Enough!

Very well said! I couldn’t agree more!

>>Maybe I missed something, but “change” was — and is — all about a change from the Bush Republican policiesPolicies- such as the war and giveaways to big business that both HRC and Rahm Emanuel were huge cheerleaders for. I realize that’s slightly off from your point in this post (regarding ex-Clinton admin people) but it should be fully understood that so far most of Obama’s appointees have been DLC-style right leaning Democrats. Not what we’d expect from a guy who spoke so passionately on the campaign trail about progressive populist issues such as bankruptcy and health care reform.

A vision of what, 8 years of triangulation and hand-wringing? Come on man, we did that once already and for our troubles we were rewarded at the end of it all with 8 years of George W. Bush. Sorry if I’m not doing cartwheels over the prospect of a Gang of Fourteen administration.

I posted this on the “Political Capital”> thread but it looks like it’s worth repeating here.

Where do you suppose Obama would pick his cabinet from? Preferably whoever he chose would need the requisite experience for the job they would be asked to do, and when was the last successful Democratic administration again? Oh, yeah, the Clinton Administration. Not to say that he’s solely going to pick from old Clintonites. You don’t see James Carville and George Stephanopolous running around with the Obama entourage, do you?

Think of it this way: Obama asks Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State and the “more of the same” crowd goes ballistic. These same people are saying that Bill Richardson should’ve been asked. Uh, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Bill Richardson work for the Clinton Administration? Is that “more of the same”? Don’t fall for the media dictating the narrative, their perception of what is change and what is more of the same. The media is looking for ratings and what better way than to create controversy?

A very intelligent friend of mine and I were having a debate on Obama and the choices he’s made so far, between the FISA compromise vote, some of his possible staff choices, etcetera, but on this particular day he was angry about the extensive application form that you’d have to fill out in order to be considered for an interview for a place on the Obama staff. After a spirited talk, he said, “I guess I’ve been against something for so long, I’m having a hard time and forgotten what it’s like to be for something.”

It’s taken eight years (some would say 28 years) to get into the mess we’re in. Let’s have a little patience and not cast judgment based on a couple of cabinet appointments two weeks after the election and 8½ weeks before Obama takes office.

And, Travis, the Clinton years were pretty damn good. It wasn’t the successful Clinton administration policies that led to George Bush. It was Clinton. His personal flaws allowed Gore to be susceptible to the Atwater style of campaigning. You make it sound like all of the people who worked during that time were all of one mind on every decision and those decisions caused us such grief and resulted in the loss of the 2000 election. I very much disagree.How many times during the campaign were you convinced Obama was making the wrong decision? That he was going to throw the election with his lack of vision? You don’t have to answer that, just think on it. Try to have some optimism that maybe he has greater abilities than Bush; that he is smarter than Bush; that he is less self-serving and philandering than Bill Clinton; that just because you can’t see what he has planned does not mean he will be unsuccessful. Give him a chance to be inaugurated and some time to work with the disastrous predicament he is facing and if we are not in a better situation in four years, come tell me you told me so.

…not only that, but why *wouldn’t* we include people on all sides of the party. This concern/interest in vanquishing the defeated is, in fact, A REPUBLICAN STRATEGY. This is what Bush did in 8 years–all people on the “other side” (including Republicans who didn’t “play ball” were roundly, summarily vilified and excommunicated as being “against us.”Is that what we want? “We won, fuck you!” ?? The point is to rebuild the party, and, frankly, the last time any democrat had a lot of white house experience? Well, that’d be the ’90s, Bob…Oh, and another thing: The president will drive policy, not appointees anyway…”Enough!” is right, Bob, well stated.

>>…not only that, but why *wouldn’t* we include people on all sides of the party.Because they’re against progress and in the pocket of big business? Since when is taking bribe money to act against the public interest a minor quibble?>>Is that what we want? “We won, fuck you!” ??Yes! Why wouldn’t we want that? There aren’t 2 sides to EVERY story. Sometimes it is what it is, and this country can’t afford anymore lip biting, hand wringing, triangulating, or hemming and hawing about joining the rest of the world in the 21st century and abandoning the awful ideas we’ve been embracing since Johnson left office.

…this country can’t afford anymore lip biting, hand wringing, triangulating, or hemming and hawing about joining the rest of the world in the 21st century and abandoning the awful ideas we’ve been embracing since Johnson left office.

That’s great, Travis. I hope you’ll let us know when that happens considering Obama hasn’t even taken office yet. Most of the handwringing on this site has been done by you.

>>Decisions that will benefit everyone and hurt or anger no one and at the same time say “fuck you” to roughly half the country because they’re on the other team.Hey what was the general public sentiment around the time most of the miscegenation laws were repealed? Power to the silent majority~!