This election was about "change" vs. "experience" - CHANGE won!

[ddeclue]

Whether it was John McCain or Hillary Clinton - their mantra was "experience". Obama's mantra was "change" and "change" won.

For Obama to now go back on the "change" mantra and to try to compromise with "experience" be it with Hillary or John McCain or whoever is to give up his mandate, i.e. to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

It is time for NEW people. We got INTO this hole with "experience", the "experience" of Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld and the DLC'ers and NeoCons who think they know better what we need than we the people do.

You can't fix the problems of Washington by retreading the same tired old people who made the mistakes and dug the holes in the first place.

It is time for NEW people and NEW ideas.

In a country of 300 MILLION people, I have to believe that there is someone NOT named Bush or Clinton who can help us solve our problems. Why has our political system devolved into a dynastic "War of the Roses" between royal families anyways?

President-Elect Obama: Please stay true to your promise for change and don't give into the same old hacks that got us to the brink of disaster.

Thanks,

We The People

[mirrera]

1. K&r

[bunnies]

2. "We the people" ?! Speak for yourself.

Not all of us are so irrational. :eyes:

[ddeclue]

3. I'm speaking for the 63 MILLION who voted for the winner..

so I think I've got reasonable grounds to say "We the People".

sorry if you weren't amongst them.

[LostinVA]

5. hahahahhaha -- your saying taht to Bunnies is so frigging funny!

:rofl:

Bunnies -- see how interesting it is when people see you based SOLELY on who they think yiu support??? INANITY AND INSANITY!!!!

[ddeclue]

10. Your comments don't even make sense.. bunnies??

:shrug:

[bunnies]

22. Christ. You really are lost. My screen name. Look at it.

:banghead:

and on edit: me = bunnies. bunnies = the poster you accused of not supporting Obama. bunnies = Obama supporter since 2007.

Get it now?

[ddeclue]

29. So you supported Obama early on? What does that matter?

It doesn't change the basic point of this election: Change vs. experience.

Doug D.

[LostinVA]

33. Bunnies, that known Hillroid

[FrenchieCat]

8. That's 66 million, and no, you are not talking for all of them....

and you well know that. :eyes:

As for what change is or isn't, please allow the President Elect to take office prior to you and your 66 million folks you are speaking for (excluding me) passing judgment.

Thank you.

[ddeclue]

12. Sorry but NO I DON'T know that...

and this is America pal and I'm free to pass judgement on whomever I like. Get over it.

[JamesA1102]

80. That's not the America that I live in.

Freedom to pass judgement is the America of Rush and O'Reilly want to create. Thank god we all live in the America of Obama that still holds to the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

[Metric System]

18. Not everyone who voted for Obama is anti-Clinton like you.

[ddeclue]

24. Why do I have to be "pro" Clinton?

What's with the cult worship of the Clintons anyways? and Hillary ain't Bill. Don't bother to conflate them I know the difference.

Doug D.

[Metric System]

19. Edit: Dupe

[bunnies]

21. you = clueless.

I was working for Obamas primary campaign back in 2007. Remember what I said about being rational?

Try it.

[ddeclue]

26. So what exactly is your point you STILL haven't made one except maybe to yourself.

Who cares if you worked for Obama in the primaries? What does THAT have to do with anything?

Doug D.

[bunnies]

28. Do you have multiple personality disorder?

YOU to ME:

" I'm speaking for the 63 MILLION who voted for the winner..

so I think I've got reasonable grounds to say "We the People".

sorry if you weren't amongst them. "

edit:sp

[ddeclue]

31. no - why would you make that insinuation anyways?

[LostinVA]

34. Maybe because you WROTE that accusation?

[ddeclue]

39. You really are making NO sense...

what "accusation" are you referring to.

Please stop assuming that everyone here knows all the references you are using. QUOTE IT PLEASE with a citation so that we can all follow along with your internal point of view.

Your replies here have all been rather cryptic because they assume that we all know what the hell you are talking about.

[LostinVA]

41. Are you smoking cornsilk or something????

Bunnies quoted it for you already: you accused her of NOT voting for Obama. There was no "insinuation," just facts in black and white.

I also don't know how a username's whom YOU answered is "cryptic."

