Welcome our new SecState and SecCommerce

[lukewarmplay]

The Clinton administration was the most scandal ridden in my lifetime - even worse than Nixon. Why bring any of those people back?

Richardson is great, tho.

Wow, that is a bold and very likely non-verifiable claim. I'm no fan of the Clinton white house, but Nixon was an out-and-out thug.

 

[maxiep]

Well, if Obama "institutes socialism," I hope you all will remember nothing has changed, because you've heard of his cabinet appointees before.

Obama's a radical Marxist and we're a completely capitalist society. It's an outrage! In addition, he's exactly the same as everyone else. He's going to destroy this country with extreme socialism, the likes of which this country has never seen before. Plus, his cabinet appointees show it's going to be politics as usual. We're going to resemble Europe. But he won't change anything.

Conservatives have definitely changed. They used to have a monotonously consistent set of talking points. Now they can't make their talking points agree.

Ah, this tactic is one of my favorites. You diminish the actual points being made by accusing them of being "talking points". Unlike the lockstep orthodoxy of the Left, we that are right of center agree to disagree on a number of issues. We like free thought.

 

[Denny Crane]

Wow, that is a bold and very likely non-verifiable claim. I'm no fan of the Clinton white house, but Nixon was an out-and-out thug.

Count the special investigators/investigations.

I think Richardson was the only cabinet member not under investigation.

#2 man in the DoJ went to prison.

