Originally posted by pokeyfiero: I did not want the outcome different. I am the people too and I am trying to change things as best I can so there is hope whereas the rest are just hoping for change.
First I would like to thank you all for your civility in this thread. I have been busy and have not been able to get back to check it until now. I did read all three pages and my comments are as follows.
Hope and Change: Not all change is good, and hope is a sorry substitute for action, much as patchouli is sorry substitute for a shower. Christine Hammack (me)
This quote is for sarabear I thought you would like this one because you like to refer to Rome: The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. Cicero, 55 BC, Words of wisdom from Rome.
Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company. George Washington
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson
Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense. John Adams
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. James Madison
Any man worth his salt will stick up for what he believes right, but it takes a slightly better man to acknowledge instantly and without reservation that he is in error. Andrew Jackson
IP: Logged
11:56 PM
Mar 22nd, 2009
cliffw Member
Posts: 37880 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
This quote is for sarabear I thought you would like this one because you like to refer to Rome: The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. Cicero, 55 BC, Words of wisdom from Rome.
Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company. George Washington
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson
Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense. John Adams
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. James Madison
Any man worth his salt will stick up for what he believes right, but it takes a slightly better man to acknowledge instantly and without reservation that he is in error. Andrew Jackson
Sadly, it is obvious from history that the Romans did not heed the advice of Cicero. It is even more depressing that so many do not view democracy through the eyes of our Founding Fathers. Almost seems that, for decades, we've heading down a road paved by the Romans, doesn't it?
Thanks for posting these quotes Christine.
[This message has been edited by Copper85GT (edited 03-22-2009).]
1. Did you get what you were expecting? 2. Do you think he is doing what he said he would do? 3. Do you think he is taking the country in the right direction?
I am just curious.
I think its still a bit early for people to decide they did or didn't make a mistake. Most of what he's done so far was expected. Once the ramifications of those actions sink in, then the people that voted for him might change their mind. ( or may not )
Sadly, it is obvious from history that the Romans did not heed the advice of Cicero. It is even more depressing that so many do not view democracy through the eyes of our Founding Fathers. Almost seems that, for decades, we've heading down a road paved by the Romans, doesn't it?
Thanks for posting these quotes Christine.
Unfortunately the country and concepts our founding fathers created are long gone and never to return fully. We are a different people today. ( not saying its right, just reality of things )
IP: Logged
10:43 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Why do I suspect that the same people who criticized Bush's expected and reasonable deficits following 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Katrina (which were on the downfall until the Democrats took over Congress and jacked up the deficits again) will now try to justify this indefensible spending bill.
Hmmmm, I suppose they have a point, we are witnessing another major catastrophe. In fact, one might call it an Obamanation.
IP: Logged
03:52 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
I've always heard the amount of debt is less important than how much the debt is compared to the GDP.
2008 GDP was estimated at about $14.5 Trillion. A $459 Billion deficit would be roughly 3.2% of annual GDP.
2009 GDP is forecast around $14.3 Trillion. A $1.75 Trillion deficit is 12.2% of annual GDP.
Take an already large yearly deficit from 2 wars and an economic slowdown - and in one year it gets quadrupled? That's scary. Remember what happened to people's individual budgets when the price of gas tripled in a short period of time? Increasing the debt this much this fast could have worse consequences than the business failures Obama is trying to prevent.
I'm confident the economy will recover. It's just a question of sooner or later depending on the actions taken making things better or worse.
Why I like him? Well... Middle class tax cut is a big thing for me. I've felt as though that's been needed for a long time. His appointments in the sciences have been breathtaking (I'm officially a PhD in chemistry now, so those are appointments I take super seriously.) He's started to draw down forces in Iraq and have moved them to Afghanistan, which I support.
I'm not happy with his pick for Sec. of State. I think her department has been embarrassing - both with the Russian gaffe (which was harmless) and the DVD collection for Gordon Brown (which was not so harmless).
