Agreed-- you can find similar statements in the last two presidential debates, with the last one being pretty explicit.

I'd just add that while that is the list of domestic initiatives, when we add Iraq-- #'s 2 and 3, Energy and Health Care get knocked down one notch on overall policy initiatives. That's a lot of political capital gone before Health Care at #4. I guess we'll see.

Wisewon, if he's even moderately successful on the first couple of priorities his political capital will be just fine when health care comes around. Kuttner talked about this explicitly on Fresh Air today and was pretty convincing. Success breeds success.

So climate change isn't even on the list? I see how it can fly under the cover of energy independence, at least for a few flaps. But the world he's supposedly listening to expects quite a bit more than that. Even here in Australia, where there's a broad desire to do the right thing, there's a strong argument against acting unilaterally (which in this country means without leadership from the US in particular).

I think 'energy independence' absolutely and inevitably means 'climate change'. It's not like we in the US pump enough of our own oil to be a climate problem; if we get ourselves to oil autarky, we'll be a long way towards doing our part on climate change. And if more then needs to be done, we'll be in a much better position, both in terms of our politics and our infrastructure, to do it.

Jarrett, if by climate change you are speaking specifically about the Cap and Trade schemes, I think we'll have to wait a long time for that, and understandably so.

In the current economy that's going to be pretty hard to achieve. First priority should be the economy.

Put out the fires before making the renovations.

Glenn Greenwald is calling for a repeal of DOMA as a consolation for the passage of Prop. 8. How does this rank in that list, or does it? And how will it affect the rest of the agenda if he chooses/does not choose to fight that fight right now?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/06/doma/index.html

@ NBarnes,
I'd like to think that energy independence would move us far along toward addressing climate change, however the high profile of "clean coal" technology in the debates and in his energy policy addresses seems troublesome. Anything close to being considered as "clean coal" is still in development and is 6-12 years out from actual installation. There is a need to revitalize the economies of the coal belt, but continuing an energy dependence on coal will not be clean. We need big investments in wind and solar AND most importantly we need a restructuring of our transportation system on par with the apollo project. I'd also like to know where investigations into the current Administration stand in these priorities. I'd guess that this won't even be mentioned until the he is in office to avoid any heightened tensions in the transition period.

The priorities are not a secret. They are broad, ambitious and dare I say, progressive. Check out http://change.gov/agenda and they will lay it all out for you.

People who say they dont know the policies and priorities he has have been actively not listening. That was the very reason I started to follow him, when he was on Charlie Rose.

This was before he was even officially a candidate. In every interview hes provided more solid information, more background, and more reasoning then any other politician that Ive ever seen.

Energy independance is for us part and parcel of dealing with global warming. Our energy dependance is entirely fossil fuel based. Its not like we're importing hydro power from canada, or space solar or anything like that. Its all earth frying carbon juice.

The path to our energy dependance will develop the technologies that will allow to become carbon neutral or amybe even go further. Then we can sell those technologies to China and the rest of the world. Its the only way to solve the problem and not go back to the pre-industrial age.

Its amazing, and wonderful to see that people are finally realizing there are other priorities that matter beside education. It was getting so every pol just capped his speech with 'for the children' by default and everyone bought him as a serious guy. Now we have some real problems to deal with, and he has the cajones to say it. Sweet.

Okay, I'm pretty new at this, but wouldn't a skilled politician have also tied health care reform to the economic reform?

Obama was wise to delete "comprehensive immigration reform" from his list because amnesty would mean civil war.

Well, it would piss off the republican base, but that will happen sooner or later. The important thing is there are bigger priorities, and you certainly can't do immigration until the economy is fixed and people feel secure finacially. i'd give even odds it gets done should obama win in 2012

I don't think the "opaque" part is knowing what the issues are - he's a smart man, and his list, mostly, is a comprehensive assessment of where we are now. The opaque-ness, I think, is in how those priorities translate into specifics, what drives his thinking, and where he sees compromises. The compromises, after all, are where real partisans are likely to be disappointed. And I'd point out that some progressives already have doubts. Myself, I think he could make some impressive strides early on, in terms of addressing the financial crisis and making some headway - though not as much as some people expect - on energy independence (I think the "green jobs" idea will never pay off quite as well as he's sold it). I don't expect any progress on healthcare reform, outside of some incremental progress like renewing and expanding SCHIP, which is, after all, progress over the recent past.

