Wow, talk about change!

[drnykterstein]

I'll let them run a few plays before I make any judgments.

 

Same here. He's got 4 years before any of us can vote again.

[DC Tom]

Well, I think that remains to be seen, actually. Some of the same players, but a new coach with a different game plan. I'll let them run a few plays before I make any judgments. Still, changing back is change. If McCain got elected, I expect his change would be less of a change, but also a change back...just further back.

 

I'm going to hold out hope that, mixed in with the bulls#it that comes with politics, Obama will work toward his vision of a different, and better, country...and may actually get some of it accomplished. It's not a one term, or even one administration job, though.

 

Eh. Maybe I'm just a little demonstrative about the Hillary choice. It's no secret that I dislike the Clintons...and what I disliked most about his administration was the foreign policy (or, more accurately, the complete lack thereof). So to me, Clinton in State is just !@#$ing horrible, like putting Louis Farrakhan on the board of B'Nai B'rith.

 

I will admit, in the interest of honesty, that what foreign policy success the Clinton Administration had was negotiational in nature (Oslo, Dayton)...so I recognize that with that background Hillary may actually be more suited for State than I'm willing to accept. But I can still hate the !@#$ing choice, and ridicule it to my heart's content.

 

And yes, I know that "Hillary" and "Bill" are different people. At least nominally. I've never seen anything to indicate it as a matter of belief or policy.

 

 

 

Fundamentally, though...this has nothing to do with foreign policy. Hillary got the nod because of party politics: she didn't get the VP nomination, she can't get Speaker of the House, this is as close to the Oval Office as they can get her to mollify the Clinton wing of the Democratic party.

[IDBillzFan]

I'll let them run a few plays before I make any judgments. Still, changing back is change. If McCain got elected, I expect his change would be less of a change, but also a change back...just further back.

This just goes back to my initial (and still lingering) perception of Obama. He completely reminds me of my last boss, and that's probably why I have no respect or high expectations from him. My last boss was exceptional at saying things that would so comfortably skid the ice between "implied" and "inferred." He was genius at it. And when you suddenly realized that he wasn't going to deliver what he promised, he'd respond with, "Now, is that REALLY what I said or what you wanted to hear?" Or "I never said you're going to get a raise this year. I only said you were going to get a raise. Precisely WHEN you get a raise is still in question."

 

That's my former boss, and that's the Obama I watched campaign. Skidding the ice. Very tough to do. Even tougher to trust. He's genius at it.

 

He's got four years. There's little or nothing I can do during this time beyond hide my money. But remember this post the moment you start hearing him say "That's not really what I said..." a lot.

 

On the other hand, you voted for him, so it's doubtful anyone fully dug into the left is going to think he's full of schiitt.

[The Dean]

Eh. Maybe I'm just a little demonstrative about the Hillary choice. It's no secret that I dislike the Clintons...and what I disliked most about his administration was the foreign policy (or, more accurately, the complete lack thereof). So to me, Clinton in State is just !@#$ing horrible, like putting Louis Farrakhan on the board of B'Nai B'rith.

 

I will admit, in the interest of honesty, that what foreign policy success the Clinton Administration had was negotiational in nature (Oslo, Dayton)...so I recognize that with that background Hillary may actually be more suited for State than I'm willing to accept. But I can still hate the !@#$ing choice, and ridicule it to my heart's content.

 

And yes, I know that "Hillary" and "Bill" are different people. At least nominally. I've never seen anything to indicate it as a matter of belief or policy.

 

 

 

Fundamentally, though...this has nothing to do with foreign policy. Hillary got the nod because of party politics: she didn't get the VP nomination, she can't get Speaker of the House, this is as close to the Oval Office as they can get her to mollify the Clinton wing of the Democratic party.

 

 

I won't argue too much with any of that, and think you are right about the political motivations behind the appt. But, I don't think Hillary will be setting the foreign policy, she'll just be the main adviser. I expect Obama to take a lot of input, though.

 

I applaud your honesty with respect to your bias, too!

 

So, are you suggesting Louis Farrakhan shouldn't be on the board of B'Nai B'rith?

[drnykterstein]

So to me, Clinton in State is just !@#$ing horrible

 

I'm not a big fan either. Her speech this morning, she started off with this overly political sounding address to New York state. It made me cringe. I learned to not hate her during the primaries at least. I've got my fingers crossed that she'll work out.

[The Dean]

This just goes back to my initial (and still lingering) perception of Obama. He completely reminds me of my last boss, and that's probably why I have no respect or high expectations from him. My last boss was exceptional at saying things that would so comfortably skid the ice between "implied" and "inferred." He was genius at it. And when you suddenly realized that he wasn't going to deliver what he promised, he'd respond with, "Now, is that REALLY what I said or what you wanted to hear?" Or "I never said you're going to get a raise this year. I only said you were going to get a raise. Precisely WHEN you get a raise is still in question."

 

That's my former boss, and that's the Obama I watched campaign. Skidding the ice. Very tough to do. Even tougher to trust. He's genius at it.

