This is the "change" he promised?

[Michelle67]

Every single one.

What the heck did they think "change" meant? Change from the dopes in the White House NOW.

Okay I quoted you but probably a dozen people said it so don't feel singled out...but you guys DO realize that change from the guys in the White House now was a foregone conclusion, right? I just wanna make sure because most of the times I actually sat through Obama talking it didn't seem like he got that. He seemed determine to run against Bush...who wasn't a candidate.

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

Wow. Who knew that almost 48% of the American population posted on the DIS?

So that's what it's about? Winners and losers? I thought we were all Americans and supposed to be on the same team. I DID vote for Obama and DO want him to succeed, but it's really annoying to me to read that 'some' Obama supporters enjoy "gloating" over their "win". That really isn't what it should be about. I went into the Obama thread a few times, and was really turned off by the general attitude there; certainly not by everyone there, but definately some. Unbelieveable.

Very nice. Thanks for posting it. Gloating and thumbing noses at people crowing about how it sux to be loserz isn't condusive to that "healing" that Obama is supposed to bring us. Maybe more of his supporters should help him out with that and bring some of us who don't believe around.

Hillary is the same-old same old from a past administration? Could someone remind me what position she held in Bill Clinton's administration again? I must have forgotten.

Wasn't she the President under Bill's administration?

Okay, I was gonna say "Madame Co-President," but you trumped me.

Since you never actually watched him speak, or rather heard what he said, you wouldn't actually know the change of which he spoke. So, honestly, you don't have a lot leeway on this one.

Wow. You know this? How is that?

So, you think Obama's cabinet will be just like the group who has been in there for the last 8 years? Are you saying you thought "Brownie", Gonzalez and Rummie did a good job? Or is it the obvious addition of style, grace and class that is bothering you in the head position of our country? Extreme intellect will also be a new concept in the POTUS; do you disapprove? Huge change is coming! I can hardly wait.

Therein lies several points upon which we do not agree.

 

[bicker]

What adversaries [is] President-Elect Obama [planning to] put into positions of power?

Hillary Clinton, for starters.

 

[bicker]

Face it. BO had to recycle the Clinton Aministration...

Incorrect. Rather, Obama gets to choose among the best and brightest for our country, people who are willing to support his vision of change, regardless of what their previous associations with previous administrations (even the Bush administration, in Gates' case) are.

 

[bicker]

At least it's refreshing that the President-Elect is making appointments based on who will do the best job, unlike our current President who appoints political hacks.

That's a good point. With Obama, we can expect appointments to be made much more so on merit than with the GWB administration.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Incorrect. Rather, Obama gets to choose among the best and brightest for our country, people who are willing to support his vision of change, regardless of what their previous associations with previous administrations (even the Bush administration, in Gates' case) are.

I disagree and stand by my original statement.

 

[bicker]

I'm not surprised, but that doesn't change the facts: Obama is choosing brilliant people, and considering both Democrats and Republicans, and among the Democrats, he is considering both those that supported him and those that opposed him, and including new-comers as well as those with substantial experience.

 

[HeatherC]

Don't want to fight with anyone here. But I agree with the very first poster.

What change are we talking about if we bring back most of the people from Clinton's administration? Sure maybe a change from the last 8 years. But things are still looking a little too familiar in Washington.

Keep hearing that it will be great with Hillary as SOS because she is such an "experienced insider" and gets along great with Joe Biden...they go way back.

Tell me....how in the world is this change? They are all part of the Washington clique that I thought Obama was promising to change. Regardless of whether they are smart people or not, we need new people there. I do think they are brilliant, however, since they are still controlling Washington. Didn't Obama want to clean house of the Washington insiders? Now he is putting Hillary in as Secretary of State? Even if she is great at it, to me it sounds like he has already broken some campaign promises.

We are the stupid ones, however, because we keep putting the same people back in office. This time they just happen to be part of the Democratic party.

 

[Christine]

Don't want to fight with anyone here. But I agree with the very first poster.

What change are we talking about if we bring back most of the people from Clinton's administration? Sure maybe a change from the last 8 years. But things are still looking a little too familiar in Washington.

Keep hearing that it will be great with Hillary as SOS because she is such an "experienced insider" and gets along great with Joe Biden...they go way back.

