CNBC reports

Cancel 2016.2

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
Hillary Clinton will be Obama nominee for Sec State.

great to see all the CHANGE from Obama.... someone should start a pool on just how many Clintonistas will be on Obamamaniacs cabinet.
 
Superfreak said:
Hillary Clinton will be Obama nominee for Sec State.

great to see all the CHANGE from Obama.... someone should start a pool on just how many Clintonistas will be on Obamamaniacs cabinet.
Click to expand...


How isn't it change? And who the fuck is he supposed to appoint that has experience in the executive branch you eliminate all of the Clintonistas from consideration?
 
Dungheap said:
How isn't it change? And who the fuck is he supposed to appoint that has experience in the executive branch you eliminate all of the Clintonistas from consideration?
Click to expand...

Dung, all joking aside you are obviously politically knowledgable (sp) you should get a job with the administration. You know your sh*t. You sell the story also to people to the left of Obama as well as the right.
 
Last edited:
I love the idiocy from the right about CHANGE. It's like...oh, Obama's wearing a suit today; Bush wore suits, too...some CHANGE!

It would be stupid for Obama to appoint all Washington outsiders to important posts in his admin. That ain't the change he was talking about, dumbo's...
 
cawacko said:
Dung, all joking aside you are obviously politically knowledgable (sp) you should get a job with the administration. You know you sh*t. You sell the story also to people to the left of Obama as well as the right.
Click to expand...


I appreciate the compliment but I'm afraid the application process would weed me out:

The questionnaire includes 63 requests for personal and professional records, some covering applicants’ spouses and grown children as well, that are forcing job-seekers to rummage from basements to attics, in shoe boxes, diaries and computer archives to document both their achievements and missteps.

Only the smallest details are excluded; traffic tickets carrying fines of less than $50 need not be reported, the application says. Applicants are asked whether they or anyone in their family owns a gun. They must include any e-mail that might embarrass the president-elect, along with any blog posts and links to their Facebook pages.

The application also asks applicants to “please list all aliases or ‘handles’ you have used to communicate on the Internet.”
Click to expand...


Yikes. No thank you.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/politics/13apply.html
 
They just cant figure out that this is the Change America voted for , Its a change from Bushy and the republican party.

Imagine Bill and Hill double teaming world leaders who already will be so glad to see Bush ditched.

Its is the change the entire world wanted.

Go view the tape of Bush at the G20 if you dont understand this.
 
Holder for attorney general.. 0 change and extremely disappointing
Clinton for Sec of State.. I wouldn't have voted for obama if i knew hed do that.

Other possibles:
Gates, Kerry, Lugar

such change
 
So change means you need all new people who have never been in government before?

Just a false attack on Obama.

Change means away from the BUSH FAILED PRESIDENCY. Were Obama to choose Condi Rice as Sec of State, that would be a failure to change. Senator Clinton as Sec. of State... That is real change.
 
They are definitally working hard to avoid embarrassing mistakes vetting their people. That questionaire would eliminate me for sure. (mainly because I wouldn't answer some of the questions)
 
Jarod said:
So change means you need all new people who have never been in government before?

Just a false attack on Obama.

Change means away from the BUSH FAILED PRESIDENCY. Were Obama to choose Condi Rice as Sec of State, that would be a failure to change. Senator Clinton as Sec. of State... That is real change.
Click to expand...

so you have zero problem with who hes selecting so far?
 
Chapdog said:
so you have zero problem with who hes selecting so far?
Click to expand...

No, I likely would have perfered Richardson as Sec. of State over Clinton, but I am happy with Clinton. I am very happy with his choices thus far.

It represents a HUGE change from the past 8 years.
 
Apparently if you can find one commonality between the people Obama is nominating and anyone that previously held a similar position it is no change. Hence, the fact that Holder was a drug warrior while the US Attorney for D.C. means he is "zero" change notwithstanding the fact that he has spoken out forcefully against the abuses of the Bush Administration in the pursuit of the war on terror and their ridiculously expansive views on Executive power.

