|
09 Jan 08 - 09:24 AM (#2231996) Subject: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: wysiwyg Watching the campaign this year I've been struck again by the absolute need for Dems to work together to reach OUR goals-- the need for them to stop competing with each other long enough to form a coalition based on ideals but cobbled up out of the real pieces they will have to play with if they win the White House. I can absolutely NOT see Hillary and Obama as P and VP to one another, either way-- can't see either of them willing to be second banana, or working well if either one did agree. I CAN see John Edwards as a VP, with some real domestic policy delegated to him while Hillary or Obama get us out of Iraq. So whaddaya think-- NOT which would you RATHER have as President, but IF either one gets the nomination-- Hillary Pres, Obama Attorney General? or Obama Pres, Hillary Defense? or... what? How would you position these three to share power? ~Susan |
|
09 Jan 08 - 09:48 AM (#2232016) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Rapparee AT THIS POINT (emphasis added): President: Obama VP: Edwards or Richardson Secretary of State: Colin Powell (he was good, but got badly screwed) Secretary of Defense: Nobody -- I want the title to revert to the original "Secretary of War" because it's honest. But for Secretary of War: Norman Schwartzkopf (he's honest and he's "seen the elephant") SECRETARY OF Homeland Security: Oh, bullshit! Eliminate this whole thing. (Read the latest issue of "Consumer's Reports" on TSA) Attorney General: My friend Mary. She's honest, admitted to practice before the Supremes, and tired to death of the crap that's been going on. Fill in the rest as you wish.... |
|
09 Jan 08 - 11:06 AM (#2232077) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Riginslinger Hillary as president Monica Lewinsky - secretary of energy |
|
09 Jan 08 - 11:22 AM (#2232089) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: number 6 Ralph Nader for president. biLL |
|
09 Jan 08 - 11:24 AM (#2232090) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: number 6 And they can all have Michael Moore for court jester. biLL |
|
09 Jan 08 - 11:26 AM (#2232092) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Peace I'm with Rapaire, on all of it. |
|
01 Dec 08 - 02:15 PM (#2505127) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: wysiwyg New appointments announced today. Your thoughts? ~S~ |
|
01 Dec 08 - 03:08 PM (#2505183) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: artbrooks It is clear that Obama is taking the lessons of Kearns' book to heart. Whether or not it works remains to be seen. |
|
01 Dec 08 - 03:22 PM (#2505199) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Amos Damned clever, these Obamites! :D A |
|
01 Dec 08 - 03:34 PM (#2505208) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Amos I gotta hand it to Wyz for coming so close to spot on--we ended up with Obama Pres and Hillary, State. A |
|
01 Dec 08 - 03:44 PM (#2505220) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: DougR Art & Amos: Are you suggesting that the primary reason Obama appointed his "enemies" to his cabinet is because he believed, as Lincoln is reported as believing, One should keep his/her enemies close at hand (paraphrasing)? DougR |
|
01 Dec 08 - 04:05 PM (#2505248) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: wysiwyg Isn't it a little soon to read Obama's mind, Doug? :~) He's not even IN yet. ~S~ |
|
01 Dec 08 - 04:12 PM (#2505259) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Amos I think there's more to it. Obama is deep enough to know that an enemy is often a friend waiting for a conversation. The tension of differing perspectives, as Obama seems to sense, is far more vitalizing than the unanimity of a bunch of unthinking loyalists, and better for the nation as a whole, as long as the guy with the reins knows how to handle twenty mules at once! :D A |
|
01 Dec 08 - 04:32 PM (#2505276) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: artbrooks Doug, I'm sure that someone, somewhere, thinks that, but I'm more inclined to think Obama believes that he, like Lincoln, can soothe egos, turn rivals into allies, and deal with many challenges to his leadership, all for the sake of the greater good. {Amazon review of Team of Rivals} |
|
01 Dec 08 - 04:43 PM (#2505282) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Greg F. Hey Douggie, try actually reading Kearns' book before you sound off & you'll make less of a utter fool of yourself regarding Lincoln & his presidency. |
|
01 Dec 08 - 06:10 PM (#2505335) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: McGrath of Harlow I suggest that throwing around casual insults like "utter fool" at people with whom we are engaged in a discussion is not a good way of carrying on that discussion. |
|
01 Dec 08 - 06:14 PM (#2505340) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Ebbie Obama has made his reasoning clear. He wants to avoid the 'Yes, boss' syndrome. As he said, "I assembled this team because I'm a strong believer in strong personalities and strong opinions. I think that's how the best decisions are made." |
|
