Let''s talk "change".

[Ellen]

I didn''t want to highjack another thread, I think the topic deserves its own thread.


I have heard the rummbling''s from the Reps on Obama''s choices so far. "Clintonite''s", "retreads", etc. I assume they wanted all new fresh faces in there. That would be a change, right? Well, that depends on what change means to people. I never thought for a minute that''s what he meant, I thought he meant, "I''m going to change the way things have been done around here, not the people who are going to help me do that".


I can totally understand why he''s picking who he is. He wants the best at what they do/most experienced people. And he wants Democrats for the most part. (no surprise there) So, who would that be?

Oh yeah, the guys from the last Democratic reign. They have the knowledge of how things work, they have the experience. Why would he pick some fresh faced person? Why would anyone expect him to? This isn''t a time to gamble on picks guys, he needs people who know what they''re doing.


In looking at how he has picked people in the past, and performed so far, I have total confidence in him. That may change, but until he actually starts screwing up, I''m not going to question him.

Just mho!

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Ellen, I agree! Personally, I don''t think this country was in such bad shape during the Clinton administration. And, like you said, the "Clinton retreads" have experience! Isn''t Obama''s perceived lack of experience one of the main things that drew criticism from the McCain camp during the campaign? So, why SHOULDN''T he be surrounding himself with experienced individuals who have "been there, done that"? I''m sure the Republicans would be VERY quick to criticize him for choosing fresh faces as opposed to those with experience. I guess some people just can''t be satisfied.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 11/21/2008 9:46:37 AM
Author: Irishgrrrl
Ellen, I agree! Personally, I don''t think this country was in such bad shape during the Clinton administration. And, like you said, the ''Clinton retreads'' have experience! Isn''t Obama''s perceived lack of experience one of the main things that drew criticism from the McCain camp during the campaign? So, why SHOULDN''T he be surrounding himself with experienced individuals who have ''been there, done that''? I''m sure the Republicans would be VERY quick to criticize him for choosing fresh faces as opposed to those with experience. I guess some people just can''t be satisfied.

Yes.

Totally agree with ya!

 

[meresal]

Date: 11/21/2008 9:59:12 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 11/21/2008 9:46:37 AM
Author: Irishgrrrl
Ellen, I agree! Personally, I don't think this country was in such bad shape during the Clinton administration. And, like you said, the 'Clinton retreads' have experience! Isn't Obama's perceived lack of experience one of the main things that drew criticism from the McCain camp during the campaign? So, why SHOULDN'T he be surrounding himself with experienced individuals who have 'been there, done that'? I'm sure the Republicans would be VERY quick to criticize him for choosing fresh faces as opposed to those with experience. I guess some people just can't be satisfied.

Yes.

Totally agree with ya!

I don't feel I am in any position to give thoughts about the Clinton admin, since I was in school and not a tax payer. However, I enjoy reading what others have to say, and think back to how my parents dealt with things (of what I can remember anyway).

Yes it is feasibly better to have "experience", but didn't he criticize everything that D.C. was doing? It think, to some at least, it is more of a shock than anything. It's not what was expected, based on comments he made during the election. I think it would be very likely that you could find a few Dem's that are not happy with some of his appointments as well. No?

However, that could have been just what I was seeing thru my Rep tinted specs.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 11/21/2008 10:05:53 AM
Author: meresal
I don''t feel I am in any position to give thoughts about the Clinton admin, since I was in school and not a tax payer. However, I enjoy reading what others have to say, and think back to how my parents dealt with things (of what I can remember anyway).

Yes it is feasibly better to have ''experience'', but didn''t he criticize everything that D.C. was doing? It think, to some at least, it is more of a shock than anything. It''s not what was expected, based on comments he made during the election. I think it would be very likely that you could find a few Dem''s that are not happy with some of his appointments as well. No?

However, that could have been just what I was seeing thru my Rep tinted specs.

Meresal, you made some very good points. Obama said throughout his campaign that Bush is doing a lot wrong, and that we desperately need the oft-mentioned change. BUT . . . I don''t think he ever said that he would not hire anyone who had already served under a previous president. Maybe I took the whole "change" thing the wrong way, but I thought he meant that we needed a change from what has been going on for the past eight years . . . not necessarily something totally 100% different than what any other President has done in the past. I think any President Elect would be very wise to look back at what his predecessors have done RIGHT (not just what they''ve done wrong) and try to learn from those things . . . and learn from the people who made those things happen.

