One Clinton at a time. Welp folks, it's time to admit the obvious: Obama isn't about a new regime in Washington. he's just the same old tired regime. Way to be bamboozled, folks. CHANGE WE NEED!!!

12/1/2008 6:52:24 AM

there is already a thread about this

and in it there are probably people happy that we have a pragmatist in office

and you probably look like a retard in the other thread

so why do you feel the need for another topic?

12/1/2008 7:03:09 AM

I agree with the OP

12/1/2008 8:32:25 AM

ibtl

12/1/2008 11:15:13 AM

I, for one, am surprised to learn that Clinton was already Secretary of State. All this time I thought she was a Senator.

12/1/2008 11:29:49 AM

aaronburro with the insightfullest commentary ever seen

12/1/2008 11:30:23 AM

Of course he's bringing in change

He's changing back to the leet.

12/1/2008 11:32:50 AM

Quote :

"Of course he's bringing in change He's changing back to the leet."

/thread

12/1/2008 11:53:33 AM

I don't think aaronburro gets what Obama meant by change.

12/1/2008 1:18:26 PM

Quote :

"One Clinton at a time. "

made me laugh

12/1/2008 1:27:57 PM

Quote :

"I don't think aaronburro gets what Obama meant by change."

Sorry, but that is some BS. Obama most certainly didn't run on being Clinton v2. Hell, I am kinda glad he is, but to say his campaign didn't run on bringing change to "politics as usual" in Washington is just downright dishonest. If I remember correctly, during the primaries he was pretty critical of the Clintons... and portrayed them rather negatively, and even as too moderate (especially he was critical of Hillary's more hawkish stances, then he chooses her for SoS? what?).

12/1/2008 3:24:29 PM

Quote :

"but to say his campaign didn't run on bringing change to "politics as usual" in Washington is just downright dishonest."

He definitely did campaign on that.

He's done a great job at fulfilling that promise so far, too. From lobbyist rules to inauguration donation limits, it's clear he's serious about it.

The fact that he's hiring Clinton people doesn't break his promise of change, though. In order to hire any Democrat with White House experience, he'd need to hire a Clinton person. Do you expect him to hire Carter appointees?

12/1/2008 3:45:23 PM

Thought provoking, a new contribution to the scholarship. ***** would post again.

12/1/2008 5:22:16 PM

I want my change back!


AMIRITE

12/1/2008 5:37:53 PM

These threads are always funny to me...

It's clear the right feels like they need to complain about something, and since Obama hasn't actually done anything yet, they have to complain about this.

I wonder though, what scenario would they NOT bitch about his position choices?

If he had really picked off the wall people, they'd be "OMFG these people have no experience, what's he thinking!>!>>??" if he had even picked entirely republicans, they'd STILL be saying "wait, I thought he wanted change, why is he picking all these insiders?!??"

The right likes to accuse the left of being whiny, but they sure are doing a piss poor job of showing that they even have a footing to make such an accusation. I really don't see any response but to shrug my shoulders at their bitter frothing.

Anyway, carry on...

12/1/2008 5:40:45 PM

Obama could resurrect the ghost of Ronald Reagan, and Burro and Pals would be here to bitch about it.

12/1/2008 5:47:40 PM

Obama could appoint Bill Ayers to the department of Homeland Security, and some people here would rush in to defend the choice*



*Much better than my Sarah Palin suggestion the other day

12/1/2008 5:49:51 PM

^^ The more I read about Reagan, the more I wonder what modern day republicans see in him. The only tenant of his policies that I could see them agreeing with is his tax plan, practically everything else he stood for is against what non-religious Conservatives claim to stand for today.

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 5:52 PM. Reason : ]

12/1/2008 5:51:40 PM

I heard this on NPR about a week ago when Clinton was first being mentioned as Sec. of State. Their take on it was that the choice was damage control in that she would be less likely to run against him in '12 if she is an integral part of his administration.

