"A new dawn of American leadership": President-Elect Obama announces National Security team
By SilentPatriot Monday Dec 01, 2008 11:00am
President-Elect Barack Obama held a news conference this morning to announce his core group of National Security appointments. Impressive and bipartisan, the team signals a dramatic shift in American policy, or as the President-Elect put it, "a new dawn of American leadership to overcome the challenges of the 21st century."
"And so, in this uncertain world, the time has come for a new beginning -- a new dawn of American leadership to overcome the challenges of the 21st century, and to seize the opportunities embedded in those challenges. We will strengthen our capacity to defeat our enemies and support our friends. We will renew old alliances and forge new and enduring partnerships. We will show the world once more that America is relentless in defense of our people, steady in advancing our interests, and committed to the ideals that shine as a beacon to the world: democracy and justice; opportunity and unyielding hope -- because American values are America’s greatest export to the world."
I also included Obama's response to a question about the so-called "Team of Rivals" and how he will ensure that his team will execute his vision, despite any lingering ideological differences or high-profile personality clashes that may exist amongst them. This is exactly why I have not been among those on the left and right who are criticizing any of President-Elect Obama's choices. To me, the most important aspect of assembling a Presidential cabinet is valuing competence over anything else. As he made crystal clear, he chose this team -- and they all decided to accept his nominations -- because he believes they are best prepared to execute his policies and, echoing the phrase made famous by Harry Truman, ultimately "the buck stops with him."
Head over to Change.gov to learn more about the impressive resumés of each nominee.
Login or Register to post comments.
Morning in America?
YEESSSHH...
may have some reservations about the signals being sent by St. Barack, the Changer...
I would buy the whole meme behind "team of enemies" if there was a single liberal/progressive among his nominations. Since all I am hearing are moderate conservatives (in the best cases) and right out hawks, it seems that so far he has assembled a "team of colleagues."
Color me unimpressed thus far. And yes, I am aware that he has not begin presidentin' yet. But I don't need to see the end of the 110m hurdles to know that wearing clown shoes ain't the best approach for a winning track record.
Is Susan Rice not considered Progressive?
Tyler Durden
Very well said. One has to wonder if the brazen number of hawks in Obama's administration will eventually lead to this outcome.
http://www.darianworden.com/pics/votedemocrat...
Bah, more pathetic concern trollery.
I know very little about Janet Napolitano. The RFT (The Village Group's rag in St. Louis) published this story this week. I haven't had the time to check a lot of this out, but... it makes her look really bad.
http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2008-11-26/new...
Thanks a lot for swiping our governor, Mr President Elect.
Arizona is losing Napolitano as Guv.
Assuming her place will be the ethically challenged AZ Sec. of State, Republican (naturally!) Jan Brewer.
Drazzill fraz it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj3DBcpfMNQ&fe...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZm47SrmuwM
..
....
We will see.... Lets not bust out the champagne yet ok??..
Get it??..
You proles listening??
Capiche?
Personally I think he fucked up big time... although he can at least fire the really horrid bastards when the time comes,...
Unless of course he has already seen that "special" video of the Kennedy assassination...
How bougeoisie of you...
When one is calling others names, it is best to engage a spell checker lest one looks like an idiot.
It is very unbecoming.
I don't agree with the assessment.
I am assuming by 'proles', it is meant proletariat. The term was used in a deprecating sense until Marx.
And perhaps again after Marx.
As for 'Bourgeoisie', I still think of it in terms of disparagement.
A La Fat Cats, sans leurs têtes.
Your right, but when I double-checked my spelling I copied the result. Apparently my first version was correct and I didn't bother to look closer at the term I pulled.
It's like it needed two proof-readings.
This is a government by and for the Bourgeoisie.
It will not be nearly as much change as people seem to be determined to believe, or, if they know better, to pretend. Most may not know better. They may not even know enough to be disappointed.
I knew better as of FISA.
Since then I have been saying this is 'CHANGE YOU CAN PRETEND IN'.
I think it is terrific that the country has elected an African American guy, he is a dead wringer for my next door neighbor who is a wonderful person.
But, I want real change, serious change.
A La Fat Cats, de préférence sans leurs têtes!
I don't have a magic wand. Neither does Obama. He has said that changes are going to take time. It's not going to happen overnight. He also said that the Buck stop with him. You all are whining before he even takes office. Try waiting to see if the agenda he's laying out fails before you start complaining, please.
