Hillary won the popular votes in the primaries.  My hope is that Obama will recognize the unfairness of the caucuses the way they were managed and counted and bring them back in line to some fairness.  Oh, perhaps he won't; he may have to face a progressive in 2012, and he will need any built in edge he can get. 

A bumper sticker I saw today read:

Republicans for Voldemort

I am a Harry Potter fan, and got a kick from the sticker.

Oh, Rob, how do you propose that we hold Obama's feet and the feet of our esteemed Congresspersons to the fire given the bailout theft and the 100 to 1 calls they were receiving against the bailout, and they still passed it?   I guess we showed them who runs the country.

by Kellis R. Solomon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 123 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:09:31 AM

  (0+)

I couldn't agree more!  Rubin and Summers were instrumental in the formative years of our current crisis - how about Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman for Sec of Treasury?  Here's another suggestion:  How about tapping 3 or 4 moderate Goppers for the Cabinet in the name of bipartisanship?  If carefully chosen from States with Dem governors, their replacements would give us the sixty Senate seats we need (not withstanding the contested races in AK, GA, and MN).

by Ron Burnett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:07:33 AM

  (0+)

Me too! How about that for a fresh face? Dr. Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner, left-wing blogger, and all-around wonderful person for Secretary of Treasury? I even went so far as to ask him about it via his blog on NYTimes.com. Krugman has been warning about the current financial crisis for YEARS. My hero!

by Tumerica (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 44 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:29:11 AM

  (0+)

Ditto for including GOPers on the administrative team. Helps tear down those excuses for the continuation of Rovian warfare. If the GOP has some hot-ticket faces on the cabinet, how could they help but, well, work with the current administration? Much as that is anathema to them now. Colin Powell for Secretary of Defense is a great place to start.

And definitely enough already with the Goldman Sachs folks. And puhleeze, as a woman, DO NOT put Larry Summers in a position of importance. UGH!

by Tumerica (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 44 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:33:33 AM

  (0+)

I, too, would not mind seeing Colin Powell tapped to help Obama. While there are some negatives from his past, over all, Powell is well respected and moderate. I also believe that Powell is not a politician but a true public servent who will put nation ahead of party politics.  After all, didn't he endorse a Democrat for President?

If I ever had to choose a republican for president, Powell would have been on the top of my list...well above even the "old" McCain

by Paul Kruger (39 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 304 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:06:53 PM

  (0+)

I believe in redemption and Powell sold his soul at the UN for Bush. I would not mind seeing him get a chance to redeem himself.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:47:21 PM

  (0+)

So he can sell his soul for Obama?.  Isn't this like: "So long as my party does it, or you do it for my party, it is OK".  The fact of the matter is, we can no longer trust anything Powell says, and I do not want to see him around in an Obama cabinet.   I would have voted for Powell in 2000 if he had run, but I supported the war in Iraq at the start with great reluctance only because he gave it credibility, and when I finally woke up and found out the level of deception at play, well, this can not be excused.   You should not get a 2nd chance for helping to commit mass murder, and thats what Iraq was.

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:08:49 PM

  (0+)

So your assumption is inaccurate.

I beleive that people can change and make up for past wrongs.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 12:21:24 AM

  (0+)

For all the liberals that voted for "change" the honeymoon is over.  I was one of 76 people that voted for Chuck Baldwin in Indiana and I now have the right to say "I told you so, suckers".

Now that our country is going to be raped even further by "the One" as Oprah has called it. 

I have stated on this site more times than I can count to read history.  It's great to see all of the intelligent comments by people that know current events but if you don't know history, you don't know JACK!!  What is happening to America has happened time and time again.  If you look at Africa, you will see what happened there, is happening here and you better be prepared.

Luckily this is a liberal website (why, I don't know) but soon, you too will be censored even for the heading of this article as it is showing dissension in the Obama ranks and he does not like that!

You reap what you sew and all you Obama supporters have sold yourself into slavery, serfdom, fascism.....welcome..

You should have voted with your conscience and not with what you were brainwashed to believe, I guess that plan worked...

 SUCKERS!!!

by Hal Smith (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 67 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:13:31 AM

  (0+)

THEN we'd be back all the way to McSAME, wouldn't we?

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 756 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:20:57 AM

  (0+)

... if everyone would have voted for Baldwin we would have had Baldwin instead of just another mouthpiece for a New World Order/Illuminati toddy.

As if there weren't enough knives in our liberal/progressive backs already I'm fearful that we aren't done receiving more. And if we're to judge Obama from his past record, something many seemed to dismiss instead of the smokescreen of propaganda that was put-up during the campaign, we might have had a move to a 3rd party candidate instead of swallowing the same crap we most likely will receive.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:50:06 AM

  (0+)

Do you really think that you're getting anything different with Obama that you would have gotten with McCain?  At least with McCain there would have been a power balance.  He was a lame duck!  Now it's all democratic and lopsided...

by Hal Smith (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 67 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:11:43 AM

  (0+)

How foolish can you be, how blind, how ignorant and unfair? You are telling me there is no difference between those on SCOTUS appointed by Bush and those appointed by Clinton; you are telling me there would be no difference in those appointed by Sarah Palin and those appointed by Barack Obama.

You are telling me that Obama has the same views as McCain on health care, graduated income tax, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Iraq War, Afghan War, Education, Environment, energy, and individual rights.

On what rocket to what outer orbit did you travel and stay for the last two years? Simply amzaing to write such comments and call yourself educated!

Rob,

You are as blind and prejudice against Hillary Clinton as the Grand Master in any KKK is against any Black person. I am astounded at you blindness, too. Without Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama would not be President. It took all of us. What? Over one hundred million votes separated by less than four million votes. Whatever you have against Senator Clinton. Get over it. It makes you look very small. As far as Bill Clinton goes, just remember he was elected in 1992 and the Republicans took over Congress in 1994 and every session in the House and Senate dealt with Whitewater, Filegate,  and on and on ending in impeachment less one vote on party lines- and for what? Adultery. You are too smart to be so darn dumb.

Phil.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 2:13:05 PM

  (0+)

Just what we need...another dual citizenship neocon to run interference for Israel!

Bad choice! If anything we need to distance ourselves from the Israelis, not get back in bed with them!  

And WHO do you suppose that was, the "Foreign Entity" that hacked into both campaigns in August? Hmmmm?

Who OWNS most of our telecommunications infrastructure ....hmmmm?

(If it had been any other nation, don't you think it would have been blurted out all over the "news"? )

Now, if Obama picks that mealy-mouthed Traitor, Lieberman, too, I'll really need those Depends...but it won't be from laughing! 

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 756 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:17:59 AM

  (0+)

As much as I want to believe Obama is for change, this is surely destroying any hopes I had. Rahm had worked in the finance industry, so he is a big money insider. And he is pro-war and pro-isreal. John Walsh on CounterPunch says it best when he quotes Rahm's own book The Plan: Big Ideas for America.
"
"A New Strategy to Win the War on Terror"

"We need to use all the roots of American power to make our country safe. America must lead the world's fight against the spread of evil and totalitarianism, but we must stop trying to win that battle on our own. We should reform and strengthen multilateral institutions for the twenty-first century, not walk away from them. We need to fortify the military's "thin green line" around the world by adding to the U.S. Special Forces and the Marines, and by expanding the U.S. army by 100,000 more troops. We should give our troops a new GI Bill to come home to. Finally we must protect our homeland and civil liberties by creating a new domestic counterterrorism force like Britain's MI5. "

And this guy is going to be our #2 executive man? What happened to Obama's anit-war rhetoric? Protect civil liberties by creating a domestic counter-terrorism force? Isn't that a complete contradiction in terms? Orwellian doublespeak?

As much as I want to hope, this bodes poorly for the coming years.

by Jonathan Thompson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:29:26 AM

  (0+)

I just signed a petition asking President-elect Obama NOT to hire Summers a former Clinton Secretary that was responsible for the deregulation of banks in part.  He is NOT progressive in that he has said some very unflattering things about women and science, (they are not as smart), "sweat shops are okay", and "Africa is unpolluted".

We definately need new, fresh blood.

by Julia Adkins (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 3 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:37:33 AM

  (0+)

Sorry Rob,

But, I really hope this is true. Maybe Obama will turn out to be just another lying Chicago politician that was willing to say anything to get into office and the Clinton Clan can stabilize the countries economy.

Obama has no idea what he is doing when it come to the economy.

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:43:23 AM

  (0+)

Rob, one pick and you are questioning Obama's motives, come on!  All the analyzing at this point in cabinet picks is foolish.  Almost anyone picked for a cabinet level position is going to be well known and a Washingtonian.  Outsiders are very unlikely in times like these.  Do you really want totally unknown, inexperieced folks making decisions and offering advice to the President elect and soon to be President?  Change comes slowly and the lesson of Carter should come to mind.  No one can change Washington overnight no matter how large the mandate.  Sure it would be nice to see bright, new faces, but slightly tarnished is the best we can hope for. Having a tough minded Chief of Staff is a very good idea with Obama the peace maker to draw out cabinet folks with weaker dispositions.  Do not underestimate nor overestimate Obama at this early stage of the game.  These are tough times and they are going to get worse for the next couple of years no matter how good Obama policy and practices are.  Jumping up and down now is silly.  Have a good day my zealous friend.

poeticsense/Patrick

by Patrick Michael (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:49:18 AM

  (0+)

I'm looking at pronouncements by Nancy Pelosi (who unfortunately wasn't unseated by Cindy Sheehan) that the new Democrat run gov't won't give in to progressive demands of change but "will rule from the center".