 

He's got four years. There's little or nothing I can do during this time beyond hide my money. But remember this post the moment you start hearing him say "That's not really what I said..." a lot.

 

On the other hand, you voted for him, so it's doubtful anyone fully dug into the left is going to think he's full of schiitt.

 

 

As far as words like "change" go, even McCain was using it. Let's not pretend that the use of political generalizations and buzz words was created by Barack. As little detail as Obama went into during the campaign, at least he offered SOME (he posted his plans on his website). Most of McCain's campaign amounted to "just trust me, I'm experienced". Actually, that's not true. MOST of McCain's campaign was "don't vote for Obama, as he is scary".

 

I think Obama's stated mission is fairly clear, and it will be relatively easy, over time, to see if he is working towards the kind of policies he espoused on the campaign or simply doing the political shuffle. If he is, honestly working toward the kinds of things he talked about in his campaign, I'm guessing you still won't be happy with the results. But, real progress will be hard fought, and burdened with political fights and implication because that's how s#it gets done, in this country. Most of the time, that's a good thing, IMO.

 

OTOH, if he turns out to be just another empty suit, pandering to the polls, and to politics (as you seem to think), then he'll just be another in a long line of poor-to-mediocre leaders to hold the Nation's highest office...and it won't make much real difference to the direction this country takes in the future.

 

Either way, I expect his approach (reasoned and intelligent sounding) and demeanor (thoughtful and seemingly humble) to be a breath of fresh air from the boasting aggressive ignorance of the past eight years. I would also guess the religious right will lose considerable influence during his administration. That's positive change, right there, in my book.

[/dev/null]

As far as words like "change" go, even McCain was using it. Let's not pretend that the use of political generalizations and buzz words was created by Barack.

 

True. The use of the "Change" buzzward was created by Frasier and Woody in an episode of Cheers

[StupidNation]

So to me, Clinton in State is just !@#$ing horrible, like putting Louis Farrakhan on the board of B'Nai B'rith.

 

Although we disagree quite often, this has to be one of the funniest lines I've ever read here and extremely clever. Love the analogy.

[The Dean]

True. The use of the "Change" buzzward was created by Frasier and Woody in an episode of Cheers

 

 

[DC Tom]

I won't argue too much with any of that, and think you are right about the political motivations behind the appt. But, I don't think Hillary will be setting the foreign policy, she'll just be the main adviser. I expect Obama to take a lot of input, though.

 

Somebody will set policy, and it won't be Obama (he doesn't have foreign policy experience or knowledge, and he's smart enough to know that, and know he'll have to rely on others for a while at least). And Hillary...always struck me as a littler climber. The past two Secretaries of State have no doubt advised, but shut up and implemented policy when decided on (Powell to his detriment, Rice more successfully with Rumsfeld not interfering). I have little confidence in Hillary Clinton doing the same.

 

I applaud your honesty with respect to your bias, too!

 

Thank you. I try to save the "I'm smarter than you, so shut the !@#$ up and don't argue" for morons like elliot. Reasonable people, I try to have reasonable discussions with. Even though I'm still smarter than you.

 

So, are you suggesting Louis Farrakhan shouldn't be on the board of B'Nai B'rith?

 

I was going to say "Hitler", but I didn't want to Godwin my post.

[StupidNation]

He's got four years. There's little or nothing I can do during this time beyond hide my money. But remember this post the moment you start hearing him say "That's not really what I said..." a lot.

 

He's already said it frequently when called out on his position of banning all guns and other positions which he knew would alienate people. Frankly, the media did so little to call him out on his radical position that I don't expect 4 years to be that much different.

 

We will not get change, we will get a difference of degrees. Change is what Ron Paul wanted with no administrations in many departments, non-interventionist policies, and changing the economic scene entirely to sound money. No one who ran for office really was going to change anything as a matter of policy and principle, but only the degree, except for Paul. Love him or hate him he was the only one who legitimately could have used the change mantra.

 

Change is used to stoke up the emotion of enthusiasm, but it has little to do with reality unless someone planned on truly changing the direction of the country economically, socially, or militarily. All I see is an increase in gov't while blaming others just like the last 20 years.

[The Dean]

Somebody will set policy, and it won't be Obama (he doesn't have foreign policy experience or knowledge, and he's smart enough to know that, and know he'll have to rely on others for a while at least). And Hillary...always struck me as a littler climber. The past two Secretaries of State have no doubt advised, but shut up and implemented policy when decided on (Powell to his detriment, Rice more successfully with Rumsfeld not interfering). I have little confidence in Hillary Clinton doing the same.

 

 

You are certainly correct about Hillary being a climber. But, I'm guessing that Barack knows that, too. She will have influence, but I think his ear will be open to others' input, as well. As you noted, he knows that he needs to rely on others for their expertise, in foreign matters. I think he also knows to be a little wary of Hillary's advice, if it doesn't jibe with what he is hearing from his other advisers. Just my hunch, of course.

 

 

I was going to say "Hitler", but I didn't want to Godwin my post.