Jackson is Furious and Limbaugh is Confused by Obama's Choices

Barack Obama is about to announce the make up of his economic team as Wall Street, Main Street, and the media pundits hold their collective breath. His choices appear to be very surprising. This is not because they are very radical, but surprisingly conventional. They are the type of choices that will likely relieve Wall Street and infuriate the radical base that brought him to power. Furthermore, all of those who wished Clinton had gotten elected, don't worry, your favorite members of that team are showing up for an encore. What is most surprising of all is that Obama seems to be drawing on the more pragmatic and technocratic wing of the Democratic Party. Limbaugh and Hannity might go crazy over how boring these choices are.

Don't get me wrong, this team is liberal. But it is not the rampant ideologues that had many on the Right worried. On the other hand, they could also be the ultimate collective Trojan Horse, creating a sense of complacency that may make it possible for Obama to pursue the far reaching agenda he campaigned on.

The following is a breakdown of two of his most prominent team members:

• Timothy Geithner will be nominated as the new Secretary of Treasury. Geithner has worked in government almost his entire adult life with positions that have included Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Monetary and Financial Policy (1995-1996), Senior Deputy Assistant Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs (1996-1997), and Assistant Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs (1997–1998). In 2003 he was appointed the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He has been a foot soldier of Bush's recovery efforts on Wall Street and was there when the disaster happened, which should raise questions as to why he would be a good Secretary of Treasury. However, I think he is a safe bet, since Democrats will want to make Obama look as strong as possible and Republicans will be pleased by such a "moderate" choice.


• Lawrence Summers, who was Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton, will be appointed to head the National Economic Council. Summers is the poster child of technocrats. Under Obama, Summers will actually be the architect of the new administration's economic policies. Considering Summers' faux paux while President of Harvard in which he claimed that women were not as capable as men in performing the hard sciences, I was surprised to see him in politics again so soon. Not only did it leave to his quick departure as Ivy League administrator, I thought it would see him exit the political scene entirely. However, it appears Democrats can say things that are politically incorrect without consequence. Summers will be perceived moderate by the political powers that be and should enjoy confirmation without incidence.

In the end, what we learn, is that Obama is actually was quite impressed by the accomplishments of Bill Clinton, as we see the former President's influence in virtually every area of policy in the new President's appointments. It is safe to assume that the radicals that drove Obama to the White House are going to feel like they are in the out house, if the new President continues to make such safe appointments. They have to be patient for a while, but I am sure Jesse Jackson is already sharpening his verbal sword. Finally, conservative pundits must be at a lost trying to figure out what kind of President Obama will in fact be. I don't have any doubt what Obama would like to do. His radical up bringing and the course he took to power makes that obvious. However, he may be shrewed enough to know that his agenda will have to be pursued with caution and such is reflected in his team.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

The Power of Paris Hilton

I usually have no stomach for bleeding heart liberals who cry "victim." "Affluent whites getting special treatment," "minorities unfairly treated," blah, blah, blah. My response is "do you want some cheese with that whine?" Generally speaking, the laws are designed to protect minorities, often to an extreme. In fact, one can argue that we are a nation that suffers from reverse discrimination, with laws that put the majority "in their place to make up for years of harsh treatment to minorities."

There are individuals, like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who make a living out of exploiting the victim status of minorities. In fact, as long as they can keep their constituents victims, they these purveyors of poverty will always have a "job." So, I get tired of the complaints, and then Paris Hilton comes along and validates all of their claims in one week.

Paris Hilton (photo), convicted for driving without a license ("you mean if my license is suspended, I can't drive?), is sentenced to over 20 days and appears (at the time of this writing) will only be in jail for three. Her "health status" (actual problem unknown to the public at this time) led to her early release, but don't worry, she will still do her time. Except now it will be in a 4,000 square feet section of her family's mansion. Also, they are roughly doubling her sentence. Wow, life is tough, forty days in a mansion!

In addition to the large social problem cited above, the sad thing on an individual level is that this girl needed an opportunity to save her life. If she continued on this path, I believe she would be destroyed. In my opinion, those twenty days could turn her life around. Paris needed to be "scared straight" and every day in the joint got her closer to that objective. Instead, the lesson she has learned is that she will always figure out a way to get out of trouble. A bad day for an individual and for social progress as a whole.

In Spite Being Marketed as "New", Obama Sounds Like Old Time Democrat

If you were listening to a radio and the voice didn't tune in very well and sounded distorted, Sen. Barack Obama's announcement could easily be confused with a campaign speech from Jesse Jackson's earlier failed campaigns. Obama talks about a "new day" and a "new chapter" in our history, but his rhetoric is largely stuck in America's past.

