A Hawkish Cabinet?

I don’t think any of these people are as hawkish as the rabid Neoconservatives Bush started out with.
.
Dingdingding…
.
Oops, false alarm!

If you are surprised by this you were not paying attention. Both Obama and Clinton (and Biden) made it very clear that they were proponents of the use of force. Clinton had to be dragged into stating opposition to the Iraq occupation, and Obama was also very slow to accept that he could not get the nomination and support the occupation.

And they were the two top vote-getters. Those with stronger opposition to the occupation lost, badly.

This development will sharpen the beaks of Washington hawks. It’s scary, and fear shakes the electorate and empowers its representatives. I was wondering what impact this news would have had if it hit during the campaign. On the one hand, it would have played into McCain’s strengths and Obama’s weaknesses. On the other hand … Palin.

Otoh.
.
America’s adventures are unsustainable in the current curropt, incompetent environment that is the MIC.
.
A link. Always an adventure without my friend and guiding light, preview.

Sorry, link:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/20/africa/20nuke.php

pourme–
.
That’s nothing new. there’s nothing close to a weapon there.

The problem, and the real story here, is that all of establishment Washington got on board with the invasion. That is why so many of these picks supported the invasion. Given that something like 70 percent of the country thinks the war was a mistake, this isn’t just a concern of the antiwar left.
-
Obama has eased the rigid timetable
-
This is not completely true, I don’t think. There was never a “rigid timeline,” save in media narratives and GOP talking points.

This is starting to drive me crazy.
.
1) Obama doesn’t have a lot of company among those he might summon to office; practically no one else in positions of power (which he really was not, at the time) spoke out against the war.
.
2) Why are we suddenly thinking that his cabinet officers are going to follow their own way instead of implementing Obama’s intent?
.
3) Obama argued with Petraeus while he was still a candidate, making clear that as President he would be balancing other priorities as well as Iraq, and that he therefore had a different point of view.
.
4) We spent the whole campaign sure that he was emphasizing something too much or too little. He did alright by himself, and by us.
.
5) He made clear in the campaign that he would surround himself and include in his cabinet people who disagreed with him so that he had the full spectrum of ideas and opinions. We seem to be astonished and disappointed that he’s doing what he said he would.

I don’t think that this is nearly as significant a “shift” as it seems. Obama is not a hawk, and if he was, he would have allowed Liebermann more access to foreign policy.
.
Everyone remembers when Hillary was exonerated by us during the primary over her vote for the Iraq war. It was clearly a situation where she put trust in Bush, and that trust was violated.
.
We are not going to be gearing up for any wars, but I do think we are going to be hard nosed when it comes to real threats instead of imagined or manufactured threats.

@jay – I disagree. It’s really irrelevant that the automaker CEOs flew private jets to Capitol Hill, but it may have torpedoed their chances. Bush, Cheney and Powell’s wording sleight of hand ought to have been irrelevant in the runup to war, but they were key. You may be technically correct, but once the public gets the feeling that Iran is on a tractor beam to nuclear weaponry, we have opened the door into a whole new world of public opinion.

Elvis – agreed. The Republicans kept saying that Obama wanted to withdraw troops “immediately,” and that was not his position.

Karen – surely Mr. Swamp understands that Obama would “appear to be leaning toward the center in his candidates to fill key national security posts.”? When did Obama ever suggest otherwise?

I remember my reaction the first time I encountered Obama stickers featuring a peace sign in the “O” I cringed to think that anyone beleived that Obama represented the “Peace Candidate”. I always felt that reprenting the “Non-Insane” candidate would be sufficient improvment to make his candidacy worth supporting. I still feel that way.

Besides, if you want to confine your cabinet picks to those who were right on Iraq, you’ll end up with me and Natalie Maines. Not exactly realistic.

That’s handing way too much power to the IHT’s headline writer.
.
Have a lot of low level nuclear waste is not a bomb. It’s not close to a bomb. It’s fearmongering nonsense.

