America doesn't have a left, in the sense that other countries do. And remember, I'm from Canada. We have a Liberal Party, and we know liberal means center.

I think the funny part is that the right-wing wanted to paint Obama as a leftist. I guess when you're that far to the right, everything looks left.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it tells me something's wrong. I mean, seriously. These people who are giving rave reviews are people I NEVER agree with... ever!

I know I will hear about how I'm just a naysayer here, but this should speak to Obama supporters. And the message isn't a good one! Joe Lieberman thinks the picks have been "perfect?" PERFECT? Sorry, but that's a huge red flag for me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Karl Rove approves of Obama's choices, it is the kiss of death for the working class, progressives, those who believe in the rule of law, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And you know the best part?
In 2012 the Republicans will nominate someone for president so far ultra-fascist right-wing and loony dangerous that that candidate will make even Adolph Hitler and Sarah Palin and even Dick Cheney look like peace-loving truth-telling civil-liberties-loving pot-smoking tie-die-wearing free-loving socialist pinko hippies!

And we all will have NO CHOICE but to vote for Obama, no matter how far right he moves. (And I don't think we have seen the worst of what he has to offer yet.)

Damn, I'm sorry, but America sucks and will always suck. At least the nuclear war that the US president will inevitably start in the near future will put us out of our misery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, the role of President of the United States is the basic equivalent of a City Manager for Empire. This guy seems smart and competent, and he is obviously looking for excellence in the selection of his management team. Lucky thing he isn't like the last guy who sucked.

The leap here is so obvious, it is almost subtle: Policy differences are minor; representative democracy is not even a figure of speech; elections once again prove their value in hiring the correct administrator.

One country, one interest, one overwhelming imperative common to all, needing only new ideas and able leaders...

Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So...just because the dipshits who've spent the last eight years running us into the ground are not finding any problems with Obama's picks thus far, you're assuming the worst? **Sigh**...I would seriously suggest you re-read your Machiavelli and Sun Tzu if you'd like an alternate explaination.

In the meantime, keep this in mind: if Obama had appointed the cabinet too many people here have been screaming for, he'd be making himself a target. Targets are typically shot at, literally and figuratively. Whereas, if he gets the opposition's guard down with "safe" picks, he can hit them from behind in ways we've already seen happen a number of times during the election.

I say again: WAIT until he gets into office before pronouncing the continuation of the status quo so many of you are used to.

"Defeating your opponent without fighting him is the true pinnacle of excellence."--Sun Tzu, "Art of War"

"Politics have absolutely nothing to do with morals." --Nicollo Machiavelli

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary Clinton was an enthusiastic supporter of the war on iraq. She only began to criticize it after it became unpopular. Her "criticisms" were that we didn't carry out the illegal invasion well enough. She even said in a speech that we gave Iraqis the "gift of freedom". Obama is surrounding himself with hawkish militarists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That is very good evidence that Obama has hired only establishment (ie, Clinton's DLC) corruptible scum which has a big stake in the status quo. Time for predications: Ya'll Watch for the next big thing: a blanket declaration that there will be no prosecutions of Bush administration officials for anything, all in the name of bi-partisan harmony. Pfffffft!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sounds like AlterNet on any given day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And applauding like mad so that you'll redouble your efforts to say NAY, and withdraw support, confidence and faith in the new administration? Look! Look who's on their side NOW!! Rove! McCain! Lieberman! Kissinger! Oh, my God help us! It's all over!! AAAAAAARRRRRGHHH!!


Well It's pretty obvious to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama apparently got along well enough with the Federalist Society members.

You can read into this part of a pattern of being staunchly non-ideological, or as going along to get along, or as a reflection of an actual conservative bent in his world views. Anyway you slice it, it's an opportunity for the right, so it's no surprise that the Republican noise machine is working overtime to stroke, cajole, and lure Obama and crew rightward. They may be insane, but they're not entirely stupid. Meanwhile instead of pushing their agenda, misty-eyed lefties are busy making excuses for their candidate. So which camp do you think will be able to exert more influence and tend to get it's way?

