Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditNo one should be shocked to discover that, in his transition to the presidency, the "inexperienced" former senator from Chicago has turned to the last Democratic administration that had experience in Washington. It seems, however, that the Obama team is doing so big time. Looking at lists of early appointees for the transition period and the administration to come, from Rahm Emanuel on down, you might be forgiven for concluding that Hillary had been elected president in 2008. Clintonistas are just piling up in the prospective corridors of power.
You might also be forgiven for concluding that just about no one else in America had ever had any "experience." Late last week, the website Politico.com did some counting and came up with the following: "Thirty-one of the 47 people so far named to transition or staff posts have ties to the Clinton administration, including all but one of the members of his 12-person Transition Advisory Board and both of his White House staff choices." More have been appointed since then, including, as White House Counsel, Gregory Craig, the lawyer who defended Bill Clinton in impeachment hearings, and evidently as Attorney General, Eric Holder, who worked in the Clinton Justice Department. And, of course, everyone in America now knows that Hillary herself is being considered for a cabinet post.
What do Washington political and policy types do when their party is kicked out of office? If they want to stay in the Big Town, they tend to go to work for lobbyists, consultancy firms, or think tanks. They raise money. They do what's needed and make good livings until the tide turns. Now, that tide is again rushing in -- and the lobbying money is, of course, rushing in with it. As the Washington Post has described it, there is already a "mini-boom" for Democrats along that lobbying alley, K Street.
Here's how Laura Meckler and Jonathan Weisman of the Wall Street Journal described one set of 13 transition-team names released: "The group is filled with second-tier veterans of the Clinton administration and workers in the technology and financial sectors. It includes four former lobbyists, three top campaign fund-raisers and two former employees of troubled mortgage giant Fannie Mae, with some overlap among them. Four people in the group have ties to the consultant McKinsey & Co…" (In 2004, by the way, McKinsey & Co. made $19,500 in executive contributions to President Bush, and $102,000 in soft money contributions to the Republican Party. That will undoubtedly now change.)
Obama himself, for those of you who watched him (and Michelle) on 60 Minutes Sunday, is nothing short of a breath of fresh air -- he actually explains things coherently -- after our last presidential "experience." But let's hope that, as the good times roll (even in bad times) for Democrats, he keeps his equilibrium amid the usual Washington consensual pressures. The President-elect spoke Sunday night of keeping people in their all-too-foreclosable homes. Right now, as far as we know, the best he can imagine is a 90-day foreclosure freeze on "some banks." The plans at the FDIC these days promise to save homeowners by turning 30-year mortgages into 40 years of paying the bank at lower interest rates. Is there no such thing in our world as the economics of kindness (except perhaps for bankers and insurance execs)? What about leaving people in their homes at least until the bad times end? Why is debt forgiveness an option for banks, but not for citizens?
Among all those experienced folks in the new Democratic Washington, will there be anyone who can truly think outside the box in desperate times? Mike Davis, most recently the incandescent author of In Praise of Barbarians: Essays Against Empire, suggests in a new piece on "Keynesian shock and awe" some of the human choices that an Obama administration will face and why infrastructural pump-priming should not be the first item on the new president's list of to-dos. "We are now," he writes, "at a crash site, and our priority should be to save the victims, not change the tires or repair the fender, much less build a new car. In the triage situation that now confronts the president-elect, keeping local schools and hospitals open should be the first concern, rebuilding bridges and expanding ports would come next, and rescuing bank shareholders at the very end of the line."
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"No one should be shocked to discover that, in his transition to the presidency, the "inexperienced" former senator from Chicago has turned to the last Democratic administration that had experience in Washington."
OK. So then what is the big deal about 60% coming from people who have experience in that administration?
Does 60% qualify as "big time???"
Posted by Hman23 at 11/19/2008 @ 4:17pm
For cryin' out loud - every blog post . . .
Can we all wait for at least the first few WEEKS after Obama assumes office to condemn his entire administration?
I am taking holiday from The Nation for a while.
See ya.
Posted by Hman23 at 11/19/2008 @ 4:19pm
No surprise.
Same owners.
Posted by sloper at 11/19/2008 @ 4:19pm
I for one thought that the Clinton administration was rather successful. We saw prosperity and were not at constant war. What is wrong with bringing in people who were part of that. Who else would he bring in. Folks from the Bush Admin? I think the folks from the Carter Admin are a little old now.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using folks who were successful in a past administration or "associated" with the Clinton admim. My god the people Obama associates with...lol.
This is in the news cause folks have nothing better to talk about.
Posted by Extraneous at 11/19/2008 @ 4:36pm
Hman feelin' a bit touchy?
If anything, the response to Obama's early choices has been fairly restrained, including this gentle posting from Tom Englehardt.
Obama ran on a "Change We Can Believe In" platform. Packing the seats with Clintonistas, DLC types, and loyal AIPACers is NOT a good sign to put it mildly.
I sense grave concerns among the cool progressive community. And I share those concerns.
If anything, Obama is getting a relatively free pass because we like the man and his calm, deliberative persona.
He'd better have a well thought out plan for a bold agenda. Otherwise, I can easily see him getting badly smoked by a tsunami of coming events.
Here's hoping.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/19/2008 @ 4:46pm
....for a Grand Plan, of course.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/19/2008 @ 4:48pm
Posted by Extraneous at 11/19/2008 @ 4:36pm
How about bringing in good people who don't have ties to the former Clinton administration at all? Doesn't look like he's "thinking outside the box" to me.
Posted by ACook at 11/19/2008 @ 4:50pm
So far, things seem to be going pretty well, which tells me that Obama puts a premium on ability above anything else. As far as Emmanuel (sp?), Holder, and Daschle go, the latter two were key campaign advisors and the former has been an ally and confidante all the way back to Obama's Chicago days. They do have identities that go deeper than being former Clintonites.
Posted by pkgoode at 11/19/2008 @ 5:16pm
If you remember, Obama had several Clintonites in his campaign as well. The key is not whether there is a historical tie to Clinton, it is whether these advisers and administrators in an "Obama" Administration are the most competent you can find and will carry out Obama's progressive vision for America on issues that have broad bi-partisan support (as opposed to the "defensive centrism" of the DLC).
