The two highest ranking appointed positions in the federal government are going to: (1) a woman Obama called "reckless" in her foreign policy; and, (2) Bush's overseer of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which Obama called "misdirected" and "failures".
I think they're good choices.
But, wouldn't you think the usual suspects would be stunned by the evident reversal? You'd think that appointing multiple winners of "worst person of the day" would be enough to get Olbermann to name Obama as today's "worst person of the day".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Why? During the campaign Obama said "I'm looking forward to having you advise me, Hillary." I figured he meant it.
He also said (I paraphrase) if you keep appointing the same people, don't expect a different result. So far, the only 'change' I see involves his evolving positions.
He said whatever people wanted to hear. Or they interpreted his message in whatever way felt good.
He ran in the primaries as a hopey changitude leftist. That's called "red meat" for your "base." Which in your party is now the MyDD and Kos crowd, and not Joe the Union member lunch pail factory worker. He still may vote Dem, but he's not the one working the internet and the polling places (and graduating from the J-schools of America to go work in the media).
Then, having portrayed Hilary as a war mongering centrist, not to mention the one person guaranteed to lose to the Republican; combined with an enthusiatic base allied with Ophrah and the rest of the entertainment world airheads...he beat her.
Then for the general - it's nothing new whatsoever. Libs who win elections, whether they be presidential, or senatorial, ALWAYS tack rightwards, towards the center in their campaigning.
It's a ploy to sucker the rubes; or, to embrace a more diverse and inclusive viewpoint. Take your pick.
I sat through approximately 257 television commericials where The One promised "tax cuts" (snort) to everyone making less than $250,000. That's called STEALING the old Republican theme of lower taxes, and people keeping more of THEIR money, and coopting it. That is no liberal message. Not at all.
The question then becomes - how will the lib talking like a centrist, actually GOVERN. That's where the mystery comes in with Obama. You already KNOW how a guy like McCain feels about stuff like immigration, national defenese, etc. He's got a track record. Versus Obama - the first president in my lifetime with pretty much NOTHING in his resume. Except a history associating with what some might feel are unsavory personalities.
I don't find his appointment of former Clintonites particularly surprising. He needs to have some old Washington hands on board, considering the extent and breadth of his...ah,..executive experience. And what other Dem old administration beltway hands can he recruit from? Jimmy Carter's? Perhaps when he gets all settled in and gains confidence in the job, he'll throw the Clintonites under the bus and bring in a bunch of Kos kids. Who knows.
Is an old Clintonite bettter or worse than bringing in some ward boss from a South Chicago precinct; or some old Harvard law school classmate; or some fellow parishoner from the Hate Whitey Church; or a fellow member of an Educational Foundation Board who is just some guy in your neighborhood?
There's no outcry because the President this time has a "D" at the end of his name.
He can do no wrong...which can actually work in the country's favor sometimes.
Just wait til they start taxing carbon...
Post a Comment