And no, I'm not generally pleased with all of the leaked cabinet appointments, but that doesn't mean it isn't "change." Further, the one area that needs the least amount of change is the State Department. There are very good people there now, they just have zero power and have been marginalized by the Bush Administration's love of the Pentagon and the unchecked authority of the Office of the Vice President.
 
Jarod said:
So change means you need all new people who have never been in government before?

Just a false attack on Obama.

Change means away from the BUSH FAILED PRESIDENCY. Were Obama to choose Condi Rice as Sec of State, that would be a failure to change. Senator Clinton as Sec. of State... That is real change.
Click to expand...

No that's not it. Hillary would have won if 'change' was just a Democrat instead of Bush. Obama talked about 'change' from the way Washington worked and that meant the way it worked under Bush and Clinton.
 
cawacko said:
No that's not it. Hillary would have won if 'change' was just a Democrat instead of Bush. Obama talked about 'change' from the way Washington worked and that meant the way it worked under Bush and Clinton.
Click to expand...

thats what i thought 2. Definitely a difference in how the independents and the moderate dems view this then the rank and file donkeys.
 
Obama talked about a change in tone, and a post-partisan Washington. He sets that tone; you can say he "sets" it by who he picks, but that's idiotic. He's running the show at the White House.

The idea that he was supposed to go in & appoint nothing but outsiders to his Cabinet to effect "change" is absolutely inane. It's not worth debating.
 
Dungheap said:
How isn't it change? And who the fuck is he supposed to appoint that has experience in the executive branch you eliminate all of the Clintonistas from consideration?
Click to expand...

This entire clinton derangement thing is driving me crazy.

She's going to be excellent.
 
Onceler said:
I love the idiocy from the right about CHANGE. It's like...oh, Obama's wearing a suit today; Bush wore suits, too...some CHANGE!

It would be stupid for Obama to appoint all Washington outsiders to important posts in his admin. That ain't the change he was talking about, dumbo's...
Click to expand...

You know what would be real change? If obama appointed only Wal-mart greeters to cabinet positions!

I demand it!
 
Onceler said:
I love the idiocy from the right about CHANGE. It's like...oh, Obama's wearing a suit today; Bush wore suits, too...some CHANGE!

It would be stupid for Obama to appoint all Washington outsiders to important posts in his admin. That ain't the change he was talking about, dumbo's...
Click to expand...

I love the idiocy from the left... oh well when Obama was talking about "change" during the primaries against Hillary and talking about change from the insiders, he really meant 'if elected I will select Hillary and as many of her Washington cronies as I can for my cabinet'

He could have gone outside of DC like he suggested he would. By no means do I think that should include every cabinet post, but thus far he has not selected ONE outsider. He could have just as easily picked Richardson for Sec State. He would have been a better choice and as governor of NM, he has been outside of DC for almost a decade.

But no, we get more of the same type of bullshit politicians that he supposedly was running against.

That said, I understand that doesn't mean his policies will be the same as Bush or anything close to that. But I could have sworn he was supposedly going to change from the 'insiders'. I guess he never said or suggested anything like that in the primaries against Hillary.
 
Superfreak said:
I love the idiocy from the left... oh well when Obama was talking about "change" during the primaries against Hillary and talking about change from the insiders, he really meant 'if elected I will select Hillary and as many of her Washington cronies as I can for my cabinet'

He could have gone outside of DC like he suggested he would. By no means do I think that should include every cabinet post, but thus far he has not selected ONE outsider. He could have just as easily picked Richardson for Sec State. He would have been a better choice and as governor of NM, he has been outside of DC for almost a decade.

But no, we get more of the same type of bullshit politicians that he supposedly was running against.

That said, I understand that doesn't mean his policies will be the same as Bush or anything close to that. But I could have sworn he was supposedly going to change from the 'insiders'. I guess he never said or suggested anything like that in the primaries against Hillary.
Click to expand...


Richardson fails the Clintonista test too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top