01 Dec 08 - 06:18 PM (#2505345) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Greg F. If the shoe fits - "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" is Michael Corleone in The Godfather - not Abraham Lincoln. Besides, history demonstrates there's no way of carrying on a logical discussion with Douggie, so the suggestion is somewhat pointless.. |
|
01 Dec 08 - 06:39 PM (#2505368) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: McGrath of Harlow Besides, history demonstrates there's no way of carrying on a logical discussion with Douggie, Now one of the attractive things about Obama is that it is impossible to imagine him agreeing with that way of thinking. |
|
01 Dec 08 - 07:59 PM (#2505423) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Bobert Well, I must be the only Obam supporter who is bitin' my nails down to the nubs... I mean, almost all of Abam's picks scare me and when taken collectively scare the hell outta me... I mean, the man is either a moron or has one heck of alot of courage and confidence in himself... He has more potential backstabbers in his administration than Carter (not Jimmy) has liver pills and it is disturbing... No progressives... Not one... Nada... Zip... Zero... I donno??? The Clintons scare me the most because they have the power to throw Obama under the bus and could do it while "grinin' in his face" (Son House)... I donno??? I donno??? B~ |
|
01 Dec 08 - 08:04 PM (#2505430) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: McGrath of Harlow "The Clintons scare me the most because they have the power to throw Obama under the bus" I'd suggest that unless and until Obama screws up badly it's the other way round. |
|
01 Dec 08 - 08:16 PM (#2505438) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Amos I think he believes in his ability to handle people, and get cohesion from folks of different persuasions...and the certainty if any of them try double-crossing him he can eject them forthwith. |
|
01 Dec 08 - 08:34 PM (#2505451) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Bobert The Clintons won't go quietly, Amos... |
|
01 Dec 08 - 08:38 PM (#2505452) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Amos Sure, I know. If it came down to it, though, when the President of the United States says "I want your resignation tonight," he usually gets it, right? A |
|
01 Dec 08 - 09:07 PM (#2505464) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Bobert Not too sure that would work with Hillary, Amos... She might bring Bill in and the two of them would have poor Barrack on the floor punchin' him out... That both have hot tempers... But it ain't as much as askin' for resignations as what might happen if Bill was ent off to like India and Pakistan to negotiate the conflict over Kashmir... I mean, Obama ain''t gonna be there persoanlly so he's gonna have to trust Hill 'n Bill and what if they let the situation blow up??? Of course, they could come back with "Blah, blah, blah" and Obama would probably by their boguis story seein' as he wasn't there and formulate policy around mythology... Hey, I'm not saying this will happen... I am, howver, saying that if the Clintons wanted to roll Obama under the bus, they will have a perfect opportunity... B~ |
|
01 Dec 08 - 10:22 PM (#2505508) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Greg F. Now one of the attractive things about Obama is that it is impossible to imagine him agreeing with that way of thinking. On the contrary. Senator Obama has an excellent bullshit detector and deals in proven fact & reality- not BuShite delusion & wishful thinking. |
|
02 Dec 08 - 12:19 AM (#2505533) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Ebbie One thing I am absolutely sure of is that both Hillary and Bill Clinton want to leave a legacy and that neither of them wants their legacy to be a negative. For both of them the knowledge that Bill Clinton will go down in history as a flawed man and President has to be a bitter, bitter pill. The potential situation with Hillary Clinton in the Obama Administration reminds me of the Douglas MacArthur and President Truman bit of history. I recall it was not Harry Truman who went under the bus. |
|
02 Dec 08 - 12:24 AM (#2505534) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: mrdux there's much to be said for Hillary's running the State Department, but this headline makes me a tad nervous: Rush Limbaugh endorses Clinton for Obama's cabinet |
|
02 Dec 08 - 02:49 AM (#2505568) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Ebbie Rush Limbaugh is not "endorsing" Hillary Clinton at all, of course. Rather, he is saying that it's a smart move on Obama's part to put her in his Cabinet, that he is defanging her against the possibility of running against him in 2012, that being beholden to him for the position she has held for four years will preclude her candidacy for the presidency. "Says Limbaugh: "You know the old phrase, 'You keep your friends close and your enemies closer?' How can she run for president in 2012? She'd have to run against the incumbent and be critical of him - the one who made her secretary of state." |
|
02 Dec 08 - 08:33 AM (#2505762) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Amos Limbaugh has always been an ass. No change there. A |
|