And I''m sure you''re right that we could find some people who voted for Obama and who are now unhappy with some of his appointments. "You can please all of the people some of the time, and you can please some of the people all the time, but you can''t please all the people all the time."

 

[Ellen]

Date: 11/21/2008 10:05:53 AM
Author: meresal

Date: 11/21/2008 9:59:12 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 11/21/2008 9:46:37 AM
Author: Irishgrrrl
Ellen, I agree! Personally, I don't think this country was in such bad shape during the Clinton administration. And, like you said, the 'Clinton retreads' have experience! Isn't Obama's perceived lack of experience one of the main things that drew criticism from the McCain camp during the campaign? So, why SHOULDN'T he be surrounding himself with experienced individuals who have 'been there, done that'? I'm sure the Republicans would be VERY quick to criticize him for choosing fresh faces as opposed to those with experience. I guess some people just can't be satisfied.

Yes.

Totally agree with ya!

I don't feel I am in any position to give thoughts about the Clinton admin, since I was in school and not a tax payer. However, I enjoy reading what others have to say, and think back to how my parents dealt with things (of what I can remember anyway).

Yes it is feasibly better to have 'experience', but didn't he criticize everything that D.C. was doing? It think, to some at least, it is more of a shock than anything. It's not what was expected, based on comments he made during the election. I think it would be very likely that you could find a few Dem's that are not happy with some of his appointments as well. No?

However, that could have been just what I was seeing thru my Rep tinted specs.

Initially yes, I can see both sides raising an eyebrow (if they looked at change in the context of "new faces"). If one stops and thinks about it, as I and Irish have pointed out, he needs experience. He's already been accused of "on the job" training, do they want his whole staff in the same position?

And I wouldn't say he criticized everything in D.C, but certainly a lot of things this last administration has done. I think he wants way more transparency in what is going on. WE are "the people", we voted him in, he works for us. We have a right to know what's going on. And I think he gets that. He wants us to understand what he's doing, he wants to understand us and what we want. No, he can't please everyone, although I honestly think he'd like to. Because I think he genuinely cares, about us, and the country.

I don't want to sound all gushy, but what I just said, is why I think SO many people are enamored with him. He is a rare individual, in many ways, good ways (take those specs off and have a gander)

. We just need to trust his intelligence, and instincts going into this. That's not to say he's perfect, or that he won't make mistakes, he may. But I think the fact that he truly cares, is what drives him. And I personally can't argue with that.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 11/21/2008 9:39:17 AM
Author:Ellen
I didn''t want to highjack another thread, I think the topic deserves its own thread.


I have heard the rummbling''s from the Reps on Obama''s choices so far. ''Clintonite''s'', ''retreads'', etc. I assume they wanted all new fresh faces in there. That would be a change, right? Well, that depends on what change means to people. I never thought for a minute that''s what he meant, I thought he meant, ''I''m going to change the way things have been done around here, not the people who are going to help me do that''.


I can totally understand why he''s picking who he is. He wants the best at what they do/most experienced people. And he wants Democrats for the most part. (no surprise there) So, who would that be?

Oh yeah, the guys from the last Democratic reign. They have the knowledge of how things work, they have the experience. Why would he pick some fresh faced person? Why would anyone expect him to? This isn''t a time to gamble on picks guys, he needs people who know what they''re doing.


In looking at how he has picked people in the past, and performed so far, I have total confidence in him. That may change, but until he actually starts screwing up, I''m not going to question him.

Just mho!

Thanks for saying this Ellen. I thought the same exact thing the entire time I was reading those comments but I''m at the "why bother" phase.

 

[strmrdr]

Bringing in people like this sure isn''t reassuring..

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6302394&page=1

Hillary for state is the worst plan I have ever heard of.

not reassuring at all.

These 2 at first glance appear to be good choices.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/retired-four-st.html

 

[HollyS]

Ellen, if you think ''the best'' is Holder as Attorney General . . . . most people, when informed or reminded of his past ''credentials'' and ''methods'' would certainly disagree. Or they should.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 11/21/2008 1:59:44 PM
Author: HollyS
Ellen, if you think 'the best' is Holder as Attorney General . . . . most people, when informed or reminded of his past 'credentials' and 'methods' would certainly disagree. Or they should.

