Houshphandzadeh wrote:I'm not arguing the reality of it, but why isn't SoS considered a good stepping stone/experience for the big chair? I would think they'd get a good taste of the President's responsibilities and a ton of foreign affairs experience that people love.

Well, she'd have a tough time running against Obama in the primaries in 2012 if she was SOS. If things go well for Obama, it won't matter since he'll get re-upped. If things go bad (especially on foreign policy), she'll have a hard time extracting herself.

Trent Steele wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I'm not arguing the reality of it, but why isn't SoS considered a good stepping stone/experience for the big chair? I would think they'd get a good taste of the President's responsibilities and a ton of foreign affairs experience that people love.

Well, she'd have a tough time running against Obama in the primaries in 2012 if she was SOS. If things go well for Obama, it won't matter since he'll get re-upped. If things go bad (especially on foreign policy), she'll have a hard time extracting herself.

Hasn't it become pretty much verboten to offer more than a token primary challenge to an incumbent President's run for a second term? Buchanan ran against Bush in '92 and look where that got them. Bush I wasn't a good President, but he wasn't an unmitigated disaster.

A sitting president would have to be involved in one hell of a scandal to even have a chance at losing a primary.

jeff2sf wrote:Ok, I'll say it...

If we wanted a bunch of ex-Clinton staffers leading the transition, being involved on the White House team, and potentially filling up the Cabinet, why didn't we just vote for Clinton?

You have to wonder, between Bush filling is cabinet with his daddy and Reagan's people, and now Obama fiddling around with all of these Clinton leftovers - are there that few smart people out there that we aren't seeing more new names and faces?

VoxOrion wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Ok, I'll say it...

If we wanted a bunch of ex-Clinton staffers leading the transition, being involved on the White House team, and potentially filling up the Cabinet, why didn't we just vote for Clinton?

You have to wonder, between Bush filling is cabinet with his daddy and Reagan's people, and now Obama fiddling around with all of these Clinton leftovers - are there that few smart people out there that we aren't seeing more new names and faces?

I think it's more that when Clinton came in, the transition was a disaster precisely because he made poor choices about whom to include in his administration. Obama is trying to walk that line, which inevitably means including folks who could be described as "Clinton people." They're the only Democratic administration in the last generation. You can't avoid them without turning over the government entirely to people who would have to learn on the job, when we really can't afford that.

But Emanuel is a friend of his from Chicago, Podesta was pretty much the curator of the Democratic government-in-exile these last eight years, and Axelrod/Jarrett/Nesbitt et al are all full-fledged Obamans (Obamites?). Of all the things I'm worried about, a "Clinton restoration under Obama" is pretty much the last on the list.

Does anyone else think that we'll be sitting in our tarpaper shacks sometime around 2014 reminicing on the good-old days of 2008/2009 when the government was just printing money and handing it out to anyone who asked?

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Ok, I'll say it...

If we wanted a bunch of ex-Clinton staffers leading the transition, being involved on the White House team, and potentially filling up the Cabinet, why didn't we just vote for Clinton?

You have to wonder, between Bush filling is cabinet with his daddy and Reagan's people, and now Obama fiddling around with all of these Clinton leftovers - are there that few smart people out there that we aren't seeing more new names and faces?

I think it's more that when Clinton came in, the transition was a disaster precisely because he made poor choices about whom to include in his administration. Obama is trying to walk that line, which inevitably means including folks who could be described as "Clinton people." They're the only Democratic administration in the last generation. You can't avoid them without turning over the government entirely to people who would have to learn on the job, when we really can't afford that.

But Emanuel is a friend of his from Chicago, Podesta was pretty much the curator of the Democratic government-in-exile these last eight years, and Axelrod/Jarrett/Nesbitt et al are all full-fledged Obamans (Obamites?). Of all the things I'm worried about, a "Clinton restoration under Obama" is pretty much the last on the list.

Yeah, I don't really have a problem with it - my thought when it was the Big Criticism in 2000 was "well, these are people who've done this before, they probablyhave a decent idea what they're doing." - I just wondered where this fits into the whole "Change" thing. Sarcasm aside, I was looking forward to seeing folks who were new to me and a truly 'new' administration. From a practical and experiential standpoint, that's illogical and unlikely.

VoxOrion wrote:Does anyone else think that we'll be sitting in our tarpaper shacks sometime around 2014 reminicing on the good-old days of 2008/2009 when the government was just printing money and handing it out to anyone who asked?

I would probably be sitting around blaming the fact that everyone is in tarpaper shacks on the time when government was just printing money and handing it out to anyone who asked.

Werthless wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:Does anyone else think that we'll be sitting in our tarpaper shacks sometime around 2014 reminicing on the good-old days of 2008/2009 when the government was just printing money and handing it out to anyone who asked?

I would probably be sitting around blaming the fact that everyone is in tarpaper shacks on the time when government was just printing money and handing it out to anyone who asked.

Methinks this is what Vox was going for.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Werthless wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:Does anyone else think that we'll be sitting in our tarpaper shacks sometime around 2014 reminicing on the good-old days of 2008/2009 when the government was just printing money and handing it out to anyone who asked?

I would probably be sitting around blaming the fact that everyone is in tarpaper shacks on the time when government was just printing money and handing it out to anyone who asked.