12/1/2008 7:14:54 PM

Quote :

"These threads are always funny to me... It's clear the right feels like they need to complain about something, and since Obama hasn't actually done anything yet, they have to complain about this. I wonder though, what scenario would they NOT bitch about his position choices? If he had really picked off the wall people, they'd be "OMFG these people have no experience, what's he thinking!>!>>??" if he had even picked entirely republicans, they'd STILL be saying "wait, I thought he wanted change, why is he picking all these insiders?!??" The right likes to accuse the left of being whiny, but they sure are doing a piss poor job of showing that they even have a footing to make such an accusation. I really don't see any response but to shrug my shoulders at their bitter frothing. Anyway, carry on..."

So, in short, you are just ignoring the obvious: that Obama ran on the platform of politics as usual being broke, and yet now he is continuing politics as usual. It's absurd to wail against washington insiders in your campaign and then put them all in your cabinet. To be fair, Obama has picked some people from Chicago for some positions, but he sure has been running through a lot of previous Clinton officials. Face it, man, you were bamboozled.

And, there are many other republicans whining about some far lesser bullshit. Hell, in my channel surfing on the radio the other day, I heard good ol' Rush bitching about Obama "acting like he was the President." I laughed my head off at that and continued looking for a football game. So, I will ignore petty shit when it is, in fact, petty. Noticing yet another campaign reversal from the Messiah, however, is not petty. Fact is, the only thing Obama is changing is his word.

12/1/2008 8:08:15 PM

^ in your opinion then, who should he be appointing to satisfy your definition of "change"?

12/1/2008 8:09:34 PM

Maybe he could grab some Kennedy/Johnson appointees out of the nursing home?

McNamara for Sec. of Defense?

12/1/2008 8:32:29 PM

Obama puts change.gov under creative commons license: http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/33310/change_gov_swaps_traditional_copyright_for_creative_commons

12/1/2008 9:03:13 PM

Quote :

"One Clinton at a time. Welp folks, it's time to admit the obvious: Obama isn't about a new regime in Washington. he's just the same old tired regime. Way to be bamboozled, folks. CHANGE WE NEED!!!"

What Obama meant by change and what he let some of his most rapid supporters interpret by change are completely different.

I thought from the beginning he meant change to a politics of pragmatism and intellectualism rather than the near cronyism of Bush 43. Of course he was vague enough to allow people to fill in whatever they wanted.

By the same token, what McCain meant by Country First, was not always voting on party lines. But he let people fill that in with pro-America, anti-terrorists, liberals-love-the-devil stuff.

This is standard operating procedure and I don't see how anyone with Brain 1.0 doesn't see what these guys really mean. You can't even call it deception because they are not really hiding it if you are paying the slightest bit of attention.

12/1/2008 9:09:01 PM

what he meant by change is that's all anybody will have left.

12/1/2008 9:27:43 PM

right after we convert to communism and goosestep white people to the gas chambers

12/1/2008 9:32:28 PM

Quote :

"This is standard operating procedure and I don't see how anyone with Brain 1.0 doesn't see what these guys really mean. You can't even call it deception because they are not really hiding it if you are paying the slightest bit of attention."

12/1/2008 9:43:47 PM

^ do you ever write your own material?

12/2/2008 2:55:30 AM

Quote :

"since Obama hasn't actually done anything yet, they have to complain about this. "

I tend to give guarded agreement with this thought. I hope pres. Obama puts the socialism on hold for a while and gets the engine of capitalism going again.

George W Bush picked a lot of his cabinet from his daddy's administration. So you can't really blame Obama too much for picking up Clinton retreads.

I really hope he can pull the economy out of its slump.

12/2/2008 4:12:00 AM

....but you guys be honest....was this the change that was anticipated? Did he not act like he would be totally different than anyone ever has been? and bring in new people like no one ever has? and get rid of all the washington insiderness??

12/2/2008 6:59:12 AM

kwsmith2 wins the thread.


Lock it up

12/2/2008 8:18:22 AM

aaronburro, i would like to subscribe to your newsletter
so i can wipe my ass with it

12/2/2008 11:21:25 AM

Quote :

"kwsmith2 wins the thread. Lock it up"

seconded.

12/2/2008 11:46:47 AM

kwsmith2 wins a lot of threads

12/2/2008 11:49:26 AM

Nah - obama knew exactly what he was doing...he is going to change the world remember??

