Sorry folks! Obama is not going to be another Jimmy Carter

[NJmaverick]

Jimmy Carter was another great man with great ideas. Unfortunately he didn't put a team in place that could make those ideas a reality. Obama has learned from that mistake. While risking so many DUers whining and throwing hissy fits, Obama is putting together an experienced team. A team with proven track records of getting things done. Obama is not going to be a president that is all talk and no action. He will be a man of action and results. That may upset many of you that live in fantasy land, but it should be a great comfort to those of us that understand the harsh realities of politics.
Bringing in many of the former Clinton team is a great idea. After all, where exactly does Obama find good experienced people to fill his White House? Either Bush administration? Maybe the Reagan team?

I think all the DUers that a pissing and moaning about Obama's selections and the heavy Clinton influence, need a reality check.

[Jennicut]

1. JImmy Carter and Bill Clinton both had many inexperienced people

And B.C.'s transition was not a good one, I remember clearly that is was messy.

[Skwmom]

4. Well some of the people in the Clinton admin were responsible for getting us in the ditch.

[11 Bravo]

36. Seek help. Drugs, electro-shock. behavior mod, surgery, anything!

But you are spiraling out of control. I just Googled "pathological obsession" and it linked to your DU profile.
Barack Obama is the President of the United States, and Bill and Hillary Clinton are still widely respected among Democrats. Can you now come to terms with that?

[blm]

51. And Ronnie and GHWB are respected among GOPs - because truth gets buried.

And who did the most to HELP keep the truth buried? I doubt many Dem voters are fully aware of the truth. They hear peace and prosperity and Monica and think that's all that happened in the 90s.

[bunnies]

2. Precisely. K&R. nt

[meow mix]

3. oh f-u guys.. all we want is a little representation like everyone else is getting

you rightys are freaking out because we leftys complain about not getting included whatsoever.. fu, fu, fu

[bunnies]

5. Not all of us who support Obama are "rightys"...

Oh... and thanks for the "fuck you". :eyes:

[Jennicut]

6. Yeah, I consider myslef a liberal to moderate. A righty is a Right winger Rethug

Which is what my parents are. To them I am a socialist. I guess it is all relative.

[bunnies]

11. Funny thing is that I'm not even close to "moderate" normally.

In fact, a couple of years ago I started calling myself a liberaltarian. In my perfect world... Obama would be WAY farther left than he is. But, I took the time to learn about Obama and knew full well what I was voting for.

I think the thing that some are lacking is logic and pragmatism. They have an unreal expectation about what can be done, and a refusal to see Obama for what he is. A moderate.

Its like - they tried to twist him into whatever they wanted him to be and now they're pissed at him because he isnt 'that'. And they didnt vote for him believing what he said he would do... they voted believing he'd do whatever 'they' wanted.

Its kinda like when people get married and one person suddenly expects the other to change. Its frustrating and unrealistic. *sigh*

[Jennicut]

13. Yup. I actually went to Obama's website and read his policy ideas and liked them

but they were hardly radical. Sigh. I dislike uninformed people.

[NJmaverick]

18. Obama never claimed to be a far left liberal

[iamthebandfanman]

20. nope

but he was the lefts only hope.

i mean come on?
between him and the DLC clintons...
then him and mccain...


liberals are almost always forced to pick between who will atleast give their ideas a chance and some right wing extremist who makes people fear them...

its kinda a silly decision to have to make.

ill never be like nader tho. ill never give up on this party. no matter who, or what, wishes to keep my views outa reach and out of sight.

honestly, im glad if obama governs from the middle... i think thats the intention of the presidency in all honesty...
but that doesnt mean progressives and liberals shouldnt get some of their agenda filled.


i mean, to me its two ends of extremes...

you have republicans who give EVERYTHING to the fundies..
and you have democrats who are SCARED to give ANYTHING to far left liberals...

theres got to be some balance.

liberals worked hard for this party and deserve just a lil kickback for it.
i dont think anyone would be niave enough to expect every little issue of the liberal agenda to be fulfilled... and i dont think thats what we are asking for.

people on DU can be overly arrogant, egotistical, and quick to burn people at the stake for saying ANYTHING they dont absolutely agree with.

people really need to relax around here.

[AuntPatsy]

53. So many that are whining about Obama clearly have not taken the time to read his site...

[ellacott]

7. How do you know you won't be included?

He's just beginning to put his team together. This is what I don't understand about all the handwringing. You are not even giving him a chance. You can't make a conclusion on what his cabinet is going to look like based on the few names that have been linked.

[NJmaverick]

10. Wow! That is the first time in my life I have ever been called a "righty"

I guess if you live long enough you will eventually be called everything. Seems like only yesterday I had someone call me a "godless conservative hating liberal".... oh wait, that was yesterday.

[cali]

19. nah, I'm a progressive, and I just hate stupid.

and man, are a lot of you faux progressives, ignorant as pig shit.

[musicblind]

21. Once again, we leave it to Cali to hit the nail right on the head

and say aloud what all of us are thinking.

[Danger Mouse]

35. Cali, I love you.

:loveya: :D

[JuniperLea]

39. And there's a lot to hate around here today...

:banghead:

Faux progressives is absolutely correct. Too much cheese and whine.

:hi:

[Odin2005]

42. Cali, once again, is DA MAN!!!

:fistbump:

[BzaDem]

26. Usually, someone will say "fu, fu, fu" when they know the OP is right and have nothing substantive

to say.

Your response is a perfect example.

[blm]

8. Carter was a conservative Dem then who surrounded himself with other conservative Dems.

That was why Kennedy made a primary run against him.

Poppy Bush was planting the seeds of his fascist agenda right under Carter's nose.

[Art_from_Ark]

45. You mean that the Carter who pushed for higher fuel efficiency standards,

who promoted the development of alternate and clean energy sources and led by example when it came to energy conservation, who succeeded in getting two adversaries in the Middle East to stop fighting each other, who set aside huge tracts of land to save them from exploitation from short-sighted financial interests, who made human rights an important part of his foreign policy, who had a rather lenient enforcement policy when it came to marijuana laws, whose family worked tirelessly, albeit unsuccessfully, to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed, and who seemed genuinely interested in the general welfare of the American people

was a conservative Democrat?

Wow. Learn something new every day, I guess.

[blm]

47. The Carter who feted Lt. Calley and didn't notice the fascist moves GHWBush was orchestrating with

Jackson Stephens, Dubai and Pakistan with BCCI...or GHWBush and Jackson Stephens' fascist moves to set up WalMart with Chinese financiers and industrialists.

Sorry, but, just as Carter did show progressive policies at TIMES, he went into office as a conservative Democrat and pretty much governed as one - though, by today's standards, the conservative Dems of back then would look pretty moderate.

[apnu]

9. Of course, Obama even said so.

People who thought that Obama is something other than he specifically said clearly weren't listening to Obama, and overlaid their own political view upon Obama. These people are now waking up to reality and they don't like what they see. Personally, they only have themselves to blame.

[Clio the Leo]

12. lol, cant you just hear him saying......

"now guys, you know if we go with _______, a lot of the DUers will throw hissy fits. Is this a risk we're willing to make?"

funny funny

[NJmaverick]

14. lol! that is so funny!

[Honeycombe8]

15. I don't think anyone is arguing against his bringing in SOME Clintonites. Just MOST of his people..

coming from the Clintons.

That sends a message. A strong message. "This is the Clinton Administration, redux. With me at the helm. A co-administration, if you will. Me, and the Clintons."

Obama praised Reagan for some of his ideas. He praised JFK and FDR, too. He did not praise Bill Clinton for his ideas.

Yes, some of the best and most experienced politicians and staffers were/are Clintonites. But MOST of his people being Clintonites is strange.