Holly, do you truly presume to know what people "should" and "should not" believe? That's quite a few steps beyond having an opinion of your own .... to believing yours is the only informed & correct opinion. Guess that would explain a lot.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 11/21/2008 2:21:46 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 11/21/2008 1:59:44 PM
Author: HollyS
Ellen, if you think 'the best' is Holder as Attorney General . . . . most people, when informed or reminded of his past 'credentials' and 'methods' would certainly disagree. Or they should.

Holly, do you truly presume to know what people 'should' and 'should not' believe? That's quite a few steps beyond having an opinion of your own .... to believing yours is the only informed & correct opinion. Guess that would explain a lot.

She does, I've heard her say that before.

All kidding aside, what I've mostly read (and admittedly it's not a lot at this point, but some) about Eric Holder is about the last minute pardon he granted Rich. And of that I've read that his testimony was that he didn't receive all the info he should have, that his "nuetral, leaning toward yes" comment (which he gave because he fet he didn't have enough info) was mistaken for a yes, and that he deeply regrets he didn't handle it differently. I'm not going to comment on that, because I haven't read up on it as much as I'd like to yet. But whatever this man has done, he seems regretful, and it wasn't bad enough to ruin his career, so he must have something to offer, since Reagan nominated him (after serving with Carter) to be an associate judge at the Superior Court of the D of C, where he served for five years. And has remained working since.

Would we like all the candidates to be squeeky clean? Sure. Is that realistic? No. Do you throw the baby out with the bath water? I think that depends on how dirty the baby is.....From everything I've read, from both sides, this isn't going to be that big of an issue to get past.


So, that's just my thoughts so far. I am hoping to catch a certain CNN political analyst's thoughts on this. He seems very fair, having served under 4 presidents, both parties. I always feel like I get the most unbiased opinions from him. But I could be wrong!

And Holly, while you may not actually mean to insult people with what deco bolded, it has potential to. Just because you think something, doesn't make it so. Maybe throw in a "imo".

 

[trillionaire]

I guess I supposed that the "Change" that he meant was a change in the tone of Washington, not a totally new cast. I hope that he plans to improve transparency and accountability, and a restoration of civil liberties! I want policies that benefit taxpayers more than corporations. I want responsible financial policies. I want the US to be a better global citizen.

And I will wait until Obama gets into office before I weigh in with criticism... because that only makes sense to me.

I care more about what he DOES than who he HIRES.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 11/21/2008 2:21:46 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 11/21/2008 1:59:44 PM
Author: HollyS
Ellen, if you think 'the best' is Holder as Attorney General . . . . most people, when informed or reminded of his past 'credentials' and 'methods' would certainly disagree. Or they should.

Holly, do you truly presume to know what people 'should' and 'should not' believe? That's quite a few steps beyond having an opinion of your own .... to believing yours is the only informed & correct opinion. Guess that would explain a lot.

Deco, if you can look at Holder's 'history' and still support this choice, then yeah, you've got it wrong. And I don't. Yep. I said it. What difference does it make if we just say exactly what we believe and stop pussyfooting around trying not to judge others? We already do judge each other by our choices. That's quite obvious, especially on the ATW thread. So let's just be honest about it and stop hiding behind careful phrasing. I don't dislike you because of your political choices; I can respect your right to get it wrong -- just like you can respect my right to get it wrong!

How dreadfully boring it would be if we all thought exactly the same way; heck we wouldn't have these invigorating discussions!

And if I'm wrong, and I've said it before, I'll be happy to eat a large portion of crow. To me, it does not appear -- yet -- that I need to research recipes to make it more palatable.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 11/21/2008 3:41:39 PM
Author: trillionaire
I guess I supposed that the ''Change'' that he meant was a change in the tone of Washington, not a totally new cast. I hope that he plans to improve transparency and accountability, and a restoration of civil liberties! I want policies that benefit taxpayers more than corporations. I want responsible financial policies. I want the US to be a better global citizen.

And I will wait until Obama gets into office before I weigh in with criticism... because that only makes sense to me.