You can suck it up and make your demands heard, or you can, you know, just close your eyes and clap real hard if you believe in fairies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is possible that Barack is actually going to try to lead the country, rather than to try advancing a wacko commie agenda. If he does manage to take us to a better place and win 10% of the former GOP base in the process, but doesn't, along the way, take away everybody's guns, legalize dope, disband the military and outlaw off road vehicles, it will be a tremendous victory for ordinary people anyhow. I don't disagree with the wacko commie left wing-- I am one myself. I just don't see my agenda as a practical approach for the nation as a whole.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The trends are alarming, but maybe, just maybe, there is a deep plan.

Is Obama is using the tactics of Sun Tzu?

From The Art of War:

All warfare is based on deception.

Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we
are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;
when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder,
and crush him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The War Party's decisive influence in the Obama administration is going to be rolled out on Monday, so that even the most craven Obama-bots on the Left will be left wondering who and what they voted for. Hillary the hawk at State, Bush's warlord Robert Gates at Defense, and Gen. Jim Jones – who wants to station U.S. troops in the occupied territories under the rubric of NATO! – as national security adviser to the president. Yes, antiwar voters took a chance on Obama, reasoning that anything would be better than four more years of Bushian belligerence, yet now they discover to their chagrin that the dice are loaded.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Along with Greg Palast, Naomi Klein & a few others, I count on Scahill to bring us the unvarnished look at reality & take Obama's seriously not as an over exalted groupie.

"I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." Barack Obama / The Audacity of Hope

SO...

DON'T JUDGE POLITICIANS ON WHAT THEY SAY BUT WHAT THEY DO !

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

Now that is Marxism we can all tragicly believe in ;)

Meanwhile...

"We are watching a poorly staged rendition of Wag the Dog , interpreted for the morbidly stupid and performed by the criminally insane." - Jules Carlysle

For indeed...

"Politics is the showbizz of industry" - Frank Zappa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've posted much of this in my comments but to reiterate:

No amount of wishful thinking can paint these appointments as anything but what they are: a statement of Obama's principles on governing and conducting foreign policy. There is enough good background material being written by other journalists on these people he is choosing so I don't need to get into it here. But, most often, people are as they appear to be and their past track records and statements are indicative of future behavior.

Emanuel, Gates, HRC, Geithner, etc. - does anyone here with any rational sense believe these people are anything but what they appear to be?

So all we're waiting for is Obama to appoint someone other than Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as EPA director. But if he does do it, many people here will take the one bone thrown to progressives as something indicative of an overall policy emphasis. Wishing will not make it so.

And all this "team of rivals" ala Lincoln bullcrap the media is mouthing - you all may not have noticed but it's not the 1860's. Things work radically differently now.

Meet the new insiders - same as the old insiders.

I have cast my last vote for a Republican or Democrat. Unless the Democrat is Kucinich. And fat chance the real rulers of this corporatocracy will ever allow that.

Yes, as Rush Limbaugh famously said to disaffected conservatives after Bush I was installed "the game will go on without you." I thought that was the most prescient thing the blowhard ever said. Yes, it is a "game" and yes, it will go on without me. Fine, I am through putting any imprimatur on this hopelessly rigged system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The "powers that be" who stole the 2000 and 2004 election did not have to steal this one since they had already groomed both candidates to do their bidding.
During the campaign,it was clear to me that Obama had struck a deal with the "powers that be" that he would not Interfere with the military-industrial oil private central bankers complex. He made it clear that he thought the war on terror was legitimate and that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory was basically accurate. He made it clear that he would use military force against Iran when he spoke before AIPAC. He made it clear that he was in the pocket of the Israeli lobby. He never mentioned anything about electronic voting machines stealing presidential elections.
Now, after he has been elected, his appointments make it clear that he will do nothing about the fake war on terror, electronic voting machines, the elimination of the Federal Reserve Bank and the commencement of the federal government again printing our money, the prosecution of the Bush administration for war crimes, treason, 9/11 and mass murder.
It'll be business as usual since the "powers that be" will not have it any other way. Why would they give up the control that they gained by using Bush as their lackey.
For many articles and videos on these topics, go to www.911insidejob.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I ask them what they mean by that and to tell me what it is about him that qualifies him as "ultra-liberal" and then they don't answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Team of rivals? Or team of backstabbers?