Who the hell does she and Reid think they?!! 

Is this going to be the american version of the Blair/Brown gov't all over again?... once voted in, betraying their base?

We cannot afford to let these wrinkly skanks hobble all efforts to effect change!

by chariotdrvr14 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 159 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:02:02 AM

  (0+)

Right you are re the no no on retreads from Goldman Sachs. Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey, a GS alumni, is said to be a possible Obama pick for Treasury Secretary. Though many in Jersey would like to wave bye bye to Corzine, President Obama must think of the nation, not just the well-being of one state. U.S. taxpayers are sick of the Goldmen and their BFF bailouts. We demand a fresh pack of cronies!

by Carola Von Hoffmannstahl (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:13:09 AM

  (0+)

The guy just ended a 21 months and a long campaign. He'll be facing the greatest challenges that no other President faced before. (Maybe FDR?).

He said it clearly in his speech, it will take 1 year or perhaps 1 TERM.  Reading some comments here, it seems like some of you are considering the 100 days concepts already which to me should be banned from our vocabulary when it comes to President-Elect Barack Obama.

FYI - please let's post CONSTRUCTIVE comments and ideas at http://www.change.gov/ instead of wasting energy in negative comments. It's the bickering and old politics that drove us to the ditch. Those who wanted McSame, I'm sorry to remind you that "change" ain't happening. Remember the American people have spoken on Nov. 4 and we must ALL come together and work for the best of this Great nation. Barack Obama is given you the change to do something from bottom up at change.gov

Now it's up to you to trust or not to trust the President-Elect Obama!

BTW - Some other interesting appointment ideas by Stephen Fox article at

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Analysis-for-Journalists-a-by-Stephen-Fox-081029-568.html

by Lydia Kopere Patterson (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 154 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:13:18 AM

  (0+)

Bravo

Enough with the politics of division. Us and them blah blah

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:52:30 PM

  (0+)

Rob,

What are the 4 main things Obama wants to do in his 1st term:

Universal Healthcare

Energy

Education

Creating Jobs

It doesn't matter who he picks, because they are going to have to work with him and republicans to get those 4 things done and that means being able to reach across the aisle. He needed to pick someone who had a reputation of doing just that and that is Rahm.

Now, I understand how you want Obama to appoint new people all throughout his cabinet and he probably will, but there are certain folks that he wants around him that gets things done. Yeah, Rahm served in Clinton's cabinet and has history with clashing with Democrats, but what he brings is experience in WORKING ACROSS the aisle with REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS. He is more of a centrist and speaking as a progressive, I am glad. Both parties have to get out of this ideology mindset that has crippled this country for the past 20 years. Obama is about getting things done, not catering to certain group. Like Democrat Chris Dodd said "He knows he has to build relationships for anything to happen. He doens't have them now, but his instincts are perfect" Also Republican Rep Ray LaHood who was an ardent support of McCain, was estatic about Obama and said that,"he knows he has to build bipartisan bridges to deal with the magnitude of problems ahead, and I think he will surround himself with people like Rahm Emmanuel who feel the same way" Also John Kerry this past week said "the biggest challenge facing Washington is such that the aim should not be to pound out narrow partisan victories but to negotiate for an 85 vote majorities endorsed by ALL but the EXTREME LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE SENATORS. What I gather from that is that he is trying to appeal to those CENTER of policies. Like I mentioned in a prior post, Obama is going to drive Progresssives and NEO Conservatives crazy these 4 years.

Now my defintion of Change doesn't mean the same thing to you that it does to me. I don't care who obama appoints they can be from the Clinton administration, they can be Republicans they can be Independents, because I trust his judgement seeing he ran almost a flawless campaign. But the people he chooses have to know what Obama means when he says CHANGE. What I gather is that he wants CHANGE with regards to how politics are done in Washington with being inclusive, no more partisan bickering and gridlock in washington that has caused this financial crisis in the first place. NO more making decisions based on Ideology or playing politics with certain issues. Building relationships with Republicans so that legislations is supported by the majority in both parties and easily passed thru both houses, not who he appoints. He wants to surround himself with not only new fresh faces but also recycle those who made a difference in prior administrations and if that means getting folks from Clinton administration then so be it.

I am sensing that Obama doesn't like surrounding himself with YES MEN who will only do what others say he should do or Folks who have an ulterior motive of pushing through their agenda. He is about helping everybody especially the middle class, and getting this country back on track, and if that means surrounding himself with inside washington folks who have a reputation of getting things done, why should we question it? That is why he picked Joe Biden even though joe is an entrenched washington insider but that didn't change who he was which is someone who has a reputation of working with both parties to get policies done. This morning I read that Republican Lindsay Graham complimented the pick because he knows that Rahm has a reputation of working with both parties. I also read some Republicans complained about the Rahm pick. I also read some Democrats who praised it and others who question it or hated it. Anytime you have both parties either loving it or hating it he must be doing something right. He is not about politics.

by Wynona Ely (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:14:25 AM

  (0+)

" ... and if that means surrounding himself with inside washington folks who have a reputation of getting things done ..."

Getting what done? Please explain just what the hell "things" they've done that we should be looking forward to?

For the only things I've seen them do is put us in the mess we're in and if you equate that with progress your compass is pointing in the wrong direction.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:34:35 AM

  (0+)

Geez Louise... He has only been elected 3 days and already we have folks who are bitcin about his pick. Can we let him do the job we elected him to do? And yes that means he picking people we don't like? The question you should be asking is, Even though I don't like the pick, Can OBama work with this person?  Can Obama get some stuff done with this person? We are not going to agree with him on EVERYTHING but just as long as he works on the 4 main agendas I mentioned above, then we should trust his judgement.  I think we need to take  chill pill and let President Obama continue to build his administration.

by Wynona Ely (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:00:56 AM

  (0+)

... with more emphasis on "doubt".

But I'd still like you to answer my question, what things have these insiders done in the past we should be happy about?

It has been a fact that for the past 100 years there hasn't been one president that hasn't surrounded himself with CFR/Illuminati/Ivory League School Elites. And there's good reason for that, it's where real power comes from. We the people are nothing are than a footnote and an annoyance to those that really hold the reins of influence. I see Obama as being no different, all his pretty sounding speeches aside that he used to get elected, because if you bothered to look at his record you'd know that he's closer to Bush than Kucinich. We may have had a change of face and party, but the usual suspects remain the same.

If you believe it was we the people that placed Obama in power you're living an illusion. And if you think we'll have any influence on what he does now that he doesn't need our skewed, corrupted votes anymore, you're living an even bigger illusion.

Obama was served-up to us on a platter. Now all the liberals can feel less guilty because they feel they placed black man with a foreigner's name in office. Well, good for you. Too bad you didn't look behind the curtain first before you got all excited. As if the feeling of betrayal you got after the 06' election wasn't enough to make us wary you want to wait and see just how far this knife gets shoved in our backs.

Pardon me if I have more doubt than benefit, but his past record and recent moves don't give this skeptic much hope. With all the damage that's been done we don't need implementable help that mimic what got us into this mess to begin with, we need radical policies that push us 180 degrees in the opposite direction.  

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:37:55 AM

  (0+)

Though I worked to elect Obama.  Now is not the time for blind following.

If Obama truly means what he says when he says that the change is going to be made by the people, he better keep the people's needs and opinions number one on the list. Every selection he makes is an indication of how closely he will stick to that philosophy.  I am uneasy about Rahm Emanuel and I am very nervous about who he will pick for Treasury Secretary.

"CFR/Illuminati/Ivory League School Elites. And there's good reason for that, it's where real power comes from. We the people are nothing are than a footnote and an annoyance to those that really hold the reins of influence. "

While I can see your point of view on this statement as well, my question to you is--Okay, now what?  If we are a footnote and an annoyance and we have no power and no meaning in this country and/or government, then what should we do about it?

by Paula Sayles (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 204 comments [78 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:26:33 PM

  (0+)

For the most part most people have already quit playing the game.

Look, 50% of people don't vote, haven't for a long time. Now there are many reasons for this but a couple of the main ones are that it is by design. Power Elites (PE) don't want full public participation in this so-called democratic/republic and for the most part their plan has worked, people have given up on a system that they see isn't there to help them, but to repress them.

Obama was elected with 37% of eligible voters, Hitler was elected by 55%. Congress has a 9% approval rating - 9%! If that doesn't tell us that most people recognize that this government is a sham, what does? there were calls running 1,000 to 1 against this asinine "bail-out bill", and what did they do? Do you need anymore proof we don't matter?

