As for substance, I’m very happy with everything so far, which isn’t surprising since most everything he has done was promised on the campaign trail — so, of course, it is nice to see the promises starting to be implemented. The more striking thing for me is the contrast in style between Bush, Clinton, and Obama. Obama seems to be hard working, engaged, disciplined, and dynamic. Clinton (obviously) lacked the discipline, whereas Bush seemed to lack Obama’s level of engagement and dynamism. For better or worse, Bush liked routine and order, and Clinton was freewheeling; maybe Obama strikes just the right balance between the two.

Other things I’m happy with — Hillary seems to be taking to her role as secretary of state, and keeping Gates at the Pentagon is looking like a good move. Hillary seems to be doing a lot of substantive work, and has also, on occasion, effectively used her political celebrity. (For example, the smack down of Dick Cheney the other day probably got a lot more mileage coming from Hillary than from a less well-known official). As for Gates, the pentagon budget is much more sensible this year than in the past. He, nevertheless, stirred up a hornets’ nest in Congress, but his bipartisan credibility should go a long way towards helping with that.

On Iraq, Afghanistan, detainee policy, and other foreign affairs, Obama is quickly instituting rather significant changes without them feeling rash or ill-considered.

All and all, I’d give Obama a solid “A”, with points having been taking off for some of the bank bailout/toxic asset stuff that I’m not really sold on yet.

The real chaos (according to this Slate article) seems to be around when/if the new alliance will get to vote to form a new government.   The Governor General, appointed by the Queen, has suspended the parliament at the request of the prime minister, which has postponed the vote and the formation of the new government.

and you thought Bush v. Gore was bad!  At least the supreme court justices were appointed by an elected president and approved by the Senate.  DOWN WITH THE QUEEN!!!!

And with all this, it is weird to see Canadians hurling insults, accusing each other of treason, sedition, and being in bed with separatists…not quite as heated as America’s culture wars (Obama is the Antichrist and isn’t even a citizen!), but I suppose everything Canadians do is milder and more civilized than in America, even their constitutional crises.

While Obama is taking great pains to distinguish himself from the current administration, he is also taking one page from Bush’s playbook — discipline.  Although the number of leaks from the Obama camp has greatly increased since the election, the overall level of drama has been remarkably low.  I don’t anticipate a repeat of the drama of the Clinton years, even with Hillary at the State department and Bill Clinton continuing to…well…be Bill Clinton.

The transition is fun to watch, but I  think it will be more interesting to see how Obama governs, particularly when something goes wrong.  Can he salvage a bill headed to a narrow defeat in congress? How open will he be if a scandal erupts?  Will any poorly performing or scandal-plagued advisers or cabinet member “enjoy the full confidence of the president” until they retire to “spend time with their family”, or will Obama fire them to show everyone where the buck stops?

Bush came into office claiming to be the first CEO president and maybe he was right.  Unfortunately for the country, he was more like the CEO of a big three automaker than a Steve Jobs or a Warren Buffett.

If Obama is successful, it will be because he is able to be something we haven’t seen in quite a while — a presidential president.

For Bush, too many of his cabinet members have been on the outside looking in.  In 2000, Bush named several big name moderates to his cabinet like Christine Todd Whitman and Colin Powell, but it quickly became clear that they had little influence with the president.  On the other hand, some cabinet members like Rumsfeld, with the president’s blessing, were given free reign.  Others in the cabinet assumed roles of glorified paper pushers, administering their agencies, but making few waves in formulating policy.  Quick…can anyone name Bush’s EPA administrator? How about the commerce secretary?

When Bush passed his prescription drug benefit in 2003, Karl Rove probably had a bigger influence on the legislation than Tommy Thompson, the HHS secretary at the time.  In the current economic crisis,  Paulson has played a major role as treasury secratary, but you hear almost nothing about the Commerce Secratary, Carlos Gutierrez.  And Stephen Johnson, despite his post at the EPA, is hardly a leading voice on the environment.

Far from having a “team of rivals”, Bush has governed with a team of haves and have-nots.  Paulson, Rumsfeld, and Albert Gonzalez have had the president’s ear and have been able to impact policy, while Gutierrez, Johnson, Powell, Whitman, et. al. have been expected to keep their heads down and not rock the boat.

As Obama goes forward assembling his cabinet, he should learn from Bush’s mistakes.  With all the problems that the country currently faces, Obama needs to fill his cabinet with the best and the brightest, not those willing to serve for years in near anonymity.