Coloradomtnman
Rational and proud of it.
This post is probably going to make you GOP dipsticks happy, but I want other liberals and Democrats' reactions to my thoughts.
Being a far leftist I voted for Obama for a number of reasons:
1. He's not conservative therefore he believes in change.
2. He's black and will have a perspective of what needs to happen in the world because he will better understand oppression: that there needs to be some real change.
3. He's educated and talented: and therefore, he knows that politics and the status quo needs to change.
4. He's young and new and will bring a fresh perspective to the White House which will inherently bring change.
5. His message was change.
So, now he's picking a bunch of former Clintonites:
1. Rahm Emmanuel - which may or may not be a big deal since he's appointed as Chief of Staff and won't have much effect on policy.
2. Tom Daschle - also may not be a big deal because he has good ideas on health care though I think there were better choices.
3. Eric Holder - a terrible choice for me. The War on Drugs has been a complete failure and minimum mandatory sentences are not justice. Just read Blackascoal's views on this to understand a liberal's perspective: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/64586-obama-sells-out-americas-youth-with-eric-holder.html
4. Janet Napolitano - I've not read much about her but the little I have isn't good. And someone's who opinion I respect has little good to say about her: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/64604-janet-napolitano-your-kidding.html
5. Hilary, herself. Although possibly a pragmatic choice, I think Barbara Bodine would've been a better choice. Hilary might be well received around the world, but I think that Barbara Bodine is better experienced and more intelligent and less loyal to the Democratic Party (though hardly loyal to the GOP - I just think she wouldn't identify with neither).
When I voted for change, I didn't vote for change back to the 1990s - I voted for new change. Most of us agree, liberals and conservatives, that politics, especially Washington politics, are screwed up. The status quo sucks - to put it bluntly.
I really want policy changes, but I want new politics as well.
Lobbyists and special interest groups exert far too much influence, and it seems Obama is attempting to deal with that. I think that's great.
However, I don't want to go back to the Clinton Era, as good as it was, it was still not great.
Although, I think it is too early to really judge what the direction of the Obama administration will really be, I am growing increasingly concerned about his appointees. I don't want complete inexperience, but I don't want people already warped by Washington politics.
What do other Democrats and liberals think of these choices? And try to avoid apologist statements.
Being a far leftist I voted for Obama for a number of reasons:
1. He's not conservative therefore he believes in change.
2. He's black and will have a perspective of what needs to happen in the world because he will better understand oppression: that there needs to be some real change.
3. He's educated and talented: and therefore, he knows that politics and the status quo needs to change.
4. He's young and new and will bring a fresh perspective to the White House which will inherently bring change.
5. His message was change.
So, now he's picking a bunch of former Clintonites:
1. Rahm Emmanuel - which may or may not be a big deal since he's appointed as Chief of Staff and won't have much effect on policy.
2. Tom Daschle - also may not be a big deal because he has good ideas on health care though I think there were better choices.
3. Eric Holder - a terrible choice for me. The War on Drugs has been a complete failure and minimum mandatory sentences are not justice. Just read Blackascoal's views on this to understand a liberal's perspective: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/64586-obama-sells-out-americas-youth-with-eric-holder.html
4. Janet Napolitano - I've not read much about her but the little I have isn't good. And someone's who opinion I respect has little good to say about her: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/64604-janet-napolitano-your-kidding.html
5. Hilary, herself. Although possibly a pragmatic choice, I think Barbara Bodine would've been a better choice. Hilary might be well received around the world, but I think that Barbara Bodine is better experienced and more intelligent and less loyal to the Democratic Party (though hardly loyal to the GOP - I just think she wouldn't identify with neither).
When I voted for change, I didn't vote for change back to the 1990s - I voted for new change. Most of us agree, liberals and conservatives, that politics, especially Washington politics, are screwed up. The status quo sucks - to put it bluntly.
I really want policy changes, but I want new politics as well.
Lobbyists and special interest groups exert far too much influence, and it seems Obama is attempting to deal with that. I think that's great.
However, I don't want to go back to the Clinton Era, as good as it was, it was still not great.
Although, I think it is too early to really judge what the direction of the Obama administration will really be, I am growing increasingly concerned about his appointees. I don't want complete inexperience, but I don't want people already warped by Washington politics.
What do other Democrats and liberals think of these choices? And try to avoid apologist statements.