Us, meaning those few that are politically aware, think that everyone must be as politically aware as we are, which of course is an illusion. Walk the streets and I would bet 60% of people you ask couldn't tell you who the current VP is. They don't care. Whether they don't care because they're clueless or for whatever reason it's real.

But for those that know, know that those PE have been running things for longer than all of us have been alive. But their house-of-cards is coming to an end, because nothing built on deceit lasts forever.

So, many of those that do participate in the political process keep getting taken in by the Dog & Pony Show those PE put up for us, they play one against the other when in fact they're both the same. There isn't 0.05% degree of difference between Obama and Bush, yet, through massive control of our media they have half the people watching thinking Obama is a flaming liberal.

It won't take much to make this whole thing crash, because it's going to crash on it's own. And it's damn close to doing this.

Now the PE have been aware of this and their plan is out of chaos will come order. But their "order" isn't going to be anything we're going to like, or many of us will live through. This isn't a game, this is mass extermination by plan. Google: Eugenics, CODEX Alimentarius, Georgia Guidestones, Illuminati, Bohemia Grove, and see for yourself what they have planned for us in their own words. Take them at their word, for when you do, you see that everything they've said is coming to pass. These people are trying to kill us, this too they have written and said.  Brzezinski, Obama's right-hand man, wrote it in a book, read it. That's the damn thing about all this, none of this is hidden, these cretins put their deeds and plans out there, they just don't splash it all over the MSM, that's for us, the masses to absorb to keep us dumbed-down. Read PNAC Mission Statement, they virtually lay out the plans for 9/11 and Iraq.

You asked what can we do?

There is a revolution coming. It's inevitable. Kennedy said it, "Those that make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable." We're at that point. When this economy totally collapses, which it will, a revolution will occur. What direction it will take depends on how many people are aware of who the real enemy is.  If we follow a false leader, we're doomed. The PE will win and will will live under a new Dark Age that could well wipe our species from this planet.

Quit playing their game. Stop believing their lies and in their false leaders. Get off the grid. Get solar, get your own source of water. These things are easier to do than you think. Buy a bike. Use it every chance you get. Garden, by storable foods. Take your money out of any big banks, buy gold, and buy from co-ops and local. Buy clothes from Thrift Shops. Buy guns and ammo. Don't ever vote for any establish D or R. Know which companies are supporting our war machine and stop having anything to do with them. Get to know your neighbors and which ones you can trust. Know that all the money that has been stolen didn't disappear, it has bought off nearly every person of influence you can think of. Recognize that our whole system has been corrupted and that the only change we're going to see in the near future is going to come from revolution.

If you think I'm being alarmist, do so at your own risk. Several more army units have just been activated for use against us on our own soil. Do you think they are doing this for no reason? All this talk of mobilization before the election was for no other reason than to make us aware that it's there and can happen. They didn't build FEMA camps all over this country for nothing. Build them and they will come, indeed. Torture is now accepted as the norm now. Who would of thought this possible 5 years ago?

There are those that will say I'm alarmist and crazy, but if you go back a year or two and read my posts you will see I was talking about the implosion of our economy back then, and that if we were to change things that we should of started several years before that. Yet, what happened? People got sucked-up by the propaganda yet again.

It mazed me when people started calling themselves "independents" after finally saying they had it with both the major parties and than in their next action voted for either a D or R. Where is the "independence" in that? If those that said they were independent truly voted such, we'd have a Ron Paul or Cynthia McKinney in office right now instead of another hand-puppet for the PE.

Ah, but what the hell, all these "moderates" or so-called "progressive" that are too afraid to admit that they've been duped or look reality in the eye will chastise me for being negative, paranoid, or whatever justification they'll give for their actions and keep looking for that light at the end of a tunnel that's long been closed behind them.

Enjoy yourself - it's later than you think.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:36:36 PM

  (0+)

I just had time to read your most informative post.  I have know this frightening truth since about early 2002 when I started investigating the false flag event on 9/11.  My journey down the rabbit hole led me to many interesting sites and people, most notably infowars.com and alex jones.  A site Richard has linked to in his posts.  Say what you will about AJ but as long as I have been following him, he has been right about everything he has predicted so far.....unfortunately.

by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:21:59 PM

  (0+)

Once you're have that vale lifted the lies become clear, as if having been shown how a magician does his trick, what once was so amazing now seems so trite.

Once you know that both parties are playing us off one another at our expense all that they do is meaningless. We know it's a rouse. The lies don't work anymore.

I haven't watched MSM in a year. Newspapers are a waste of time. The truth isn't in their propaganda networks.

There's going to be a great thinning of the herd soon. And those that did not heed the warnings are going to be the first to become it's victims.

"Give the man a chance" they say. A chance to do what? Lie to us some more? You and I know 9/11 was an inside job, are we to suppose to believe that someone in a seat of power doesn't know? If he doesn't he doesn't deserve the office, and if he does ...

So where's the mystery? Either Obama is clueless as a box-of-rocks or he's covering for murders. And we're suppose to give him a break.

Break this.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:58:55 PM

  (0+)

There are none so blind as those that will not see...

by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:13:56 PM

  (0+)

Also I'd like to add, his choice of Joe Biden as VP was already a sign that he's able to listen first then take ultimate decision. He's not the type "I'm the commander in chief" which we heard a lot before.

Regardless people will always find something to say but I trust he'll decide what best for the country and he's not going to select one person just for the sake of choosing   . Most importantly the person MUST be qualified first and I  Rahm Emanuel is known for getting things done. 

Besides the old bickering politics by Johen Boenher there are positiv comments from both Democrats and republicans.  Lindsey Graham, great McCain supporter who's been all along campaigning with McCain, says this:

“Rahm knows Capitol Hill and has great political skills. He can be a tough partisan but also understands the need to work together. He is well-suited for the position of White House Chief of Staff. I worked closely with him during the presidential debate negotiations which were completed in record time. When we hit a rough spot, he always looked for a path forward. I consider Rahm to be a friend and colleague. He’s tough but fair. Honest, direct, and candid. These qualities will serve President-elect Obama well."

This confirms how bipartisan Emanuel has been, is and will be. He gets things done, where would we be if he didn't fight to get Democrats win majority in 2006? I think Obama challenges would have been even worse today. 

In short, I think Obama’s choice is a thoughtful one considering his plan to be moderate embracing diversity with GOP, DEMS, black, white, red, blue, red or yellow and the people from the U-N-I-T-E-D states of America by giving them the chance to voice their opinions at http://www.change.gov/

Again I trusted his good judgement since 2004 and I will till he proves me wrong. Up to now, he hasn't! Contrary to some,  I'm not giving him 100 days either. Because I know he WILL turn this economy around. I'm confident.

by Lydia Kopere Patterson (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 154 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:05:07 PM

  (0+)

Excellent points. The issue is redefining progressivism. Embracing extreme ideologies is not progressive. This was well said.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:56:43 PM

  (0+)

I get the impression that everyone blathering about recycling past administrations is much more impressed with the creativity shown by the typical republican, heck you just pick from old deadbeat college friends, relatives are always good for a few unemployed deadbeats who could use a six figure income, everyone knows three fourths of your staff comes from the experienced pool of lobbyists that know their way around the hill, and then let's not forget tapping the correct mix of ethnic and gender oriented figureheads to show that we are seriously progressive. I don't see Obama choosing corporate heads that just finished stints of being at the helm of melted down companies and institutions either.

Calling Obama's first key choice a recycle exhibits a very dim grasp of realities in politics. he will make the key choices and they will work with people they are comfortable with as they fill the staff out from the top down. I suspect we will see one of the most capable and well integrated staffs that has ever been assembled.

Make note of this, it won't be staffed out with multitudes of lobbyists or the notably lame remnants of Bush's staff like McCain would have drawn so heavily on.

by AccountingGuru (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 3 comments) on Sunday, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:54:17 AM

  (0+)

My, my only 3 days since history was made, with people all over the world celebrating and I read crap like, “Chicago thug”, “knows nothing about the economy”, “too much Clinton”. Etc., etc. What a short f-----g honeymoon! Has anybody looked at what is going on? The DOW has fallen a 1000 pts since Tuesday, the same problems that existed Tuesday are with us today, and Obama is 74 days from being sworn in. Some people are screaming to get prosecution of Bush moving, others to stop the bailout, others still to get health care on the table, and then everyone is trying to get their pick in the cabinet. He has made one appointment and a number of voices are criticizing this choice.

by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:15:38 AM

  (0+)

It's more than one pick.  His advisor was Zbigniew Brzezinski and still is.  His picks are mostly wall street bankers because he has to pay back that trillion in donations via favors.

by Hal Smith (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 67 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:18:03 AM

  (0+)

Yes...we were duped.  By Bush and the present Congress who just lined the pockets of Wall Street with Bush's final ( I hope ) theft in office.

