Obama's Cabinet

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:15 pm

I like Geithner more than keeping Paulson or choosing another Clinton rerun.

Why not pick someone from outside that extremely limited realm of possibilities? Or are you merely acknowledging that Obama's power to effect meaningful change is severely limited? If the latter is what you're implying then I agree with you.

bluegrassg8r · Post by **bluegrassg8r** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:43 pm

Things will only get interesting when Slide questions one of Obama's picks. Until then, it is merely recycling from within a very insular, powerful few.
But for now, every pick will be like a Guinness ad for Slide, "Brilliant!".

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:57 pm

You kill me slide. Of COURSE you think he's been brilliant so far. How could be be anything other than perfect?

And of course, you cannot say anything good about Obama. Tell me then, who should he be picking? Can you come up with better names?

And as I said before, ANY of Obama's picks will be better than the ones we currently have at those positions.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:03 pm

I like Geithner more than keeping Paulson or choosing another Clinton rerun. I do not like Hillary C for Sec. of State. You agree with that pick, Slide? She's got similar views to him on just about everything *aside* from foreign policy. He doesn't have enough challenges already?

The Hillary at State does confuse me a bit. I think she can definitely do the job. And she would be able to restore the image of the US around the world - an image that Bush and his idiocy has destroyed. She and Bill are very popular figures around the world, and when she was first lady, she did travel extensively. And I think that she does have some conncetions with foreign leaders that Obama doesn't have.

What I don't totally understand is their reasons for going this way. Why would she give up a safe Senate seat that she could essentially have until she died? Why would Obama want someone who might not realize that in the SOS position she was actually Obama's employee? Does he want her out of the Senate? Does she want more foreign policy experience for another run in 2016? The dance they have been doing does seem a but strange. I don't know how well they will work together.

Is it a good pick? Yes. Is it an unusual pick? Yes. Will it work? I don't know.

I do trust Obama's judgment though. He was right in the election fights and I'll trust him now. It's too bad Bush won't resign now and let Obama get started. Bush is truly useless and marking time right now.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:05 pm

Things will only get interesting when Slide questions one of Obama's picks. Until then, it is merely recycling from within a very insular, powerful few.
But for now, every pick will be like a Guinness ad for Slide, "Brilliant!".

I'll say to you what I said to AA - who should he be picking then?

I predict that you will bitch about anything Obama does or says now.

bluegrassg8r · Post by **bluegrassg8r** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:00 pm

Once again, you've ignored my earlier assertion that I want President Obama to be a smashing success.
I was merely pointing out the lamb like quality your posts now exude as you follow and nod. Good boy. :laugh:

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:59 pm

Once again, you've ignored my earlier assertion that I want President Obama to be a smashing success.
I was merely pointing out the lamb like quality your posts now exude as you follow and nod. Good boy. :laugh:

Lamb like qualities my ass! I'm just excited that we will have an intelligent President who doesn't embarrass us every time he opens his mouth.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:26 am

You kill me slide. Of COURSE you think he's been brilliant so far. How could be be anything other than perfect?
And of course, you cannot say anything good about Obama. Tell me then, who should he be picking? Can you come up with better names?

And as I said before, ANY of Obama's picks will be better than the ones we currently have at those positions.

I doubt I have the qualifications to actually propose a candidate but I'd rather see someone with some independence...Peter Schiff, Nouriel Roubini, other independent economists from outside the system. There's a large pool of folks out there--Obama just refused to reach outside the establishment. Once again, I don't blame him too much. The choices presented to him as realistic possibilities are probably much narrower than any of us could imagine. Those with real power continue to pull the strings.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:08 am

"CHANGE AMERICA"

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Sun Nov 23, 2008 4:27 pm

Here is an excellent article from Media Matters that is a good assessment of this current topic.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200811210013?f=h_top

Do we have any rules here about posting articles? GC had a 4 paragraph rule to prevent being sued.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:13 pm

what is mediamatters.com

who is eric boehlert and jamison foser?

