Another Clintonista Joins the Club

Originally posted by sos37 I see you're one of the ignorant many still blaming all of the ills of the past 8 years on the Bush Administration instead of properly distributing the blame where it is due, like involvement of certain members of a Democratic mmajority of Congress in the last 2 of those 8 years.

Seeing as I pay a fair degree of attention to my surroundings, I have no problem in assigning the lions share of the crap that you/we are in to the Bush administration. What I truly don't understand is why the Democrats have been sitting on their hands.

Well, yes I do, but that's another thread...

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Obama is touting change from Bush, .

No. Obama said change from the way Washington has been doing business - that includes democrats and republicans. Not just Bush43. And Obama included lobbyists' in that 'change' rhetoric. He said they wouldn't be finding work at his white house. However, as my previousl link shows, he has already gone on a lobbyist hiring spree.

Originally posted by jimmyx
at least we will have a president that will be able to speak in complete sentences without it being written on a piece of paper in front of him. a functional speaker, yeah...no change there, right?

You are kidding right? Uh-bama can't speak without a teleprompter in front of him. And even then he stumbles around. So - NO CHANGE in the speaking department. That's for sure.

reply to post by jibeho


For all of those who say things like "How is this change?"


Keep in mind that the change is in Policy, which comes from the Executive.

He still needs experienced people, on both sides of the aisle to carry out that policy.


Why don't people see this? Maybe because they've never actually studied Political Science. Who knows.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
For all of those who say things like "How is this change?"

Keep in mind that the change is in Policy, which comes from the Executive.

Oh, now, don't go ruining the whine and pout party with facts, logic and reasoning!

No change!

No hope!

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Why don't people see this?

Mostly because they don't want to. What would they have to complain about if they realized and admitted that it would be stupid for a president to fill his cabinet with people inexperienced in politics, like farmers, nurses and professional clowns? What complaints would they have about Obama then? Better they just complain about all the smart moves he's making.

Notice that even a Reagan appointee is being called as a "Clintonista" (because it sounds so cool) just so there will be something to rag on Obama about.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
For all of those who say things like "How is this change?"

Keep in mind that the change is in Policy, which comes from the Executive.

Oh, now, don't go ruining the whine and pout party with facts, logic and reasoning!

No change!

No hope!

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Why don't people see this?

Mostly because they don't want to. What would they have to complain about if they realized and admitted that it would be stupid for a president to fill his cabinet with people inexperienced in politics, like farmers, nurses and professional clowns? What complaints would they have about Obama then? Better they just complain about all the smart moves he's making.

Notice that even a Reagan appointee is being called as a "Clintonista" (because it sounds so cool) just so there will be something to rag on Obama about.

You know what would really be stupid? Filling that role of POTUS with someone who is inexperienced and unqualified for the job. But oh wait - that did happen. Oh yeah, the Zogby poll already answered why this happened. It revealed that most Obama supporters didn't actually care about the real political issues.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Seriously? You are saying that Obama is no better of a speaker than Bush?

Originally posted by sos37
You know what would really be stupid? Filling that role of POTUS with someone who is inexperienced and unqualified for the job. But oh wait - that did happen. Oh yeah, the Zogby poll already answered why this happened. It revealed that most Obama supporters didn't actually care about the real political issues.

Awwww. It's okay. You brighten up there big guy, no need to cry about it.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

Originally posted by sos37
You know what would really be stupid? Filling that role of POTUS with someone who is inexperienced and unqualified for the job. But oh wait - that did happen. Oh yeah, the Zogby poll already answered why this happened. It revealed that most Obama supporters didn't actually care about the real political issues.

Actually stupid would be second-guessing democracy.


Well maybe not stupid, but definitely anti-American.


Democracy is not a system of slecting the best person for the job, democracy is a system of selecting the person the people want most for the job. And that is what makes it great, and what makes it somewhat based on faith. Because it sure isn't based on reasoning... thank goodness for that.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
Seriously? You are saying that Obama is no better of a speaker than Bush?

Seriously. There are tons of threads here on it. The guy can't string together two sentences without uh-uh-oh-um-uh unless he's on a teleprompter. Bush is a lousy speaker. So is obama - off teleprompter.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What complaints would they have about Obama then?