At least no one's calling it the "dream team" -- yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and fascism wins, 10 yards back after Nov 4 still deep in fascist territory looks awfully 'liberal'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For an excellent non-emotional review of this subject see an article by Julian Zelizer on CNN this morning. It is called, appropriately enough, Why Bill Clinton is Smiling

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Barack is beginning to scare me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Many of them have reasons to be lovey-dovey. Brooks realized that he can't prop up a disgraced, losing party now. Joe L is begging for forgiveness from the Dems (his Meet the Press appearance was evidence of that). Rove, like Brooks, knows that he has to appear a bit un-partisan now to appear relevant. Rice isn't in a position to criticize the President-Elect 'cause it would look shabby. Though Graham praised Rahm, other Republicans didn't. Lamar is hardly a partisan wingut. McCain is trying to look gracious in defeat to help prop up his sagging political career.

Don't fear though. They'll have the knives out early in '09.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, I guess you CAN fool all the people all the time. If you looked into Obama's voting record, it was not too much different than what the Bush administration advocated. He definitely is no maverick. We'll just have to see what he does.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Confronting the Terrorist Within

http://www.truthdig.com
/report/item/20081201_confronting_
the_terrorist_within/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These appointments worry me, as well, but I will, as an act of will, try to maintain a little optimism. What really worries me is that we, as a nation and as a world, are in so much trouble on so many fronts, that we need a NEW direction, a nearly-totally new paradigm, NOT Washington's "usual suspects."

If it turns out that we've been fooled again and that the Obama presidency turns out to be a more beneficent "more-of-the-same," then that will be proof-positive that both political parties are owned, lock, stock, and barrel-of-a-gun, by corporations.

And, that we're screwed. Really screwed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Before the election, I went to the Political Compass website and answered the questions in the Right/Left/Authoritarian/Libertarian questionaire. For anyone unfamiliar with this assessment tool, it's based upon the premise that there are four political tendencies rather than two (left/right or liberal/conservative) because there are those on both ends of the spectrum who are also authoritarian or libertarian. (For example, a LEFT AUTHORITARIAN would be a Communist dictator.) It consists of some pertinent questions concerning the roles of business and government, and I found it to be rather comprehensive compared to most of that type of survey.

The only candidates who were outside the RIGHT AUTHORITARIAN quadrant were Ralph Nader (LEFT LIBERTARIAN), Dennis Kucinich (LEFT LIBERTARIAN, but not quite as far left as Nader), and Mike Gravel (RIGHT LIBERTARIAN).

Even Ron Paul, that model of libertarianism so admired by many Alternet readers was in the RIGHT AUTHORITARIAN quadrant, although he was close to the libertarian boundary. And he was also very, very far right. Mike Gravel was almost as far right.

Although still in the RIGHT AUTHORITARIAN quadrant, all the other Democratic candidates were mostly closer to the left and libertarian boundaries than the Republicans, with Edwards being the very closest to the center. Obama and Clinton were the same on the authoritarian scale (close to the boundary) with Obama to the left of Clinton. I believe the assessments were made not by direct answers the candidates made to the questions, but by how they vote and how they address the issues.

For the record, I fall on the -8.5 scale in both LEFT and LIBERTARIAN quadrants, making me to the left of and more liberal than Nader and Kucinich. So I'm not coming from a rightwing perspective here.

Anyone who truly followed the political news for the past few years had to know that Obama's views were hardly leftwing progressive. He has never claimed to be a "liberal" or "leftist." It's the neocons, warmongers, and wingnuts who have labeled him "the most liberal member of congress." And it's always been a crock.

Unfortunately, no liberal, progressive, leftwing, populist candidate is going to be nominated in this country at this time. It's just simply not going to happen, no matter how many Naders or McKinneys or Kuciniches try to run. I wish this were not true, but we are going to (at least to a degree)have to bite the bullet and accept the lesser of two evils. And perhaps hope that it's not as evil as we imagine.

I disagree with much of Obama's agenda, but anyone who thinks there's no difference between him and the rightwing loonies should imagine the world today if Gore had been in the White House for the past 8 years instead of the current Supreme Court appointed moron.

