I've still yet to see so much as a glimmer of "bi-partisanship" that was so touted about his future cabinet picks. While he has elected experienced people, he's managed to choose some of the most left-wing extremists in the political game. None of these folks are least bit moderate.

Everything that was said about his partisanship before election is holding true in this regard. He has surrounded himself with nothing other than like-minded individuals - some of the most liberal politicians he could scrounge up. Once the economy clears back up, I'm afraid we're going to see even more big government and spend, spend, spend, all in the name of hope and change.

I wish the best for his success (America's as a whole depends on it), but I have a feeling those who value small, efficient government and their constitutional liberties are going to have a rough 4 years under these folks. This "more of the same" has got Washington in a stranglehold.

[Edited on November 21, 2008 at 12:10 PM. Reason : I own page 5 w00t]

11/21/2008 12:10:34 PM

David Brooks speaks highly of Obama's cabinet so far. Not bad coming from the NY Times token conservative.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21brooks.html

Quote :

" As a result, the team he has announced so far is more impressive than any other in recent memory. One may not agree with them on everything or even most things, but a few things are indisputably true. First, these are open-minded individuals who are persuadable by evidence. Orszag, who will probably be budget director, is trusted by Republicans and Democrats for his honest presentation of the facts. Second, they are admired professionals. Conservative legal experts have a high regard for the probable attorney general, Eric Holder, despite the business over the Marc Rich pardon. Third, they are not excessively partisan. Obama signaled that he means to live up to his postpartisan rhetoric by letting Joe Lieberman keep his committee chairmanship. Fourth, they are not ideological. The economic advisers, Furman and Goolsbee, are moderate and thoughtful Democrats. Hillary Clinton at State is problematic, mostly because nobody has a role for her husband. But, as she has demonstrated in the Senate, her foreign-policy views are hardheaded and pragmatic. (It would be great to see her set of interests complemented by Samantha Power’s set of interests at the U.N.) Finally, there are many people on this team with practical creativity. Any think tanker can come up with broad doctrines, but it is rare to find people who can give the president a list of concrete steps he can do day by day to advance American interests. Dennis Ross, who advised Obama during the campaign, is the best I’ve ever seen at this, but Rahm Emanuel also has this capacity, as does Craig and legislative liaison Phil Schiliro. Believe me, I’m trying not to join in the vast, heaving O-phoria now sweeping the coastal haute 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."

11/21/2008 12:58:57 PM

^^the most radical left? are you kidding? next you're going to tell me the clinton administration was radical left.

11/21/2008 1:28:03 PM

Nation Guard troops back on the Border?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMQiPMv3T9j7YOSryRsqwq7FPfZAD94JFC7O0

Quote :

"Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, President-elect Barack Obama's reported primary choice for Homeland Security secretary, says she still thinks National Guard troops should be sent back to the U.S.-Mexico border."

Man, don't know what to think of that. The National Guard should have never been used in that way, and to put them back there would be wrong for a lot of reasons. I never imagined an Obama administration doing something like that.

11/21/2008 1:50:39 PM

I'm not sure if I understand your position correctly. Are you...are you saying that you don't think the National Guard should be used to...to guard the nation???

11/21/2008 1:59:09 PM

yeah, cause we're totally at war with Mexico and shit.

11/21/2008 2:02:47 PM

I can imagine the folks in the towns that border Mexico would say just that. You could say that cheap Mexican labor was just another cog in the wheel of the housing bubble. Without all that cheap labor, how could the supply of homes shoot up so rapidly?

11/21/2008 2:05:52 PM

ok. move this to another thread if it's not dealing with obama's likely cabinet and their positions. we could have (and have had) LONG immigration discussions in this forum before.

11/21/2008 2:08:34 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure if I understand your position correctly. Are you...are you saying that you don't think the National Guard should be used to...to guard the nation???"

Yea, they should guard the nation against, you know, enemies. Sorry if I don't like military force being used when it is unnecessary. Not to mention the fact that guardsman have regular lives that have been disrupted enough already the past decade. The NG mission is to support the Army in times of war, and to provide a governor with support in times of crisis/emergency. Being deployed on the border for years isn't either.

