Obama & Change

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,784
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
It is a good read, though I'd disagree with the o.p.'s take on it.

As I had argued in past similar threads perhaps the "change" is a departure from partisan political based policy making and a move to policy based on what is best for the people.

Throughout the entire campaign I've been saying this, have been saying he is more a centrist that either extreme right or left, and I made numerous references to what he spoke of in his book. Anyone familiar with what he wrote there would not be surprised that he'd not "throw out the baby with the bathwater", that he'd tap Clinton, or that he'd keep Gates.

The writer of the linked article correctly observes that major change (revolution) is generally unpalatable for most (sane) Americans and that subtle change (in policies rather than values) is preferable. Rather I'd think it essential to a centrist ideology of cooperation.

Does that suggest that things promised in Obama's campaign have to go out the window (affordable health care and lower taxes on the middle class for example)?

I think not. I think he's merely laying the groundwork for what yet will come.
 
Last edited:

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
How I see it?
Some people perceived Obama's "Change Campaign" as something different than the current GOP. Others saw it as a cry for something completely new and different, with a complete set of new faces and ideas. Both are perfectly valid theories based on the terminology & concept, but only one of them eventually applies. Those thinking the first scenario don't find Obama's current actions to be suspect. Those thinking the second feel as if they were gypped. Plain & simple.

IMO, I was hoping that people didn't have their hopes TOO high during the election. I mean, Obama was the better choice over McCain in my eyes, but did ANYONE really think that his cabinet was going to be composed entirely of political unknowns & obscure faces? I mean... this IS politics we're talking here. And the more things "change", the more things tend to stay the same.
 

B_Nick4444

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
6,849
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
Location
San Antonio, TX
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
IMO, I was hoping that people didn't have their hopes TOO high during the election. I mean, Obama was the better choice over McCain in my eyes, but did ANYONE really think that his cabinet was going to be composed entirely of political unknowns & obscure faces?


in a word, yes

that's exactly what Obamites were "thinking" (and I use the term loosely)


even on this board, that was frequently pointed out by the loyal opposition
 

HellsKitchenmanNYC

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Posts
5,705
Media
3
Likes
238
Points
283
Location
New York
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
How I see it?
Some people perceived Obama's "Change Campaign" as something different than the current GOP. Others saw it as a cry for something completely new and different, with a complete set of new faces and ideas. Both are perfectly valid theories based on the terminology & concept, but only one of them eventually applies. Those thinking the first scenario don't find Obama's current actions to be suspect. Those thinking the second feel as if they were gypped. Plain & simple.

IMO, I was hoping that people didn't have their hopes TOO high during the election. I mean, Obama was the better choice over McCain in my eyes, but did ANYONE really think that his cabinet was going to be composed entirely of political unknowns & obscure faces? I mean... this IS politics we're talking here. And the more things "change", the more things tend to stay the same.

Besides there's a limted pool of people to pull from. He's gonna pick the best he thinks are out there. I'm just glad Hill's aloong for the ride.
 

D_Fiona_Farvel

Account Disabled
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Posts
3,692
Media
0
Likes
72
Points
133
Sexuality
No Response
It is a good read, though I'd disagree with the o.p.'s take on it.

As I had argued in past similar threads perhaps the "change" is a departure from partisan political based policy making and a move to policy based on what is best for the people.

Throughout the entire campaign I've been saying this, have been saying he is more a centrist that either extreme right or left, and I made numerous references to what he spoke of in his book. Anyone familiar with what he wrote there would not be surprised that he'd not "throw out the baby with the bathwater", that he'd tap Clinton, or that he'd keep Gates.

The writer of the linked article correctly observes that major change (revolution) is generally unpalatable for most (sane) Americans and that subtle change (in policies rather than values) is preferable. Rather I'd think it essential to a centrist ideology of cooperation.

Does that suggest that things promised in Obama's campaign have to go out the window (affordable health care and lower taxes on the middle class for example)?

I think not. I think he's merely laying the groundwork for what yet will come.
Excellent post, B.C.!


How I see it?
Some people perceived Obama's "Change Campaign" as something different than the current GOP. Others saw it as a cry for something completely new and different, with a complete set of new faces and ideas. Both are perfectly valid theories based on the terminology & concept, but only one of them eventually applies. Those thinking the first scenario don't find Obama's current actions to be suspect. Those thinking the second feel as if they were gypped. Plain & simple.

IMO, I was hoping that people didn't have their hopes TOO high during the election. I mean, Obama was the better choice over McCain in my eyes, but did ANYONE really think that his cabinet was going to be composed entirely of political unknowns & obscure faces? I mean... this IS politics we're talking here. And the more things "change", the more things tend to stay the same.
Yes, indeed, I was thinking the same.
We have to temper our hope with pragmatism, while holding Obama to his contract, for lack of a better word, with voters.

