Another Clintonista Joins the Club

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by sos37

 

Don't need a poll.. Bay Buchannan said it repeatedly during the campaign.

Oh and go look at FlyersFans post above.. he seems to think so as well.

Btw, weren't you supposed to be starting some anti-obama website or something... what's that URL?

[edit on 19-11-2008 by HunkaHunka]

As for the website, yep. Sure am. But Obama hasn't taken office yet has he? So the website isn't public yet and won't be until the same day he takes office, Jan. 20, 2009. That is, IF he's allowed to take office. He still hasn't shown a vaulted copy of his birth certificate yet has he? I'm sure the Democrats are thinking - "it would be a pity if the records dept. of Hawaii had a fire." But it sure would look suspicious. But I'm sure Obama would never resort to torching an institution to cover himself, would he? At least Ayers bombed buildings to protest a war, which was a totally legit reason to bomb a building /*sarcasm off */

[edit on 19-11-2008 by sos37]

reply to post by FlyersFan


Kind of hard to see if he's changed anything until after he's had a chance to do so.

The Clinton administration was a very good one--to a lot of people at least. It's no wonder the president-elect would surround himself with some successful members of the Clinton team, as well as taking advantage of other outstanding Democrats who have not served in that capacity (like Daschle). I've no doubt he will also hire Republicans and independents for some of the many jobs he has to fill, but probably not enough to seriously undermine his own policies and initiatives. No doubt there are some Republicans and others who would despise any Democratic administration, and in this case Obama will always be wrong in their estimation and in their ideology--that probably won't change.

I'm not clear about what kind of change some of you are looking for, other than you want to see a radically different way of doing things in Washington. In Washington there are three branches of government: the executive (the president, v.p., cabinet, etc.); the legislative (the House and Senate) and the judicial (the Supreme Court et. al.). The three branches check and balance one another. This is in the Constitution; it will not change. The Obama administration will work with these three branches; this may not be radical enough for some but I fervently hope this will not change either.

I am guessing, then, that what many of you want is more bi-partisan cooperation in Congress, a reduction of the influence of lobbyists, fewer earmarks (though I'd argue that some are necessary), more fiscal responsibility. As for the use of lobbyists by the Obama transition team, the ones who do work on it will not be allowed to work in the area that they are lobbying for (for ex., no pharmaceutical lobbyists in Health and Human Services) and must agree not to lobby for an extended length of time after they leave.

It's too early to tell about the other above changes; the man hasn't been inaugurated yet . As another poster has already said, the big changes in an Obama administration will be changes in policy and in some new approaches to key issues, in the legislation he proposes--what he gets done while in office. What he actually accomplishes will depend in large measure on his ability to work with Congress, something "Clintonistas" and other experienced Democrats can help him facilitate.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Sestias]

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Sestias]

Excellent post, Setias! So Well-said!

Originally posted by Sestias
I'm not clear about what kind of change some of you are looking for

I'm quite sure that the people who are complaining about this are NOT looking for change at all. In fact, I think they're actually scouting for things to STAY THE SAME, so they can complain and be in a position of righteous indignation, chanting "No change, no hope, no unity" like spoiled brats.

They're not mentioning the things that HAVE changed, like Obama's support for Lieberman when most of the Democratic party wanted to punish him. This crowd just complained that Obama hadn't done enough to support him keeping his chairmanship. Obama's reaching out to John McCain 2 weeks after the election was barely mentioned here. Or his many "new" picks like David Axelrod, Chris Lu, and possibly Janet Napolitano, Penny Pritzker and Kathleen Sebelius. Nobody's talking about them. Because they DO represent the change he was talking about. No one's mentioning how very different Obama's approach to the transition has been so far. How he's taking on a bit of the "team of rivals" aspect.

This is in the Constitution; it will not change. The Obama administration will work with these three branches; this may not be radical enough for some but I fervently hope this will not change either.

Agreed!

reply to post by Sestias


So I guess you liked paying higher taxes under the Clinton administration? You do realize that the Clinton administration was riding on the coattails of the end of Reagan-era economics, don't you? Not even Clinton raising taxes through the roof could put a dent in the solid economy that Reagan built.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Personally, I took Obama at his word about "change" (changing DC and how things were done and who was going to be doing it). Of course, it is never a good idea to take a politician at their word about anything at all, but .....

In my mind, change does not entail hiring the same people who have been entrenched in creating the problems for years to handle policy and the running of a new administration. That does not demonstrate the kind of "change" I thought Obama was talking about.

But, that is only my opinion.

Like I have said before, I didn't vote for Obama, but he is my President-elect, and I will support him as such and respect him and his office. Time will tell what he will do, but personally, I just don't see his "changes" getting off to a promising start.

JMO....

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm quite sure that the people who are complaining about this are NOT looking for change at all. In fact, I think they're actually scouting for things to STAY THE SAME, so they can complain and be in a position of righteous indignation, chanting "No change, no hope, no unity" like spoiled brats.

There is no 'they' chanting 'no change, no hope, no unity'.
Just me - because it's true.
Your use of the word 'they' is transparent.

You tell multiple lies about me on threads and now say
that I'm a spoiled brat for posting the TRUTH.
Your faux-analysis of my motivation is disgusting and dead wrong.
You've become pathetic in your off topic rants. :shk:

Originally posted by skeptic1
change does not entail hiring the same people who have been entrenched in creating the problems for years to handle policy and the running of a new administration. That does not demonstrate the kind of "change" I thought Obama was talking about.

That's exactly the 'change' that was implied by Obama for the past 2 years. He said he'd change how things were done in Washington. He said that all these people were part of the problem. He said that he wouldn't have an administration that was run the old way of doing things. No lobbiests either. But now that he's got the job - he's not following what the people expected - and they expected it based upon what he said. He's just a typical poltiician.

