'Obama' is the Change Agent: UPDATED
By John Amato Tuesday Nov 25, 2008 10:00am
I'm not sure what everyone has been thinking. Obama said he'd be bipartisan, weed us off dependence on foreign oil, negotiate with the world at large instead of attacking them and never, ever torture people. He also promised to cut taxes for that plumber guy and implement a sweeping change in our health care system and also inject a much-needed stimulus package into the economy. One would hope it would be called universal health care. Bush has left Obama with a complete disaster and I'm going to at least wait until he takes office and begins trying to dig us out of the ditch before I get too upset over his picks.
If you remember, during the general election Howie and I wrote a post called:
Anatomy of a Right Wing Myth: Obama is the most liberal Democratic Senator
If only! Actually there are 39 Democrats with more liberal voting records, although Obama does at least beat perennial Bush rubber stamps Holy Joe Lieberman (CT), Ben Nelson (NE) and Mary Landrieu (LA). His voting record-- however you slice it, however you dice it-- points to a solidly mainstream centrist...read on
Obama has never said anything different in his campaign. There's been some rumblings in the blogosphere about Obama's choices to fill out his Cabinet so far. I like Christopher Hayes a lot, but I think he's wrong here. When did he promise a Cabinet full of Progressives? And Chris Bowers writes:
I really don't want to be pessimistic about the new Obama administration. Rather, I much preferred my optimistic mood from last night, discussing how the House seems to be moving in a more progressive direction, and how cutting military spending was a real possibility over the next couple of years. That felt good, and I want to keep feeling that way.
However, the apparent leading contenders for several top Obama administration positions continue to worry me.
Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, Bob Gates possibly retained at Defense, Tom Daschle at Health and Human Services and Eric Holder at Justice. With the market dropping because of more economic bad news, Obama named Timothy Geithner as the nation's next Treasury Secretary. What do you know? With a little leadership displayed, Wall Street rallied.
I hated the pass that was given to Joe Lieberman, but that wasn't Harry Reid's fault. Obama decided to forgive Lieberman so that he would keep caucusing with the Democratic Party and to add another vote to help implement his agenda. A major reason why I wanted his gavel removed was his failure to investigate Katrina. For that alone, he should have been stripped of his chairmanship, but it's Obama's party and he makes the choices. Joe will probably play nice for the time being and Obama needs all hands on deck when he is sworn into office because of the devastation left behind by Conservatives and BushCo. But make no mistake, Holy Joe will eventually stab him in the back. Still, it was Obama's decision and Congress went along with him.
Holder is well respected in DC and on the left too and Obama couldn't care less if FOX News foamed at the mouth over his choice when it was announced. I say good for him. I had no opinion on Hillary being Secretary of State, but to me, it shows a lot of guts. I actually agree with John Dickerson's take on the nomination:
By picking Clinton, Obama may be making some kind of special political play, removing one of his rivals to protect himself from political harm, but I think he's more serious than that. There's been no evidence over the last two years that he engages in this kind of overly clever bank shot. It's more likely he's picked Clinton because she's smart and because he wants to surround himself with people who will challenge him.
Do you mean Obama shouldn't get a food taster and worry about a parallel government being run by Hillary? Matthews has been really going ballistic over this, but here's a little news for Chris: Obama ran his campaign about Obama. And this country is in terrible shape and I believe that he's trying to assemble what he believes will be the people that will Git-R-Done.
He's the change agent -- it's his vision and policy choices that will define him, not who he chooses for the Chief of Staff or any other position. I hope that he appoints only one Republican to his staff, if any at all. We've seen how Conservatives govern, especially when they re-brand themselves like Bush did and they say they are compassionate, so who cares what they think at this point? Obama has a lot of heavy lifting as soon as he's sworn into office so that's when I'll do the best I can to push forth a liberal agenda and try to hold him to those principles. The country has rejected Conservatism. So now it's our turn.
If you've been following the financial section lately, they are totally freaked out about what is happening there. Many seriously want him to actually succeed at all costs on Wall Street. Sure, the gasbags on TV will try to rip him, but the real money men behind the operations need Obama to be successful or all the cash they made off the backs of the working class will be gone. You know, just like has already happened to the working class.
Digby wraps it up with these thoughts:
I'm actually hopeful that he will not choose center-right policies (or at least not be able to choose them out of necessity)but I'm actually quite happy if they decide to consciously sell anything using the argot of progressivism, particularly movement progressivism, outside of the stump. One of the biggest challenges for the left is disrupting the soothing comfort people feel when they hear conservative bromides that have been so thoroughly internalized they don't even recognize them as political anymore. If you want progressives to have a long run you have to create a language of progressivism that becomes a default, mainstream way of thinking. Conservatives have been massively successful at that with things like "government isn't the solution, it's the problem" and "it's your money." People hear that and it just sounds ... true. Changing the rhetoric is as important to a movement as changing government policies.
So, if Obama is going to continue using the more progressive and populist argot that Sirota correctly observes politicians often use at election time, then I think it's good news for the long term prospects of the progressive movement.
As for the policies, we'll have to wait and see. I suspect that on the economy, it's going to have to be a hell of a lot more progressive than anybody dreamed it would be even three months ago. There are no conservative solutions to economic meltdown except just letting it happen -- and I don't think anyone expects Obama to do that.
Glenn Greenwald writes: Progressive complaints about Obama's appointments
I've been genuinely mystified by the disappointment and surprise being expressed by many liberals over the fact that Obama's most significant appointments thus far are composed of pure Beltway establishment figures drawn from the center-right of the Democratic Party and, probably once he names his Defense Secretary and CIA Director, even from the Bush administration -- but not from the Left. In an email yesterday, Digby explained perfectly why this reaction is so mystifying (re-printed with her consent)...read on:
Login or Register to post comments.
corp...that is a good thing
but...I am very unhappy at the very thought of not raising taxes on the rich, which was a MAJOR campaign promise.
These guys GOT their tax cut...plus essentially free loans from the government for the financial services companies.
Enough is enough.
Fix this mess.
1) Raise the top bracket
2) Cut the middle class brackets
3) Cut business taxes for companies that add jobs and return jobs to the U.S.
4) Raise taxes on companies that offshore labor
5) Remove ALL offshore tax havens.
6) Start a Government run jobs works program for bridges, tunnels highways...NOW. Enough dicking around. The Bush Administration is too busy shredding documents to save their sorry asses to worry about the country.
7) Start planning troop withdrawals...so that 6 months down the road...expenditures for the war can start to decline.
8) Start cutting federal R&D programs for the military
9) Universal healthcare...NOW...not two years from now.
10) Any industry that comes to Washington for a bailout can have LOANS....repeat...LOANS...with interest MARKET RATE Interest...plus a spread because it's patriotic of them to pay the government more. Just like FEMA offers to distressed homeowners devastated by natural disaster.
....Obama will return to the Clinton era tax levels on the rich. He has not recanted that pledge.
