Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
剛剛在 CNN觀看了直播，奧巴馬宣布他的外交和國防班子。
《CNN》："Hillary's appointment is a sign to friend and foe of the seriousness of my commitment to renew American diplomacy and restore our alliances," Obama said at a news conference in Chicago, Illinois.
"I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton is the right person to lead our State Department and to work with me in tackling this ambitious foreign policy agenda."
Obama also confirmed that he is keeping Defense Secretary Robert Gates in his current post.
Rounding out his Monday announcements, Obama named retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones as his national security adviser, Eric Holder as attorney general, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as homeland security secretary and Susan Rice as ambassador to the United Nations.
紐約州的參議員 克林頓夫人，被禮聘為新一屆政府的國務卿，Secretary of State 即是美國的外交部長。
早在八月廿四日的網誌：希拉莉 敗選者的氣度 講過：
二零零八年是美國的大選年，民主黨的黨大會即將於八月二十五日至二十七日，賈在 科羅拉多州 丹佛市舉行，確認 奧巴馬 為民主黨的總統候選人，相信 奧巴馬 會在黨大會之前，宣布他的競選拍檔，即是副總統的候選人，組成競選名單參選。
會不會是老對手 希拉莉 女士呢？相信機會不大，因為 奧巴馬 已經言明，不欲有一個好像 布殊 的 切尼一樣的副總統，而在民主黨的黨大會中相信 奧巴馬 有可能承諾在勝出之後，委予 希拉莉 一官半職，旨在爭取團結擁護 希拉莉 的選民票源。
在年初到年中幾個月與 奧巴馬 在民主黨內初選，闘得難分難解，最後勉強在黨內大老齊齊施壓之下，而宣布失敗的 希拉莉。
相信怎麼樣都好，希拉莉女士會和她的丈夫，卸任總統克林頓先生，為了民主黨的利益，都會出來為 奧巴馬 站臺，發表演說，支持 奧巴馬 的競選！
最後 奧巴馬 邀請 德拉華州資深參議員 拜登 為參選伙伴，從外電報導，拜登 從政經驗豐富，目前是國會參議院外交關係委員會主席，也曾擔任參議院司法委員會主席。
拜登 被認為是美國外交和防務政策專家，是奧巴馬 副手的大熱門，因為 奧巴馬 經常被競選對手攻擊缺乏外交經驗，拜登 是回擊對手的一張「好牌」。至於是否真的是一張好牌，昔目以待！
拜登 拿手的外交和防務，現在有 希拉莉 Secretary of State，和獲邀請留任的 Defense Secretary Robert Gates 分別主理。 拜登 會否安份的只做他的副總統，還是想利用幕後影響力，指指點點呢？
美國總統職權範圍大，一個人的精力時間有限，沒有可能樣樣事，巨細無遺咁去處理，作為一個總統，是依靠一班信得過的部長們各施其職，而他個人就是統籌，和 fine tune 一吓，在那裡加啲潤滑劑，減少各部門之間的磨擦，令到整部機器依照他的大方向運作。
管理學還有兩個理論，一個是 Smart Boss + 一班平庸的手下，個個默默耕耘，切實執行 Boss下達的命令，咁樣個 Boss要身苦啲，要跟得緊啲，但一班容易駕馭的手下，可以比較安心啲。
另一個理論是，Smart Boss 統領一班 Smart 的手下，Boss 要做好平衡，利用每一個手下的長處，為自己服務，駕馭的能力要高，更要小心會被 Smart 過你的手下取代。
有人話前者祇宜守業者，後者就適合開拓業務者，我唔知到，因為我自己都只是一夥小鏍絲。
究竟祇做了兩年華府參議員的 奧巴馬，在未來四年點去協調一班資歷比他深的閣員，會攪出咩樣呢？昔目以待！
寫于：十二月二日凌晨
伸延閱覽:
林肯啟示錄～Team of Rivals 政敵團隊（明報論壇11月4日～蔡子強）
我的舊文：
希拉莉 敗選者的氣度
歷史新的一頁 A new page on American History
瘋人瘋語
「我離港前到過一間精神科醫院。當時有位病人禮貌地問，一個以作為世上最悠久民主政體而自傲的國家，如何能夠將此地交給一個政治制度非常不同的國家，且既沒諮詢當地公民，又沒給予他們民主的前景，好讓他們捍衞自己的將來。一個隨行同事說，奇怪，香港提出最理智問題的人，竟在精神科醫院。」彭定康 金融時報 “During a visit to a mental hospital before I left Hong Kong, a patient politely asked me how a country that prided itself on being the oldest democracy in the world had come to be handing over his city to another country with a very different system of government, without either consulting the citizens or giving them the prospect of democracy to safeguard their future. Strange, said one of my aides, that the man with the sanest question in Hong Kong is in a mental hospital.”Chris Patten Financial Times
Non Chinese literate friends, please simply switch to English Version provided by LOUSY Google Translation
Please participate in the unregistered demography survey of visitors at the right hand side bar. You are: ？
敬請參與在右下方的不記名訪客分佈調查問卷，你是: ？
4 comments:
奧巴馬嘅考驗好大,
國內國外都問題多多,
淨係要搞返掂個經濟都難上加難了,
外交嘅嘢不是他專用,
他亦没有足夠的精力去應付,
至於拜登和希拉莉的的權力和分工就好難講了,
一切都要看下去!
新鮮兄：
奧巴馬的班子有很多舊時克林頓的舊臣，
加埋希拉莉克林頓是個 reunion大聚會，
新舊兩派激進派溫和派鷹派鴿派一窩熟，
睇吓奧巴馬呢位行政總廚點去調較味道。
Space:
Here are my comments re: "... 管理學還有兩個理論..."
The choice of employees depends very much on the boss' line of business.
Senior executives of an organization will likely want "smart" employees (read: innovative and strategic thinkers) to deal with high risk, high uncertainty types of business.
On the other hand, operational managers will probably prefer employees who are reliable and independent to carry out prescribed tasks of a more low risk and routine nature.
In terms of accountability, there is no doubt the person at the top is always accountable and responsible for success/failure of an organization, even though he/she might not be the one to be blamed directly. As an illustration, here is a case in point in distinguishing “responsibility” vs “blame”: It is now said that USA President Bush's executive decision to start the Iraq war was based on less-than-accurate intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction in that country. So, as far as the intelligence gathering work is concerned, he is responsible, but CIA is to blame.
Finally, a less experienced and younger boss should have no problem leading a multi-discipline team of older and more seasoned subordinates as long as he/she has the mandate and authority (as in the case of the newly elected USA President) and, more importantly, the competencies to fulfill his/her roles and responsibilities as chief executive. (Note: All executive positions would/should have established competency profile).
Hari 兄：
有關兩個管理學理論，你指出 low risk 和 high risk 的各取其中可用的一項。與我聽來的：前者祇宜守業者（應可算是 low risk），後者就適合開拓業務者 （歸入 high risk），沒有矛盾衝突，也是各取其所！
至于揀選得啱唔啱，要睇個位 Smart Boss，是真smart 定自以為 Smart 囉。
再多一次 once more 多謝賜教！
Post a Comment