Posted on 11/23/2008 5:22:01 AM PST by Kaslin
"John McCain has decided to run for George Bush's third term, and we can't afford it."
If Barack Obama stated that once during his campaign, he stated it hundreds of times.
And the fact that Senator McCain had alienated his own party by being a thorn in Bush’s side for much of the past eight years didn’t matter. It was a clever way for Obama to label McCain during the campaign, and by all indications, it worked.
So now, what are we to make of the return of the Clinton gang to Washington? As one liberal blogger noted, “Barack Obama acted all hopey and changey to get elected,” but now that he’s actually going to be President, he needs to staff-up with people “who actually know what they’re doing.”
That’s one way to look at it. But what are the implications of having the “Clintonistas,” and maybe even the Clintons themselves, in and around the Obama White House? It would be horribly naïve to assume that these “Washington insiders” will only bring their utilitarian value and “professional expertise” to the table, and will leave behind the policies, instincts, and sensibilities of 1990’s Washington.
So let’s not be so naïve. The passionate Obama partisans aren’t. The polling data on these voters released last week by John Zogby may have confirmed what many of us had suspected for months - - that millions of Americans who supported the Obama candidacy knew essentially nothing about him - - but that doesn’t dismiss the fact that Obama sold people on the idea of “change.” And based on the left-wing reaction to the Clinton re-emergence, “change” was taken to mean not merely a reversal of the past eight years, but an un-doing of the past couple of decades.
This has left-wingers outraged. Obama spent much of the past two years vowing to end the “senseless war in Iraq.” As he stood on stage with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards for those seemingly never-ending Democratic debates, he took every opportunity imaginable to remind us that he was the only candidate who had always opposed the war in Iraq. Yet, now he may be about to appoint a “war supporter” to head up the Department of State. That’s not “change,” and it’s not hopeful - - at least not to those who have been caught-up in the Obama trance.
Similarly, Obama spent a lot of time and energy earlier this year brutalizing Mrs. Clinton in front of fearful blue collar workers, assuring them that “free trade,” and Mrs. Clinton’s previous support of the “N.A.F.T.A.” agreement, were the reasons that jobs were moving overseas and their futures were uncertain. He also assured voters that “N.A.F.T.A.” would be reigned-in when he became President. Yet now, Obama has appointed as his Chief Of Staff Rahm Emanuel, a man who, along with Bill Clinton, bucked the Democratic party’s wishes, and helped bring about the N.A.F.T.A. agreement in the 1990’s.
And then there is Obama’s selection of Timothy Geithner for Treasury. When the news broke last Friday afternoon that the New York Federal Reserve Chairman had been tapped for the new administration, Wall Street surged upward and ended in plus territory. Seemingly, Obama’s choice provided some calm and assurance to a financial world gripped with the fear that Obama would actually attempt to radically realign America’s economic structures, as he promised from the campaign trail.
Yet once again, Obama’s selection of a man who arguably has ties to both the Bush Administration, and the centrist policies of the Clinton Administration, is a slap in the face to those who were hypnotized by his campaign rhetoric about impugning “the rich.”
And after months of running against the “failed policies of George W. Bush,” Geithner’s selection painfully suggests to the Obamanicas that maybe, just maybe, Bush 43 wasn’t such a failure after all.
At this early stage, the apparent Clintonizing of the Obama White House could be a hint that the incoming President may be far more pragmatic, far more “centrist,” and far less radicalized than what he portrayed himself to be on the campaign trail (judicial appointments not withstanding). Yet it also ensures that Washington will remain the home of, to use a Clinton phrase, “the politics of personal destruction.” This is not hopeful. And it is not “change.”
So far, the ‘Soros fingerpints’ read ‘YES’. . .
It will be more like FDR’s 1st term I’m afraid; and end like his third.
At least when the nukes hit our major population centers, his supporters will know they were wrong, at least for a flash second.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
"The Communist Party USA views the 2008 elections as a tremendous opportunity to defeat the policies of the right-wing Republicans and to move our country in a new progressive direction.
The record turnout in the Democratic Presidential primary races shows that millions of voters, including millions of new voters, are using this election to bring about real change. We wholeheartedly agree with them."
Long but decent read. It would seem on the one side he’s got lotsa bills to pay. and on the other side, well, let’s just say that a sitting president can’t vote “present”
OBAMA, you will suffer the wrath as soon as you do something goofy. I got eyes on you 00, I pray you don’t make my job to tough, but then again, I am unemployed.
This role is so important to the ruling class, that the ruling class is prepared to feed, clothe, and house this Voting Class.
Yes, and then some, but the American people are incapable of figuring this out. Remember the cartoon where Pelosi tells Reid, “Don’t worry. The rubes will never understand!”
Good point. The “voting class” is original thinking, but original thinking is forbidden in the era of Oprah’s Choice.
No, he won’t do anything “goofy”. If it’s goofy, the American media will proclaim that he is original and innovative, and the sheeple will obediently agree.
I saw a clip of Obama droning on about it this morning and it could have been Clinton.
I remember it well, I thought it might be a good play on big contruction related stocks back in '93. Didn't work out that way since it wasn't really infrastructure, just more pork for silly things. Won't be fooled again....
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Obama is thinking that Clinton was a successful president and that Clinton and his admin. was the reason alone why he liked the 90s better than the 00s. That’s why he’s doing this. However, he is forgetting one little detail: Newt and the Republicans coming into control just two years later in 1994. If Democrats had controlled Congress during the 90s, we would not have seen the stock market boom and overall economic prosperity which occurred during this time, IMHO.
It seems that everytime I hear that Hillary will be the Secretary of State my mind wanders to the film “Manchurian Candidate”.
Hillary could play Angela Lansbury’s role so well.
Austin Hill seems to be pretending he doesn’t know that the Clintons have the evil goods on Obama. The Clintons have him by the short hairs and are in charge of his administration. Obama will be the affirmative action, puppet President. FOBs and FOHs are in charge of his every move. This has been written about, and Austin Hill is unaware? I don’t think so!
I’d guess that the Clintonistas plans include escorting nobama back to the plantation.
I beieve that Barry was read the riot act by Washington insiders the day after the election. The Clintons are still the power behind the democrat party. Without them, nobama would flounder and sink.
Get ready for the invisible president. The Clinton’s third term begins.
Obama was enlightened during his private NY meeting with Bill.
I don’t think he’s nice at all - he strikes me as a creepy sociopath with no there there, and very easy to dislike. However, like any sociopath, he can become whatever people want him to become, or whatever he believes will convince them to give him what he wants.
But he doesn’t do this for any reason other than simply to get a position or situation that will satisfy his need to define himself and give him power. But power for what? When he affirmative actioned himself into the position of Harvard Law Review editor, he did ... absolutely nothing. There appears to be a total of one unsigned observation by him in the review.
I think he is extremely leftwing, as he revealed in those few unscripted moments he was allowed. But he doesn’t even have the ability to focus on this, and instead is accepting whatever his handlers - whoever they are - tell him to do.
And that’s the thing that puzzles me. Clearly, it’s not the Clinton machine, or Hillary would have been the candidate. But at the same time, it’s somebody who’s very in sync with the Clintons, hence the huge numbers of Clintonistas being called back to DC. The question, of course, is the identity of this person or group of people and their actual program.
Obama is just an empty vessel and had the sociopath’s ability to suck up to people and make them think he was on their wavelength, even though they had absolutely no idea what he thought about anything. As I say, I don’t find him charming at all, but many people obviously did, and they were willing to overlook everything, both the lack of substance and those rare conflicting public stumbles when he revealed his own hard-left opinions, simply to vote for this complete unknown.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.