CNBC reports

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...

Where did he suggest he would go outside D.C. for Secretary of State?

Almost 50% of Democrats voted for Senator Clinton in the Democratic Primaries. I would say she had some support. Polls show she would have beaten McCain by a larger margin than Obama did. I think she is a great choice and one that represents big changes.
 
Superfreak said:
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.
Click to expand...


1. Not appointing people merely to pay them back because they supported them way back win is a refreshing change in Washington, D.C..

2. Running NM makes you qualified to be Secretary of State?

3. It takes courage to appoint who you belive is best for the job even if they are devisive. (again refreshing change)
 
Chapdog said:
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.
Click to expand...

uhhh, no, President Obama is not and will not be President Clinton. How many appointments did Bush take out of his fathers administration? Does that make Bush Sr. as big a failure as his son? NO!
 
Superfreak said:
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'
Click to expand...

He never said change was about going outside of DC for the Secretary of State. There is some expertise involved in a position like that you know.

I completely reject your fantasy of the Clinton motives. I notice that no one, including not one person I have seen in the punditry, has ever even mentioned just what it is that Bill's foundation does with those donations they are so obsessed by. Do you know what the foundation does?

I find it ironic that we hear nothing about his foundation, which does good works especially on HIV and global warming. It's presented as some evil enterprise...almost as if it were the Carlyle/George H Bush Corporation.

However, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is if Bill Clinton had been a republican and W had been a democrat, the Republicans would alreayd have airports named after Clinton. They would never have allowed this. Never.
 
Superfreak said:
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'
Click to expand...



Maybe that is why he did not choose her for VP???
 
Darla said:
He never said change was about going outside of DC for the Secretary of State. There is some expertise involved in a position like that you know.

I completely reject your fantasy of the Clinton motives. I notice that no one, including not one person I have seen in the punditry, has ever even mentioned just what it is that Bill's foundation does with those donations they are so obsessed by. Do you know what the foundation does?

I find it ironic that we hear nothing about his foundation, which does good works especially on HIV and global warming. It's presented as some evil enterprise...almost as if it were the Carlyle/George H Bush Corporation.

However, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is if Bill Clinton had been a republican and W had been a democrat, the Republicans would alreayd have airports named after Clinton. They would never have allowed this. Never.
Click to expand...


Is this some new talking point BS from the left???? Who the hell implied or stated that he said any such thing? All of the sudden you and Alex are both posting the same bullshit to try to justify it?

No one stated that Obama said his Sec State would be from outside the beltway. But he did campaign against the Washington insiders and bringing change. I realize that Sec State has to have experience. Which is why it should have been Richardson. He has been out of DC for the better part of the decade as Gov of NM. He also has more experience in foreign policy than Clinton. He also supported Obama over Clinton.
 
Superfreak said:
Is this some new talking point BS from the left???? Who the hell implied or stated that he said any such thing? All of the sudden you and Alex are both posting the same bullshit to try to justify it?

No one stated that Obama said his Sec State would be from outside the beltway. But he did campaign against the Washington insiders and bringing change. I realize that Sec State has to have experience. Which is why it should have been Richardson. He has been out of DC for the better part of the decade as Gov of NM. He also has more experience in foreign policy than Clinton. He also supported Obama over Clinton.
Click to expand...

Translation: they're both really insiders, but he should have picked Richardson over Clinton, because I like Richardson better, and he should have checked with me.
 
Superfreak said:
Is this some new talking point BS from the left???? Who the hell implied or stated that he said any such thing? All of the sudden you and Alex are both posting the same bullshit to try to justify it?

No one stated that Obama said his Sec State would be from outside the beltway. But he did campaign against the Washington insiders and bringing change. I realize that Sec State has to have experience. Which is why it should have been Richardson. He has been out of DC for the better part of the decade as Gov of NM. He also has more experience in foreign policy than Clinton. He also supported Obama over Clinton.
Click to expand...

Not rewarding cronyism is a refreshing change.
 
Onceler said:
Translation: they're both really insiders, but he should have picked Richardson over Clinton, because I like Richardson better, and he should have checked with me.
Click to expand...

Translation: "I am going to continue being a complete moron and not recognize the difference between the two. I will ignore the fact that Richardson has been out of DC for almost a decade... while Senator Clinton has been entrenched there for the past 16 years. I will ignore the fact that the DC lobbyists don't tend to hit up governors from NM. I will continue to ignore the fact that it is NOT just people from the right that are asking these questions. I will drink my kool-aid. I will essentially continue being the partisan hack that I am."
 
Superfreak said:
Did you ever stop to consider that Sec State is a more powerful position than VP in everything other than succession?

If she was not suitable for VP, no way in hell should she be Sec State.
Click to expand...

Its not a question of suitability, its a question of ability in the job, and Senator Clinton is loved around the world and yealds considerable influence with our allies and foes alike. I belive its a great place to use her as a figurehead for America's deplomacy abroad.
 
Superfreak said:
Translation: "I am going to continue being a complete moron and not recognize the difference between the two. I will ignore the fact that Richardson has been out of DC for almost a decade... while Senator Clinton has been entrenched there for the past 16 years. I will ignore the fact that the DC lobbyists don't tend to hit up governors from NM. I will continue to ignore the fact that it is NOT just people from the right that are asking these questions. I will drink my kool-aid. I will essentially continue being the partisan hack that I am."
Click to expand...


Isn't the fact that Richardson has been out of the foreign policy game for 8 years a mark against him for this position as opposed to a mark in his favor?
 
Superfreak said:
Translation: "I am going to continue being a complete moron and not recognize the difference between the two. I will ignore the fact that Richardson has been out of DC for almost a decade... while Senator Clinton has been entrenched there for the past 16 years. I will ignore the fact that the DC lobbyists don't tend to hit up governors from NM. I will continue to ignore the fact that it is NOT just people from the right that are asking these questions. I will drink my kool-aid. I will essentially continue being the partisan hack that I am."
Click to expand...

I adore these threads where you know you're wrong, but refuse to let go of your position.

Richardson & Clinton can both be easily painted as "Washington Insiders" for anyone stupid enough to claim that by "change" Obama meant "cabinet picks."

I wrote a few posts back the highlights of what he meant by "change," and I can post some text for you, as well, if you'd like.
 
Gov. Bill Richardson is a serious contender for commerce secretary, say sources close to Barack Obama's transition team.
 
Superfreak said:
Is this some new talking point BS from the left???? Who the hell implied or stated that he said any such thing? All of the sudden you and Alex are both posting the same bullshit to try to justify it?

No one stated that Obama said his Sec State would be from outside the beltway. But he did campaign against the Washington insiders and bringing change. I realize that Sec State has to have experience. Which is why it should have been Richardson. He has been out of DC for the better part of the decade as Gov of NM. He also has more experience in foreign policy than Clinton. He also supported Obama over Clinton.
Click to expand...

The idea that Bill Richardson is a washington outsider is ludicrous SF.

If it's true that he's tapped Geithner as the new Treasury Secretary, then that is the one that I am deflated about. that's a big blow to me.

that's a coward move.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top