CNBC reports

[Onceler]

The Dems have basically been in the political wilderness for most of the past 8 years. Prior to that, Clinton was in the White House for 8 years. Ergo, many qualified people who classify themselves as "Democrats" will possibly be associated with those years in some way.

I never took Obama's talk about change to mean "all new people." See, I actually listened to what he actually said on the topic. I guess that's what separates me from someone who is, say, really stupid.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Richardson fails the Clintonista test too.

It isn't just that people have had a relationship with the Clintons in the past or worked for the Clintons in the past. Richardson passes the test because he...

1) Supported Obama over Clinton in the primaries

2) Has been outside of DC running NM for the better part of a decade

3) He is not the divisive figure that Hillary is

Hillary is a horrid choice for Sec State.

 

[Kamala Trump]

The Dems have basically been in the political wilderness for most of the past 8 years. Prior to that, Clinton was in the White House for 8 years. Ergo, many qualified people who classify themselves as "Democrats" will possibly be associated with those years in some way.

I never took Obama's talk about change to mean "all new people." See, I actually listened to what he actually said on the topic. I guess that's what separates me from someone who is, say, really stupid.

Were you listening when he talked about not using washington insiders?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The Dems have basically been in the political wilderness for most of the past 8 years. Prior to that, Clinton was in the White House for 8 years. Ergo, many qualified people who classify themselves as "Democrats" will possibly be associated with those years in some way.

I never took Obama's talk about change to mean "all new people." See, I actually listened to what he actually said on the topic. I guess that's what separates me from someone who is, say, really stupid.

No one is suggesting that it be "all new people"... but SOME new people would be CHANGE. Nominating a bunch of life long DC politicians is NOT change.

 

[Onceler]

It isn't just that people have had a relationship with the Clintons in the past or worked for the Clintons in the past. Richardson passes the test because he...

1) Supported Obama over Clinton in the primaries

2) Has been outside of DC running NM for the better part of a decade

3) He is not the divisive figure that Hillary is

Hillary is a horrid choice for Sec State.

I have my own issues with Hillary, but by many accounts, she has been an excellent Senator in that regard; Republicans expressed surprise & praise for how she worked with them, and she wasn't the divisive maniac that many expected.

To say "horrid" for the choice is pretty dramatic, and hackish.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_11027423

When the Denver post brings up the same point, you know it is not just righties that are questioning these appointments.

 

[Onceler]

No one is suggesting that it be "all new people"... but SOME new people would be CHANGE. Nominating a bunch of life long DC politicians is NOT change.

The change he was talking about was more embodied in how he handled Lieberman. To apply this scrutiny to every Cabinet choice is, again, just hackish.

 

[Chapdog]

well i guess we will get a chance to see the Clinton era crew during a period of time where this is not a big golden age of technology. should answer the question of if Clinton was a system president or was really that good.

 

[klaatu]

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.

Actually, I liked the idea of Richardson too.. or Sam Nunn.

Obama's idea of change was supposed to bring Fresh New Idea's to Washington ... so the question is... how is bringing the Clintonites back a fresh new change?

Im ok with Hillary. Daschle is a douchebag. I hope he brings Hagel into the admnistration ..

 

[klaatu]

well i guess we will get a chance to see the Clinton era crew during a period of time where this is not a big golden age of technology. should answer the question of if Clinton was a system president or was really that good.

Im with you on this... great point!

 

[Chapdog]

hmm this is good: Gen. Jim Jones being considered for national security advisor

 

[Bonestorm]

Actually, I liked the idea of Richardson too.. or Sam Nunn.

Obama's idea of change was supposed to bring Fresh New Idea's to Washington ... so the question is... how is bringing the Clintonites back a fresh new change?

Im ok with Hillary. Daschle is a douchebag. I hope he brings Hagel into the admnistration ..

Again, Richardson is a Clintonite. Sam Nunn served in the Senate for 24 years and currently works for several DC think tanks. Hagel has been in the Senate for 12 years and has lived and worked in the Washington area for 20 years prior to moving back to Nebraska (he also worked as a congressional staffer in the 70s and for a few years for the Reagan administration)

When you get right down to it, virtually every possible name that pops up can be characterized as either a Clintonite or a D.C. insider if you really want to. The only difference appears to be that people that are disliked (Clinton, Daschle) are not enough "change" whereas people that are liked with similar backgrounds (Hagel, Richardson, Nunn) are a "fresh new change."