I do think that one of the results (and therefore probably one of the intents) of Obama encouraging a clean slate with Lieberman was that he signaled to foreign powers that he’s ready to approach them with a clean slate, too. That is, if Obama was going to “punish” domestic “enemies,” why would foreign enemies expect anything less? Obama’s approach seems to be “Let’s start over and see if we can do business.”

Besides, if you want to confine your cabinet picks to those who were right on Iraq, you’ll end up with me and Natalie Maine
.
Me too!! And I know this guy in Lyon as well.

Hogwash. I realize every reporter (including Mr. Swamp) has a requirement to write SOMETHING about SOMEONE, but the continued reporting of clueless speculation by parties outside the Obama bubble about people he MAY have appointed and their supposed positions about the single issue that those uninformed somebodies possess is the ultimate in teh stoopid.

Of course, for anybody in the media to write what they actually know about these things wouldn’t fill up the fish wrappers, so….

KT here–

Kathy: Mr. Swamp’s point is not about Obama. It is about the expectations of many of the activists who supported him.

@jay – It’s front page NYT material, and in hundreds of other outlets. You’d better let them all know it’s not news.

I think that Iran is headed for nuclear capacity. However, we are not going to be fighting a war over it.
.
Neither will Israel.
.
The sabre ratttling that started gas prices in their upward spiral are a lesson in the econimic impact, and attacking a country with 68,000,000 people, a highly varied topography, and a good, if inferior armed forces, is not something one would engage in if one wants to right the problems this country faces.
.
It would be a bit like invading Iraq to fight Al-Queda…

Obama’s remark about being a mirror onto which others project themselves comes to mind here. A lot of people think he is something to the left of what he said he was. Very clearly.
.
Huh.
.
Maybe being a black urban community organizer was a dogwhistle to left. One that he didn’t mean to be blowing, obviously.
.
The Dirty Hippies in the blogosphere didn’t hear it. That’s for sure.

I agree with Elvis — most of DC and the public — was for the war at the time. Did anyone think Obama was going to appoint Kucinich as Sec of State?

I think Obama will lean hawkish on foriegn policy so he can run left on domestic policy.

Somehow I think this event should be part of the equation. Think Progress » Iraqi version of SOFA called a ‘withdrawal accord.’ As is the fact that it was Obama’s election that led to the SOFA agreement because the Iraqis felt the could be trusted to keep his word.

53_3 wins the thread: “It would be a bit like invading Iraq to fight Al-Queda…”

Pourme–
.
It’s not news. Sometimes paper write stuff that isn’t news. It’s stupid fearmongering.
.
If, indeed, Obama does not shift the US from a primarily military approach to foreign policy, you may hear more of this. But it has absolutely no security impact and is no indication of whether Iran will build a bomb. Anymore than yellowcake supplies in wherever that bs came from indicates they’re working on a bomb there.
.
This is eminently solvable through diplomacy. The only value in having a nuke is to deter the US. If the US stops engaging in aggressive wars, then people will stop building one or two nukes.

wvng:
Exactly. That trip to the ME during the campaign was foreign policy coinage he hasn’t spent yet.
.
He will, though, as soon as he’s in office. Note that Maliki abruptly changed his stance after that ME trip, Bush got exactly nothing he wanted with SOFA, and it’s all going to the Iraqi parliment with fairly widespread support. No bases, neether…

The “activists” this article talks about are CLEARLY under the strange impression that Obama is as left as the Republicans wanted everyone to believe. Which just isn’t true.

I also wonder about what constitutes a “typical” Obama supporter. Maybe in California it is a bunch of peaceniks, but in SC my Dem friends were merely hoping for competent, reality based governance. I keep hearing journalists whine that bringing back a lot of Clinton folks isn’t change. Sure it is: change from the last 8 years. Minus Monica, i’d be happy to have the Clinton years back.

I agree with Elvis — most of DC and the public — was for the war at the time.
.
There were at least 13 votes against in the Senate. And that was to the AUMF resolution. By the time March rolled around, and the inspectors had found nothing, there was considerable shifting going on. IF Blix had been allowed to continue, I think it would have been stopped.

teresak–
.
It is true that this, once again, pulls out the “dems in disarray” file and the “the dirty hippies are loose again” story line.