[bunnies]

45. Now we know what it must be like to have a conversation...

with Sarah Palin. :rofl: :rofl: OMG!!!

[ddeclue]

48. Yes I DO know what that is like - when people are NOT clear in their responses to me..

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

60. Projection much?

[ddeclue]

70. only astral projection...

:rofl:

[ddeclue]

46. Thank you that is clearer.

So again whether "Bunnies" was an Obama supporter or not still does NOT change the basic validity of my premise that this election was between change and experience and experience lost BOTH at the primary level and the general election. It is NOT appropriate to sell out that mandate of change by compromising with the proponents of experience because the two ideas are mutually exclusive / antithetical.

Doug D.

[LostinVA]

51. But you accused her of not voting for Obama because she didn't agree with you

[ddeclue]

56. OK I stand corrected but that doesn't invalidate my OP.

Her opinion is NOT the consensus opinion that this election was about change vs. experience. It is merely antecdotal.

[LostinVA]

65. Using five-dollar words doesn't make you right -- FAIL

[ddeclue]

69. Using internet slang certainly doesn't make you right... FAIL backatcha...

[bunnies]

42. I was quoting YOU.

And you certainly dont represent our internal point of view. Thats the whole point to begin with. omg.

[ddeclue]

49. Who are YOU to say whom I can represent or not?

It does not matter whether you worked for Obama or not, the consensus is that this election is about change vs. experience. Your attempt to negate that based on your support for Obama is antecdotal at best.

[JamesA1102]

78. I'm one of those 63 Million so please don't speak for me!

And one of the reasons I voted for Obama is that I trust him to do what is best for the country and not what is best for one political party.

[LostinVA]

4. Yeah, but we all know who YOU suppoirted during the Primaries

hehehehehhehe

[ddeclue]

9. Soo what's your point?

I gracefully adopted Obama when Edwards bowed out... I didn't hold out for ever for Hillary even after it was mathematically impossible for her to win.

Again what's your point?

I'm happy that Obama won and I'm not running around insisting that Edwards "gets a seat at the table". Edwards lost, Hillary lost, McCain lost, Richardson lost - first rule of competition is that losers go home.

[BzaDem]

23. Um.. No?

First rule of competition is that losers don't win the position they are fighting for. There is no rule that says they can't be in a different position.

[ddeclue]

32. Clearly you don't follow any kind of sport...

Losers go home.

[bunnies]

14. Amazing isnt it?!

:rofl: Absolutely amazing. I seem to recall working for Obama before the NH primaries. Too bad I wasnt among one of those that voted for him! :spray:

[jobycom]

6. Subtract me from your "we the people" sig. I voted for Obama over McCain

Now I'm going to let him work, and stop whining that my idea of what I voted for isn't exactly his. We got bigger problems in this nation than one tired old has-been.

[ddeclue]

13. So what's your point? Hillary lost in the Primaries so she's still the loser

no matter HOW you choose to parse it.

[jobycom]

30. Exactly what I said. What part did you not understand? And how did Clinton wind up

in your response to my post, so I didn't mention her or talk about her?

[ddeclue]

35. You implied that you were voting against McCain, not for Obama

as though he were not your choice and you did so unwillingly. I inferred you were a Hillary supporter who would rather have had the choice between Hillary and McCain.

Doug D.

[jobycom]

84. I did nothing of the sort. You've got Hillary on the brain.

I said I voted for Obama over McCain, as opposed to any of the "Change" over "experience" type dichotomies in the OP. Nothing about Clinton was implied anywhere in my post. Consider that a Rorschach, and seek help before you hurt someone.

[LostinVA]

36. HRC is in every response -- weird!

[jobycom]

85. Makes you wonder who the perceived enemy is supposed to be.

[Maven]

7. I guess John Kerry's out then also.

Too much experience.

[ddeclue]

15. YES - John Kerry needs to stay in the Senate and become SFRC chair

and I was an early supporter of Kerry in 2003 and I say that unequivocally.

[LostinVA]

38. He;s aloser, though -- he should have went home

[tekisui]

11. We voted for a change in DC, and we got it. The neo-con/repukes are out.

We also got a change in tone in DC. We got a change in that we now have a real leader. We got change in that we will actually be able to get things done FOR the American people.

If you read anything else into Obama's message, that was your own doing.