I care more about what he DOES than who he HIRES.

Me too. And I think HE cares more about who he hires, and much less about what we think of them. Not because he truly doesn''t care, but because he knows what he wants, knows what he needs, and he knows who can give that to him, even if some don''t think so/understand. Thats fine by me, I trust his decisions.

And I just heard my favorite politcal analysrt praising the team he is putting together.

 

[beebrisk]

Whatever you think of Bush and Condi Rice, you hear story after story of their mutual respect, trust, and intensely close professional relationship.

Somehow I just don''t see the same symbiosis between Hillary and Obama. Not for a second.

Only time will tell, but if I were a betting woman, I''d give this marriage two year, tops.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 11/21/2008 5:07:03 PM
Author: beebrisk
Whatever you think of Bush and Condi Rice, you hear story after story of their mutual respect, trust, and intensely close professional relationship.

Somehow I just don''t see the same symbiosis between Hillary and Obama. Not for a second.

Only time will tell, but if I were a betting woman, I''d give this marriage two year, tops.

Although, part of me thinks having Hillary in that spot is good for us -- at least a little. She''s has more sense, and more guts than Kerry, who was another contender for SS. I''m a little less frightened of the possibilities with Hil.

 

[meresal]

Date: 11/21/2008 5:30:52 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 11/21/2008 5:07:03 PM
Author: beebrisk
Whatever you think of Bush and Condi Rice, you hear story after story of their mutual respect, trust, and intensely close professional relationship.

Somehow I just don't see the same symbiosis between Hillary and Obama. Not for a second.

Only time will tell, but if I were a betting woman, I'd give this marriage two year, tops.

Although, part of me thinks having Hillary in that spot is good for us -- at least a little. She's has more sense, and more guts than Kerry, who was another contender for SS. I'm a little less frightened of the possibilities with Hil.

No, no, no, no, no.... I'll deliver the papers to her myself!!

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 11/21/2008 6:34:51 PM
Author: meresal

Date: 11/21/2008 5:30:52 PM

Author: HollyS

Date: 11/21/2008 5:07:03 PM

Author: beebrisk

Whatever you think of Bush and Condi Rice, you hear story after story of their mutual respect, trust, and intensely close professional relationship.


Somehow I just don''t see the same symbiosis between Hillary and Obama. Not for a second.


Only time will tell, but if I were a betting woman, I''d give this marriage two year, tops.

Although, part of me thinks having Hillary in that spot is good for us -- at least a little. She''s has more sense, and more guts than Kerry, who was another contender for SS. I''m a little less frightened of the possibilities with Hil.

No, no, no, no, no.... I''ll deliver the papers to her myself!!

I''m okay with Hill, but I was more excited about Richardson. I think that the rapport between Richardson and Obama would be better... remains to be seen.

 

[meresal]

Date: 11/21/2008 6:47:04 PM
Author: trillionaire

Date: 11/21/2008 6:34:51 PM
Author: meresal

Date: 11/21/2008 5:30:52 PM

Author: HollyS

Date: 11/21/2008 5:07:03 PM

Author: beebrisk

Whatever you think of Bush and Condi Rice, you hear story after story of their mutual respect, trust, and intensely close professional relationship.


Somehow I just don't see the same symbiosis between Hillary and Obama. Not for a second.


Only time will tell, but if I were a betting woman, I'd give this marriage two year, tops.

Although, part of me thinks having Hillary in that spot is good for us -- at least a little. She's has more sense, and more guts than Kerry, who was another contender for SS. I'm a little less frightened of the possibilities with Hil.

No, no, no, no, no.... I'll deliver the papers to her myself!!

I'm okay with Hill, but I was more excited about Richardson. I think that the rapport between Richardson and Obama would be better... remains to be seen.

One of my main issues with "O" and "H" is the childish bickering that went on in early/mid 2008 between them. I don't see any positive chemistry between the two of them. However, Kerry is a whole other chapter in my book. Talk about the exact opposite of what every Omaba backer wants... maybe not policy wise, but definitely character wise.