Perhaps you can excuse our impotence so far...
Some of us take the time to view under the "skirts" .. and have seen the foul deeds committed by a few of his selections...
They are no better then Bush bots..
It is not real change. It is replacing 8 day old underwear for 7 day old undies...
I do still hold out for hope, as do most of us here-- However that does not mean were putting on the black sweatpants, fresh new Nike sneakers, and hopping into the bunk beds after a barb-o cocktail either...
I certainly do hope that Barrack Hussein Obama meets just 20% of our expectations... It would be a world of difference for the future.
Yet,
Give the guy a free pass?.
Never.
And I have nothing but utter contempt for those that would.
Its called integrity...
After 8 years... I think most would understand how fucking valuable that is.
on this!
One wonders which of Senator Clinton's foreign policy decisions clinched her momination for Secretary of State: Her craven 2003 vote to allow George Bush to invade Iraq, or her deafening silence, when co-President with her husband, about the genocide in Rwanda. Economist readers will recall that the sole Clintonian intervention in that slow-motuion slaughter was to instruct US spokespersons not to use the word "genocide" in reference to Rwanda, for fear of actually having to do something about it.
I new better before FISA, by quite a while. I knew during his first major Senate confontation over the Bankruptcy Bill, when he caved in committee and didn't try to block the really draconian provisions which even now are biting us po'folks in the ass...
I'm too old to have even a memory of believing in Tinkerbelle...
In The Audacity of Hope, Obama often triangulated between conservative and liberal political positions, if triangulated is the right word. He may be like many of us who follow a conservative principle in our personal lives (such as positions on gay marriage or abortion) but take the progressive position politically, admitting that our own personal beliefs in personal matters should not be the basis for lawmaking.
Conservatism and progressivism/liberalism are mutually incompatible, as we all know. You cannot provide benefits for taxpayers while at the same time refusing to govern with programs and regulation and oversight. You cannot refuse to provide benefits for taxpayers while using their tax dollars for wars of choice (the conservative position we've seen for the last eight years).
We simply don't know what will lead Obama to take a politically conservative position in some matters, since he seems to be comfortable with "triangulation". I think he too easily gave way to Congressional Democrats on telecom immunity, and he sure turned conservative on that vote, reversing his earlier stand.
Well, I know many are enthusiastically "trusting" of Obama and say we must give him a chance. He'll get that chance now, and I hope he passes muster. But I must say that I am not comfortable with someone who is willing to "triangulate" right, simply because I think conservatism and progressivism do not work together, not even from a pragmatic viewpoint.
....until Dumbya and his disciples totally fucked that golden opportunity up.
Introduced on Oct 23, 2001.
Passed House Oct. 24, 2001.
Passed Senate Oct. 25, 2001.
Signed by Chimp Oct 26, 2001
Oh, yeah! i'd hafta say that worked out real well, all things considered...oh, yeah
it was bypartisanlicious!!!
Did anyone else almost confuse Dr. Susan Rice with Condi?
I did...glad I clicked the link at the end :(
I hear tell condi's coming out
With her own brand of dirty rice.
I wouldn't wish the challenges that Obama faces after Bush on anyone. It's really daunting and overwhelming. I can't say that I'm pleased with some of his picks but let's give him some time to apply his "vision"-thingy. After 6 months or so, we should have a fairly good idea where his administration is going to go (or *not* go!).
Let's hope they don't "go" all over us.
Just hear it on NPR!
President-elect Obama announced minutes ago that he will be forming a new Department of Peace and will nominate to this cabinet-level post Congressman Dennis Kucinich!
... Nah! Just kidding. That really would be change, wouldn't it.
Who needs Kucinich when we'll have the hippie team of Hillary Clinton and flowerchild Robert Gates spreading peace, love, and understanding all over the globe?
Right?
http://howbits.com/wp-content/uploads/bill-hi...
Now..now. I know some of us progressive, angry far-lefties are not so happy with some of BO's picks but we really do need to give him a few actual months on the job before saying "nuh-uh".
flowers in the muzzels of m14s i like that, how sweet it be!
like this one are probably too small to accomodate much more than a slender reed, since they're all 5.56mm caliber. You'd jam'em plumb up with a chrysanthemum...