At least we were not "double duped" by McBush and we sent him and his arctic diva packing.

by Paul Kruger (39 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 304 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:12:36 PM

  (0+)

A nation of fudds. Elmer that is. It all seems like a bugs bunny cartoon to me. The politicians are like the Bugs Bunny. teary eyed we welcome bugs into our carrot patch. The liberator and hero. This ones a uniter not a divider. This ones a hero. This one wants more government. This one wants govrnment lite. These characters are all recycled. They work for the same cast of characters. Look up their resumes on the internet. For god sake they are all the who's who of criminality. Do you really want people who know the "system" It's rancid. These people all went to the same schools. They believe in the same set of values. They will change the name of the countries and bomb the hell out of some innocent third world civilians. This is standard practice. We have just been thrown a bone to make us feel good about ourselves. By filling in a circle on a piece of paper we just ended racism. How absurd.The problem is now classism as it always was. Colin Powel pointed out the weapons of mass destruction on mobile trucks. Its the pig, not the pigmentation. We are poor little sheep who have lost our way, you know the rest. ..  Now the American people themselves are gonna be treated like any other third world residents. Please mr. president, I want my five dollars back and the 70 trillion too

by robert braunstein (60 articles, 0 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 194 comments [40 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:19:51 AM

  (0+)

Those of us who have really been paying attention and not drinking the dem/obama kool aid knew this was coming. Change?  Really??  Ya think? Patriot act, fisa, funding the war, talking of escalating war in Afghanistan and starting one with Pakistan and possibly Iran? Faith based initiatives?  And how bout that bailout ! See any change yet?  What a populist/anti corporate prez he will be ! Gimme a break.

 I guess you all thought he was just joshin' to get in office huh? Well, the chickens are home to roost and you got what you paid for.   More of the same.   Perhaps you can hold his feet to the fire like you did congress.  Good luck.  I'm so glad I voted for Nader.

by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:30:43 AM

  (0+)

Could not agree more. Good luck with that whole signing a petition or sending an angry letter thing. They will add them to the Impeachment petitions and angry letters about the corporate bailout, FISA, NAFTA etc etc pile.

People complain about the cowardice of Congress, yet continue to vote for the pro-war, two party corporate duopoly. I put it to you that it is not Congress that needs to get a spine.

 War escalation (or is it a surge?) in Afghanistan?

Don't blame me. I voted for Nader

Continued occupation in Iraq, with some weak excuse from apologists for it?

Don't blame me. I voted for Nader .

Corporate HMO friendly Healthcare plan that will actually make it worse for so many of us?

Don't blame me. I voted for Nader.

Continued assault on our Bill of Rights and Constitution?

Don't blame me. I voted for Nader. 

Nuclear power industry up and continued environmental degradation?

Don't blame me. I voted for Nader. 

I originally was supportive of and was going to vote for Cynthia McKinney,  until I realized that the Green Party were running her as a safe states, David Cobb like campaign.

 Death of democracy?

Don't blame me. I voted for Nader. Because I have a spine and Nader spoke of the root causes of all these problems. Then you all listened to the very corporate plutocracy tell you that Nader was an "egoist" and that everything was his fault.

I have the right to complain and so do you Jersey Girl. We have the right to complain. Those who voted for Obama, knowing what you know (it is common knowledge on this site) have lost the right to complain about the bailout, Rahn Emannuel, escalation in Afghanistan, FISA continued etc etc.

You knew it and voted for him anyway. He is your candidate. Deal with it. Hey, by the way, got some spare change? Change that you can believe in?

Yeah I know, pretty harsh. Until you start to think of the innocent children and other civilian victims of president Obama's policies. Those wacky liberals Bill Clinton and Al Gore killed a million children in Iraq. Let us see if Barack McChange Obama can top that eh?

Put into that context, it ain't all that harsh at all, is it now? 

by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:25:13 AM

  (0+)

the idea that the Green Party was running a safe states campaign for McKinney?

She was responsible for her own campaign,which had little to do with the GP, as you, a national committeeman, should have realized. 

We here in Maine have the Maine Green Independent Party and we had Mainers for McKinney. Separate entities. Mainers for McKinney ran the campaign here instate, not the MGIP.

It certainly was not a safe states strategy here.

by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 675 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:23:46 PM

  (0+)

"Don't blame me. I voted for Nader. "

And what good did that do? What change did that bring, problems did it solve, answers did it provide, solutions did it present?  NONE.  It made you feel good and now you think you can say "I told you so" but, even if you were justified to say that, and the jury is still out on that, what good does it do anyone for you to be right?  NONE.

As a proud liberal living in red state hell, I will tell you what I know; you can't force change on people who are still afraid that a solar eclipse is a curse from God. It sure as hell doesn't do me one ounce of good to be right when I tell the people around me that they ignore science and blindly follow their pastors at their own peril. 

And could you please explain how it is that "Those wacky liberals Bill Clinton and Al Gore killed a million children in Iraq."??  Aside from the fact that neither one of the people you mentioned is really a liberal.

by Paula Sayles (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 204 comments [78 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:38:21 PM

  (0+)

Voting for Nadar is an excuse for you, not a reality. You offer nothing to the solutions needed; only whining and crying while hiding behind a vote for someone you knew had zero chance of getting elected. Bravo - well done.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:02:57 PM

  (0+)

I was prepared to give Obama a chance, that went down the tubes as soon as I heard "Rahm Emanuel." Made me sick to my stomach. He is so pro-Israel, too bad he didn't return there when his parents did. Actually Obama lost me when he spoke at AIPAC.  DANG. Then the votes that followed

My family for the most part supported, and worked for NADER.

So just where is the change we were promised? Obama does have a website for suggestions: www.change.gov, I've left a few, respectfully.

by Pat Herrick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 169 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:07:08 PM

  (0+)

What did voting for Nader or McKinney accomplish?  It accomplished my having done the right thing by the Republic, for one thing.  It made me not guilty of perpetuating the crime, for another - I don't have control over what others do, only of what I do.

Above all, it made me unashamed that I cast a vote in a national election. How's that for accomplishing something worthwhile, Democrats?

JP 

by JonmarkP (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 111 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:02:24 PM

  (0+)

If that helps you sleep at night. You did nothing of course. You accomplished nothing. You offer nothing in terms of solutions. Your vote is more reprehensible because you knew it was only for your own personal benefit to somehow "feel better".

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 12:23:55 AM

  (0+)

Wade, you have a lot of nerve criticizing ANYONE for the way they vote.  You are just like the neo-cons who try to bully someone into "seeing things their way", or belittling them for the way they vote.  I didn't vote for Obama, and this was my 11th time at the presidential vote.   I gave to the dems for those 10 elections, giving in to the "lesser of two evils" argument on several of those votes.  This year, another "lesser of two evils" election, and this year, I decided not to play anymore. 

I have read your articles, and I have been taken back by the anger, the hostility you show, toward anyone who doesn't agree with you.  From where I sit you are a centrist, a middle of the road democrat.  That is not an insult, just an observation.  Perhaps you should quit trying to force others to think you are progressive, and be happy in the middle of the road.  At least there, you won't be run over by progressives who are trying to move this country forward.

by Kellis R. Solomon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 123 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 1:17:17 AM

  (0+)

The kind of change that the sheep need to wake up and get out of the left-right paradigm!

Those people that have sat around watching FAUK news thinking that all they say is gospel along with the star-wars hologram crap on CNN....

Once again, people need to look back at the father of propaganda Edward Bernays!  He counted on people being so naive that they would buy anything and the Obamaites have bought into it hook line and sinker.

Remember that vacuum that didn't do what it did on TV or when the guy sold it to you in your own house?  No refund, sorry...now you are stuck with an expensive piece of crap and are out money you could have used to buy food that is going up in price.

Jesus Christ.....I'm sorry...

by Hal Smith (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 67 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:45:47 AM

  (0+)

What did we expect, really? I for one think Obama will be criticized regardless of his choices. If he goes with a "Washington Insider", he would catch sh*t. If he chooses someone outside of Washington, he would be called naive. We all know he's going to have to do both!

Why aren't we jumping for joy that a**hole Palin is back in Alaska? What a moose bullet we just dodged!!

The larger point is that Obama brings something to the world that no other candidate running in this election or in our lifetime even; the promise of the ideology that American's can elect change. That mandate alone shows the world that we are a beacon of light, and we once again can be looked to for hope and prosperity.  Anyone can become the President of this nation. Black, Hispanic, Asian, a woman, etc... 

This election has instantly renewed hope in the world to millions of "minorites". Anything is possible, and suddenly everything is.

We all need to take a breath and let our new President Elect surround himself with people he can trust to get things done. When he makes mistakes, that's when we should criticize and hold him accountable. It's his Presidency, he should be given every opportunity to succeed in his own way. I firmly believe he will reach out to all sectors, political parties and private, we just need to wait and see the dream team he determines is needed in order for him to lead effectively.

I think the guy knows the entire world is in his hands, the difference here is I believe he actually gives a sh*t.

One more thing, I'm still sipping champagne and eating wedding cake...honeymoon ends next week, not this one.

by Steph Fauxco (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 72 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:36:48 AM

  (0+)

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/those-who-would-tear-the-world-down/

by Michael Fury (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:07:37 PM

  (0+)

Nice article Rob. We  want change, demanded change for the last two elections ('06 and '08). Let's see what we are getting so far.