ETA: (Re: From earlier posts I never replied) My personal opinion on "Change". I've said it before and I'll say it again, after the Hillary debacle, Obama ran an almost flawless campaign. It centered around the word "Change", which is one of the most ambiguous words in the english language. You can say it as many times as you want, and you can never pin-hole yourself. It will always mean exactly what the receiver wants it to mean. I saw it as scary, middle-of-the-roaders saw it as maybe a few switch ups around the cabinet, etc. He never stated a clear agenda, which allowed EVERYONE to believe whatever they wanted. It was genius. He can put whoever he wants in the cabinet and no one (at least Obama backers) has an arguement against anything he does. In some ways it was blind faith, if you really think about it. But then again, isn't it always?

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 11/21/2008 6:57:38 PM
Author: meresal

Date: 11/21/2008 6:47:04 PM

Author: trillionaire

Date: 11/21/2008 6:34:51 PM

Author: meresal

Date: 11/21/2008 5:30:52 PM


Author: HollyS

Date: 11/21/2008 5:07:03 PM


Author: beebrisk


Whatever you think of Bush and Condi Rice, you hear story after story of their mutual respect, trust, and intensely close professional relationship.



Somehow I just don''t see the same symbiosis between Hillary and Obama. Not for a second.



Only time will tell, but if I were a betting woman, I''d give this marriage two year, tops.

Although, part of me thinks having Hillary in that spot is good for us -- at least a little. She''s has more sense, and more guts than Kerry, who was another contender for SS. I''m a little less frightened of the possibilities with Hil.

No, no, no, no, no.... I''ll deliver the papers to her myself!!

I''m okay with Hill, but I was more excited about Richardson. I think that the rapport between Richardson and Obama would be better... remains to be seen.

One of my main issues with ''O'' and ''H'' is the childish bickering that went on in early/mid 2008 between them. I don''t see any positive chemistry between the two of them. However, Kerry is a whole other chapter in my book. Talk about the exact opposite of what every Omaba backer wants... maybe not policy wise, but definitely character wise.




ETA: (Re: From earlier posts I never replied) My personal opinion on ''Change''. I''ve said it before and I''ll say it again, after the Hillary debacle, Obama ran an almost flawless campaign. It centered around the word ''Change'', which is one of the most ambiguous words in the english language. You can say it as many times as you want, and you can never pin-hole yourself. It will always mean exactly what the receiver wants it to mean. I saw it as scary, middle-of-the-roaders saw it as maybe a few switch ups around the cabinet, etc. He never stated a clear agenda, which allowed EVERYONE to believe whatever they wanted. It was genius. He can put whoever he wants in the cabinet and no one (at least Obama backers) has an arguement against anything he does. In some ways it was blind faith, if you really think about it. But then again, isn''t it always?

The word Change is ambiguous. Obama''s platform, not necessarily so. It''s outlined on his website. McCain tried to hi-jack the Change train too, ironically, before settling on "Country First". And I''m still trying to figure out what THAT means...

To be honest, I was and am more comfortable with Obama''s ambiguity than most of the specifics that I heard from McCain. But that''s why I voted the way that I did

 

[tulip928]

Date: 11/21/2008 9:46:37 AM
Author: Irishgrrrl
Ellen, I agree! Personally, I don''t think this country was in such bad shape during the Clinton administration.

Sadly, during the Clinton administration, the enemies of our country, the fundamentalist terrorists, were training in *our* flight schools, had already attacked the World Trade Center in ''93, and were plotting the next attack.

The security of our country was not a priority, but this was not on the front burner as far as priorities were set. This was not to be thought of as a problem or concern to the US citizens under Clinton.

The housing debacle with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in full swing, but hidden from our attention. This did not appear out of the blue. It has been a long time growing in it''s obscenity. Making it illegal to deny loans to unqualified buyers is obscene. With the massive scale that this foolishness was perpetrated, what do we think the end result would be?

The Clinton years were *part* of what brought us to where we are this point in time.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 11/22/2008 6:49:42 AM
Author: tulip928

Date: 11/21/2008 9:46:37 AM

Author: Irishgrrrl

Ellen, I agree! Personally, I don''t think this country was in such bad shape during the Clinton administration.

Sadly, during the Clinton administration, the enemies of our country, the fundamentalist terrorists, were training in *our* flight schools, had already attacked the World Trade Center in ''93, and were plotting the next attack.


