Remind me again: Was Obama just elected or Hillary?

[jonks]

My god, he's appointing qualified, experienced people who know their jobs and will competently execute the agenda of change that he dictates from the top down instead of appointing completely unqualified close friends and family to those positions as rewards for loyalty. Shocking.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Craig234


You bring up some other things, but it looked like you were criticizing him for claiming European leaders preferred him to Bush, but he was right.

I was. Though hindsight may vindicate him, at the time, the W. campaign spun that Kerry comment into 1 of the many effective talking points against him. He was always giving them ammo, instead of stealing their thunder.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: net
obama was, and from what i hear he promised to lower the price on fried chicken? is that true?

i'm just wonder what his stand on cool-aid is.

So, you are an idiot racist?

freep was down for a long time, they needed to go somewhere i guess

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: boomerang
He needs people with experience. He has none himself. It's a smart move and I applaud him for understanding his shortcomings.

If you want to hit the ground running on Jan 21, you need to have people in place that understand the system and know how to get things done. I would assume that he feels that there is no time for a learning curve. That our problems are too great to implement an on the job training program.

Hopefully the Bush staff won't be childish like the Clinton staff and do things like remove keys from keyboards.

Rewind to Jan 2001.

VP? - Cheney
SecDef? - Rumsfeld

Old guys with tons of experience. New pres with zero. Happens all the time.

Clinton had Warren Christopher and others probably.

I thought that removing the keyboard key thing was bogus.

The whole deal about the Clintons 'trashing the white house' was completely false, the Bush administration itself came out and said there was nothing out of the ordinary other than the fact someone was moving out who had lived there for 8 years.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: jonks
My god, he's appointing qualified, experienced people who know their jobs and will carry out the agenda of change that he dictates from the top down instead of appointing completely unqualified close friends and family to those positions as rewards for loyalty. Shocking.

If you are for change, you have to change 100% of things or it doesn't count. Not only should he not have appointed well qualified people to his cabinet, the people he does appoint shouldn't be able to even speak english. Now THAT would be some change! Lets get some of those tribesmen in there that only speak with clicks and whistles.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: boomerang
He needs people with experience. He has none himself. It's a smart move and I applaud him for understanding his shortcomings.

If you want to hit the ground running on Jan 21, you need to have people in place that understand the system and know how to get things done. I would assume that he feels that there is no time for a learning curve. That our problems are too great to implement an on the job training program.

Hopefully the Bush staff won't be childish like the Clinton staff and do things like remove keys from keyboards.

Uh, the Bush stff was the childish staff, who made up the *lies* about the Clinton staff removing W keys and many worse acts of vandalism.

O Rly?

The GAO concluded that ?damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks did occur in the White House during the 2001 presidential transition.? The report stated that some incidents, such as removing keyboard keys, placing glue on desk drawers and leaving obscene voicemail messages ?clearly were intentional,? and intentional damage would constitute a criminal act under federal law. No prosecutions are planned, though.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: halik
What's wrong with bill clinton again?

that's what i'm thinking haha

but i completely understand obama needing to have his own stamp on this administration... otherwise, he'll just be resented and criticized by republicans too much to unite the parties and get shit done.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: evident
i hope he picks some R's so they can STFU

but that's what clinton did!!

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: deftron
According to the Newsweek "behind the scenes" story

He really didn't like Bill Clinton

That's the main reason Hillary wasn't picked VP


So, I doubt Bill has much influence over the cabinet appointments

Exactly, it's a stupid assumption that Bill was why these people were picked.

I honestly don't think that was the reason at all. I'm just wondering why he would step back to another era to make his choices. Why isn't there fresh blood being installed.

Because there's some old blood with excellent skills that would be a valuable addition to his staff?

Who the fuck cares if they're old, so long as they're right for the job. George W Bush ran on a platform of changing Washington as well and hired most of the same guys that his dad used.

The only qualification should be skill, not age.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: net
obama was, and from what i hear he promised to lower the price on fried chicken? is that true?

i'm just wonder what his stand on cool-aid is.

So, you are an idiot racist?

Craig, I'm just curious. I mean this as a friendly and not a hostile question, but with respect to your signature:


"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
"

"I believe that, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil."


1. This suggests you might favor some type of wealth redistribution from those with more to those with less.

However, if you benefit from this redistribution, than you are simply using the government to achieve money that you did not achieve using the free market. This too is selfish.

It would seem that the natural extension of "1" would mean that if you or others benefit from wealth redistribution, it is their responsibility to, in turn, redistribute their newfound wealth downward to countries like Mexico and Africa, where greater povery exists

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: boomerang
He needs people with experience. He has none himself. It's a smart move and I applaud him for understanding his shortcomings.

If you want to hit the ground running on Jan 21, you need to have people in place that understand the system and know how to get things done. I would assume that he feels that there is no time for a learning curve. That our problems are too great to implement an on the job training program.

Hopefully the Bush staff won't be childish like the Clinton staff and do things like remove keys from keyboards.

Rewind to Jan 2001.

VP? - Cheney
SecDef? - Rumsfeld

Old guys with tons of experience. New pres with zero. Happens all the time.