Besides, with Rahm Emmanuel-we can rationalize an acceptance of him one way or another, not a policy maker, will act as WH whip in Congress etc. I am sure we all watched West Wing... But they do make policy in an effective sense in the selection of personnel and resources to put on an issue. 

I will stay in the present. In a mediachannel.org article from Danny Schecter this morning, he notes that Obama is expected to name Larry Summers as his Sec Treasury.

Here is the line up of Obama's economic transition team as known so far.

David Bonior former Congressman - 1977 to 2003. 

Warren Buffet- participating by speakerphone (can't they use iChat at least?)

Roel Campos - former commissioner of the Securities Exchange Commission.

William Daley - former Sec US Dept of Commerce under Clinton, chairman of Midwest, JPMorgan Chase.

William Donaldson -former chair SEC 2003-2005

Roger Ferguson - Pres CEO TIAA-CREF and vice chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.

Jennifer Granholm - governor of Michigan

Anne Mulcahy _ Chair and CEO of Xerox.

Richard Parsons - chair Time Warner.

Penny Pritzker -CEO Classic residence by Hyatt.

Robert Reich - Prof. Goldman School of Public Policy, UC Berkeley, former Sec of Labor under Clinton-1993-1997

Robert Rubin -chair and director of executive committee, Citigroup and former US Dept of Treasury Sec under Clinton.

Eric Schmidt - chair and CEO Google.

Lawrence Summers - managing director D. E. Shaw, former Pres Harvard Univ. former Sec Treasury 1999-2001.

Laura Tyson - Prof Haas School of Business, UC  Berkeley, former chair National Economic Council 1995 - 96 former chair President's Council of Economic Advisors 1993-1995

Antonio Villaraigosa - mayor of LA

Paul Volker -former chair of US Federal Reserve.

So we come to the question - recycled? Completely.  Do we need experienced hands in there? Maybe. Krugman would have been my first choice for many things here.

Question Rob-do you see one single labor representative there ? One single consumer representative in this mix?

Do you see one single progressive with the possible exception of robert Reich?

Seems holding Obama's feet to the fire may be harder than you folks imagined.

What we have here is the core group who, primarily under Clinton, directed us toward the mess we are in today.

I am not making any judgments yet, just asking questions  based on his current behaviors in selecting these people for such an important team. And noting those 'types' of people who were not selected. How much different will it be in late January?

by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 675 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:17:42 PM

  (0+)

one single gay or lesbian person? No. 

by fou (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 98 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 8:53:58 PM

  (0+)

Try this for size! (1) The ESTABLISHMENT which runs America & its POLITICS usually go in for a CHANGE every 8 years (maximum) unless their vested interests are threatened earlier. Such changes always come with change in Party too, that is from GOP to Democrats and vice versa. Two examples. First, the GOP Ike had to be replaced by a Democrat because the Establishment felt that he had allowed the Soviet Union to run, with its sputnik, ahead of the US in military (missile etc) power. It was decided that a change should take place. The much younger Jack Kennedy was chosen who came in with his slogan of "New Frontier". Frontier! Get it? Frontier of the US Empire on earth and in space! Second, Carter and his Party were changed by the same Establishment earlier (4 years) because the US Empire was humiliated by a surrogate-turned-rebel Iran! In came Gipper with his Star War re-arming of the US to the 'newest' frontier level. In between came Johnson, Nixon and Clinton who again served the Establishment well with their own Estblishment required wars. So did Nixon, George H and Dubya BUT things went wrong for Nixon and Dubya, Dubya more! Hence, CHANGE was DECIDED UPON. Dubya and Cheney had to go and a pliable Democrat had to be chosen, groomed and funded into the White House. In the beginning their tentative multiple choices did NOT include Obama. The front runners were several but focus was on Hillary but she had two negatives; being a woman and her husband! Obama had his own three negatives; color of skin, Moslem middle name and inexperience. You must have noticed that all  GOP hopefuls better 'qualified' than MacCain for the White House DID NOT enter the race because they were more 'inside' in the Establishment than MacCain & of couse Sarah Palin and hence knew the Establishment's decision to change Party along with GOP's Dubya-Cheney. As the primaries and election campaigns were playing out over two long years, the Democrat segment of the Establishment started slowly favoring Obama. The Kennedy Familia, the Main Stream Media, even Colin Powell and without knowing they were serving the same Establishment, even the LIBERAL INTERNET MEDIA started backing Obama, one by one, in parallel with the approach of Financial & Foreign Policy melt downs. It is at this point in time the Establishment decided to make a clean break & get a Democrat who had nothing to do with anything in the past 30 or  specifically the last 8 years  into the White House even if he was not a Wealthy Anglo-Saxon Protestant or Catholic (as Jack Kennedy). From this time to Nov 4 the Establishment went into top gear to groom, educate(?) and make pliable, Barack Hussein Obama. Obama started reading THEIR Scripts loud and clear. He went and pledged allegiance in Jerusalem, to one powerful segment in the Establishment. First act of obedience Rahm Emmanuel the son of one of the bloodiest Irgun terrorists, one even the pro-Israel Brits could not stomach. Obama started repeating the Imperial, Neo-Con, Military and Oil Establishment segments' SCRIPT of bombing Pakistan, sending more troops to Afghanistan and victory in Iraq. Gone were the earlier offers of direct talks with Iran and Syria. Even with all this, Obama's victory was still up in the air till the Wall Street Wall just like the Berlin Wall for the Soviets, came TUMBLING DOWN in October. This was a Tsunami, the Establishment had never expected would hit New York and Washington DC. At this point the  Establishment lost control and other players like the yougest voter generation, the liberal media, the thinkers and genuine patriots found themselves playing the role of King Makers, something they have or had never done ever since the Establishment took over with their first 'choice', Ike, and put him in the White House. They went all the way to Europe to 'book' him! Who went? The Rothschilds and the Rockefellers. Despite all this, and mostly because of the Tsunami, Obama does not owe ALL to the Establishment for Nov 4! He can rebel, throw their shackles off and rule with the help of the very same 'citizens' who contributed their 5, 10, 20 and hundred dollars to spend on his costly Campaign. Nov 6 to date, it seems Obama has decided not go this way. Hence, do not be surprised with the names and faces you will see in his Cabinet and elsewhere. I think he does not cherish facing the fate of Abe Lincoln and Jack/Bob Kennedies! He will not do anything to displease the Establishment. You, Rob and others like you should prepare yourselves for a BIG SHOKKU! Go buy some tranquilizers and start all over again but this time fight outside the Establishment controlled SYSTEM! Get 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 dollars and start a MOVEMENT which will get the Establishment out of your daily lives!

by syed mahdi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 92 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:46:18 PM

  (0+)

to do everything according to our own personal preferences.  Alot of people from many different walks of life voted this man into office and there is no way he is going to please everyone on every issue.  Get rid of the pedestal, already!  It's very hard to communicate with someone when he/she is standing so far above you. 

I admit that I fumed when Obama voted for the FISA bill, choked when he voted for the bailout bill, and virtually cried when seeing Rahm Emanuel's name as his choice for Chief of Staff.  I detest Mr. Emanuel, but obviously, Obama sees him as a source of valuable service.

That being said, let's not forget that we lefties have a right to expect something new and sometimes progressive from our President-elect.  His choices are not above constructive criticism-- he is not god.  When we see him heading in a right-centrist direction, we will need to, as they say, take off his hole-soled shoes, hold his feet to the fire, and fit him with a pair of Birkies.

by Linda Carraway (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 7 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:47:22 PM

  (0+)

This is the problem. Obama is not a leftist, anymore than Clinton was. He should move to the center. We should support that move as progressives trying to break the cycle of labling and division.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:08:35 PM

  (0+)

I think it is time we let Obama do his thing without second-guessing each appointment he makes.  He will need some experienced people when he takes over. 

We have pretty much trusted him throughout the election and we have been rewarded with his victory. Let's let him continue to make these calls on who he feels best meets his administrative needs.

We will have plenty of time to criticize after we see the results but nothing to go on until then.

I opened a new site just to keep the momentum going and to collect people to serve as a citizen lobby to keep Obama and Congress on track with the post pressing issues.  http://www.joethevoter.org  I just put it online yesterday so it is a work in progress but I invite non-partisan participation from anyone who still has the will to keep going!

by Paul Kruger (39 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 304 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:03:20 PM

  (0+)

Amen!

by Lydia Kopere Patterson (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 154 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:09:52 PM

  (0+)

After reading many of the above posts, it's nice to think that maybe I will lose Rob's implicit appellation for me of 'Mr. Negative'. Blah Blah. What it looks like is that there are a fair number of realists who believe the ecstatic Obama-believers should have looked at the overlords' product a tad bit more carefully.

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:13:39 PM

  (0+)

... we'll call it, Negative Old Farts.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:05:29 PM

  (0+)

Mr M,

I am so sorry that your ice princess didn't win. Quite frankly all you do is itch, moan and complain (can't say the b-word).  I will say however, without you on this site, it would probably be a very boring place. You seem to be the type that is impossible to please. You drive waiters crazy, I'm sure.

by Steph Fauxco (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 72 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:42:35 AM

  (0+)

Kellis R. Solomon: Now get this once and for all:  Hillary DID NOT win the popular vote in the primaries.  Clinton numbers fudging does not make it so.  Give it a rest already.

