So says the Washington Post’s Robert Barnes, Dan Eggen and Anne E. Kornblut: George W. Bush is being extremely helpful to Barack Obama and Obama seems unusually prepared for the nuts-and-bolts of a presidential transition. As the Post points out, this feel-good attitude is in sharp contrast to when Bush himself entered office.

After the Supreme Court voted him into office, Bush had five weeks to assemble a cabinet and name political appointees. He wasn’t up to the challenge. In fact, the 9/11 commission report discusses how a less than fully functioning executive branch contributed to that catastrophe.

A good transition would also contrast with that undertaken by Bill Clinton. The Post notes that Clinton appeared aloof in his first few weeks after winning the 1992 presidential election and made aimless comments to the media.

Hopefully, Obama’s prompt naming of a transition team and first press conference Friday is an auspicious sign for not just the next few weeks but next few years.-MB

The New York Times’ tries to put together all of the issues that Barack Obama is supposed to work on in his first few months in office. It’s really daunting: get through a second economic stimulus package, enact an energy policy that would provide about $15 billion a year funding for renewable sources, begin the process of Iraq withdrawal, close Guantananmo, put billions into education, and provide health care for the 45 million uninusred. The latter was merely biggest issue during the Democratic primary.

The Times’ Peter Baker frames Obama’s early decisions as whether he he will have a "big-bang strategy" or take a "step-by-step pragmatic approach." I think this is a silly binary. Obama will be an unworthy president unless he responds to big crises in big ways. He surely isn’t going to do everything at once (don’t think comprehensive immigration reform will be passed in the 100 days).  But he is responding to challenges no other president has faced before– what exactly is the sensible, centrist approach to the nationalization of huge financial firms or Guantanamo Bay?

It’s not quite the same as wondering in 1860 whether Lincoln would take a step-by-step, pragmatic approach to slavery. But it’s not v-chip legislation either.-MB