Methinks this is what Vox was going for.

Yeah, maybe. I guess I read "reminicing on the good-old days" too literally, when Vox probably meant the opposite. The thing is, not everyone in 2014 might be able to connect those dots.

I realize it will mess with the obvious developing GOP mantra, but let's not forget who's been printing money and giving it out to whoever asked for it over the past 8 years. If I have a choice between tax and spend (something we don't know if Obama will do) and just wild spending, I'll choose tax and spend because at least things are paid for.

Monkeyboy wrote:I realize it will mess with the obvious developing GOP mantra, but let's not forget who's been printing money and giving it out to whoever asked for it over the past 8 years. If I have a choice between tax and spend (something we don't know if Obama will do) and just wild spending, I'll choose tax and spend because at least things are paid for.

What's interesting about this is the political quandry Obama will face: every voice on the left, and some in the center, are screaming "Spend! Spend! It's the only thing we can do to get out of this hole!" Meanwhile, every voice on the right, and some in the center, are screaming "Don't spend! It was crazy spending that got us into this hole!"

I'm inclined toward stimulus here, but the problem is that once you start priming the pump, it's hard to turn it off*--even if prudence says you should.

*I know, I know. Take it to the hottie-skanks thread.

Is anyone ever going to identify the imaginary Republican from some other messageboard that Monkeyboy is always arguing with?

So...if this nation was center-right, wouldn't they have elected McCain?

OK, thx bye

pacino wrote:So...if this nation was center-right, wouldn't they have elected McCain?

OK, thx bye

The "center-right" thing is the political equivalent of someone who was just dumped on live TV but swears their breakup was totally, totally mutual.

It's based on the self-identification of 34 percent of voters as "conservative," compared to 22 percent "liberal" with the rest "moderate." Problem here of course is that the terms are not universally defined--so what you have, I think, is a lagging indicator of how effective the right was in festooning "liberal" with negative connotations and "conservative" with positive associations.

It's an easier case to make the country is operationally center-left, but I don't think I buy that either; at best, the Democrats have a great opportunity to forge a center-left majority if they can deliver. People aren't ideological. They just want a functional government, which frankly neither party has been able to deliver for more than a couple years since, I dunno, Eisenhower...

pacino wrote:So...if this nation was center-right, wouldn't they have elected McCain?

OK, thx bye

Dunno about the center-right thing, but a lot of the electorate place their votes based on things like charisma, personality, etc. For POTUS, who, in their minds, they can envision as president... who they take "a liking to". It's a popularity contest. McCain wasn't elected because more people couldn't "see" him as prez than could. He projected the charisma of a wet towel, while Obama's charisma was exponential by comparison.

VoxOrion wrote:Is anyone ever going to identify the imaginary Republican from some other messageboard that Monkeyboy is always arguing with?

Well, there's this....

VoxOrion wrote:Does anyone else think that we'll be sitting in our tarpaper shacks sometime around 2014 reminicing on the good-old days of 2008/2009 when the government was just printing money and handing it out to anyone who asked?

But really, when I say GOP mantra, I'm not talking about a message board poster, I'm talking about what's happening on the talk shows, etc. If you haven't seen the talk of Obama taxing and spending us into oblivion, then you've been living under a rock, I guess.

dajafi wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:I realize it will mess with the obvious developing GOP mantra, but let's not forget who's been printing money and giving it out to whoever asked for it over the past 8 years. If I have a choice between tax and spend (something we don't know if Obama will do) and just wild spending, I'll choose tax and spend because at least things are paid for.

What's interesting about this is the political quandry Obama will face: every voice on the left, and some in the center, are screaming "Spend! Spend! It's the only thing we can do to get out of this hole!" Meanwhile, every voice on the right, and some in the center, are screaming "Don't spend! It was crazy spending that got us into this hole!"

I'm inclined toward stimulus here, but the problem is that once you start priming the pump, it's hard to turn it off*--even if prudence says you should.

*I know, I know. Take it to the hottie-skanks thread.

If there's one thing Obama has shown throughout the campaign, it's self control. I'm hoping he shows it as POTUS, as well, though I won't be holding my breath.

I did like the idea of tying the stimulus spending to parts of his agenda (healthcare, forcing Detroit to make more fuel efficient cars, etc), though I'm not versed enough in those things to know if it's really a good idea or if it would work at all.

Monkeyboy wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:Is anyone ever going to identify the imaginary Republican from some other messageboard that Monkeyboy is always arguing with?

Well, there's this....

VoxOrion wrote:Does anyone else think that we'll be sitting in our tarpaper shacks sometime around 2014 reminicing on the good-old days of 2008/2009 when the government was just printing money and handing it out to anyone who asked?

But really, when I say GOP mantra, I'm not talking about a message board poster, I'm talking about what's happening on the talk shows, etc. If you haven't seen the talk of Obama taxing and spending us into oblivion, then you've been living under a rock, I guess.

To dig out of the hole Bush left us in, for the first year Obama will rely on the GOP mantra of borrow and spend.

discussion of taxes & spending is so "economics thread".


whatever happened to Richard Holbrooke? Would he really rather have a hand up Hilary's keister than be SoS himself?