sfam
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-25-08 09:38 PM
Original message |
I am very pleased with Obama's transition & appointments so far - Here's why |
|
Lets face it - Obama said first and foremost he was going to change the tone in Washington. This is exactly what he's doing. The vast majority of the American people long ago became increasingly disgusted with the gridlock idiocy we get out of Washington when real problems arise.
As a solution to this, Obama's actions have signaled both practicality and dialogue between the Executive and Legislative branch as the way to move forward to solve our very real problems. This is exactly what we need, and so far, he's appointed a group of folks who can get us there.
For those concerned that progressive ideas are going to get the shaft, let me ask you something - aren't progressive ideas practical? Said another way, does anyone in America think the current health care system makes sense or is sustainable? If Obama forces a real dialogue on issues surrounding health care, aren't we confident that our approach actually makes the most practical sense? If an administration seen by everyone as practically oriented tackles health care and comes up with a plan very similar to what Obama wanted, don't you think its chances of passing will be far higher than had Obama appointed more progressive folks, but who could be painted as being ideological first, and thus more adversarial?
Regarding Iraq, if Obama has already had a meeting of the minds with Gates and has his agreement that a drawdown is necessary, won't it be that much more credible having Gates deliver this message to Congress?
Again, its clear to me that Obama is going for the creation of a 70%+ majority in getting his mandate through congress. I think this is a terrific approach, one which will lead to reasonably good laws and real benefit to the American people. If a side benefit of nominating practically oriented folk is we get less gridlock, I'm all for it.
That said, I still want prosecutions of illegal conduct from the last administration, and I'm still holding out for this...
|
MadMaddie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-25-08 09:40 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I want prosecutions also.
|
TexasObserver
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-25-08 09:45 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Obama is so much smarter than his critics it's not even funny. |
|
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 09:46 PM by TexasObserver
And thank God he's not listening to his detractors here. Those folks couldn't run a lemonade stand, for God's sake!
|
Laelth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-25-08 09:52 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I am pleased as well, but for different (additional) reasons. |
|
Your analysis is sound. k&r The United States is a LIBERAL Country.:dem: -Laelth
|
wisteria
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-25-08 09:53 PM
Response to Original message |
|
This is an appeasement cabinet that will get nothing done. I don't like most of the picks simply because it smacks of Clinton and projects a lack of boldness and vision. It he is so smart why are most of his choices so dumb.
|
sfam
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-25-08 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. His picks have resulted in the first 3 days of positive stock market growth since August... |
|
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 09:56 PM by sfam
You may disagree with some of them, but I think its a really far cry to call them dumb. Misguided from your perspective? Fine, but I just can't see stupidity in any of these picks.
|
kerry-is-my-prez
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-25-08 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. Why should anyone have voted for Obama over Clinton? |
|
I think Clinton might have been a bit more left-leanng w/her appointments because she would have had to cater a bit more to the left because she didn't already have us in the bag....
|
sfam
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-25-08 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. Clinton would have been adversarial. She wanted to "fight." Obama made clear that... |
|
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 10:07 PM by sfam
He was going for a change of tone in Washington. He is putting together an administration to do just that. The idea that he is exactly like Hillary because he is taking the Clinton economic team seems a stretch. And again, what a great team it was! But in terms of policy differences, they just didn't have much daylight.
|
Colobo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-25-08 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
10. I'm confident Obama will prove you wrong. |
mvd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-25-08 09:57 PM
Response to Original message |
6. In that press conference on 11/24, it sure was nice.. |
|
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 10:06 PM by mvd
to see a President-elect with the right priorities for a change. Most of the appointments have not disturbed me; some Clinton people being in the cabinet makes sense.
|
pnwmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-25-08 10:08 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Jimmy Carter brought in mostly inexperienced, non-Washington people, |
|
and it made it that much harder for him to succeed. Obama's choices, by and large, have been excellent.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 04:56 AM
Response to Original message |