[lbo-talk] a question

[Jeffrey Fisher]

yeah, talking heads have been talking on tv about this for a few weeks, at
least, before the election. there seems to be some question about it, but .
. . wouldn't the flip side of not being indebted to anyone be that you can
disappoint *everyone*? in other words, can he run his administration like he
ran his campaign?
one suspects not. and he is if nothing else smart enough to know that. so he
will be acting now in a way that shows which side he thinks his bread is
buttered on. wasn't this kind of sam smith's point from shag's post? or did
i misread that, as i've been misreading so much, recently?

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:


> [A question from The Note, reminiscent of the corporate governance
> literature - when you have millions of dispersed, unorganized shareholders,
> management gets a free hand.]
>
> Can you smell the conflicts coming? "Interest groups are furiously drawing
> up wish lists for the incoming Obama administration, many of them hoping to
> cash in on the investments they made -- in volunteers, political support,
> and campaign contributions - in Obama's commanding win," The Boston Globe's
> Scott Helman writes. "But given the nature of Obama's victory, which was
> propelled more by a grass-roots army of millions than by traditional
> Democratic constituencies, is the president-elect really indebted to
> anybody?"
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>