<center> The A to Z Guide of Clinton Scandals

</center> Whitewatergate, Travelgate, Cattlegate and now Indonesiagate . . . there seems to be more gates in the Clinton White House than on the barns of America.
So just in case you've lost track of the scandals that have hit this current White House, The Post's Deborah Orin and Thomas Galvin have pieced together your cut-out-and-keep A to Z guide of Clinton scandals . . from Arkansas to Zippers.
<font=7>A</font=7> is for Arkansas, where Bill Clinton got his political start, where Hillary Rodham Clinton worked at Rose Law Firm, and where Whitewater began as a land deal between the Clintons and Jim and Susan McDougal.
<font=7>B</font=7> is for Billing-gate, Hillary Clinton's missing law-billing records. Those records -- which raised questions about Mrs. Clinton's role in the Castle Grande deal -- were subpoenaed in 1994. They were missing until early 1996, when they turned up in a White House room next to her office. She says she doesn't know how they got there.
<font=7>C</font=7> is for Cattlegate, Hillary Clinton's mysterious ability to turn a $1,000 investment into a $100,000 profit on cattle futures, a feat experts say was virtually impossible in normal trading.
C is also for Castle Grande, a real-estate scheme that federal regulators say was a sham. A federal inspector general's report found Hillary Clinton drew up the legal papers that were used to improperly funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to Seth Ward, father-in-law of her ex-law partner Webster Hubbell.
<font=7>D</font=7> is for Billy Dale, the career head of the White House Travel Office, who was fired along with six other career staffers, to make way for Clinton cronies in Travelgate. The White House then brought in the FBI to justify the firing, and Dale was hit with criminal charges that wrecked his life for two years. A jury cleared him in just two hours.
<font=7>E</font=7> is for Mike Espy, the former agriculture secretary who was forced out over charges that he got gifts and favors from Arkansas-based Tyson foods, whose owners were longtime Clinton backers. A special counsel has brought several indictments, though not against Espy.
<font=7>F</font=7> is for Filegate, the improper White House rummaging through 900 FBI files on Republican officials in the Bush and Reagan administration. The White House says it was an innocent snafu. Republicans suspect an enemies list. Whitewater independent counsel Ken Starr and several congressional committees are probing.
<font=7>G</font=7> is for Golfgate, ex-White House aide David Watkins' improper use of presidential helicopters for a personal golf outing. He was forced to resign. In the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton aides tried to use taxpayer funds to help settle a sexual harassment case filed by a fellow campaign worker against Watkins.
<font=7>H</font=7> is for Hillary Clinton, whose role has been questioned in Filegate, Travelgate, Billing-gate, Whitewater and Castle Grande. She denies any wrongdoing.
H is also for Hubbell, in jail after pleading guilty to bilking law clients on charges brought by Whitewater independent counsel Starr. Hubbell was previously the associate attorney general, the No. 3 Justice Department office.
<font=7>I</font=7> is for Indonesiagate, featuring the Lippo group, a firm with long-standing ties to Bill Clinton, Clinton cronies and Arkansas. Republicans want to know why an Indonesian couple -- of apparently modest means -- with ties to Lippo gave $452,000 to the Democratic National Committee and what the firm may have gotten in return. Lippo also hired Hubbell, at a reported fee of $250,000, for the five months when he left the White House and went to jail.
<font=7>J</font=7> is for Paula Jones, who accuses President Clinton of sexual harassment, saying he dropped his pants and asked for oral sex in an Arkansas hotel room while he was governor and she was a state employee. The U.S. Supreme Court will rule this fall on whether her case must wait until after Clinton leaves office, as he demands.
<font=7>K</font=7> is for William Kennedy, another ex-Hillary Clinton law partner who became a White House lawyer and was forced to resign after concealing his failure to pay nanny taxes. He was reprimanded for his role in Travelgate.
<font=7>L</font=7> is for Craig Livingstone, the ex-bar bouncer with a history of drug use who was the head of White House security. Two FBI agents say it was Hillary Clinton who demanded his hiring, which she denies. Disgraced Clinton political guru Dick Morris's hooker pal, Sherry Rowlands, claims Morris told her a "paranoid" Hillary Clinton was behind Filegate. He says he only told her that's what polls show.
<font=7>M</font=7> is for Jim and Susan McDougal, the Clintons' Whitewater partners, both of whom have been convicted of fraud. Jim McDougal is said to be helping Whitewater independent counsel Starr. Susan McDougal is in jail for refusing to say whether President Clinton lied when he denied knowing about an illegal $300,000 loan to bail out Whitewater. The loan wasn't repaid, and taxpayers were left holding the bag.
M is also for disgraced political guru Dick Morris.
<font=7>N</font=7> is for Bernard Nussbaum, the former White House lawyer who barred federal investigators from searching Vince Foster's office after Foster's death. Nussbaum also withheld Foster's diary on Travelgate problems from federal probers for more than a year. Nussbaum was forced to resign for botching damage-control efforts.
<font=7>O</font=7> is for Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, the frequent flier who drew up an enemies list of reporters, hired an image consultant at taxpayer expense, and has run up huge tabs on overseas trips.
<font=7>P</font=7> is for Pardons, which President Clinton has refused to rule out for individuals like Susan McDougal who potentially could provide evidence against him.
P is also for White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, expected to leave in a second Clinton term -- with the prospect that his deputy, Harold Ickes, could replaces him. Senate Republicans want perjury charges brought against Ickes for his answers on Whitewater damage control.
<font=7>Q</font=7> is for all the questions -- unanswered -- on Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Cattlegate and Billgate.
<font=7>R</font=7> is for Sherry Rowlands, the $200-an-hour hooker who revealed her ongoing affair with Clinton political guru Dick Morris, the author of Clinton's family-values strategy, forcing Morris to resign.
R is also for the Rose Law Firm, where Hillary Clinton, Vince Foster, Webster Hubbell and William Kennedy were partners, as was Joseph Giroir, a key figure in the Lippo group.
<font=7>S</font=7> is for Kenneth Starr, the Whitewater independent counsel probing Filegate, Travelgate and Vince Foster's death. He has won 15 convictions or guilty pleas, including both McDougals and former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, who was forced to resign. Starr says his probes are active and ongoing, and there is widespread speculation he will have more indictments after the election, possibly including one of Hillary Clinton.
<font=7>T</font=7> is for Travelgate, the Clintons' firing of career travel staffers like Billy Dale to make way for Clinton cronies. White House memos say Hillary Clinton was behind the firings -- she denies it -- and that she was spurred on by Clinton Hollywood pal Harry Thomason, who was seeking a piece of the lucrative White House charter business.
<font=7>U</font=7> is for undue influence and the question of whether that is what Lippo was seeking though megabucks contributions to Democrats. Lippo has close ties to Indonesia's brutal dictatorship, responsible for near-genocide in East Timor, which it occupied two decades ago.
<font=7>V</font=7> is for Vince Foster, the former Hillary Clinton law partner who became a White House lawyer and was found dead, an apparent suicide with a gunshot wound to the head. He apparently was a central figure in Travelgate and Filegate and handled Whitewater matters for the Clintons. Starr is examining his death and has yet to confirm former prober Bob Fiske's conclusion that it was a suicide in the park where Foster was found.
<font=7>W</font=7> is for Whitewater, the Arkansas land deal that started it all, with questions about whether the Clintons improperly benefitted from funds Jim McDougal's Madison Guarantee savings-and-loan, which went belly up, costing taxpayers an estimated $60 million.
<font=7>X</font=7> is for the Xeroxed copy of Hillary Clinton's law billing records that were found in the white House book room, two years after they were first sought. The pages had Mrs. Clinton's fingerprints around the section on Castle Grande - there were red ink notations in the late Vince Foster's handwriting.
<font=7>Y</font=7> is for the the young White House aides who were hired by the Clinton administration despite FBI background checks that found "recent" use of hard drugs like cocaine, crack and hallucinogens.
<font=7>Z</font=7> is for zippers -- the one Paula Jones claims that the then-Arkansas governor undid (see J) and the one Gennifer Flowers claims Clinton undid during what she insists was a long-running affair. He denies the claims.
[Source: The New York Post, Wednesday October 16, 1996]

 

[Minstrel]

Ah, this tactic is one of my favorites. You diminish the actual points being made by accusing them of being "talking points".

Clearly you like it, you did a similar thing to Dumpy, diminishing his position by claiming he's "drunk the kool-aid and will now defend anything Obama does." But let me guess...it's different when you do it?

I wasn't diminishing your talking points by labeling them as such. I was diminishing them pointing out the silly contradiction. If Obama is a socialist steamroller, will you consider that "change?" Or do you already feel that the US is a socialist nation?

Unlike the lockstep orthodoxy of the Left, we that are right of center agree to disagree on a number of issues.

Actually, the exact opposite is usually alleged...generally as a criticism of the Democrats, by Republicans. The Republicans are better at communicating a single message around which their base can organize, while the Democrats are plagued by different approaches by every party member, leading to a splintered base.

 

[Real]

True, but he's not in office yet so we have no idea how things are going to work. You guys are jumping the gun.

How are we jumping the gun?

All these guys in his cabinet are Washington people. He said he was going to fundamentally change Washington.

Is it not fair to ask how you can fundamentally change something using the thing you're changing?

 

[Minstrel]

How are we jumping the gun?

All these guys in his cabinet are Washington people. He said he was going to fundamentally change Washington.

Is it not fair to ask how you can fundamentally change something using the thing you're changing?

Since they will work to his ends, do his appointments really matter on that score? How he governs will determine if he's actually different from any previous President. That he's assembling experienced people who most believe are effective at getting things doesn't seem to tell us much other than that he wants to get things done.

 

[CelticKing]

Hillary is a good pick, I'm happy.

 

[mook]

In summary, Obama is now:
- A marxist
- A socialist
- A muslim
- A christian radical
- A black panther
- A terrorist
- An elitist
- A celebrity
- A man who stands for nothing
and now.....


- Exactly like Bill Clinton.


When he told us "change" was coming, I hadn't realized it meant there'd be a new right-wing label every week.

 

[maxiep]

In summary, Obama is now:
- A marxist
- A socialist
- A muslim
- A christian radical
- A black panther
- A terrorist
- An elitist
- A celebrity
- A man who stands for nothing
and now.....


- Exactly like Bill Clinton.


When he told us "change" was coming, I hadn't realized it meant there'd be a new right-wing label every week.

To be fair, Bill Clinton was also called many of those things.

 

[maxiep]

Clearly you like it, you did a similar thing to Dumpy, diminishing his position by claiming he's "drunk the kool-aid and will now defend anything Obama does." But let me guess...it's different when you do it?

I didn't diminish his point as "talking points". I merely said that he will now find any way to defend President-Elect Obama, even if it means redefining "change", which was the cornerstone of his campaign.

I wasn't diminishing your talking points by labeling them as such. I was diminishing them pointing out the silly contradiction. If Obama is a socialist steamroller, will you consider that "change?" Or do you already feel that the US is a socialist nation?

You saw a contradiction that doesn't exist. You should stop being so paranoid. There's a difference between promising to bring a new tone to Washington and the policies he'll try to enact. If he wants to bring a new tone to DC, why is he overwhelmingly hiring people who helped define divisive politics?

As for his policies, my guess is he'll let the Clinton dogs loose to do what they always wanted to, but were restrained by a truly intelligent president.

Actually, the exact opposite is usually alleged...generally as a criticism of the Democrats, by Republicans. The Republicans are better at communicating a single message around which their base can organize, while the Democrats are plagued by different approaches by every party member, leading to a splintered base.

Yep. I'm glad you picked up on the irony. The fact is that those of us right-of-center on this board have much more divergent beliefs than those on this board who believe themselves to be on the left. Go figure.

 

[Furball]

I like the Bill Richardson pick. He has the experience and the insight.

Hillary, I'm a little leery of. Personally, as a Christian, my biggest concern is Israel and I believe her Israel views are actually better than Bush. But I have a feeling Barak is setting her up. I have a feeling that her confirmation hearing are going to be so brutal that she won't get approved and it could kill her political career. For that I would love Barak forever.

 

[Minstrel]

I didn't diminish his point as "talking points". I merely said that he will now find any way to defend President-Elect Obama, even if it means redefining "change", which was the cornerstone of his campaign.

It's the same thing. You're dismissing him as a blind follower, which is what you seemed to object to about the "talking points" label.

You saw a contradiction that doesn't exist. You should stop being so paranoid.

Pointing out that you're tripping over yourself in your attempts to attack Obama doesn't have much to do with paranoia.

There's a difference between promising to bring a new tone to Washington and the policies he'll try to enact. If he wants to bring a new tone to DC, why is he overwhelmingly hiring people who helped define divisive politics?

In a previous thread, didn't you say that if Obama is really serious about setting a new tone, he'd suggest to Harry Reid that Leiberman be kept in the caucus and in charge of his Senate sub-committee chairmanship? Considering that that's exactly what Obama did, why are you mocking him in this thread?

Yep. I'm glad you picked up on the irony.

Cute damage control. "Oops, right, I was completely wrong. It was irony! Congratulations...you, uh, got what I was going for. That's the ticket."

The fact is that those of us right-of-center on this board have much more divergent beliefs

That's a good euphemism for "contradict ourselves wildly." When the same individual has wildly divergent beliefs, that's not a positive.

 

[maxiep]

It's the same thing. You're dismissing him as a blind follower, which is what you seemed to object to about the "talking points" label.

Nope. I was showing he was desperate to cover any flaw in St. Barack.

Pointing out that you're tripping over yourself in your attempts to attack Obama doesn't have much to do with paranoia.

There's that paranoia popping up again. I'm not out to attack him. But when he does things that don't jibe with his message, then I'll point it out.

In a previous thread, didn't you say that if Obama is really serious about setting a new tone, he'd suggest to Harry Reid that Leiberman be kept in the caucus and in charge of his Senate sub-committee chairmanship? Considering that that's exactly what Obama did, why are you mocking him in this thread?

Bully for him. He made the smart move. Of course he only did it when the Dems could sniff the filibuster-proof majority. I wasn't aware I had to post a compliment of His Holiness every time he did the politically expedient thing.

Cute damage control. "Oops, right, I was completely wrong. It was irony! Congratulations...you, uh, got what I was going for. That's the ticket."

Nope again. It was ironic. It used to be that the Republicans had strong message control, even if they didn't all believe them. Now the Democratic Party is the party of true believers--if you don't follow in lockstep, you're Liebermaned. It's especially the people on the Left on this board--the groupthink is amazing.

That's a good euphemism for "contradict ourselves wildly." When the same individual has wildly divergent beliefs, that's not a positive.

Congratulations. You've been wrong in every paragraph, and you didn't disappoint with this one. There are those, like me, who are more pro-business and Libertarian on the right, and there are those like Shooter or BrianfromWA who are more socially conservative. We're all right of center, but hold divergent beliefs. Perhaps those on the Left find that kind of conflict unbearable, which is why the Left has become so dogmatic.

 

[Minstrel]

Nope. I was showing he was desperate to cover any flaw in St. Barack.

And I was showing that you are desperate to attack St. Barack on any pretext, imagined or not.

There's that paranoia popping up again. I'm not out to attack him.

Pointing out inconsistent reasoning isn't paranoia.

Bully for him. He made the smart move. Of course he only did it when the Dems could sniff the filibuster-proof majority.

"If he really meant what he said, he'd do this."

"Oh, he did it? Well, clearly he did it for his own evil self-interest. He still doesn't mean what he said."

Set the test and then explain away either result as proving yourself right. You're smart enough to see the fallacy there, you just refuse to admit it because you want to "win" your point. Intellectual dishonesty.

It used to be that the Republicans had strong message control, even if they didn't all believe them.

Yes, I know that. I just explained that to you, remember?

There are those, like me, who are more pro-business and Libertarian on the right, and there are those like Shooter or BrianfromWA who are more socially conservative. We're all right of center, but hold divergent beliefs.

