|
User loginNavigationAbout TennViewsUpcoming events
State Blogs
At-Large Blogs
|
Obama Says He's "Not an Operating Officer"
Quotes from the article linked below. I'm posting this because, in a nutshell, it's a major reason why I'm supporting Clinton. I wonder if Obama has any idea what's waiting for him should he win this election. 1.) In addition to hiring literally thousands of people to staff the Office of the President, he's going to have to staff up an Office of Presidential Personnel. This is going to comprise a major portion of his personal staff, and is going to work with the White House Counsel's Office to find jobs for literally thousands of the folks who are appointed by the President to run the bureaucracy. This is going to be difficult because 2.) He's going to have to decide between literally thousands of people who helped on his campaign, all of whom are going to use every iota of political clout they have to get these jobs, and he'll wind up needing to choose between people who volunteered for his campaign vs. people who gave gigantic piles of money to his effort. He'll also probably want to set up several outreach offices as in Clinton 1 (women's issues, issues of faith, LBGT) but since he's one person, he's going to have to delegate the day to day management and operation of these offices. Does he have any idea who he's going to pick to manage this operation? I'd like to hear some nuts and bolts about it. How will he decide who calls the shots, out of many groups that will probably have a legitimate claim on issues of influence? 3.) I wonder if he has any idea how entrenched is the Federal bureaucracy. Does he not realize that the vast, vast majority of Federal employees are career staff people, and that in a great many instances it's nearly impossible to fire these people, even in the case of major malfeasance? What on earth does he think he's going to use to motivate them to follow this much-vaunted vision of his? 4.) Does he really think what could well be a new Republican-controlled Congress (unless Dems can pick up a bunch of Southern senate seats) is going to help him achieve this vision? How is he going to motivate that portion of the bureaucracy? What's he going to do when the GOP uses its power to trump up a bunch of charges against him, issues a flurry of subpoenas to his staff, shutting down their day to day operations and causing a bunch of them to file personal bankruptcy over their $500-per-hour lawyer fees? (As an aside: What's he going to do when the GOP cranks up its "I met Harold at the Playboy Party" apparatus, and runs a bunch of race-baiting ads against him in October? His advisors ain't seen nothing if they think a little bit of talk about LBJ and "fairy tale" is the worst it's going to get before the general election.) I don't have an abiding personal hatred of Obama, by any means. However, I am really worried that, unless he gets serious about doing his homework on what this job actually entails, he could well wind up at best a one-term kind of guy, and at worst (well, there's no worse than George Bush, but he could wind up not nearly as effectual as his supporters imagine.)
|
SearchVolunteer Blogs websites:
Power Blogs websites:
Media Blogs websites:
Democratic Party websites:
State Government websites:
U.S. Government websites:U.S. Congress websites:
Newspapers websites: |
A new Republican-controlled Congress? On what planet?
Even if that did happen, do you really think the Republicans would be all gung-ho to work with Hillary? If anything, Obama could sway at least a few of them, whereas Hillary wouldn't be able to do anything.
I don't think so, "Sway votes", why hasn't he been doing it to stop Iraq? Why was it so hard to get a Minimum wage raise and other issues the Dems submitted through - where was his swaying the vote then?
Sorry, I beg to differ, Obama's rendition is to cross the aisle not "sway" anyone, Obama's rendition is for concession to bring together in the meme of "oh well, we got something done" whether it is for the better or not.
I do not want a candidate that is bi-partisan and full of concesions that make the Republicans full of glee at the naivete of someone who thinks that they can bring it all together, while they are laughing all the way through as they get their way time and time again.
As far as Clinton there isn't truly much difference with her position and Obama's. According to Jonathan Alter (Newsweek)Obama started by being an oranizer for Clinton in get the vote out for IL. On the Charlie Rose show Alter went on to say that there is much about Obama that many do not know, that he is more like Clinton than any other.
Alter who has known Obama for 8 years, called Obama the "third way candidate" that he is one like the "new democrats".
Do you know about the "third way"? Do you know about the "New Democrats"? Do you know about the connection to the DLC for both "third way" and "new democrats"? If not maybe you should.
The "third way" was great for Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, and I think we all know Hillary is a DLC leader now. The New Democrats are a spin off from the DLC.