You dirty bastard.. I almost turned NPR on..
hahaa
No questions or discussion for 8 years with the Bush/Cheney Appointees who were unqualified for their positions. 8 years later with the mess our country is in and the distrust of those around the World because of the lies told by the White House. Now Americans are questioning the most qualified experienced people Obama has picked. That says alot about why Bush/Cheney Mafia do so well for 8 years.
"No questions or discussions..."
Huh? Where ya been?
"No questions or discussion for 8 years with the Bush/Cheney Appointees who were unqualified for their positions."
?? I and others asked plenty of questions for much longer than the last eight years.
"8 years later with the mess our country is in and the distrust of those around the World because of the lies told by the White House."
Lies coming out to the US White House started well before the year 2000. Say... 1785 roughly?
White House was first occupied by a US president in 1800, so I guess that would be when the lies commenced flowing from that edifice, according to the White House itself:
"Construction began when the first cornerstone was laid in October of 1792. Although President Washington oversaw the construction of the house, he never lived in it. It was not until 1800, when the White House was nearly completed, that its first residents, President John Adams and his wife, Abigail, moved in. Since that time, each President has made his own changes and additions. The White House is, after all, the President’s private home. It is also the only private residence of a head of state that is open to the public, free of charge."
Imagine that-- free of charge for a public tour.
I think that depends on how you define Head of State. Although she lacks power it's my understanding that the Queen of England is a Head of State, and her castles are open to tours as long as she's not in residence. I don't know if they're free or not.
Napolitano needs to be a different person if change can come to the DHS. Scary xenophobic sheriffs rejoice!
Well, seriously, a good in-depth look:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/26/as_oba...
I'm already sick of hearing about the so-called "Team of Rivals"
The media plundits need these equivalencies. It's their job to make things look more interesting than they really are.
so we are stuck with sound bytes and slogans.
Even though I can understand the rivalry among wolves when deciding which part of the sheep to eat, it does not make me (the proverbial sheep) feel any better.
Gonna start using it......
When it comes time for a sequel...
....to get us out of Bush's shit canyon, unhappy Liberals be damned. Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter, this is certainly not the time for Dubya style partisian vendetta bullshit(check out the last eight years, progressive revenge seekers).
We will need every American to clean up this shit.
but it seems that your boy Obama has decided that he does not need a single liberal/progressive to clean the mess.
So I guess I am off the hook. Nice try trying to equate some of us who don't feel like being thrown under the bus with the Bush peeps. Classy...
I have seen you complain about this on several threads. I am just curious who you would have liked to have seen appointed and to what post. No snark, just wondering.
I don't have particular names, alas I would have liked to see a more "balanced" team.
If he truly is trying to assemble an all-inclusive team, he seems to have forgotten the are liberal/progressive members among the Dem party. Although he is floating around Richardson as secretary of commerce. From the nominations discussed in this thread, only Rice does not spook the heck out of me, and thus you can understand my initial distrust of Obama's choices.
I would have most definitively liked to see Gates replaced, his continuity shows a level of tolerance with respect to the previous administration that I find a tad unsettling to tell you the truth.
Does this make sense?
maybe there's a reason BO is keeping Gates there. I doubt it has anything to do being liberal and progressive, conservative, etc. I dislike it as well, but see it as a practical move. I'm sure Obama has a short list of candidates for SOD but they'll need to be brought up to speed. Who knows, it could be pie in the sky, but Gates may work well with Obama.
However, it strikes me as odd for a person who ran on a platform of "change" to keep elements of the previous failed administration.
And one of the biggest failures by the Bush cabal is the so-called war on terror.
So I think the move of keeping Gates put, sorta kinda contradicts the whole meme of change, dunnit?
Of course it does. I'm uneasy about some of his choices and will be in the future, but I trust that he's trying to do right.
I'm going to defer my criticism until he starts governing. He promised a lot, and I believe he'll try his best to deliver. Well see.
....or he wouldn't have been offered or accepted the job....he knows where Obama stands.
I guess to you stupid Obama hired a traitor.
I find my self agreeing with .. and becoming more and more like..
Tyler Durden...
and don't tell anyone about the fight club thingie.
Agreed BUT....it has nothing to do with revenge and everything to do with righting wrongs and j-u-s-t-i-c-e.
there are no 'rivals' from the left.
Is it cuz he thinks himself to be an adequate representative of that position?
That's why we keep records...Mr. O's has NEVER thrilled me with its vision or virtue.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081208/greider...
He wouldn't be where he is if he weren't.
