Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas_lov
Interesting to see the arguments against Obama shift from "he's an extremist" to "he's just more of the same." No matter who Obama named to his cabinet he would get criticized either way by the same people.
One thing you could argue is why is Obama giving powerful positions to people he thought had bad judgement? Wasn't that one of his biggest arguments against Clinton?
|
It goes both ways all over politics, on all sides.
No matter who Obama appointed would be defended by his supporters, and opposed by his detractors. That's it. I think Jas lov is absolutely right that he'd be criticized if he picked "out there" people that had somehow avoided big jobs in the party under Clinton. It's also true that Obama supporters would either be excited about "real change coming to Washington", or "change from the last 8 years", depending on what Obama chose. People (with rare exception) can't get past those initial allegiances and never have a contrary opinion to them.
I'm guilty of that too, in that I absolutely lean against Obama and look first at the critical angle whenever he does anything. But I feel like I can at least then reach a "second stage" where I can try to get past my bias and see things with a little clarity. I think Obama's picks are a home run thus far.
People like me, who didn't vote for him, who are stunned that someone with such minuscule credentials (outside of good speaking skills - the thing that got him the nomination) is actually president, should be THRILLED that he's going with experienced people. I want the country to succeed first, and while I don't feel Obama is guy for the job, I'd be even more freaked out if he had all these crazy appointments. At this point, a third term of Clinton would be fine by me.