George Bush and the Republican Congress couldn't borrow America out of Debt.
What makes Obama and a Democratic Congress think THEY can?
Now is the time for a 10% Flat Tax on all income earners. No deductions and no loopholes Income is income; Period!
Pay as you go not borrow and spend or print more money worth less and inflationary. Pay down on the National Debt; don't make it worse!
Beware the "flat tax." It may be an idea to ponder, but only if those who get their income from investments are taxed, too. Steve Forbes' flat tax was on wages; his corporate and fat cat buddies who didn't have wages (i.e. they got $ from investments) didn't have to pay taxes.
Just another giveaway to the rich. Keep the progressive tax system.
Clinton cronies crank for corps. Film at 11.
Disaster capitalism comes full circle and you are applauding?
I think more than a few people need a reality check.
I can guarantee that Obama will not always make me happy in what he does or says. I am pretty far left leaning. That said, if he can do anything to bring about some sort of change in the direction our country is headed (straight down the shitter) within my lifetime, then, in my eyes, he will be a bloody saint.
I feel for the older people. I feal for the people who are standing in line for hours and hours just to get food for a Thanksgiving meal. I feel for the people near Denver, all 40,000 who went to a farmer's field to pick up leftovers which were not harvested and sold to market. I feel for the 64 year old woman who lives in her Honda CRV - and works - but cannot afford housing. I feel for the man I saw driving an ancient RV with a sign in the back that said "Our wealth has been redistributed."
If we can bring any of what America once stood for back from the grave, Obama will have accomplished great change.
I agree with you.
If he does it within my lifetime, it better be a quickie.
Virtually every choice Obama has made is criticized(from liberals and conservatives) as anti-"change". My guest is that Obama's new detractors would prefer that the President-elect field an all-rookie team of D.C. "outsiders"
...mistakes included.This sums up our worries.
...I am still afraid for the economy but am satisfied I voted the right way. Obama looks to be one in charge--make no mistake.
I try my best to explain why Obama will not be able to fix the economy, I think it's important because if people don't get this my fear is he will be a one term president,
I hope the below helps
Robert Kiyosaki Why the Rich Get Richer
Eve of Destruction: How the Financial Crisis Was Built Into the System
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/richr...
There's only one solution: Nationalizing EVERYTHING...
The "leader" who is forced into that unpalatable decision will probably be impeached, and will be lucky to escape with their lives...
I would submit we just need to find a way back to honest money
FT - Bring back the link between gold and the dollar
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba673d22-b977-11dd-...
New Legal Theory Supports Obama's Immediate Succession To Presidency
People, open your eyes!!!
In America you can see and access a lot of information. This is public information, look at the donations that Obama received:
Top 10 Corporate PAC Contributors:
Obama:
Goldman Sachs $739,521
UBS AG $419,550
Lehman Brothers $391,774
Citigroup Inc $492,548
Morgan Stanley $341,380
Latham & Watkins $328,879\
Google Inc $487,355
JPMorgan Chase & Co $475,112
Sidley Austin LLP $370,916
Skadden, Arps et al $360,409
Nobody gives you 3/4 of a million dollars because they are "nice", that is called corruption, they EXPECT you to do something for them.
Stimulus package? With what money? Is he a magician or what? where is he supposed to get that money? We are broke! Our external debt is HUGE more than 10 trillion dollars. He doesn't have clue how economies work. That will only ruin the dollar.
Health care for everybody, that sounds great but where is the money coming from?
OPEN YOUR EYES, this is special interest run politics, there is NO CHANGE IN THAT. Inflation and destruction of capital will be the result of this. This country is cooked . . .
Tut, tut, tut, tut, tut.
Look on the bright side.
More Borrow and Spend will not pay off the Nations Debt. No-one or Government can borrow itself out of debt!
1. What's your source for the donations? I seem to remember that there was quite a difference between donations from Wall Street EMPLOYEES vs. Wall Street lobby groups, hedge fund managers vs. regular mutual fund managers, and also state donations vs. federal donations. Obviously, at the state level, lobby groups give the most money to the party (state government and federal senators) that is most likely to win, so that they can attempt to exert influence over the party that's actually in power. ie-they donate to the party that they think will win so that they can attempt to exert influence over them, but not necessarily because they think that's the party that will look out for their special interests. Nevertheless, I'd be very happy if Obama and the 111 Congress passed laws that prohibit PACs and lobby groups from donating to political campaigns, and limited campaign contributions to private citizens.
2. "Health care for everybody, that sounds great but where is the money coming from?"
Actually, under the private healthcare "system" the U.S. spends almost TWICE the per capita amount on healthcare than any other industrialized country, and only 2/3 of the population is covered. ($5711 for the USA vs. $2317 for Britain, $2745 for Sweden, $2249 for Japan, $2998 for Canada, $3048 for France etc.) Furthermore, since the burden of providing healthcare isn't put on the employer in the other industrialized countries, they can afford to charge less for their manufactured products. That's one of the reasons why American cars are more expensive than foreign cars, because Ford, Chrysler and GM have to pay for their workers' healthcare, while Toyota, Honda, Hyundai etc. don't.
If the U.S. switched to a common sense universal, single pay health care system, like all of the other countries, EVERYBODY would be covered, American companies would no longer be at a tactical disadvantage by having to pay their employees healthcare costs, and it would only cost half as much as it does now. Where is the savings? The savings is in NOT having a whole tertiary industry of HMOs making profits from denying claims, hospital administrators trying to collect bills, and lawyers arguing over which claims should be paid and which shouldn't. There would also be no more examples of CEOs of HMOs running their companies into the ground, and then getting 1.1 billion dollar golden parachutes.
Unfortunately, however, I don't think even Obama will have the ability to switch to a universal healthcare system because the lobby groups that would oppose him would just be too strong. The only reason the other industrialized countries were able to do it was because, in most cases, universal healthcare was brought in in the late 60s/early 70s before HMOs were big enough to oppose them.
You wanted to know the source of the contributions:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php...
It is Opensecrets.org a non profit organization. Actually I didn't list everything, there is a LOT OF BAGGAGE. Do your homework, don't let others think for you.
Regarding health care, I could not agree more with you. I used to live in Norway free health care for everybody BUT (there is a but) Norway is one of the most richest countries in the world they do have money to run something like that. Are you aware that Norway doesn't even use the money they get from their sale of oil, it is saved (a word that in this country people don't know what it means). My point is that we don't have the money! I am in the medical field (almost an MD) it is outrageous the amount of money MD's, get that is one of the problems. And again special interest just jack up the price of everything including health care. He will just continue a system that is corrupt and broken.
He just want to give us more and more government, that is NOT the solution, it COST A LOT to have more government and it ends up removing personal liberty and freedom of choice since they "know better". The solution is very simple let's go back to the constitution and follow its guidelines.
Where is his talk about ending the Federal Reserve? Do your homework, the federal reserve is a PRIVATE INSTITUTION they make money for printing the government money, it needs to be closed, they are just a parasite. Providing easy money so they can satisfy the hunger of the special interest while debasing our currency. . .