Now:  Mr. Kall, one very talented, tough minded, and determined chief of staff does not mean that the Clinton White House will be recycled.  I think President Elect Obama (my, how great that sounds) has shown a willingness to listen to many DIFFERENT VOICES.  After all, it was many different types of people who endorsed him, and he has an agenda that includes items different than those of the Clinton era.  His priorities are different in many ways, just as this country is different.  The Bush economy he's inheriting is equivalent to Herbert Hoover, not George Walker Bush.  The needs of this economy, and the country as a whole, require a different set of eyes.  Someone as intelligent as Barack Obama will most assuredly realize that more readily than you or I.

He might hire people from the Clinton era; he might even hire Colin Powell as Secretary of Defense (and won't misuse him as G.W. Bush did); but this White House will without a doubt be his own, just as his campaign was.  If he didn't prove to you and everyone else then that he was his own man, he never will.

by Sharon COOPER (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:14:59 PM

  (0+)

Hillary won, simple as that.  The numbers being played were done by the Obamabots and the DNC.  Figure out how 1.2 million caucus votes created more delegates than 13 million votes.   Or just bask in the Obama victory, but don't tell those who didn't drink the kool-aid that we were the ones wrong.   Obama was all for public funds, then reniged; Obama was going to fillibuster FISA, then voted for it; Obama was going to ----

Oh well, you should get the message that Obama played his core, projected himself as a progressive when, with a little research, one could find out how conservative he actually is. 

Don't blame me, I voted Green.

Republicans for Voldemort!!

by Kellis R. Solomon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 123 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:52:09 PM

  (0+)

and thoughtful bunch. Most of my own comments have already been posted by somebody.

Citizenship means holding our government up to a constant reality check.

by Laudyms (0 articles, 1142 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 708 comments [138 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:16:21 PM

  (0+)

I have a question. If we can't hold congress' feet to the fire, how on earth do you expect to hold Obama's?  He will have the same dictatorial powers that Bush amassed for himself.  I hope I'm wrong, but I think he intends to keep those in place  and not reinstate our civil liberties that the bush mob stole from us.  Unfortunately, from the looks of his preliminary choices for cabinet, I know in my gut that I'm not wrong.

 The new fascist amerika will carry on uninterrupted.   The nwo has their charismatic leader that suckered so many people in the way so many past charismatic fascist leaders have.  Strap yourselves in, we the people are  in for a horribly disasterous ride.

by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:27:42 PM

  (0+)

No comments to negative comments: no need to waste unecessary energy. Rather invest in it by visiting www.change.gov  the voice given by President -Elect to the people, ALL people for REAL change after disastrous years of bickering which some still don't get.

Let's be CONSTRUCTIVE for CHANGE

by Lydia Kopere Patterson (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 154 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:28:44 PM

  (0+)

Emanuel probably acts out like a mobster (sending dead fish in the mail, stabbing tables with dinner knives) because he's a little guy who got teased for his ballet lessons. This "tough guy" can bully campaign workers, but he's been a no-show after school to take on Cheney's boys, hasn't he? Why is that? Emanuel may or may not have Mossad connections ("rust-proofing brakes"?), but that infiltration is deep and wide in US politics. I would expect "progressives" to be less concerned about the Jewish dancer and more concerned about the chess master, Brzezinski, who has been behind Obama from the start. 

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/obama-adviser-leads-delegation-to-damascus/71123

The "anti-neocon" globalist Brzezinski has been playing The Great Game for a long time. His Central Asian strategy is a perfect match for Obama's rhetoric.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/the-ones-who-attacked-us/

by Michael Fury (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:29:19 PM

  (0+)

Thank you.  To know there are others who can see clearly what is happening in this country is somewhat comforting.  Unfortunately,  we are outnumbered by those who are clinging to the belief that Obama is indeed the "messiah". 

 To those of you who want us to give Obama a "honeymoon" before we start critcizing his choices, are you kidding me?  The honeymoon was over when he voted for fisa and the bailout !  You all scare the hell outta me.  We tried to warn you.  The man was showing you who he was by his words and his actions before a vote was ever cast.

Yes, those of us who voted third party saw this coming from a mile away.  We could not bring ourselves to vote for a McO'Same.  Sure, give him time.  But if you're waiting for him to start acting like a progressive, it's gonna be a long wait.

by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:13:13 PM

  (0+)

You snarky condescension does not remove that you are hiding behind a poor choice and a throw away vote. I have no illusions that Obama is the messiah but I also know that we had to make a choice. Sometimes that is what life comes down.

If you are so bent on your line of thinking, you should be spending all of your time and energy on eliminating the 2--party system and less complaining that everyone else did not follow you down the Nader road of irrelvance.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:23:55 PM

  (0+)

Carlin's response is the best one.....

 click here

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:01:58 PM

  (0+)

Voting for those that are doing nothing for you hardly counts for progress.

There has to come a time when one says "enough" and act accordingly. Apparently you haven't reached that point, and to chastise someone for voting for what they believe in is about as un-American as it gets. If "Jersey Girl" wanted to vote for a dirty dish-rag, it's her right. As it is I commend her action as opposed to those that swallowed the bull and should have known better. Because as she mentioned, it's not like you couldn't see this coming.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:47:26 PM

  (0+)

Kept a far more dangerous man out of the white house and ensured that less people will die for nothing. I refuse to be petulant and vote for someone that has zero chance of being elected.

Look, i have written extensively that the 2-party system is a cancer eating away at our republic. But when you are voting for president and you have only two realistic choices, you have to weigh those choices and be an adult and vote accordingly. This time there was a landslide but in 2000 and 2004 it was votes like Jersey Girls that gave us Bush and Bush II. THAT is what the problem is,.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 12:28:01 AM

  (0+)

I see Rob we still have the negative folks invading the site, spreading their venom without offering a scintilla of solution. The same people who cried that Obama could not survive the fully rigged voting apparatus breeze by the landlside victory and right into - he is part of the illuminati crap.

If Obama felt he needed Rahm, then let it be. I agree RFK would be a great start for the EPA head. But you can see from the tenor of some of these messages that we have three trains of thought:

1) The whiners - they offer nothing but doom and gloom and hide behind silly votes for people like Nader who had zero chance of getting elected. That is not a brave stance, it is stupid. They will continue to come into thread after thread to disrupt the message. They offer nothing.

2) The people on the far left who think this win was some kind of a mandate for them personally. They want to continue the poltics of division but only with a new autocrat in charge. To them the problem with the last eight years was not the oppresive nature of government but that they were not controlling the oppression.

3) People who realize that maybe three days is too short a period of time to be judging things. Who realize that the goal of progressivism should be to bring people together not continue to drive them apart. We know that Obama is not a panacea and is part of the machine but realize that some good change can still be affected. If we continue to lay down the politics of division, we can enjoy more terms in control where more change can be affected.

I pray more and more people and progressives realize there is nothing constructive about the first two options and start to embrace bringing this country together so that no ideologues, from either extreme can ever take over this country again.

AW

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:19:50 PM

  (0+)

... when you get the shill you want?

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:18:09 PM

  (0+)

Obama’s Council On Foreign Relations Crew

Out with the old regime, in with the old regime

"Meet some of president elect Obama’s leading foreign and domestic policy advisors and likely administration members, every one of them a prominent member of the Council On Foreign Relations.

Will these people bring about “change” or will they continue to hold up the same entrenched system forged by the corporate elite for decades?"

click here

  He continues to describe a bit about each one..... enough to be fairly discouraging/alarming (for some).... who study history. Oops, there I go being 'negative' again. .... . or is that 'realistically concerned?'

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:38:45 PM

  (0+)

You have that leading the infowar over tone, as do I.  You must be a commie bastard/terrorist/leftwingnut job....LMFAO...

 Too bad that we seem to be the only ones with guns and food. Ready for what the Obamaites have voted into this country.....love live the revolution!

 And yes, I am a conspiracy theorist!  And I wouldn't be any other dam way!

by Hal Smith (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 67 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:48:20 PM

  (0+)

Trying to get rid of the two party system? Of course I am.  I've been working at that for the past 6 years.  If you aren't than you should be.  That is unless you are pleased with the United Corporate States of America. Nothing will be accomplished by accepting, and worst of all, making excuses for, the corporate candidates put forth by the powers that be as our "choice". Funny, if Bush said some of the things Obama has I have a feeling you'd be bashing him not praising him.

by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:44:34 PM

  (0+)

Where in the world did you see me ever praise Bush???

You have been working on elimiating the 2-party system for 6 years? Great, please do share what you have done, where you are at, and how we can assist. THAT would be a tremendous goal of progressivism, which i would not expect Obama to assist with.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 12:31:45 AM

  (0+)

Just like with FDR, he had to be persuaded to help the common person during the last Great Depression. We must do it now. Obama is no liberal but he can be convinced that is the way to go. Now we all shall see whether Obama is more than just a slogan but is really for change! Be open minded but also be skeptical. Remove those stars from your eyes.

by nightgaunt (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 448 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:09:37 PM

  (0+)

Worse than any swiftboat! Hateful  dispositions! Master and Mistress of Doom and Gloom! Please go back under the rock from which you came!

It wouldn't matter if Obama chose the ghost of Ghandi to be his Cheif of Staff you would find fault with that. No matter what he does or who he picks in your negative eyes he can never be right.

I wish just one of you were in his shoes faced with the burden of a crumbling nation upon your shoulders and see what you would do. The man is not stupid. He has to choose a team that will get things done. He's not getting ready to serve tea and play golf he has to face a sinking economy, a Iraq war and a group of bitter critics such as some people on this board who want him to fail.

I think we have to adopt the "Yes We Can" slogan even on this board because if we let the naysayers have their way we will be as divided as the RNC is right now. Instead of looking for solutions, organizing and preparing to support Obama on getting this mandate done you would compare him to Hitler and the guy was just elected on Tuesday.

If you are not careful with your doom and gloom, hate mentality you will drag the progressives the way of the republicans a bunch of bitter ineffective losers who are now having to rethink thier whole mission and direction.

Now is the time for progressives to band together and organize and on down the road should Obama turn on us we will be ready to hold him to the fire and when I say hold him to the fire I don't mean voting for Nadar.

Peace Out! 

by Sharon Roach (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 184 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:14:03 PM

  (0+)

We couldn't hold Bush to a fire, and people hate him! We had a Dem congress for the past two years and what fire did they hold to an unpopular president?

We just witnessed these cretins spit in our eye with this "bail-out" bill, and just what punishment did "we" enact?

All this talk of "fire & feet" is delusional. We don't have the fire and we're under their feet. We had a vote, but a majority of you blow that voting for the same criminals that have been robbing and murdering you all this time.

You wait, go ahead, I gave-up on these lying, murdering bastards long ago. I'm not waiting anymore.

I call them like I see them and I see dumb people.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:13:38 PM

  (0+)

FDR knew going into the venture he would have to court Southern Democrats--code for party split.  Hence John Nance Garner. He knew something about matters of the Navy and what was happening in Europe.  He knew Americans were ready to turn on each other and he'd need some Brains he could.  And he knew that 2 years into an administration was the big test, so he had Jim Farley and his post offices for political patronage.  It was only expected that he would reward (and depend on) some New York connections.  

So what did current Bush do?  How many Texans will see the eyes of Texas in January?  As for the man Obama picked, he's not called Raumbo for nothing.  At the press conference this afternoon, as I watched WGN, I saw Emanuel stand like--sorry, it's been said before--a pit bull.  The men are friends.  Maybe we should just have a little patience.  And as we learned this year, Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton, for however that will play out. 

by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1851 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:44:58 PM

  (0+)

I will be but confident I will not.  Things are completely different now than during FDR.  We are breaking every national law by attacking and occupying sovereign countries.  Obama himself has said he will go into Pakistan ( a nuclear country-thanks to us).  There is no doubt that he himself along with Biden and Powell have said something will happen.  A false flag maybe but most are expecting something.  What, we do not know yet but whatever it is, will create an even larger racial divide than already exists.

I hope for peace and I hope for change but I do not think this new administration is going to bring it.

I live in Chicago and it is one of the if not the most corrupt city in the U.S. not to mention the murder capitol!

How in the hell can anyone in their right mind expect change from a man (men) that come from this state?  Let's be real and not politicians and tell the truth, for once....

by Hal Smith (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 67 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:53:46 PM

  (0+)

Let's be patience as he'd like to move with "Deliberte Haste" but he doesnt want to rush in choosing his posts.

He talked  about not rushing out but making the RIGHT decisions  to jumpstart economic growth. Check it out:  http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4584765n

He was cool and presidential just as usual while reiterating that there is only "one government" and "one president" at a time that is the CURRENT administration. And he WILL way in a bipartisan way for a smooth transition.   Even though he's facing the entire world problems, he's  able to stay focused and steady as usual.

The point is to trust or not to trust President-Elect Obama. That's the question!

by Lydia Kopere Patterson (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 154 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:47:46 PM

  (0+)

Let's be patient as he'd like to move with "Deliberte Haste" but he doesnt want to rush in choosing his posts.

He talked  about not rushing out but making the RIGHT decisions to jumpstart economic growth. Check it out:  http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4584765n

He was cool and presidential just as usual while reiterating that there is only "one government" and "one president" at a time that is the CURRENT administration. And he WILL way in a bipartisan way for a smooth transition.   Even though he's facing the entire world problems, he's  able to stay focused and steady as usual.

The point is to trust or not to trust President-Elect Obama. That's the question!

by Lydia Kopere Patterson (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 154 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:51:02 PM

  (0+)

I feel sorry for anyone who felt bullied enough into explaining to you why they voted for Obama when it is clear that no matter what they say you will find fault. Why should I justify to you my vote for Obama? What will that do but lead into a hot right-wing, left-wing dispute.

As far as being a realist. Cope with the reality that Obama is now our President and he has the power to choose whomever he likes to face the monstrous problems of this nation . I will be there to assist as an activist either way whether to support him or hold him to the fire. I refuse to sit on the sidelines this time and just bicker and complain. It's about action, organizing and making things happen.

by Sharon Roach (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 184 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:56:46 PM

  (0+)

Sharon.  I too have been active for quite sometime and have dealt with the repercussions of it.  Just for the record, I didn't bully anyone.  I asked the question when it was presented in the form of who you voting for Hal?  I gave my answer and expected an honest one in return.

Never received one though.  Even when the campaign called my house and were confronted, they had NO answer.

Whether it had been Obama or McCain, the results and repercussions would be the same and I would NEVER stand on the sidelines!

We have a huge hill to climb in this country/world and I do not see in happening overnight or in the near future.  But what I dislike the least are the folks out there that think that just since Obama won, they can sit back because he's going to save them.  They are dead wrong!

Red, Blue, black or white, he's a politician and a human being noting more, nothing less!

by Hal Smith (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 67 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:05:28 PM

  (0+)

But lets wait until he takes the oath before we turn him into being equal with Bush, i mean, c'mon

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 12:34:42 AM

  (0+)

Please, spare me the dramatics and explain to me what it is about Obama that is so inspiring other than he is the first black president and that he isn't Bush or McCain?  Yes, he is intelligent and handsome with a lovely smile and lovlier family.  Most importantly, he can speak proper English.  Something we can't say about our lame duck wanna be cowboy in the white house.   Other than that, what has he said that has earned your undying devotion? 

Is it his war hawking? His constitution shredding?  His AIPAC suppporting? His investment bank bailing?  His nuclear power & clean coal loving?  Oil drilling?  Hmmmm I dunno.... sounds a lot like bush to me.  

I really wanted to support him.  But, he threw me and all my progressive friends under the bus, backed it up and ran over us again.   Sorry, I'm not into that kind of abuse.

by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:08:22 PM

  (0+)

Hal

I never asked you who you voted for. I see no need to , it doesn't matter to me because Obama has won. Yes, I agree we will have to be patient but lets go further and  take this time to organize and get involved in whatever way you choose to defend this mandate and make the politicians accountable.

Jersey Girl,

I refuse to explain my vote to you too for the same reasons.

You state you really wanted to support Obama but he threw you and your progressive friends under the bus. Looks like to me Nadar threw you under the bus with your wasted vote. So you voted for Nadar. I'm leaving that alone because currently that issue is as dead as road kill. Nadar didn't win and I'm still waiting to see what message came from this vote. It must be in a bottle out in the middle of the ocean.

As far as dramatics, just call it my panther spirit coming out and ready to go to work, I'm flexible and realize that Obama is not above corruption but he laid out a mandate and I'm holding him to it, if he follows it I will support him but if he forgets it I will remind him.

by Sharon Roach (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 184 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:42:01 PM

  (0+)

Why is it that not one obama supporter can tell me why they voted for him? I can give you an entire litany of why I voted for Nader.  Actually, I was tossed up over whether to vote Nader or McKinney.  They both espouse true progressive principles and have a real respect for the constitution that Obama seems to be sadly lacking.  

by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:08:53 PM

  (0+)

I asked those that voted for Obama to read the article Can We Talk About the Real Obama Now, that lists his record and to match his votes to their supposed progressive views, and so far have not received a response.

I would love to see someone try, really. It would make for a very interesting piece. And I can only imagine it would be like watching a truck load of eels playing a game of Twister.

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/link.php?id=74702

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:35:28 PM

  (0+)

Look, alot of my decision was based on the lesser of two evils theory. I honestly believe that Obama will mean saving hundreds of thosuands of lives, literally. Yes, he talked alot about afghanistan but my hope is he talked alot about it because he knew if he did not, he would have been branded weak on security. Biden is not a moron on foriegn policy.

I see Obama as being too smart to continue the wars without end, whereas McCain joked about nuking iran. There was a stark difference. On the economy, i liked the Obama plan far more where the rich have to start paying their fair share - compared to McCain who wanted to conitnue the disasterous Bushonomics.