Tell me....how in the world is this change? They are all part of the Washington clique that I thought Obama was promising to change. Regardless of whether they are smart people or not, we need new people there. I do think they are brilliant, however, since they are still controlling Washington. Didn't Obama want to clean house of the Washington insiders? Now he is putting Hillary in as Secretary of State? Even if she is great at it, to me it sounds like he has already broken some campaign promises.

We are the stupid ones, however, because we keep putting the same people back in office. This time they just happen to be part of the Democratic party.

I think Sarah Palin was the one who was really pushing the "Washington clique" thing way more than I ever heard from Obama. She was the one who wasn't a "Washington Insider." As for getting "new" people, as has been pointed out several times in this thread, where do we propose we find these "new" people? Do you just go out into towns in America and find their leaders? Do we go find the Sarah Palins of the world who seem to not have a clue how things work but sure have a lot of perk and spunk? That's kind of scary. I don't think we are even putting the *same* people back in. Yes, they are familiar and worked around the Clinton administration, but besides Bill's disgraceful end of his presidency, it was a pretty good administration as things go (personal opinion I know).

 

[bicker]

What change are we talking about if we bring back most of the people from Clinton's administration?

Clearly, that would be a big change from what we've experienced the last eight years. That's what many folks who voted for Obama wanted. Compare that to what we would have had with McCain/Palin, a continuation of the Bush/Cheney administration -- Obama/Biden cannot help but be better than that would have been.

I don't see many posters who strongly supported Obama in the election objecting to these prospective appointments.

Sure maybe a change from the last 8 years. But things are still looking a little too familiar in Washington.

There is no benefit from having no one with any experience in Washington. Again, the comparison must be with regard to what we would have had with McCain/Palin; the folks that Obama is selecting are substantially better than who McCain would have chosen.

 

[HeatherC]

You know...I think I actually would prefer going into small town America and finding their leaders. Washington definitely needs a makeover.

Just because someone has been in Washington for the past 20 years doesn't mean they are the only ones we should have there. That to me is like saying: that's just the way things work. I don't buy that. Kick the whole bunch out and start fresh.

What I would love to see are some people who have been successful starting and growing their own small companies. We need some ingenuity and from what I see of those there now, we don't have much of it in Washington.

I just think it will still be the same old same old for the next 4 years or 42 years. Yes...we have a new face. But the way things are run in Washington will be basically the same.

I do think the economy will rebound at some point and Obama and friends will take credit for that. (As would Bush and his friends if they were still there.) Markets are cyclical and no matter who is in office we will see the economy rebound at some point. But the way business will be conducted will still be the same I'm afraid.

 

[bicker]

You know...I think I actually would prefer going into small town America and finding their leaders. Washington definitely needs a makeover.

A makeover is necessary, but the United States would not be well-served by being led by small town leaders. We have to interact in the international community with countries that won't be run by inexperienced neophytes in the international arena, and our government must interact in the large-scale multi-national corporate arena, and therefore its leaders must have substantial experience there. That's one reason why generally the only Washington outsiders who are considered qualified to be President are state governors.

Just because someone has been in Washington for the past 20 years doesn't mean they are the only ones we should have there.

And just because someone has been in Washington for the past 20 years doesn't mean they are unable to effect change in Washington.

Kick the whole bunch out and start fresh.

Perhaps we should do that in schools that aren't successful educating their students: Fire all their teachers, and find a whole new set of people who have taught adults who would now like to teach children. Sorry, but that's simply not a good idea. Teaching children is very different from teaching adults, in exactly the same way that running a large country, like the United States, is different from running a small town.

What I would love to see are some people who have been successful starting and growing their own small companies.

Again, if this was a small country, that would be a good idea.

I just think it will still be the same old same old for the next 4 years or 42 years.

Perhaps. One of the things that we may have to face is that there may not be any good answers to this quandary. There doesn't always have to be a solution -- we simply need to continually try, despite that.

Yes...we have a new face. But the way things are run in Washington will be basically the same.

Clearly, that's not the case. Obama will not be GWB, and will therefore not be what McCain would have been.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

I am happy. I think Clinton will make a great SOS.

 

[Galahad]

Clearly, that's not the case.

I'll take that bet - I don't think that's clear at all. Washington will run the same as it always had. Obama will have just as many lobbyist entanglements as anybody else, for example - we'll just call it something different. People who like what's happening will say we got change people who don't will say it's the same old thing.

 

[bicker]

I think we're missing the ends of sentences. I'm saying that "clearly" Washington will not be basically the same as it has been, which it would have been had McCain/Palin been elected. You're saying that Washington will be basically the same as it has been sometime in the past (i.e., the 1990s). Perhaps.