 

[Cancel7]

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.

sorry, whether you and chap like it or not, the Clintons are two of the most talented people in government. In my opinion, the left has made a huge miscalculation in allowing the right wing noise machine to tear them down. And in fact, joining in with them at times. Bill clinton was a successful two term president. Look at the country when he left - look at it after two terms of bush.

And the left allowed the right wing to set the narrative on this. It was a huge mistake, they will do it again with obama, and the left better wake the fuck up.

All of that given, Hillary is a hugely talented woman and is going to make one hell of a secretary of state.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The change he was talking about was more embodied in how he handled Lieberman. To apply this scrutiny to every Cabinet choice is, again, just hackish.

Bullshit. It is hardly 'hackish' when you have people on the left and right asking these same questions.

He wasn't JUST talking about playing nicer with the other side or with dissenters. He was constantly harping on 'not being an insider' and talking about how Hillary etc.. were "washington insiders" and part of the same old same old.

Again, he still has many posts to fill, so maybe he brings in others from outside the beltway that can bring fresh new ideas to DC. But so far he is not living up to his hype.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

sorry, whether you and chap like it or not, the Clintons are two of the most talented people in government. In my opinion, the left has made a huge miscalculation in allowing the right wing noise machine to tear them down. And in fact, joining in with them at times. Bill clinton was a successful two term president. Look at the country when he left - look at it after two terms of bush.

And the left allowed the right wing to set the narrative on this. It was a huge mistake, they will do it again with obama, and the left better wake the fuck up.

All of that given, Hillary is a hugely talented woman and is going to make one hell of a secretary of state.

Clinton was a good President.... ESPECIALLY compared to Bush. I am not arguing that. But he also benefitted from a time of great economic prosperity brought upon this country due to the tech, biothech, internet and telecom booms. When you look at the country when he left, we were sliding into a recession and just learning about all the fraud that occured at the Worldcoms, Qwest, Global Crossings and Enrons of the world. This too was not his fault.... but he did not leave on some glorious high. In the greatest era of prosperity... he still raised our nations debt every fiscal year he was in office. (along with the Rep Congress)

Hillary is an intelligent person, no question. But she is not the embodiment of change that we were led to believe Obama wanted. She is the ultimate insider and seems more consumed with promoting herself than doing good for this country. (a common affliction among politicians to be sure)

I'll grant you that the Clintons are two of the most powerful people in DC, but I'll only give you 'talented' if by 'talented' you mean 'able to manipulate and corrupt any system to better advance their personal agendas'

 

[Onceler]

Bullshit. It is hardly 'hackish' when you have people on the left and right asking these same questions.

He wasn't JUST talking about playing nicer with the other side or with dissenters. He was constantly harping on 'not being an insider' and talking about how Hillary etc.. were "washington insiders" and part of the same old same old.

Again, he still has many posts to fill, so maybe he brings in others from outside the beltway that can bring fresh new ideas to DC. But so far he is not living up to his hype.

I just looked up some old speeches of his. Change had nothing to do with personnel. It was about lobbyists rigging the game w/ cash, abandonment of diplomacy in favor of tough talk and ill-conceived military ventures, a lack of accountability in Washington, pitting different constituencies against each other, as well as focusing on what divides us (the Rovian strategy), and a generally partisan tone in Washington - the 51% philosophy. He also talked about specific changes from Bush's policies on everything from Iraq to the economy to health care.

I see nothing that he has done so far to show that those words were empty; in fact, his handling of Lieberman was a good confirmation of what he really meant. All of this BS about him just bringing back the Clinton admin is just partisan noise.

 

[Jarod]

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.

1. Hillary almost did win.

2. Senator Clinton has never been Secretary of State in the past.

3. Senator Clinton has never held an official post in the executive branch.

 

[Jarod]

This entire clinton derangement thing is driving me crazy.

She's going to be excellent.

Yup, I expect so, and she will likely be president in 2016.

 

[Jarod]

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

I demand it!

He did promise Change, you are right, maybe he should consider a few lettercarriers and car mechanics to add to the lineup!

 

[cawacko]

1. Hillary almost did win.

2. Senator Clinton has never been Secretary of State in the past.

3. Senator Clinton has never held an official post in the executive branch.

do you actually believe what you just wrote? (not factually but the meaning)