Finally, can we also just point out what an asinine question Blitzer asked to begin with? Why that man is considered top notch, or the best CNN has to offer, has always been beyond me.

well, barack obama is already addressing his priorities. day three after the election, and he is holding a press conference on the economic crisis.
i can barely even remember when a president held serious press conferences...i read that gibbs may be the press secretary... what a relief to have an intelligent, "present" and good-natured person speaking with the press, who is not essentially adversarial and closed-off.... instead of dana perino, whose knowledge of geography and history probably rivals that of sarah palin.
i think that obama is completely devoted and committed to accomplishing as much as he can.
let's give him a chance.
this country is like humpty dumpty now, and it is going to take all the king's horses and all the king's men to put humpty dumpty together again.
obama is inheriting the eggshells.
but i know that obama is the one to do it! a great start already!!!!
he has EARNED the respect of the whole world.
folks, just dont break the chain. dont lose faith on the third day.
we have a wonderful leader who can get us out of the desert, if we are patient and supportive.
not to mix metaphors,
but rome was neither torn down or built in a day.
yes we can!

barack obama didnt lose faith in us,
despite the odds...
oceans of ink on the bradley effect, on the disaffected hillary voters "who would never come around", jeremiah wright, bittergate, the palin phenomenonand a hundred other obstacles...he had faith that we would ultimately do the right thing, and said,
"yes, we can."
now it is our turn to extend the same faith, confidence and generosity in his judgement as he extended to us.
"yes he can!"

As predictable with our progressive elite, the gross imbalance of power in the American labor market that has made the 1968 minimum wage ($10/hr, adjusted) 2008's 25 percentile wage is not even addressed. Thus I -- a progressive, power imbalanced impoverished American -- feel free to propose my own first priority in this forum:

Legislatively (re)impose a fair and balanced labor market:

First, double the minimum wage to $13/hr over three years (a dollar every six months?) -- and -- legally guarantee inflation adjustments for incomes under $100,000.

Doubling the minimum wage could potentially add an average 50% more pay to below 50 percentile earnings ($13/hr being today’s 35 percentile wage) -- accompanied by only (an easily computed) 3% direct price increases plus perhaps (?) 3% more after other wages are pushed up -- a minimum wage-force multiplier.

Next, legislatively introduce French-Canadian style (lite) sector-wide labor agreements to the US labor market (airline and supermarket employees would kill for sector-wide contracts) -- and -- legally mandate union certification and re-certification elections (every four years?) at every work place (periodic re-certification could clean up the most common objections to unions: entrenched, complacent or even corrupt leaderships).

Top 10 percentile incomes enjoy at least 40% of income share these days (up from 27.5% in 1973) -- plenty of headroom there for the mid 50-90 percentile to rake back more missing share points through higher labor prices -- a collective bargaining-force multiplier. Also, excess top income can be vacuumed back down via competing in the labor market: a couple of extreme pay Chicago TV anchors were let go recently for personalities willing to work for more normal rates as a result of profit squeeze -- could just as easily happen to CEOs.

Finally, (at least temporarily?) hike marginal tax rates (75% over $500,000, $1,000,000?). Folks earning 2500% more than folks doing the same work 25-35 years ago may not return all the way to earth through 12.5-25% price increases, maybe not even with profit squeeze -- erode a force multiplier.

America’s lower 90 percentile earners never think to impose legislative hegemony to recoup the 12.5% income share they have lost to top 3 percentile since 1973 -- their unemployed force multiplier.

First priority; ending America's great wage depression:

Santa Fe’s minimum wage raise to $8.50/hr (now $9.50/hr, soon indexed) lost lower skilled workers a significant number of jobs (8.3%, adjusted for something -- nominal employment rose) many to higher skilled replacements, according to a think tank committed to protecting the working poor from higher wages.