Picking a hard right wing supreme court justice like Alito would essentially make me hate him. Though, I don't know. I DO identify with the man a lot. We were both raised by single women and managed to make it out with something that resembles both optimism and a chip on one's shoulder. Hard saying, I suppose... but I know full well it's possible. I didn't start out hating George W. Bush at all.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
Could you elaborate? What is it you like that he's done? What kind of things would change your opinion?
The stock market is down 50% and unemployment is approaching 80's levels. The amount of money the fed is bringing in is smaller because there simply is less of it to tax. I'm worried but not panicked. We've been through this before and came out stronger for it - we can and will do it again.
Why I like him? Well... Middle class tax cut is a big thing for me. I've felt as though that's been needed for a long time. His appointments in the sciences have been breathtaking (I'm officially a PhD in chemistry now, so those are appointments I take super seriously.) He's started to draw down forces in Iraq and have moved them to Afghanistan, which I support.
I'm not happy with his pick for Sec. of State. I think her department has been embarrassing - both with the Russian gaffe (which was harmless) and the DVD collection for Gordon Brown (which was not so harmless).
Picking a hard right wing supreme court justice like Alito would essentially make me hate him. Though, I don't know. I DO identify with the man a lot. We were both raised by single women and managed to make it out with something that resembles both optimism and a chip on one's shoulder. Hard saying, I suppose... but I know full well it's possible. I didn't start out hating George W. Bush at all.
What about his CIA pick? And is $13 dollars a week really that great of a middle class tax cut when inflation will outstrip that with out including the taxes he is raising? Was his pick for Treasury a good one? How about the other treasury spots.....oh wait they all keep bowing out. And I though Obama was raised by his grand parents in Hawaii and his mother and step father in Indonesia?
IP: Logged
04:41 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Why I like him? Well... Middle class tax cut is a big thing for me. I've felt as though that's been needed for a long time. His appointments in the sciences have been breathtaking (I'm officially a PhD in chemistry now, so those are appointments I take super seriously.) He's started to draw down forces in Iraq and have moved them to Afghanistan, which I support.
I'm not happy with his pick for Sec. of State. I think her department has been embarrassing - both with the Russian gaffe (which was harmless) and the DVD collection for Gordon Brown (which was not so harmless).
Picking a hard right wing supreme court justice like Alito would essentially make me hate him. Though, I don't know. I DO identify with the man a lot. We were both raised by single women and managed to make it out with something that resembles both optimism and a chip on one's shoulder. Hard saying, I suppose... but I know full well it's possible. I didn't start out hating George W. Bush at all.
Obama definitely got his $13 worth.
The science appointments only real concern to me is if they're zealots of the Global Warming religion. Carbon caps and global warming BS has the potential to wreck a healthy economy, let alone a weak one.
The planned withdrawal of forces from Iraq would be happening regardless of who was in the White House. We were already moving towards that under Bush. Of course, how fast and how they're redeployed may very well be different with Obama.
I'm right there with you on Hillary. I think it was a strategic move on Obama's part to keep her under control so she doesn't become an adversary in the Senate. I think she's got a conflict of interest in the position - her agenda, and the administration's.
IP: Logged
04:56 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
Originally posted by Formula88: I'm right there with you on Hillary. I think it was a strategic move on Obama's part to keep her under control so she doesn't become an adversary in the Senate. I think she's got a conflict of interest in the position - her agenda, and the administration's.
How long do you think it will be before she is no longer in the administration?
IP: Logged
06:36 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27115 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I'm willing to wait and see about his picks for the CIA and AG. I know some people aren't too thrilled about picking someone perceptively softer in the intelligence agency. I dunno. He may not be so soft. So far I like the AG, foot in mouth regarding race not withstanding. It takes a lot of balls to call America out on being cowardly about race... or stupidity. That man has one of them in spaces and I'm sure we'll find out which one.
I appreciate $13 a week. That's over $600 a year, maybe a little more. I can do a lot with $600... a lot more than the feds can. It'll cover my car insurance for the year and my wife's. For that, I'm quite happy.