You think the owners of the country regard elections as varieties of russian roulette? you figure they let just ANYBODY be president? he HAS HAD to prove his reliability on countless occasions. If there were ANY danger that he would pose ANY danger to the owners, he'd be in jail or dead...
Let's hope that the new theofascist State is a little bit better than the old one. Problem is this new terrorist traitor is zero different than the Bush regime. The same old corporations and criminal enterprises still run this country, and Obama is just another god damned traitor.
You seem to use the term traitor as cavalierly as rash limpballs, his ditto-heads, and others in the punditocracy.
Good thing the Constitution is more specific.
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/12/hbc-90003938
Fred Barnes? The man that wrote "Rebel in Chief," a hagiography about W. Bush?
He's praising Obama?
And no, it's not reverse psychology.
Oh, the Hillary Clinton that helped get us into an imaginary war with thousands of real dead and wrecked lives. The same one Obama claimed did not have the correct judgment... change my ass.
I'm not too big a fan of Bill Richardson, but would not that have been a more reciprocal approach to the millions of hispanics who reached out to him with their votes with no vice/versa track record... even if Richardson is about Hispanic as southwestern furniture.
Obama made Bill Richardson Commerce Secretary.
I suspect a return to NAFTA principles.
After someone turned down the offer. Throwing Richardson second-hand scraps... a man who endorsed Obama while taking a lot of heat for it.
That's change I can believe in. Lol.
This site no longer needs trolls.
Someone who criticizes obama's choices of clintonites is a troll?? Ah, the word 'troll', a safety shield for the dimwitted.
More to the point: This site no longer desires a diverse range of opinions.
We'll just have to wait and see what happens. By the way all of you whiney-assed bitchez, you're all beginning to sound like a bunch of republicans; minus the Jesus sprinkles.
JFC indeed.
Oh, you're one of those "my side is right" as if there was a right side in a corrupt two party system. Read more... you're not as witty as you would hope to be.
Way to assume. BTW, you're still sounding like a whiney bitch!
bilhelm: "Now now, everybody, we need to give these people a chance, now now, its still early, now now, now now, now now." Grow some balls... this is a joke, akin to your online machismo.
I didn't realize I came off as the "tough guy on the forums". Sorry girls, I'm gay!
silly maybe, tough... not really.
How long could a Democrat zombie survive?
Do they make tofu brains?
I drive a Prenis!
sounds like a million dollar idea to me!
Big 4 pound gift boxes for christmas maybe...vegetarians could even replace the Tgiving turkey with a big 10lb tofu zombie brain!
not only would your demozombie last longer but you could really freak out your friends at halloween!
(by eat'n em)
I always wanted to put out a line of Halloween donut holes, with food die to change the color of the chocolate chip irises, to make them look like eyeballs.
Friends don't let friends eat friends
Unless they smoke cigarettes afterwards.
True that, my friend.
I think this writer is being somewhat naive in emphasising "competence" alone, as if this can be separated from the policies that the official supports and executes. These moderates and hawks are what they are and they will voice the same interests that they sought to secure with such competence again, and again. I think it is naive as well to ascribe to Obama a power sufficient to check the interests of those more conservative and hawkish. Furthermore, I think it would be remiss for us not to consider what it says about the real interests of our president-elect by his choice of less progressive members. And even if the president truely had progressive intentions, "The buck stops with him" is mere rhetoric. No president is that powerful. He has invited into his cabinet some very bad apples. Again, I think the more accurate interpretation of his choice of officials is that they reveal the true leanings of our president which is right of center. In fact, I think we should be honest and expect a repeat of the Clinton era during which we really had a republican in democrats clothing who talked a good talk.
Good analogy. Was kind of wondering when someone would actually bring that up. Am I wrong, my understanding is the Presidents ONLY job is signing bills into law Congress passes. He does not introduce anything himself. Is that right? So, where exactly is Obama's agenda going to come from?
Did you reflect on the last eight years at all before tapping that out?
As some posters on here have stated and were unpopular, you can't have it both ways, can you? I mean if the buck truly stops at the Prez, and the agenda is really all his, then that really leaves Bill Clinton as one of the worst Presidents in history, does it not? After all, he continued Welfare reform, NAFTA, deregulation of industries, etc. So what is it? It can't be both.
You really don't know how it works do you?
I thought we were gonna have a change from all that "I'm the decider" shit!
