Obama's first bad appointment...

http://wvgazette.com/News/200811231185?page=2&build=cache

Well I guess it's no surprise but I would not have picked Richardson.

I also would not keep Gates at Defense.

He needs to put someone at Defense who sees the futility of trying to occupy a country halfway around the world when 80% of them want us out.

You wouldn't have picked Richardson because he was disloyal to the Clintons. Why should Obama not have picked him?

With regard to Defense, will troops be pulled out of Iraq all at one time?

Then that would be Robert Gates. He recommended to GWB that we needed to start scaling down our presence in Iraq and that's what he's done. He would continue that job under Obama. What he would not recommend and I don't believe Obama is so reckless either, is the immediate withdraw of all troops as you desire. Both realize the foolishness of such a move.

So why is Richardson a bad appointment?

Well if I was appointing people I would expect loyalty.

I would figure if he was not loyal to Bill Clinton then he probably wouldnt be loyal to me either.

As to Gates he is not change.

And that was the whole theme of the campaign was change.

And hope.

And I was not even an early Obama supporter so just think how disappointed they will be if he does re-appoint Gates.

Who are they? And why will they be disappointed?

Right. He only endorsed Obama over Hillary Clinton. Not loyal to Hillary is the same as disloyal to Bill, eh? You democrats certainly are territorial.

Personally, I think that Richardson would have been a better pick than Hillary to run the State Department.

Why is that Dick? What has Richardson done to display he would be more apt to run the state department then Hillary?

To my knowledge Richardson hasn't already been publicly duped and humiliated by a world leader the way Hillary has. Or did I miss something? I frequently do.

I find Richardson to be one of the least offensive picks Obama has made, btw.

In a very narrow way, wasn't Biden Obama's first bad appointment?

ohio county wrote:In a very narrow way, wasn't Biden Obama's first bad appointment?

If so, by the same token, Palin was McCain's first bad "appointment". The contrast is revealing, no?

Of course you can't answer a simple question.

Hillary, if she is indeed the SecState nominee, will be Obama's first bad selection. Richardson or Holbrooke would be better there.

I love it that the only people who so far are upset about Obama's cabinet is the far Left.

Randall wrote:Hillary, if she is indeed the SecState nominee, will be Obama's first bad selection. Richardson or Holbrooke would be better there.

I love it that the only people who so far are upset about Obama's cabinet is the far Left.

Personally, I don't think that she would make a "bad" Sec. o' State. I just think that Richardson would be better. And, I'm far from upset that she appears to be the future nominee.

George Will said the exact same thing Sunday Randall and one of the liberal counterparts said pretty much the same thing Ms. BMD said and then he went on to say that while he was happy thus far, he would "feel better" if Obama would put some "progressive" people in his adminstration as well.

Speaking of progressive, every time I hear that word I can't help but think of Brit Hume said a few weeks ago. He said "liberals" are so ashamed of what they truly are that they can't bring themselves to call use the word "liberals", they have to use the term "progressive".

Wow! The basset hound really nailed that one.

Aaron wrote:George Will said the exact same thing Sunday Randall and one of the liberal counterparts said pretty much the same thing Ms. BMD said and then he went on to say that while he was happy thus far, he would "feel better" if Obama would put some "progressive" people in his adminstration as well.

Maybe I should try and get a gig on one of the Sunday morning talk-fests.

Aaron wrote:Speaking of progressive, every time I hear that word I can't help but think of Brit Hume said a few weeks ago. He said "liberals" are so ashamed of what they truly are that they can't bring themselves to call use the word "liberals", they have to use the term "progressive".

I have absolutely no problem using either term. You can call me liberal, you can call me progressive, you can call me liberally progressive, or you can call me progressively liberal.

But, why do you think it necessary to add "Ms." to my alias? Do you think that I would get all riled up if you called me a girl? A bit of latent misogyny creeping into your typing, Aaron? What's next, gonna' call me gay?

Yeah, you're going to get a gig on Sunday morning talk shows when you're so damn scared to reveal your first name because one of the dozen or so regular posters might come out to the hypothetical university in California you supposedly teach at and hurt you?

I don't know about gay but you're definately a sissy.

Aaron wrote:Yeah, you're going to get a gig on Sunday morning talk shows when you're so damn scared to reveal your first name because one of the dozen or so regular posters might come out to the hypothetical university in California you supposedly teach at and hurt you?

I don't know about gay but you're definately a sissy.

Sticks and stone, Judy.

Hey, they're your words dick, not mine.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=ajOqNF7Y3cFs

Well maybe this will help get Obama's nerve up to do the right thing...

We will see.

bmd wrote:

ohio county wrote:In a very narrow way, wasn't Biden Obama's first bad appointment?

If so, by the same token, Palin was McCain's first bad "appointment". The contrast is revealing, no?

No. Palin is a relative simpleton who could not answer questions.

Biden, meanwhile, is a relative simpleton whose ridiculous statements were ignored by the press. The contrast is in the difference between how the two were handled by the press.

sodbuster wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=ajOqNF7Y3cFs

Well maybe this will help get Obama's nerve up to do the right thing...

We will see.

I beleive there's already an agreement in place to bring American forces home.

And of course Obama will get the credit for it even though he had nothing to do with it.

So if bringing them home is a good idea, why not just do it now so Bush can get the credit for it?

Perhaps you should ask the Iraqi government why they want to keep US troops in their country until 2011.