The security of our country was not a priority, but this was not on the front burner as far as priorities were set. This was not to be thought of as a problem or concern to the US citizens under Clinton.


The housing debacle with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in full swing, but hidden from our attention. This did not appear out of the blue. It has been a long time growing in it''s obscenity. Making it illegal to deny loans to unqualified buyers is obscene. With the massive scale that this foolishness was perpetrated, what do we think the end result would be?


The Clinton years were *part* of what brought us to where we are this point in time.

You got that right.

The bombing of the USS Cole should have been a wake up call for us and yet Clinton remained asleep.

The repeal of the Glass Steigel Act in 1999 set us up perfectly for the current banking crisis.

His policies (or lack thereof) have indeed left a lasting and tragic legacy...

 

[HollyS]

Date: 11/22/2008 9:37:26 AM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 11/22/2008 6:49:42 AM
Author: tulip928

Date: 11/21/2008 9:46:37 AM

Author: Irishgrrrl

Ellen, I agree! Personally, I don''t think this country was in such bad shape during the Clinton administration.

Sadly, during the Clinton administration, the enemies of our country, the fundamentalist terrorists, were training in *our* flight schools, had already attacked the World Trade Center in ''93, and were plotting the next attack.


The security of our country was not a priority, but this was not on the front burner as far as priorities were set. This was not to be thought of as a problem or concern to the US citizens under Clinton.


The housing debacle with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in full swing, but hidden from our attention. This did not appear out of the blue. It has been a long time growing in it''s obscenity. Making it illegal to deny loans to unqualified buyers is obscene. With the massive scale that this foolishness was perpetrated, what do we think the end result would be?


The Clinton years were *part* of what brought us to where we are this point in time.

You got that right.

The bombing of the USS Cole should have been a wake up call for us and yet Clinton remained asleep.

The repeal of the Glass Steigel Act in 1999 set us up perfectly for the current banking crisis.

His policies (or lack thereof) have indeed left a lasting and tragic legacy...

You mean . . . .are you sure. . . . it''s not ALL Bush''s fault????

You''ll never convince some people that politics and disaster didn''t begin with Bush in 2000. But, if that''s as far back as their memory goes, it''s their only reference point. As for the older posters, I can''t explain their revisionist history. Although we have had the very esoteric discussion here about how history is ''what our memories and experiences tell us it was''. Never mind the facts.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 11/22/2008 9:57:38 AM
Author: HollyS

Date: 11/22/2008 9:37:26 AM

Author: beebrisk

Date: 11/22/2008 6:49:42 AM

Author: tulip928

Date: 11/21/2008 9:46:37 AM


Author: Irishgrrrl


Ellen, I agree! Personally, I don''t think this country was in such bad shape during the Clinton administration.

Sadly, during the Clinton administration, the enemies of our country, the fundamentalist terrorists, were training in *our* flight schools, had already attacked the World Trade Center in ''93, and were plotting the next attack.



The security of our country was not a priority, but this was not on the front burner as far as priorities were set. This was not to be thought of as a problem or concern to the US citizens under Clinton.



The housing debacle with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in full swing, but hidden from our attention. This did not appear out of the blue. It has been a long time growing in it''s obscenity. Making it illegal to deny loans to unqualified buyers is obscene. With the massive scale that this foolishness was perpetrated, what do we think the end result would be?



The Clinton years were *part* of what brought us to where we are this point in time.

You got that right.


The bombing of the USS Cole should have been a wake up call for us and yet Clinton remained asleep.


The repeal of the Glass Steigel Act in 1999 set us up perfectly for the current banking crisis.


His policies (or lack thereof) have indeed left a lasting and tragic legacy...

You mean . . . .are you sure. . . . it''s not ALL Bush''s fault????

You''ll never convince some people that politics and disaster didn''t begin with Bush in 2000. But, if that''s as far back as their memory goes, it''s their only reference point. As for the older posters, I can''t explain their revisionist history. Although we have had the very esoteric discussion here about how history is ''what our memories and experiences tell us it was''. Never mind the facts.

History Shmistory...
Just regurgitate the last 8 years of the media''s hyperbole and hysteria over Bush and that''ll do ya!