You really need to get over yourself.

Obama ran on 'CHANGE' and he said change everything.
He's filling his positions with lobbyists and Clintonistas.
He lied. You bought it. You still do.
Amazing.


There is plenty to complain about Obama - from his lies at claiming 'change', to his 'spread the wealth', to his disarming of America, to his stand on taxes, to his stand in the culture-of-death, to his flip flops, to his problems with the 2nd Amendment, to his severe lack of experience, to his narcassistic self-messianic rhetoric. etc etc

He is not change. He said he was. He has already shown that he's not.
Dragging in the old guard. The old ways. Hiring those who 'were the problem' - lobbyists and the old corruption machines.

If he planned on doing that to counter his severe lack of experience then he shouldn't have promised change and he shouldn't have promised not to hire lobbyists.

No change. No hope. No unity. Just more of the same old politics. And no, that's not because I hope it will be that way (how pathetic of you to claim that), it's because that's just the truth of the situation.

ON TOPIC -

ERIC HOLDER - he approved of the Marc Rich pardon during the Clinton pardon-gate problems. Holder's official stand was, to quote him, "neutral leaning toward approval". Rich's ex-wife bought the pardon through donations to the Clinton Library and yet this fella, Holder, approved of the pardon (or at the very least didn't condemn it)

Lovely.

Yeah .. this appointment is a real 'change' from the old way Washington does things. :shk:

reply to post by FlyersFan


It's funny because most experts disagree. Obama is thought of as an eloquent speaker who can inspire. He does use "umms" and "uhhs", but he uses them effectively, in a manner that makes it not look stupid.

He does not make a verbal gaff every time he opens his mouth like Bush does.

Honestly, it doesn't matter. I don't even care, there's no reason to argue with you. What do you know about speaking techniques? Everyone knows Obama is a good speaker, but for you, it's just one more thing you can ignore and pretend you know something everyone else doesn't.


Type "eloquent Obama" into google and view the results. Then type "eloquent McCain in".

With McCain, the only hits are either in reference to Obama, OR McCain's exit speech - which was eloquent.

Pfft, Obama's not a good speaker... says who? You?

[edit on 19-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

reply to post by Irish M1ck


Yep Irish M1ck!


Most people don't realize that when he says "uh---uhmm" that he is actually thinking about what he is about to say. As opposed to those who believe thinking about an issue causes more problems (i.e. Rove).

Holder is handling civil case negotiations for the Chiquita International Brands, which claims it was forced to agree to a plea deal and $25 million fine to avoid indictment over security payments the company made to a right-wing Colombian paramilitary group that the U.S. government designated as a terrorist group.

Speaking of terrorists - he seems to favor the FALN bunch.

Ah .. and then there are Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, of the WEATHER UNDERGROUND, who had their sentences commuted thanks to the help of this fella.

More info here - Reuters

Holder also defended the US Gov’t in the Elian Gonzales mess. He claimed that the agents went into the house, commando style and heavily armed, because there were weapons in the house. Of course, there really weren’t any.

Interesting history this guy has. Yep ... real 'change'.

reply to post by HunkaHunka




How can Obama be such a good speaker that he is like Hitler on one thread, and then so bad that he's like Bush in another?

These mudslingers needs to organize and get their stories straight!

[edit on 19-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Most people don't realize that when he says "uh---uhmm" that he is actually thinking about what he is about to say.

Oh please! You actually buy that?

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
It's funny because most experts disagree.

It’s funny because many, many people agree with me.

What do you know about speaking techniques?

You don’t have to know about ‘speaking techniques’ to listen and hear uh-oh-uh-uh-um and blathering when the teleprompter is off.

Everyone knows Obama is a good speaker, but for you,

Dream on. Thread here

Type "eloquent Obama" into google and view the results.
Then type "eloquent McCain in".

Why? I never said McCain was a good speaker.
And as far as 'eloquent Obama' - he speaks well on TELEPROMPTER.
SO what?

Pfft, Obama's not a good speaker... says who? You?

Pfft - says anyone who listens to him who doesn't have koolaide in their ears.

YOU PEOPLE ARE SERIOUSLY OFF TOPIC - THE TOPIC IS ERIC HOLDER.

