Skip to main content

View Diary: [Updated] GIVE HIM A CHANCE!!! President Obama of USA = President Obama of Harvard Law Review! (241 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  He took legitimate criticism at Harvard (14+ / 0-)

    and we're giving him legitimate criticism here.

    The Republicans do not have the best and the brightest in their party. Look at the record of dismal failure of the Bush administration. You can't tell me that Democrats aren't better qualified than Republicans to fill positions in the Obama administration. Republican policies have been catastrophic.

    I can live with Gates, but the left has good reason to criticize his selection. The DoD is a mess that needs to be cleaned up by a new boss.

    "It's the planet, stupid."

    by FishOutofWater on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 07:43:07 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  there is a method to (4+ / 0-)

      his madness.  I am sure.

      I want policies and legislation.  I want a list of those policies on the right hand side of the screen, all day, every day.

      Care to write a policy diary????

      "When Obama speaks, Angels orgasm" Jon Stewart, 2008

      by fernan47 on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 07:44:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He has given us the mechanism to give him (7+ / 0-)

      our thoughts on the rumor mill choices at That is the appropriate place, not feeding the trolls in the MSM, who by the way have manufactured 99% of the shit storm out of whole cloth.

    •  Republicans don't have (7+ / 0-)

      many of the best and brightest, that's for sure. Especially at the top levels of the party. That's been their problem - their party is run by people who BELIEVE but don't have any rationale to back up their beliefs, refuse to listen to anybody else, and can't understand why the world doesn't conform to their beliefs.

      That doesn't mean there aren't any Republicans who are smart and pragmatic. It just means they're not loud and obnoxious, and don't get on TV or radio.

      If Obama finds those people and works with them, I'm all for it. Because when push comes to shove, he's the one with President before his name, and they're not.

    •  I don't have a tv, and my internet access is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      limited right now, so can someone tell me if that Frontline piece followed through and reported on whether the HLR product actually did improve during Barack's tenure?  I mean, maybe the conservatives were happy (see AEI's glowing approval of Geithner and Summers), but was the publication deemed an improved one when he left?

      Your comment is exactly what I'm thinking, fwiw, FOOW.  If he's really intent on improving our government, then the ideologues who destroyed it shouldn't be given a place at the table, except as dissenting voices.  To put them in places of power (and Brennan's a good example - he was firmly at Tenet's side during the breakdown of the Intel community) invites prolonging the disasters.  

      "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

      by nailbender on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 08:47:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The DoD is a long-term reclamation and (4+ / 0-)

      cleanup project.

      We can't expect to alter their course and focus areas without teasing out our potential areas of support, nor without identifying the hidden bodies.  Keeping Gates on now is a good play, while we build up our own groupings of personnel who can help to manage a full-scale downsizing of the military and defense operations in an intelligent and safe manner.

      It'll also dovetail with economic opportunities in a big way.

      Some sense of continuity or experience in the current arenas where we operate makes sense, as we can't just drive things in a new fashion and expect everything to align.  Compared to most areas which get our tax dollars, the DoD is more cryptic and oddly entrenched than people might imagine.  There are still many, many ways to drive projects into a hiding place - even while more public efforts are cut.  And, we have ideology from the 60s onwards about the relative role our military should play in terms of GDP, so altering that over time will take immense networking and investigation.

      It strikes me that, much as I don't want him there, Gates can remain our bridge to what is currently known while we put people and plans in place to take over that bridge and rebuild it for more transparent, maintainable traffic.  Plus, Gates's presence reminds everyone that Iraq is a BushCo legacy, not that of the newly elected Democrats.

      Gates can be replaced as soon as we can no longer keep him reasonably controlled (i.e., I cannot see this new arrangement giving him a long leash) or we have enough resources in place to remove him and guide both the wars and DoD mission towards more productive goals under lowered funding.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 09:46:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Legitimate criticism of course! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aethern, tomjones, CS in AZ

      It's the people who say he's "betrayed" them that drive me up a wall. He's exactly what he claimed he would be. And from what I've read, Gates has made some progress cleaning up the Rumsfeld mess.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site