"BUT (there is a but) Norway is one of the most richest countries in the world they do have money to run something like that."
As I said, EVERY other industrialized country has universal healthcare. Norway happens to have a higher GDP per capita than the U.S. ($53.3K vs. $45.8K PPP), but most of the other countries that provide universal health care have lower per capita incomes than the U.S. Canada, for instance, provides universal healthcare, has a lower per capita GDP ($38.6K PPP), and still spends about half as much on health care, both on a per capita basis, and as a percentage of GDP. My point was that switching from private health care to universal healthcare is actually CHEAPER. :)
So consider this, 'Almost an MD,' the cost of preventative medicine v treatment for out of control medical conditions.
For want of a few thousand for testing, I went undiagnosed with cancer for at least a couple of years. I wanted to get checked out, never thought Id have cancer, couldn't afford it, I mean, a colonoscopy to be told I have a gnarley haemorrhoid, I knew that.
Fast forward, I am disabled years out from retirement, had a twelve hour surgery which included a GI guy and a plastics gal (figure $15,000-$25,000 per hour), 2 weeks in hospital, blockage, another three weeks in hospital, a month of radiation (5 days a week) and 3 chemos. Fluids via IV every other day or so. Anti emetics that cost $30 a pill. Random stays for nadir events in a clean ward
Just to visit my Oncologist is $175 for her and $200 for the exam room. 10 minutes. For 3 years, I saw her every 3 months. Now it's June and December.
I have to have expensive medical supplies every day. For the rest of my life.
We can't afford NOT to treat people early. You all are paying my freight NOW, because I couldn't afford help in the early stages. Which may have come in under $10,000-$20,000. And I'd be whole, and working. I wouldn't have had so much cisplatin, which has pretty much ruined my thinking.
I really hope you do research work. Stay away from patients. We don't need MDs like you treating human beings.
PREVENTION you got it right, I very much dislike medicines. We need prevention in this country, but again special interest run the meat and dairy industries, how could Obama do something about his friend. Just for the record, learn what a good lifestyle is, check out: www.pcrm.org and www.mcdougall.com if you want to avoid or reverse Heart disease, stroke, diabetes, hypertension, COPD, cancer and all the leading causes of death in this country. This ain't no quack this is the real thing . . .
I meant: http://www.drmcdougall.com/
I like my country medium rare please...and a nice port to go with it.
"change" needs to be in quotes. this isn't real change.
not that i'm surprised. just sayin'
Barack Obama never promised to be the far-left's wet dream, nor will he be such. He's a reasonable, intelligent man -- but he's also only slightly left-of-centre in many ways. And that's fine: that means he will be representing the majority of Americans.
I think too many individuals have stopped looking at the bigger picture.
Peace, Truth, Justice and Liberty.
Whatever.
N/t
Let's not be smug. That's just about everybody's wet dream. (Well, except for a handful of plutocrats who think their wealth actually DEPENDS on everybody else's misery.)
Left of center in the US is still a right wing redneck to the rest of the world, so, although we are all hoping that Obama puts your country back into a position that the world looks up to, I'm afraid ya'll gonna have to do without that health care and taxing the rich nonsense. Cause really, Obama is not a socialist.
You're right, of course. Left of center in the U.S. is still far right in the rest of the world. However, Rome wasn't (re)built in a day. Remember that the conservative revolution proper began in 1964, and it's taken them 44 years of propaganda to shove the Overton Window this far to the right. It's not going to be reversed overnight.
A large part of the conservative movement's success was due to Ronald Reagan's effective use of the bully pulpit for eight years. I'm old enough to remember the first time Reagan floated a little "just thinking out loud" kite about a FLAT TAX RATE at a press conference, and then immediately said "Nah! Forget about it" when he heard the ghasps from the audience. Now it's considered a mainstream idea. Reagan used his sweet-talking abilities, backed up by the newly-minted right wing noise machine, for eight years to convince the American public that CONSERVATIVE=GOOD, LIBERAL=BAD. I think if Obama plays his cards right, moves slowly and carefully, and uses HIS skills as a great communicator, he can undo a lot of the damage that's been done to American common sense in the next eight years.
Simply cleaning up the messes left by Bush is a Herculean task. Or 12.
I think some people thrive on complaining.
For someone who is not even president yet.
The right is already blaming him for everything. It's disgusting that the left is joining in before the man makes one policy decision.
obama is appointing righwing economists... of course the left is complaining--as they SHOULD be.
it drives me nuts when self-described lefties (not that you desribe yourself this way) defend rightwing economic policies.
i still have (fading) hope that obama will govern as a left of center preisdent, but when i see the likes of emanuel, clinton, daschle, and summers as part of his team i begin to wonder if he'll govern from center-right.
The only incoming Democratic president who appointed NEWER and LEFTER staff members than Obama was Jimmy Carter, who staffed the DoJ with people from Nader's consumer protection organization, and staffed the EPA with environmental activists. What was the result? The conservative propaganda machine swatted Carter like a fly, and we got eight years of Reagan and four years of Bush Sr. as a result.
If Obama is really interested in being a ONE TERM president, he should follow Carter's example.
This is one reason I'm not commenting here as much as I used to. I get frustrated with all the negative comments, especially after the world's longest campaign season and all the back and forth that entailed.
I think a deep breath would be in order before the barrage of attacks begin on a president who isn't even in office yet. I would wager he knows a lot more about what is going on and what he's doing than any of us might.
this is a crucial point in time to be reminding obama that he promised change, that the economy is is tatters, and that who he picks to lead up his cabinet is of utmost importance to the nation.
And you don't think he is aware of that? I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt right now because I believe, as I said before, he knows more about what he's doing and why than any of us could know.
...new employer criticized your performance before your first day on the job.
Just like the righty's, you "critics" are simply being unfair, and would be howling at the moon if you were treated in this manor.
This is not a 5yo's soccer game, this is about economic collapse, teetering on the edge of severe depression and you are panting on about being unfair?
that was such a simpleminded response, "left"and"left", i am (almost) speechless.
And if you were "speechless" that wouldn't be so bad today.
Thank goodness Obama isn't as thin skinned to criticism as you appear to be.
Maybe, but it would certainly look a little more like a balanced cabinet if he weren't filling it with conservatives and moderates. Where are the true liberals? How about Kucinich, Sanders, Dean and others? And I do wonder just how much freewheeling BILL Clinton will do; he IS still the darling of the rest of the world.
So I'll give Obama's governing a chance, but I will also let him know that his neglect of the left isn't acceptable - his cabinet needs more balance.
certified dumbass leader made by catering to part of the Nation?
Obama has a herculean task in front of him, and he certainly doesn't need a to do list from any of us. To succeed he'll need all of our help. Aside from pre-emptive bitching, what will you do to help?
beg to differ... in a democracy, what he needs is a to do list from us... pre-emptive bitching just may sway him away from all these inside players he is appointing to some outside help, of which there is much if you look... so far, the foreign policy team and economic team are 90% hawks and vultures and i don´t like it... it´s my world too, damn it... i have a voice and it will be heard... you are not as left as you think...
Do you actually believe that Lincoln would have taken the advice of public opinion relating to the Civil War or Slavery? Or maybe FDR would have asked us what to do regarding the Depression, or WWII? I don't give a shit what anyone thinks of Obama's appointments...he's in control and his people work for him (that was proven in the Presidential race). I choose to give Obama the time to succeed that he has earned.
oh brother. Brother, bitch away. I think the whole concept is fucking outrageously stupid but if that's what trips you, go for it.
You might want to phone his office or hit his website, though. I don't know how many of his staffers read this site.
Actually, I would welcome you going anywhere else and doing your (and everyone else's) PREEMPTIVE bitching.
Something is seriously wrong when we adopt the Bush Doctrine.
anything looks good to us now after bush... i am willing to give obama time, but my faith is weak... this forum gives me aplace to bitch and i will continue to push for a more socialist agenda... free market capatilism is a dismal failure and i don´t get the feeling obama and his team feel the same... have the sneaking suspicion that obama provides the cosmetic change needed to continue the rape and pilage of the american worker... and many are falling for it... color me jaded...
After a long, exhausting campaign, I proudly voted for the best person for this difficult job, and don't regret it.
You clearly have remorse....already! I'm far from a blind follower and simply believe Obama deserves a chance, you don't, and therefore your vote constitutes a mistake...by you!
Sorry.
Have I missed something? Has he completed filling his cabinet yet?
I don't give a shit who he appoints - it is HE who will be president and it will be HE who will make the decisions.
I want experienced people who can get OBAMA's agenda enacted. I wouldn't give a shit if he hired Rush fucking Limbaugh if it got the job done (ok, maybe that is a bit too far, but you get my point).
And PoP, I am with you. It's hard to watch the left eat its own before anyone does anything. I am disgusted more and more by the comments I read.
"eat its own"? are you ignorantly claiming that obama is of the left? do you have any idea what you are talking about? do you think democrat = left, like others here?
you and DemandDem, and several others, have successfully bowed down and submitted yourselves in front of obama. good job, your t-shirt is in the mail. but, note to the pseudo-monarchialists, we live in REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. and that means that it is our right, no it is our DUTY, to be involved in politics, to question our leaders, to complain, to critique, to make demands.
if you want to simply sit back and let our leaders do whatever the fuck they want then maybe you would be happier under an authoritarian regime. but don't bitch when others do what is our responsibility: push for better and more responsible governance.
sure, there are the pathetic posers, like DemandDem, that strive to be followers, to be sheep, to spurn democracy, but don't expect others to.
I'm with ya on this, Samson. Just because I voted for Obama doesn't mean I will passively watch him appoint people I don't necessarily agree with. It's certainly my right to express concerns about his appointments. Frankly, I find it appalling that some, such as LeftandLeft (with whom I most always, in fact, agree), want us to shut up. That's exactly what the Repugs did for 8 years: if you disagree with us, shut up or we'll shut you out. Look at the mess we're in because of it. I think a healthy debate shows that we can agree to disagree, and ultimately find common ground.
It seems many Obama supporters have quite the thin skin. Hey, folks, if you can't engage in a serious discussion HERE, you're gonna have tons of problems in the years ahead as the Repig Smear Machine heats up. Nobody's calling (figuratively) for Obama's head on a platter. We're simply voicing our concerns.
Isn't that what this country is supposed to be about?
No big deal...time will show who is correct.
i, too, voted for obama. living in philly, the common wisdom was that if mccain was to have a chance it would be in PA, and i didn't want to risk a mccain admin. so i voted for obama. knowing full well that i was going to seething from time to time. he could be a great president. he has made some statements (on par with) challenging neoliberalism. and that gives me hope. but i know that the moneyed interests, the centrists, the corporatists, the rightwing, etc are going to be applying a LOT of pressure on obama to govern from the right. and it is up to the left/progressives/liberals to make ourselves heard. such as some of us do.
the notion that we are to trust an elected official to do what's best, without voicing our opinions/concerns/complaints, is beyond me. maybe i am too young to understand that. maybe i am too old. who knows. i just don't get it.
that said, i used to agree with leftandleft all the time, before obama was nominated and then elected. and as long as we aren't chatting up the democratic party i, for the most part, can agree with L&L. but when it comes to submission, or partisanship, i couldn't disagree more.
I don't bow down and submit myself to anyone, so fuck you.
You miss the key point of what I am saying (and have been saying for more than a week now) and that is HE IS NOT PRESIDENT YET. He cannot set policy. He has not made a single policy decision.
And until he does so, I am not going to sit here and bitch about what he MIGHT do...which is what everyone seems to want to do.
So take your sarcasm and innuendo of what I will and will not allow and shove it firmly up your ass.
You are not looking for responsible government - there IS NO OBAMA GOVERNMENT as of yet...you are looking to bitch. Period. So good job. Bitch away, asshole.
It's pretty amazing how SHORT LIVED the celebration of Obama's victory was, isn't it? To think, we came within INCHES of having President McCain, and three more wingnuts on the Supreme Court, to be followed in all likelyhood by a President Palin in 2010. More wars, more massive tax cuts for the rich, and public sector cuts for the poor and middle class. More free trade with countries that pay their workers one dollar a day. More people scraping by on dead-end, minimum wage jobs, cleaning the bathrooms of the plutocrats, while their wealth expands with massive capitol gains tax cuts.
Yet somehow, through hard work and pulling together we got Obama in the White House, and before he's even MOVED IN the same people are bitching as much about him as they were about Bush. *Shakes head in amazement.* Yes indeed, some people THRIVE on complaining.
Actually, half the people who are making these comments are just concern trolls who are trying to break apart the center-left Democratic coalition. (Successfully, it would seem.) The other half are far left loonies who think Clinton was a neo-fascist, and Obama is a neo-fascist-lite because he's not promising to put Cheney and Bush in front of a firing squad, dismantle the Army, send the rich to re-education gulags, and staff the executive branch exclusively with members of Green Peace. Frankly, you're wasting your breath trying to reason with those people, so you shouldn't let it get to you.
If Obama governs as a center-left moderate, the Democratic party will lose a few on the far left, but they'll pick up more from the center than they'll lose on the far left. Obama, who is at least twenty times smarter than ANYBODY who posts on this blog, understands that very well. He knows he's going to lose some of the extreme left with what he does and who he appoints to his staff, and he also knows he'll pick up more from the center than he loses on the far left. This is the first politician I've ever seen that I wouldn't dream of second guessing.