@Jay – We’ll have to disagree on that: the relative progress towards development of a nuclear capability in the middle east is news to me. I want to hear all about it: early, often, in detail.

I myself think Iran will have nukes. However, I also think that the intractability of the problems in the ME between Isreal and it’s neighbors is a myth that is maintained by those who want war.
.
The Likudites and other RW call Iran’s potential nukes an ‘existential’ threat. They are not.
.
The Iranian president aside (who can’t make the decisions needed), Iran does not “hate” anyone enough to attack a well established nuclear power with a few crude weapons.
.
If anyone doubts, remember that Pakistan and India, who purportedly “hated” each other just as badly, were nose to nose 7 years ago.
.
I think Obama is using common sense in that these appoinments are the foriegn policy version of Rahm Emmanual.

KT here–

Teresa: I’m not sure the question is what constitutes a “typical” Obama supporter, so much as it is the idea among some of his supporters that he couldn’t have gotten elected without them. That, for instance, is why so many liberal bloggers have been so furious about the Lieberman deal. They see themselves as a key constituency, and they feel betrayed.

Pourme-
.
First, this isn’t progress. It’s like looking at a sack of flour in the corner and getting concerned about someone throwing a pie at you.
.
We can leave that at agree to disagree with that final snark, or you can hit me one more time.
.
Now, why do you care about progress on nuclear weapons in the Middle East? Is it the nuclear weapons part or the Middle Eastern part of it that is primarily your worry?

“And that was to the AUMF resolution.”
.
Not only that, the wording of the UN “authorization” mentioned use of force, and Bush sold “Old Europe” on the idea of taking it on faith that he would go there only as a last resort.
.
In the car sales, it’s called “bait and switch”…

Elvis:
.
“…so many of these picks…”
.
Did you, perchance, momentarily misplace your “R” key?

@Jay – Both, but especially so since the middle east is such a destabilized part of the world. Are you really arguing against absolute 100% aggression on identifying and tracking progress of nuclear capability? Do you favor one iotal less than full commitment to that goal?

I’m not sure the question is what constitutes a “typical” Obama supporter, so much as it is the idea among some of his supporters that he couldn’t have gotten elected without them. That, for instance, is why so many liberal bloggers have been so furious about the Lieberman deal. They see themselves as a key constituency, and they feel betrayed.
-
To use diarists at DKos as examples of Obama supporters is to look to the crazy fringes of people who basically just want to punish everyone who ever did something bad during the Bush years.

Tom Andrews, national director of Win Without War
Kevin Martin, executive director of the group Peace Action
Sam Husseini of the liberal group Institute for Public Accuracy.
Kelly Dougherty, executive director of the 54-chapter Iraq Veterans Against the War.

.
Well, I’ve heard of IVAW, that’s about it. Mr. Swamp really had to beat the bushes to shape his hypothesis, didn’t he? These groups are largely without influence or national prominence, let alone influential in shaping foreign policy.
.
One must wonder why Mr. Swamp would need to dig so deep into these fringe groups for such a (as it turns out) non-story.
.
As I noted below, I see a very destructive narrative by the gang of 500 taking shape here that has parallels to the sliming of the Clinton Administration starting in 1992. Obviously, the journos in DC don’t have enough to do, god forbid they dig a little into what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are doing under their noses as we speak.

Obama wants to pull out of Iraq, but he wants to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan/Pakistan. He’s not a dove; he’s not a peacenik, like a lot of the activists on the left. He’s tacking to the center-right on this issue, smartly, because the last thing he wants is to be accused of weakness or not keeping America safe.
.
He’s still running wars, so he’s gonna have people on who are for war.

KT: “That, for instance, is why so many liberal bloggers have been so furious about the Lieberman deal. They see themselves as a key constituency, and they feel betrayed.” That was certainly a big part of it. But it was also that the only people actually willing to look at Lieberman’s political behavior critically were dfh bloggers, who exposed a long-term pattern of self-serving betrayal of his party, that there is no reason to believe he will change, and who noted that this pattern of betrayal could be particularly harmful to Dem interests if he retained his HS&GA chairmanship. Few were calling for his ouster from the caucus.