ERIC HOLDER
FALN and Global Crossing -

FALN = The Armed Forces of National LIberation (a Puerto Rican Terrorist Group) Holder made sure that clemency was granted to 16 'former members' of the group. The FBI opposed clemency but Holder supported it. New York Post, 12/15/99

In 2002, Eric Holder Lobbied On Behalf Of telecom Global Crossing After The Company Had Accumulated Nearly $12 Million In Debt. , and had one of the largest bankruptcies in American history - New York Post, 6/12/08

Change??

reply to post by FlyersFan


You're the one making the accusation. I just rebut what other's say if I think it's untrue.

So, you cited one example where Obama verbally gaffed. Here's at least a few non-teleprompter interviews where Obama spoke as usual:

Obama Interview (skip over the initial speech)

Interview with O'Reilly, which you know he didn't make easy on Obama

Interview in 2002 about Iraq

Cite one gaff, where he had trouble citing a statistic (who hasn't done that?), and I can cite 15 more where he spoke perfectly.

There is also a fundamental difference in the gaffs of Bush and Obama. Bush speaks unintelligently, in general. He says nuc - u - lar for instance. He calls people tearrrists. And it is often obvious from his response that he doesn't have a full understanding of the subject.

That's not the same as having trouble spitting the words out correctly.

Originally posted by sos37
Oh yeah, the Zogby poll already answered why this happened. It revealed that most Obama supporters didn't actually care about the real political issues.

"Real political issues"? You didn't look at the questions from the poll, did you? Hardly "real political issues"... Of course, if Sara Palin's wardrobe and pregnant teenage daughters, McCain's houses and candidate's gaffes are your idea of "real political issues" then I guess we have a different idea of what's important...

On a happy note: Holder on Bush: Executive Power

Judging by his past statements, Eric Holder Jr., reportedly Barack Obama's top pick for attorney general, may aim to roll back several of the Bush administration's most controversial legal moves if he is selected for the post.

In a June speech to the American Constitution Society, Holder said the Bush administration had taken many steps that "were both excessive and unlawful" in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

"I never thought I would see the day when a Justice Department would claim that only the most extreme infliction of pain and physical abuse constitutes torture and that acts that are merely cruel, inhuman and degrading are consistent with United States law and policy, that the Supreme Court would have to order the president of the United States to treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Convention, never thought that I would see that a president would act in direct defiance of federal law by authorizing warrantless NSA surveillance of American citizens. This disrespect for the rule of law is not only wrong, it is destructive in our struggle against terrorism," Holder said in the speech.

Woo-hoo! I like this guy already! That's some change I can BELIEVE in!

[edit on 19-11-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Eric Holder and the pardon of two WEATHER UNDERGROUND TERRORISTS – Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans. Something that Obama brought up during the campaign against Hillary Clinton.

ABC News

Coming soon –
‘Uh uh oh um um uh that’s not the um oh uh Eric Holder I knew’

An investigation championed by House Government Reform Committee chairman Rep. Dan Burton concluded, in a 2003 report covering 177 Clinton pardons, that Holder had played a significant role in facilitating the Rich pardon, first by recommending the well-connected Jack Quinn to Marc Rich legal representatives, and by eventually delivering a favorable opinion of the twilight pardon to the President from a position of authority.[18]

query.nytimes.com...

A little on Rich.

On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, President Bill Clinton granted Rich a presidential pardon. Since Rich's former wife and mother of his three children, socialite Denise Rich, had made large donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton's time in office, Clinton's critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought. Rich had also made substantial donations to Israeli charitable foundations. Clinton explained his decision by noting that similar situations were settled in civil, not criminal court, and cited clemency pleas from Israeli government officials, including Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Federal Prosecutor Mary Jo White was appointed to investigate. She stepped down before the investigation was finished and was replaced by James Comey. Though Comey was critical of Clinton's pardons, he could not find any grounds on which to indict him.

en.wikipedia.org...

Mark Rich

One of the charges brought against him before he fled the US, was trading oil with Iran - a country which at that time was considered an enemy state.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Did Eric Holder use good judgement?

Add Tom Daschle to the list of Washington insiders Obama is staffing up with.

Change anyone?