SO you tell me the difference in voting for Clinton or Obama? To me there is none, or not enough of one to matter.
IF you want a true leader, the leader that has had "Change" apart of his platfrom from the begining before the others even announced or came out with their first plan. The true candidate that will fight for you and me. John Edwards.
Check out Clinton and Clintonism on the DLC page click here
About the "Third Way" and the DLC click here
The DLC's page on "Third Way"
The US House and the New Democrat Coalition click here
The DLC page for Idea of the Week: Reviving Trade Policy
Clinton and Blair Click here
John Edwards is the candidate of HOPE, I will vote for JRE 2008! Join me for real change, not money or media hype, but real change for America.
At some point y'all won't be able to blame the DLC for all of your problems. What are you going to do then? Blame the Jews?
You may try and read tea leaves about my post, but I didn't blame the DLC for all the Democratic woes.
And again, there is no Y'all, I posted my own views.
I do strongly dislike the BLUE DOGS, which TN has many. They ride the middle-Centrist views and almost border on being Republicans running on the Democratic ticket just to get elected, all along hoping their electorate isn't going to figure it out, knowing that most voters never check their local candidate on views and issues. Many things play into this historical happening. One is the hand shakes in the local cafes and the good ole person idea that "I know him, met him in the cafe, great guy", and accepts the politician on face value. Another is that it sometimes is flat out hard to reach some Rep. and Senators to ask question about issues. If you do get the chance you get some jargon that doesn't even address your question. And, they may tell you one thing and do another. The list goes on. I will say that this happening doesn't just to apply to the democratic politicians but republicans also.
I will also say that this type of behavior happening is a critical reason why we all need to be diligent about our own research on the issues and candidate and not take anything for "face value". It is critical to keep pushing the candidates for the real truth to their views and intentions when representing us all.
So in closing, everyone get busy, keep searching, keep researching, keep attending any townhall you can. Never give up.
By the way what you think of that Clinton/Obama tussel in NV for extending voting for casinos that Bill Clinton says it gives unfair advantage to the voters of the unions that support Obama. Let's see how this plays out. According to Bill, it also gives the culinary workes votes 5 times the votes in the normal locations. Hummmm - fair politics? By Obama's campaign? Hummmm - interesting for sure to see where this tussel goes!
For the complete article click here - there more!
Oh and by the way - there are more reasons, but I'll save them for later.
John Edwards is the candidate of HOPE, I will vote for JRE 2008! Join me for real change, not money or media hype, but real change for America.
You know, I like Edwards fine (his speeches about veterans sleeping on grates have nearly moved me to tears more than once). That said, it's not fair to say that since Obama hasn't had Presidential-level influence as Senator that he wouldn't have it as, well, President.
Who knows. He might be able to touch some Republican hearts with all these speeches he makes about vision and whatever else. I would hazard, though, that what is more likely is what I said earlier: Republicans already have hired hundreds of staff people to dig up dirt on everything in Obama's background, and they're already working on some "corrupt druggie" narrative that (should he win the nomination) will rear its head about September and which they'll try to keep around into the foreseeable future.
It's a shame, but these are not nice people we're talking about.
I think this line you posted is a Clinton attack on Obama, if you have a link to Edwards saying this please, I would like to see it.
And, no doubt about it, the republicans like him enough to cross the line to get "their safest democrat in office", the one that is willing to Cross the aisle to meet many of their concessions. It is known by all Edwards is the least of their wished upon candidate, as he would be the one to hold the line against their advancements on the middle and lower income level citizens.
Also, Obama's campaign possibly openly inviting them to caucas or vote for him is telling.
I personally don't want a candidate that is so favored by the republicans - how does that make him a "real democratic choice" if their picking someone that is most like their views?
Has to make one wonder.
John Edwards is the candidate of HOPE, I will vote for JRE 2008! Join me for real change, not money or media hype, but real change for America.
This one: If Landrieu loses, which isn't at all unlikely, the Senate is tied. Or does the fact that right-winger Bobby Jindal was just seated as Governor not enter into your calculation? It certainly enters into mine.
