Yes, it's CHANGE indeed

[changemonger]

Even a complete return to a Clinton administration will be a HUGE change from the last 8 years. That's how we should look at it. Obama isn't the Washington outsider who was going to fill his cabinet with Washington outsiders and "mavericks" : He is pretty much a Washington INSIDER,just like everyone else in the senate or anyone who has ever had a chance to become president.

Barack Obama will indeed govern like Clinton and with the same people and that's not necessarily a bad thing. He might be more successful tho, because of the majorities he has in both the senate and the House and more importantly because of his more active base.

[DesertFlower]

1. i agree.

the clinton years were pretty good.

[leftofthedial]

2. The only substantive change I see is in the area of competence

The philosophy seems set to remain decidedly corporate, free-market, supply side and anti-worker.

[changemonger]

10. Right , and it was expected.

That " philosophy" isn't set by the president or anyone running for that office. Even if Dennis Kucinich became a president, he wouldn't be able to change that.

[EstimatedProphet]

12. "Anti-worker"?

Pffft.

[leftofthedial]

23. you have evidence to the contrary?

or was that just a fart?

[EstimatedProphet]

24. You are the one that should provide the evidence, not me.

[leftofthedial]

25. here are a few:

supported the supply-side Wall Street bailout, which did nothing to help working Americans, but enriched corporations and tacked another trillion bucks on to the debt the workers and their progeny owe to the Chinese.

Chose the credit-card-company-deregulator-in-chief (the worst of the predatory lenders) as VP.

Chose the champion of the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005" (a total screwing of working Americans) as VP.

Has chosen IMF, Federal Reserve, Wall Street "free-market" ideologues for his teams most powerful economic positions. Their track records show unwavering support for supply-side corporatism and zero support for workers.

Proposes a health care plan that would forever institutionalize the financial sector (insurance companies) as owners of the US health care system. Wolves? Here are the keys to the henhouse. Now play nice.

Obama is a self-described "free market" capitalist. Capitalists are the natural enemies of workers. The mythological "free market" exists only to provide ideological cover for those who serve the interests of the few at the top of the capitalist pyramid--interests that are antithetical to the interests of workers.

[EstimatedProphet]

36. This isn't even worth dismissing

Every single thing you put there is IN YOUR OPINION anti-worker. That doesn't make it anti-worker in reality. Anti-worker means forced labor camps, indentured servitude, slavery, serfdom, debtor's prisons. Do you really believe that Obama is promoting an agenda like that?

[leftofthedial]

37. I'm not claiming they plan genocide against workers.

How about pay cuts? How about steadily decreasing median income? How about busting unions? How about losses of benefits? How about losses of pensions? How about increasing tax burdens and decreasing services?

Those aren't "anti" enough for you?

Talk about not worth dismissing.

[denem]

3. Maverick is a word I don't want to hear again, especially

in the context of a 'Team of Mavericks'.

[changemonger]

7. LOL . I thought twice before writing it

... but I couldn't think of a better replacement.

[scheming daemons]

4. He's Bubba 2.0..... new and improved, without the bimbo eruptions to derail his presidency

[TexasObserver]

5. Yes, Some don't seem to get that "change" from the past 8 years means ...

.. means a return to some of the good things about the Clinton administration.

This asinine notion that "change" isn't "change" unless all the faces are new is the kind of juvenile thinking one expects from children, not adults.

[UnrepentantUnitarian]

6. Mainly, to me, it's a change of attitude.

Pres-elect Obama has a "situational awareness" that even Bill Clinton would find it hard to match. He thinks ahead of the game in so many ways. To me that's a near-total change from Bush, or from McCain. No curiosity about the world and the dynamics at play within it.

[tabbycat31]

8. I agree

and the economy WAS strong during the Clinton years too. I just wish I was old enough to reap the benefits. I'll gladly take the 90s again, but not as a teenager.

[changemonger]

11. If we get back to the economy we had under Clinton,

Obama would probably win Texas and Idaho in the 2012 election .

[Frank Cannon]

21. It would pretty much be a miracle

I certainly wouldn't complain about it.

[changemonger]

34. And that pretty much will measure...

Obama's success or lack thereof.
People don't understand it's all about the economy and because of that, we NEED Obama's presidency to be like a Clinton presidency.

[darkism]

9. k&r for common sense. n/t

[cali]

13. put down the crystal ball.

I doubt very much that Obama will be Clinton 2. They are very different people and his closest advisors are most certainly not Clintonians.