Having said that, however, I'm pretty amazed by how fast the far left is willing to jump ship because they don't understand or care about the value of teamwork. You can say what you like about the loonatic far-right, but for MOST of their long association with the Republican party they were willing to put MOST of their demands on the back burner in exchange for staying in power, and achieving SOME measure of success. Something is better than nothing, which is exactly what you get when you're not in power. The right wing nutcases seem to understand that better than the left wing nutcases.
Well said, well said.. deep breaths everybody!
During the campaign I repeatedly laughed at the "Liberal Obama" meme, countering with "more liberal than Kucinich, really?"
And what I said over and over again was, "We won't get everything we want with Obama, but we won't get ANYTHING we want with McCain."
It's important to keep in mind how bad things have gotten: Obama can, I believe, be trusted to take us from a completly insane government to a sane government.
That will be a big, big improvement.
Couldn't agree more. However, I think it's unfair to be labeling those that are criticising Obama's choices for his cabinet as "eating their own, etc." Since Obama IS centrist (I was going to call him center-right instead of center-left but will compromise for expediencey) the left IS going to have to lobby just as hard to get it's needs met. The huge difference from the last 8 years is that for the next 4 years we actually have a chance of getting some influence.
To think that progressive issues will be at the forefront of a centrist president with a hawkish, insider cabinet is naive at best. The only way it's going to get in there is for us to ask to be included. Obama needs to compromise with the "left" just as much as he needs to compromise with the right and so far I ain't seen any bones thrown our way.
another red herring that the "free marketers" would love to put in place to complete the total destruction of a progressive society.
Wrong. Been done before. Here come the "New Deal Destroyed America" talking points of the week that the GOP and its media hacks have been spewing.
Much bigger than the last bush recession.
Until lobbyists are banned there will be no change.
He is dealing with a corrupt broken government and a collapsing economy.
His first term is going to be hell.
At least he handed off the world to Clinton while he tries to rebuild a collapsed economy.
Happy Holidays comrades!
The Summers appointment is a disaster, and I don't expect him to last.
Can anybody look at how Obama talks, walks, and deals with the issues before him and say he isn't biggest change in the world from THE BUSH? It's not just about getting what you want; it's about getting government to actually function in conformance with the law and the Constitution.
If he gets out of Iraq, keeps the economy from melting, gets some people back to work, and gets a good start on climate change, and follows the law I'll be satisfied for his first term.
Peace, Harmony, Justice for All, and Eternal World Peace might have to wait for his second term.
I only voted for Obama as the lesser of two evils in a state where voting machines were reported to be flipping Democrat votes to Republican ones. I don't expect him to go against his rather DLC voting record. He has after all praised Reagan, and his appointments, along with his voting record, do give an indication that he's as much of a militarist and corporatist as any of them. Until Americans build real progressive social movements, not just ones that shill to raise money for corporate candidates like Obama, it's just gonna be more of the same. As Naomi Klein said right before the election, "Obama's likely to continue many of Bush's programs. McCain would make them worse." That's what a moderate centrist does, keeps things as they are.
To all the early naysayers on the left (my hometown), I remind you of the final quote from Rolling Stone's interview of Oct 30: Q. You like being underestimated in that way [too soft]? A. Yeah. No point in having them see you coming.
I'm okay with that.
I'll buy that, but only if he follows through. How about this:
1. Appoint a Sec. of Interior who will actively and publicly advocate doubling of the budgets of ALL our land management agencies? They've been starved to death for the past 30 years. Where does the $ come from? See #6.
2. On Jan. 20, immediately repeal "Don't ask, don't tell." It is a crime that we discriminate against our fellow citizens who feel the call to answer national service!
3. Eliminate lobbyists. They are a plague on our government.
4. Appoint a Sec. of Energy who will work to make our country 100% green in 5 years. Impossible? Hell, we went to the MOON in less than ten years. Tell the oil companies they can either join the effort or be left behind, facing bankruptcy.
5. A national credit card for all veterans, who can use it to get the heatlh care they need, any time, anywhere. No institution would be allowed to refuse it.
6. Streamline our military: pull ALL forces and resources out of other countries. While it would have been a noble to effort to capture bin Laden, Bush blew it, and now we're in a quagmire in BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan.
7. No more arms sales to any country for any reason. Period. If we truly believe in peace, we shouldn't be agents of war, even by proxy.
That's just my short list. Just a few of those would give me hope for Obama's presidency.
1. GM built and then deliberately killed the EV1 electric car. Tell GM we'll rescue them, but only if they hire back the entire EV1 electric car division and crank out 50% of their cars as EV1s. 25% will be natural gas vehicles, including large trucks, and 25% will be plug-in gas-electric hybrids. No more gas-only cars. Chrysler and Ford will be given similar mandates, with the target of having 50 million electric-only cars in the cities by the end of 2016. (In the cities you spend all your time idling in traffic. Take your foot off the accelerator of an electric car, and you're not using any energy at all. You're also not creating any carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide, solving the smog problem in most cities and knocking a dent in global weirding. ) The other target is to have 50% of all long range trucks running on natural gas by 2016. This will obviously lead to a greater need for electricity and natural gas.
2. Eliminate all business tax on companies that drill for natural gas within the continental United States. Eliminate all the loopholes and tax subsidies for oil companies and charge them the full rate of taxes for using an "old" technology that's only getting us into trouble. BUT, dangle a carrot in front of their face by offering them a TAX CREDIT to drill for natural gas instead. Also give them a tax credit for installing natural gas facilities (to fill those trucks) at their gas stations on the highway.
3. Charge a 5-cent per gallon tax on gasoline, and use the money to develop GEOTHERMAL energy. Geothermal energy is the ultimate future of energy. Nuclear power, clean coal, wind, solar, and natural gas are only bridge technologies. All you do is drill a hole in the ground, pour water down it, and get steam back out. Ask the people in Iceland. A large fraction of their power is already generated from geothermal. From here on out it's only a matter of economy of scale.
4. Eliminate all the FARM SUBSIDIES in the wheat belt that are used for growing wheat and cattle at BELOW COST (and to think farmers are usually the ones who whine the loudest about 'socialism' while they're pulling the switch for Republicans). Let them charge whatever they need to charge for food, we're too damned obese as a nation to begin with. Then take every dollar saved from the farm subsidies and offer it as LOANS to farmers in the wheat belt to buy and install windmills on their wheat fields. The wheat fields and ranches in the wheat belt area also happen to be in the areas of greatest wind, and energy-generating windmills can not only co-exist with wheat fields, but they will run in the winter time when those fields are fallowing. (Thus generating electricity for all those electric cars in the city.) Once the farmers get a taste of earning money from wind electricity, they'll never beg for farm subsidies again.
5. Bring the capital gains tax up to 50% for investments in FOREIGN companies, and bring it down to ZERO for investments in registered American companies. (To be registered as an American company, you have to employ at least 75% of your work force as Americans.) As things are now, the wealthy are getting a 15% capital gains tax (while the guy who WORKS for a living is paying 30%) on the ruse that they will be encouraged to invest their money in company equities. That's true, but since the emerging markets (China, India, Pakistan, South America) have been going up at THREE TIMES the rate of the Dow, they'd be FOOLS to invest in American companies. So, for the last ten years wealthy Americans have actually been encouraged through a lower tax rate to invest in foreign companies that are in direct competition with American companies!