He discusses racism and discrimination as if it were as prominent today as when he was born in the 1960s. Frankly, his neighborhood must have been much rougher than mine because we were born the same year and this little white boy's best friend was an African American named Joe Cosby through most of our elementary years. Marty White became one of my best friends in Junior High and he, too, was African American. I'm not saying that America hasn't struggled with racism, but I get the sense that many African Americans of a liberal persuasion want to throw our grandparents racism in our face as means of using guilt to get their ends. Obama is going to find this a dangerous and unproductive trail to take, in my opinion. He needs to become a candidate for all the people and not a man looking for revenge from the past.

His views of the economy are stuck in the past as well. Thomas Friedman has persuasively pointed out that "the world is flat," which means that through technology anyone in the world can compete with anyone else. That is why China and India have become such major economic players in the last few years. Obama acts as though he doesn't live in the same world as we do. He attacks free trade, argues for raising salaries to artificial highs, and taxing businesses into oblivion. Unfortunately, in our world, that would translate to shabby American products, the exportation of jobs, and the demise of job creation. The world we live in requires being competitive, not living in a fantasy world of how it "should" be.

Furthermore, Obama wants to talk about socialized medicine (AKA, universal health care) as a panacea to our medical crisis. There is no doubt we need people covered, but shifting it to government only means that health care will be plagued with shortages and there will be reduced accountability (good luck suing the government for their medical mistakes). My grandfather and aunt died in England waiting for treatment thanks to socialized medicine and that is a common stated cause in countries that use such a system. Obama's proposal is the same Ted Kennedy advocated in the 1960s and there is nothing new to it. An innovative approach would be one that gives 100 percent tax credits for individuals to get their own coverage, even earned income credit for some (meaning they get money directly back for their purchase), the creation of policies with high deductibles and additional tax savings for taking annual visits (prevention is crucial), and other policies that restore responsibility where it belongs (which is on individuals).

Finally, his anti-war rhetoric is a flashback to the 1960s and the Vietnam War. We are not fighting against a potential domino principle (the belief many countries would fall to communism if Vietnam fell), but a real threat. We were attacked by terrorists and many of the ones fighting our brave and trained volunteers there would normally be over here attacking public schools and hospitals if we haven't moved the theater of the war to the Middle East. We didn't start this war and we are very naive to think we can ended by moving troops out of there and over here. There is little question that our enemies will follow them.

There is nothing really new in Obama's rhetoric, it is the same old time liberalism stuck in the tragic decades of the past. We can't protect America's jobs, we have to compete for them. We can't stick our heads in the sand, we must fight for our safety and freedom wherever the war requires. Government cannot solve our health care crisis and many can argue it caused it; instead we need real solutions with more consumer involvement.

The US can't afford Obama's policies, neither in money nor human lives. There is nothing new about him and his approach to politics has been a dying breed for decades. It is my hope that voters can see through the style and the find the lack of substance.

Senator Joe Biden, Behaving Badly

Senator Joe Biden launched his very weak bid for the Presidential race of 08 with a splash and now he might drown in it. The senator from the small state of Delaware, with very little name ID, and even less hope of winning, appearantly wanted to make a big impression early on his campaign. Boy, did he ever.

Biden (D-DE) has served in the Senate for decades and had a reputation of being liked and intelligent (also extremely liberal), so when he described opponent Barack Obama (D-IL) as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" to run for president, he raised more than a few eyebrows. I'm sure if he were a Republican, he not only would have been force to get out of the race, he would probably have to give up his seat in the Senate. It is just the way it is, I assume.

I'm sure he is sending notes of apology to Jessee Jackson, Al Sharpton and all the other blacks who have tried running for President in the past and is explaining how he "didn't mean it that way." I'm dying to actually hear an explanation of what he did mean. Biden didn't have much of a chance anyway, but this will likely finish him off as a serious contender in '08 (Democrats have short memories when it comes to their own, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia (photo) was a member of the Ku Klux Klan).

The question is, now, why did he do it?

* Was it a desperate attempt to get headlines for a campaign that was lagging far behind from the start?

* Was it a back handed compliment to the Junior Senator from Illinois?

* Was it a pronouncement of frustration because Obama came from no where just a few years ago and is now the biggest star of his party? Meanwhile, Biden has been in the Senate for 35 years (making me 10 at the time he got there and making me feel very young). I think anyone could be jealous of a new comers "rock star" status being acquired in such a short period of time (OBama is my age and is in his first year in the Senate). This last choice would be my guess.

In the end, Biden is dismissing Obama as just another empty suit that is biting off more than he can chew. Taking such an approach with someone so popular in his party, makes Biden look like the poster child of sour grapes.