You should go back and re-read what I said. I said when the same individual holds divergent beliefs, it's contradiction and not a positive. Are you saying that you, Shooter and BrianfromWA are all the same person? If not, your comment has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

If people wanted a Clinton third term, wouldn't they have voted for Hillary? Barack Obama was promising "change" and "hope" from the politics of the past. Instead, he's offering nothing more than a carbon copy of the Clinton Administration, with the copy setting just a little darker.

Nice.

 

[maxiep]

And I was showing that you are desperate to attack St. Barack on any pretext, imagined or not.

That's your imagination. Spend some time outside in the fresh air. It will do wonders for your perspective.

Pointing out inconsistent reasoning isn't paranoia.

Well, I wasn't inconsistent. You continuing to state that I was based on your interpretation is your problem, not mine.

"If he really meant what he said, he'd do this."

"Oh, he did it? Well, clearly he did it for his own evil self-interest. He still doesn't mean what he said."

Set the test and then explain away either result as proving yourself right. You're smart enough to see the fallacy there, you just refuse to admit it because you want to "win" your point. Intellectual dishonesty.

The change occurred when the Democrats looked like they had a chance to get to sixty seats. If he would have done it before, when he had nothing to gain, it would have been different. But since you're so anxious to hear fawning praise for your Chosen One, he did the smart thing and I say good for him. It's nice when the right thing to do jibes with what's good for you.

Yes, I know that. I just explained that to you, remember?

Try to catch up. You still haven't figured it out.

You should go back and re-read what I said. I said when the same individual holds divergent beliefs, it's contradiction and not a positive. Are you saying that you, Shooter and BrianfromWA are all the same person? If not, your comment has nothing to do with what I said.

I don't need to. You were responding to my point, which was that those on the Right appear to have more philosophical diversity than those on the Left. There are generally acknowledged to be three legs of conservatism--fiscal conservatism, foreign policy conservatism and social conservatism. I agree with two of them, but not the third. Yet I accept those who are social conservatives. There are people like Mike Huckabee who also agree with two of the three legs, yet he doesn't seek to drive out those that aren't social conservatives.

The Left will drive anyone out of their party who doesn't strictly adhere to the dogma laid out by the True Believers. Joe Lieberman is a terrific example. Disagree on the War on Terror but agree on everything else? We'll support another candidate in the primary.

I was talking about groups. Don't blame me you thought I was talking about individuals. You have this problem where you believe so much in the superiority of your own thought process that you ascribe things that were never meant just because they help you make your argument. Tough luck on that one.

 

[Minstrel]

The change occurred when the Democrats looked like they had a chance to get to sixty seats. If he would have done it before, when he had nothing to gain, it would have been different.

Fairly silly post-hoc justification. Nothing much changed between you setting the test and Obama actually doing it. Ted Stevens was already well on his way to losing the recount and the Minnesota recount hadn't (and still hasn't) given any indication of who will win. And, of course, the run-off between Chambliss and Martin is still in the future. The Democrats are essentially in the same position now as they were when you said that if Obama were serious about changing the tone, he'd suggest to Reid that Lieberman should keep his chairmanship.

The only thing that changed was that Obama acted inconveniently in terms of your desired narrative, and you're scrambling to justify your narrative being at odds with what actually happened.

I was talking about groups. Don't blame me you thought I was talking about individuals.

The confusion is on your end. I was talking about contradictions coming from the same people (like you). You tried to distract from your contradictory talking points by blustering about how "the Right" has philosophical diversity. True or not, it was always irrelevant to my point, which is that you (and other conservatives) have been so desperate to attack Obama, that your attacks contradict each other. I was talking about individuals from the get-go. I just didn't allow you to redirect the discussion simply because you're embarrassed about your contradictory criticisms being pointed out.

 

[maxiep]

Fairly silly post-hoc justification. Nothing much changed between you setting the test and Obama actually doing it. Ted Stevens was already well on his way to losing the recount and the Minnesota recount hadn't (and still hasn't) given any indication of who will win. And, of course, the run-off between Chambliss and Martin is still in the future. The Democrats are essentially in the same position now as they were when you said that if Obama were serious about changing the tone, he'd suggest to Reid that Lieberman should keep his chairmanship.

The only thing that changed was that Obama acted inconveniently in terms of your desired nerrative, and you're scrambling to justify your narrative being at odds with what actually happened.

