Inauguration of the First 21st Century President

The inauguration is not so important event as the election was itself. It was the election - the voters - that proved the dynamism of the United States. Today we close the page on one chapter in history and turn to a new one. Regardless of the first few paragraphs in this chapter, regardless of the eloquence of Mr. Obama's words, and regardless of his first hundred days, Tuesday, January 20, 2009 will always be a day to celebrate all of the potential of America.

Barack Obama may have the greatest potential of any incoming president in history. He has the potential to turn around a struggling economy. He has the potential to successfully end an unpopular war. He has the potential to return science, reason, and justice to a higher place in government. He has the potential to transform healthcare, education, and social security. He has the potential to reconcile centuries of racial dissonance. And he has the potential to recover the United States' status across the rest of the world.


Blograham's belief, the one expressed on this site exactly one year ago, has long been that Barack Obama is capable of greatness. Our new president's full potential is to usher in a new age of American politics: an Age of Pragmatism. To expect anything less is to let him off the hook, and to contrast him only to his immediate predecessor, rather than all of them.

Yet seeing someone reach his full potential is the rarest of occurrences. If, four years from now, we have only seen competence, heard eloquence, and experienced slight improvements in our daily lives, then Obama will not have lived up to his promise. Mr. Obama won his election riding on Americans' hope for a drastic change; a new dawn in America; one where we don't just see black and white, Republican and Democrat, red states and blue states, or good and evil. President Obama does not need to work miracles. Actually, he must do the opposite. There are real problems, there are real solutions, and he has the real potential to fix them.

We have one day of joy and celebration, fading as the weeks, months, and years go on, until eventually we will only be left with the results of his presidency. If he succeeds, we truly will have seen a new dawn in America. But if the change we can believe in comes up short, and we end up with a mediocre, semi-competent administration, how long will it be before we can believe in a change like him again?

Terrifyingly Close to the Truth

A clip from early 2001. Somehow we all saw the next four years coming (and then another four), yet we now act as if we are surprised by how it turned out...

Great Moments in Presidential Speeches

"All flights are being held from New York airspace because of an incident"

When you're sitting on the runway at La Guardia Airport, about to take off, and the pilot says that all flights will remain grounded because of an "incident in New York airspace", with no further detail, one thinks some harrowing thoughts. It is among the few times when you're not quite so bothered by a small delay in travel, knowing something terrible may have happened. Yet the incident didn't turn out to be a tragedy. US Airways flight from New York to Charlotte ditched in the Hudson River after birds flew into both engines...especially interesting to Blograham considering that the plane I was aboard was fourth in line behind that one.

The plane, with 150 passengers and 5 crewmembers, landed in the water with no engine power, and stayed afloat long enough for all onboard to be rescued. “This is a potential tragedy that may have become one of the most magnificent days in the history of New York City agencies,”said New York Governor David Patterson. Mayor Bloomberg claimed that the pilot “walked the plane twice after everyody else got off,” to make sure that everyone had escaped," and a retired police officer told Governor Patterson that "he’d participated in these types of rescues and he’d never seen anything this magnificent."

99% of the time, sensational news is reporting on death and destruction. Perhaps it will turn out that the crash was caused by gross negligence on someone's part, but thus far there appear to be only heroes and no goats. 

Alberto Panero, [a] passenger, told CNN: “Within a couple of minutes all of a sudden you just heard a loud bang, and the plane shook a bit and immediately you could smell smoke, like fire. Although it didn’t seem like it was out of control we knew something was going on because we were turning back.”
Mr. Panero added: “We just hit, and somehow the plane just stayed afloat and we were able to get on the raft and, it’s just incredible right now that everyone’s still alive.”
Mr. Kolodjay said that the plane started taking on water soon after it hit the river. “It was filled up to our waist by the time we got off,” he said.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/nyregion/16crash.html?_r=1&h

Sometime's It's ok to Agree with Bush

In eight years as president, Mr. Bush has represented an ideological blend of neo-conservatism on foreign policy and a more traditional yet “compassionate” conservatism on social and economic matters. So while in many ways, he was not a traditional conservative on foreign policy, nor a true fiscal conservative economically, he was certainly and staunchly ideological. It has been rare over his two terms for Bush to break sharply from either ideological camp. An exception, perhaps the exception, was Bush’s stance on immigration.

Across the political spectrum in the United States, Americans hold conflicting views on legal and illegal immigration. At once we want to secure our borders from terrorism, ensure jobs for American citizens, and promote American culture – while also understanding that the United States is the world’s great melting pot. Of approximately 300 million Americans, fewer than 10% are descended from ancestors living here a mere 300 years ago. We are a nation that has embraced immigration from the beginning

The Bush position has differed sharply from much of the Republican base. In 2007, John McCain was the lone Republican presidential candidate still supporting the Bush plan, and it nearly cost him the nomination. It wasn’t until McCain largely abandoned Bush that he began making progress. That Bush plan, begun early this decade, but more directly promoted beginning with this May 15, 2006 speech, hinged on five pillars. Bush’s plan was to

1. Secure the nation’s borders
2. Create a temporary worker program
3. Hold employers accountable for the workers that they hire
4. Find reasonable pathways to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants that are already here
5. Honor the great American tradition of the melting pot
   

These goals are exactly what America needed (and still needs). I am certainly no anti-immigration zealot, but I can’t argue that we should leave our borders wide open – so to a certain degree, Bush’s first point is on target. It is discouraging that all one needs to reach the United States is a passport to Mexico and an ability to swim across the Rio Grande. The Mexican border alone is 1969 miles, the US-Canada border stretches 5525 miles, and we have almost 1500 miles of coastline. The Great Wall of China, meanwhile, is 4000 miles long. So in order to effectively divide us from our neighbors, we would need a wall longer than two Great Walls of China, and a Coast Guard that can constantly patrol 1500 miles. Put simply, completely securing our borders cannot be done with walls, it probably cannot be done with technological walls, and it probably cannot be done with manpower. That is not to say that certain areas shouldn’t have a wall or fence. For those that do embrace a melting pot America – remember, it is legal immigration that makes us one.

Consequently, securing our borders starts with barriers and guards, but expands with effective policy. Bush’s temporary worker program is intended to give those that do want to come here a reason not to sneak across the border. As he says,

The reality is that there are many people on the other side of our border who will do anything to come to America to work and build a better life. They walk across miles of desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers to reach our country. This creates enormous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone will not stop. To secure the border effectively, we must reduce the numbers of people trying to sneak across.

Now we’re talking. This understanding of border security indicates a sense of subtlety in Bush’s thinking that’s perhaps unfamiliar to many Americans. Securing our borders means more than simply cordoning off our country – it means making better legal immigration policies so that illegal immigration is less attractive. As Bush explains, temporary workers would have background checks, would be required to return home after their work period is over, and it would replace illegal workers with legal taxpayers.

To Bush’s third point, holding employers accountable today is a near impossibility with the ease of document fraud and the overwhelming dependence that many industries have on cheap immigrant labor. He says,

Comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law - and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place.

By making it possible to hold employers accountable, we ensure that we can properly enforce our existing laws. Today, if we raid a factory it takes months to determine whether people are here legally or illegally. Under Bush’s plan, in five years, if you don’t have proper documentation, you’re here illegally.

Bush’s fourth point is his most controversial, and the opposition is best summed up by anti-immigration champion Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. "If the president thinks by taking one step forward with enforcement, the House will follow with two steps backwards with amnesty, he's confusing us with the Senate." Yet in a CNN poll taken by the Opinion Research Corp. last month, 79 percent of Americans said they support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who have been in the United States for a number of years, have a job, and pay back taxes. But those who oppose that policy are more intensely motivated: Polls show that 43 percent of opponents say the issue will be "extremely important" to them when they vote this year, compared with 24 percent of those who favor a path to citizenship.

Bush has said it perfectly: we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. Bush, I am certain, is no supporter of amnesty or of keeping illegal immigrants in the U.S. But when he looked at how it might be handled, he realized that it is entirely unrealistic to deport 11 million people. And with that thought lies perhaps the most reasonable paragraph that Mr. Bush uttered during the past eight years:

Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant -- and that any proposal short of this amounts to amnesty. I disagree. It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation. That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently -- and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record. I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law...to pay their taxes...to learn English...and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship -- but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I have just described is not amnesty -- it is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.