I believe he will make changes, and I appreciate his attempt to build an inclusive cabinet, but I do dislike Clinton as Secretary of State and feel that is a bit of loathsome political back-scratching that he could have done without. *sigh*

Imo, Olympia Snowe would have been a better choice. :shrug:
 

HellsKitchenmanNYC

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Posts
5,705
Media
3
Likes
238
Points
283
Location
New York
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I doubt very highly Obama knowing that everyon in the world is watching him would appoint Hillary as back scratching. That would seem to be going against what he's said so far before his 1st day.
 

D_Fiona_Farvel

Account Disabled
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Posts
3,692
Media
0
Likes
72
Points
133
Sexuality
No Response
I'm not enamored of Hillary Clinton, that's no secret. However, beyond my belief back-scratching was involved, I can't pinpoint many reasons why Obama would believe she fits the bill of someone accomplished and prepared to be the Secretary of State.

I am deeply disappointed in his choice.
 

D_Fiona_Farvel

Account Disabled
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Posts
3,692
Media
0
Likes
72
Points
133
Sexuality
No Response
Yeah she's only been all oer the world, met w/heads of state for 8 yrs.
Precisely. There are better and more qualified people available, Imo. I'd like to believe that he considered each and felt H. Clinton was the best choice - although, I doubt that was the case.

Do you think he would appoint her and end up w/egg on his face if he didn't think she could pull it off? Just asking.
I have no idea what he was thinking in picking Clinton, actually, the last two selections for Secretary of State have left me scratching my head, but time will tell if she's the right choice or not.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
In pertains to Clinton, I know of many people who wanted the Democratic ticket to be Obama/Clinton or vice versa. Even back as far as the Primary, I thought that the two together on the Presidential ticket would have been ideal. So, seeing Clinton selected as Secretary Of State is fine with me. To ignore what she can bring to the table just because some people fed too much into a campaign slogan would be foolish.

At the end of the day, it's still different than the current GOP.
 

D_Fiona_Farvel

Account Disabled
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Posts
3,692
Media
0
Likes
72
Points
133
Sexuality
No Response
In pertains to Clinton, I know of many people who wanted the Democratic ticket to be Obama/Clinton or vice versa. Even back as far as the Primary, I thought that the two together on the Presidential ticket would have been ideal. So, seeing Clinton selected as Secretary Of State is fine with me. To ignore what she can bring to the table just because some people fed too much into a campaign slogan would be foolish.

At the end of the day, it's still different than the current GOP.
I'm not a Democrat, but yes, I know many were hoping for Obama/Clinton and are now happy to see her in his cabinet, and I do not begrudge them that victory - she will get her chance.

However, I am equally entitled to my dislike of Clinton and position that, better than Condi or not, there were others more qualified for Secretary of State.
 

D_Fiona_Farvel

Account Disabled
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Posts
3,692
Media
0
Likes
72
Points
133
Sexuality
No Response
Like who? And why?
Imo, Olympia Snowe would have been a better choice. :shrug:

Nearing 30 years in office, has shown bipartisanship, and extensive knowledge of domestic and international issues. I have heard her speak, and her mind and realism is an amazing thing.

I wish she would have been given serious consideration.
 

OCMuscleJock

Superior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Posts
3,187
Media
88
Likes
3,084
Points
198
Location
San Luis Obispo, CA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I'm not enamored of Hillary Clinton, that's no secret. However, beyond my belief back-scratching was involved, I can't pinpoint many reasons why Obama would believe she fits the bill of someone accomplished and prepared to be the Secretary of State.

I am deeply disappointed in his choice.

Well our current secretary of state had no qualifications for the job and she got it. Hell she was even fired from her job at the college and had Tenure. That's REALLY hard to do... get fired that is. At least Hillary has prior government experience. As for Obama's choices so far... I think his mix of appointees so far have and will be a good thing. It's something we'll all just have to wait and see come about.
 

D_Fiona_Farvel

Account Disabled
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Posts
3,692
Media
0
Likes
72
Points
133
Sexuality
No Response
Well our current secretary of state had no qualifications for the job and she got it. Hell she was even fired from her job at the college and had Tenure. That's REALLY hard to do... get fired that is. At least Hillary has prior government experience. As for Obama's choices so far... I think his mix of appointees so far have and will be a good thing. It's something we'll all just have to wait and see come about.


I have no idea what he was thinking in picking Clinton, actually, the last two selections for Secretary of State have left me scratching my head, but time will tell if she's the right choice or not.
:smile: