Just cause I am tired of hearing that people are waiting for the Change(tm)

The Change I voted for:

1) New direction leading us far away from Bush and the Neo Con Agenda.

2) New type of campaign, that values the importance of what the candidate wants to accomplish, and not how bad the other candidate is because he attended a church.

3) A new intelligent leader who embraces change (technology, diplomacy) rather then ignorantly standing by tradition that has got us nowhere.

--The Change I voted for has already happened. All he has to do is attempt to do the things he promised to attempt to do, and his presidency is a positive for me.

Just cause I am tired of hearing that people are waiting for the Change(tm)

The Change I voted for:

1) New direction leading us far away from Bush and the Neo Con Agenda.

2) New type of campaign, that values the importance of what the candidate wants to accomplish, and not how bad the other candidate is because he attended a church.

3) A new intelligent leader who embraces change (technology, diplomacy) rather then ignorantly standing by tradition that has got us nowhere.

--The Change I voted for has already happened. All he has to do is attempt to do the things he promised to attempt to do, and his presidency is a positive for me.

You voted for an idealogy and as such it hasn't happened yet. He's not in power and until he is the change can't really be accurately decided upon.

I hope he does bring change, but the more and more he goes to the Clinton well the more likely it is nothing is going to change.

Don't like it, tough shit it's reality and falls under the category of DAMMIT we should've known;(

You voted for an idealogy and as such it hasn't happened yet. He's not in power and until he is the change can't really be accurately decided upon.

I hope he does bring change, but the more and more he goes to the Clinton well the more likely it is nothing is going to change.

Don't like it, tough shit it's reality and falls under the category of DAMMIT we should've known;(

No

You are posting what you seem to think change implied.

I simply see change as something completely different then you.

He has already changed the way a presidential campaign is run (for the better)

He will, no matter who is in his cabinet take us further away from the NeoCon Agenda.

He is picking experienced people to aid him with his own inexperience.

He has a podcast in which he will speak with the American people once a week. That is change I can believe in.

A president that actually cares to speak to me about what is going on every week?!?!?!

Just cause you didn't like the Clinton administration, gives you guys 0 right to clump us all in under "I have yet to see the change I voted for"

Some of us have seen enough to already know we made the right choice.

LoL okay long as you can live with the lie it's all good.

That's not the change you rammed down our throats the last year. Big ole screw you for trying to change the definition after the fact. Who do you think you are, a politician? ;P

He vowed to only use public funds for his campaign.....he changed course so he could bask in his hollywood monies as well as his oprah funds.

He has alot of potential I'll give him that, but if you are going to change how you ride your horse now I'm going to call you out on it.

Atm you're full of shit, get back to basics and stick to the horse you rode in on and I'll respect ya a hell of a lot more.

Obama was running to make a change in washington....not how he got there.

Please....

Good for you, then?

I'll believe it , when I see things getting better.

And bringing in the same old fases for over half of the cabinet choices, isn't Change <tm>. I could understand maybe 1/4, but its starting to look more and more like Clinton, part Deux: He's back, but now he's black, for real this time!!!

It's different, I'll grand you, but it's not Change<tm>.

LoL okay long as you can live with the lie it's all good.

That's not the change you rammed down our throats the last year. Big ole screw you for trying to change the definition after the fact. Who do you think you are, a politician? ;P

He vowed to only use public funds for his campaign.....he changed course so he could bask in his hollywood monies as well as his oprah funds.

He has alot of potential I'll give him that, but if you are going to change how you ride your horse now I'm going to call you out on it.

Atm you're full of shit, get back to basics and stick to the horse you rode in on and I'll respect ya a hell of a lot more.

Obama was running to make a change in washington....not how he got there.

Please....

I don't understand at all why people would want public funds running a campaign. I've never once understood this argument.

Simply, I don't want my tax dollars paying for political campaigns. I especially don't want my tax dollars funding a campaign that I don't support. I'd much rather campaigns be run by donations of people that chose to support said candidate.

McCain supporters wanted him to use public funds, because it would have limited him to less campaign money. They'll try to position it as some indicator of his integrity, but they should really be asking why mister earmark reforming Maverick McCain would have ever considered using public money for his campaign instead.

The reason we want public funds is because then you get an even campaign.

You start going into private funds you end up with huge difference in tv time etc etc.

Like it or not your tax dollars are already slated to be used, and likely get used in conjunction with private funds.

Even playing field for every legal candidate running. Not sure how the third parties , Ralph Nader etc, would like this as they don't stand a chance in our current system.

Affirmative action for campaigns?

I hope he does bring change, but the more and more he goes to the Clinton well the more likely it is nothing is going to change.


One thing you have to get your mind around is the fact that alot of the names you will see have been long time public employees and not only "just" worked for clinton but also worked for several administrations.
Take Holder for example. he began his career at the DoJ in 76 working for carter. stayed and served Reagan for his term and must have been damn good at his job for Ronnie to appoint him to the bench.

I havent seen anywhere the Clinton and Holder were familiar enough that his appointment as DAG was a cronyism move but that it was more likely a best possible man for the job suggested by people who knew the DoJ.

Now are we gonna start hearing the cries of "ZOMG it's Carter 2.0"

Holder as an example is someone who has a reputation for high integrity, he is familiar with how DoJ works and is also exceptionally intelligent. I'd call him well qualified for the position.

I also hear people griping that Hillary Clinton does not agree with Obama on foreign relations...well then I guess this is where Doris Kearns Goodwin book comes into play.

The biggest bitching comes about the relationship these people had with the Clinton administration yet I have not seen one person dispute the qualifications that any have for the job they have been chosen for.

It's just bitch for the sake of bitching...welcome to the Rush Limbaugh show...at least he does it to get ratings.

Also, these people have always been accountable for their actions and I believe they will be in their future actions. After 8 years of criminals blaming their behavior on a liberal media bias I'll take almost anything and call it change.

Lets not forget we are coming out of a time where, as an example, the whole Abu Gharab prisoner abuse thing was blamed on a female national guard private and her boyfriend...no one took responsibility, they simply blamed it on the lowest person on the totem pole and you're worried that the future AG knew Clinton? Odd at the least.

One thing I've found studying history is that it is the great underlying currents that create change, not great men or great moments.

We'll have to wait, very likely until the next President, to see what changes occured during Obama's time in Office.

Simply, I don't want my tax dollars paying for political campaigns. I especially don't want my tax dollars funding a campaign that I don't support. I'd much rather campaigns be run by donations of people that chose to support said candidate.

I thought it was voluntary to check that box on your IRS form....

I actually don't have a problem with Holder ( yes because of the Reagan times ).

Hillary Clinton tho, nope not happy at all and I've been very clear on that subject. I don't want her involved and now we see why she backed down at the end.....she was promised her own power if Obama won...blast that demon doesn't belong in anything containing the catch phrase...hope.

Heres a good clip on this topic.

I love Malcolm Gladwell btw.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#27831448


Also.. Great choice for Tres.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/business/09credit.html?_r=1

Personally, I could give a crap what he is doing between now and Jan. 20, as far as putting together his team.

After Jan. 20, when he is President, then I will complain if I see a need and praise as well when I see something deserving. He cannot do squat atm, so all the nitpicking about "change" is little more than superfluous bullshit, just giving folks a chance to vent.

Wait until he assumes the office he was elected to, and see what occurs; then bitch, or not.

He picked Clinton's former COS and a guy who was under Reno, possibly Bill Richardson.

Suddenly its Clinton Part 2?

Tom Daschle (please don't say his wife being FAA director under Clinton is the "Clinton Well"), Janet Napolitano (which Clintons appoint of here to state spot i dont think makes her a clinton girl), Tim Geithner are not Clinton.

He picked Clinton's former COS and a guy who was under Reno, possibly Bill Richardson.

Suddenly its Clinton Part 2?

Tom Daschle (please don't say his wife being FAA director under Clinton is the "Clinton Well"), Janet Napolitano (which Clintons appoint of here to state spot i dont think makes her a clinton girl), Tim Geithner are not Clinton.

Apparently you don't read the news where Hillary herself is being slated for Sec of State. 3 former Clinton power horde is enough for me to call whoa.

Don't like it tough, I get the right to say I'm not happy with it chief.

He has reached for other notables and that's made me a bit more relaxed.

What did Hillary Clinton do that was so bad? She has served NY very well as one of its Senators. Turns out after all these years she was right on healthcare.

She continued breathing after clawing her way out of the womb, that's what she did wrong.

But on the other hand she was cool enough to let her husband get laid at the office so....

What did Hillary Clinton do that was so bad? She has served NY very well as one of its Senators. Turns out after all these years she was right on healthcare.

For example: http://ayonae.com/showpost.php?p=142312&postcount=4

For example: http://ayonae.com/showpost.php?p=142312&postcount=4


Hey thanks captain obvious, I guess I now realize that she wasn't my choice in the primary. I also did not like McCain/Palin when they put forth BS like pastor stuff and Ayers.

I mean what has she done wrong with policy matters in governing, in her position as a senator.

Well, you seemed to think she had integrity issues then. Change your mind?

(note: I don't think you were wrong.)

I'm not a big fan of Hillary Clinton.

I also think the fear-mongering "guilty by association" attacks used by her and McCain's campaign were fucking garbage. Unfortunately, however, that seems to be the norm for campaigning these days.

