The transition team lined up for introduction behind the new President Elect at his first Press Conference. The man who ran on a platform of hope and change was flanked by a lineup of Washington Democratic insiders as far as the stage would reach.

The truth is that Barack Obama's transition team looked like a reunion of officials from the Clinton years. John Podesta was Clinton's Chief of Staff and there was certainly no "outside the beltway" thought process in his selection to the team. Washington insider and former Clinton EPA Administrator Carol Browner was also on stage. Browner is married to Fannie Mae lobbyist and former Congressman Tom Downey.

Larry Summers, President of Harvard and former Clinton Secretary of the Treasury is certainly not a beltway outsider while Susan Rice, who was Assistant Secretary of State under Clinton has also advised former Democratic Presidential candidates John Kerry and Mike Dukakis.

Bill Daley, Clinton’s former Secretary of Commerce and the brother of the Mayor of Chicago, represents the traditional old Democratic establishment. Daley is a former member of the Fannie Mae Board while his son has worked as a lobbyist.

Indeed, the transition team list of Washington Democratic insiders goes on and on. Federico Pena was Clinton’s Secretary of Transportation and of Energy. Christopher Edley, was a former member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission under Clinton. His wife, Maria Echaveste, was Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff.

Of course, Rahm Emmanuel, the new White House Chief of Staff, is also a former member of Clinton's White House staff and Christine Varney was a Federal Trade Commissioner under Clinton who worked in the White House.

Despite this transition team of beltway insiders, the mainstream media continues to compare President-elect Barack Obama to John Kennedy with the prospect of change in government coming to Washington D.C. . It's all feel-good television and it sells some newspapers and magazines but it ignores two very big problems.

Barack Obama has never clearly defined in his campaign what change means and the United States economy is in one very big mess. A deep recession will hit Main Street next year and national unemployment will certainly exceed eight percent. Interest rates will eventually rise and a dramatic increase in inflation will soon follow from record budget deficits because the United States Treasury is printing money as fast as Congress can hand it out.

There are very high expectations for Barack Obama among his supporters. Their hope is for "change" in the way business is conducted in Washington D.C. Also, the expectation exists that an Obama administration will make daily life easier for millions through government intervention and more tax re-distribution.

High voter expectations combined with a domestic economic crisis are the ideal formula for widespread national disappointment. So, the more likely outcome of the next four years is one that the mainstream media has conveniently overlooked on its journey back to a comparison with John Kennedy and the fiction of Camelot.

The Presidential election of 1976 was actually the last example of a Democrat running as an "outsider". It was the Presidency of a common man and peanut farmer who was a liberal Democrat with a majority in Congress. Jimmy Carter was also going to bring change to the nefarious practices of government inside the beltway of Washington D.C.. He campaigned on the slogan "A Leader, For A Change" and won.

Four years later, there was eighteen percent inflation and interest rates around twenty per cent. National unemployment was over twelve percent and Americans were waiting for gas in long lines of cars. Every night on evening television, the national news media would add another day to the ongoing count of inaction in a long hostage crisis with Iran.

The voting public saw a President with no new solutions to the major problems of the day. As his public approval ratings declined, President Jimmy Carter would be challenged in the 1980 Democratic primary by Ted Kennedy and would eventually lose in a landslide to Ronald Reagan later in that election year.

This is the Presidential historical analogy we do not hear about from anyone in the mainstream media but it may well be the most likely and realistic outcome for the Obama Presidency due to the scope of the economic crisis of the next few years.

Based on American political history, that lackluster lineup of Washington insiders could well be the transition team for the next one-term Democrat President. For now, the media is focused on feel-good political fiction and fantasy because our current economic crisis brings the reality of fear.