Under Clinton, Democrats were playing defense in face of the success of Ronald Reagan. Reagan is the one who actually created the DLC by convincing Democrats that they had to "appear" more conservative to get elected.
Under an offense-minded Obama Administration, Democrats can lead on a wide range of "progressive" issues like, affordable healthcare for all, Green infrastructure, ending the war in Iraq, reducing the influence of lobbyists, etc., with a coalition of Democrats, moderate Republicans and independents. This forces the GOP to move left and reverse the Reagan effect. When the Republicans create a moderate "RLC" in response to Democratic election success, then we will know that this Reagan reversal is in full swing.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/19/2008 @ 5:31pm
Ah....the Clintonistas lying in wait for 8 years bellying up to the trough. Another episode of Dynasty.
Anyone have the inside scoop on HRC? Is the vetting process for Bill (or Hillary) not going well or what? Is Kennedy giving her a reason to decline? Very interesting. Why Daschle and not Clinton for HHS? Clinton's platform was more focused on HHS than SOS - her neocon policy positions she tried to run from. Very mysterious and yet a little disturbing. Why is Hillary torn?....lol......The Republicans love her!
Posted by OneVote at 11/19/2008 @ 5:34pm
For cryin' out loud - every blog post . . .
Can we all wait for at least the first few WEEKS after Obama assumes office to condemn his entire administration?
I am taking holiday from The Nation for a while.
See ya.
Posted by Hman23 at 11/19/2008 @ 4:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Golly H....even the MSM is buzzing about it.
Posted by OneVote at 11/19/2008 @ 6:21pm
Spot on.
Obama is NOT, never was, and never will be change.
The sooner you Obamamaniacs realize that the faster we can get our first anti war demonstration against him together.
Posted by neaguy at 11/19/2008 @ 6:44pm
Amen, NEA guy.
And this from Counterpunch.org:
Appointing Hillary Clinton secretary of state would be utterly disastrous. Combined with the earlier appointment of Rahm Emanuel, it would be seen by all Palestinians, all Arabs, all Muslims, and many others around the world as the ultimate insult, eliminating any hope of a just resolution of the Palestinian situation during the presidency of Barack Obama. It would reduce any good will toward Obama that has built up among Muslims in recent months and would spell finis to hopes for an end of the global hatred that continues to grow against America and its allies. More and more, the "War on Terror" would become a never-ending part of our existence and over time would introduce further limitations of our domestic liberties and of living standards everywhere in the world.
In desperation, we beg you PLEASE STOP THESE ABOMINATIONS NOW.
Sincerely,
Bill and Kathleen Christison
Bill and Kathleen Christison are ashamed to say that years ago they were both analysts with the CIA. In recent years Bill has written numerous articles on U.S. foreign policies, while Kathleen for over 30 years has written on Middle East Affairs. She is the author of two books on Palestinians and U.S. policy on Palestine-Israel. Bill and Kathleen visit Palestine frequently and are joint authors of a book, forthcoming in mid-2009 from Pluto Press, on the Israeli occupation and its impact on Palestinians, with over 50 of their photographs. They can be reached at kb.christison@earthlink.net.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/19/2008 @ 7:00pm
I just have to laugh at the jackasses here who touted this shmendrik as something genuinely new. What a gaggle of fools! What's scary, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Wait until Iran shoves nuclear development or Russia NATO membership for Georgia up Obama's tuckus. What will our AIPAC pleasing liar do then, start a nuclear holocaust? Terrific, maybe he'll draft some of the credulous idiots that post here. Would serve them right.
Posted by john lowell at 11/19/2008 @ 7:06pm
Our"Scrappy Senator" seems to have taken a sharp turn down K Street and Wal Street. I sure like the choice of Tom Daschle. I don't see what advantage Hillary would have as a second chair in the Obama orchestra.
Posted by lachatte at 11/19/2008 @ 7:55pm
john lowell, your prognostications are indeed very gloomy, and leavened with what appears to be a well rounded contempt for others - it is indeed a bitter pancake you are serving up to us all.
are you by any chance familiar with SIGECAPS?
Posted by canaro71 at 11/19/2008 @ 8:13pm
USA: Right-Wing Populism - The Phantom Menace
By Thomas Anderson in the USA Tuesday, 18 November 2008
http://www.marxist.com/
"Is Senator Obama 'socialist?' Yes, he wants to 'spread the wealth,' as he puts it. But that's what the Republicans have been doing for the last eight years. We already have 'big government,' 'socialism,' or whatever else you want to call it--and it was Republicans who gave it to us." -Bob Barr
Anger continues to boil over about the nearly one trillion dollar bailout of the banking industry. It's no surprise, then, that there is a growing ear for populism of the far-right. Many working people are very confused about where the system "went wrong" and are looking for someone to "fix it." Third party figures of the right, such as Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul, claim to have the solutions. They generally recognize that the current crisis is a result of the building of the world's economy on mountains of speculation and debt with little real value behind it. What they are incapable of understanding, however, is that the capitalist system itself is what compelled industrial capitalists and their financial twins in the banking industry to build ivory towers on a heap of sand. Instead, they blame immigrants, individual bankers, and Big Government with its "greedy big business" friends. This misdirection is sometimes difficult to discern, but with the current economic downturn, it is vital for us to understand it.
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 8:30pm
Bill and Kathleen Christison are ashamed to say that years ago they were both analysts with the CIA.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/19/2008 @ 7:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Good post Kool. What a slap in the face to the Muslim world - first Emanuel, and then Clinton. How Not to Win Friends and Influence People, by Barack Obama should be his next book.
Posted by OneVote at 11/19/2008 @ 8:45pm
TOM ENGELHARDT IS ONE OF THE SMARTEST POLITICAL PHILOSOPHERS OF THIS COUNTRY, LIKE ALEXANDER COCKBURN, NOAM CHOMSKY AND JAMES PETRAS. HE SPEAKS TRUTH TO POWER.
SUPER-CHOMSKY SAID THAT OBAMA WILL BE ANOTHER CLINTON NEOLIBERAL CAPITALIST ADMINISTRATION
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 8:47pm
cant wait for katrina's spin...
