So Rachel Maddow has just destroyed leon panetta as a hypocrite. She showed how everything he is

[still_one]

criticizing the President for policies he supported when he was part of that administration.

Rachel takes it one step further, she exposes how panetta is associated a probable Hillary Clinton campaign manager.

She discusses how all these anti-Obama books coming out by panetta and clinton have expanded with Democrats to avoid and even dis president Obama.

My initial impression of this is if Democrats continue to pursue this approach they will lose

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. She's almost as good as Jon Stewart at contrasting current statements with past ones. Don't folks..

realize there's audio & videotape, and eventually they'll get tripped up?

[still_one]

2. she is the best analyst out there, and she does her homework. No surprise she is a Rhodes Scholar

[KamaAina]

26. She is? What's her sport?

[Cleita]

27. Basketball? It would be a natural for her. eom

[Voice for Peace]

3. thanks for the post, I just watched the segment. made me want to cry.

My initial impression of this is if Democrats continue to pursue this approach they will lose

agree. it is shameful.

[still_one]

10. It is ironic that Bernie Sanders who is technically not even a Democrat, is more respectful, and

has more class then any of those democrats so willing to turn their back, especially on the good things Obama has done.

It reminds me of those democrats that voted for the IWR

[Euphoria]

16. The soul of the Dem party is now

exhibited by the work and words of this democratic socialist Independent.

[still_one]

18. very true

[Voice for Peace]

25. He has the same quality that I admire most in Obama.

Integrity, guided by an active conscience.

[davidpdx]

4. Yep that is the hillarous part

Penetta is and always has been a Clintonite. He has criticize Obama for his policies and then a year from now praise Hillary Clinton for even harsher stances.

[2banon]

31. Let's be more clear and precise: Clinton is a Neo-Con just like Panetta.

That Empress has NO CLOTHES.

[spanone]

5. panetta has shown his true colors. he's a con man.

[still_one]

11. True. If Hillary runs, and she continues this approach, she will lose some base support, and she

should not be so confident that she has the election, yet alone the nomination tied up that is alright for her to alienate part of the Democrats.

It should be noted that President Obama won by pretty good margins in both elections, and if she and other Democrats believe it is sound policy to dis President Obama thinking it will elevate them, they are going to have major issues when the elections comes about

[Voice for Peace]

28. Con man says it well. This quality comes through well in Rachel's piece.

Parasitic Shapeshifter is another good description of him.

He is gone from the Obama administration because he never
believed the things he said on Obama's behalf, apparently.
But at least he seemed intelligent, thoughtful, careful, as he
acted in that role.

Now he seems pompous, self-satisfied, and disingenuous.

This leads me to believe he doesn't actually have ideas or
personality of his own, but assumes the qualities of the
people he's attached to, as he feeds off of their power.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

6. All the DLC Dems are chomping at the bit to shove all of the Obama Liberals out the door.

[MelungeonWoman]

9. Obama Liberals.

Heh.

[mr_liberal]

7. Very smart politics by Panetta.

He needs to distance himself form Obama, then when he endorses Hillary it'll mean something.

Obama's probably in on it and gave the ok.

[Cha]

8. "Obama's probably in on it and gave the ok." Uh, NO.

[still_one]

15. Really? Since Rachel pointed out that he was all for those policies, and now has turned 180 degrees

I am not sure that is smart politics. Besides demonstrating his hypocrisy, if he believes slamming Obama is going to sit will with those that have supported Obama, he is taking a big risk.

Bernie Sanders doesn't treat the President like this. He critisizes policies he disagrees with, and acknowledges policies he agrees with.

There is no way Obama is "in on this"

This is the same macho mindset that lost Hillary the nomination. Not smart politics to alienate the Obama branch of the Democratic party, just as it isn't smart politics to alienate the liberal branch of the Democratic party.

[malaise]

21. Except that he is already employed by the man who is likely to be Hillary's campaign

manager - this is most unfortunate timing.

[City Lights]

12. This whole thing makes me sick. nt

[Triana]

13. Video

[LawDeeDah]

14. I feel an urge for a big stick:

[Calista241]

17. Criticizing the President while still serving as a part of his administration

Is a big no no. I can't hold what he said while serving against him because he had to toe his bosses line. When the President makes a decision, you either support it and carry it out to your best ability or you quit. There is no "I'll do this but complain about it" option.