Although he's probably unaware of it, I'll bet that the CEO of General Motors has his 1 billion dollar compensation package invested in a hedge fund that's investing it in HYUNDAI, and driving G.M. out of business! Ironic, isn't it? Put a stop to the idea of subsidizing wealthy Americans to invest in foreign companies that are committed to driving American companies out of business, and encourage them to invest in America again.
6. Give tax credits to the middle class to save money in the banks again.
7. Once the economy starts growing again, go back to Keyenesian principles, and actually take the steam out of bubbles before they burst. The original Keyenesian model was to borrow and spend when liquidity and solvency are frozen (something every politician has done), and cool off the economy when it's running away by increasing taxes, and paying off the debt that was run up when times were bad. (Something NO politician has EVER done.) However, doing this by raising income taxes would be political suicide in a democracy. Therefore, hide the taxes by taxing banks and credit card companies on their profits, thus discouraging them from lending so much money, and using the surcharge to pay down the national debt.
(Incidentally, we'll have to slap a 50% income tax on money that's coming in from the Bahamas, too, because the wealthy are only going to try to shelter their income in fake SHELL COMPANIES based in the Bahamas to avoid paying taxes. If you want to live in the U.S., and enjoy the freedom and security it provides, you're damned well going to have to pay to maintain those things.)
8. We're stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan in one way or another for awhile, but we can minimize our liabilities there. Finish partitioning Iraq (which is what Petraeus is doing, regardless of how they spin it in public) and then quickly withdraw the army to Kurdistan. Build a large airport, and leave a token force in Kurdistan in case we ever have to go back. Do basically the same thing in Afghanistan, for the simple reason that we can't let the Taliban take hold of the country again, and have to do this all over again in ten years.
In the meantime, however, there is no longer any need for the U.S. to have forces in South Korea, Okinawa, or the Persian Gulf. The South Koreans can afford to defend themselves from North Korea. There's no need for us to subsidize South Korea's defense. They can raise their own army (actually, expand the one they have) and pay for it themselves with higher taxes. Those taxes will spill over onto South Korean goods, which will make ours more competitive with theirs. There is also no need for Americans to stand guard over Saudi and Kuwaiti oil wells when, if Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are overrun by Iraq (not likely now) or Iran, or overthrown by a revolution, it's only the Europeans that will suffer from the lack of oil. We're headed towards oil independence, right? So, let the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Europeans and Japanese pay to defend their own oil supply. I don't see why we have to pay for it when we're only using a fraction of it. Also, most of our NATO forces can be withdrawn from Europe. Bottom line is Russia is in Europe, and Iran is closer to Europe than we are, therefore let the Europeans, Saudis and Kuwaitis organize and pay for most of their own defense from Russia and Iran.
There is no reason for America to be the world's policeman. In fact, that's a lose-lose situation. If you claim to be the world's policeman people will accuse you of bullying and hegemony when you do things to prevent foreign aggression, and then turn around whenever something goes wrong and accuse you of not doing your "job" as policeman when something happens and you DON"T do anything about it.
John,
I couldn't agree more. I've been a little disappointed in a lot of the liberal bloggers I read (and whose opinions I've come to trust and respect. A lot.)
It just seems to me that by and large, they're just leaping to judgment way too soon. I know we're all, well, shell-shocked is, I guess, the right word after the last 7+ years.. but please- give the man a chance.
I'm sure I won't agree with every little thing he does, and what thinking person could expect to?
I will withhold my own judgment - at least until about January 21st :)
As for Lieberman... it seems a lot of commentators don't have enough confidence in Pres-Elect Obama (and boy, doesn't that sound good?)- or maybe it's a lack of imagination - to think he a) fully comprehends Short-Ride is a vicious little back-stabbing traitor, b) has a plan to deal with him and c) is smart enough not to share that plan with the world at large..
Wishful thinking? I don't know - but who else knows, either?
Thanks as always for the great work you do here!!
David
Give Peace a chance...:-)
is give obama a chance (even though he voted for the patriot act, retro-immunity for telecoms and the trillion(s) bailout, not to mention escalating in afganistan...
kumba-ya...
...for Obama. It's not Obama's fault that you have some personal confliction issues.
but i am afraid "confliction" is not a real word...
I hope that you and the puppet show in your mind have a good night.
he would not be president elect.
Bitch all you want, but until he does something I will not.
You cannot set policy if you are not the president...and he would not be where he is now if he didn't play these stupid political games.
Do you not understand the reality of politics? No. Apparently not.
Nice site ya got here, John... i am a constant admirer...
First a rumor makes the market soar; then the official announcement makes it fly further. WTF do people want? The guy wields more power over the US financial disposition than the guy who is in the Oval Office! The facts are much more exciting than the conjecture.
the promise to pump another trillion into the richest 1% by obama´s inside players.. the last thing i want is a smooth transition... fuck that... the market needs correcting and that may be bad for investors and such, but the dow has never meant shit to me.. it is all a game for the rich... it has nothing to do with me... let the market crash as far as i am concerned.... then we can get real and stop bailing these crooks out... enough is enough with this fake economy already...
I live in Norway, and have for more than 4 years. Health care is very affordable, but it isn't free.
Access to primary and emergency care is great, but you have to wait for many less than urgent matters. Waiting lists for many surgeries are long.
I wouldn't trade it for America's system for anything, but don't think it's something it's not.
I lost major anatomy, suffered through all sorts of chemo and radiation and filed bankruptcy when all was said and done, because I could not afford to walk into a doctor's office, much less afford the special jacked-up cost of tests (Special and jacked up for people who don't have insurance. When the insurance pays cost the of a test I needed to be diagnosed it's approx $700-$1000, the private citizen is billed $2500 for the same.)
I got blisters between my legs during treatment. The hospital I was at gave me loads of morphine and a prescription for silver sulpha cream. I was waiting 45 minutes in line for it. I got to get it, and my state coverage was messed up that day, and I had to purchase it. She said $17 then "Oh Sorry, that;s the state cost. It's $29."
I'd take the imperfection of the Norwegian system over this inadequate bullshit any day. If I'd ended up living in Norway, as was my plan in the early 90s, my health and body would be much different right now...
unless you have a chronic disease which requires longterm medication. I couldn't tell you how the prices for prescriptions compares, but I can assure you, EVERYTHING is expensive in Norway - with the exception of going to the doctor. A typical visit to a GP or specialist will cost something less than 300 crowns - about 50 bucks, but your annual out-of-pocket for seeing a doctor is limited to about 300 dollars. If you spend more than a few hours in a hospital (for an operation, etc) it's free!
Once again, I wouldn't trade my Norwegian health benefits for care in America EVEN with good health insurance, but don't think it's something it's not.