Posted by nationy at 11/19/2008 @ 9:23pm
Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.
Posted by truthandjustice at 11/19/2008 @ 9:45pm
How many have "ties to the Obama" not Hillary campaign?
Posted by winyahn at 11/19/2008 @ 9:52pm
I see marxist-socialist has had a nappy poo. And has rediscovered the wittle Caps Lock button on the keyboard.
At least it's entertaining. For now.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/19/2008 @ 10:06pm
Again, predicted it weeks (maybe months) ago...
the Hard Left will be just as disappointed in Obama as the Hard Right.
And I think that's a good thing.
BTW, chao....pretty sure that Marky Socks is a GOP poser too....or nut...either way no concern.
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2008 @ 10:22pm
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2008 @ 10:22pm |
K.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/19/2008 @ 10:24pm
Damn!
And I was HOPING for a CHANGE.
sumbitch..
Posted by bleedingheart at 11/19/2008 @ 11:05pm
Another stat of interest, besides number with ties to the Obama not Hillary campaign, how many people make up universe of "former Clintonites", 1000, 3000? What % of these have been hired, 6%?
Posted by winyahn at 11/19/2008 @ 11:45pm
So what does the Nation suggest that Obama do? Select people with no political experience? Select Republicans? Ralph Nader? I mean, give me a break. This is a pathetic criticism. Some folks just love to complain.
Posted by TripLBee at 11/20/2008 @ 12:29am
The central themes of Obama's early campaign were "Hope" and "there are no red states and blue states, there are the United States." Basically a melding of Clinton's "A place called Hope" (with a callout to Jesse's "Keep Hope Alive") and Dubya's "Uniter not a Divider." And it's not as if there was any great shortage of Clintonistas in Obama's campaign. So, where's the news here?
Barack is a definite intelligence and I believe he is at least left of Bill Clinton at heart (but then so, I think, is Hillary), but to think that the man who ran the most advertsing/soundbite driven campaign in history is really going to bring profoundly positive change is to invite serious disappointment.
And I've yet to forget, though I'm certainly glad McCain's campaign did, Barrack's comment that "the Republican's have been the party of ideas for the past 15 years."
Incremental change (Clinton again), the ability to think, and more good decisions than bad ones is what we should bank on. What we have to hope is that the bad decisions aren't the big ones. And beyond that, that as well as being reflective, and open to good advice, we might also hope that Barack is more mentally facile than he sometimes seems to be; quick thinking is important too.
In any case, we are in such bad straits right now that experience feeding the Great Giant Head seems a reasonable way to go.
Posted by omichael at 11/20/2008 @ 12:59am
That's the thing about CHANGE(tm). The more of it, the more things stay the same.
Posted by mikecope at 11/20/2008 @ 01:23am
Posted by canaro71 at 11/19/2008 @ 8:13pm
"john lowell, your prognostications are indeed very gloomy, and leavened with what appears to be a well rounded contempt for others - it is indeed a bitter pancake you are serving up to us all."
Might you be allowing me to effect your mood, canaro71? Its demonstrably more healthy to be self rather than other-determined, you know. And besides, better a portion of bitter pancakes laden with truth than unadulterated buffalo chips as seen through rose-colored glasses. :-)
Now you couldn't be one of those shmendriks for whom I'd suggested the draft above, could you? That would be disappointing.
Posted by john lowell at 11/20/2008 @ 02:17am
Okay, now OBAMA will pay the piper for the failures of the Clinton Administration. When history looks back at the really primitive competence of Clinton (elected because of Ross Perot) and George W. Bush and now OBAMA it will really question how the US adopted a system of promoting to its toughest job the inexperienced and then rewarded their total incompetence in managing the very very tough problem of the role of the US in the world and domestic security. Amazing how the short-term outweighs the long-term not just on Wall Street but the American political experience. It really is not just money. It is that people with sound judgement and competence cannot break through the ring of security around the incumbents (politicians and lobbyists) that dominate the Washington scene. Really getting scary now to see how little real change the political community brings after each election. Bill Grieder's "Who Will Tell the People" should be distributed to every thinking US voter. It is only one party inside the beltway--the incumbent party!
Posted by OnVacation at 11/20/2008 @ 02:22am
Change? Change? We've sure had a lot of that in the past 8 years....
Hey, we had a World Trade Center in NY, that changed.
The President used to read intelligence reports, that changed.
Yeah, There used to be a city called New Orleans. Ooops. It got replaced by a toxic lake of poop-water.
I remember when there was a huge disaster someone from the Government would come to help. No, that changed too.
Sometimes change is good. Iraq was going to be transformed into a democracy and forever love America. Well, Iraq changed alright. The Afghans too, they needed changing. Taliban gone, but whoa, here they are again.
Home values sure did change. Ouch. But, there's still all that money that everyone has been investing in their 401k's...
Posted by koroviev at 11/20/2008 @ 03:54am
The biggest mistake the 43rd president made was choosing the "experienced" GOP insiders: Cheney and Rumsfeld. Even if there had not been 9/11, these two men were bad news because of Cheney's known ties to oil companies and Rumsfeld's (aka Ronnie Dumbsfeld) known incompetency. Why did he do it? I think because there are invisible powers behind the throne of capitalism who take all new presidents under their wings and guide them. This is especially true of inexperienced presidents such as Carter, BushII and Obama. Carter was whisked off to a CFR training camp, because he wasn't supposed to win the nomination or the presidency and was the most green behind the ears.
You might also consider that Obama achieved his primary goal on election day - becoming the first AA president. Perhaps governing isn't really in his blood as long as he can hold a title and take credit for other people's hard work.
Either way the election turns out to be a scam on the electorate.
Posted by Bytheway at 11/20/2008 @ 05:56am
He hasn't even taken office yet. Get off his back, why don't you? Except for Hilary, I like all his picks. People who work for the President do what the President says. Obama is not Clinton, who abandoned the Progressive agenda, and lost control of the house and senate after two years. Obama has a progressive agenda, and he wants to get it passed, and not lose the Congress in the undertaking. What, do you want William Ayers for Secretary of Education? He wants to focus on a domestic agenda, by the way, first, which is what we desperately need. Are you okay with Napolitano and Daschle? They and Craig and Holder supported him from the get-go. I am still hoping that Richardson will get State, but, if not, whatever. I think our people's welfare, our economy is more important than a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine.