I hope Obama doesn't do this, I don't think he will. But it is a bit disturbing that his top nominee for Homeland Security thinks this way. This is the type of thing I hope Obama would move away from.



Looks like Clinton has accepted and with be SoS. A little surprising, mainly because she has hawkish leanings, and not sure it is a great move for her political future (she would have been a major Senate power)

[Edited on November 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2008 2:55:42 PM

Stocks rally after indications that Obama will select Timothy Geithner as his Treasury secretary. I did a little research and he looks like a solid choice.

11/21/2008 5:12:30 PM

Don't think that's why the stocks rallied, this has been talked about before. A late afternoon rally today was fairly predictable, the market has had a lot of them lately. A few days of beat down, followed by a strong surge upwards. Yeah, I know some analysts say that the news of the pick is why, but you can find an analyst to say just about anything honestly.

Not a bad pick though.

11/21/2008 5:15:42 PM

CNN seems to think otherwise:

Quote :

"Stocks rally on Treasury secretary talk Stocks rallied today, with the Dow jumping nearly 500 points on reports that President-elect Barack Obama has picked New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner as his new Treasury Secretary. Stocks managed to finish the dismal week above 8,000 after the reports about Obama's Cabinet, CNNMoney.com reports. developing story."

http://www.cnn.com

11/21/2008 5:22:28 PM

Oh, you mean like how I said you can find an analyst to say anything. Sorry if I don't but into it. These types of talking head analysts have been so wrong in so many ways the past years. The fact is, they don't know why the Market rallied, they are speculating, and it would be illogical to think that the market gained, what, around 5% in 2 hours due to a new Treasury Secretary.

11/21/2008 6:48:17 PM

Seems fairly logical to me.

The announcement of a qualified new treasury secretary with extensive bank executive experience can only be perceived as good news for the market.

The rally coincided pretty much directly with the rumors of his selection. No coincidence there.

11/21/2008 6:52:58 PM

500 / 8000 isnt that big a deal.

it just signals that investors are happy that someone is working on a plan.

11/21/2008 8:18:57 PM

Quote :

"500 / 8000 isnt that big a deal."

.... in the context of a 4000+ point drop over the past month.

11/21/2008 10:11:43 PM

11/21/2008 10:48:03 PM

A MAC USER????

shit. i wish i'da knowed that 3 weeks ago

11/22/2008 12:12:44 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081121/ap_on_el_pr/obama_1

Quote :

"Obama grabs lunch at local deli, greets patrons By ANN SANNER, Associated Press Writer Fri Nov 21, 3:23 pm ET CHICAGO – President-elect Barack Obama grabbed his lunch to go Friday and artfully dodged a question about the auto industry woes he'll inherit. "We got the corned beef," Obama said as he made his way around the counter at Manny's deli. Asked by a reporter what he thought about the auto industry, he responded with a smile: "I got the corned beef." Congress has been debating whether to provide billions in financial help to the Big Three automakers, who are warning about economic disaster if they go under. Manny's is a popular hangout and campaign stop for Chicago politicians. Mayor Richard Daley stops by on occasion. "Rahm Emanuel sends his regards," Obama told deli workers, referring to his chief of staff. "I ordered him his corned beef." Longtime friend Valerie Jarrett, who has been named a White House senior adviser, accompanied Obama on his lunch outing. The two ordered three sandwiches and some cherry pie. Obama also talked to the owner and signed a picture for him. "I've aged a little bit," the president-elect said, as he handed back the photograph. Weaving through tables, Obama shook hands and greeted patrons. Customers got up from their tables to congratulate him, give him a hug and take pictures of him with their cell phones. "I love you back," he told one customer. "Good to see you," Obama told another. "I'm doing great." Obama has mostly been out of public view since meeting with campaign rival John McCain on Monday. He's held private meetings at his Chicago transition office for much of the week. Earlier Friday, he exercised at a gym. "

Ha ha ha! McCain scared him back into his hole! I bet the meeting went something like this:

B.O.: John, it's good to see you.
J.M.: Mmmph.
B.O.: No hard feelings, right?
J.M.: Mmmph.
B.O.: Listen, I want to bend your ear on something I was thinking of for you in my Cabinet. Where do you think you would fit?
J.M.: Your Cabinet?! Let's see...
Emanuel (senior advisor to Bill Clinton)
Richardson (Clinton's UN Amb and Sec Energy)
Holder (Clinton's Deputy A.G.)
Napolitano (Clinton's Pick for US Attorney for district of Ariz)
Daschle (Clinton picked his wife to be head of FAA)
Geithner (Clinton's Under Sec Treas)
Jones (Clinton appointed Commandant of USMC)
Oh yeah...I almost forgot...HILLARY.
B.O.: Uhh...umm...uhh...Excuse me, John. I've got a Transition Meeting to go to. If you have any questions or want a job, just check out my transition webpage: http://www.change.gov.
J.M.: Transition Meeting, right. Why don't you go CHANGE your underwear!

[Edited on November 22, 2008 at 1:52 AM. Reason : b]

11/22/2008 1:51:52 AM

Your boy lost, ok? Time to grow up and get over it. No amount of whining and crying in this threads is going to change that fact. You supported washed up military vet with a bimbo for a running mate. I don't know if you noticed, but the story you posted was in no way a segue to your stupid little made up anecdote.

Why don't you CHANGE your underwear?

You're joking right? You aren't this lame are you?

11/22/2008 9:20:53 AM

yeah, that ^^ was pretty stupid. i think i lost a couple IQ points just reading it

11/22/2008 1:06:22 PM

yeah, that ^^ was pretty stupid. i feel like i lost braincells just reading it.

11/22/2008 1:07:06 PM

c'mon, guys, you can't accept the fact that Obama has to rely on Clinton to run the country

you don't think that's a little weak?

11/22/2008 1:30:13 PM

Yes, it is pretty hard for me to come to the realization that Obama is picking some folks that were associated with one of the more stable and prosperous times in recent US memory.

I'm shell shocked actually. I'm regretting my vote.

[Edited on November 22, 2008 at 1:45 PM. Reason : .]

11/22/2008 1:45:09 PM

Ok, the thing is he isn't just picking "some folks" almost his entire cabinet so far ties strongly to Clinton. I guess we know what him and Bill talked about last spring/early summer when they met. Guess Obama sold his soul for the election.

11/22/2008 1:57:22 PM

Quote :

"Guess Obama sold his soul for the election."

Which election? State Senator? US Senate? US President?

11/22/2008 1:58:40 PM

by any metric, the Clinton years were some of the most prosperous in modern history. by the same metrics, GWB years were some of the least.

so yes, obama is about change. change from the current trajectory we're on, as set by GWB.

i'd be pretty damn skeptical if his recipe for change DIDN'T include former Clinton officials, who have spent the past 8 years honing their skills in the private and/or civil arena.

11/22/2008 5:31:32 PM

11/22/2008 7:48:30 PM

Press Secretary - Robert Gibbs

NC State alumnus

Auburn tigers fan...what a loser

[Edited on November 22, 2008 at 8:21 PM. Reason : Auburn]

11/22/2008 8:20:49 PM

It will be cool if you were just a partisan hack, but you're annoying as hell about it and relatively content free.

11/22/2008 8:57:49 PM

Quote :

"c'mon, guys, you can't accept the fact that Obama has to rely on Clinton to run the country you don't think that's a little weak?"

Actually it makes perfect sense. Obama needs a cabinet with people whom are pragmatic, centrist (or at least not partisan), and experienced. Clinton-era personel are Obama's only supply of Democratic leaders that fit this description. They know the ropes, and more importantly they are respected by both parties.

Contrast that with the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzalez. He also added an extra position with the Dept of Homeland Security, thus giving us the "color-coded terrorism guage," a wonderfully irrelevant political lever courtesy of Tom Ridge. Then there's Karl Rove and Dick Cheney (yes he's a VP but nevertheless part of the administration). Yes, these are two very intelligent and effective administrators, but they are also unequivocally despised by their colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0878421.html

Don't forget Condi Rice as his national security adviser either. Still have painful memories about the circus around her testimoney before congress on 9/11. And don't get me started on Harriet Miers (Supreme Court nominee) or Michael Brown (FEMA)...