That's the crux of the matter. You are not doing the questioners any justice by implying they're whining about a handful of Clintonites. They are not. They are questioning why most of the people are coming from the Clintons...including the Clintons themselves. It's a valid question. Doesn't mean the people are bad or won't do good jobs. But it's a valid question. It's pretty strange.

What if MOST of who Bush had chosen had come from the Reagan administration? Including Nancy Reagan? Many did come from the Reagan administration, but not most. And the Reagans themselves were not included, too. That would've been pretty strange.

[scheming daemons]

23. Two of the five cabinet positions that have been floated are Clintonites. Three are not.

That's not "most".

[MessiahRp]

54. Cabinet positions are not the only Administration positions he has announced

So far it's DLC/Corporate Dems running a shut out on liberals and it's not even close.

This is why people are upset and rightly so. We just had 8 years of running so hard to the right that to run to the left is to drag the political spectrum to the center. DLCers would have been Republicans pre-Reagan. The true center requires us to run to the left because of how far to the right the Republicans and the Media have shifted us.

Rp

[OneBlueSky]

16. I wonder if Obama realizes just how big the challenge before him actually is . . .

we're entering unprecedented times, when every human and natural system on the planet is starting to fail . . . the crises we face as a nation and as a planet require nothing less than an FDR type of effort -- only much, much grander in scale -- and I'm wondering if Obama actually realizes that yet . . . if he doesn't, he will soon . . .

[NJmaverick]

17. He definately realizes this

why do you think he is creating a cabinet that is capable of hitting the ground running and getting things done?

[Odin2005]

43. Oh, I'm sure he does. Obama's comming to resembe FDR more and more.

The parallels are almost unnerving, hence the FDR quote in my sig line referring to "Mysterious cycles in human events"...

[knixphan]

22. agreed.

And any progressive who has a conservative dem as a rep, should be prepared to push him/her, or get behind a progressive primary challenger for '10.

Congress is the real fight for the progressive agenda.

[kennetha]

24. Don't be sorry; be glad!

We need this democratic president to kick tail, taken no prisoners, and transform this country. This is a HUGE test of our ideas, a HUGE opportunity, but one also fraught with peril.

If we succeed in reorienting the country in these perilous times, we will be the governing party for the next 40 or so years. If we fail, a new governing coalition will have to emerge.

Where it would emerge from is very hard to anticipate. The Republican party is intellectually bankrupt and is need of a radical restructuring. We are currently the only living, breathing, unspent political force around. If we fail, though, we will be as badly off as the Republicans are now.

So we cannot fail! We must not fail!

[knixphan]

25. From The Field:

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/importance-having-eric-holders-back

"No Obama administration staffers are more guaranteed to be free of Clintonesque manipulation or fantasy than those like Craig and Holder that at great risk to their careers bucked the Clinton machine back when the polls suggested Senator Clinton's "inevitable" nomination to the presidency. They're battle-tested, inoculated and have zero illusions about wanting to relive the failed Clinton presidency. They've learned decisively from its mistakes in a depth and detail that most will never have the chance to do."

[NJmaverick]

27. which part defined the failure of the Clinton presidency?

the 8 years of economic prosperity or the 8 years of relative peace and security?

[4lbs]

40. I guess to some it "failed" because he was investigated and impeached.

It doesn't to me. However, I would venture to assume that's how Clinton-haters would define "failed".

[knixphan]

38. I interpret 'failed' as:

'for those who see it as failed'

[mmonk]

28. Sorry but I don't see the connection.

[The Backlash Cometh]

29. Well, Scooter Libby was on Clinton's team, wasn't he?

[NJmaverick]

30. As far as I know, no he wasn't

[The Backlash Cometh]

32. I yield to yours and Gregory House's greater knowledge.

[blm]

59. In the sense that Bill was on Poppy Bush's team and Scooter was a legal fixer on IranContra

and BCCI matters. You didn't think Bill was telling the truth that he pardoned Marc Rich because excessive charges were made against him for tax evasion, do you? Rich was a named figure in both IranContra and BCCI - Bill didn't want Democrats realizing he was pardoning another IranContra operative for Poppy Bush - wouldn't go over well when Hillary ran her primary race.

