Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

davos

Obama's New Cabinet

8 posts in this topic

It appears that we will be seeing a change at a few posts in Obama's cabinet...here's some potential candidates that are floating around the news (asterisk=my guess):

Sec. of State (currently: Hill-dog)

Jon Huntsman [Chinese Ambassador]

John Kerry [Ketchup]

**Susan Rice [uN Ambassador]

Rice is very close to Obama, Huntsman would be an interesting swerve and Kerry is willing to do anything to get the position. This is a toss-up.

Treasury Secretary

Erskine Bowles

**Jacob Lew

Larry Fink

Jamie Dimon

Robert Zoellick

Roger Altman

A lot, and I mean a lot of potential choices. This will be the first and most interesting move made imo by the administration.

http://www.efinancia...asury-secretary

Sec. of Defense (Leon Panetta)

**Michelle Flournoy

John Hamre

Chuck Hagle

This is the most obvious one imo pending Panetta's retirement. She would be the first female Sec. of Defense and she is currently at the top of the Pentagon's pyramid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listened to a female from iran/iraq, can't recall, on the local talk radio the other day say something that I had never thought of, and honestly makes me wonder if it's possible.

She was saying that America needs men at the top of the food chain as many in her region do not respect women at all. Last two secretaries of state have been women.

Thought it was funny coming from a woman who is now an American citizen.

And please don't start with the woman hate thing, I could not care less who is the next S of S, as long as they understand the middle east inside and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listened to a female from iran/iraq, can't recall, on the local talk radio the other day say something that I had never thought of, and honestly makes me wonder if it's possible.

She was saying that America needs men at the top of the food chain as many in her region do not respect women at all. Last two secretaries of state have been women.

Thought it was funny coming from a woman who is now an American citizen.

And please don't start with the woman hate thing, I could not care less who is the next S of S, as long as they understand the middle east inside and out.

The Rice lady was heavily involved with Asian affairs so her and Huntsman would be ideal imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Kerry would be quite good for the job, tbh.

My fear is that Hillary is stepping down because she wants to become Justice Clinton. I wouldn't mind her as President or VP, but on the SCOTUS she'd actually have direct power relevant to her desire to ban everything like violent vidya games and movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add Petraus to the list.

Betray us now has new meaning. To his wife anyway

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/NATL-CIA-Director-Petraeus-Resigns-Cites-Extra-Marital-Affair-178159541.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama knew he was going to resign and wanted to save face so he sent someone in to seduce him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fishy indeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Posts

    • Mitchell would be a mistake IMO. He's too short to play with Walker. It would be the NBA's smallest backcourt. 
    • Look at this from Greg's viewpoint: 1. We did not draft or bring in a TE (many of us, including me, thought the team might bring in a young TE) Greg knows we have few options at this point. 2. Greg is about to retire (2-3 years) and his stock will never be higher.  He has led the team in receiving for a few years. 3. He knows there is cap room.  Gettlemen wants to carry  that over to re-sign 3 hog mollies for 2018; Olsen wants it now.) I think the Panthers lack of movement at TE has Olsen in a great negotiating position. Now let's take a look at the Panther's position: His quote about business and productivity could backfire on him. Businesses sign contracts for future services.  People sign them every day and honor them.  I may sign a long-term contract for less than I am worth, but in turn, I get security.  If you think you are worth more, don't sign.  I think the problem is the transparency over salaries.  If you know what Jacob Tamme made last year because his agent worked out a great deal, you can use that to negotiate a new deal for Olsen if you compare the numbers.  However, Tamme may have underperformed his deal, and it is erroneous to assume the performance of others based on their contracts is fair market value.  What they offer and what you take is fair market value. If Olsen wants a deal based on his productivity, remove his guaranteed money and make it incentive based. Take away the guarantees and make it possible for him to earn $10m--or $2m, depending on his productivity.  I am sure that he wants the security of the current deal and the Panthers to assume all risk.   Do you think the Raiders did not think that Jamarcus Russell's deal should equal productivity?  It is a gamble for both sides--a 4-5 year contract is security.  Guaranteed money you take for a promise to perform at your highest level for the length of the contract.  Olsen is not giving money back if he has a bad year, I assure you.  Contracts are not rewards, they only concern themselves with the now and the future. So where you ranked last year and the year before that---that simply means the Panthers made a wise investment in Greg Olsen.  I mean, if I invest in Cisco stock, buying it at $40 per share because it is expected to rise to $50 per share and it ends the year at $60, Cisco does not come to me and say, "We should have charged you more when you bought our shares--can we have an additional $8 per share?" THAT is business . Olsen should blame himself if he signed a lower deal than he is worth.  If he did not believe he was worth more then, why should the Panthers pay more now?  The Panthers paid him fair market value and he accepted the offer. I think it is bad practice to start paying people who outperform their contracts