[changemonger]

15. The crystal ball is called common sense

they of course are different people , but do they share the same philosophy and are they surrounded by the same people ? YES AND YES.

[cali]

18. no, it's really not common sense

and no their philosophies are not carbon copies, though they may be similar. Furthermore, different temperments and sensibilities are the prisms through which philosophy is filtered. Furthermore, they are not surrounded by the same people. Obama's two closest advisors, Jarrett and Axelrod have never been Clintonians. And more and more people will not be. Just because someone's served in the Clinton administration doesn't de facto mean that they were a close Clinton advisor either.

We'll see who's right, but one thing to keep in mind is that circumstances have a lot to do with forging a president, and the circumstances that Obama is facing are very different from those that Clinton faced.

[Avalux]

14. WTF? It's not the PEOPLE, it's the POLICIES.

Obama will not govern like Clinton; it is not a complete return to the Clinton Adminstration. he will have his own ideas and formulate his own policies. He will draw from the experience and expertise of those around him but will not defer to all things Clinton.

[changemonger]

16. Yeah, and both the people and the policies are "Clintonesque"

...which is a very good thing and quite frankly the best we could realistically hope for.

[rucky]

17. Crisis mode: I care about the ends more than the means

and if Former Clinton Staffers = Peace & Prosperity, then I'm all for it.

[changemonger]

33. Exactly. n.t

n.t

[JuniperLea]

19. Obama is his own man

Direction from the top means everything. There is no reason to believe this is going to be a Clintonesque administration at all and frankly, I'm getting very tired of the meme.

[changemonger]

28. Why does this worry you ?

I thought we democrats were proud of the Clinton administration as we should be. It'd be great for Obama to have the same success Clinton had , at least with the economy.

[JuniperLea]

35. It doesn't worry me in the least

One way or the other.

[phleshdef]

20. More successful because of majorities, the huge base AND he seems to keep Mr. Weiner tucked away.

[LWolf]

22. That's not the change we need.

ANY Democrat would have achieved the same change; putting a Democrat in the oval office. It's not just a change in the party label, but some authentic change in policy that we need. Change for the POSITIVE. Going back to Clintonian politics is not the change that people voted for.

In my opinion.

[changemonger]

26. Going back to Clintonian politics is positive change

The Clinton presidency wasn't a failed one, it was actually a very good one. Any Democrat who would have won , would have taken a leaf out of Clintons book. That's what Obama is doing.

[LWolf]

27. It's not change, period.

And while Clinton was obviously better than bush, he isn't known as the best republican president the democrats ever elected for nothing.

NAFTA. If you can't see anything else, perhaps you can see what a disaster that has been.

Obama will probably be a pretty good republican president, too.

Clintonian politics, though, aren't "change." They are simply rewinding the clock.

[Shiver]

29. Sometimes you can only go forward by first going back.

[LWolf]

38. Perhaps. If so, I don't think it's true in this case. nt

[Shiver]

30. Edit: dupe

[changemonger]

31. Well, you won't ever get THAT change

We sometimes wish we could "rewind the clock". If Obama does that and makes us forget about the last 8 years, he would have succeeded in my opinion.

[Shiver]

32. We shouldn't forget the last eight years

They need to be remembered and serve as a warning.

[LWolf]

39. Rewinding the clock is not "change."

It's going back to what we've already done, where we've already been.

[ozone_man]

40. The Clinton 90's bubble economy is what led us here.

Rubineconomics, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and a hugely leveraged stock market bubble, which led to the war bubble, the real estate bubble, and now the bail out bubble.

We have to get beyond bubble economics, because it's not sustainable, let alone ethical. Eventually, the price will be paid, if not by us, by the next generation, who will have inherited a gutted country with massive debt.

Obama is saying that he must massively deficit spend now, but that he intends to be fiscally responsible later. But that is the nature of our problem. We have to be fiscally responsible now. We have to take on corporate welfare, the military industrial complex, and mindless consumerism driven by bloodsucking credit card companies.

If he wanted to help the consumer, he could start by passing legislation that puts a cap on credit card rates and mortgage rates. But. he appointed Biden as VP who has consistently voted to oppose credit card limits, so that is not a comforting sign.

Going back to Clinton economics is not change, it's a return to the source of the problem. Corporate welfare and Rubinomics is not change, it's the problem.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11252008/postopinion/editorials/bounce_these_bozo_bankers_140652.htm