I’m not sure the question is what constitutes a “typical” Obama supporter, so much as it is the idea among some of his supporters that he couldn’t have gotten elected without them. That, for instance, is why so many liberal bloggers have been so furious about the Lieberman deal. They see themselves as a key constituency, and they feel betrayed.
.
It’s a lot trickier than that. First, Lieberman is a special case. He is uniquely despised for more reasons than you can count,and just sends people into irrational screaming rage.
.
The fury coming from the liberal blogosphere is “Here we go again.” It’s gonna be the same people, the same policies, the same weak democrat leadership.
.
This is not betrayal. This is what we expected. Now that doesn’t mean we’re not gonna get all worked up about. But this is not stupid hippies not aware of who was running and who were voting for. Obama was never popular in the blogosphere. Neither was Hillary. And, obviously, given the vitriol that emerged despite the very small differences between the two candidates, flaws were seen in each.
.
But, no, not betrayal. There may have been some sense of that on FISA, because he had promised, but on this stuff? No, this is what we expected. This does require raising a stink, though, even expected. The continued failure of the Democratic party’s elected officials to vote their constituency’s interest will continue to be a central theme of blogospheric commentary–and better democrats will be sought.
.
But I’ll take competence and ability to govern. I wanted transformative. But i didn’t expect it.
.
Ian Welsh wrote about this yesterday:
.
http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/18/the-obama-pony-plan/

kathy
.
This is going to sound funny right now and trust me I know that I will be accused of playing the race card but I don’t care. I speak the truth when I see it and here is just another example. There are those who will never give Obama any credit for getting elected. They will give all the credit to Soros and Pelosi and Reid and Oprah and even McCain and Bush before they ever give Obama any credit. Ever wonder why? Its because some of them simply will refuse to ever actually give props to a black man for how excellent of a campaign he ran and the many brilliant decisions he made all on his own that lead him to the presidency of this country. Thats why after the election all the conservatives that called him a socialist pivoted sharply and said he ran as a Reagan conservative. Get it, he won by running as the white Republican. Never matter the rank hypocrisy of the change in message. They simple COULD NOT say he ran the superior campaign pushing the superior policy stances and ideals. And this is just carryover. The conservatives and many in the MSM have been waiting for the day with great anticipation that they could find a way to criticize Obama for a major decision that they could sell as being the wrong decision. Think back to how many times they tried to tear Obama down for picking Joe Biden as a running mate. Many of those same arguments are being used now. “Joe Biden voted for the war”. “Joe Biden really doesn’t know foreign policy”. “Joe Biden has been a hawk”. What they are really saying is that Obama is too stupid and weak to pick both a a Cabinet that is competent and one that will be loyal to him. Never mind the fact that HRC busted her azz for him stumping like hell during the general. Never mind that after a while Bill stumped like hell for him also and probably helped him bring in florida. Nahhhhhhhh its all been a set up so they can pull a coup in 2012 like Ted Kennedy did againt Jimmy Carter….Wait whats that you said?? Ted Kennedy WASN’T successful in trying to unseat a sitting President Kennedy for the party’s nomination even though Kennedy’s numbers were abysmal at the time?? Well what can we make of that???
.
How many journos criticized Bush when he brought in almost all of his dad’s Cabinet and just moved them around the board a bit? How many journos questioned if having Rumsfield and Powell in the same Cabinet would lead to conflict? And remember George W Bush had already shown himself to be a blithering idiot on the campaign trail. Yet nobody questioned practically any of his decisions but Barack Obama is being torn to shreds for something as simple as leaks which may not be even coming from his transition team. Its funny how every statement against HRC or Sarah Palin was put through the “is that sexism” xray machine but none of this rhetoric against Obama is put in the “is this a bigoted question” machine. For someone like Michelle Bernard to say that world leaders might mistakenly think Hillary Clinton is the president of the united states after an election that was literally followed all over the world begs the question, why would ANYONE every make such a mistake???
.
I for one am sick and tired of this kind sh!t. I am all about holding Obama accountable for the things he does and says ie the Lieberman debacle. But constantly calling into question his judgement over something as simple as actually vetting the woman who would have to be confirmed by congress in order to be named SOS or actually reaffirming his campaign pledges when they are what got him elected is patently ridiculous and begs the question of “why” Obama is under this microscope. (KT I am not directing this at you necessarily) Of course I guess it could be worse. I mean some reputable MSM magazine that has been around forever could devote a whole article to dicussing whether or not Obama is the anti chr…..
.
Nevermind