I can't say I'm disappointed in the trend toward the right as indicated by many of Obama's appointees, because it's pretty much what I expected, so I try to keep in mind the words of that great American philosopher, LBJ, who said, "It's better to have your enemies inside the tent pissing out than to have them outside the tent pissing in." (He also is supposed to have said someone was so stupid he couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the directions were written on the bottom. Another great line.)

Perhaps experience and a degree of competence are not the only or even best criteria for the government, but they surely beat incompetence, ideological loopiness, and a destructive agenda that benefits only the wealthy and powerful (when it benefits anyone).

I'm putting judgement on hold until I see how things go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"In July 1981, the Soviets even shot down an Argentine-registered plane that strayed into Soviet airspace while delivering a supply of weapons from Israel to Iran with the Reagan administration's secret knowledge and blessing."

The Danger of Keeping Gates.

http://www.truthout.org/111408A

"Obama, Ask the Kremlin About Gates"

http://www.truthout.org/113008A

What do you think now of the appointments? Still brilliant?

Suckers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Imperius Curse - from Harry Potter - used to control others through magic.
I'm in the camp of wait and see.
But we've made sure the family passports are all in order!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

‘Holding Domestic Constituencies in Check'

At the same time, many in the establishment sensed (accurately) that Obama is particularly well-suited to the goal of wrapping corporate politics and the related American Empire Project in insurgent garb. Their profit- and empire-based system and "leadership" has been behaving so badly that a major image makeover is required to keep the rabble (the citizenry) in line. Once he was properly "vetted" and found to be "reasonable" - to be someone who would not fundamentally question dominant power structures and doctrines - Obama's multicultural background, race, youth, charisma, and even his early opposition to the Iraq War became useful to corporate and imperial elites. His outwardly progressive "change" persona is perfectly calibrated to divert, capture, control, and contain coming popular rebellions. He is uniquely qualified to simultaneously surf, de-fang, and "manage" the U.S. and world citizenry's hopes for radical and democratic transformation in the wake of the Bush-Cheney nightmare. As John Pilger warned last May:

"What is Obama's attraction to big business? Precisely the same as Robert Kennedy's [in 1968]. By offering a ‘new,' young and apparently progressive face of Democratic Party - with the bonus of being a member of the black elite - he can blunt and divert real opposition. That was Colin Powell's role as Bush's secretary of state. An Obama victory will bring intense pressure on the US antiwar and social justice movements to accept a Democratic administration for all its faults. If that happens, domestic resistance to rapacious America will fall silent" [8].

"His outwardly progressive ‘change' persona is perfectly calibrated to divert, capture, control, and contain coming popular rebellions."

- Paul Street

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Subtitle is "Managed Democracy and Inverted Totalitarianism". He was Chalmers Johnson's prof at Princeton. Brilliant and almost as scary as "The Shock Doctrine". We are experiencing the shock doctrine now which for some will mean that the economic genocide has begun. For others, it will be a managed kind of democracy where we are good little Germans.

For sanity read blackagendareport.com. Glen Ford called Obama a Trojan horse when I had him on my local radio show back in March.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's see what Obama Does with his staff the next year or so. He may surprise everyone. If things go bad that huge asteroid headed for us will make everything moot anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No one in this bipartisan, multiracial, multi-gender, multi-ideological, co-operative ‘team’ of supposed rivals is going to be out of step, for the simple reason that they are all (for the first time) working for the same ruling-elite ‘corporate financial Empire’, and it’s crucially important that they not rock the boat if global hegemony is to be established and maintained.

Both the ‘new’ war-team, and the ‘new’ financial-team are indivisibly linked in the ruling-elite’s plans for more overt Empire.

Per the “war cabinet” as the WSJ and Brit Hume on FOX TV call it — Gen. James Jones is very instructive.

Jones happens to be the “president and chief executive of the United States Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy”.