Posted by jonnirae at 11/20/2008 @ 06:19am
This article doesn't really say much and sort of reads as an excuse.
All these romantic notions of team of rivals and keeping enemies close obscures the usual centrist suspects up to the usual.
If experience is the only criteria than Obama himself is vastly unqualified. After all, that was the point of change. Something different. but even so, there are many experienced plyers who are not from the clinton camp--unless the democratic party is exclusively defined as the clintons only. I thought that was one of the things we wanted to change, otherwise we would've elected Hillary.
Posted by Lil at 11/20/2008 @ 08:58am
You know there really is something beyond irony here (not sure if there's a word for it).
When we have the Right screaming that "the problem is Obama is a socialist"....
and the Left screaming that "the problem is Obama is NOT a socialist."
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 09:25am
the Hard Left will be just as disappointed in Obama as the Hard Right.
And I think that's a good thing.
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2008 @ 10:22pm
Truly sophisticated way of thinking, Mask. Plus, it relieves you of ever having to actually examine things closely, to analyse the difference between what people are saying. Instead, you can take the lazy way out and just dismiss everyone to your left and everyone to your right, and always, or almost always, take the centrist position. You don't even rise to the level of an ideologue!
And before you accuse me of being an ideologue, or a knee-jerk red, remember that I'm the one here, the Trotskyist, who has most often posted, approvingly, excerpts from The American Conservative!
Posted by cka2nd at 11/20/2008 @ 10:13am
damn man, i don't know but US citizens, specially in right-wing states like Tennessee just don't care about politics, not even mainstream politics, just about hating and blaming others for the nation's economic problems.
I don't really foresee a positive change for USA. i am in Tennessee, and Obama got like 20% in this state. This state is ultra-fascist, there are not even socialist parties in this state (Go figure).
To tell you the truth, i don't really see a socialist system in the future for USA, but a fascist system real far to the right, more far-right and extremist than Bush and Reagan. or a complete desintegration of America, into 3-5 nations. There is too much egoism, depression, pessimism, apathy and hatred in this country.
and remember that hatred is the main trait of right-wing ideology.
.
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/20/2008 @ 10:16am
Posted by cka2nd at 11/20/2008 @ 10:13am
Not to MY right or MY left, CKA....the country's.
You KNOW that your politics are not in the mainstream of the American electorate....I would think that LVLIB knows that his radical pro-war libertarianism (wanting to scrap everything domestic policy-wise going back to Calvin Coolidge).
The Middle IS America.
If Obama picks a Secretary of Defense...and "The Weekly Standard" and Rush Limbaugh say "He/She is going to GUT our military and make us vunerable"...
and Robert Dreyfuss of "The Nation" or A.N.S.W.E.R. says "He/She is going to continue our imperialism!"...
I feel pretty safe in saying that that pick is going to be somewhere in the Middle and is likely going to chart a sane, reasonable route for military policy....and so would most of America.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 10:24am
To tell you the truth, i don't really see a socialist system in the future for USA, but a fascist system real far to the right, more far-right and extremist than Bush and Reagan. or a complete desintegration of America, into 3-5 nations. There is too much egoism, depression, pessimism, apathy and hatred in this country.
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/20/2008 @ 10:16am
Take a chill pill, comrade. Fascism is essentially a reactive movement which only becomes large when some elements of the ruling class feel their powers and prerogatives are seriously threatened. Start worrying about it if the working class begins showing some life, fighting back and actually winning some battles against the powers that be.
David Brooks had an interesting column in the paper the other day talking about a likely rise in political pressure from the formerly middle class, which is the classic growth medium for fascism, a word he studiously ignored. But just as Reagan and Co. were not fascists, it is much more likely that the system will find a way to rebuild the mainstream right around the Republican Party, taking advantage of many of the same dynamics that fascists would use. Capitalists, like the rest of us, generally prefer relatively stable and peaceful social and political systems. Going through a counter-revolution might be deadly for some of us, but it ain't a cakewalk for the bourgoisie, either.
Posted by cka2nd at 11/20/2008 @ 10:31am
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 10:24am
Yes, but you can't seem to understand that the middle, the center, moves! The center was far to the left of where it is right now in the 30's-40's and the 60's-70's. It swung to the right in the 50's, but not so far right, and swunger harder to the right in the 80's and 90's, especially economically. The country is farther to the left side of the middle of the road than Obama, Clinton and many of the rest of the Democrats, and could be moved even farther.
The other thing is, there are real differences within the right, the left and the center, and you can't seem to make that distinction either. The Weekly Standard may have Rupert Murdoch's money and Rush Limbaugh may have a large audience, but they both represent near the bottom of the barrel in conservative ideas (you owe Bob Dreyfuss an apology for making that comparison!). And there's a hell of a good-sized road between a John Nichols and a Commie, Red SOB like me. And I'll take a Robert Kuttner over a John Judis - talking about prominent centrists, any day of the week, month, year or century!
Use your mind man! Don't allow yourself to fall for lazy tropes like "If both sides don't like it, everybody must have won!"
Posted by cka2nd at 11/20/2008 @ 10:42am
Here's what Howard Kurtz has to say today in the Washington Post:
"So now we're looking at an administration with Bill Clinton's senior adviser as chief of staff; his wife as secretary of State; his acting attorney general as AG; his impeachment lawyer, Greg Craig, as counsel; his chief of staff, John Podesta, as transition chief; Gore's counsel, Lisa Brown, as staff secretary; and Gore's chief of staff, Ron Klain, as Biden's chief of staff. Boy, it's a good thing Hillary didn't get elected; she would have just given us a recycled version of the Clinton administration."
So much for change. Spare change maybe.
Posted by jackwells at 11/20/2008 @ 11:57am
Posted by cka2nd at 11/20/2008 @ 10:42am
Of COURSE, it moves. "The Center" of the 1920s is Right of "The Center" of 1950s".