12/2/2008 12:58:55 PM

^ you're like the retarded cousin who always tags along, aren'tcha?

12/2/2008 3:19:56 PM

what??

12/2/2008 11:01:56 PM

never mind. i got nothing to add here. this thread is retarded. so i just come along to shit in it some more.

12/2/2008 11:19:49 PM

"What Obama meant by change and what he let some of his most rapid supporters interpret by change are completely different.

I thought from the beginning he meant change to a politics of pragmatism and intellectualism rather than the near cronyism of Bush 43. Of course he was vague enough to allow people to fill in whatever they wanted.

By the same token, what McCain meant by Country First, was not always voting on party lines. But he let people fill that in with pro-America, anti-terrorists, liberals-love-the-devil stuff.

This is standard operating procedure and I don't see how anyone with Brain 1.0 doesn't see what these guys really mean. You can't even call it deception because they are not really hiding it if you are paying the slightest bit of attention."

Good insight but I think alot of people, myself included, were hoping that this "standard operating procedure" would be changed up a little bit if/when/since Obama got elected seeing as Change was basically his platform. I think that picking Hillary Clinton to be S.O.S was a real let down for me and probably tons of other people. I do appreciate the "change to a politics of pragmatism and intellectualism" but where does Hilary Clinton fit into that? She, in my opinion, is a reason that we need change in Washington! It will now be around 25 years that we've had a Bush or a Clinton in a top spot in the white house. Obama was meant to stop this dynastic family cycle! Not to mention Hillary taking money from special interest groups and shady business deals... She will also be chief diplomatic envoy for our country to countries whose leaders will have little respect for her after having been publicly (worldwide) humiliated during the whole Lewinsky scandal. That is how people around the world know her. I guess its obvious but I really thought Obama would have done better. Hell Madeleine Albright is younger than John McCain

[Edited on December 3, 2008 at 5:06 AM. Reason : it will now be around 25 years...]

12/3/2008 5:05:09 AM

Quote :

"he will also be chief diplomatic envoy for our country to countries whose leaders will have little respect for her after having been publicly (worldwide) humiliated during the whole Lewinsky scandal."

For real? I mean, I dislike Hillary for a lot of reasons. But hell, if some leader from another country doesn't respect her because her husband was banging an intern, well fuck them. It wasn't her fault that her husband abused his power to get some ugly ass women.

12/3/2008 5:25:43 AM

Quote :

"The change we need doesn't come from Washington...it comes to Washington!{wild cheering}"

That was the dumbest commercial he aired. He is from Washington. Does no one proofread those things? More importantly, does no one actually listen to what he's saying?

12/3/2008 8:47:49 AM

(most of his campaign was about how the change comes from the voters, not the politicians. i mean yeah it's a little idealistic, but not logically inconsistent like you're implying)

12/3/2008 9:08:39 AM

^ riiiiiiiiight... Is that why everyone was voting for Obama for "change?" If he was really saying "change comes from the voters," then why the hell vote for Obama? You could vote for anyone and possibly be voting for change.

12/7/2008 7:10:19 PM

GENERATION JONES

12/7/2008 9:05:38 PM

Quote :

"Is that why everyone was voting for Obama for "change?"

i think it's obvious most people were voting for change from an utter disaster of 8 years of republican presidency.

[Edited on December 7, 2008 at 9:14 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2008 9:14:22 PM

If Obama does half the stuff he talks about George Bush will seem like George Washington.

12/7/2008 9:58:26 PM

err, wat?

12/7/2008 10:06:20 PM

Enough of this irrelevant bickering about whether he is bringing change. How about let's wait til the guy is sworn in and actually executes some policy.

12/7/2008 10:14:18 PM

actually he's not a transformative president and will probably barely institute policies resembling the Clinton administration!

12/7/2008 10:37:06 PM

Quote :

"i think it's obvious most people were voting for change from an utter disaster of 8 years of republican presidency."

Oh, so then why vote for him instead of Hillary? It's obvious that Barack Obama never had a real platform, other than "I'm not Dubya." Thanks for proving that for all of us.

12/8/2008 12:24:01 AM