Yes everything is much more expensive but you also make more money, yes, the average wage per person is much more higher than in the USA.
Another thing from Norway, it is a peaceful nation, the only guns I saw in Norway after many years of living there were at the AMERICAN EMBASSY, not small gun but huge guns, that really irritates the peace loving Norwegians . . . Were most of the cops don't display arms.
In Norway you don't find the dilemma, mmmm my children are sick I can't go to the hospital. How sad that here in America we have on of the best and competent doctors but the people (as in most of them) don't have access to. If instead of messing around the world with our military we would spend money more wisely we could have done that a long time ago. But mr. no Change, excuse me, Obama will keep the same old policy of being the police of the world. I have not heard them speak about bring the troops from Germany, Japan, Romania, etc, etc, etc. It cost 1 trillion dollars a year to keep that empire going, Got change? But no special interest would suffer, how dare you speak about change.. .
And I have a raft of cousins there, up north and in Oslo whom I visited in 1991. It's got a high standard of living and high taxes, but my relatives all had nice stuff good jobs and were big savers. The city folk were very well off, one had just built a beautiful home, another worked as an exec at NRK. I could take the train into Olso and wander around Akershus and that mall on the water.
The country folk were retired whalers and fishers. And they were all healthy, as were the surviving old siblings of my gran, who were still holding down the fort in Henningsvær, Tante Margit and Tante Mölle.
The people in America don't save. They want to have everything on credit. Granted you need credit to buy something big like a house. But what about the other things. In the old day you would save and buy what you wanted. The complain today is "they won't have credit to buy a new car" well, good, save and use the car you already have. LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS!
Obama wants to "revive" the economy "stimulating spending" you got to be kidding me. You mean that he want me to get even more in debt, we have to produce! We have been living on the fruits of the productive years of this country and we have wasted and gotten in debts now. In order to produce we need to remove regulation, overtaxation and the removal of liberty, to be able to think and create. Yes overregulating everything kills it. Wall Street is in big trouble not because there is no regulation but rather because we are not producing good enough things, we waste our time filling papers, rules and regulations instead of using our energies to create and improve things.
The policies of this new administration go on a totally opposite direction. More laws, more regulation, we taxes, more destruction of liberty. We have been brain washed thinking that we are a consumer driven economy, that is a MIRAGE that is not part of reality. Reality is sinking in and we are found poor and broken, other people in this world will be having it good, while we and our descendants will be paying for the debts and mistakes of an interest driven policies. . .
then that's the way it is. My point was that after being in enough pain to go to the ER, get morphine, and standing on line for 45 minutes totally blitzed on opiates, getting held up for stuff that was supposed to be covered (If you pay, even if it was supposed to be covered, you don't get the money back), and being JACKED UP for an additional $12 over the first quote was beyond the pale. The ironic thing is that it did not offer relief as promised, and the silver turned my legs black where it was applied for months. I used less than a quarter of the cream. And at the time, I was getting about $800 (SS) per month and my rent was $625.
Basically all you can do is say "fuck it" and keep going.
There's a better way, and it's harder getting there than it needs to be.
He is being careful and cautions in choosing his crew. Best to start with smart and experienced people in major positions, with the eager (more liberal) new people in lesser positions where they can work hard and learn the ropes.
That plumber guy does not pay his taxes. I guess he'd have lower penalties then, less time in the hoosegow...
I think most are kidding themselves if they think change is coming.
Sorry to burst anyones bubble but his appointments are a very good
indicator of what's to come. The only way things will change is if
we actually change some of the things we do. No more war and an end
to the current form of capitalism. As long as we as a nation continue
to harm other humans this way, nothing changes. If he continues our policy of military aggression and just attempts to "fix" the economy, things will never change. We and the rest of the rest of the world will continue to suffer the consequences of what we have allowed to happen. How about starting with some radical thinking? Stop feeding the war machine. War is wrong and evil. Let me take this even further. Soldiers are far from heroes. They are actually hired killers, nothing more. In fact, if one takes a look at the bigger picture, soldiers are the reason for every war that has been fought in the history of mankind. These deluded souls have been convinced that killing other humans is a good idea. It's not. If they gave a war and nobody showed up, there wouldn't be a war would there? How about that capitalism we all love so much we just had to push it on everyone else? It feeds on the pain and suffering others and is just about out of food. We need to change, and no person or system can do it. We are the ones who have to change. It starts with changing our hearts. If not, may the future generations forgive us.
I agree with some of what you said. The military-industrial complex has driven American foreign policy since WWII. Even Eisenhower warned about it, for all the good it did. Wes Clark (who half the people here think is a war criminal) said "to a man who's only tool is a hammer, every problem has to be a nail." The only publicly-funded institution that the U.S. has actually taken care of is the Army, so when it comes to solving problems, the only tool they have is force. You wouldn't learn this from the media, but while the Army budget has skyrocketed the last few years, the State Department's diplomatic corps has been cut back to the bare bones. The only tool the U.S. has that still works is the Army, and they're attempting to use it to solve every problem.
The U.S. spends 4% of its GDP on the military. The only other country that comes anywhere close to that is Russia at 2%. All the other indistrialized countries spend around 1%-1.5%. The military-industrial complex is lobbying hard to make the 4% waste on military spending permanent.
Clinton was the first president in history to CUT military spending. Check it out:
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Grou...
You'd think that, in light of the fact that Clinton is the only president ever to have cut military spending, the people around here wouldn't be whining so much about the possibility of Obama might govern a little bit like Clinton.
This "Obama won't take my valuable advice" doomsday convention is getting creepy.
Somewhere, LA Confidential is having an orgasm.
an open and frank dialog may freak the lesser of us out... bye, bye...
now maybe the adults can talk
So, LeftandLeft, the only opinion that's valid is YOURS??? Sorry, that's bullshit. Voicing differences with Obama about his appointments is not only healthy, it's the American Way.
Grow up, L&L. Your mirror image is the Repigs for the past 8 years: "If you're not with us, you're unpatriotic."
well now isnt that how it works here ? if you disagree with anything obama says your not welcomed , boy howdy , the posters that have an opinion other then the obama botts are ignored , or given the silent treatment i for one miss la confidential and some of the others that dont parrot each other seems blind obedience is the watchword for many here, my how this blogs changed !and watch how fast they flee this thread!
What policy decision has Obama made?
What, exactly, has he done as president elect from a policy standpoint that you are bitching about?
You call people who actually want to see what he DOES an Obamabot, while I think we are actually waiting to see what he does before tearing him a new asshole.
Shame you do not see the difference.
and what has he actualy done that you slobber at the mouth over ? oh yeah hes made sure you have no right to habieus corpous , hes voted for the fisa bill hes voted for the patriot act hes voted for allmost every slimey bill bush wanted, hes promissed you more war in afganistan jesus what dont you get about hes just another bought and paid for politician, shame you cant see the forest for the trees!