[ddeclue]

20. Obama (or Edwards or Kucinich)=progressive, Hillary=DLC.

DLC lost.

[LostinVA]

43. Apparently not, since he's surrounding himself with them

[ddeclue]

50. Hence the OP...

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

55. Quit threadstalking me, Cornsilk

[ddeclue]

57. Who is "Cornsilk"? That's not me and hey this is MY OP so if you don't like it that I reply don't

post here.

[LostinVA]

64. What Corny?

[ddeclue]

71. Whatever - so you don't have a REAL rebuttal so you resort to name calling - don't waste everybody's

time...

[cali]

16. another pile of teh stupid.

par for the course.

[Jennicut]

17. Please give me a gun while I shoot myself now.

Obama needs some experienced people and some not so experienced. Did any one watch the Clinton transition or was it just me? Gosh, for being only 17 I sure payed attention to it...too many cronies and not enough experience back then. What new people are we talking about anyways? I'm new, I want a job. I have no experience, but I new so I must be cool.

[BzaDem]

25. Stop pretending your ideas alone represent everyone who voted for Obama, and stop making up your own

definition of change.

At least, I would recommend doing so if you would like to be taken seriously.

[ddeclue]

27. They make more sense than the revisionism of Hillaryites who

are trying to re-write the meaning of this election before the ink is hardly dry.

This election WAS about change vs. experience so I would thank you to kindly stop trying to morph that.

Doug D.

[BzaDem]

37. So what?

Even if you are right (and I am very skeptical of people who try to tell everyone else why they voted), change is an ambiguous concept. For the people who are to the left of Obama (let's say these people are the 21% of those in the U.S. who consider themselves liberal, according to the exit polls), maybe change did mean moving away from the Clinton era. But for the much larger majority of people, I would guess that change simply meant moving away from 8 years of Republican rule. I am not going to say for certain, since I am not going to be like you and pretend that I am all-knowing and that anyone who voted for Obama did so for the reasons I specified. But it is certainly plausible that a vote for Obama was not a vote against Hillary as SOS.

[ddeclue]

40. We made THAT decision when Hillary lost the primaries.

Sorry but she lost - she's out. As I said in my OP, the choice was made and Hillary was rejected back in the primaries. To go back and compromise with the losing mantra now is to sell out the winning one.

Doug D.

[BzaDem]

47. She lost for President of the United States.

And she will not be President of the United States. To assume that rules her out for anything else is just you redefining the rules after the game.

And to assume that Obama's 18+ million primary voters represent the 66+ milion people who voted for him in the GE is just silly (and even if that were true, which it is not, you would probably find that many of Obama's primary voters would be fine with Hillary as SOS).

[ddeclue]

53. I think my argument is ENTIRELY reasonable.

You are the one redefining the rules and offering consolation prices to the loser not I.

Sorry but what you are doing is the classic playoff loser "what if" game: If my team could have gotten past Duke in the Final Four, it could have played Maryland in the national championship. We don't play by those rules. Losers go home be it politics, business or sports.

[LostinVA]

62. Then Kerry would no longer be in the Senate, nor Dean in charge of the DNC

Losers don't go home in sports, they get ready for the next season, or they move into a coaching position, or they retire, etc.

[ddeclue]

75. Not accurate.. John Kerry hasn't lost his Senate Seat has he?

He is entitled to that.

Joe Lieberman on the other hand LOST his primary race in 2006 and then weaseled himself into "independent" status so that he could get re-elected. This is the ultimate example of someone who is a poor sport and can't lose gracefully in politics.

[BzaDem]

66. If you are correct, please point me to the rule in the rulebook that says the loser cannot

be considered for any position. In other words, give me a link to an authoritative source that says this.

And then, explain how John F. Kennedy was able to violate this rule with his VP pick of Johnson.

I am not redefining any rule. The rule is that the winner of the Presidential election is the next President, and that he may pick anyone who he wants to serve in his cabinet (subject to Senate confirmation). I am not offering a "consolation prize" to anyone -- Obama would be doing the offering, and it wouldn't be a "consolation prize." It would be a cabinet appointment that wouldn't please you. That's it.

Your logic isn't getting anywhere.