In other words, improvement over the previous cabinet should be all but a certainty. As far as Obama's pledges on bi-partisanship, we'll have to wait and see. As bad as some of Bush's picks turned out to be, the big problem (which Obama is specifically addressing) was the overtly partisan tone adopted by his administration. News from the White House was spin-dried so much that their press briefings felt like a trip to the local laundromat.

And God forbid if you should try calling them out on it. That always went about as well as arguing with a prictly Chinese Restuarant owner about your order. You know, the one who has lived in the country a few months (at most) and knows maybe 10 words or so? Usually goes soemthing like this:

You "Hey I didn't get my soup"
Owner "You no order soup!"
You "Yes I did... I ordered the #16 which comes with soup"
Owner "No! It no come with soup"
You "But dude it says right on the menu that it comes with a side of soup..."
Owner "NO it no say that on menu!"
You "Yes it does! It's right freakin' here dude!"
Owner "Menu wrong! You no get soup!"

Yeah, that's the Bush Adminstration in a nutshell for the past 8 years. As far as the Executive Branch was concerned, nothing bad ever happened while Bush was in the White House... and even if it did it was never America's fault... and if it was it wasn't the Bush Administrations' fault... and if it was Bush's Administrations' fault then it was actually b/c of some lesser peon acting alone in an isolated incident that in no way reflect upon or was authorized by the President and his staff...

... even if it was

Quote :

"I've still yet to see so much as a glimmer of "bi-partisanship" that was so touted about his future cabinet picks. While he has elected experienced people, he's managed to choose some of the most left-wing extremists in the political game. None of these folks are least bit moderate."

Name one. Seriously. Name one "left-wing extremist" Obama has chosen so far. If Hillary gets the nod then that would be the most acceptable answer, and even then you'd have to concede that she's a damned good politician and... let's face it... Obama would be a fool not to appease the Clinton-wing of the party.

Stop trying to manufacture criticism on Obama before he even takes office just b/c you detest his political idealogy. Otherwise you're no better than the liberals who spent 8 years bitching about Bush for any and all possible reasons.... you know... the ones people like you degraded as "partisan hacks" for prematuraly casting judgment on shaky grounds

[Edited on November 23, 2008 at 4:24 PM. Reason : yjr]

11/23/2008 4:24:09 PM

Quote :

"Actually it makes perfect sense. Obama needs a cabinet with people whom are pragmatic, centrist (or at least not partisan), and experienced. Clinton-era personel are Obama's only supply of Democratic leaders that fit this description. They know the ropes, and more importantly they are respected by both parties. Contrast that with the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzalez. He also added an extra position with the Dept of Homeland Security, thus giving us the "color-coded terrorism guage," a wonderfully irrelevant political lever courtesy of Tom Ridge. Then there's Karl Rove and Dick Cheney (yes he's a VP but nevertheless part of the administration). Yes, these are two very intelligent and effective administrators, but they are also unequivocally despised by their colleagues on the other side of the aisle. "

I really hope you don't believe what you just wrote. Most of Obama's picks so far are just as centrist and partisan as Bush's picks were in 2000. They are respected by both parties? What? Oh, and Rumsfeld was respected in 2000, Ashcroft was the only pick that was far to the right back then. Rumsfeld only became truly despised by the left at the onset of the Iraq war. Cheney was just as much despised by the left as Biden is despised by the right now.

You are falling into a trap of your own making. You view the world from your position and beliefs, then gauge by that. So of course Obama's picks seem "pragmatic" and "respected by both parties" because from your frame of reference they are.

Look at Bush's picks in 2000, and how they were viewed then. It would be hard to argue that Bush put in a lot of hard line right wingers back then, unless you are viewing it from a left leaning perspective.

11/23/2008 4:59:04 PM

Quote :

"Rumsfeld was respected in 2000"

yes, Rumsfeld has gained international respect for decades now!

11/23/2008 9:11:47 PM

Oh look, he met with Saddam back in the 80's.


The point was he was just as respected as the majority of Obama's picks will be. There wasn't the massive hate and loathing for him as there is now.

11/24/2008 3:28:54 AM

i agree

Rumsfeld in early 2001 was, by most moderate accounts, a seemingly reasonable choice.

He was not generally despised until after the focus of the Iraq War proved him to be both a neocon asskisser AND horribly incompetent.