 

[Galahad]

I think we're missing the ends of sentences. I'm saying that "clearly" Washington will not be basically the same as it has been, which it would have been had McCain/Palin been elected. You're saying that Washington will be basically the same as it has been sometime in the past (i.e., the 1990s). Perhaps.

Nope. I'm saying Washington is "the same" now as it was in the 90's. Some people like the results, some people don't. But the politics of the Bush years is really no different than the politics of the Clinton years. It won't be any different under President Obama. Lots of administrations have tapped people from both parties for their staff. Lots of administrations have tried bold new things the fix serious problems. President Obama's latest announcement of his economic recovery plan tries to say, for example, that no one has ever tried building roads and bridges and schools as a means to help the economy. I'll give him alternative fuels as a new detail, but he's not really trying to do anything all that radical and different. I also think that, while Obama's administration will appear more transparent than Bush's, it will be no less cut throat and ruthless. It will be, my guess is, a more genteel version of Lyndon Johnson than anything radically new.

BTW, I think Senator Clinton would do a fine job of Sec State. And given some of the other choices he could have made, Senator Daschele is probably a fine choice for HHS as well. I don't expect an Obama administration to do things that are conservative or even centrist actually. But it certainly looks like we'll get competent (note - that sentence is not intended as bait for obvious rejoinders).

btw -"we" are not missing end of sentences. But thanks for being concerned for "us".

 

[The Mystery Machine]

I think we're missing the ends of sentences. I'm saying that "clearly" Washington will not be basically the same as it has been, which it would have been had McCain/Palin been elected. You're saying that Washington will be basically the same as it has been sometime in the past (i.e., the 1990s). Perhaps.

Washington will be Washington.

Obama will not be the same as Bush or Clinton.

And no way is it going to be like the 90's with all of the issues at hand. Our nation is beginning to go through the needed change to go into the 21st Century.

It will be interesting to see the change that the Republicans go through. I am hoping that Obama can put us on the right path and we can get back to governing America instead of this Republican strategy of roping in Christians to win.

He is resetting the bar. All we can do is wait and see.

 

[bicker]

Nope. I'm saying Washington is "the same" now as it was in the 90's.

But it hasn't been. There were fundamental differences between the Bush/Cheney administration and the Clinton/Gore administration, differences that made the difference between success (Clinton/Gore) and failure (Bush/Cheney), the difference between respect in the international community (Clinton/Gore) and disrespect (Bush/Cheney), and the difference between freedom-loving (Clinton/Gore) and oppressive (Bush/Cheney).

But the politics of the Bush years is really no different than the politics of the Clinton years.

The mechanics may not be different, but the intentions -- and the nobility of those intentions -- and the results were different. Radically different. So much so that any movement away from what the Bush/Cheney administration meant is likely to be a positive change.

It won't be any different under President Obama.

Change happens all the time, actually. It may not be the change you want, and/or as much change as you want, but there will be differences.

Lots of administrations have tapped people from both parties for their staff.

Talk to us about how Bush/Cheney embraced Democrats in their administration.

I also think that, while Obama's administration will appear more transparent than Bush's, it will be no less cut throat and ruthless.

That's more a comment on our society than anything else. By the same token, it is clear to me that the Obama/Biden administration will be more transparent than either the Bush/Cheney administration has been, or the McCain/Palin administration would have been. Again, it may not be the change you want, and/or as much change as you want, but there will be differences.

btw -"we" are not missing end of sentences. But thanks for being concerned for "us".

It wasn't concern, and yes, "we" were missing the ends of sentences. Given that we contradicted each other in words yet didn't disagree about the actuality, it is clear that the issue was semantic.

 

[bicker]

It will be interesting to see the change that the Republicans go through.

It sure will be interesting. We can only hope that the ignorant and oppressive religious zealotry that has perverted the GOP for the last thirty years will be banished, and many of us former Republicans will be able return to the party that we can finally, again, respect.

 

[Galahad]

-- and the nobility of those intentions

Horse Crap!

Talk to us about how Bush/Cheney embraced Democrats in their administration.

They did not.

 

[bicker]

Horse Crap!

Not, not at all. I wouldn't have written it if I didn't believe it was accurate.

They did not.

Precisely, so that's one change to Obama/Biden administration achieves, right-off-the-bat.