Jones’s message is endorsed by the whole establishment board of COCI, including; Spencer ‘oily’ Abraham, George ‘racist’ Allen, Frank ‘Carlyle Group’ Carlucci, Dr. Henry ‘war criminal’ Kissinger, Dr. George ‘I gave you dubya’ Shultz, and other assorted corporate/government crooks, in an Open Letter to the ‘changeable’ new President Elect —- which advocates, what George Bush infamously termed, “whatever it takes”, to keep their ruling-elite energy Empire:

http://www.uschamber.com/xxi/open_letter.html

The reason that the war-cabinet and the finance-cabinet are so key to what this global Empire plans is that oil, money and war are just different sides of the Empire’s pyramid scheme.

Oil and money are today the two-sides of global hegemony and power, while war is the means to monopolize both.

How many times, during this latest financial crisis, have we heard, “we must live within our means economically” and yet the ‘corporate financial Empire’ insists that certain crucial aspects of their ruling financial empire, like CITI, Goldman, BofA, etc. are “too big to fail”.

The same is true of energy. Average Americans are warned to “live within their means” on energy, but domestic energy is only 5%, while the U.S. uses 25% — and when that does not balance, any more than Wall Street’s finances balance, the answer that the empire’s talking-heads give on TV is that certain countries (like Iraq) and whole areas of the world are simply “too important to fail” — thus, like the money centers of the empire, these energy centers of the same empire need to be saved (for the ruling-elite) with our money and our sons’ blood.

— Alan MacDonald

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Eventually the powers expect the greater majority of the world to say enough is enough.
There will be riots, chaos and much death. Atleast they hope so. This will be their reasoning behind further implementation of police state policies and tactics. They intend to make things so bad for us that we freak out.

A violent revolution is exactly what they want.
The real solution is independence. In order to deprive them of their power assuredly we must cut ourselves off. Cut off from the system that we currently rely on to live, the same system that gives them their power.

It would take some drastic action. Such as quitting your job to cut off their money/labor supply, growing your own food. Things most people are not willing to do...yet.

Money is the conduit through which their power flows. Do you really need fake paper money if you can produce most of what you need and barter for the rest?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a U.K citizen - well not citizen, we're 'subjects' actually and that's a notch above serfdom, forelocks remain to be tugged - it seems to me that you have now got yourselves a souped up Blair. No doubt about it that Obama is ten times smarter than Blair, however he shares with Blair the talent to imply a seismic shift, to imply a new start, or in Obama's refrain 'change'. And as with Blair it will prove to be just so much windy rhetoric. Nobody who is serious about change would form a praetorian guard of clapped out machine politicians, high finance chancers, and (supposed) ideological opponents.
I know he has yet to start the job but his appointments are a clear indication of the direction he wishes his foreign policy to take. And that is the aspect of U.S governance which most interests the rest of the world. I have a considerable affection for the United States and as you are currently the one super-power I also would like a 'change', a serious change, but from over here this looks grim, very grim.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The US has squandered trillions of dollars on unnecessary elective wars since G W Bush got into the White House. Is this idiocy going to continue, under the delusion it somehow "protects" Israel and allows for the continuing suppression of the legitimate national aspirations of the Palestinians?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama has been blessed by the powers that be. It was evident during the campaign and we will see his politics follow that blessing. If the war in Iraq will end it will be for other reasons than it being the moral thing to do... it will happen if it is the prudent economic thing to do (once our interests are secured there).

I see these appointments by Obama as making a hard play for the new "Center" - he is ensuring his re-election in 4 years by being the definition of the "middle." He will have so many of the "other guys" surrounding him that the republicans will have almost no tactical angle to challenge him - especially if he can publicly fight for health care reform and "end the war in Iraq." His 4 years will involve being a very good orator, improving the "image" of the U.S. through his removal of troops from Iraq, courageously facing new hostilities on a new front, bringing the discussion of health care reform to the table but never quite turning it into law (he will need one more term to accomplish this goal - suprise!!!), and finally, working toward the "green" agenda (but only on a timeline that suits those powers that be).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We liberals have often demonstrated our ability to blow an election. Now, we appear to be working on blowing a victory. Were we so easily conned that our belief that Obama was a man of great intelligence and integrity was all a facade? Frankly, I think that we were right. The only real thing that scares me right now is this silly panicking by those who share my liberal political beliefs. Must we sabotage the Obama presidency? If we do that now, we do it on conjecture and assumption, and that my friends is foolish and a damned shame. Has he made every choice that I would have made? Absolutely not. But he has assembled a bright group of people who do now how to get things done and who have agreed to follow the lead of the man that you and I elected to lead this country. I do not see Obama as a weak leader, and trust that if this crew does not do as they are bid to do, they will be promptly replaced by those who will.
I am glad that there on contrary voices and opinions going into our presidents ear...and I am thrilled that we have a president with the intellectual inquisitiveness to listen to all points of view prior to making a decision. Sure has not been a trademark of the Bush presidency. His job is not to enact any particular agenda. It is to do that which is right for the well being of our country and the world. Back off and give the man the time to tackle the issues. If you are right in your assumptions, I will have your back at that time..........