I didn't realize I was slobbering at the mouth. You didn't read what I wrote above, apparently (reading, apparently, is not your strong suit).
And it's a shame you won't wait until he does something.
But go on, bitch away. You seem to enjoy it.
thanks for your permission , i sure wont let your dislike of what i say stop me , and i know what you said ,it doesnt take a college education to read what you said, as for replying to what you said im still waiting for your excusses for obama voteing like hes a republican,and dont give me that old standby he had to sell out the libs to win the presidency, the mans got no integrity,hes allready done something i mentioned a few in the above post!
it is a total sell out to do what you have to do to win an election and attempt to create the change everyone wants so badly. Total sellout. He would be much more effective in the senate with McCain as president.
Come on, tyree, I know you're not that fucking stupid.
And I have missed what Obama has done from a policy perspective as POTUS.
Oh, right, he isn't POTUS. You seem to forget that.
no lady im not stupid at all , and im aware hes not the president yet, but has he since he became president elect told you hes going to recend the bush take aways , you know the ones he voted for? and now that hes the president elect hes been on tv still warmongering for more war in afganistan , who does he have to pander to now? and obamas handlers are allready saying the things hes promissed on the campaighn trail probably cant be expected to be done, and hes done nothing as potus yet and allready they name a school after him, all i head was promisses promisses , and now hes makeing up a cabbinet of clinton administration people ,hell why didnt they just elect hillary and make it complete , as for waiting for change i guess thiers no option but to wait and see,
That's one of the reasons why I went to registered comments...-)
[Sorry John-Sitemonitor]
Gotta go. Time to leave work (Har, har.)
I'm always impressed with this site - even us diehards disagree on occasion, but that doesn't mean we can't still converse. (Disagreeing with the prevailing view gets one banned from most of the freeper blogs.)
Thanks again, John, for believing in open discussions on this site!
If Obama had voted against all those things tyree, he wouldn't have been elected. Would you rather have McCain?
The right would have rallied and portrayed him as soft on terror, anti American, soft on security and on and on and on and on.
I'm not disappointed by his moving to the center. I expected it.
To start calling him out for shortcomings is premature tyree.
It just is. He is a politician. First things first,get the job.
Did people really expect that much change? That quickly?
That's naive. or maybe just wishful thinking.
But that's not real. What is real is, The GOP have been ousted. And from the looks of things,they haven't learned a single thing.
l ifthe american people arent smart enogh to want a president with integrity then they deserve what they get! you people sat here and listened to obama say hed filabuster against a few of the things he voted for and let him get by with it, now how do yah know hes going to keep any promoss he makes if you get lied to before he even becomes president?
He did let us down on a number of occasions .
But I'm willing to wait and see what he does in the future.
The alternative is not acceptable.
I've said in the past that I expected him to do some things that I disagree with. They all do.
Call me a fool, But I'd rather give him a chance than letting the GOP stay in power. I know you liked DK. And he may very well have been the best option. But would he have won?
I don't think so. Yes, we'll just have to wait and see.
well with that i take my leave i have no options like i said i believe in what i saw in the debates , both clinton and obama were hand picked for us, no others needed to apply, being a skeptic i dont think the news whores or the debates were aimed at giveing us any politicians other then thoes chosen by the corporations , we got what they gave us, what they wanted , and i expect little from them, crumbs maby ! as for giveing it a rest im not sure i can , as my opinions are as good as anyone elses here,
You're not the one I have issues with here. So I apologize if I offended you. There has been some people here who just incessantly whine about all of this stuff.
I don't get it. We all wanted change. And I understand that some people feel short changed on that. I'm ok with that.
But getting a Dem in office is change. I know that isn't exactly the kind of change people expected. But it's a start.
And we do have to start somewhere. All I'm saying is give it time. If he doesn't measure up, we vote him out.
no problem muddy !
no reason you should stop saying. I may not agree with all you say, but I know you've been around a long time and have seen a great deal. I have a real hard time being all warm and happy inside, because even though I'm 20 years younger than you, and that sort of joy was crushed out of me by the Kennedy assassinations, the King assassination, the Nixon wins, the Reagan wins and everything since. Some people haven't seen all the shit you and I have, and get bent when you say your piece.
I didn't vote for the guy (I'm a Nader voter) but I am willing to give Obama a chance. I'm waiting to see how he throws his weight around, once he's sworn.
But I think bringing stuff up about 'why this' and 'why that' is very healthy, and I think that it's part of going online and posting a comment.
good post miss kitty! your an open minded a person as one should be , and yes the years of treachery gets to you , all the unanswered questions all the lies makes one cautious , politicians suck !
It seems clear that the Obama economic team is the same one that was cool with all the dereg in the 90's and keeping status quo for the investment class. He picked these people. He had choices, but he cannot or will not stand up the power.
Today we hear that Gates will stay on...???
Those that believe Obama should be given a pass on this apparently aren't outraged enough.
Not half empty.
Half full of shit,
Is that all you could come up with?
I can understand you being disappointed.
But really, try a little harder next time.
That some of these people are not whom they appear to be.
The GOP would never infiltrate liberal blogs to divide us would they?
Yuh THINK? :)
I've been reading your comments, and I agree.
What is wrong with the so-called media pundits and other people who claim that because Obama is appointing former Clinton people that he is NOT an agent of change?
The change is simple to understand: it is from incompetent Republican to competent Democrat. It is from dopey criminals and anti-intellectuals to experienced, proven experts, professionals with proven records orf success. It is from bozo pals and relatives to intelligent, capable people who are dedicated to the job and know what they're doing.
The change brought to America by Obama is massive. How anyone can be stupid enough to question it is beyong my ability to comprehend.
As for whining about former Clintonites, hell, things were GREAT under Clinton; the change is great times again!!!!!
Apparently not everybody thinks so. Like THIS GUY for example. Check him out at the 40 second mark pissing and groaning about Clinton's 2% unemployment rate and soaring Dow Jones Industrial Average, and how there's more to life than a healthy economy and low unemployment. I guess a lot of the Clinton haters here voted for this guy. (Seriously, I think they did.)
"If they bash (or rat) you once - and get away with it - then they will bash (or rat) you again".
So be aware of "collegues" or "friends" who said nasty things about you during the election cycle and are now bing all nice and cudley, they WILL turf you off the cliff (under the bus etc) politically at the first opportunity....
I'm becoming more and more concerned about the type of president Obama will actually be. I wouldn't be concerned if he did what he said he was going to do when he was campaigning. Now it looks like he's backtracking on the repeal of the Bush tax cut. I don't understand why the current economy is impacted by whether the tax cut is there or not. (I can understand to a certain extent the mixed cabinet -- though why you would want "enemy" soldiers in the middle of your battle headquarters, I don't know. The potential leaks and subterfuge should make Obama think twice about that.) My concern is that he will be floating more and more points of view that are different from what he said during the campaign. I will be very disappointed if the whole campaign was based on bait-and-switch.
Login or Register to post comments.