KT here–

Boy, James, you are looking for evil motives in everyone today, aren’t you? Tom Andrews, a former congressman, has been a leading voice in the anti-war movement. Also, you are hearing the same sentiment from prominent bloggers like David Sirota.

Karen – thanks for the clarification. Don’t mean to be ragging on Mr. Swamp – we’re all fond of him for your sake. The declarative statement threw me off, and I would have been more likely to get the point if, for example he had said “[They think] Obama has eased the rigid timetable he had set for withdrawing troops from Iraq, and [that]he appears to be leaning toward the center in his candidates to fill key national security posts.

By the way since Lieberman has come up yet again I will share my kos diary about he totally sold Harry Reid out yesterday after Reid let him keep his gavel. Poetic justice has rarely been so swift!
.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/20/91650/621/72/664039

KT, since you are still watching, care to comment on the fact that the Sunday shows are still dominated by republicans?

jayackroyd
.
I thought this article on Obama also on firedoglake was though provoking also
.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/11/18/obamas-long-armshort-arm-stiff-of-the-netroots/

Futhermore, Obama has explicitly said, time and time again, he’s only against DUMB wars, which Iraq is, and Afghanistan isn’t. So the idea that all of a sudden he’s doing some bait and switch is patently false. The only fault lies with the people who bought into some stereotype, or didn’t even pay attention in the first place.

Anybody who still supported Obama after the FISA reversal was doing so with eyes wide open. I remember going back and forth with JNS over whether his rhetorical shifts after the primaries constituted a ‘shift to the center’ A good deal of this talk about liberal bloggers is due to their still being viewed through their caricatures. The ‘angry left’ may be disappointed but they’re not stupid.

sgwhite – I’m sure you’re right that some people won’t give Obama credit for what he’s done, whether for reasons of race or whatever. But I think the Democratic Chicken Little Syndrome (as opposed to the currently more virulent Republican Chicken Little Syndrome) is more about thinking a) my group is responsible for getting him elected so he’s beholden to my group and b) omg Democrats always screw it up so Obama’s going to too.
.
As to Lieberman, I know we’re going to continue to disagree about this, but see my comment at 15 above.

KT here–

wvng: I think that bob somerby pretty much put that meme to rest here:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh111908.shtml

I agree with hickory. Obama has been remarkably clear and consistent on his foreign and domestic policy positions, and on the reasons for those positions. Anyone who doesn’t see that hasn’t been paying attention.

KT, thanks. I hadn’t seen that.

KT here–

You guys see Waxman won?

Gotta sign off for a while. If I don’t get my overdue Oct expense report done, Mr Swamp and I will be filing for personal bankruptcy.

Yeah, I saw that yesterday sgw. Bmaz was pretty funny. But if you or he think these are fresh revelations, well, you got p3wnd.

kathy
.
Of course I disagree about Lieberman because it was in point of fact more of the same. If you can’t honestly answer that he deserves the chairmanship then its the epitome of George Bush’s policy of allowing people to phuck up all they want to and never relieve them of their duties. I doubt whatever was done to Lieberman would have ANY effect on foreign leaders but if it had ANY effect it might have been to say you can do and say whatever in the hell you want and NOBODY will do anything to you because we are all about “reconcilliation”. Some how Ill bet thats NOT the message Obama wants to be sending.

sgw & kathy – I agree with kathy. Really quite stunning to see polling on public perceptions of Obama. They clearly show a considerable majority sees him as able and think he will be effective at restoring our country. The haters will continue to be haters, of course.
.
Speaking of haters. Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » They’re Coming To Get Ya!