I think the point is, I'm willing to give Obama the benifit of the doubt. I gave GWB the same thing before Iraq (though, admittedly, I wasn't in favor of it). I'm open to being let down, I assure you.
And I don't think the POTUS should be publishing his bracket on ESPN. That's tacky as hell. But that's just my opinion.
quote
Originally posted by Phranc:
What about his CIA pick? And is $13 dollars a week really that great of a middle class tax cut when inflation will outstrip that with out including the taxes he is raising? Was his pick for Treasury a good one? How about the other treasury spots.....oh wait they all keep bowing out. And I though Obama was raised by his grand parents in Hawaii and his mother and step father in Indonesia?
Well, she can't be fired. She doesn't serve at the pleasure of the President. It would be nice if she quit like Colin Powel, but that's probably asking too much. Why a Clinton needed to be involved in this administration at all bugs the hell out of me. It really does.
quote
Originally posted by GT86:
How long do you think it will be before she is no longer in the administration?
I'm willing to wait and see about his picks for the CIA and AG. I know some people aren't too thrilled about picking someone perceptively softer in the intelligence agency. I dunno. He may not be so soft. So far I like the AG, foot in mouth regarding race not withstanding. It takes a lot of balls to call America out on being cowardly about race... or stupidity. That man has one of them in spaces and I'm sure we'll find out which one.
I appreciate $13 a week. That's over $600 a year, maybe a little more. I can do a lot with $600... a lot more than the feds can. It'll cover my car insurance for the year and my wife's. For that, I'm quite happy.
I think the point is, I'm willing to give Obama the benifit of the doubt. I gave GWB the same thing before Iraq (though, admittedly, I wasn't in favor of it). I'm open to being let down, I assure you.
And I don't think the POTUS should be publishing his bracket on ESPN. That's tacky as hell. But that's just my opinion.
Don't you think the head of the CIA should have just some intelligence back ground. That's not a position that should be learn as you go.
You can't do anything with that $600. Its getting taxed in other places and will be eaten up by the hyper-inflation because we are now monetizing our debt.
I gave Obama the benefit of doubt when he was sworn in. Since then he nominated tax cheats to head the IRS, raised the national debt by 400%, nominated a head of the CIA who has zero experience in intelligence, nominated an AG who had a change to acknowledge how far this nation has come in race relations only to show is another race baitor like Jackson and Sharpton, helped force through bills that no one read, lied, played up economic woes until his bill was passed then changed his tune to the same line he derided McCain for using, snubbed allies twice, and a few other things.
IP: Logged
09:05 PM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20709 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
Teleprompter: "Now whisper 'I love you' with quiet, reassuring strength, and pinch her bottom halfway between 'playful teasing' and 'urgent desire'...Leave it up to her how to take it. It's all in the nuance of letting people take it any of a dozen different ways."
IP: Logged
09:12 PM
Mar 23rd, 2009
fierobear Member
Posts: 27115 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by Jeremiah: I appreciate $13 a week. That's over $600 a year, maybe a little more. I can do a lot with $600... a lot more than the feds can. It'll cover my car insurance for the year and my wife's. For that, I'm quite happy.
So the tax break Bush gave you, which was about the same, somehow failed to impress you?
IP: Logged
12:15 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27115 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Does being spectacularly wrong about a major issue in your field of expertise hurt your chances of becoming the presidential science advisor? Apparently not, judging by reports from DotEarth and ScienceInsider that Barack Obama will name John P. Holdren as his science advisor on Saturday. [UPDATE: Mr. Obama did indeed pick Dr. Holdren.]
