Obama promised change but picking insiders

Great Post! I couldn't have said it better myself.

leatherneck

What you people are doing is PREJUDGING...Obama before he is even sworn in...You all

act as though you have some kind of Crystal Ball that is giving you a Gloom and Doom

forecast as it pertains to Obama...I just want to KNOW WHERE was this Ball at before

 the Wall Street Crash and 9/11 and before GW became one of the WORSE Presidents

to Date...Why wasn't it giving you Vital information then...Why does your Ball have all

 the skinny on Obama?...That's what I would like to know.

Reporter or opposition says something that isn't a glowing review of how great The One is.

Only when the criticism is based on disproven rumors and speculation, like so much of it has been.

Whether or not the story or post is true, Obama believers commence to tearing down the poster or reporter with insults and accusations.  Rarely is the premise of the post or story challenged.  Nearly always the character of the writer is torn apart.

That's because so many right wing "journalists" have gotten so good at passing biased commentary off as news.  They spin every isolated, minor, random incident into  the beginning of the apocalypse.

Blame Bush and talk about how smart Obama is while ignoring all the stuttering and stammering he does when he's off his beloved teleprompter(this is sometimes included as part of Step 2 or completely replaces Step 2)

Bush gets blamed for things because the last 8 years have been the worst we've ever known, not because it's Obama's turn.  And what you refer to as stammering is thinking before speaking.  Probably a good idea when millions are listening.

leatherneck69:

It's so much fun to read the posts from ardent Obama believers.  They have a nice easy to recognize formula that goes something like this:

Step 1 - Reporter or opposition says something that isn't a glowing review of how great The One is.

Step 2 - Whether or not the story or post is true, Obama believers commence to tearing down the poster or reporter with insults and accusations.  Rarely is the premise of the post or story challenged.  Nearly always the character of the writer is torn apart.

And Republicans bash the "liberal media" everytime Bush, McCain etc.. are given a negative report.  I believe I hear the media called liars a lot.. at least until they post something negative about Obama.

Step 3 - Blame Bush and talk about how smart Obama is while ignoring all the stuttering and stammering he does when he's off his beloved teleprompter(this is sometimes included as part of Step 2 or completely replaces Step 2)

Republican version of this.. Blame Obama for everything before he even gets in office and does anything... worship Bush's "perfection" even though every single bit of evidence out there supports the fact that this man is a failed President.

The fact is that for at least the next 2 years Obama will be unable to fail because the media and his believers will not let him.  Joe Biden's warning that Obama will make the wrong decision on an important crisis within 6 months will not come true.  Whatever decision he makes will be the correct one because he'll tell us why in complete sentences.  It's like Democrats and Liberals don't mind getting @$$ raped as long as you sound smart while you're doing it. 

Show us the quote where Biden warned Obama will make a "wrong decision" or stop spinning before you get dizzy and land on your butt.

Don't disappoint me on step 2 libs!

Waiting on that direct quote about "a wrong decision"

Don't disappoint us now...

Is that what they refer to as selective amnesia. Can't tell, not that I am the subjectmatter expert or anything, I mean, I would have to be a liberal to profess any Intelligence or Knowledge but didn't this country endure a "Great Depression" under a Democrat in the White House. Hmm, since you brought it up, didn't many nations at that time to nationalist demagogues in desparation. The most famous of which was.......You get one guess......OH, WAIT.... Here it is.....Hit....Hitler.....Adolf Hitler. Oh, I said it, here we go! 

Direct Biden quote from a fundraiser in Seattle on October 19th:

"And here's the point I want to make. Mark my words. Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you, not financially to help him, we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Joe Biden basically saying that he's going to need people to convince non-believers that The One made the right decision because it's going to look like he screwed the proverbial pooch.

The whole article can be read at the Chicago Sun-Times online. 

Good job on making me do your research!

Using Biden to try to prove a point about Obama supporters is hardly a good idea, given that Obama supporters clearly voted for Obama over Biden in the Democratic primaries.

Maybe my glasses aren't working.. I don't see anywhere in there where Biden said Obama was going to make

"a wrong decision"

I do believe that is what I asked for repeatedly.

I do see "tough decisions".. though.. there's a surprise.  A President might have to make "tough decisions"... lol

Good job on not proving to me what I asked you to prove. Thanks :)

Joe Biden basically saying that he's going to need people to convince non-believers that The One made the right decision because it's going to look like he screwed the proverbial pooch.

You must mean this statement:

Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Looks to me like he said "we're right"?

Isn't that the opposite of wrong?

And yes thank you for the research but I didn't really need it considering I knew Joe Biden never once said Obama was going to make a wrong decision.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying Obama will never make a wrong or bad decision but then again show me a single President that didn't make a wrong or bad decision.

Human is human even if you are a President.

If you at least try and be honest and fair you will recognize that the negatives posted by conservatives and Liberals pretty even, with ultra right wingers inching out a lead.  Insulting the PE, using Liberal like its an insult, calling non-believers sheep, idiots, unamerican, etc.  But, don't worry, I don't expect fair and impartial from you.

You peeps are pathethic, you have someone else do the research, because your either not smart enough or just LAZY. Then you tear apart the article without having read the article in full without any backing evidence or real argument. I would lean more towards your not smart enough to research your choice before choosing. Spewing  assumptions. Assuming does not = Correct answers. So those of you who ASSUMED CHANGE are crossing your fingers, just hoping. HOPE does not = action.  Hope is a chance, so roll those dice and keep wishing on a star- see where it gets you. Wishing does not = progress. What happen to common sense in this country- people are soooo stupid.

Actually Arctic....most of us, if I may speak for others, decided that the HOPE of change was much better than the GUARANTEE of 4 years of the same @!$%# we already had...so yes, we are HOPING for change...because the alternative was too scary....

Exactly, I will find it very difficult aclimatizing myself to socialism. Let me practice.

"Comrade Starshine, you are correct."

There, mayby it won't be so hard afterall.

...."Why would he pick all new people as apposed to seasoned,proven people."......

Why vote for Obama when you could have had Hillary?  Inexperience vs. experience.  Do you really think that these seasoned veterans are going to do things differently because Obama is holding the reins or are you just trying to look for the silver lining? 

That would be communism...and you are ridiculous...

Ummm, what did USSR stand for again, I uh forget, hmmmm. Please help.

Yes rwyn...and OUR U used to stand for United....now it's more for US vs them....

Don't get offended, I was only making a point. I spent a large portion of my life protecting your rights and will do so again if called upon. I purposely try to antagonize people here so that I can make my points. I don't mean to upset anyone. K ;)

You can make your point without being antagonistic...I for one would much rather debate with a level headed intelligent person....

JustLynn, You get high points for that answer!

Examples please. I mean, since you are the enlightened one. Mayby you could explain your ascertion in terms that we mere mortals can understand. Because what you just said, makes no sense.

Steve:

You might want to read this one REALLY SLOW...

How in the hell is appointing folks with scandalous records like Holder (remember the Rich pardon?) in line with his theme of CHANGE?

For that matter, WHY would you want to appoint someone like Michigan governor Granholm (who has fueled Michigan's recession with poor spending policy) to your ECONOMIC advisory committee.

I could go on and on, but it doesn't sound like your boy Obama is making any prudent moves! 

Steve-- Thank you for your calm voice of reason.  It is very Obama-like.  Well put!

daver-98:  The Zogby Poll has been refuted and shown to be totally incorrect... 

I live in Indiana... we've only voted Dem in 1964 and 1936.  This year we were a blue state.  The blue counties were all centers of higher education.  The Zogby Report was bogus.

Oops... I keep misspelling your name.  It is Mr. Tenny.  I appologize.

Higher education in Indiana? Hahahaahahaha    Purdue and..... and..... anyone, anyone

Surely you jest when you say Indiana and Higher Education in the same sentence.

Notice how Steve never responded, even with enough time to look the answers up on dem internets! Typical, and the statement,

But there are those who will never admit that Obama is doing anything right just because your man did not win.

Priceless.  Is really how people like you think Steve? That informed people don't care about the issues, just that "their" man didn't win.  Wow guy.

Excuse me Omicron77...I graduated from Indiana Universtity and I would be more than happy to compare my academic record and my IQ with yours' anytime. Add in my ability to debate with people without deriding them personally and I'm quite sure I would come out ahead...

daver-98:

Your comments regarding Indiana are simply childish.