But "The Center" hasn't moved THAT much, CKA. McCain got 58,000,000 votes. That represents SOMEBODY. So NO, the country is NOT "farther left on the road than Obama or the Democrats."
See, the historical analogy is almost accurate. You represent the socialist/Communists of the 1930s (Old Wobblies, Eugene V. Debs'ians, Norman Thomases, etc.). THEY TOO considered Roosevelt a "sell-out" or "not good enough".
Same on the Right who thought he was a "Red" and (as written in a new book) a "Traitor To His Class".
FDR split the difference, with a lean towards your side, but not that much. And in the end, ended up SAVING capitalism rather than destroy it as the more radical elements wanted.
I think Obama can do the same thing.
It WILL be a "swing to the Left", relative to the last 30 years. But not as much as you want...ergo from your subjective view "not good enough."
But most of the country won't agree with you.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 11:59am
Its not the percentages of Clintonistas in the transition team but rather who they are.
I am most concerned about those transition team members from McKinsey & Company, and, down the road, who from that network of creeps insinuates themselves into the Obama administration. One could make a very good argument that it was McKinsey that brought us into the financial mess the world is now in. Credit securitization was perfected, if not invented, by the McKinsey & Company Securitization Project in 1987-1988. Indeed, the basic textbook in this field has the McKinsey imprimatur on it (James A. Rosenthal and Juan M. Ocampo, "Securitization of Credit: Inside the New Technology of Finance," John Wiley, NY: 1988). It is literally a how to book for quants, with templates and pictures with circles and arrows on the back of each one on how to slice and dice debt.
Something is happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear. But it appears there are some slick Clintonistas spinning a progressive face for Obama while in the backroom newly devised tranches are being invented. I think we need to look at what is unfolding with a Brechtian eye.
Posted by Masaniello at 11/20/2008 @ 12:34pm
HELLO ALL: I AM IN TENNESSEE, and in this state Obama got like 20% in the elections. There was not a single celebration in this city where i live to celebrate Obama's victory who is not perfect, but came as a gift from God indeed, because Obama's victory meant the end of Zionist Neocon fascism (2000-2008).
To tell you the truth, i dont know why these Tennesseans are so ungrateful and ultra-right wingers.
If i was Obama i wouldn't send money to fix the roads to the local governments of the Red-States (Fascist States).
These people in these redneck ultra-right wing states are very evil.
I know Obama is not perfect, he is not socialist, nor social-reformist. However he is not a neocon, he is not a Republican and that is all that counts right now.
I urge all Obama voters to create bloggers in order to critisize Obama's governance and at the same time to repel and to fight ultra-right wing ideology which is still alive and strong in this country.
We have to bury the ultra-right wing ideology once and for all, like Germans who buried Nazism and Fascism in Germany.
.
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/20/2008 @ 12:51pm
I know Obama is not perfect, he is not socialist, nor social-reformist. However he is not a neocon, he is not a Republican and that is all that counts right now.----Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/20/2008 @ 12:51pm
Marky Socks, didn't you just EAT 90% of your posts since you "appeared" here a few weeks ago with that?!??!?!??!??
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 12:59pm
Mask is a Clinton toady I've been saying and he continues to reafirm it. If he isn't diverting your attention from the facts then he tries to muddy the waters which is a classic Clinton tactic.
Posted by jimijazz at 11/20/2008 @ 1:16pm
jimijazz: This online magazine (The Nation) is really supposed to be a progressive magazine (To the left of the Democrat Party centrists) but it seems to me that it is full of either neocons fan, Clintonistas neoliberals and right-wingers.
I am labeled as a "radical" in this magazine, which is supposed to be a progressive radical magazine, and not a pro-NAFTA nor pro-Clinton Dynasty magazine.
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/20/2008 @ 1:31pm
I have never been an afficiando in politics. I have watched for years and voted my desires. Reading what all of you political acitivists say burns my blood raw. I consider my citizenship and right to articulate my thoughts, especially now, a necessity. How can you all burn bridges that haven't been built yet. I believe that Barrack Obama will bring change. I applaude who he is gathering around him. He has the pages of mistakes made in the Clinton Administration in hand and these people will pick out the failures from the last 8 years quickly. As far as change itself that is up to every citizen of this country. They must right to not only congressmen and senators; they must send there desires and needs to these cabinet members I urge everyone to draw on the facts they have for their states to let our government know what is happening in their state. You have to tell them what health issues are ignored, the state of your schools and anything else that needs fixing. No longer can we rely on political historians to tell our story. As a 5th generation of the People who founded America it is our right to expect our government to listen to us. This is a government "Of the people and for the people" not one person who has served for us should be allowed to do anything less then what we expect of them. I believe Obama will listen to us and not to Big Business.
Posted by bunnyj at 11/20/2008 @ 1:47pm
I have never been an afficiando in politics. I have watched for years and voted my desires. Reading what all of you political acitivists say burns my blood raw. I consider my citizenship and right to articulate my thoughts, especially now, a necessity. How can you all burn bridges that haven't been built yet. I believe that Barrack Obama will bring change. I applaude who he is gathering around him. He has the pages of mistakes made in the Clinton Administration in hand and these people will pick out the failures from the last 8 years quickly. As far as change itself that is up to every citizen of this country. They must right to not only congressmen and senators; they must send there desires and needs to these cabinet members I urge everyone to draw on the facts they have for their states to let our government know what is happening in their state. You have to tell them what health issues are ignored, the state of your schools and anything else that needs fixing. No longer can we rely on political historians to tell our story. As a 5th generation of the People who founded America it is our right to expect our government to listen to us. This is a government "Of the people and for the people" not one person who has served for us should be allowed to do anything less then what we expect of them. I believe Obama will listen to us and not to Big Business.