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Obama lied about change & instead, sells us out--which his appointments indicate he will, (although I'm still waiting to see) but if he does sell us out, then it's time to forgo either party next election because the 2 parties have obviously merged into one, big, dick-the-taxpayer-machine.
How many times can we withstand their stealing our money & giving it to the rich through the sub prime crisis, the bailout, the Iraq invasion, NAFTA etc & still survive?
We simply punch "Green"--or "Independent"--etc., whoever, when we vote--ANYTHING but Repub or Dem., or run for office ourselves maybe.
If Obama sells us out it's time to get rid of both parties--from the local level on up.
(In Illinois, Senator Dick Durbin, a Dem, has just written a letter to Bush asking him to pardon former Illinois Gov George Ryan, a Rep, who was convicted of wrongdoing in office--at great taxpayer expense to prosecute BTW)
Many in Illinois, have already decided to vote Green next time so we can rid ourselves, locally at least, of these so-called "public servants" who really serve the wishes of the rich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Brilliant Politician is having these fools for breakfast. In their haste to discredit him with his base, the republicans will hail his appointments, proclaim then center right, then claim his success is because he is center right. They will then attack him during the next election cycle having risen his center left base against him. at least thats their doomed plan. If you think Rice, Holder, and Napolitano are centrist then you either don't know politics, trust the right wing of the media to analyze ideology,or both.

Furthermore, since when does the cabinet dictate the political ideology of the president. The tail does not wag dog. The Typical techniques to analyze politics just will not work with this guy. He hasn't taken office and the same old pundits are using the same old rules to analyze a new brand of politics.

The Republicans are suckers taking the bait and will soon recognize that they have been had by a brilliant politician. Of course all too many on the left are ready to attack one of their own based on ridiculous predictions.

For Pete's sake can't you wait until he starts instituting policy to criticize. I guess you expect him to do just like Bush and appoint only those who agree 100% with his ideology with total disregard for competence. He's the boss with the hammer and the vision. Stop being such a typicalm pundit and jumping the gun based on the norms. But I have a feeling he could care less what his detractors on either side of the aisle say, he has a job to do and I believe that he will act as visionary leaders tend to act, with a strong hand and determination.

Unfortunately, many people on the left have grown so accustomed to being agains the person in power that it has become a habit and they look for opening to attack, even if its one of their own.

How ironic that the Republicans only know hwo to attack and many on the left have adopted the same habits. I am a Center left person who has a few months on my hands to patiently wait and see some ACTUAL POLICY!! instituted before I go off on a premature rant against the guy...Geez!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why should we settle? Even Obama himself has said time and time again that the work begins now. Getting him elected was the easy part (especially with McCain and Palin as his opponents.
Obama is leading us down the path that Clinton would have led us down. If my memory serves correctly, the voters rejected that prospect during the primary season. We elected a change candidate that looks to bring us "more of the same." Yes, the policies will come from him, not his cabinet, but who he's chosen to surround himself says a lot about what policies HE will enact. There were plenty of Democrats (and Republicans) who were against the Iraq War before it began. How many of them were considered for ANY foreign policy position? His V.P. and Sec of State were the two biggest hawks during the buildup to the war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We all know the old adage about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. The picks at Defense and State aren't exactly enemies, but it's still a good idea to keep them out where Obama can see them--and under his thumb.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]