Apparently being the "decider" is all right if it's the right "decider"......after 8 years you really would think people wouldn't want that, but obviously they need it.
Ya I have figured it out Ron. Dems always good-Repubs always evil. It's clearly black and white all the time on every issue.
Nope, reality has a nasty habit of stepping in and upsetting everybody's apple carts.
But whatever percentage of attention we get from the Democrats dwarf the repubs.
It wasn't that long ago we were debating what is is, now it's torture.
Trying to remind 'em of the reasons they are where they are today, and what they said about why we would help get 'em there.
And no, just assuring that the baby-killer and his bint wouldn't get in there isn't enough.
If it were, there'd have been no reason to make liberal representatons.
So i'll just stand out here in the weeds and take the occasional shot, and keep 'em on their toes, stepping light and lively...
Not one of you have offerred up names of better picks.
The sniping is all bullshit until we see viable progressive alternatives that are reasonably well qualified.
What I don't see
Mon, 12/01/2008 - 12:34 — ron
Not one of you have offerred up names of better picks.
Him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HWa9asBxw8
....this way at their new jobs. The fundamental unfairness from some of the commentors here are truly laughable. These are the drunk NFL football fans turning on the coach after every play...from the safety of the stands of course....and they're smarter than he is.
Hannity is somewhere reading this negative bullshit and wacking off.
Wacking what off?
on the job process.
I think it is fair to request a "wait and see" attitude.
But that does not answer the questions raised by some liberals on the sheer lack of progressives in Obama's cabinet. Which I believe is a fair question to ask, no?
Now that were a "Muslim" nation...
Once Obamer swears on that there.. Kore-Ann , you might wanna watch that talk...
Infidel..
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5rowz_conan...
Tyler, I don't think you can appoint someone CEO of a company on the verge of bankruptcy, ask him to save everyone's job, then attack his selections to hopefully rescue the company before he and his people have ever been given a chance to succeed.
president "CEO" I would think people would be more weary of comparing the workings of the government with a private business.
In any case, if I were a shareholder and the newly appointed CEO is hiring some questionable members to his management team, you bet your arse I would voice my discomfort with his choices.
Resumes are a fundamental part of the job market, BTW.
...argument....you may continue playing though.
Maybe you should refrain from making awful business analogies regarding hiring, if you missed something as important as the role of resumes.
Anyhow, can some adult actually make a rational case for Obama's picks?
I still don't get it that you complain about a lack of progressives and liberals yet you can't name anyone that you would choose. That doesn't make any sense to me. I would think that someone who is so righteously indignant would have some ideas. That's all.
Look, the lack of suggestions for alternatives does not automatically render invalid the argument regarding the current appointments. Such efforts to dispell an argument simply because one does not have the answer to the problem in certain terms does not mean that person is unqualified to state the problem. In fact, the clearer one is on the record of persons being chosen can be sufficient to bring about a deeper inquiry for the alternative.
But to start, how about to foreign policy we offer a position to Noam Chomsky; for a position on domestic policy, Michael Parenti; for a an economic appointment, Naomi Klein.
than deflect criticism by shifting the burden of proof.
Just my $0.02
I won't defend or criticize Obama's appointments until they do something that warrants either...it's called fairness.
Other than "shut up, wait and see" do you have a concise defense on Obama's cabinet choices?
Gates' has been on the job for a while, and he has fucked up plenty, so... can we criticize now? Or do his sins get magically cleansed by Obama's super duper "change" mantra?
I'm not convinced those right-leaning cabinet members of Obama will shift left, given their histories, and neither am I convinced that Obama will force them to do that, given his history. He won't get consensus from his staff on some issues, and he'll be the sole arbiter in cases where he can't. We'll see his mettle then.
Mon, 12/01/2008 - 12:49 — Tyler Durden
Actually, you're the one making accusations against Obama's selections, so the burden of proof is on you.
...or a solar eclipse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=840B27zYfOk
if he is running on a platform of change. How does keeping the secretary of defense of the previous administration in place bode with Obama's electoral platform. Especially, since he (Obama) already made a case for the war to be a bad strategic decision. I tend to think that keeping one of the actuators of such bad strategic decision in place, is somewhat unbecoming of Obama's message of change.
Same for the relatively large number of DC insiders he has selected, when he ran on a campaign of "change from old the old ways of Washington."