[treestar]

31. Obama learns from other people's experience

And all the Clinton appointee will have learned from their own. It cannot be Clinton redux, just Obama's way with experienced people to carry it out. People do not stay the exact same way they were in the 90s after having lived through the last 8 years, either.

[NJmaverick]

44. Good point

they are all at least 8 years wiser.

[progressoid]

33. I hope not!

:hide:

[bvar22]

34. "A team with proven track records of getting things done"

I think it is fair to ask,
"What kinds of things did they get done?"

*They were great at getting more deregulation and less oversight for our Corporate CEOs.

*They were great at getting more power concentrated at the very Global Corporate top.

*They were great helping "GOOD" American Union Jobs disappear overseas.

*They were great at joining with the Republicans in attacking The Poor.

*They were great at putting Minorities and The Poor in jail.

*They were great at supporting Right Wing Oligarchs and Death Squads in Colombia.

*They were great at outsourcing our Governmental responsibilities (Private "For Profit" Prisons etc).

You go ahead and party for now. :party:

I'll keep watching and asking questions.
No charge.

[NJmaverick]

50. They accomplished the things President Clinton asked them to do

and they will do the same for President Obama.

By the way, could you be any less specific in all your charges against the Clinton administration? Or would that sort of undermine your position?

[bvar22]

55. If you need "specifics", you haven't been paying attention.

For your homework, Google:

*NAFTA, GATT(WTO)

*MFN trade status for China

*Telecommunications Act 1996

*Repeal of Glass Steagall

*The "Privatization" of our Prison System

*Welfare Reform

*the "Drug War" (1992 - 2000) , and check prison populations between 1992 - 2000

*Death Squads and Black Ops in Colombia (1992 - 2000)

*Child Deaths in Iraq (1992 - 2000)


More importantly, It is what Clinton DIDN'T do that is his worst legacy.
He did almost nothing to roll back the worst Anti-LABOR insults of the Reagan Administration.
He did next to nothing to return the USA to a sane Energy/Environmental policy.
(Bill SHOULD have put the Solar Panels back on the White House roof his first day in office!)

That should keep you busy.....or not.

Go ahead and party for a while. :party:
I'll be watching and asking questions.

[Ozma]

37. Whoever thought he WOULD be? Plus this is 32 years later....

There was a totally different Republican screw up in 1974, no war, no major deficits, just the beginnings of terrorism in 1978...in Iran.. effecting the USA. And, of course the oil dependencies... that's the ONLY thing similar... but we had no computers, no 24/7 news, (no in-fighting in the Democratic ranks once Carter was elected??? Oh wait, there was Ted Kennedy).

Then there was such a dynamic man Ronald Reagan, who was such a putz, and such a pre-neocon/fascist!

[suston96]

41. Not Jimmy Carter - no Camp David Accords for Obama - what a flop that was.............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords

[NJmaverick]

49. Unfortunately that was his only accomplishment of note

[suston96]

52. Yeah, his Human Rights and the SALT II Treaty were minor things.....sure they were.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

[Zhade]

46. The problem is, the things they're known for getting done? Way too conservative.

NT!

[NJmaverick]

48. They are going to do what PRESIDENT Obama tells them to do

that is something people keep forgetting. Just as they did what President Clinton told them to do, they are going to do the same for Obama.

[bvar22]

56. The same Obama that voted FOR....

*Immunity for the Telecoms?

*The no strings attached "Bailout" of the Wall Street Barons?

....now surrounding himself with Clinton era Deregulators, Privatizers and Free Traders?

Nope.
Nothing to be concerned about here.

Hey! We WON! Everybody PARTY!!!

[NJmaverick]

58. If you don't like Obama, then you are out of luck

I don't share you bleak view of Obama. I think he will do great things for the Countr and by extension the party.

[Deep13]

57. He's going to be another Barack Obama...

...except I don't think we have ever had one of those before.