Posted by bunnyj at 11/20/2008 @ 1:47pm
Posted by jimijazz at 11/20/2008 @ 1:16pm
Cometh the Revolution, comrade...I'll buy you a new hat---"John Reid" (Warren Beatty) "Reds"
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 2:20pm
The key element in recovering from this economic mess is job creation. The purpose of "Free Trade" was to drive down wages. However, since 70% of the market is based on consumer spending, driving down wages means the disposable income for consumer spending is also driven down. No disposable income, no market! Unlike the bank bailouts, infrastructure repair stimulates the construction business, along with the companies that support them. The workers that are employed, need housing, medical facilities, food, and other necessities of life. They will be spending money in the communities in which they work. They will need construction equipment, and those national industries will be simulated. The New Deal payed writers to write and painters to paint. It was all about job creation. It is not about sacrificing any part of the recovery program, because every element of the program is needed. Big business will try to outsource some of this work overseas to lower, or in source cheap labor to lower wages. These people are very stupid, because low wages mean no consumer spending and businesses going bust. Destroying the market, destroys wealth!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/20/2008 @ 2:33pm
Change we can believe in!
I guess he was speaking about whatever change you might have had in your pocket.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/20/2008 @ 3:22pm
Ho-hum, nothing new here--Obama is the good cop to Bush's cop. And sadly, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
But we're in a new ballgame here: the empire is over!
Our empire is broke, the spirit is lacking, the oil is peaking and the leadership is truly Roman.
Time to sit back and relax and enjoy the aftermath of empire--quiet nights at home, no running off to invade and torture, no more ponzi scheming, alchemisty whiz kids on Wall Street turning toxic mortgages into gold--now we can go quietly into the night and be like other post empire countries--Spain, Britain and Holland.
Posted by hkaplan at 11/20/2008 @ 4:38pm
..."The Center" hasn't moved THAT much, CKA. McCain got 58,000,000 votes. That represents SOMEBODY. So NO, the country is NOT "farther left on the road than Obama or the Democrats."
...It WILL be a "swing to the Left", relative to the last 30 years. But not as much as you want...ergo from your subjective view "not good enough."
But most of the country won't agree with you.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 11:59am
Sure, I'm an outlier who would never be satisfied by a bourgeois government, but I think you are objectively wrong to say that the country is not farther left than Obama and the Dems. As Eric Alterman and others have noted, poll after poll has shown for years that a majority of Americans want:
1. a national health insurance plan, even up to a single payer system;
2. more of a "fair trade" than a "free trade" policy;
3. the right to join unions without getting fired or having your plant or office closed down;
4. a cleaner environment, even if it means increasing taxes to pay for it;
5. more money for domestic programs and less for the military;
6. a comprehensive sex education, not an "abstinence-only" model;
7. a higher minimum wage;
8. and government to be more concerned about the lives of the middle class, the working class and the poor than the profits of the wealthy.
And there are probably issues I've missed. As much as Alterman might be excited about Obama's election, I would bet that there will be quite a lot of buyer's remorse on the part of liberals and progressives over the next four years.
An excellent quote (or so) from Franklin Delano Roosevelt, speaking to some activists of his day: "I agree with you completely. Now go out there and make me do it!" Good advise as the corporate class pushes back.
Posted by cka2nd at 11/20/2008 @ 4:41pm
Why is this fact surprising? Clinton and Obama choose their team using one criteria, they sought out the best person for the job. They didn't go with cronies, or those who had contributed to their campaign. They looked for the best person to fulfill the position. Is it really a surprise that a lot of the same people are back, 8 years later? As for the comment, "but he ran on a platform of CHANGE"....this is a major change from the last 8 years. Was it supposed to be a change from the beginning of time? Does he have to hire MARTIANS to satisfy everyone one? Or possibly outsource the US government to India? Is that what you thought that he meant when he said "change"? Choosing the best person for the job is a RADICAL change. I'm watching the news and smiling again for the first time in years.
Posted by finzleft at 11/20/2008 @ 4:47pm
((So what does the Nation suggest that Obama do? Select people with no political experience? ))
Why not? It worked for Obama.
Obamanation = Abomination.
Posted by State17 at 11/20/2008 @ 6:06pm
Change, what change, I am disappointed that there are not more Hispanics on his transition team. And Hillary please. No more donation from me.
Posted by yoli at 11/20/2008 @ 6:50pm
Doesn't anyone here think it is odd that NOT ONE story in The Nation has discussed the merits of Hillary as Secretary of State?
Posted by Metteyya at 11/20/2008 @ 7:34pm
Posted by finzleft at 11/20/2008 @ 4:47pm
Yes, the Clintons have NEVER been involved in hiring their friends or political allies...
And if the best we can hope for during Obama's administration, is that it's NOT George Bush...well that's awfully weak.
Chaaaaaaange!
LOL
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/20/2008 @ 8:34pm
Posted by finzleft at 11/20/2008 @ 4:47pm -- well said! Extending your point:
No one is articulating their fears. What areas, which policy matters will be negatively impacted by Clinton hires?
Iraq, Healthcare, Energy, Education??
Monica II? What are the top 5 nightmare scenarios???
Posted by winyahn at 11/20/2008 @ 11:09pm
Bravo to Tom Englehardt for this critique. It now seems likely that the pervasive moral cynicism and close relationship to organized crime that characterized the Clinton administration will be replicated in Obama's.
Posted by tschrecker at 11/21/2008 @ 01:18am
FDR split the difference, with a lean towards your side, but not that much. And in the end, ended up SAVING capitalism rather than destroy it as the more radical elements wanted.
I think Obama can do the same thing.
It WILL be a "swing to the Left", relative to the last 30 years. But not as much as you want...ergo from your subjective view "not good enough." But most of the country won't agree with you.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 11:59am
My thoughts, precisely. And, coming from the Bernie Sanders left, I'm actually pretty cool with an FDR/JFK approach. I felt during the campaign that all that mattered, the only thing, was winning. Nothing can be done bitching from the sidelines. Not a damned thing. It's one of the things that's always pissed me off about Nader. I wish this were a more progressive country, and I'm pretty sure that the new President is going to get that conversation going in time. But if he governs from my position, he's going to be a one-termer. And we'll be back into the right-wing cesspool, which may please the all-or-nothing folks. But it's precisely that type of approach that gave us the unfettered nightmare of the last 8 years.
