the third clinton amdminastartion

[bjorn_skurj]

Also, I'd like to say that I've had just about f*cking enough of reading news stories about "credible" "Al-Qadea" "threats" about "attacks" on the NYC subway system. I didn't want to add fuel to this fire by starting a new thread about it, and I didn't know where else to put this rant, and this has become a pseudo-political thread so here it goes.

 

If someone decided that the cure for our intelligence system missing the warning signs to 9/11 is to highlight every threat we get on CNN every few months STOP IT. It doesn't make things better. I still have to take the train to and from work every day. There's nothing I can do about it. My wife and loved ones have to also. Warning me about threats 20x a year doesn't allow you to say after the fact, "well, we couldn't prevent it, but we told you so." We get it. There are threats. Stop trying to scare people. What the f*ck does "credible" mean? If it's really so credible why isn't it the lead f*cking story on every news outlet all over the world? STOP IT.

 

/rant

 

(sorry)

Vibes, man, from the safety of Dutchess County.

[MrRain422]

Actually as I pointed out in another post, that is not entirely true. Both advocated during the campaign a fairly quick withdrawal from Iraq and in fact Barack may be more hawkish on Afganistan than Hillary.

 

They had a lot in common on foreign policy, just less than in other areas. On most issues they were identical or nearly so. On foreign policy they were similar, just less similar than on pretty much every other issue. That's all I'm sayin'.

 

Lou - no one is arguing otherwise (I don't think). The point is that even though you speak the truth, this may not be what people thought they were getting when they voted for Change. And, arguably, it isn't what people were led to believe. Naive or not, everyone's definition of Change is different, and Obama's brilliance was to play on that word. I can't fault people for feeling a bit misled.

 

I'm disappointed with some of the appointments, but don't feel misled. I think a lot of people heard what they wanted to hear during the campaign (and that goes for a lot of Obama supporters as well as a lot of people who hate him). I don't think Obama was misleading at all. I was always under the impression that the "change" that he spoke of had more to do with honesty, transparency, fairness and competence than with with a full out lefty agenda (though I think I'd probably prefer the latter more than most would). He spoke continuously throughout the campaign about bipartisanship. Plus, he can still put brand new policies in place with the same people who took part in old ones. Change in policy and change in personnel are not necessarily one and the same.

[LouieB]

Lou - no one is arguing otherwise (I don't think). The point is that even though you speak the truth, this may not be what people thought they were getting when they voted for Change. And, arguably, it isn't what people were led to believe. Naive or not, everyone's definition of Change is different, and Obama's brilliance was to play on that word. I can't fault people for feeling a bit misled.

No on has been misled. Because Obama has appointed some old hands to various positions doesn't constitute being misled. if he up and starts a unilateral war with some, that's being misled. If he raises taxes on the middle class, that is being misled (it may happen anyway because the economy is so fucked up), if he doesn't roll back a reasonable percentage of Bush's policies (not the things he can't control or laws passed by the Congress), that will be being misled, if he doesn't at least try to create green jobs, that is being misled.

 

Barack is just one guy and he can't do everything he promised or talked about during the campaign. Shit folks, if he doesn't lie his ass off to us every fucking time he opens his mouth (Heck the fact that he can talk in complete sentences is not being misled right there..) we are going to be far better off than we were.

 

Honestly I am not just being cynical or some kind of old codger about this; I am totally thrilled to death to have Obama as President and totally optomistic on many levels, but my expectations are not sky high, we have to be realistic here. Government does not change overnight (or sometimes ever) so any small increments that are changed is a big fucking deal. Start from the top down...wouldn't you rather have Biden than Cheney or Palin, Hillary instead of Condi, etc. etc. I would....(and once again, who do you want in the White House when someone on the Supreme Court conks out?? John "the madman" McCain or Barack Obama...nuff said....)

 

And you want change.....write Barack and tell him you want me in charge of some shit. I am all in favor of free drugs, rock and roll and sex in the street (just don't tell my wife okay....)

 

LouieB

[MattZ]

MrRain/LouieB - look, I agree with you guys. I just can't fault someone being upset that he appointed HRC to be the face of this country's foreign policy. And I don't think that someone upset about that is naive.

 

Bjorn - thanks bud.

[MrRain422]

I don't think that someone upset about Hillary's appointment is naive either, I just don't think they were misled. There are other reasons to be upset about it other than feeling misled about it.

[MattZ]

from cnn (in order of appearance):

 

OTHER NEWS

-- Bush's mom recovering from surgery

-- Al Qaeda may target New York trains, feds say

[LouieB]

MrRain/LouieB - look, I agree with you guys. I just can't fault someone being upset that he appointed HRC to be the face of this country's foreign policy. And I don't think that someone upset about that is naive.

We essentially aren't disagreeing, except 18 million people probably are really thrilled by this since she can't be president. Hillary is a highly recognized figure and far more progressive than Condi Rice and hopefully will end up being more honest. I am not thrilled by it either, but to be honest, I actually don't care either way. She could be president elect right now and I wouldn't be crying. Think of the alternatives....(visualize Sarah Palin as commander in chief okay??)

 

LouieB

[mountain bed]

I think Obama is doing fine. He's appointing people who know what the f that they are doing. Amy Goodman would freak out at anything less than the appointment of Ernesto "Che" Guevara as secretary of state. I did not like it when the righties were in charge, and while I would probably like many things about the lefties being in charge, many more people would not, and we are at a point in American history where we all really need to be on board if anything of substance is to be accomplished. The only way to do that is to play it pretty much down the middle. So free drugs, rock 'n' roll and fucking in the streets will have to wait a bit.

I've been waiting my whole adult life. I guess a little longer won't hurt.

 

Bjorn - I haven't seen this mentioned here, but your hottie Rep Kirsten has been talked about as a possible replacement for HRC in the Senate. Hmmm.

[bjorn_skurj]

I've been waiting my whole adult life. I guess a little longer won't hurt.

 

Bjorn - I haven't seen this mentioned here, but your hottie Rep Kirsten has been talked about as a possible replacement for HRC in the Senate. Hmmm.

NO. SHE'S MINE, uh, ours!

(Seriously, there are a few people ahead of her in line for that gig, but Gov. Paterson may want to appoint an upstate person rather than a NYC person.)