Is this technically amnesty? Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not. Bush had to say that it’s not in order to gain any support. The point is not whether or not we define it as amnesty. The point is that there is no other solution that is fair and realistic. We simply cannot deport that many people from our country. There are 11 million illegal immigrants, spread throughout 50 states, blending in with society, and all of our nation’s 1.5 million active duty soldiers, 1 million reserves, 20,000 border patrol agents, and approximately 700,000 police officers could never force even half of them out. It would take a purge of Nazi-like proportions in order for us to do so.

In his speech, Bush didn’t go into details, but I think a few caveats would be necessary. We would need to draw a line in the sand, say the year 2015, when illegal immigrants will immediately be deported. This assumes that the four other pillars are in place (which is why “comprehensive” immigration reform is so important). Second, we would have to outline the specific penalties for “amnesty”. Perhaps instead of penalizing, immigrants could join the armed forces, peace corps, or another volunteer organization – serving the United States – in order to gain citizenship. As Bush said,

America needs to conduct this debate on immigration in a reasoned and respectful tone. Feelings run deep on this issue -- and as we work it out, all of us need to keep some things in mind. We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger, or playing on anyone's fears, or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain. We must always remember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say.

Unfortunately, George W. Bush’s legacy depends less on what he said, and more upon what he did. Mr. Bush has ultimately failed to do anything about our immigration problems, leaving us almost exactly where we were eight years ago. He has called himself a “results-oriented” president; but he did not achieve the ends that he sought. Perhaps the political winds were too strong against him for any chance of successful reform; after all, September 11, 2001 certainly changed much of our openness towards foreigners in the United States. If Bush were to push for immigration reform, it would have had to take place during his first six months, prior to terrorist attacks, prior to using all of his political capital on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or it would have had to be a full-court press throughout his presidency. Today, fears of immigration and strong nationalism are too strong to push against, and his efforts were too little, and came too late. Perhaps that is Bush’s great failure. He ran in 2000 as a Compassionate Conservative, and he meant it. He did not intend to fight two wars; he didn’t think that we’d be attacked by Islamic fundamentalists, and he probably really thought he’d be more of a uniter than a divider.

What was so great about Bush’s immigration plan? It wasn’t Republican. It wasn’t Democratic. It was pragmatic, post-partisan, it would have honored the melting pot of American culture, and above all – it would have made a difference.

The Bush Presidency: A Lofty Ideal

We are now less than two weeks away from George W. Bush's final day in office. Many didn't see such a presidency ever coming, but in 1920, H.L. Mencken told us exactly what we were going to get someday:

The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. (Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920)

Now that's a bit harsh. Is Bush a downright moron? Perhaps not, but he is possibly closer to it than most presidents in our history. Yet being a genius does not make one a great leader, and many great leaders have had average intelligence or abilities but had unparalleled passion or personal charm. George W. Bush probably only had the last, and even then, many don't see it. But rather than judging him on who we think he is, let's judge Mr. Bush on what he did:

Blograham's next topic (or perhaps series of topics, if I'm unable to edit it down enough) will be about Bush's immigration plan - the one part of his legacy that may be the most honorable, and most reasonable, but also one that he was unable to ultimately push through. It is a glimpse at how this "results-oriented" man worked, and will lead us to a clearer picture of where he will stand in history.

The Israelis are a Bunch of Jews

Here’s a scary thought: there are people out there who probably believe that Israel is starting wars prior to January 20 because they think that Barack Obama is an Arab, so they better start whatever wars they can while they have George W. Bush around. Since the end of WWI, Israel-Palestine has been among the most unstable, war-ridden places on Earth. And who would have expected anything more? You could blame the Jews, the Arabs, the Muslims, the Romans, the Europeans, the U.N, and the Americans for creating such an untenable situation throughout the years.

Blograham will not cover the full history of the conflict; there are too many culpable parties, too many mistakes, too many vendettas, and too many dead to cover each step along the way. The reason that one finds people who fiercely believe that it is the Palestinians’ fault, and others that fiercely believe that the Israelis are to blame, is because both are right. Ultimately, the degree to which they are right probably doesn’t matter, because it is not leading to a solution. What matters is what each side could do to make for a better future for Palestinians and Israelis. To do such a thing, we would need to wipe the slate clean while somehow respecting the history of each nation – nearly an impossible task with so many festering memories.

