The Return of the Clintonistas!!!

Sunni Man

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2008
63,335
31,640
2,320
Patriotic American Muslim
As reported earlier, rumor has it that president-elect Barack Obama is considering asking Sen. Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state. According to insiders, Team Obama is not particularly impressed by the traditional candidates for the position - Senators Chuck Hagel and John Kerry and Governor Bill Richardson for instance - and has decided to expand the scope of potential candidates for top positions in an Obama administration.

It is well known that Clinton and Obama could not get along during the primaries and that Obama did not want to ask the former First Lady to be his running mate. Nonetheless, the victory seems to have encouraged Team Obama to heal the intra-party wounds caused by the primaries and the team realizes that Clinton and their allies and supporters are those who know how to run a country.

Which has led to even more signals that Team Obama is considering lining up with Clinton and Clintonistas: Politico reports that many former Clinton officials are now working for Obama, are expected to work for him, or are being considered for top positions in an Obama administration. As Politico puts it, “Obama gets the Clinton band back together.”

Although the incorporations of ‘Clintonistas’ into Team Obama may cause some to wonder what Change Obama was talking about during the campaign season, the fact of the matter is that if you want to run a smooth administration, and especially a smooth first 100 days which are considered crucial for any new president, you need to surround yourself by people who have experience running the most powerful country on earth. Getting a completely new crew in will cause trouble in the first couple of months, simply because they don’t know how the White House works.

If you are a Democrat, there are only two things you can do in this situation: go back to Carter and his officials, or to the Clintons and their officials. Since Carter’s presidency is not believed to be very successful whereas Bill Clinton remains one of the most popular former presidents in modern history the choice is made quite easily.

Additionally, one assumes that the decision of Obama to incorporate so many former Clinton officials into his administration is a sign that he may be a more moderate president than some center-right critics of Obama during the campaign feared. Clinton was a Democrat, but he did not govern like an ideological liberal. His presidency was partisan, but not highly ideological; he governed like a pragmatist.

If Obama does so as well, chances are that criticism from moderates and center-right pundits will be reasonably limited, which should position quite well for a second term.

PoliGazette » The Return of the Clintonistas
 
The Return of the Clintonistas!!!


Praise Allah!

Perhaps now that adults who have a clue are running the show, we can begin the repair the disasterous outcomes of having the likes of Rummy, Cheyney, and Gonzales running things.
 
It is not change. Obama should cut off ties with the Clintons. Hillary lost the nominee and this is Obamas Presidency not Clinton #2.
 
It is not change. Obama should cut off ties with the Clintons. Hillary lost the nominee and this is Obamas Presidency not Clinton #2.
I'm very disappointed. I assumed that Obama was going to staff his administration with new and fresh faces. ie. New ideas!

I hated the Clintons when they were in office. Now it is starting to look like the Clintons part II :evil:
 
Obama said he was for "Change"

So how is filling the White House full of Clinton era rejects a "Change"!!!

btw I voted for Obama

Don't be obtuse.

It's an enormous change from the Bush gang that coulnd't shoot straight.
 
I'm very disappointed. I assumed that Obama was going to staff his administration with new and fresh faces. ie. New ideas!

I hated the Clintons when they were in office. Now it is starting to look like the Clintons part II :evil:

It seems like they are blackmailing there way into the office with the whole "weather underground" thing.
 
I'm very disappointed. I assumed that Obama was going to staff his administration with new and fresh faces. ie. New ideas!

I hated the Clintons when they were in office. Now it is starting to look like the Clintons part II :evil:

Like one of the anchors from CNN once said, what didn't you like

about the Clinton years, the peace or the prosperity?
 
Like one of the anchors from CNN once said, what didn't you like

about the Clinton years, the peace or the prosperity?

That's all well and good, but prosperity didn't start until the Conservatives took over Congress in 1995. Markets don't do well while Democrats control Congress.

Did we have peace? Well, that's debatable. Bush and Congress started a war with Iraq. WRONG! But terrorism was still a major issue during the Clinton years.
 