Her margin of victory in 1996 and 2002 were so narrow that she was forced into runoffs both times, squeaking out a fraction of a point and a 3 point victory, respectively. Landrieu's chances are even worse once you consider the depopulation of the heavily Democratic greater New Orleans area.
ETA: And shit like this won't help her:
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
As a resident of La. let me assure you of two things. 1) It is rapidly going red. The Governorship was only the first shoe to fall. One of the reasons NOLA got so little help after Katrina was to both force many minority residents to relocate and to slow or eliminate the rebuilding of low cost housing in the biggest Democratic stronghold in the state. 2) Sen Landrieu is toast. She has been thoroughly tied to Gov. Blanco and is being tied to the (extremely ) good-ole-boy network in the state. You must bear in mind that La. is considered by many to be the most corrupt state in the bunch and tying someone to the state political machine in a time of change is not good. I predict we will have two R's in the Senate next election.
The problem with this analysis is that it picks out the only place Democrats have a problem in the Senate and bases its analysis on that. The Republicans have many more seats to defend, and many more of those are likely to flip.
I don't think we'll get to 60 (and if we did and Joe Lieberman was one of the 60, it might not help), but the Democratic majority in the Senate will increase in 2008. I'd bet money on it.
Liberty and justice for all.
My new home
What he said. Unless you have some inside info on what's going to flip these races - Udall and Schaffer have been neck and neck for weeks, as have Coleman and Franken; Tim Johnson is running in a state that defeated a sitting Democratic Senate Minority Leader in 2004 (and here's hoping his health holds out); Heather Wilson is a darling of the GOP with a bank account brimfull with money from defense contractors; I'm just not willing to take this at face value.
Which isn't to say I don't for damn sure hope you're right. But we have to remember it's still very early, although the stepped-up Presidential primary has put things on a more urgent timeline this year. The Republicans will be able to raise enough money to run Willie-Horton style ads all over the country; and some of this will tighten up significantly in the weeks ahead.
It's just too early to tell. And although it's fun to speculate, I do think the Dems need to be prepared for either Congressional leadership scenario at this point.
Does he have any idea who he's going to pick to manage this operation? I'd like to hear some nuts and bolts about it. How will he decide who calls the shots, out of many groups that will probably have a legitimate claim on issues of influence?
Does Hillary? Has she already picked her White House staff?
Seriously, Barack Obama says he isn't good at keeping track of pieces of paper, and you infer from that statement, that he is a complete retard who doesn't know anything about the Federal Government.
Hell, Hillary and Bill sure had trouble keeping track of certain documents too...but we do know she is capable of firing people.
Have you looked at the Senate map? Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New Mexico are all tossups. I'd say that Louisiana isn't a safe seat either.
What's the current makeup in the Senate again...
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
You ask a bunch of questions, and then end by assuming the answers to all your questions are 'no'. What has Barack Obama said that gives you the impression he doesn't know how the Federal Government works? Just because Hillary says she's the only one who knows what she will do on "day one," doesn't mean its true.
Read his plan, he has many detailed responses to what he will do upon taking office, including many executive orders which he would be able to pass upon getting into office. Hillary Clinton will be doing exactly what Obama will be doing, making decisions. His or Her transition team is going to implement those decisions. If we elected the person who best knows the mechanics of the White House, we'd be electing Clinton's chief of staff, not his wife.
Truthfully you might just as well toss a coin to decided between Clinton or Obama, their view are closely related.
IMO.
John Edwards is the candidate of HOPE, I will vote for JRE 2008! Join me for real change, not money or media hype, but real change for America.
Looks like I hit a nerve out there in Anonymousland. All I have to say is this: Hillary Clinton isn't out there building castles in the sky about what it's going to take to run the government. Say whatever you want about her experience or lack thereof; all I know is, when Ken Starr comes calling with the subpoenas, her Administration isn't going to crumble like a house of cards. From what I've seen so far, I'm not at all comfortable Obama's wouldn't.
Furthermore, based on her experiences on Whitewatergate, Vince Foster, etc., etc., I'd say she's got a great idea of how to get things done when Republicans won't cooperate. What would make any right-thinking person even entertain the idea that Republicans are going to cooperate with *any* Democratic President? That's assuming said Democratic candidate can even get by the election-stealing machine, which again - based on Obama's campaign's reaction to relatively mild criticisms - I have no confidence that he will be able to withstand.
