At Obama’s insistence, Joe Lieberman gets to keep his chairmanship of the homeland security committee. Is there nothing one can do to have to pay a price for defaming Democrats?
Speaking of questions, I’ve been looking at the lists of people being considered for top spots in the incoming Obama Administration. Not…one…leftie. (Like Robert Reich.) Not one.
I expected change to be something I couldn’t believe in, but I thought they’d cover it up a little better.
16 Comments. Leave new
The beauty of running on "change" and "hope" is you don't have to actually stand for anything. The dolts on the left bought HopeandChange hook line and sinker. Looks to me like you got Clinton 2.0. Suckers!
But Obama ran a brilliant campaign, and he's not even in office yet, so chill, and STFU.
…And those of us who voted for REAL change (i.e. REAL Liberals (Nader, McKinney), REAL Conservatives (Barr, Paul, Baldwin) or the assorted Wacko) can say "We told you so…"
Give me all the "I told you so's" you deem necessary.
But, those of us who voted for Obama despite our misgivings, and thus denied McCain/Palin the Oval Office, get to say "you're welcome."
I suppose I could write-in FDR every four years, and whenever the President screws up say "I told you so. That's why I voted for a dead guy; he was WAY better. Suckers!" and feel quite pleased with my moral superiority.
But I suppose that would make me a dick, wouldn't it?
So cut it with the didactic crap; I respect the symbolism of your third party votes, but for the time being they go nowhere and do nothing. Don't be a dick. We "Obama dupes" saved your collective asses. And you know it.
We need the brilliant minds of the former Reich to keep those Russians at bay.
I respect the symbolism of your third party votes
Do you think Obama does?
I agree wholeheartedly with Nietzechuck (and halfheartedly with Nietzsche himself), there's only so much that could be done and this was definitively the right choice. Nader would be almost completely ineffective as President. It's easy to be uncompromising when you don't actually have to govern. This is why neoconservatives were unable to govern as well.
Personally, I like being uncompromising, that's why I'm not in politics. I suspect Ted is the same way. Lieberman? Obama owns him. Besides, it was the best way to crucify him in the public image. Had the Democrats kicked him out, their image would be tarnished. The Obama machine may well be the most outstanding political machine I've ever seen.
I'll repeat what I said on this blog last spring: I think traditional American 'radical left' (60s style libs) is bitter and angry that they're being left out of the party.
Grow up, you're acting just like the extreme right wingers do. The most radical way forward is a new way. Not excommunicating Lieberman? That's different!
Aggie Dude, the only reason the Democrats didn't nail Leiberman's ass to the wall is because they might need his vote in the Senate. The magic number of 60 hasn't been reached yet (and may not be once all the recounts and run-offs are done). Worried about tarnishing their image? Give me a break.
Having once again seen the caricature of Generalissimo George W. Bush, combined with the news that a judge has ordered the release of five detainees at Guantanamo, I beg to offer a probable (to me, at least) diagnosis and theory of the George W. Bush era of political prisoners in the USA and its various prison and torture sites around the globe.
Some journalists have recently spoken in softer terms of George W. Bush, which makes me wonder, what the hell goes on in the mind of a journalist? Are they all 12-year-old girls inside their adult bodies? George W. Bush is a closet sadist who has used the full power of the United States of America for his sadistic goals: put people in cages for an indeterminate length of time with no contact with family or advocacy. I see George W. Bush jacking off every single day of his (p)Residency and coming like Mount Vesuvius when he envisions people being tortured and held in cages, totally cut off from the world. Yes, Bush jacks off every day to this misery, torture, sadness, separation, and his only sacrifice (HE says) is that he stopped playing golf!
Unfortunately, with the majority of spineless so-called journalists in today's herd of word jockeys, the USA will HAVE to wait for 'history' to explain George W. Bush's 'legacy.' But here it is, right now, today. Bush is a fucking, sadistic pervert, the worst mistake our country has ever made, but supported by the wonderful, career-enhancing Skull and Bones Society and Daddy's and Mommy's wealth, influence and connections, and of course, the Good Old By Network, the same one that also gave us Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, two more mass murderers and war criminals who will never be charged or brought to trial for their crimes. This is America, folks, not all of it, but a significant, still-living part of it. Bush and his troop have killed countless thousands of innocent people. They and our press always (as during the Vietnam War, too) announce when some bad guys are killed. You see, it's GOOD when we kill bad guys, even if they happen to be an innocent wedding party, and believe it, a certain segment of our Republican-loving country DON'T CARE who we KILL, as long as it's someone DIFFERENT.
I'm thinking, Bush gets the flesh-eating bacteria the day he leaves office and it's a new strain that's completely untreatable. Cheney experiences spontaneous human combustion. The rest of the Bush cabal go into hiding, fearful of some Twilight Zone-type revenge, empowered by all the bodies and souls of all the people they are responsible for KILLING since day-one of Bush's reign of terror. They wither and grow old before their times. They shit themselves and turn to pillars of salt.
History will determine Bush's legacy? Not if Poppy Bush and the rest of his ilk have anything to say about it. The Bush (p)Residential Libary (sic) is easy: an eight-count box of Crayons, the kind made in China, of course. Thank you and have a hap-hap-happy Thanksgiving.
I suppose our collective asses were saved if you make the assumption that a radical difference exists between what the two major parties would actually do once in power. However, I imagine most third-party voters vote third-party precisely BECAUSE they don't perceive that difference to exist. Don't expect many Nader or Barr voters to give you kudos.
I don't really want to be a (huge) dick about it either, but you have to realize that there's going to be a lot more "I told you so" in the next year and it's going to be hard to resist. I, personally, am anxious to piss all over the parade as soon as Medvedev comes back from meeting Obama with his frowny face on.
Aggie Dude,
You might want to explain to us how Obama "owns" Lieberman?
Susan,
It appears -at least from the information I have access to- that Obama underwrote the decision on Lieberman. I find it hard to believe that a politician such as Obama won't expect some patronage in return. If Lieberman would have been ousted save for Obama's support, then he owes Obama a lot.
I suspect Lieberman will be on a short leash once Obama takes office, and that's what I mean.
If Lieberman doesn't play ball with Obama now, it's good money no one will cut a deal with him again.
Aggie Dude, I think you meant Obama owes Lieberman. Lieberman was his mentor when he got to the senate; that's why Obama backed him over Ned Lamont. Cronyism trumps ideology every time.
Actually, given how Obama considered Lieberman one of his "mentors" while in the Senate, and given how Obama campaigned FOR Lieberman AGAINST Ned Lamont makes me consider it to be the other way around…
And Hillary is now SecState.
Can someone sue Obama for false advertising?
Who was it that said that "when a politician says he's running for change, I take that to mean all the spare change in my pocket."