Dr. Holdren, now a physicist at Harvard, was one of the experts in natural resources whom Paul Ehrlich enlisted in his famous bet against the economist Julian Simon during the “energy crisis” of the 1980s. Dr. Simon, who disagreed with environmentalists’ predictions of a new “age of scarcity” of natural resources, offered to bet that any natural resource would be cheaper at any date in the future. Dr. Ehrlich accepted the challenge and asked Dr. Holdren, then the co-director of the graduate program in energy and resources at the University of California, Berkeley, and another Berkeley professor, John Harte, for help in choosing which resources would become scarce.
In 1980 Dr. Holdren helped select five metals — chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten — and joined Dr. Ehrlich and Dr. Harte in betting $1,000 that those metals would be more expensive ten years later. They turned out to be wrong on all five metals, and had to pay up when the bet came due in 1990.
Now, you could argue that anyone’s entitled to a mistake, and that mistakes can be valuable if people learn to become open to ideas that conflict with their preconceptions and ideology. That could be a useful skill in an advisor who’s supposed to be presenting the president with a wide range of views. Someone who’d seen how wrong environmentalists had been in ridiculing Dr. Simon’s predictions could, in theory, become more open to dissent from today’s environmentalist orthodoxy. But I haven’t seen much evidence of such open-mindedness in Dr. Holdren.
Consider what happened when a successor to Dr. Simon, Bjorn Lomborg, published “The Skeptical Environmentalist” in 2001. Dr. Holdren joined in an an extraordinary attack on the book in Scientific American — an attack that I thought did far more harm to the magazine’s reputation than to Dr. Lomborg’s. The Economist called the critique “strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance”; Dr. Lomborg’s defenders said the critics made more mistakes in 11 pages than they were able to find in his 540-page book. (You can read Dr. Lomborg’s rebuttal here.) In an earlier post, I wrote about Dr. Holdren’s critique of the chapter on energy, in which Dr. Lomborg reviewed the history of energy scares and predicted there would not be dire shortages in the future:
Dr. Holdren began his critique by complaining that Dr. Lomborg was “asking the wrong question” because environmentalists had known for decades that there was no danger of energy being in short supply. This struck me as as odd bit of revisionist history, given both the “energy crisis” rhetoric of the 1970s and Dr. Holdren’s own bet that resources would become more scarce. Then, in the rest of the critique, Dr. Holdren faulted Dr. Lomborg for not paying enough attention to the reasons that there could be future problems with energy supplies.
Dr. Holdren’s resistance to dissenting views was also on display earlier this year in an article asserting that climate skeptics are “dangerous.” (You can read about the response to that article at DotEarth.)
Dr. Holdren is certainly entitled to his views, but what concerns me is his tendency to conflate the science of climate change with prescriptions to cut greenhouse emissions. Even if most climate scientists agree on the anthropogenic causes of global warming, that doesn’t imply that the best way to deal with the problem is through drastic cuts in greenhouse emissions. There are other ways to cope, and there’s no “scientific consensus” on which path looks best.
Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado and the author of “The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics,” discussed Dr. Holdren’s conflation of science and politics in a post on the Prometheus blog:
The notion that science tells us what to do leads Holdren to appeal to authority to suggest that not only are his scientific views correct, but because his scientific views are correct, then so too are his political views.
AT the Reason Hit & Run blog, Ronald Bailey reviews some of Dr. Holdren’s work and notes that in a 1995 essay, he and his coauthors (Gretchen C. Daily and Dr. Ehrlich) “acknowledge ecological ignorance about the principles of economics, but don’t express any urgency in learning about them.”
At OpenMarket.org, the Competitive Enterprise Institute blog, Chris Horner criticizes the reported Holdren appointment and suggests that Dr. Holdren got in to the National Academy of Sciences through a “back door.”
What kind of White House science advisor you think Dr. Holdren would make?
IP: Logged
12:25 AM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Originally posted by Jeremiah: I DO identify with the man a lot. We were both raised by single women and managed to make it out with something that resembles both optimism and a chip on one's shoulder.
Your other reasons it is finally good to hear from one of his supporters.
I never thought about voting for someone because I Identified with them, as you do above. It seems that would cloud my judgement.
IP: Logged
07:29 AM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Originally posted by pokeyfiero: I did not want the outcome different. I am the people too and I am trying to change things as best I can so there is hope whereas the rest are just hoping for change.
Ok you lost me. You said you voted for Obama to basically speed up the decline, make us crash and burn hard so we will learn. My problem with that you said was caused by my views on humans in general.
quote
You in my opinion have elected to allow your emotions concerning human beings to cloud your thought process. If the people are the germs causing the problem then treat them like germs. It will hurt but the finger must be saved!
Your last post (the top one here)seems to run exactly contrary to your previous ones. The others are hoping for a good change and you are voting betting on a bad one and hard times.
IP: Logged
07:37 AM
blackrams Member
Posts: 33275 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Originally posted by User00013170: I think its still a bit early for people to decide they did or didn't make a mistake. Most of what he's done so far was expected. Once the ramifications of those actions sink in, then the people that voted for him might change their mind. ( or may not )
While I tend to agree that it is probably to early for most of those folks that voted for Candidate Obama to be President to be saying, "Oh My God, what did we do?". I do see a waning of his support among what we would normally call "swing voters". The polls are changing. Some folks will never see the other side of an issue or alternative direction. I'm that way on a few issues.
BUT, to suggest that what he's done or what he's supported to be done, I don't think most folks expected. If you ask folks if they expected all these bailouts and stimulus packages and our children's future being mortgaged away, I doubt you'd see "most" folks saying they expected it. President Obama's support of gun control legislation has been a huge profit maker for gun manfacturers. I don't believe most folks thought President Obama would actually push or support such legislation. I don't really think most folks actually thought about what electing a Socialist to POTUS would mean. Unfortunately, they are finding out.
Not asking personal information but, there was tax relief or break legislation passed during the Bush years. I would have to assume that you did not fall into one of the tax catagories that received that relief. Would that be a fair assumption?
The conclusion: Dr. Holdren is not going to be Obama's economics adviser.
I know a lot of scientists. Indeed, I am one, and I can say with fair certainty they're all slightly cracked, they're mostly left leaning and they've all got opinions that, at times, can be extreme. None of this, however, impacts Holdren's ability to do science, as he has been a leader in his field and a cheerleader for scientific advancement. So, in short, I don't care about his opinions on ecological development in the 1970's or his views on the cost of metals in the 1980's...
Does being spectacularly wrong about a major issue in your field of expertise hurt your chances of becoming the presidential science advisor? Apparently not, judging by reports from DotEarth and ScienceInsider that Barack Obama will name John P. Holdren as his science advisor on Saturday. [UPDATE: Mr. Obama did indeed pick Dr. Holdren.]
Dr. Holdren, now a physicist at Harvard, was one of the experts in natural resources whom Paul Ehrlich enlisted in his famous bet against the economist Julian Simon during the “energy crisis” of the 1980s. Dr. Simon, who disagreed with environmentalists’ predictions of a new “age of scarcity” of natural resources, offered to bet that any natural resource would be cheaper at any date in the future. Dr. Ehrlich accepted the challenge and asked Dr. Holdren, then the co-director of the graduate program in energy and resources at the University of California, Berkeley, and another Berkeley professor, John Harte, for help in choosing which resources would become scarce.
In 1980 Dr. Holdren helped select five metals — chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten — and joined Dr. Ehrlich and Dr. Harte in betting $1,000 that those metals would be more expensive ten years later. They turned out to be wrong on all five metals, and had to pay up when the bet came due in 1990.
Now, you could argue that anyone’s entitled to a mistake, and that mistakes can be valuable if people learn to become open to ideas that conflict with their preconceptions and ideology. That could be a useful skill in an advisor who’s supposed to be presenting the president with a wide range of views. Someone who’d seen how wrong environmentalists had been in ridiculing Dr. Simon’s predictions could, in theory, become more open to dissent from today’s environmentalist orthodoxy. But I haven’t seen much evidence of such open-mindedness in Dr. Holdren.
Consider what happened when a successor to Dr. Simon, Bjorn Lomborg, published “The Skeptical Environmentalist” in 2001. Dr. Holdren joined in an an extraordinary attack on the book in Scientific American — an attack that I thought did far more harm to the magazine’s reputation than to Dr. Lomborg’s. The Economist called the critique “strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance”; Dr. Lomborg’s defenders said the critics made more mistakes in 11 pages than they were able to find in his 540-page book. (You can read Dr. Lomborg’s rebuttal here.) In an earlier post, I wrote about Dr. Holdren’s critique of the chapter on energy, in which Dr. Lomborg reviewed the history of energy scares and predicted there would not be dire shortages in the future:
Dr. Holdren began his critique by complaining that Dr. Lomborg was “asking the wrong question” because environmentalists had known for decades that there was no danger of energy being in short supply. This struck me as as odd bit of revisionist history, given both the “energy crisis” rhetoric of the 1970s and Dr. Holdren’s own bet that resources would become more scarce. Then, in the rest of the critique, Dr. Holdren faulted Dr. Lomborg for not paying enough attention to the reasons that there could be future problems with energy supplies.
Dr. Holdren’s resistance to dissenting views was also on display earlier this year in an article asserting that climate skeptics are “dangerous.” (You can read about the response to that article at DotEarth.)
Dr. Holdren is certainly entitled to his views, but what concerns me is his tendency to conflate the science of climate change with prescriptions to cut greenhouse emissions. Even if most climate scientists agree on the anthropogenic causes of global warming, that doesn’t imply that the best way to deal with the problem is through drastic cuts in greenhouse emissions. There are other ways to cope, and there’s no “scientific consensus” on which path looks best.
Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado and the author of “The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics,” discussed Dr. Holdren’s conflation of science and politics in a post on the Prometheus blog:
The notion that science tells us what to do leads Holdren to appeal to authority to suggest that not only are his scientific views correct, but because his scientific views are correct, then so too are his political views.
AT the Reason Hit & Run blog, Ronald Bailey reviews some of Dr. Holdren’s work and notes that in a 1995 essay, he and his coauthors (Gretchen C. Daily and Dr. Ehrlich) “acknowledge ecological ignorance about the principles of economics, but don’t express any urgency in learning about them.”
At OpenMarket.org, the Competitive Enterprise Institute blog, Chris Horner criticizes the reported Holdren appointment and suggests that Dr. Holdren got in to the National Academy of Sciences through a “back door.”
What kind of White House science advisor you think Dr. Holdren would make?
IP: Logged
08:31 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27115 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Your last post (the top one here)seems to run exactly contrary to your previous ones. The others are hoping for a good change and you are voting betting on a bad one and hard times.
I can't help you. My best advice is to not splash in the deeper puddles cause it gets your socks wet. Walking about in squisy socks sucks.
IP: Logged
10:46 AM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Well, she can't be fired. She doesn't serve at the pleasure of the President. It would be nice if she quit like Colin Powel, but that's probably asking too much. Why a Clinton needed to be involved in this administration at all bugs the hell out of me. It really does.
If Obama asked for her resignation, she wouldn't have much choice. She likely won't quit on her own, as the position gives her a stage to perform on.
Obama put her there as a strategic move to neutralize her from being an outspoken, popular critic in the Senate, as well as removing her as a threat from within the party for the 2012 Dem nomination. Normally, the sitting President has no problem securing the nomination, but these aren't normal times. Obama knows full well that if the economy is still in the dumps in '12, he'll face serious opposition from within his own party. And if the GOP gets its act together and presents a viable alternative, he knows that the Dems won't be able to afford another protracted primary fight. With her being a part of his administration, it will be almost impossible for her to run against him.
If Hillary being in the administration bothers you, does the fact that so many of Bill's old people are now in the Obama administration also bother you?
IP: Logged
01:24 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
We are royally screwed!
