It seems to me like many of you are advocating exactly what Obama was running AGAINST.

[Bicoastal]

Change, of course, was at the forefront of his campaign. But specifically, Obama ran against the toxic hyper-factionalism that has characterized our politics for the last 8 years. He singled out Bush for his poor leadership and McCain for his inconsistency, and criticized Clinton for "playing the game," but he never EVER singled out all Republicans or all followers of the DLC. If you think he ran as a Liberal Crusader, you've been watching Fox News too much.

Fact is, punishing Lieberman with extreme prejudice or refusing to hire anyone with Clinton administration connections is NOT Change--in fact, it's the exactly the sort of personal, grudge-heavy decisions we would have expected from President John McCain. Remember, he was the one who ran as a combative Maverick--and his Vice President was the one who ran as a "Washington Outsider." (Someone recently tried to tell me that Obama ran as one of those too, and I laughed in their face. A US Senator, running as a "Washington Outsider?" Ridiculous.)

If leniency towards Lieberman, or hiring Clintonites and even Republicans for the cabinet is shocking you, perhaps you're more partisan and less in favor of change than you think you are. Actually, this is Obama living up to his promise of avoiding the divisive partisanship that thrived under Karl Rove and divided our country into opposing factions. Now, it's not enough that OUR faction is now in charge--President Barack Obama has to set an example for every sector of our government, as well as the rest of the country.

And as far as that goes, he's doing great.

[Selatius]

1. I never deluded myself into thinking Obama was a change candidacy.

In reality, he is a return to center-rightism that this country has seen under Clinton. It's not the kind of politics I remember with FDR/Truman or even during the Eisenhower/Kennedy years, but it's a lot better than what Bush's Father, Reagan, or Bush Jr. offered America.

I respectfully disagree with keeping Lieberman. He promised, gave his word, that he would not attack Obama on the campaign trail when he won the nomination. He broke that promise. I grew up in a world where one's word is one's bond. His word is worthless now.

[Jennicut]

20. Actually, Obama's record is more liberal then B.C.'s ever was.

Obama is to the left of Clinton. Slight left, but more left then not. Obama also can change many policies easier then Bill Clinton could. The mood of the country now is different then in 1992. Obama won bigger and the second Bush is way more unpopular then the first.

[keith the dem]

2. I Agree!

Change will only happen with a large group of allies.

There will aways be the 25% of right wing wackos, they will never stop their shrill BS. Obama will get the most accomplished if he can build a coalition that keeps that 25% cornered.

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. I don't expect that every person he appoints is going to be a flaming Liberal.

But I don't think it's too much to ask that the Secretary of State is NOT a PNAC groupie who wants to "obliterate Iran", or that the Attorney General is someone who wants to PROSECUTE the criminal sons of bitches who are destroying this country, NOT continue to cover up their crimes.

That's not liberal, nor is it conservative. It's just common fucking sense.

[Selatius]

6. Obviously, you expected too much.

:sarcasm:

Your standards are "too high."

[mmonk]

4. That's one interpretation.

I don't care for an enemy of the 4th amendment to the Constitution being in charge in the Senate of something called the "Department of Homeland Security".

[lapfog_1]

5. Absolutely.

I want them crushed. Removed from our keen, out of sight, off the radio.

If they were ALL marginalized to being pathetic posters on freep central, it might not be enough.

Basically, for the last 28 years of the way they have lied, mismanaged, mis-governed, committed war crimes and murder, attacked the personal life of the one President in that time who could manage things, I want them all dead.

Obama is a better person than me.

[On the Road]

7. If Obama Can Manage to Get Lieberman's Votes

that's all I care about. Purges are secondary.

If Lieberman were not kept around, it would not be a free ride. Getting extra votes from Republicans is not costless.

Unfortunately, that means that we really won't know the success the move for awhile. I am willing to give the Dems the benefit of the doubt for now.

[FrenchieCat]

8. YOu are making sense.

I thank you for that.

[styersc]

9. Find Bicoastal and storm his home with pitchforks and torches.

There will be no sense tolerated while we are in the middle of a bloodlust rage!!!!!!!!!