11/24/2008 3:58:57 AM

Obama's economic team is about to be awesome...

decidedly centrist, intelligent as fuck, just in time..

we may dodge another great depression -- we definitely dodged a bullet when McCain & The Queen of Retards went down in flames.


watching Austan Goolsbee on CNBC now




[Edited on November 24, 2008 at 8:53 AM. Reason : ]

11/24/2008 8:50:41 AM

Quote :

"Actually it makes perfect sense. Obama needs a cabinet with people whom are pragmatic, centrist (or at least not partisan), and experienced. Clinton-era personel are Obama's only supply of Democratic leaders that fit this description. They know the ropes, and more importantly they are respected by both parties."

Agreed that he needs experienced people, because he is not (not even a little bit). But, his entire campaign was about CHANGE.

And you know he's pissing his (extremely liberal) base off by selecting moderates for his cabinet.

11/25/2008 1:38:03 AM

^ I'm about as "extreme" liberal as they come (at least I imagine I'd be in your eyes), and I'm very happy to see his selections to be centrist in nature. I would expect nothing less. I voted for Obama knowing he tended towards the middle. I disagree with him on a number of issues but he is by far the best fit, much better than the road McCain would have taken us down.

I love seeing you gripe though. It's great to see after 8 years of your guys ruling as if they had a mandate and totally screwing up the country. Now it's time for you to sit back and shut up while the other side comes in an cleans up the mess of 8 years of incompetent, hard-headed rule.

11/25/2008 7:10:26 AM

^^ oh, quit making shit up. no one is "pissed off." you can't show one credible person or group who is "pissed off" at Obama's cabinet selections



seriously: you show me someone who is "pissed off" and I'll show you a crackpot extremist who probably voted for Nader, anyhow.

11/25/2008 10:36:12 AM

I like Obama's most recent selections.

But

Quote :

"Obama's economic team is about to be awesome... decidedly centrist, intelligent as fuck, just in time..."

Decidedly centrist? Emmanuel, Daschle and Clinton are far from being "decidedly centrist".

11/25/2008 11:46:12 AM

office of the president-elect? ... now hes making up offices before any oath

wow .. im looking forward to this man's 4 year power trip

11/25/2008 1:46:45 PM

good lord, you're such a shill. how about looking shit up, perhaps? for once? is it TOO HARD TO ASK?

Quote :

"The office of the President Elect and the office of the Vice-president Elect are authorized by the Presidential Transitions act of 1963 and amended by the Presidential Transitions act of 2000. The Acts specifically say that the offices comes into being on the day after the general election and disappear on Jan 20th. It does not wait until the electoral college votes."

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=24780

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=24781

http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/transitions/pta_page1.htm





[Edited on November 25, 2008 at 2:11 PM. Reason : links]

11/25/2008 1:57:23 PM

Quote :

"I really hope you don't believe what you just wrote. "

I do, actually, but thanks for your concern

You're right to point out that much of the criticism levied at Bush's cabinent and administration as a whole has been largely due to their performance in office. I agree that you can make the argument that Obama's selections have similar resume's that were, as a whole, considered just as "pragmatic, practical, and centrist" as Bush's crew in 2000. In that sense we're at an impasse, since we have no way of knowing how Obama's picks will pan out.

The point is, however, that hiring experienced Clintonites is a no-brainer. Calling that a bad move is downright laughable. Bush did exactly the same thing in tapping Rumsfeld and Cheney, both of whom served under Bush Sr. Experience isn't everything, Obama certainly proved that, but you have to at least some. If Obama didn't get a few Clintonites then were the heck was he supposed to get seasoned veterans of "life on capitol hill"?

So, with your definition of "change" in mind, Obama has to chose between being a hypocrite and being a moron. Tough choice, really. Seriously though, this bitching about "This isn't change! He's just choosing dems and liberals!" has got to fucking stop. You have to either be incredibly naive or woefully ignorant to interpret "bringing change to the White House" as "splitting Obama's administration down the middle between conservatives and liberals."

Obama's view of "change" is directed at the tone of the White House under George W. Bush. President Bush ran the executive branch with a very consistent "my way or the highway" approach. It's the polarization of both political parties, the lack of compromise, and the over-use of ideology that Obama is addressing.