Waxman won
.
This is where the hopes of the dfh lie. In passing legislation that moves the administration to the left. Health care. Green policies.

jay
.
No, its not that its a fresh revelation, its that somebody actually decided to write about it.

SG: How’s Joe from CT doing? Just kidding. As I think about all this stuff, I’m not going to get too excited about these psuedo cabinet selections until the Obama announces them.
.
He got elected on a campaign he won on his own, and can select anyone he chooses to serve in his cabinet. I want him to be effective in pushing forward the agenda that he spoke about in campaign. He can’t do that until 1/20/2009. He needs to build a team that he can trust and have confidence in. Let him do that.
.
While I think HRC is a great individual contributor, successful attorney, first lady, and Senator, I don’t see her effectively leading an organization. Her ineffectiveness at burning through $250 mm during her botched campaign is the evidence that supports my opinion. She wouldn’t me my first choice; but if Obama wants her so be it.
.
It’s been two weeks and two days since the election, an eye blink in the world of politics. I think Obama is doing the best he can do not to make the same mistakes that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton made regarding their transitions to the presidency( too many outsiders;waiting to make cabinet appointments).
.
He will probably make other mistakes. BFD, I say. He will be a more effective leader than Bush. He needs to get his sea legs, and we need to step back to see the big picture, before making judgments or saying we’ve been betrayed.
.
Let’s see what happens the first 100 days of his presidency, rather than looking at the first 16 of his transition. that’s all.

FINALLY some Democrats actually decided to vote on merits and not cronyism. I wonder how much of that vote had to do with the blow back from Lieberman

KT, that is huge! Thanks for the alert.
.
Speaking of personal financing, I’m sure you are more ethical than this guy. Bank Got Bailout, CEO Got Golden Parachute – ProPublica

I hope we can reserve jusdgement on Pres elect Obama until he gets some things done or not done after taking office. Us bloggers must not fall into the MSM trap of making judgements on any and all issues because they need to fill space or airtime. With all our problems any President will be hard put to satisfy parts of the blogosphere right from the get go.

“Obama has eased the rigid timetable he had set for withdrawing troops from Iraq, and he appears to be leaning toward the center in his candidates to fill key national security posts.”
.
.
I had suspicions, but I didn’t realize that all centrists are war mongers. Centrism is one of those terms that can mean anything now, as long as it is in opposition to “angry” liberalism. It is the most overused term around and I doubt anyone could even begin to define what it means.

Alert – Stevens giving farewell address. sounding remarkably generous and conciliatory

KT – thanks for the daily howler link

Us bloggers must not fall into the MSM trap of making judgements on any and all issues because they need to fill space or airtime.
-
Too late.

Kathy: Is Stevens asking for prison reform in his farewell address, too?

Andy – nope. He summarized 40 years of change in Alaska. Said he held no ill will toward any of his colleagues – thanked each and every one of them for their friendship, that sort of thing.

Harry Reid got up and offered his thanks to Stevens as well. Even thanked him for a hulk tie Stevens gave him. Is that a campaign violation?

Nancy Scola and Tech president does a nice job of summing up the angry blogosphere’s reaction to recent Obama decisions:

They’d Check the “It’s Complicated” Box: “[I]t’s all true,” says Open Left’s Chris Bowers, “Everything you are writing and/or thinking about the progressive blogosphere is correct, almost no matter what you are writing or thinking.” The netroots, writes Bowers, is home to both those who criticize President-elect Barack Obama and those who criticizes those who criticize him — and people who have it out for both. That’s natural, Bowers says, for a space with “several million daily participants and virtually no barrier to participation.” The argument makes a lot of sense, of course, but it potentially undercuts the political power of the netroots (though not its value as a form of media). Organized minorities can have real power. Bending the political process to your will as “vast, decentralized, diverse entity” is far tougher.

Cross-posted.
It is relevant here. It is in moderation in another blog. My apologies if none or both postings are approved – for kids under 106.
—
While we reflect on the appointments as they unfold, it may be important to remember how Obama got the presidency:

1) Obama could have won the elections without a single the Jewish vote – or Florida.

2) Obama did NOT get a majority of the “white” vote – although he got a majority of the vote of the 10 to 30 year olds.