As for whatever panic is setting in, for Chrissake - can we chill a bit here? Fixing the disaster that has been the last 28 years is going to take more than a 3-part miniseries of one hour programs with 18 minutes of commercials apiece. We're looking at long haul stuff here - precisely the sort of thing that gave us some pretty liberal Democratic presidents from 1933-69, with the exception of Ike, who wouldn't win a GOP nod today, from 1953-61. I'm absolutely sure that Barack Obama can govern extraordinarily in that manner. And anyone who thinks he's going to be steamrolled by anyone hasn't been paying attention.
Posted by jmusolino at 11/21/2008 @ 02:13am
"when the going get weird, the weird turn pro."
I'm willing to give the new Prez the benefit of the doubt. Some serious hit is shitting the economic fan right now and it won't do to have people walking around looking for the bathrooms during the first few weeks of the new administration. And Daschle was a great appt, I'm happy with that one. Still, one thing doesn't sit well at all, I can't believe he's considering Hill for State--if he wants talent and prestige, why not just rehabilitate Powell? At least we know Colin will follow orders and not try to dig a secret tunnel under 1600.
Posted by takemyveepplease at 11/21/2008 @ 04:27am
Posted by jmusolino at 11/21/2008 @ 02:13am
It's like some bizarro version of "A Christmas Story"...
with the "pure progressives/Obama not good enough" types playing some demented form of "Ralphie", who, after EIGHT YEARS of NO CHRISTMAS...
gets the "Official Red Ryder Carbine-Action Two-Hundred-Shot Range Model Air Rifle!"....
and then starts complaining that it "Doesn't have a laser scope!" "Isn't the right TYPE of brown finish on the stock" or "Only holds 200 BBs not 350 like one I read about in 'Z Magazine'!!!!"
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2008 @ 09:05am
and so would most of America.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 10:24am
the same ones who have absolutely no clue.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/21/2008 @ 10:34am
But most of the country won't agree with you.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 11:59am
the same ones who have absolutely no clue.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/21/2008 @ 10:36am
with the "pure progressives/Obama not good enough" types playing some demented form of "Ralphie", who, after EIGHT YEARS of NO CHRISTMAS...
gets the "Official Red Ryder Carbine-Action Two-Hundred-Shot Range Model Air Rifle!"....
and then starts complaining that it "Doesn't have a laser scope!" "Isn't the right TYPE of brown finish on the stock" or "Only holds 200 BBs not 350 like one I read about in 'Z Magazine'!!!!"
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2008 @ 09:05am | ignore this person | warn this person
You sure you don't have this analogy mixed up a little.....shouldn't the former be the later, and the later the former...at least as to what was on our wish list and Santa's promise if we be good he will deliver?
Posted by OneVote at 11/21/2008 @ 11:20am
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/21/2008 @ 10:36am
FROSTY, how are the CANADIAN people doing "with clues" last election?
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2008 @ 11:52am
Posted by OneVote at 11/21/2008 @ 11:20am
OV, what would the "pure progressives" be saying right now...if McCain had won?
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2008 @ 11:54am
OV, what would the "pure progressives" be saying right now...if McCain had won?
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2008 @ 11:54am | ignore this person | warn this person
"I am leaving the Country?"
I am curious on what your opinion is on what specific policy changes to the center that Obama made that ensured his election?
Posted by OneVote at 11/21/2008 @ 12:28pm
'Commentators called on President-elect Barack Obama to signal more forcefully the economic policy he would enact upon taking over from George W. Bush on January 20. They expressed concern the economy might deteriorate further, as it did during the transition from Herbert Hoover to Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 and 1933.'
Excerpt:
Reuters Citi extends plunge as world economy deteriorates Friday November 21, 12:30 pm ET By Daniel Trotta
'I think Obama can do the same thing.
It WILL be a "swing to the Left", relative to the last 30 years. But not as much as you want...ergo from your subjective view "not good enough."
But most of the country won't agree with you.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 11:59am | ignore this person | warn this person '
the same ones who have absolutely no clue.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/21/2008 @ 10:36am | ignore this person | warn this person
"I think" -----"No clue" -----"why is Obama silent on economic policy" - we have no clue, and it is looking like Obama doesn't either. Not exactly a decisive move to the center with specific policy but rather a deliberate attempt to play both sides. Progressive, whether pure or not, and I don't count myself as a "pure" progressive, have a right to be displeased, as it looks like Obama is going to be swallowed whole by a resurgent Bush-lite neoliberalism economic and neocon foreign policy initiative, with possibly a smattering of social spending. My only evidence is based on the cabinet he is choosing to date. If Obama meant "change we can believe in" just measured by the Bush administration, he should have told us the that. Apparently the Democratic Party doesn't fit into his calculus. More than a few of us believed that "change we can believe in" applied to all of DC
Posted by OneVote at 11/21/2008 @ 1:06pm
As a Hispanic woman I am very disappointed that there are no Hispanics in his Administration so far. The Hispanic voted by a large margin and Bill Richardson should get a posistion. No more donations for Obama.
Posted by yoli at 11/21/2008 @ 1:19pm
Posted by yoli at 11/21/2008 @ 1:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I was hoping that Richardson would get Secretary of State. Far better qualified, regardless of his gender or the fact that he is Hispanic.
Posted by OneVote at 11/21/2008 @ 1:29pm
Posted by winyahn at 11/20/2008 @ 11:09pm
"No one is articulating their fears. What areas, which policy matters will be negatively impacted by Clinton hires?"
Fear of continuing our corporate sponsored, imperialist warmongering. Are we losing our share of the persian rug market or something?
Fear of accelerated corporate socialism. (Corporate socialism being a polite name for corrupt politicians taking bribes for massive tax dollar givaways, to companies run by folks who put country last).
Fear that no one really plans to give more than lip service to restoring our civil liberties and destroying bad legislation (patriot act, mil-com act. rendition, torture, retrogressive immunity, diebold elections, wire tapping, rendition, private military, etc).
By the way, all of those things, are things my fairly conservative parents taught me only happen in third world governments and could never happen in America. These were reasons to be proud to be lucky enough to be born here. They never told me how it would feel to live without them. Or what would happen to my pride.
