, these attacks could well pit India against Pakistan - that’s clearly a strong possibility for the ultimate rationale behind the attacks.  India uncovers ties between the terrorists and Pakistan’s closet jihadist intelligence agency behind the attacks, things heat up, more evidence, more attacks, more heat.

And so it may quickly come down to India and Pakistan looking to Obama and asking, “Who’s side are you on?”

If Obama wants to keep his one macho card, his one rattling saber, his commitment to more war in Afghanistan, he’s going to have to go with Pakistan.  No Pakistan, no route for materiel to Afghanistan.  So working to strengthen ties with India is a nice idea but a dangerous bit of wording that won’t fly far in Islamabad.

It may not rank up there with the selection of a Secretary of State, but in today’s communications-driven world selection of White House Communications Director is big news in itself - especially when it signals that the president elect, who is running to the center with other nominations, has selected the voice of the radical pro-abortion agenda for the position.

Ellen Moran comes to the position from EMILY’s List, where she served as executive director. EMILY’s List raises money early in the election cycle for women who are pro-abortion and claims to have helped elect a who’s who of far-Left congresswomen.  Says Discover the Networks:

In August 2006, the EL website stated, “Since our founding, we have helped elect 61 pro-choice Democratic women members of Congress, 11 senators, and eight governors.” These figures do not include the hundreds of local candidates whose campaigns EL has supported over the years. Among the notable recipients of EL funding have been Cynthia McKinney, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Dianne Feinstein, Jan Schakowsky, Barbara Lee, Hilda Solis, Diane Watson, Lynn Woolsey, Rosa DeLauro, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Nydia Velazquez, and Tammy Baldwin. Many of these are members of the Progressive Caucus.

Besides fundraising to keep abortion going, Moran led the AFL-CIO’s campaign to keep low priced goods out of the hands of working families, a.k.a. it’s anti-Walmart efforts and has been a heavy-lifter for the Dem party. Here’s her bio.

Into her hands goes the task of crafting the messages in support of Obama’s policy initiatives.  Her appointment underscores the fact that Obama intends to be pro-union, anti-corporate and most definitely anti-pre-borns.

As progressives moan that they’ve done the unthinkable - elected a centrist - the depth of radicalism at the core of Prez-elect Obama’s health care initiative is coming to light.  The Wall Street Journal reads the tea leaves (”The Obama Health Plan Emerges“) and foresees trouble; lots of trouble.

It all comes down to two words:  Max Baucus.  The Montana senator, as Senate Finance chair, controls the pursestrings that will have to be ripped open for a universal (or universal-ish) plan, and also recently released a health care policy blueprint.  It’s close to Obama’s plan and it’s close to the heart of the money-man, so let’s take a look:

First, Democrats want the government to create a national insurance exchange, or marketplace, in which all comers could buy into a range of heavily regulated private policies at group rates. These private plans would then “compete” with a new public insurance option, i.e., a program managed by the government and modeled after Medicare. Lower-income earners would get subsidies to make coverage “affordable.” Businesses that didn’t cover their employees would pay a tax on some portion of their payroll.

The last cog is the “individual mandate.” This requirement that everyone buy coverage has grabbed most media scrutiny of the Baucus plan, because Mr. Obama opposed it during the campaign. But the many moving parts don’t work together unless the young and healthy foot the bill for care of the older and sicker — one reason Hillary Clinton kept nagging Mr. Obama about the individual mandate during the primaries.

The campaign over, reality strikes.  Interestingly, the WSJ sees the public component, not the mandate, as the more radical element of the Baucus proposal.  It says the plan would be “extraordinarily” expensive because it would lead to growth in government’s share of health care spending - and there’s a lot of potential growth here, as health care represents over 17 percent of the US economy.

How extraordinarily expensive will it be?  The draft ballparks the “investment” at as much as $150 billion a year, and WSJ says that’s conservative, since subsidies would go to families earning up to 400% of the federal poverty level. That’s 61.5% of Americans, or about 184 million people — less those already on Medicare and Medicaid.

Medicare is currently $36 trillion short of meeting its obligations, and its board acknowledges that the actual number, given current trends, is probably several trillions higher.  But, the WSJ points out, the Baucus plan “doubles down” on the Medicare option nonetheless:

The Obama-Baucus solution to this slow-motion catastrophe is to add tens of millions more people to the federal balance sheet. Because the public option will enjoy taxpayer sponsorship, it will offer generous packages to consumers that no private company could ever afford or justify. And because federal officials will run not only the new plan but also the “market” in which it “competes” with private programs — like playing both umpire and one of the teams on the field — they will crowd out private alternatives and gradually assume a health-care monopoly.

So, without ever calling it universal health care, the plan would eventually accomplish it by making the government plan the only alternative, whether it’s fiscally viable or not.  One wonders if there’s enough high income and business tax income to be generated to fund the plan.

Is the Baucus plan the Obama plan?  Since it is the more economically realistic of the two, it’s probably closer to what the Dem-dominated Congress will pass if Obama continues to push his health care proposal.

Hot! Hot! Not!

I

t’s one of those cognitive dissonance moments: They tell you this October was the hottest October ever recorded - excuse the pandering Paris photo - and you’re asking yourself, “Yeah, but wasn’t I freezing my fanny off for most of the month?” Yes you were, and you should believe your fanny, not Warmie “scientists,” who live to feed bogus data into the global warming industrial machine.

Fortunately, they don’t get away with this malarkey like they used to. Here’s Christopher Booker from the UK Telegraph, with emphasis added by Okie:

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

As the Okie says,

Innocent error, or intentional manipulation of the data sets because the reality of the situation just doesn’t fit into the Anthropogenic Climate Change catechism? Shoot, I don’t know. But, the Global Warming proponents have been willing to use funny numbers before. At the very least it’s sloppy work that went unnoticed by GISS because the information was exactly what they wanted to see.

Yup. And there’s much, more more. Read the Okie’s post.