Reaper Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Exactly one week from now, George Bush will leave the White House and Obama will take his place. After 8 years, the history's stupidest president will finally take his leave. But, do you really have high hopes for Obama? I'm already having my doubts, especially with the announcement made in this thread over here...
doG Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 I'd agree that George Bush is a moron but I do believe Jimmy Carter was dumber and still not as bad as Harding whom was really probably the worst of all U.S. Presidents.
npts2020 Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Exactly one week from now, George Bush will leave the White House and Obama will take his place. After 8 years, the history's stupidest president will finally take his leave. But, do you really have high hopes for Obama? I'm already having my doubts, especially with the announcement made in this thread over here... You have to remember, at the end of the day Obama is still leader of the Business Party. Agreed he is a liberal businessman but a businessman nonetheless.
DrDNA Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Poor little fella ain't never going to be able to live up to the level of expectations.
Pangloss Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 I guess that kinda depends on whose expectations we're talking about.
bascule Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 It's funny to see this sort of liberal backlash against Obama because he's different than the image people had in their heads.
Pangloss Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Speaking of which, there was an amusing story today about how he had dinner last night at George Will's house with a collection of conservatives that included, Bill Kristal (the co-founder of PNAC!), David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, and others. The far-lefties might've flipped out about it, except for the fact that he apparently had brunch this morning with E.J. Dionne, Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd. Seems only fair.
iNow Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 This was funny: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=215905&title=six-days-seven-nights "Over the past few weeks, this president is suddenly doing press as if January 20 is the day his album drops."
john5746 Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 It's funny to see this sort of liberal backlash against Obama because he's different than the image people had in their heads. Yeah, when Obama said he wanted to change politics, to bring people together, some thought he meant he was going to drive over the Republicans and then back up.
DrDNA Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Anyone have any comments on his cabinet picks? I'll throw out a bone by saying that AZ Governor Doubtfire is in no way shape or form qualified to be Sec of Homeland Security. I like Obama and voted for him without reservation, but I don't know what the heck he was smokin...... BTW: I consider myself extremely qualified to make that statement because J No has been my Gov for 6 long years and was my Attorney General before that. If this is the wrong thread to say derogatory statements about Mr Obama's picks, please forgive me and send me in the right direction. But, in contrast to my comments about Doubtfire, please be kind about it
Pangloss Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 The only cabinet pick I've had any real reservations about is Clinton, about whom the words "Foggy Bottom" rarely seem to refer to the location of her... office. (... typed Pangloss, oh so carefully.) It's a choice I just don't understand. I don't understand why Obama offered it to her (since it marginalizes Biden), I don't understand why she accepted it (being a step down from the Senate), and I don't understand why it would be a good idea. The only "reasons" I've heard seem trite and superficial, such as "her overseas experience as First Lady" (taking sniper fire, no doubt). Which means it's either going to be a total disaster, or I'm about to get schooled once again in the art of politics -- which is fine by me. I've got my pen and notepaper primed and ready.
DrDNA Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 It's a choice I just don't understand. I don't understand why Obama offered it to her (since it marginalizes Biden), I don't understand why she accepted it (being a step down from the Senate), and I don't understand why it would be a good idea. The only "reasons" I've heard seem trite and superficial, such as "her overseas experience as First Lady" (taking sniper fire, no doubt). I didn't understand it from either direction myself...at first. And I don't completely buy that stuff about "keeping your enemies closer".... Speculating about her accepting: -The Clinton legacy. History tends to forget Senators easily. -Secs of State, probably not so easily forgotten (many were pretty darn famous). Female Secs of State are remembered. It's not *such a big a deal anymore, but substantial none-the-less. A former First Lady/Senator/Sec of State...shoot, she will be remembered forever. -POWER. World power as opposed to US power. -Sec of State is fourth in line of succession and accidents happen. This is sort of tongue in cheek, but it actually may be why she was not VP even though the team would have completely annihilated the opposition. And votes always have been the reason for picking a running mate (LBJ picked by JFK is the perhaps the best example..there was no love in that one). I honestly thought that Obama would not survive to the election. I was scared for him. Him offering it to her: -The dirty game. I knew that some kind of a deal was being cut when she was still going like the Energizer Bunny long after the primaries were, for all intents and purposes, over. She kept going, and going, and going......and going. And even after she conceded, her speeches were primarily about her, not Obama....up until the last few weeks. -So, I'm convinced that there was a deal made to take out the batteries. But I honestly thought it had more to do with "her people" or even perhaps Chelsea getting in, not Hillary. -I sort of believe the one about him shutting her down for 2012. But that kind of makes my negative statement about keeping enemies closer...invalid, doesn't it?. -Like an election in 2012 really matters anyway because the world is going to end approximately a month after the election; approximately 5 weeks before she would take the oath of office. I'm no fan of Mrs Clinton, but on the bright side, like Obama, she is expected to perform like none other and I'm betting that she will rise to the occasion to show us all. -She has a lot to loose and still has our (at least some of us) memories about Bill, his sexual addiction, impeachment, etc to erase. -Which brings up this point: It gets her far away from Bill while saving face. -She can be and will be used to scare the opposition into submission. If I were a foreign dignitary, or a rogue group, I know that I wouldn't mess with her. How Bill had the guts to cross her, I'll never know. -Health care as a First Lady not withstanding, she seems to get things done. For example, the people from NY that I have spoken with seem to love her. In particular, her office seems to be responsive her substituents' requests for help on various matters. My Senators (Angry John and John Kyle) are not responsive AT ALL, so I give her cred for that.
npts2020 Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Maybe Hillary was seen as an impediment to the Obama agenda if left in the senate to promote other interests?
DrDNA Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 Maybe Hillary was seen as an impediment to the Obama agenda if left in the senate to promote other interests? What other interests do you have in mind?
Sisyphus Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 I don't know why Obama really picked Clinton, but it doesn't seem that surprising. Politically speaking there's the obvious rationale of making sure the strongest force in your party (not to mention the millions of people who like Clinton but not Obama) besides yourself is firmly on your side, which it is a cabinet member's job to be. There's a reason the job has been the rival's "consolation prize" so many times. And all political considerations aside, I honestly think she could probably do the job as well as anyone. She's smart, she's tough, she's got a hell of a rolodex, she's been positioning herself as a foreign policy maven for years (in preparation for being President, but still). As for why she accepted it, that's no mystery, either. It's more prestige and power than an ordinary Senator, in fact if not in technicality. Maybe not in the Bush Administration (Powell and Rice seem to have been mostly just spokesmen), but frequently in the past (think Henry Kissinger), and probably in the Obama Administration.
doG Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 I don't know why Obama really picked Clinton... Maybe the question is "why not?". I'm not a Clinton fan by any stretch of the imagination but her selection doesn't bother me either. She's a smart, capable person and I'd much rather see sopmeone like her than someone like John Kerry or Hanoi Jane....
npts2020 Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 What other interests do you have in mind? None in particular but it seems that if Obama can influence who her replacement is in any way, that a supportive junior senator would be a better senatorial ally than a more senior senator who may or may not be completely on your side. After all it is usually the senate that gets legislation tied up or passed more than the house.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now