[pat_k]

10. Fascist v. Anti-fascist "hyper-factionalism" IS the way to Unite the Nation. . .

The ONLY way to "Unite" the nation is to divide defenders of American Principle from defenders of Fascist Principle and torture.

And Only Impeachment forces Members of Congress declare themselves with an "up or down" vote on the War Criminals who Still Control the massive power of the American Presidency.

The notion that the nation wants to see appeasement and "bipartisanship" with fascists and war criminals is one of the most insidious and destructive of the false memes that pervade on Capital Hill. By refusing impeach and thereby unequivocally reject Bush and his policy of torture, Pelosi and Reid have earned the contempt of the American people. With their impotent complaints they have done nothing but confirm the image that Democrats are spineless wimps who are happy to surrender when duty and commitment to principle calls on them to fight, regardless of risk.

Voters didn't vote for Democrats because they were thrilled with the immoral and cowardly refusal to fight for the things they claim they believe in. It was outrage at what Bush and the followers of bushncheneyism have done to our country that drove Democrats to victory.

Action speaks louder than words. All the hope-mongering in the world has done NOTHING to challenge the public's perception that Democrats are unprincipled cowards. Just as she did in 2006, Nancy "off the table" Pelosi is doing her damndest to sow hopelessness and apathy with "pledges" not to do anything too "extreme" (i.e., meaningful). Every time she "pledges" to reject the demands of the "far left" (i.e., politically active moderates) she is telling people who are the most powerful resource in the Democratic Party's arsenal "Shut up; Go home; and Stop asking us to actually DO Somethimg."

Sure, Americans would Love to see a Congress in which reasonable people on "both sides" worked together to find reasonable solutions to our common problems. But on 11/7/2006 and 11/4/2008 Americans declared that the most essential ingredient of that ideal -- reasonable people on "both sides" -- doesn't exist. Americans aren't idiots. They've made their outrage at Republicans crystal clear. They are unhappy that the ideal doesn't exist, but the last thing they are looking for is "bipartisanship" with the objects their outrage.

[bvar22]

22. Recommending Post #10

:patriot:

[harun]

11. Change means different things for different people

A bunch of clintonites and repukes are not joining his administration. A few tokens of each is hardly a deal breaker for me.

[Forkboy]

12. I'm not really crazy about Obama, but I feel he's the right person for the time we're in.

More so psychologically than anything else. As much as I'd personally love to see a far lefty in office (and as much as I feel the time is quickly approaching to where we'll have to try something truly bolder than a centrist), right now I can't see the country handling such a sharp jerk from the far right to the far left.

We need to ratchet down the tension between the Left and the Right so we can accomplish at least a little bit to try to get things back on track. Trying to ram a left wing agenda through will go over like the Right trying the same thing. A lot of people automatically resent that, no matter who it comes from, and even when it's probably in their own best interest. It's the idea that someone else is deciding what that best interest is for others that irks, not what the best interest actually is. And right now that's where I see the country standing.

Obama has a chance to do some very good things. He's bound to disappoint in some areas (just by his nature and mine), but I do think he has the potential to surprise in some other areas. And as a friend pointed out the other day, the way the Right branded him as such a flaming liberal may be a good thing. If he does get things done, especially on the economy and the war, we can look back and show what that "evil liberal" did, and maybe, just maybe, we can some people to embrace the "L" word again, instead of fleeing from it as we have for the last 20 years.

[Bread and Circus]

13. K & R'd

[bunnies]

14. Very well said. Bravo.

:applause:

[EFerrari]

15. Avoiding "factionalism" is an easy way for a centrist to avoid the left.

Very efficient and pretty much what he was expected to do in any case.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. Yeah, we know that. It was the reason why many of us didn't support him

in the primaries. And some of us are being good sports and giving him a honeymoon. However, when the same things that happened to Clinton start happening to him, we'll be the first to tell him, we told you so.

[OneBlueSky]

17. I just worry that in extending his hand across the aisle, he may lose it . . . n/t

.

[Voice for Peace]

18. kick

thank you :fistbump:

[jillan]

19. WooHoo! Great post!

[graywarrior]

21. The change is going to be in how he leads these people

and makes executive decisions.

[Fran Kubelik]

23. right on

:thumbsup:

[Metric System]

24. Some people weren't listening.