02 Dec 08 - 09:40 AM (#2505814) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: artbrooks Unless Obama's first term is a major failure, at least in the eyes of the voters, it is unlikely that there will be any Democratic challenger in 2012. Generally, presidents coast to a second term nomination, unless they have major problems that alienate their own base. Carter was challenged by Kennedy in the primaries, but he had poor ratings and inflation and the Iran hostage issue credited to him. On the Republican side, Reagan contested the nomination with Ford in 1976 (and then Ford lost to Carter), but Ford was never elected in the first place. Bush I had major economic problems and had to suck up his promise of "no new taxes". He was sitting on a 37% approval rating when Pat Buchanan contested the nomination in 1990. Hilary Clinton is too much of a party politician to run against a popular or even moderately successful president. If Obama tanks, of course, than all bets are off. |
|
02 Dec 08 - 10:18 AM (#2505838) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: John on the Sunset Coast Well I don't listen to Limbaugh, but in the case of Hillary (if he is being correctly quoted or paraphrase) I agree. Mrs JotSC and I have been discussing this since it was announced that she was offered State. By accepting the position, she has, we believe, abandoned any thought of becoming President. Assuming, Obama is an effective executive (a wish devoutly hoped for) she would not be able to successfully run against him in '12 as an insider. By '16 she probably would be pretty much forgotten as a prime presidential candidate. |
|
02 Dec 08 - 10:21 AM (#2505840) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Amos It also, just possibly, offers her an avenue to realizing her greatest potential for good, which I somehow doubt the Presidency would have done. A |
|
02 Dec 08 - 10:29 AM (#2505849) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: GUEST,Side Street American Well, it sure looks like Obama is pretty good at throwing people and huge constituencies alike under the bus, including the constituencies that got him elected. The entire liberal wing of the Democratic party has now been thrown under the bus by Obama. There aren't any bones to throw them--the appointments are all Clintonites & Democratic Leadership Council. Question is, where is John Kerry going to sit? Is he an Obama insider or an outsider at this point, especially with Kennedy having one foot in the grave? The Obama appointments are a knife in the ribs to labor and environment constituencies. And fiscally, this will be yet another right wing corporate capitalist Wall Street administration, to be sure. So I'm at a loss to see how Obama is surrounding himself with people who disagree with one another. Quite the contrary. He has appointed right wing idealogues who all agree with one another, be it at State or Treasure or Defense or HHS or Homeland Security. Not a cheery time for the liberal and progressive Democrats, that's for sure. |
|
02 Dec 08 - 02:50 PM (#2506120) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Jim Dixon Let's not forget that Lincoln's REAL enemies were on the Confederate side, not in his cabinet. |
|
02 Dec 08 - 03:41 PM (#2506158) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Greg F. OK, one more time: READ the bloody Kearn's book, for God's sake. The people Lincoln named to his cabinet were NOT HIS ENEMIES!! They may have been political political rivals (hence the book title, fer chrissake), but had no animosity toward Lincoln, and agreed with what what Lincoln was trying to accomplish. They DID have differences of opinion about how things should be brought about. |
|
02 Dec 08 - 04:32 PM (#2506205) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Amos SSA: WHen you make sweeping generalized statements like that, without clarifying what you mean, you lose credibility. In what respects has he thrown anyone "under a bus" and what in particular does that throw consist of? A |
|
02 Dec 08 - 05:41 PM (#2506263) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: artbrooks Amos, it would seem that our "progressive" GUEST from Minneapolis has a new handle. |
|
02 Dec 08 - 05:59 PM (#2506286) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Bobert Well, I am Naderite Obamaite... This is the first time that I not only worked for but voted for anyone but Nader in a long time... So I guess that puts me in the progressive ranks... Yeah, I am disappointed thT Dennis Kucinich didn't get appointed to a cabinet level position... I am disappointed that Hillary Clinton is going to be Secretart of State... But I knew all along that if Obama was going to be elected that I would be disappointed with many of his picks/non-picks... But I don't feel rolled under the bus... Most progressives that I know are still very happy that Bush and McCain and Palin and Cheney ain't gonna have the keys to power... That, for me, is enough of a start... B~ |
|
02 Dec 08 - 06:21 PM (#2506308) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Ebbie Amen, brother. |
|
02 Dec 08 - 06:42 PM (#2506341) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: Amos Ah, thanks, Art. Saved me a whole nasty learning curve about intellectual duplicity and manic-depressive communication. A |
|
02 Dec 08 - 07:51 PM (#2506397) Subject: RE: BS: Dems and Power-Sharing From: McGrath of Harlow it would seem that our "progressive" GUEST from Minneapolis has a new handle Maybe a speculative list of Mudcat Guest aliases would be useful... |