Fear that there is no new vision for our economy, infrastructure and energy policy coming out of a group of people whom, while arguably better than the last eight years, had no vision nine years ago. (NAFTA, DMCA, no energy policy to speak of etc.)
So, yes. We are incredible pessimists.
It is the same unrealistic optimism that seems to want to bail out companies, without removing all the corrupt management first.
Please enumerate the reasons we should be glad that this "new" administration is full of the same people who sucked 9 years ago.
Posted by Malcontent at 11/21/2008 @ 2:19pm
How did bush's "nixonII" administration work out for you?
Would a "clintonII" administration be better than a "competent change" (or even "well, we tried really hard") administration? Or merely better than "nixonII"?
Considering our political history, why do Americans suddenly pine for dynasty?
Posted by Malcontent at 11/21/2008 @ 2:27pm
Hear hear. I also wouldn't mind (and I'm bracing for some controversy here) bringing Powell back if he were willing. From what I'm told, he's almost universally adored at the Department.
Posted by Thrawn at 11/21/2008 @ 2:33pm
Hillary has just officially accepted the post of SOS. One cannot help feel that Obama made a deal with her that she and her husband would only help campaign for him if she would be guaranteed the post of SOS. This is not the first deal that has been made in Washington, nor will be the last. Hillary is the most corrupt member of congress; It is therefore highly suspect that she made this deal. Expect continued apartheid persecution of the Palestinians, and when Netanyahu becomes PM in Israel in February, expect mischief to the Nth degree.
Posted by mystic at 11/21/2008 @ 3:00pm
FROSTY, how are the CANADIAN people doing "with clues" last election?
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2008 @ 11:52am
the lady across the street didn't know who mr. harper was when asked on camera for the local news.
alas, the "canadian" defense is omnipresent.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/21/2008 @ 3:20pm
I am curious on what your opinion is on what specific policy changes to the center that Obama made that ensured his election?----Posted by OneVote at 11/21/2008 @ 12:28pm |
He didn't call for an immediate "single-payer, Medicare for all" plan...that would have pushed him off to Kucinich-land and let Hillary run the table in the primaries with her "keep what you have-plus" plan. Nor would he have faced (if he had survived the primaries running on a single-payer plan) endless and LEGITIMATE attacks that it was "nationalizing health care" and "taking away people who had insurance's insurance and making them State dependents".
Yes, I know we have proponents and support for single payer HERE...but I'm talking the general electorate SWAMPED with GOP attack ads of the "Harry & Louise" type.
Or...throw in Iraq. He called for a pull-out, but not a "Out by the end of 2009" pull-out that was (A) politically hard to pull off and (B) damn near IMPOSSIBLE to pull off logistically.
Or....throw in a tax cut for the middle class, that our typical leftists wouldn't support.
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2008 @ 3:31pm
Bill Clinton trumpeted the "Third Way", the first two "ways" being pure capitalism, and pure socialism. He seemed to suggest this "third way" was somehow a new thing in the affairs of man, invented by him, with occasional input by Tony Blair. And he warned his fellow Democrats not to go back to that "second way."
But when, exactly, did we have that "pure socialism"? When Carter was president. Um, I think people were buying and selling things back then. How about the Great Society? I'm too young to remember it first hand, so I'll rely on one of that era's more popular sitcoms. Look at Samantha Stevens' kitchen. Doesn't look like something you'd find in a collective. And she was married to an ad man! If he wanted the workers of the world to unite, it was only so they'd buy the latest laundrey detergent.
Then there's Europe. Western Europe specifically. Are they "pure socialism"? Consevatives, and not a few Clinton admirers seem to think so. But they have stock markets, just like us. They have rich people, just like us. They have multi-national corperations, just like us (have a Nestly Crunch lately?)
I think the Clintons were really in favor of Six 1/2th way, thrice removed.
Posted by KJusko at 11/21/2008 @ 3:54pm
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2008 @ 3:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Hasn't his healthcare proposal been basically the same since he started his campaign - prior to his move to the center?
The tax cut to the middle class......I don't recall anybody here protesting that except our conservative bloggers. Many progressive are middle class, and the tax cut was slated as the roll back of the Bush tax cuts which favor the rich.
With regard to Iraq....yeah....I'll give you that, but as I recall, he was pretty vague early on. FISA was probably a move to the center, and AIPAC was a move over the center.
So it looks like a move to the "center" has to do with foreign policy more than domestic policy.
Recalling the 2006 election, didn't polls show that about 70% of Americans wanted out of Iraq?
The move the center you reference appears to be designed more for the puppet masters than for the electorate. Of course, the media is controlled by the puppet masters. His move to center was predictable because of this, but I believe he could have won this election regardless - if the vested media and corporate interests would have allowed him to. To represent his "centeredness" as what the majority of the country wants I just don't think is accurate.
Posted by OneVote at 11/21/2008 @ 4:13pm
Actually, I thought McCain won.
The country, which is decidedly liberal, is once again goint to be run by conservatives.
Posted by neaguy at 11/21/2008 @ 5:32pm
Fear, Fear, Fear
Change -- cannot happen when cowardly minds --- have power --- or to me more accurate -- think they have power.
After JFK was shot, the soul of the the liberal wing of the Democratic party died with him.
Electing, a dull politician (Obama) will not change this fact.
The politicians, including Obama have no idea what liberalism is, nor do they even care what liberalism is.
Posted by Philip_Shore at 11/21/2008 @ 11:48pm
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2008 @ 09:05am
But kid....you'll shoot your eye out!!!
Posted by jmusolino at 11/22/2008 @ 01:17am
Fiscal responsibility is the excuse for rationalization by liberals and the excuse for inaction by conservatives. It is, however, simply a requirement of government.
Liberal motives are much more admirable than conservative ones, the latter covering up inaction with disputable reason. But liberals should get over the arrogant assumption of superiority and learn to learn. Fossilization of Marxist ideology is silly. Group-think is non-think.
Obama is doing one great job, and the similarity to conservative (read Hillary) selections is simply phantom similarity brought on by narrow options.
Posted by delonix at 11/22/2008 @ 11:09am