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:57 pm

Experience became a flaw when the system was recognized as flawed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama ran a campaign based on the position that something was wrong with the way things were being done. By choosing his team from the group of folks who were a part of the flawed system (the establishment he has railed against) he has brought the criticism upon himself. It's entirely rational to question things given his position criticizing the establishment and now hiring the establishment to run his "new and improved" government.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:13 am

The system is flawed. But keep in mind that one of the mistakes Clinton made when he started was that his transition was a disorganized affair, and it cost him a great deal when he got started. Obama is not going to make those mistakes - mistakes that he is keenly aware of and is trying not to repeat.

I have already commented about Hillary. The whole thing seems strange to me too.

If he can get the things done that he wants to get done, who cares what people he used to get it done?

What is flawed about the system is the extreme partisanship that has poisoned the political system of this country.

I suggest that you read The Audacity of Hope - that will you give you some insights into his leadership strategy.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:13 am

The fact that you boil the flaws in our system down to "partisanship" tells me all I need to know.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:41 pm

Well let's see - when one party is more worried about scoring points on the other party instead of getting things done, I think that is a flaw in the system.

This past weekend, the Cato Institute issued a statement that the Republican needs to block any kind of effort by the Obama Administration to get universal health care. They stated that a passage of this kind of program would be the end of the Republican Party. Nevermind that the majority of Americans want it - its more important to them to save the party. I would call that a flaw wouldn't you? President Truman originally promoted universal health care and it has been used a tool by both parties instead of doing something about it. That will change now hopefully.

But I am not one of these people who think that everything the government does is bad. It is with the current regime, but with the right people in place and with the right political will, it doesn't have to be.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:49 pm

the majority of Americans want it -

just because the majority wants it, doesn't mean i, as a congressman, need to fall in line and support it. i will support what i believe is right and i owe it to my constituents to decide and vote as i see fit...i was voted in on my beliefs and platform...to change my line of thinking because the majority says so is to turn my back on my constituents.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:33 pm

Yes, you are absolutely correct on that. But do you want to be the one who voted against Health Care for all Americans? The attack ads would write themselves.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:59 pm

Who cares about potential attack ads? We're past that style of politics now, I thought?

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:52 pm

That type of politics has been played out since the founding of this country. Fortunately, however, it didn't work this year. Bill Ayers is one thing - saying that you voted against health care for everyone resonates a little bit more.

bluegrassg8r · Post by **bluegrassg8r** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:27 pm

Slide's reductive angle is both simple and disingenous.
What would be more effective would be to be able to vote against a seriously flawed national health care plan that would have far reaching economic impact without fear of "either/or" partisanship from the liberals.
When there is a reasonable proposal that rewards working Americans with quality health care, great. Until then, it's merely the expansion of the government as the left shifts farther left, as they seem to do so at every opportunity.
When you libs have anything resembling compromise, let me know. I suspect I'll be waiting indefinitely.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 9:41 pm

Oh you make me laugh BG with your revisionist history.

When has W or the Republicans ever offered anything resembling compromise? Their view was My Way or Go Fuck Yourself!

bluegrassg8r · Post by **bluegrassg8r** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:04 pm

Jesus, you're myopic.
I am speaking, unlike you, about the Obama administration's oncoming attempt to find a solution to the healthcare situation in our nation. You seem to be caught in an eddy locatd sometime in the 90s. Not surprising given the direction it seems that the retreads from the Clinton administration may take us.
Again, your Pavlovian response as a Neocom is short circuiting your ability to stay in the present and I don't have the time to rehash the Bush failures with you each day to smooth your pinfeathers.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:14 am

WTF is a neocom? Surely you are not stooping to something so low as to call me a communist are you? Is that how you are going to get your point across?

bluegrassg8r · Post by **bluegrassg8r** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:40 am

Neocom- I think it's a real hoot. It's a cutesy response to "Neocon", which was intended to associate Republicans with fascists, Nazis, and their ilk.
Since you seem to dislike it, I'll see to it that my Evil Meme Network is alerted when we take a break from drowning puppies.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:52 pm

I'd never heard the term before, so I was asking for clarification. I could give a shit what you call me. If your argument solely consists of calling me names though, you might want to do some homework on your facts.