This is the "change" he promised?

[KatheeME]

Yeah, a change for the BETTER
Kathee

 

[Christine]

Uh, not that I'm really promoting it, but it seems Obama bashing doesn't go down as smoothly as Bush bashing. I don't intend to bash unless and until it's deserved, but that's not to say I don't have some concerns, if not a tiny bit of doubt.

Because he hasn't done anything yet. As soon as he starts screwing up, the bashing will be deserved. I'll probably being doing myself even though I voted for him. I *can* be critical of my "team" too! Right now, the bashing is just being done for the sake of being critical and complaining. Bush had plenty of justifiable things to bash. Of course it went down' more smoothly, it was deserved in most cases. When Obama truly makes a mess of something, the bashing will go down like sweet tea on a sweltering Disney afternoon!

 

[gottaluvPluto]

Yes, of course you can express that opinion as Charade did. In my first post back to Charade, I gave my opinion on why I think picking Hillary did represent a change. I was careful also to state that this is how *I* viewed it and knew others wouldn't agree.

My second post on the thread, which is what you were responding to above, had to do with Charade's statement that people who didn't vote for Bush wanted him not to succeed because his platform was against what we wanted. My response to that (which you quoted and then said "can't we express....") was more of an "argument" with the OPs statement and it was not about expressing opinions.

I thought I quoted someone else.

 

[Charade]

Out of curiousity ...

Charade, Hakuna, etc., who would you suggest for the Obama cabinet (and the other supporting positions that have been 'announced', i.e., Chief of Staff, etc.)??

And I'm not being sarcastic in asking this question ... I truly want to know who you feel would be good choices!

Honestly, I don't know but I do know that bringing back Clinton era retreads isn't change from the old Washington ways that Obama promised from the beginning of his campaign.

 

[KatheeME]

LOL you can have a opinion of Obama but unless it all sunshine and flowers everyone else is wrong

Um, yes just like the Obama bashers that post here.
Kathee

 

[wilderness01]

Everyone who bought into the "Change you can believe in", "we're going to get rid of the Washington insider" line of thinking had to be willfully naive. The Washington insiders aren't going anywhere. We're just changing from a Republican set of Washington insiders to a Democrat set of Washington insiders. That's your "change".

Honestly, this isn't a bad thing. You need people in key positions who, uh, actually have experience. Most of the Democrats with actual useful high-level government experience had something to do with the Clinton administration. Where else was he supposed to find these people? I don't really hold it again Pres.-Elect Obama because I knew that this was going to be his strategy; he doesn't exactly have another option.

For high-level government appointee positions, you need people who are (1) competent, (2) experienced, (3) politically reliable (i.e., will carry out the policy set by the White House), and (4) who actually want the job. Being in charge of these government agencies isn't exactly a cakewalk. Finding someone who has the requisite amounts of those qualities can be hard when there has been only a single Democrat administration in the past 28 years.

I only feel sorry for the college kids and the like who actually thought he was going to appoint people to high-level positions who aren't somehow connected to "inside Washington".

Great post!

 

[KatheeME]

Huh? Did Obama get sworn in and I missed it?

How about waiting until the man is actually in office before you start complaining?

But then they would have nothing to grouse about?
Kathee

 

[wilderness01]

Uh, not that I'm really promoting it, but it seems Obama bashing doesn't go down as smoothly as Bush bashing. I don't intend to bash unless and until it's deserved, but that's not to say I don't have some concerns, if not a tiny bit of doubt.

That is fair enough.

 

[DebbieB]

And if Obama was appointing outsiders with zero Washington experiance, they nay-sayers line would be that he's filling the cabinet with inexperianced hacks who don't know what they're doing.

Beleive it or not, Washington DC is a small place. There are only so many people with the type of experiance needed to run a country. Most of them are going to have experiance in prior administrations. The last Dem administration was Clinton's, so course there is going to be a certain number of appointees who served under Clinton, there isn't any way to really avoid it. There is still plenty of area for change, these people will serve at the pleasure of President Obama, I'm sure he'll do things just a wee bit different than the last couple of guys.

I agree. McCain and Palin kept repeating his "no executive experience" during the campaign. So he's surrounding himself with people with experience, especially to start. Seems better than surrounding himself with inexperienced people.

 

[designermv]

Everyone who bought into the "Change you can believe in", "we're going to get rid of the Washington insider" line of thinking had to be willfully naive. The Washington insiders aren't going anywhere. We're just changing from a Republican set of Washington insiders to a Democrat set of Washington insiders. That's your "change".

Honestly, this isn't a bad thing. You need people in key positions who, uh, actually have experience. Most of the Democrats with actual useful high-level government experience had something to do with the Clinton administration. Where else was he supposed to find these people? I don't really hold it again Pres.-Elect Obama because I knew that this was going to be his strategy; he doesn't exactly have another option.

For high-level government appointee positions, you need people who are (1) competent, (2) experienced, (3) politically reliable (i.e., will carry out the policy set by the White House), and (4) who actually want the job. Being in charge of these government agencies isn't exactly a cakewalk. Finding someone who has the requisite amounts of those qualities can be hard when there has been only a single Democrat administration in the past 28 years.

I only feel sorry for the college kids and the like who actually thought he was going to appoint people to high-level positions who aren't somehow connected to "inside Washington".

Very rational and insightful points here, great post.

Most of the Carter administration folks are too old or they're dead. I think Obama truly and deeply loves his country, and he's not stupid. He was both a professor and lecturer on constitutional law for almost 12 years. I'm sure it may sound naive to some, but I have absolute trust that every decision he is making is being well-thought out and scrupulously examined. He knows he has to prove himself to his citizens and the rest of the world.

 

[Chicago526]

Honestly, I don't know but I do know that bringing back Clinton era retreads isn't change from the old Washington ways that Obama promised from the beginning of his campaign.

You can't change anything if you don't understand how the current system works, and you have to work within that system for a time in order to begin to affect change. Clinton tried this in his first term, he refused most DC insiders being anywhere near the upper levels of his administration, and as a result the first year of his first term was a disaster, and was partially to blame for the Rep takeover of congress at the mid-term. Obama's a smart guy, he can learn from other people's mistakes. These people may have served under Clinton, but they'll be taking their orders from Obama. It will be change o'plenty come January and February. And if not, complain away, I'll be right there with you. But let the guy take office first, give him the chance to screw up a little before comming down on him like a ton of bricks!

 

[kinntj]

When I voted for change - I voted for a change from the Bush administration. So far, Obama has made picks that I'm comfortable with.

 

[rentayenta]

Let's face it, no matter who Obama picks some people will complain. Many people are looking for failure.

Sadly there are folks (mainy right here on the DIS) who find disdain in anything surrounding Obama and his family.

And thankfully it is only mostly on the DIS. The rest of the country voted for him!

 

[Master Mason]

Look, you guys are going to have at least four and most likely eight years to complain about Obama. You really need to pace yourselves, you'll tire yourselves out if you load up on him at the beginning like this.

This one gets me, people are not supposed to claim issues with him until he takes office, but it is apparently ok to elect him to a second term before he gets in office.

 

[Master Mason]

And thankfully it is only mostly on the DIS. The rest of the country voted for him!

Well 52% of them anyway.

 

[kydisneyfans]

I say we party like it's 1992!!!!

 

[IDoDis]

I thinks folks thought that 'change' meant moving away from the old Washington establishment. Selecting Clinton's cast of characters doesn't exactly represent change. Looks like all the old insiders are going to be in place again. That hardly opens up a way for Washington to change the way it does business. It's not change. It's more of the same.

Our economy thrived under the Clinton administration. Lots of very bright people! I'm thrilled with the choices! It will be a HUGE change from the neo-cons who have destroyed our country!

Now we get the best of both worlds! Time to have another par-tay!!!!!

 

[minnie61650]

Well 52% of them anyway.

True. It is also true that less than 50% voted for Pesident Bush in 2000.
I may not have voted for Prisident Bush but I wanted and hoped he would be a great President.
I was also more than willing to give him his chance.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[tinatark]

Come on, his platform in the election process was "change" - even though he does not hold the office of POTUS, he is making staffing decisions as such - wait, his office holders do represent change - changing back to Clinton era appointments...

I think the change he will represent for me will be change - change in my pocket, where dollars used to be.

 

[Master Mason]

True. It is also true that less than 50% voted for Pesident Bush in 2000.
I may not have voted for Prisident Bush but I wanted and hoped he would be a great President.
I was also more than willing to give him his chance.

Just my 2 cents.

Yep and less that 50% voted for Clinton BOTH times. I'm willing to give Obama a chance. However there are also things that I will freely admit that I hope he does fail at, the reason for that hope is it is things that he wants to do that I do not agree with.

He won, he can pick whoever he wants as long as the senate will approve those choices.