There were clear differences. Obama talked about creating jobs in this country, closing loopholes for companies shipping jobs overseas, etc...

Will he do it all, NO - but to pretend he is no better than McCain is simply ridiculous and short-sighted.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 12:39:53 AM

  (0+)

And ensuring Palin was not in the white house alone was a good enough reason to vote for Obama. It makes any vote for Nader so selfish and short-sighted it is staggering.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 12:41:57 AM

  (0+)

Dear Wall Street:

Relax. When Barack Obama closes a letter with "Your Obedient Servant", he isn't kidding.

Like any good member of the servant class, Obama knows it is the investor class who determine whether he will be allowed to put a dollop of the butter he churns on a crust of the bread he bakes.

JP

by JonmarkP (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 111 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:53:41 PM

  (0+)

It's looking like allot of you have never read The Art of War.  (Ok, so I haven't either, but I have absorbed some of the key points.)  With that, I will merely summarize by declaring that 'who' he surrounds himself with is far less important than 'what' he does.  The line of thinking that Emanual is just recycling is a failure to see the larger picture of experience.  We are talking about a chief of staff position, not policy making. 

 Obama's electoral success is strongly rooted in the impression of having good judgement, as clearly the 'associations' that were so brazenly slammed against him prior to the election had insignificant effect in the end.   So which way is it Obama supporters?  Do you trust him?  Or did you simply choose to ignore his 'associations' for other reasons?

Let his actions speak for his motives, not his associations.

by Kip Anderson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:24:06 PM

  (0+)

Obama said he liked Warren Buffet, and I assume that is who he will pick unless the Clintons and some of the Israel dual American officials twist his arm and threaten his reign. He better pick Buffet.

However, I went and said my "vision" and my protest against Larry Summers on his change site. That is excellent for him to have that site but I wonder just who reads all of them and if they even get read. Sure beats the hell out of the Bush site that he had. No response, never ever at all.  It was too late with Rahm (DLC) as his choice for Chief of Staff (Karl Rove was Bush's). Rahm compared to Rove is almost a wee bit refreshing IMO. However, for us Liberals to get what we want, well, we move to Denmark, I guess.

Chuck Baldwin? Puke. I live in the state where the Freeman battle occured. Baldwin has the same ideology as they did/do.

Excellent article Rob, look at the comments!

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 8:01:13 PM

  (0+)

To vote AGAINST Palin. OMG. As I saw it, if I voted 4 Obama, I was voting against the Palin/McCain ticket. However, I wished upon a star that Nader would get a landslide. The star missed. Bummer 4 me and YOU.

Patience? Someone said "just be patient". California penal code started  this thing called " 3 Strikes  UR out". It was treasured around the country, so the land adopted such a law.  I have about as much patience  for a politician as the law affords me.

Several tell me I have a lot of patience. But the truth of the matter is, I just don't give a sh*t. (Joke)

Obama has 2 strikes in my book, and he is up to bat, with this looming official of the MONEY...OUR money...burp, I mean our credit card with no limit !!!!!!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Batter up, Obama. Strike one,  war expansion agreement, strike 2, Rahm.

Anymore, I can't tell if America is Israel or Israel is America, but I do know they are governing one of the same.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:36:56 PM

  (0+)

The people doing all the gum flapping and criticism of every move made are the problem. Nothing Obama does can be effective until the the politically well informed people outnumber the ignorant ones who vote like they treat religion, with blind faith and trust.

That "recycled" choice for commander in chief is one of the most respected true movers and shakers in the senate. He has loyal friends who respect him and his abilities on both sides of the fence. He can be a huge part of making things happen.

What needs to be changed is the way people show public support or opposition for things they know nothing about. Obama and his staff can't make a change against pure public opposition if they listen to the Republican spin on every issue tackled. Case in point, republicans had a large public support for more drilling when it isn't close to being the answer or making a damn bit of difference. No politician can buck public support based on false premises if that is what the public is going to listen to. Obama seems to know this and has already written and submitted new legislation for better public disclosure.

Flap your jaws and do something about completely ignorant people who think they know how to run a government, it's easy, just listen to the current administration and they'll keep you informed as they have for the last two terms. we'll be okay paying for the drilling in harder to reach areas and starting 35 new nuclear reactors that there won't be enough fuel for.

by AccountingGuru (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 3 comments) on Sunday, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:35:24 AM

  (0+)

I have a positive take on what's going on. I'm not saying I think it's true but here's how it goes:

In order to get anywhere Obama had to make alliances with the PE's. Choiceless. There is no third party option in the current US system. So he did and he will continue to do so.

What gives me hope ( to use a dirty word!) about his campaign thus far is that from the beginning he said he wanted to work from the bottom up and bring a new coalition of voters into the Democratic fold (which he did - look at the map), and furthermore his economic policy is based on bring viable opportunity back to the middle class (which also now means lower class/working class). He reiterated that several times in the past week both shortly before and after the election. 

Let us assume that with his background in Constitutional Law and community organizing that he is sincere about this, also sincere about getting America back to its core outlook which is positive, opportunistic, generous, forward-looking, compassionate and so forth.

OK. So what can he do? Can he take on the AIPAC's and entrenched corporate lobbying cultures which are at this point established power networks? No, he cannot. If he does (now that he has been elected) he will be shot by a loony in no time. Like many other Presidents and leaders throughout history.

So he has to put together an administration that includes the core PE factions, which is mainly involved with the Pentagon, the Treasury, the Ziocons. They have to be in there. No choice about this whatsoever. These interests dominate the news cycles on corporate-run media. The wars have to continue. No mere President has the power to suddenly turn off the military-industrial-congressional (Ike's original term edited out before giving the famous speech) juggernaut.

So, if he has to work within that existing power paradigm, what can he do? The only think he can do, I think, is work on the main things he promised which go deep into engendering a meaningful shift in the US political culture, namely:

Health care. Yes, his plan leaves for-profit corporations in charge of everything, but by forcing them to accept everyone he already cuts into one of the main sources of corruption. It's an important start. If he tried for single payer (clearly the best way), he wouldn't have a prayer in today's climate.

Energy reform: not only could this actually work (if a truly serious attempt is made), it would provide the US domestic economy with its next technological boost creating a positive short-term (5-25 year) business cycle which will lift all boats, especially those of working people. Furthermore, it will greatly reduce the pressure from the military-industrial types to foment conflict and conquest initiatives in Central Eurasia, including the Middle East. Reducing the power of the oil sector to dictate foreign policy would be a huge, significant shift.

Infrastructure reform: depending on how this is done, it could also prove a way for Washington to funnel significantly more of its funds back to the people, including State and Local treasuries, also increasing employment, tax revenues and so forth. More importantly, it creates a current or channel in the governance flow that is much healthier, i.e. taxes go into Washington from all over the country and then are redistributed to foster large projects and initiatives that private companies alone would never be able to undertake. 

In other words, he has to give the Empire Crowd their place since they are there now and there is no way he can instantly displace them. But given the potential for long-term economic collapse, the need for re-tooling the domestic economy is so urgent and inarguable that a period of focussing on domestic reform and development is as uncontroversial (in general) as it is inevitable. It is on this front that he can begin to turn the supertanker of US polity gradually around. As he said in his acceptance speech on Nov 4th, this will take a very long time.

With the appointment of Emmanuel I confess I felt great disgust and disappointment even though I was never a convinced Obama supporter. And although I suspect that Obama is a puppet - as are most of them - I also suspect that, given his undeniable intelligence and background, he has a few cards of his own up his sleeve. It is a dangerous and gutsy game he is playing if this is the case.

What is most needed to help him is for the various groups who supported his candidacy to organise their own 'peoples' lobbies'. To that end, his transition team should be encouraged to continue the work begun on his websites during the campaign to turn them into ongoing sources of information, feedback, organisation and so forth so that his Presidency can become somewhat more along the lines of the rulers of yore in that he represents the peoples' interests when dealing with the elite powers that exist in all systems and throughout history, akin to how the role of old European Monarchs was to represent the entire country, including its people, when dealing with the vested interests of the aristocracy, feudal lords and suchlike. 

So the key to a successful Obama Presidency along the lines sketched in his campaign, is for the bottoms-up support he did elicit to continue in some form. He should be supplicated and pressured to provide the leadership for this somehow since without national leadership and organisation such a thing will fall apart rapidly. This to me is the key thing that needs to be promoted and established in the next 90 days.

For unless there is a direct, obvious and powerful channel between the people and the President, that President will increasingly become the tool of the establishment embedded for generations now in the US. If there is a real voice for the people, one that is heard and known throughout the land, one that increasingly gets air time on CNN and elsewhere, that constitutes real, living pressure on a President and the elites. So what I am watching for in the next 90 days is the degree to which he works to keep that channel open, and the degree to which he just gradually tunes it out as he gets engrossed, understandably, in learning his new job at a new level of responsibility, an extraordinary undertaking in its own right.

by Ashley Howes (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Sunday, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:54:23 AM

  (0+)