Although, and this is key - Obama says his supporters were off the reservation with many of the race-based criticisms some of them made this week, and I'm willing to take him at his word. I'm not saying I don't think he's capable of standing tough in the face of adversity, in the form of subpoena-bearing mouthbreathers. Just that I think he might do well to demonstrate his chops in that arena a bit more effectively.
(I still don't like his comments about not wanting to "run a bureaucracy". The Department of Commerce, say, has over 100,000 employees, only a couple hundred of which will be appointed by his Administration. If it's not a "bureacracy," what does he think the government is? A tea party?)
Sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't signed in...that was all me.
I think this is a little imaginative retelling of the Clinton Presidency. In fact, the Republican investigations did harm his effectiveness as a President.
And while I know the Clinton fans like to promote this idea that she is battle tested, the truth is many of the scandals in the Clinton administration weren't so much settled, as they moved on to bigger and better ones. The idea that the Republicans won't spend the next year reminding voters of all the negative aspects of the Clinton years (and there were a few), is somewhat ridiculous.
Hillary has never faced a credible challenger in an election (until now), so in terms of being the candidate best able to "take on the Republicans," we are really just guessing as to who would be the best one.
And either Clinton was supposed to prevent that, how? I'll grant you Mr. Clinton was an idiot at best to get caught diddling in the Oval Office, but let's not forget there is just about zero he could have done to prevent Whitewatergate, the fishing expedition that started the whole thing to begin with. Or are you forgetting that GOP dirty tricks hardly started in the year 1992? I don't mean this as dismissively as it may sound, but you might start by looking into the specifics of the Iranian hostage crisis, among a few dozen other GOP-related slime-a-paloozas, as they relate to this topic.
Are you trying to say that somehow Mrs. Clinton should have been able to prevent that whole thing, or that somehow Obama will be able to avoid such a catastrophe? Buddy, I sure hope you're right about that one, because I've got the feeling that the RNC has already got about 50 dozen people on staff trying to dig up everything anyone has ever published on who Obama had for a next door neighbor, who sold his chief fundraiser his Girl Scout cookies last November, and whether he's ever shaken hands with anybody who went on vacation to the Middle East.
And you don't think they'll have similar grain silos full of mud stored up out back to sling at whomever winds up in the Office of the President?
I'm sorry, but in this case, ridiculousness is clearly in the eye of the beholder.
Any President hires the operating officers. Obama is right about that. Of course, he's mainly providing big picture now, too, and the million little pictures will certainly count, too.
The Republicans believe that they're in real trouble in the Senate. Landrieu is their best takeaway opportunity, but they are in trouble all over the place.
Liberty and justice for all.
My new home
Your mouth to God's ears. But let's not forget those small oceans of corporate cash they keep on hand for just such an occasion. Also, it's early early early. I look for multiple copies of the Playboy-party ad, customized to each state in the Union with a seat in play, to start cropping up before long. As well as the usual 9/11-related fearmongering tactics.
Democrats currently hold a substantial lead in fundraising. That doesn't mean the Republicans won't have enough money to go negative; they'll always have that.
The key is not to let their slimy attacks define us. John Kerry could have won easily in 2004 if he had called out the Bushists over the swiftboating, instead of trying to reason with them.
Clinton and Obama both are proven fundraisers. My only worry about Edwards, whom I support, is that he isn't.
Liberty and justice for all.
My new home
When I heard them discuss this in the last debate, I thought immediately Obama made a major mistake with this utterance.
I'm hoping the voters are looking for someone with the capability to hire excellent people and to know and understand the details provided by these people. I do not want a cheerleader for president. I want someone with the intelligience to run this huge U.S. government bureaucracy. IMO, if Obama wants this job he should make a complete flip-flop on this idea.
Clinton on the issue over the weekend:
Link...
I'll grant you a lot of this verbiage is standard touchy-feely campaignspeak, but it seems like this is a fair issue for debate, at least.
Here is a post I wrote on the false distinction between CEO and COO Clinton is peddling:
CEO vs. COO: A False distinction
Link...