Clinton had Warren Christopher and others probably.

I thought that removing the keyboard key thing was bogus.

The whole deal about the Clintons 'trashing the white house' was completely false, the Bush administration itself came out and said there was nothing out of the ordinary other than the fact someone was moving out who had lived there for 8 years.

QFT, why would anyone still believe the bogus e-mail spam charges?

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: boomerang
...
O Rly?

The GAO concluded that ?damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks did occur in the White House during the 2001 presidential transition.? The report stated that some incidents, such as removing keyboard keys, placing glue on desk drawers and leaving obscene voicemail messages ?clearly were intentional,? and intentional damage would constitute a criminal act under federal law. No prosecutions are planned, though.

Slime ball, bob barr. I wonder how much this investigation cost taxpayers.

Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) asked the General Accounting Office last June to look into allegations that Clinton staffers had ripped phone cords from walls, ...

The GAO interviewed 78 Bush and 72 Clinton aides. Bernard Ungar, who was in charge of the investigation, said one GAO employee worked on it full-time for about nine months.

 

[LS8]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: deftron
According to the Newsweek "behind the scenes" story

He really didn't like Bill Clinton

That's the main reason Hillary wasn't picked VP


So, I doubt Bill has much influence over the cabinet appointments

Exactly, it's a stupid assumption that Bill was why these people were picked.

Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you won't return a favor.

I guess that is unless you live in the bizzaro world of ATOT where everyone hates each other all the time.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: deftron
According to the Newsweek "behind the scenes" story

He really didn't like Bill Clinton

That's the main reason Hillary wasn't picked VP


So, I doubt Bill has much influence over the cabinet appointments

Exactly, it's a stupid assumption that Bill was why these people were picked.

I honestly don't think that was the reason at all. I'm just wondering why he would step back to another era to make his choices. Why isn't there fresh blood being installed.

I don't think he is interested in fresh or old blood. He is just interested in picking who he thinks is the best for the job.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: boomerang
O Rly?

The GAO concluded that ?damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks did occur in the White House during the 2001 presidential transition.? The report stated that some incidents, such as removing keyboard keys, placing glue on desk drawers and leaving obscene voicemail messages ?clearly were intentional,? and intentional damage would constitute a criminal act under federal law. No prosecutions are planned, though.

"The General Services Administration found nothing unusual about the condition of White House offices after Clinton officials left, and President Bush's staff said it had no records that indicated damage or subsequent repair work, the accounting office manager said. "


And yet a year earlier the published report was the opposite.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
I thought my first post, that you butchered quoting, explained it, but if I worded it poorly, my apologies. The intent was to express, that given his inexperience, he needs experienced personnel, surrounding him, instead of other neophytes or cronies.

It did. You said that we need experienced people running the show because things are so bad. I just found that ironic beyond McCain's wildest dreams.

As to my vote, I'll vote for whomever I wish, for whatever reason I wish. Welcome to America.

Yes, you can vote for whomever you please. However, you can't have your own brand of logic that contradicts actual logic as an objective science, which is what your false dilemma did.

Sorry, but I don't follow your logic at all.

It was the judgment of the American people that Obama has the better judgment to be President compared to McCain. Now we see that part of that judgment is to pick outstanding people for his cabinet. Some outstanding people have served before and some have not. People can project onto that whatever crap they like but what we are seeing in my opinion are the actions of a man of judgment. What experience gave him that judgment, would you say? Was it years, was it temperament, time doing stuff, his grandmother's love? How does it happen that Obama beat the pants off everybody, coming from nowhere to become President. Do you think it was God? Or maybe new organs of perception arise out of need, and we are in deep doo doo need.

Hello my friend!!
You sure have a way with words!!!! heheeee

 

[amdhunter]

I wouldn't mind seeing John McCain appointed to Homeland Security. I think he'd do a good job at it.

As for Palin, she can be appointed Ho security.

 

[Mani]

If an Obama admin looks anything like Bill Clinton's, I won't be too disappointed.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

I don't quite understand your gripe. Presidents have always looked for well qualified individuals and/or those with past government experience as well as politically sympathetic / personally loyal people. With some exceptions, such as Richard Clarke, new administrations tend to replace their predecessors once in office (although I think that Lyndon Johnson kept most of Kennedy's cabinet while dealing with Vietnam).

Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense under Ford before resuming the post under George W. Bush, and Cheney was Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. James Baker was Reagan's Chief of Staff and later was Secretary of State under George H.W. Bush

The last time any Democrat held office was....*gasp* Clinton. Prior to that the last Democrat was Carter. Of course Obama will select some individuals experienced in government, and the ones with the most recent experience were under Clinton. It'd be nice to select some moderate Republicans, but no reasonable person should be surprised that in today's partisan politics Republicans and Democrats select ideologically / personally loyal individuals.

*edit* furthermore, Obama has an obvious precedent for balancing his intelligence and instincts with experience....George W. Bush not only chose a more politically experienced running mate (Cheney) but also took a number of holdovers from previous Republican administrations: Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice etc.