What I am waiting is to hear an actual defense of the picks, not an attempt at deflecting any criticism.
So who would YOU hire
The butcher, the baker, the candle-stick maker?
Maybe the change is in results not ideological purity, and results are hypothetical at this point.
I wasn't expecting the resident clown to provide an actual constructive defense of Obama's picks?
Do any of the adults have an actual answer to justify Obama's picks?
Experience and continuity, but now we must see if he can turn it his way.
How about this guy for Obama's pick for ambassador to the Vatican?
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/photo/20...
Come to think of it weren't we faulting boosh for making appointments based on loyalty and not skill?
Ysby made a great point concerning "the burden of proof".
You attack him conveniently evading the question.
Look. The guy NEVER agrees with me.
I disagree with that.
1.) Bruce Fein
2.) Glenn Greenwald
3.) Jonathan Turley
4.) Michael Ratner
I'd REALLY love to have a notorious, contentious, crusty trial lawyer in there. Somebody who knew--had PROVEN-- the law was NOT just there to protect the rulers from the unruly. Kinda wish John Edwards handn't let his dick get in the way. Eliot Spitzer, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpuNE1cX03c
he's only 70.
Bring Amory and Hunter Lovins into the Govt. somewhere. Environmental visionaries. Real smart people.
Lawrence Tribe at Justice.
The thing is, they're not even dropping leftish names.
Bobby Kennedy for EPA?
C'mon, throw us a bone, chuy!
I'm sure he'll toss us a bone.
But for some here, Obama's there chuy toy.
You are right that the lack of suggestions does not automatically invalidate the argument. However, when one is vigorously decrying the lack of balance and claiming that qualified candidates in the ranks of progressives were overlooked, it begs the question. Who? Who was overlooked? Who do you feel would bring the balance that you would want to see?
Just posing the question over and over is not exactly thought provoking, just irritating.
Do you mean Naomi Klein the author?
I was elected president of the united states.
Tell you what, when I am elected president I will let you know who I think should be part of the cabinet. Until then, I am afraid I am not paid enough to do the research for team Obama.
What I think I am entitled to, is as a progressive/liberal to be relatively alarmed by the sheer lack of progressive/liberals in the cabinet of the supposedly "liberal" candidate/party. Now, if anyone can make the case on why I should not be weary of the choices, by all means do so. Simply deflecting a question with another question does nothing to address some of the concerns I have.
The only answer I have got so far is regarding keeping Gates as a conduit to preserve continuity. Now, I tend to think of "continuity" as being somewhat opposed to "change" which is what we were promised. Now, again, are these not valid concerns to have looking at these nominations?
BTW, Naomi Klein (I believe) is Canadian.
Your question was valid and you are entitled to be as "alarmed" as you want. It just rings hollow to me to essentially say that you don't know who you want but you know it's not them.
... and since I never claimed I have the answers I don't think it is fair.
I don't have to be a cook in order to not like a shit sandwich.
That is an arbitrary benchmark...
Mon, 12/01/2008 - 14:37 — Tyler Durden
... and since I never claimed I have the answers I don't think it is fair.
I don't have to be a cook in order to not like a shit sandwich.
___________________________________________________________
Actually you're the one with the arbitrary benchmark. Your scatalogical reference isn't even original, but seems to echo Justice Potter Stewart, who wrote in Jacobellis v.Ohio (1964), "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." Your reference was also a good example of false analogy as well as false dilemma. There are many good sanwiches on a good menu, watercress, pbj, blt, club, roast beef, sloppy joes, meatball, submarine, pastrami and rye, pepperoni and other cold cuts, even banana and many others. I used to love scrambled eggs sandwiches and have the ticker to prove it.
Do me a favor, if we ever go out to eat lunch let me pick the diner.
You gotta admit that its hard to find good sandwich fixins' nowadays
...especially if your eatin at the "Mainstream" resturant in downtown Washington (Obama's favorite I hear)
Actually I did too.
Under sandwiches (open faced)I should've included this:
http://jalanjalan.com/ericbeef/ericbeefarc/DS...
... one day, you may come to realize you are not the only one with basic knowledge of history.
If having a solution was a requirement to have an opinion, then 99.9% of the posts in this site are automatically disqualified. Heck, neither you nor Fanom for example come even remotely close to meet the benchmark you are requesting from other people to meet in order to express opinions.
However, the sheer inability (or unwillingness) to directly address some of the concerns expressed regarding the selection made by Obama by some of you is quite exasperating.