Don't forget the Franken recount inching him closer to Coleman. Like I said earlier, good for him. We have yet to see if he would have told Reid to dump him without a chance for the 60 votes. It sure looked like he was going to let Reid do it earlier that week.

The confusion is on your end. I was talking about contradictions coming from the same people (like you). You tried to distract from your contradictory talking points by blustering about how "the Right" has philosophical diversity. True or not, it was always irrelevant to my point, which is that you (and other conservatives) have been so desperate to attack Obama, that your attacks contradict each other. I was talking about individuals from the get-go. I just didn't allow you to redirect the discussion, simply because you're embarrassed about your contradictory criticisms being pointed out.

Of course it is. If you misunderstand what someone writes, it's their fault not yours. I was discussing the lockstep thinking of those on the Left vs. those on the Right and you assumed what you wanted. Sorry, although you may be a high and mighty mod, I still get to think what I want. Go be the boss of someone else.

 

[Minstrel]

Don't forget the Franken recount inching him closer to Coleman.

I didn't forget it, I mentioned Minnesota. Inching closer or not, that situation hasn't really changed the landscape in any material way. It was a toss-up leaning Coleman at the time and it remains a toss-up leaning Coleman.

Of course it is. If you misunderstand what someone writes, it's their fault not yours. I was discussing the lockstep thinking of those on the Left vs. those on the Right and you assumed what you wanted.

I didn't assume anything; I ignored what you were discussing because you were trying to change the subject. Let's remember, you responded to me to begin this mini-thread between you and me. My post was about how you and various other conservatives were being contradictory. Your ruminations on philosophical diversity were irrelevant to the post of mine that you were responding to. So, I kept things on-topic by keeping the focus on conservatives being contradictory as individuals.

 

[maxiep]

I didn't forget it, I mentioned Minnesota. Inching closer or not, that situation hasn't really changed the landscape in any material way. It was a toss-up leaning Coleman at the time and it remains a toss-up leaning Coleman.

There's a big difference between being more than a thousand votes up vs. a few hundred.

I didn't assume anything; I ignored what you were discussing because you were trying to change the subject. Let's remember, you responded to me to begin this mini-thread between you and me. My post was about how you and various other conservatives were being contradictory. Your ruminations on philosophical diversity were irrelevant to the post of mine that you were responding to. So, I kept things on-topic by keeping the focus on conservatives being contradictory as individuals.

And I discussed what I wished to discuss. Neener.

 

[Minstrel]

There's a big difference between being more than a thousand votes up vs. a few hundred.

As I recall, it was already in the hundreds by that point. He simply cut it from around a 500 vote difference to around a 200 vote difference. Eh, whatever. I think Obama did it both for "good" reasons and for political expediency.

I don't think it was to keep Lieberman's vote. My own take on Lieberman is that he's pretty sincere about what he believes. How he votes was unlikely to change whether he kept his chairmanship or not. However, the political expediency is that after running on a campaign of being unifying, it would look pretty bad if the first thing that happened was Lieberman being kicked out for opposing Obama during the campaign. I'm sure that was a part of it. However, I think Obama would like to create a less partisan, bickering government. Lots of people are frustrated with that and it doesn't seem particularly unlikely to me that Obama would like to change that. I don't think Obama is a messiah, but I also don't think he's a charlatan.

And I discussed what I wished to discuss. Neener.

You will discuss what I say we discuss, dammit. After all, I am superior! Or something.

 

[Real]

Since they will work to his ends, do his appointments really matter on that score? How he governs will determine if he's actually different from any previous President. That he's assembling experienced people who most believe are effective at getting things doesn't seem to tell us much other than that he wants to get things done.

It was Democrats charging John McCain with being George Bush III the entire campaign.

It is the same Democrats that would chant that if say McCain appointed Tom Ridge as head of Homeland Security or anyone else that was involved in the Bush administration.

Was McCain given the same benefit of the doubt during the campaign?

 

[Minstrel]

It was Democrats charging John McCain with being George Bush III the entire campaign.

It is the same Democrats that would chant that if say McCain appointed Tom Ridge as head of Homeland Security or anyone else that was involved in the Bush administration.

Was McCain given the same benefit of the doubt during the campaign?

Which Democrats said they'd chant that? Certainly not Obama's campaign, that I saw. Nor me.

Had McCain been elected, I would still believe that how he governs is what matters, not who he appoints to be his functionaries. Functionaries are not the vision people, they're the ones who implement the President's vision. Obama is surrounding himself with people who know how to get things done. What actually gets done depends on what Obama has in mind.