Doesn't make what Panetta has done right, but that particular criticism by Rachel doesn't fly with me.

[still_one]

19. Sorry, but in the example of ground troops in Iraq, if he was really against such a profound

decision at the time he should have quit. Obviously, it could not have bothered him much when Obama was withdrawing the troops out of Iraq. What does it say about someone who has strong convictions about something, and doesn't quit?

Cyrus Vance resigned from the Carter administration when Carter decided to send a rescue mission into Iran.

The point of Rachel was that this was pure political opportunism, with a strong implication that it was on behalf of Hillary. For some reason they believe that expressing that the current President is weak will somehow further their political agenda will be a big mistake.

Many did the same thing when they voted for the IWR, because they thought it would further their political agenda.

[Calista241]

20. Vance was philosophically opposed to what Carter attempted

And therefore he quit. There is a big difference between philosophical opposition and simple disagreement.

And the Vance / Carter incident happened nearly 40 years ago. You don't think a President has made a bad decision that his cabinet disagreed with in 40 years? None of them quit.

Everybody is all upset that Panetta is jabbering on about the President. Shit like this happens to every President.

It's bad timing that this book came out right before the midterms, and Panetta probably wants to sell a lot of books, so he's made it rather controversial. If he got up there and said "Obama is the best President ever, so suck it," nobody would have bought that shit.

[still_one]

23. Panetta is a coward. This is an active president and Panetta knows he will not have to confront an

opposing view when he does these book tours, that are sometimes desiguised as news programs.

It is funny that it was Bernie Sanders, who isn't a Democrat, to point out the historical perspective of how this problem actually came about, due to the bush/cheney foreign policy, that these wonderful critics of Obama supported at the time.

Obama is weak, but not for the reason Panetta, Hillary, and the others are saying. He is weak because he included the Clintons and the republicans in his administration, and they despise him.

Obama makes mistakes, but he is essentially a good person. I cannot say the same thing for his critics

[dsc]

22. actually she showed that he was a team player while in the administration

His job was to support the President, even if he felt the President was wrong, and he did that. The problem with Panetta's criticism isn't hypocrisy it is that it is for the most part wrong headed. Panetta is correct on one issue, that of not arguing his position forcibly in the early part of his administration but his foreign policy criticism is wrong.

[still_one]

24. Actualy Penetta knows perfectly well that with an active president, and the way the interviews are

Last edited Tue Oct 14, 2014, 05:23 PM - Edit history (1)

setup, no one is going to refute his statements, not because he is wrong, but because the media doesn't want to. Why bring up the actual reason for the problems which would focus on bush/cheney policies, but instead blame it all on Obama?

The facts are that these so-called "experts" who supported the IWR, which resulted in the fall of Saddam, destabilizing of the middle east, along with over a million people killed, and multi-millions of dollars spent, is completely ignored.

It is infurating that so much airtime is given to people whose policies were shown to be a failure without any question. I have no doubt that much of the reason is because of the MSMs incompetence and culpability in pushing us into the Iraq invasion, based on a lie, even though there were a few voices that were ignored

[Voice for Peace]

29. +++

I'm much appreciating your posts here.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. Yet another wonderful choice for his jobs.

I think the President chose exactly one Republican who was worth hiring - LaHood. He shouldn't have bothered to hire on all of the other Republicans he put into various offices.

[fadedrose]

32. I strongly disagree

"Regular" people I talk to, neighbors or an occasional shopper, republicans, folks in the doctors' office, - nobody likes her. I don't know where the polls have been taken or how they are worded. Here in DU HC would never win a poll from what I've seen. But I don't read every post so I may be wrong.

[benthereb4]

33. I realized this a couple of weeks ago...

and told a coworker when the book came out. Panetta trash talking the President and then I had seen some past article of him with HC looking mighty cozy. I mention to my coworker that those two were in cahoots. I love Rachel bc she backs up what she reports with sound research. Right now I hope HC doesn't run, bc to prove she is tough, she will put us in another war.

[CreekDog]

34. please don't let Panetta run Hillary's campaign

i don't think that man could even convince Mark Penn to vote for her.