So do I need to endure yet another round of tangential counter argument, pedantic off the mark references, and general hand waving regarding the questioning on why there are literally no real progressives in the cabinet Obama has put thus far?
You still haven't made your case.
The burden of proof is on you.
There have been several attempts to directly address your questions, but you choose to ignore them.
And who defines what a "real progressive" is, you?
That's argument by false authority.
Presenting a case isn't the same a proving a case.
That's the tactic boosh used to respond to the AUMF.
Of course in his case it worked, but look at the expense.
Wow, yet another increasingly tangential and pedantic non-answer!
So basically what it comes down to is that expressing concern regarding the lack of real progressives/liberals in Obama's cabinet choices, and requesting an explanation on how such choices by Obama do not warrant a negative evaluation is akin to Bush's MO, now?
Actually, she has dual citizenship.
Gates is only given a year, that sounds like about enough time to start pulling troops out of Iraq. A new guy might delay that or do it too erratically. That would be a good change.
I'm not sure who appoints sub-secretaries but if it's President Obama either alone, or working with Gates, they can start grooming the next Secretary of Defense for a year from now.
Feingold, Wexler, Kucinich, David Walker (anyone seen I.O.U.S.A), ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR...
But then again there's the leadership thing... shouldn't he be somewhat awing us with his out of box approach of picks as opposed to "Wow, conservatives believe he's on the right track."
obama: "We will show the world once more that America is relentless in defense of our people, steady in advancing our interests, and committed to the ideals that shine as a beacon to the world: democracy and justice; opportunity and unyielding hope"
"democracy and justice; opportunity and unyielding hope"...it would be awesome--despite the hawkish obama administration--if this were the case. (was it ever the case, i wonder)
i agree with tyler and others that cringe at obama's choices. the choice can only be viewed as being pragmatic as long as the majority of americans are as uninformed as they are. i think his choices shed light on how he plans to govern, from the center-right. and, if that is the case, it hardly constitutes change. vee vill see.
hope for the best, plan for the worst, is my motto.
sorry for the run on sentence.
I'm always getting the runs.
Absolutely pathetic group of war mongers and more of the same. Anyone waiting for "change" to come out of DC hasnt read their history. Folks...THE PEOPLE will have to take their country back and I meand TAKE!
I am very wary of the Hilary Clinton nomination as well as the holding onto Gates. I never particularly cared for Clinton's political leanings (save for national health care). However, I understand that most of these nominations are just figureheads for their departments, and the majority of the work and policy writing is done by the underlings. Those people's politics are what I want know.
I've never been one to think an Obama administration would be the panacea for every ill that America faces, but I'll give Obama a chance first before I start throwing hypothetical tomatoes at him.
On a side note....has Krugman been offered some sort of economic advisor postion?
The Departments are run however the Secretary wants it to be run. If the Sec wants to be hands off, it is.
But can you imagine HRC being hands off?
Which is why I am wary. But, I want to see who else will be in the department with her. I have to admit that the whole HRC nomination is a really sore spot for me. She is just a wrong choice for that position.
*Hooray for armchair politics!*Here's what her bio states from the link:
"Over nearly four decades in public service, as an attorney, First Lady, Senator, and presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has become one of the nation's foremost champions for children and families and advocates for women's rights and human rights."... does this scream Sec. of State to anyone?
That was a very poor choice and the other choices are very suspect.
she displayed great courage under fire in one of her many missions as a first lady.
So, maybe Obama was thinking on having a self reliant sec of state, as a way to reduce her security detail, and thus saving tax payer money during these times of need.
Same with Gate's continuation, no need for signing or relocation bonuses for a new sec of defense. More savings!!!
Thrifty feller Obama is!
Mon, 12/01/2008 - 15:10 — wheyghey
But can you imagine HRC being hands off?
Maybe that's why Bubba needed Moanica.
Hawks for Hillary
This is the kind of problem progressives have with some of Obama's staff choices. They've made the neocons too happy for comfort.
Will Hillary disappoint them?
"...because American values are America’s greatest export to the world." Wow. I always thought it was our Cluster-Bomb munitions that were our greatest export. American Values? Is this guy addressing a nation of retards with no long-term memory? Answer: yes.
the Clinton pick today...
http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/2008-1...
I'm off to watch Badder Santa.
Login or Register to post comments.