Could such pay/employment trade-offs lie in the future as America catches up wages with productivity growth?

Simple (ask any minimum wage earner) job/wage resolution:
1) If lower skilled workers lose a percentage of jobs to a higher minimum wage (or any broadband wage increase), they should earn more over a lifetime because they will earn more when they are working ($3.35/hr more in 2005 Santa Fe!) -- which should be most of the time.
2) Higher skilled workers would be earning enough extra to pay a bit more in taxes to fund some cover for the lower skilled if needed.
******
Quick lopsided income tutorial:
At $186,000/yr, the average family income reported by the Census for top 20 percentile families may sound out of proportion -- your typical primary care provider earning well below that these days -- but it is actually a little less than we might expect if family income growth matched per capita income growth reported by the same Census: doubled since 1968, when $102,000/yr was the top 20 average.

What is out of proportion is the Census reporting 100% per capita income growth along with 67% (overall) family income growth since 1968 -- a 33% family shortfall? The presumed missing 33% -- presumably hidden by the Census practice of "op coding" income over $1 million per family out of its survey -- would add $111,000 to the top quintile average -- presuming family income grew exactly the same pace as per capita income since 1968.

Family income may have grown closer to 90% over those years: still leaving $86,000 hidden by the top code (not $112,000): still making for 185% top quintile growth (not 212%), still comparing lopsidedly to the 12%, 22%, 37% and 53% eked out by lower quintiles (much due to more members working more hours). If we add enough dollars to all five quintile 2007 incomes (top quintle growth was reported at only 82%) to bring them into line with 90% growth: the additions total up to the unreported dollop of top income, dollar for dollar (by mathematical definition).

If we could somehow throw a reset switch to share around 2007’s doubled personal income according to 1973's distribution, lower four quintile wage earners would remain in the same relative (skill/pay) bargaining positions vis-à-vis each other in the job market -- making for little expectation of more unemployment -- ditto for shaved-income top earners: my "Chinese snake dance" theory of labor price and employment. :-)
******
It is not under-priced labor -- in the sense of people here and overseas willing to work for less -- that is dragging down American wages and causing whole-segment unemployment (see very many American born cab drivers or fast food workers lately?). It is the under-pricing of labor that is causing America's Great Wage Depression (my term covering both lost pay and lost jobs).

If Australia had a 1000 mile land border with China -- open, Mexican-American style -- Australian labor would need powerful wage support legislation to maintain its native pay and employment at maximum levels: a solid minimum wage (1/2 the "true" average wage -- USA "true" meaning $25/hr; reported AWI up only 20% since 1968) plus the most up to date collective bargaining structure known as sector-wide labor agreements (not the card check attempt to wring one more drop of life out of all but dead labor law -- Australian could actually consider sector wide now that its once effective if eccentric wage support structure has badly eroded).

America's is the only modern OECD labor market facing the double whammy of globalization and yearly immigrating millions; and yet remains the only modern OECD market seriously devoid of legislative defenses against either outside low wage expectations or against the home grown race to the bottom (recently introducing whole-segment unemployment to middle class, would-have-been supermarket employees).

No, amnesty for illegals is not just going to "piss off" some people. It's going to start a civil war. That's civil war as in we're all dead, all of us here along with most everyone we know, all dead because it's civil war.

The path to meeting priority number two (reversing oncoming recession) may be to meet priority number one (resolving our wage depression):

http://hnn.us/articles/55614.html...
...at which history professor James Livingston explains simply that if business squeezes too much money out of labor, then, demand drops and business has no healthy place to invest its excess profits (plant and equipment) and heads out in search speculative paper which the only alternative (dot.com start ups with no realistic business model, risky real estate): leading us from bubble to bubble.

http://hnn.us/articles/55368.html...
...at which Livingston saith:
"By 1937, industrial output and national income had regained the levels of 1929, and the volume of new auto sales exceeded that of 1929." "That rising demand was a result of net contributions to consumers’ expenditures out of federal deficits, and of new collective bargaining agreements, not the eradication of unemployment."