[ddeclue]

72. I'm saying that Obama CAN pick who he wants but that in

doing so he is giving back his mandate. His mandate was for change. Hillary is NOT change, she is the status quo, she is experience. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. The voters voted for change. If Obama compromises on this point he is betraying his voters.

[Critters2]

44. He was always clear about what he was going to do, from the minute

he promised to "reach across the aisle" in his Iowa victory speech. There were two progressives running. If you didn't vote for Kucinich or Edwards, you've gotten what you asked for. Enjoy!

[ddeclue]

58. Actually I DID vote for Edwards but when he withdrew I became an Obama supporter.

I was an early on Edwards organizer in FL and switched to Obama in Feb, 2008 when Edwards withdrew.

[Life Long Dem]

52. Sorry but change stays. Experience can be added, but change stays

A big reason most voted for is change.

[mollymongold]

54. "change" should be about a change in Bush policy, not simply "oh look, there's some different faces

I've never seen and never heard of before now." get over it.

[ddeclue]

59. It should be about REAL change, not merely Clinton administration III

with more NAFTA's, uncontrolled free trade instead of fair trade, "don't ask don't tell", and triangulating with Republicans.

Doug D.

[BzaDem]

67. Once again -- who are YOU to tell EVERYONE ELSE what "real change" is to them?

Do you even understand the concept of you not being representative of any electorate -- in your definition of "change" or anything else? If you posted your arguments on their own merrits (instead of pretending that everyone else agrees with you and using that as evidence), you would be more credible.

[mollymongold]

68. If you dont think he's going to be a somewhat moderate president I think you're in for a let down

[Tom Rinaldo]

61. It's not exactly as if people embraced "inexperience"...

Either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would have been a major change over George W. Bush or John McCain. Obama represented change more than Clinton, and he won, but don't forget that he just barely beat Hillary Clinton in the primaries. The Democrats were the party of change this year. One could argue that Sarah Palin represaented "Change" more than Joe Biden who has been in the Senate for decades, but you really don't want to make that case do you? We have it all, experience and change, and Barack Obama will be the man making the final calls.

[ddeclue]

74. No Obama is supposed to be a LARGE change. Hillary would be a moderate change.

She wouldn't torture people but she sure had no problems voting for the Iraq War or the PATRIOT Act. I wouldn't argue that he "just barely beat" Hillary. It was a convincing win and Hillary dragged it out long after she could no longer mathematically win so as to make it look like it wasn't.

Neither Sarah Palin NOR Joe Biden as Veep candidates are relevant to this discussion of PRESIDENTIAL candidates.

If you want to discuss Barack Obama vs. Joe Biden when both were Presidential candidates then that would be apples to apples. Joe Biden was a non-starter as the candidate of "experience" and only reinforces my argument that this was an election over change vs. experience. Chris Dodd likewise lost as a candidate of experience as did Governor Richardson.

[Autumn]

63. If you had ever listened to

what he had to say when he was running, you would know he is doing exactly what he said he would do, and he is doing it extremely well. No surprise there.

[ddeclue]

76. I HAVE listened... You apparently haven't. n/t

[Autumn]

82. Evidently not, or you

wouldn't be surprised when he is doing what he said he would do.

[Waiting For Everyman]

73. I agree, but I'll bet the hacks are temporary.

Just to get off the ground fast and get some new people familiar with how things work. Hope so, anyway.

[Grateful for Hope]

77. President-Elect Obama has not even taken office

And, I think you may be forgetting one thing. He will be the President. He will set the tone. He will set what he believes are the best policies.

Everyone he chooses for his cabinet positions will be beholden to him. Just because some of the choices were employed under the Clinton administration does not mean that the Clinton policies will be repeated. I see him as a very strong man who will dominate his subordinates.

This new administration will definitely be the "Obama Administration".

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

79. Experience doesn't mean shit when your judgment sucks!

You're right: this election was not about experience; it was about CHANGE and JUDGMENT!! Neither McCoward nor Hillary embodied these two qualities; therefore, they lost.

[Lilith Velkor]

81. .

[mrigirl]

83. I always thought you needed "experience" to create "change" properly.

That's why Obama and Biden are a perfect match. Barrack has the inspiration and dreams to create it and Biden's got the experience and knowledge on how to get it done. Perfect!