And I remember that discussion about "memories and experiences". I personally found it too disturbing to even respond to and I didn''t really want to breath any more life into the post. It''s inconceivable to me how far some will twist reality and deny the existence absolutes to suit their own world view. You gotta love post modern man! Talk about tragic...

 

[Ellen]

Date: 11/22/2008 9:57:38 AM
Author: HollyS

You mean . . . .are you sure. . . . it''s not ALL Bush''s fault????

You''ll never convince some people that politics and disaster didn''t begin with Bush in 2000. But, if that''s as far back as their memory goes, it''s their only reference point. As for the older posters, I can''t explain their revisionist history. Although we have had the very esoteric discussion here about how history is ''what our memories and experiences tell us it was''. Never mind the facts.

I don''t believe that, and I doubt anyone else does either, but I''m sure you feel better saying it. I actually agree Clinton is part of our problem now. No president is perfect.

bee, yes, Bush and Rice are close, maybe a little too? Do a search on her with "freudian slip". As for Hillary, I think a lot of what went on during the primaries sounded a lot worse than it was. That''s the nature of the beast. I wouldn''t be surprised if they actually like, and respect each other. Of course, that remains to be seen.

 

[miraclesrule]

I''m on the fence about all these appointments. I recognize that cabinet level appointments are largely political and act as advisors. The people who actually get the work done and the information gathered have always been the unsung heros that aren''t in the public eye.

The only reason I can imagine Hillary as Sec. of State is mainly because the position holds no real institutional heft at this time. The budget is like a penny in the bucket for the State Department. Although I think Hillary can be tough, I just never visualized her in that role, simply because she is too tough. I''m surprised not only that she was considered, but that she will accept. Oh well, I guess we will have to watch as the administration and the future develops.

Daschle is the one that surprised me even more. I was overwhelmingly

.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 11/22/2008 11:22:22 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 11/22/2008 9:57:38 AM

Author: HollyS


You mean . . . .are you sure. . . . it''s not ALL Bush''s fault????

You''ll never convince some people that politics and disaster didn''t begin with Bush in 2000. But, if that''s as far back as their memory goes, it''s their only reference point. As for the older posters, I can''t explain their revisionist history. Although we have had the very esoteric discussion here about how history is ''what our memories and experiences tell us it was''. Never mind the facts.

I don''t believe that, and I doubt anyone else does either, but I''m sure you feel better saying it. I actually agree Clinton is part of our problem now. No president is perfect.


bee, yes, Bush and Rice are close, maybe a little too? Do a search on her with ''freudian slip''. As for Hillary, I think a lot of what went on during the primaries sounded a lot worse than it was. That''s the nature of the beast. I wouldn''t be surprised if they actually like, and respect each other. Of course, that remains to be seen.

I give as much credence to Rice''s Freudian slip regarding Bush as I do Obama''s when he was discussing his "Muslim faith".

 

[Ellen]

Date: 11/22/2008 11:23:38 AM
Author: miraclesrule
I'm on the fence about all these appointments. I recognize that cabinet level appointments are largely political and act as advisors. The people who actually get the work done and the information gathered have always been the unsung heros that aren't in the public eye.

The only reason I can imagine Hillary as Sec. of State is mainly because the position holds no real institutional heft at this time. The budget is like a penny in the bucket for the State Department. Although I think Hillary can be tough, I just never visualized her in that role, simply because she is too tough. I'm surprised not only that she was considered, but that she will accept. Oh well, I guess we will have to watch as the administration and the future develops.

Daschle is the one that surprised me even more. I was overwhelmingly

.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you miracles. The duty of SOS is to deal with foreign affairs negotiations/adviser on foreign policies, among other things. Apparently, Hillary has become quite an expert in that field since entering the senate. I think that's why everyone (including REPS) think she's without a doubt the best qualified. Are you saying that isn't of importance right now?

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 11/22/2008 11:23:38 AM
Author: miraclesrule


Daschle is the one that surprised me even more. I was overwhelmingly

.

I know, right????

 

[Ellen]

Date: 11/22/2008 11:34:31 AM
Author: beebrisk


I give as much credence to Rice''s Freudian slip regarding Bush as I do Obama''s when he was discussing his ''Muslim faith''.

Not the same thing at all bee. That quote was taken out of context (surprise!). Listen carefully.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I&feature=related