Again - NO change. No hope. No unity. And that's the truth.


edited immediately to fix quote


[edit on 11/20/2008 by FlyersFan]

This is the most pathetic thread.

It's hilarious to hear all of those who didn't even vote for BHO claiming that this isn't change.

Yet at the same time, all of us who actually voted for him are saying that change doesn't come with personalities in the system as much as the executive leading the show and his policys that emanate from him THROUGH those people who have been chosen.

Anyway, this thread can be summed up in one phrase

Those who didn't vote for Obama, still don't like him.

Originally posted by skeptic1
Personally, I took Obama at his word about "change" (changing DC and how things were done and who was going to be doing it).

But did you honestly think he meant that he would hire 100% new, inexperienced, non-Washington people? I'm really curious as to your answer.

I took him at his word, too, and as yet, I have no reason to think the message still stands and that he will bring change once he gets into office.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
There is no 'they' chanting 'no change, no hope, no unity'.

That's true, but there is no shortage of people complaining. If you read the whole paragraph, you'll see I was talking about a group of people. It's not all about you. In fact, very little is about you. I'm talking about the group of people who have changed their attack on Obama to be "No Change". You're just one member of that group.

I have no idea what you mean when you say I've lied about you, but that's clearly off-topic and personal. I've zero interest in pursuing that one.

Good morning, everyone...

I couldn't help but notice that tempers are getting a little short. Any political discussion can get short tempered and touchy...but I know that all of you are smarter than that. Let's prove it by keeping the conversation civil and on point.

Thanks, and carry on...

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Yes, it is funny to hear those who didn't vote for him tell us why we voted for him and what our expectations of him were.

I expected complete change from the Bush Administration, and that's what I expect to get.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Honestly, I thought there would be fresh faces. Not inexperienced people, but new people. Not recycled politicians from previous administrations, but "outsiders" that would be the "face of change".

Experience is good, and it is needed for Obama's administration. However, there are people in this world with experience in areas where Obama's administration needs it other than current politicians and former Clinton administration officials.

I would have thought that Obama would have looked outside of DC and outside of "politics" for some of his administration officials....like maybe in the private sector. If you want to change how things are done in DC, you don't want to appoint "DC insiders" to implement that change. And, maybe he will do that for other appointments, but it doesn't look like it (to me) from the way he is starting off.

That's where I am looking at this from. But, like I said numerous times before, I didn't vote for him, but I am willing to give him support, respect, and a chance. I just really don't see fundamental change taking place with all the same old people knee-deep in this administration.



[edit on 11/20/2008 by skeptic1]

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Honestly, I thought there would be fresh faces.

As an Obama voter, I didn't.

Originally posted by skeptic1
Honestly, I thought there would be fresh faces. Not inexperienced people, but new people.

Did you think they ALL would be new, though? That was my question. You know that Obama has literally thousands of people to hire and appoint. Isn't David Axelrod a new face? Chris Lu, Janet Napolitano, Penny Pritzker and Kathleen Sebelius. They're all "new".

I expected a mix of old and new, to be honest.

I would have thought that Obama would have looked outside of DC and outside of "politics" for some of his administration officials.

I fully expect him to.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Napolitano isn't exactly new to the DC game.

In 1991, while a partner with the private Phoenix law firm Lewis and Roca LLP, Napolitano served as attorney for Anita Hill. In 1993, Napolitano was appointed by President Bill Clinton as United States attorney for the District of Arizona. As U.S. attorney, she was involved in the investigation of Michael Fortier of Kingman, Arizona, in connection to the Oklahoma City bombing.

She spoke at the 2004 Democratic Convention after some initially considered her to be a possible running mate for presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 U.S. presidential election but Sen. John Edwards was selected instead.
[/quo

If she does get the official okey dokey for this job she will have to get tough on border security and immigration. Here is the scoop i got from a cousin who lives in Tucson. She vetoed a bill that cracked down on bogus Mexican Consulate ID cards for Illegal Aliens and she blocked efforts that would allow more cooperation between local and federal law enforcement. She also supports in state tuition discounts for illegal aliens.

She doesn't seem tough enough for me.


www.prospect.org...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Can you imagine if he only used "fresh faces", or even just fresh faces in the upper cabinet positions?

I can see it now.

"Wow, Obama is already inexperienced and now he's surrounding himself with more inexperienced people than himself!"

He can't win for losing right now. These people will complain about anything.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Of course I didn't think they would ALL be new, but I did think, after he got elected and started making appointments, that at least some of his high level appointments to be "new". I don't think that is so far-fetched.

And, maybe he still will appoint some new faces....I don't know and neither does anyone else. I just find it surprising (don't know why, since this is politics) that, so far, his high profile picks have been (for lack of a better term) "recycled" former Clinton administration insiders.

My only point is that I don't see the possiblity of "real change" when the same old people are going to be in charge. A new "figure head", yes....but the same old people are going to be behind the scenes (and in the thick of things) basically running the show.

Some more on Clintonisa Eric Holder from the LA times today -

LA Times

Attorney general nominee Eric H. Holder Jr. repeatedly pushed some of his subordinates at the Clinton Justice Department to drop their opposition to a controversial 1999 grant of clemency to 16 members of two violent Puerto Rican nationalist organizations, according to interviews and documents.

And this is what the FALN is all about -

The 16 members of the FALN (the Spanish acronym for Armed Forces of National Liberation) and Los Macheteros had been convicted in Chicago and Hartford variously of bank robbery, possession of explosives and participating in a seditious conspiracy. Overall, the two groups had been linked by the FBI to more than 130 bombings, several armed robberies, six slayings and hundreds of injuries.

Lovely 'change'.