I generally am willing to overlook minor instances of what I consider campaign ethics violations. Again, I think a lot of the attacks on Obama over these 'associations' are garbage. Some of them approach blatant racism.

For example, Palin was in Southern Missouri for a rally a month or two ago. (Southern MO is fucking hickville if you didn't know/guess). She starts off by saying, And we just found out that Obama was talking to "Some Arabic sounding name" recently. Immediately, people were going insane with the booing, screaming, and what have you.

It's like they don't understand that there are in fact people in this world who have value and don't have the name "Bob Jones".

This stuff is what bothers me. Or Saxby Chambliss playing off of terrorism fears and exploiting wounded veterans. Or Harold Ford losing because of a bullshit ad which obviously plays off race in a southern state. These types of attacks, in my opinion, should immediately preclude you from high office.

I also realize that I just named a bunch of Republicans being mean. In the interest of bipartisanship, I'll gladly denounce any similar ads by Democrats, I'm just not aware of any.

Well, you seemed to think she had integrity issues then. Change your mind?

(note: I don't think you were wrong.)

My issue was with this;

although she can get and play just as dirty as anything Karl Rove ever spit out, it's time we get to real issues in an election and get rid of the BLAH BLAH BLAH OBAMAS PASTOR...McAINS PASTOR type of bullshit.

The issues are very clearly laid out:

Iraq

Economy

Iraq

Healthcare

Iraq

I guess I'm not coming across as clearly as I would like. (note how I said Iraq 3X...funny how things have changed) There doesn't appear to be any major issues in her "closet" as far as I know.

I think like her or dislike her she is very qualified to handle her potential appointment to the job of Secretary of State, would she be my first choice? No, but I can accept her there and feel confident that the job is in good hands. I honestly thought she would be placed in a role in charge of health care reform.

Just note above I was also a bit irked on the crap being spout about McCain's endorsement by a pastor that I assure you I am no fan of.

I think if you look back you'll also see that I had pointed out after the first republican debate that I thought Ron Paul was pretty much dead on with his assessment of things and that I thought he was pretty good.

Bottom line is that I started looking at and donating to Obama since he was in the "exploratory" stage of his campaign, like it or not the guy is impressive in his management style, his speaking style and his ability to seek out very qualified people to work within his administration.

Don't like it tough, I get the right to say I'm not happy with it chief.

I am not a chief, or a chef which can sometimes be confused with chief when written on paper.

Even David Brooks is finding little to attack in the Obama team selections.

http://www.twincities.com/ci_11049827?IADID


"Believe me, I'm trying not to join in the vast, heaving O-phoria now sweeping the coastal haut-bourgeoisie. But the personnel decisions have been superb. The events of the past two weeks should be reassuring to anybody who feared that Obama would veer to the left or would suffer self-inflicted wounds because of his inexperience. He's off to a start that nearly justifies the hype. "

Good article, the crack about the Harvard-Yale game made me Lol.

The longer Obama takes and the more clear it becomes on the depth of the vetting of each candidate the happier I am.

I'm becoming increasingly more hopeful for Pres Obama's term(s).

Still don't like Hillary, but I hope she's as capable as the Sec. of State as she is a dirty political infighter.

The longer Obama takes and the more clear it becomes on the depth of the vetting of each candidate the happier I am.

I'm becoming increasingly more hopeful for Pres Obama's term(s).

Still don't like Hillary, but I hope she's as capable as the Sec. of State as she is a dirty political infighter.

That made me chuckle :)

Heh, hey from what I understand that skill might serve her well in that posting!!

( and maybe I watch too much MMA )

Wouldn't be a bad thing to have a Sec. of State that knows how to throw a flying arm bar (politically speaking) on an opposing Head of State...

Wouldn't be a bad thing to have a Sec. of State that knows how to throw a flying arm bar (politically speaking) on an opposing Head of State...

LOL, while i'm no fan of Hilliary i can see assbag like Putin not wanting to go head to head with her.

Maybe Obama is taking a page from Teddy Roosevelt. talk softly but carry a big Hilliary stick.

LOL, while i'm no fan of Hilliary i can see assbag like Putin not wanting to go head to head with her.

Maybe Obama is taking a page from Teddy Roosevelt. talk softly but carry a big Hilliary stick.


$$ you owe me a diet coke ( and maybe owe the Gov a monitor if it doesn't clean up!!!)

This quote caught me today when I read it and thought of change, and the new 7 trillion dollar proposed bailout.

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. "



Cicero - 55 BC

He would have my vote.

Ah Cicero - you can't beat him! Of course he was talking roughly 60-50 BC when widespread land shortage had caused the political constitution to be so thoroughly undermined that violent revolution was the only way forward...

But I can see the similarities :P