Now, we can go back and forth all day long assessing Obama's line-up versus Bush's or anyone else's for that matter. Instead, let's focus on the real question - "Does Obama's crew have similar potential for the partisanship, hackery, and otherwise incompetance that plagued the Bush Administration?

Let me get the ball rolling with a summary of the observations made by David Brooks, who is a "token conservative" but a conservative nonetheless:

open-minded individuals - who are persuadable by evidence.
admired professionals - respected on the other side of the aisle
not excessively partisan - Joe Lieberman keeps his committee chairmanship.
not ideological - moderate and thoughtful Democrats.
practical creativity - Any think tanker can come up with broad doctrines, but it is rare to find people who can give the president a list of concrete steps he can do day by day to advance American interests.

Now... ask yourself... does ANY of that sound anything like the current administration. Has Bush's crew come off as "open-minded"? Have they shown "practical creativity" or have they relied heavily on ideology? Has Bush worked with Democrats on any key issues in the past 8 years? Or has his administration shown the kind of partisanship that, say, polarized Washington so much that it allowed a black junior senator with no executive experience the opportunity to roll to a landslide victory? You know the victory that in no small way was buoyed by his pledge to fix the giant clusterfuck that is our national government? And why did we trust him because trusted him more than the rest of the field? DC has become so toxic that being AWAY fromt he White House was a huge part of Obama's appeal.

Quote :

"You are falling into a trap of your own making. You view the world from your position and beliefs, then gauge by that. So of course Obama's picks seem "pragmatic" and "respected by both parties" because from your frame of reference they are. "

You're really annoyed that my preferred candidate is now getting the benefit of the doubt with everything he does, aren't you? Tough. Bush and his cronies fucked this country up and cleared a path for Obama in the 1st place. I've got no sympathy for the few conservatives out here who are crying about what they see as an under-prepared idealogue that doesn't have the experience or good sense to effectively lead this country. I hope I don't have to explain why.


Even worse, I can't fucking stand the few of you who seem to be determined to find something bad/wrong/etc. about our new President. There's a reason all of your attacks seem petty, judgmental, premature, and/or outright mean. It's b/c they ARE.

NEWFLASH: Obama hasn't done anything yet. He's hasn't had the opportunity. Shut up and let the man prepare to do his job... which in nutshell would be fixing everything YOUR candidate fucked up.

11/25/2008 2:34:51 PM

hes the only president that i can remember to use that garbage as a prop

just like having the presidential seal on the podium during the campaign

11/25/2008 2:39:01 PM

It's a shame we will never know what erios and the like would be babbling about right now if McCain had won the election....... I somehow doubt he would "shut up and let the man prepare to do his job."

11/25/2008 3:07:36 PM

^
^

+




[Edited on November 25, 2008 at 3:09 PM. Reason : -]

11/25/2008 3:08:25 PM

Quote :

"TKEshultz: hes the only president that i can remember to use that garbage as a prop"

hes also the only president who has had to step into a complete leadership vacuum and an imploding global economy.

you should be glad he's taking initiative to form a team to address economic policy. Because it's one of the few things right now calming jittery investors and keeping the stock market from continuing its downward spiral.

unfortunately, people like you are just too stupid to understand the fact that, teetering between recession and depression, the markets are highly susceptible to the perception of investors. In the face of Bush's general incompetence and lame-duck status, Obama's timing and ability to project the image of competent leadership is critical.





[Edited on November 25, 2008 at 3:18 PM. Reason : ]

11/25/2008 3:10:10 PM

hes helping the economy by doing this too ...

the dow drops daily because of this foondart

and hes not even in office yet ... sorry, the real office

folks are bailing because of what he might do .. and we have nothing to go on with this guy .. who knows what hes going to do ... theres more uncertainty now than ever

[Edited on November 25, 2008 at 3:34 PM. Reason : ]

11/25/2008 3:32:52 PM

The Clinton band is back together

Quote :

"Here's how you can tell the campaign is over and the transition has begun: Barack Obama's aides now wear suits and ties, their desks are in the Federal Building on 6th Street in Washington — and Clintonites are everywhere."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15617.html



*snicker*

11/25/2008 3:35:21 PM

Quote :

"theres more uncertainty now than ever"

11/25/2008 3:36:35 PM