3) Obama could NOT have won without a majority of the vote from the African-Americans.

4) Obama could not have won without a majority of the Latino vote.
So which demography is getting stiffed?
Are there people in USA referred to as native American Indians?
—

Also by now, the Obamatons have probably noted the following:
i) We claim that we are committed to ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict – that drains the US tax-payer’s coffers by billions of dollars every year (while over 30 millions kids of American starve!).
Yet our team is stuffed with those committed to Israel’s supremacy in that conflict – and would, on a Bushite whim, commit our young Americans to die for it – a foreign sovereign.
If Obama were to resolve the conflict between the ‘Bloods’ gang and the ‘Crypts’ gang (of Los Angeles, CA), would he start off by stuffing his negotiating team with known ardent members of the ‘Bloods’ gang?
Who is in charge here?

ii) Lieberman can get away with gleefully stabbing and twisting the knife in the back of flag bearer for two long years and thumbing his nose all the while at the ObamaLand. He did all he could to terrorize us and sabotage our movement. And he exacted his revenge for perceived past grievances.
Now we must NOT go in for retribution. Forget and forgive. And that that is the CHANGE Obamabots want, so we are told. Oh, Obama is so magnanimous!
Are we going to forget and forgive bin Laden and the Al Queda – or are we going in for double standards and politics as usual?

iii) We are told that the total number of contributors in ObamaLand is about 3 million. We are told that the AVERAGE contribution was less than $100 – which accounts for less than half of over $600 million that that the campaign had to work with. Where did the rest of campaign funding come from?
Are there some super Obamatons that are better than others in this “Animal Farm”?
And are some BIG contributors and lobbyists and PACs ACTUALLY influencing the agenda and the appointments working behind the scene? Certainly
* the unlikely appointment of Rahm Emmanuel (who – having grown up in a household of those who promote terror and bombs that ‘kill their own people’ – couldn’t possibly have passed the requirements of the 63-point questionnaire to work in the Obama administration),
* the saga of the holier-than-Leahy Lieberman
and
* the staffing of the security (policy) area with rabidly bellicose persons raises our suspicions.

When my wonderful article come out of moderation, change that phrase to “majority of the vote of the 18 to 30 year olds.”

Pretty much everything I wanted to say on this topic has already been said above. So I’ll just say I’m pretty fatalistic about Capitol Hill at this point: Either they get their sh!t together and solve problems, or they don’t and we all feel the fallout.

I don’t see this as a problem, our hands are tied and we’re moving from being THE military power to A military power….those pirates are always the first to know. Obama has to look tough right off the bat, this isn’t surprising. The world knows we’re weak, but yet we have to project strength somehow…it’s a tightrope.
.
The DFHs were 100% correct about a lot of things, but no one is ever going to admit that in public, being right is often a thankless thing, people shout you down initially but never acknowledge your prescience once it becomes obvious to all. It’s just the way it is.

.
KT–
.
Sorry for my non-response, I had to go into a meeting. I’m not “looking for evil motives” today. As I said, I see an anti-Dem narrative being developed here that needs to be derailed ASAP. And that is your right-wing meme related to Obama The Most Librul Person Ever to Occupy Washington DC. This is extremely dangerous, and I see journo after journo, including you and your husband and your Time.com colleagues, starting to fit your writing into that narrative. It is simply false, and you guys are engaging in blatant revisionism.
.
Mr. Swamp has absolutely no evidence that “Obama is revising his timeline” On the contrary, if you look at any of his *actual* campaign statements, the recently agreed-to SOFA is way ahead of his stated plan. So there’s that. Mr. Swamp made no mention of that, choosing to concentrate his piece on unwarrented criticisms of Obama by people who have exactly no influence in foreign policy, or even domestic policy.
.
And your stinker of a piece was rife with unsubstantiated innuendo of wrongdoing by Bill Clinton, which is a staple of the worst of DC journalism. There isn’t a shred of evidence that those events you mentioned were at all unethical or even unusual for an exPresident. I provided you with evidence to the contrary, which you and your colleagues consistently choose to ignore. That’s not journalism I can believe in.
.
So I am hopeful that this developing malevolent narrative by you and your colleagues can be deflected before it gets out of hand, as happened by 1993, which turned out to be destructive not just for the Clinton Administration, but had long-lasting implications, not in a good way, that we are still dealing with.