Regarding Holden and the Rich case:

Do you think it an intelligent, fair judgment to condemn a man simply for carrying out the requirements of his job? That is, what the president has asked him to do?

In your view, that should affect the rest of his career in your judgment? Both Republicans and Democrats laud him as an excellent choice, as he's not only highly qualified but highly skilled, and someone who takes the law and servicing justice, very seriously. Partisan politics do not come into it, which as we now know is actually an issue within the most non-partisan areas of government: the justice department has been severely undermined by the Bush Administration. Thank goodness senior people decided to come clean and offer some honest answers with regards to the hearing - if it was up to Bush and Gonzales, e still would not know, though a rash of weird and wonderful accusrtaions would undoubtdely be foring out of Washington targeted at any Democrat who needed a lesson taught.

This is in contrast to the Bush justice department who openly admitted in hearings that they systematically filled EVERY JOB with people loyal only to the republican party, some of whom barely qualified as lawyers. Highly qualified lawyers who refused to disclose what political party they prefer, or said they were Democrats, were not called back, let alone hired. This is not only illegal, but highly recognizable Bush administration behavior. Disgusting for people who conider themselves more patriotic than their opponents.

With regards to people being upset Obama's not brought in a binch of new people all of a sudden: of course that's partly not true anyway, it's just that some of the high profile positions are likely to go to well known people.

I trust Obama to use that experience and knowledge to further his agenda, his pledges to the people. I DO believe he's capable of helping create a healthier Washington that gets things done for the good of the country. He's shown time and again that his criotics are pretty much wrong almost all of the time.

Oops, I just re-read my post above and realized I've mish-mashed it a bit.

With patience, hopefully the reader will understand that anyone questioning Holden's qualifications because of the Rich pardon, must think that you have a choice as to what to do when working directly for the POTUS. It kinda doesn't work that way!

And then I compared Holden's excellent reputation with what Bush and Gonzales did to the Justice Department, which is not debatable: they illegally politicized it.

No comparison. One very honest straight shooter, one partisan hack who was essentially Bush's attack squirrel, supervising numerous unconstitutional acts across the administration. Thanks, mister Bush, mister Gonzales & the Republican party! And we see you're now ensuring the country stalls while we figure out the legal mess you're still creating before you leave.

Shocking behavior from a 'leader'.

Songbird02:

hate to burst your bubble, but the results of ZOGBY polls are correct...regretfully, the left is upset at ZOGBY and claiming results are bogus

But given the posts that libs make in this blog, I have no doubt the results are accurate!

daver98:  Please look up what Mark Bloomenthal said about the Zogby poll on Politics.com and what Nate Silver said about it on FiveThirtyEight.con.  It was a complete right wing hatchet job.

I wouldn't call Biden's statement a Prophesy... Anyone taking office would be tested...

I did see the videos and both listened to commentaries and read articles about why the Al Qaeda leader released the film. Obama's election has been heralded world wide. He is seen very favorably and that has changed how people overseas view the US. Al Qaeda has to discredit Obama in order to keep from loosing support. I am sure you can watch the videos online on any of the news stations... and there are many articles being written if you want to read them.

Stibber... I am a centrist too. I agree with you about Pelosi and Reid. I do think Obama has the fortitude to stand up to all of the insiders. I think he needs the chance to prove it to all of us...

...."I hope PE Obama"....

There you go again.  That's what got you to drink the Kool-aide in the first place.  Hope is a very powerful word.

Well, he has stood with them for the last rour years. So yah, I am sure he will stand against them in the future.

MomaNana, voting "present" in the Illinois legislature is not what you think it is. It isn't like saying "present" when your name is read by 4th grade teaher while he/she is taking attendance. Check your facts.

Sightseer:

Voting present in the Senate is the same as gradeschool?

Hillarious?  (He voted present, because he didn't want to vote "yea" or "nay"...gradeschool roll-calls are VERY different from voting roll-calls in the Senate).

Guess you're a proud Obama voter?

daver, your comprehension's about as good as my spelling.

Your boy McCain could have voted present, too, if he would have been more often.

This issue has already been hashed over ad nauseum...a present vote is a well known strategy in Illinois to express displeasure either over the way a bill is written or to "attachments" than have been added that threaten other laws or constitutional rights, or add "pork" to otherwise sound legislation.

Thank you, JustLynn, but there still seems to be a few in the class who were not paying attention. Hey Hey MomNana!

Well, isn't it really both parties fault. I mean really. After all, they do make all decisions concerning the government. One other thing, I really think the center may disappear. It may already be gone.

Well if we can't blame anyone then who's fault is it ever?

Unless there is accountability nothing ever changes.

The fact is both parties are to blame for this mess and Bush's inability to be an effective leader for the last 8 years has gotten us here. That is what a leader does.  He leads.  There hasn't been any leadership.  Just the constant threat of the bogeyman anytime people weren't being supportive enough.

Bush's biggest accomplishment is that he turned fear tactics into an art form.

Both parties should take blame rather than constantly blaming one another for everything.  For example, the Bush adminsitration signalled that there were issues with the GSE's dating back to 2001 and a predominantly republican congress did nothing. Again, in 2005 and 2007 there were more calls for reforms and both the republicans and democrats did nothing.  When things really started to show signs of wear, in 2007 the Barney Franks and Chris Dodd's did nothing.  Both parties could have done things, but to no avail.  Hopefully, PE Obama learns from this and can get the do nothing congress to get off their behinds and get to work for the people and not just work for their special interests or just to just load pork barrell spending plans into bills.

Partisanship is the issue not Bush, not Clinton, not Obama. Bush could have gotten more done if not for the blind hate by do nothing congressional leaders. 

A leader could have gotten both parties to work together.  When you work to divide .. yes you're to blame.  He was a divider not a decider.

I respectfully disagree.  Clinton did not unite, in fact, we had numerous government shutdowns in teh 1990s due to the inability for him and the congress to agree on the budgets.  In those days, the republican congress was staunchly fiscally conservative and would not agree with the Clinton administration's budgets.  His back was against the wall and he had to acquiesce and get more conservative budgets put through. In hindsight it was the right thing to do but at the time,the media blasted the congress for playing hardball. The last leader to truly unite both sides of the aisle was Ronald Reagan when the term "Reagan Democrat" was coined.   

I never said Clinton united the parties. 

I was referring to Bush since at the moment we have him to look to for a leadership and pointed out that Bush has been a very divisive president. 

Accountability falls to any leader period when they fail to lead and in Bush's case ... well he stomped on the constitution, lied us into a war ... the list goes on.  This man should be held accountable on a whole lot more than failure to lead.

You cannot blame one man for divisiveness.  It was also blind hate on the left wing that fueled the divisiveness.  I would say that putting Americans in internement camps and suspending habeous corpus is stomping on the contstitution and that was done by FDR and Lincoln respectively.  It was what was necessary given the times we were in.  I am certainly no Bush fan, but I consider myself objective and a pure centrist.  I recognize failures and successes in all adminstrations.  AS far as the war, everyone looked at the same intelligence and had the same conclusions.  Even Hillary voted for the war.  MSNBC put out an article in July 2008 published by the AP that reports that 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" was secretly removed from Iraq and shipped to Canada.  We seized it back in 2004 and held it in a secret location to avoid theft or terrorist attack. It is the same type of "yellowcake" that is used to enrich uranium for weapons and the same "yellowcake" Saddam supposedly did not try to purcahse in Niger.  There is more than meets the eye on this issue.  We should respect the office of all presidents. 

I have not once said that both parties are not to blame.  The point is as a leader it is his job to lead.  His job to unite.  When people started finding out he lied, he lied about intelligence, passed on only what appeared incriminating without giving it as a whole. He cherry picked discriminantly what info went to congress for them to vote on. Yes it made the left mad.  It made a lot of people mad.

More than five years after the initial invasion of Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committee has finally gone on the record: the Bush administration misused, and in some cases disregarded, intelligence which led the nation into war. The two final sections of a long-delayed and much anticipated "Phase II" report on the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence, released on Thursday morning, accuse senior White House officials of repeatedly misrepresenting the threat posed by Iraq.

Bush even said that "knowing what we now know, we still would have invaded Iraq".  Bush did not care about intelligence.  He wanted Iraq no matter what.

I respect the office of the President.  I don't respect this President.

And in my opinion... there is never any good excuse to stomp on the Constitution when it is your job to uphold and protect it.. as you promise to do when you are sworn in.  If you can't do your job then don't apply for the position.

We don't get to break the laws just because we say we have a good reason to do so unless of course we want to stand in front a jury of our peers and let them decide how "right" we are.

I also recognize failures in all administrations but currently this one is having a huge impact on the lives of people all over the world and our environment so, excuse me if I am not real concerned with what Lincoln did while he was in office at this point in time.

stibber: "You cannot blame one man for divisiveness."

If you are speaking of Bush 43, last time I checked, there is pretty much nothing left to accuse him of that he has not done. 

Stribber that yellowcake was fully declared by Iraq, and under the control of the U.N. weapons inspectors WELL BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. It had nothing to do with reasons for the invasion - in fact to the inspectors, it was proof that Iraq WAS cooperating. Turns out they were right. Bringing up declared items as a reason does naught but show the real desperation to clear poor, persecuted George W Bush.

The yellowcake issue has been used by the far right to justify the war, and is a long  debunked issue. If that is a prime reason for you to believe the war was justified, then your claim to be a "pure centrist" is a rather odd one.

But then we see that with Bill O'Reilly also - he claims to be a centrist, despite, well, pretty much EVERYTHING he says and does pointing to the contrary, in a rather right-veering direction! So it's not surprising that he's managed to fool some right wing people that they are in fact i the middle, and that the far right is only just rigth of them, so they CAN'T be unreasonable. It's a fantasy world that the Republican party have sucesfully cultivated. They seem to have very successfully shifted the right-left paradigm FAR to the right. Now, center in America means firmly right wing in every other western country. The Democratic party itself would be right wing in any other country!

stibber:

"we should respect the office of all presidents"

Sp stibber, because he's the President, you think we should respect a president irrespective of whether he commits a crime - whether it be against the constitution, another country, or the people of America?

Let's say for argument's sake that Bush isn't who we're talking about.

If Obama outs a CIA agent in charge of the team that tracks loose nukes because her husband outed him as being dishonest to the American people during a speech justifying invasion, should we respect that treason because he's the president? Doesn't matter that dozens of undercover agents may have been exposed? He's the president, respect him.

If Obama decides that a country needs to be invaded, but all the experts are telling him there's no reason to - one method to justify invasion: talking points including lies, misleading statements and incorrect intelligence that is KNOWN to be incorrect, are issued daily to sympathetic radio & TV stations, to ensure the people are convinced - illegal propaganda, but it's OK because he's the president?

Obama decides he wants a far left Justice system, so every new lawyer hired by the justice system across the country is not hired for their qualifications, but for their loyalty to fer left philosophy. That's OK, because he's the president?

Obama discusses what level and method of torture should be used on terrorist suspects, whilst telling the world that America does not torture.  Ordering torture is illegal, both domestically and internationally. But it's OK, because he's the president?

I'm tiring now - but stibber: what becomes a level to which you start to think a president should maybe not be in that job? How can you call objections to the the above "blind hate"?

You can vote "Nay", "Yea" or "Present". 

President George W. Bush Jr is a Brave Man.

At the risk of being argumentative.........never mind.  Just please read this, this, this and this.  I have about a hundred more but IF you read these, I think you will understand that the only B-word that applies to this man would disparage his parents, and I am not willing to do that.

Regards

Very well put Barbara!

I applaud thee.

'Thank-you, thank-you!  I'll be here all week.  Tip your veal, enjoy your waitress (er, waiter).'

mboss: the smug self-righteousness of the right no longer works. Or did you not get that memo?

Txbratman1...Yes he has a right to pick who he sees fit.....so far who he sees fit..is the same old insiders who caused the problems.  He sees fit to hite Daschle...who took cash from lobbiests then went to work for the same lobbiests...

Sorry....just like with VP..pick, remember dems said it was first reall decision future president makes,......well Barack Husseins cabinets picks work the same way.....and Barack  Hussein is picking clinton retreads, lobbiests.....all the same old money men and those with ties to the money men.. so much for change....

I was one of those idiots.

stibb,  OK if you say so.  ;>)