Why shouldn't he reappoint Clintonites? Other than Bill's sexual shortcomings, the 8 years of the Clintons was one of the most successful administrations in US history.

I still think that the change that Obama talked about was the change from the disasterous 8 years of Booooosh and DICK.
 
Obama should just take a bold stand and say " You Clintons have been molesting black people for years, but not in MY Presidency because thats not how Obama rolls.....if you come at me again with your manufactured threats I'll be forced to play by Prison Rules and watch you go down in my indictments."
 
Bush and Congress started a war with Iraq. WRONG! QUOTE]

Then who started the war? Who was the one pushing to start the war? Who was it that sent his Secretary of State, a noble man, to the UN to give a speech loaded with untruths and half lies?

Who was that? It was Booooosh! That is who it was. Well, he will retire to his ranch soon and tell his war stories about how he caught Saddam. :clap2:
 
Obama should just take a bold stand and say " You Clintons have been molesting black people for years, but not in MY Presidency because thats not how Obama rolls.....if you come at me again with your manufactured threats I'll be forced to play by Prison Rules and watch you go down in my indictments."
WOW!!!

"You go Girl"!!!!! :clap2:
 
That's all well and good, but prosperity didn't start until the Conservatives took over Congress in 1995. Markets don't do well while Democrats control Congress.

Did we have peace? Well, that's debatable. Bush and Congress started a war with Iraq. WRONG! But terrorism was still a major issue during the Clinton years.

You are pushing a typical right wing myth. Republican congress outspends

a democratic congress 3 to 1. Also see if you can answer these questions,

then tell me again what party handles our economy better.

Which president produced:

1. The highest growth in the gross domestic product?
2. The biggest increase in jobs?
3. The biggest increase in personal disposable income after taxes?
4. The highest growth in industrial production?
5. The biggest rise in hourly wages?
6. The lowest Misery Index (inflation plus unemployment)?
7. The lowest inflation?
8. The largest reduction in the federal budget deficit?
answers at the bottom

The University of Nevada-Reno economics professor also uncovered the following while conducting the economic comparison between Republican and Democratic presidential administrations from 1949 to 2005:
• Unemployment Rate- Republicans 6.0%, Democrats 5.2%
• Change In Unemployment Rate- Republicans +0.3%, Democrats -0.4%
• Growth of Multifactor Productivity- Republicans 0.9%, Democrats 1.7%
• Corporate Profits (share of GDP)- Republicans 8.8%, Democrats 10.2%
• Real Value of Dow Jones Index- Republicans 4.3%, Democrats 5.4%
(in logarithmic growth rates)- Republicans 2.8%, Democrats 4.4%
• Real Weekly Earnings- Republicans 0.3%, Democrats 1.0%
• CPI Inflation Rate- Republicans 3.8%, Democrats 3.8%

which showed Real GDP Growth Rate (annual average) under Republican administrations now stood at 2.9% and Democratic administrations at 4.2%. Real GDP Growth Rate Per Capita was 1.7% for the Republicans and 2.9% for the Democrats. These results prompted Dr. Parker to conclude that “the economy has grown significantly faster under Democratic administrations, and more than twice as fast in per-capita terms.”

1. Truman; 2. Carter; 3. Johnson; 4. Kennedy; 5. Johnson; 6. Truman; 7. Truman; 8. Clinton. A Democratic sweep.
 
Bush and Congress started a war with Iraq. WRONG! QUOTE]

Then who started the war? Who was the one pushing to start the war? Who was it that sent his Secretary of State, a noble man, to the UN to give a speech loaded with untruths and half lies?

Who was that? It was Booooosh! That is who it was. Well, he will retire to his ranch soon and tell his war stories about how he caught Saddam. :clap2:

Obama needs to send the Saudi Arabians a bill with a due date and say "Hey according to Bush you owe us 10 trillion dollars for keeping your little royal son safe, so pay up or I'll be forced to give the real muslims back there country."
 
Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?

As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.

Op-Chart - Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com
 

Forum List

Back
Top