James: it should be possible to list all Bill’s speeches before foreign audiences (topic and audience) and to even list the fees paid. That would tell us more than innuendo laden reporting. Itis easier to go with the flow: is he making his own foreign policy? why is he talking to Arabs? what is he telling them in private? He is making millions…feeds the MSM trolls.

Team of enemies/rivals, getting everyone together, bipartisanship, blah blah blah. I really wish he’d put Mac in as Secy of Defense!!!

Yes, as a self-declared lefty who supported Dean and then Obama primarily based on their difference from Kerry and Clinton, respectively, re: Iraq, I am monitoring the vein in my forehead. Lieberman, good god.

But again, I strive for continued denial, that when our buff President elect (thanks Michael for your piffle post), we’ll have a far diff fo-po. That the folks he appoints, from whatever quarter, will in fact espouse/enact those policies which their boss expects of them.

But, yes, as a real lefty, not the estab. centrist swine that typically post here, it is very hard to take. The commitment to Afghan, this war instead of that war, is asinine. If he maintains commitment to the missile defense shield, in particular, you’ll all clearly know that he has no plans to question the fundamentals of the MIC stranglehold on your tax dollars.

So, I’m still trying to force down the kool aid, no matter what it’s laced with, but come Feb. Mar. etc….

bitter –
Clinton has already released a lot of the information. He could frame it all and serve it up on gold–plated platters, but that wouldn’t stop DC journos from writing unsubstantiated innuendo-laden speculation about it. They don’t even bother to ask whether that stuff has already been released, which apparently it has been earlier this year during Hillary Clinton’s primary run.
.
Do other former presidents release lists of all their speeches? I don’t think so. Do spouses of all potential Secretaries of State release lists of all their speeches? I don’t think so. Journos like Karen and her colleagues are resuming the Clinton Rules of political coverage.
.
Clinton Rules, according to a friend:
“..the habit in the media to pursue and often magnify allegations of wrongdoing no matter how disproven, or incredible, in ways that set aside the tenets of the media as a profession and in ways that have no equivalent in media coverage of Republicans.”
.
That’s what we are seeing with Karen’s stinker of a piece.
.

etsumi Says:
” .. The commitment to Afghan, this war instead of that war, is asinine. ..”
Greed.
And we are not told what the end game is. Shall we be in Afghanistan for 5 or even 100 years or more if necessary?
So we wake up in the morning and read that a few more people have been killed in Afghanistan – a land which did not have many people to begin with. Are those dead innocent kids and their mothers (who, according to various estimates, comprise as much as 90% of the casualties in Afghanistan) Al Quieda too?
So, do we call it quits in Afghanistan if we kill off 10% of the population and the (nationalist) insurgency still rages? 50%? 100% – as in My Lai?
[For, we hold this truth to be self-evident that if our USA was invaded - heaven forbid! - we would resist and fight to the very last man, woman and child. It is entirely conceivable that patriotism is not limited to our citizens: Other people may be saying the same about their country.]

Unfolding events have soured the Kool-Aid for me. I had a sinking feeling watching Rahm Emmanuel’s body language at the very first press conference. And after finding more about him – his character and background – makes McCain an angel! (imagine!)
Maybe Obama can manage a team of disagreeable characters and cutthroats – by constantly watching his back for 4 or 8 years. Probably not.
The honeymoon is over – even before the inauguration. Bad omen.
What were we, in ObamaLand, expecting?

And it is said that hell has no fury like an Obamabot scorned – or something like that.

That’s what we are seeing with Karen’s stinker of a piece.
.
Don’t forget, KT didn’t actually write the article

sg–
I should have been more clear. I was referring back to her piece written and published with maximo, posted earlier. She accused me of suspecting “evil motives” based on my criticism of her earlier, stinky piece, and Mr. Swamp’s piece.
.