Today the Israelis, for the poor decisions they sometimes make, are not so irrational as to kill Palestinians just because they don’t like them. Much of the Israel, and certainly much of its leadership, believes that they are players in a zero-sum game, and that the Palestinians are intent on destroying Israel. They are helped by people like Ahmadinejad of Iran, who despite his declining popularity at home, is still seen as a representative of Arab hatred towards Israel with his threats to “wipe Israel off the map”. The president of a near-nuclear state has called for Israel’s destruction, and Hamas and Hezbollah continuously threaten Israel (to differing degrees). These threats mean something to a nation that has a not-so-distant history of a potential extinction of their race.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, justifiably feel that their territory was simply handed over to Israel by the British after WWI. Since that time, there has basically been an exodus of Arabs from Israel (something one would think that the Jews would be sympathetic to), and an apartheid-esque mistreatment of Arabs within Israel and in nearby countries.Basically, the Israelis have been bastards, and if you were a Palestinian Arab, it would be pretty hard not to hate Jews. So a new series of attacks only fueling the fire.

Adding onto those feelings are Israel’s recent barrage of attacks into Palestinian territory, which are beind done under the premise that “to bring a halt to 7 years of indiscriminate rocket fire on Israeli cities, Hamas must determine that this rocket fire is worse off for their operations," as Dori Gold said on NPR. This approach is strikingly similar to the American tactic of “shock and awe” in Iraq in 2003. Regardless of whether it is a justifiable response to recent expiration of a cease-fire, it is going to be an ineffective response. The premise that without specific military goals, you can simply awe a people into surrender is almost silly. And to think that after an impressive display of military might, the Palestinians will suddenly turn their backs on Hamas, or that Hamas will simply give in, is a hard-to-follow argument. For an Arab it is far easier to point the finger at the Israelis today than it was two weeks ago. After all, Hamas may be indirectly harming you, but it is the Israelis that bombed your neighbor’s house. In that sense, it is Hamas that is winning the battle, despite the casualties and force against them.

That is not to say that Israel is not justified in defending itself. In fact, it probably is. Justified and intelligent are not the same. The tactics they’re using to defend themselves – bombings and invasions into Palestinian areas – will only be a step backward, breeding more Palestinian escalation. As Gandhi said, “an eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind”. Eventually, someone needs to convince one of the two sides that taking the high road when it comes to retaliation may also be taking the smart road – leading to a better outcome for themselves. As it stands, both the Israelis and Palestinians would rather go blind than let each other survive with two eyes.

There’s a lot of interesting discussion out there, and rather than trying to weave the quotations all in with nice flowing prose, I'm just going to copy some of the more interesting comments below.

Robert Fisk of the Independent:

One common feature of Middle East wars is the ability of all the antagonists to suffer from massive self-delusion. Israel's promise to "root out terror" – be it of the PLO, Hizbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Iranian or any other kind – has always turned out to be false. "War to the bitter end," the Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, has promised in Gaza. Nonsense. Just like the PLO's boast – and Hamas' boast and Hizbollah's boast – to "liberate" Jerusalem. Eyewash. But the Israelis have usually shown a dangerous propensity to believe their own propaganda.

Rosa Brooks of the LA Times says much of what we're seeing is Israeli political jockeying with an upcoming parliamentary election.

Ehud Barak, Israel's Labor Party defense minister, and Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister from the centrist Kadima party, are both contenders for prime minister in Israel's Feb. 6 national elections. A show of "toughness" against Hamas could help Labor and/or Kadima beat back the right-wing Likud Party of Benjamin Netanyahu, which has been leading in the polls. Meanwhile, outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who faces corruption charges, has just a few weeks to restore his own tattered reputation.

She also discusses the consequences:

The Israeli assault may even strengthen Hamas in the longer run and weaken its more moderate secular rival, Fatah. As Israel should know by now (as we all should know), dropping bombs in densely populated areas is a surefire way to radicalize civilians and get them to rally around the home team, however flawed. Ironically, it's precisely this psychological phenomenon that Olmert, Barak and Livni are counting on among Israelis, but they seem to assume it doesn't exist among Palestinians. (Or, worse, they're too cynical to care, as long as they profit politically.)

In the Telegraph, Ron Prosor writes that the Israelis have made some concessions, and it is time for the Palestinians to do the same:

In August 2005, Israel left Gaza. Every soldier was withdrawn. Every Jewish settlement was evacuated, in a process requiring 45,000 police and costing $2.5 billion. Politicians staked their reputations on a courageous step towards peace. They hoped Gaza could provide a blueprint of Palestinian autonomy, a precursor to a Palestinian state. Tragically, Hamas chose violence, rejecting the chance to develop Gazan society and opting instead to attack ours.

500,000 Israelis live within range of Hamas's missiles. The piercing warning siren dominates the daily routine in towns like Sderot, Ashkelon and Ashdod. Anywhere within 40km of Gaza, communities raise their children in bomb shelters. Israel cannot sit back while Hamas improves the size and range of its arsenal. No democratic government in the world would tolerate this. No population would permit it. No army would allow an implacable foe to launch missiles at its citizens and improve its capabilities.

In the Guardian, Daniel Barenboim, a former UN Messenger of Peace, has perhaps the most lucid viewpoint of anyone:

I have just three wishes for the coming year. The first is for the Israeli government to realize once and for all that the Middle East conflict cannot be solved by military means. The second is for Hamas to realize that its interests are not served by violence, and Israel is here to stay. And the third is for the world to acknowledge that this conflict is unlike any other in history. It is uniquely intricate and sensitive - a conflict between two peoples who are both deeply convinced of their right to live on the same very small piece of land. This is why neither diplomacy nor military action can resolve this conflict.

Israeli writer/blogger David Grosman proposed this in the NY Times on Dec 30:

NOW, after the heavy blow that Israel has dealt to the Gaza Strip, we would do best to halt, turn to the leaders of Hamas and tell them: Until last Saturday, we restrained ourselves in responding to the thousands of Qassam rockets fired at us. Now you know how severe the retaliation can be. So as not to add to the death and destruction that has already taken place, we intend, unilaterally and absolutely, to hold our fire for the next 48 hours.

Until last Saturday, Israel — under the military leadership of Defense Minister Ehud Barak — acted with impressive level-headedness. We must not lose our perspective now, in the heat of battle. We must not forget, even for a moment, that the inhabitants of Gaza will continue to live on our borders and that sooner or later we will need to achieve neighborly relations with them…. Restraint, and our duty to protect the lives of Gaza’s innocent inhabitants, must remain our commitment today, precisely because Israel’s power is almost limitless compared to that of Hamas.

In the Wall Street Journal, Michael B. Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi argue that,

Over the past two decades, a majority of Israelis have shifted from adamant opposition to Palestinian statehood to acknowledging the need for such a state. This transformation represented a historic victory for the Israeli left, which has long advocated Palestinian self-determination. The left's victory, though, remained largely theoretical: The right won the practical argument that no amount of concessions would grant international legitimacy to Israel's right to defend itself.

Lastly, in an opposing viewpoint, arguing that Israel's attacks actually do make it safer, Michael Gerson writes in RealClearWorld:

There is no question -- none -- that Israel's attack on Hamas in Gaza is justified. No nation can tolerate a portion of its people living in the conditions of the London Blitz -- listening for sirens, sleeping in bomb shelters and separated from death only by the randomness of a Qassam missile's flight. And no group aspiring to nationhood, such as Hamas, can be exempt from the rules of sovereignty, morality and civilization, which, at the very least, forbid routine murder attempts against your neighbors.
Israel's response has been criticized as "disproportionate," which betrays a misunderstanding of proportion's meaning. The goal of military action, when unavoidable, is not to take one life in exchange for each one unjustly taken; this is mere vengeance. The goal is to remove the conditions that lead to conflict and the taking of life. So far, Israel's actions have been proportionate to this objective. And the convoys of fuel, medical supplies and food sent by Israel into Gaza show an appropriate concern for Palestinian suffering, even during a broad assault on Hamas forces.
Israel's immediate goal is simple: to stop missile barrages by Hamas on southern Israel. But it is not a coincidence that this action was taken by the primary sponsors of the peace process in Israeli politics. The Israeli public will not accept any further risks for peace as long as Hamas missiles fly. Those missiles are a daily symbol that Israeli territorial concessions result in the strengthening of committed enemies and the death of Israeli citizens. The removal of this threat is not an obstacle to the peace process. It is the prerequisite for the resumption of the peace process.

Blograham's point? Israel does have a right to defend itself. Palestinian resentment is justified. Israel's tactics are not helping. Palestine is too divided and weakly governed for us to have high expectations. Israel is not helping those divisions and is only weakening the Palestinian government. It is everyone's fault, and no one's fault.

It's a downward spiral. And while it's probably not fair, only Israel is in a position to create a positive outcome - and they must do so by supporting Palestians economically, socially, politically, perhaps even militarily. Today, Israel is doing the opposete, and as long as the Palestinians feel that they have nothing to lose (or everything to lose), they'll keep on fighting.

Political Aristocracy

We're seeing a beautiful look at insider politics this year, with several U.S. Senate seats needing to be filled after Obama, Biden, Clinton, and Salazar are leaving to join the executive branch. Each replacement senator, rather than being elected in a popular election, will be appointed by state governors or legislatures, giving us a reminder that cronyism isn't something exclusive to the Bush administration.

Starting with Barack Obama's Illinois seat, there's the obvious issue of Governor Blagojevich trying to sell off the position for money or political favors, then getting caught, but proceeding to stay on as governor and appoint someone anyway. So Roland Burris, Mr. Blagojevich's appointment, will likely face a battle getting seated - though it seems unlikely that the Senate will be able to prevent him from joining. It could be a disaster if they fail to seat the only black senator - a sign that Blagojevich knew exactly what he was doing with this appointment.

Joe Biden's Delaware senate position isn't much prettier. If you weren't paying attention on November 4th, you might not have noticed that in addition to running for vice president, Senator Biden was also running for re-election - a seventh term - as senator. Perhaps he was just covering all possibilities, since the presidential election was no sure thing, but the voters of Delaware elected a man that they knew would not be fulfilling his commitment. Instead, they are trusting that their governor will hand over Biden's seat to someone equally capable. As the Washinton Post reports,

Biden and [Delaware Governor] Minner have made clear what will happen with Biden's seat. Biden's former chief of staff, Ted Kaufman, will accept the appointment and serve for just two years -- at which point he will not seek to retain the seat. This will allow for a likely bid in 2010 from Biden's son, Beau, the state attorney general currently serving a tour of duty with the Delaware Army National Guard in Iraq.

Cronyism and paternalism. Not an impressive start to Biden's vice presidency.

New York is not much better. On the one hand, Senator Clinton has remained fairly quiet about who should take her seat - at least publicly. Vying for her spot are several prominent names, including Caroline Kennedy - daughter of the former president, and Andrew Cuomo - son of the former New York Governor Mario Cuomo. Caroline Kennedy has had little direct experience in politics, and aside from being co-chair on Barack Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee, very little is known about her political beliefs and abilities. Andrew Cuomo, oddly enough, was married to RFK's daughter Mary Kerry Kennedy until 2003. He has served as NY State Attorney General since 2006, and is a former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and certainly has the experience in New York politics, but is again another big family name in New York politics. Other candidates have been mentioned, but these two appear to be the most likely. Governor David Patterson, who also was not elected to his role, but rose to it after Eliot Spitzer resigned in scandal, will make the appointment in the next week, and is said to be leaning towards Kennedy. Patterson himself has discouraged lobbying for the position, and given the circumstances, appears to be handling it appropriately.

Lastly, there is Colorado Senator Ken Salazar's seat, which is available following his appointment to Secretary of the Interior. Colorado Governor Bill Ritter has sought advice from constituents over the internet, and will reportedly appoint Denver Superintendent of Schools Michael Bennett, despite previous speculation that Ken Salazar's brother John would get the appointment. Overall this seems to have been a pretty clean and corruption free process in Colorado.

Famous family names will always be a part of politics, and perhaps something does make them a little more likely to succeed - having grown up in the culture and pressure of politics. Still, it would be nice to see Kennedy, Cuomo, Beau Biden, and other appointments have to battle their way through an election. They are already famous, they already have money; do they really need one more leg up on the competition? Ultimately, what matters will be how these people serve in their roles, and not how they got there. All appear to be quality individuals, and if they do a poor job, they won't be re-elected. So as easy as it is to criticize this process, perhaps we will be better off with them instead of a new fresh-faced demagogue rising to the forefront.