- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,719
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Moderator's Warning: |
I'll watch, but to mimic your attitude real quick in regards to IT in another thread just providing entire threads to you when he was asking for something specific....
Is there a specific point in this youtube video I should be watching for, a specific line of conversation, etc? Its 7 minutes, and going to go watch it now, but some direction would be helpful.
"DES MOINES, Iowa - Barack Obama declared today he’s the only candidate who can bring true change in Washington, hoping to persuade Iowa voters to give him the first victory in the Democratic presidential race.
Making his case against Hillary Rodham Clinton without naming her, Obama said, "The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result.""
It wasn't the whole transcript, but it was more than 2 paragraphs so I'm still a DP delinquent. My bad. :3oops:
Moderator's Warning: Please remember the fair use rules, next time post a few paragraphs and then link to it if possible.
He said Hillary is one of the "same Washington players" that produced the "same results" he's criticizing, but then he picks her as the Secretary of State?Even more here it seems he's specifically making the case against HILLARY
is he "lying"? i don't think thats the point. he made a clear campaign promise of change, then picked the very antagonist against that change for sec state.... to me it sends a message that the campaign of change was a prevarication at best and that he while maybe he is now being pragmatic, is doing exactly what he campaigned against.
This pick for example is not that he picked someone inexperienced, this is a fact. the issue here is it is yet another clinton retread, or as he charged against hillary "same old washington politics".....
There is no "change".
See he is "playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result." This is precisley what he campaigned against.
I think I more than proved my case that Aps and the rest of the left viewed this change as change from all washington politics, not just Bush.
I definitely thought he meant change from Washington politics.
What it comes down to is that the liberal/Dem criticism of Bush will be shown for the partisan bigotry that it was.And doing such from a hypocritical stance doesn't work. You can't demand the liberals/dems to hold their candidate to the same standards as Bush when you yourself are holding Obama to a higher standard than you held Bush.
You can disagree all you want my friend.
I can keep going, but to me this "change" was to change washington, not change from bush.
I definitely thought he meant change from Washington politics.
Thank you for your honesty.
Let me ask you, are you concerned about his picks thus far, given they are exactly not the change from Washington politics he promised?
I mean picking Hillary alone quashed that idea.
Ditto my friend.
Thanks for all the links that in no way show that he stated he would unequivically change every facet of how washington worked and would use nothing but people without experience in washington for his appoitned positions.
And thank you...that's my point all along. To you. Your interpritation. Your assumption. Your belief from the words he said and the way he portrayed himself. Just like peoples assumption, interpritation, and belief about Bush and the Iraq War and 9/11.
Then yes, you seem to fall into category two that I wrote...unless you thought everyone he'd appoint would have no connection to any other democrat, never worked in washington, etc.
The carvelle thing is a great example. Carvelle was known as a master at attack, mud slinging politics which...by Reverend's own youtube video...Obama seems to be decrying as "typical Washington Politics". Bringing carvelle on wouldn't be a change from that, Obama was trying to say his campaign was.
Politics is a gigantic sweeping term, that can run the gammot from policy to presentation.
I would question you aps if you weren't a bit disallusioned by the pick of Hillary because it seemed not a change to "typical politics", as it seems likely that it was a pick of someone for political appeasement. At the same time, I could understand wanting to "see how it goes", as "typical" washington politics would've also meant appointing someone as far left on the war as Obama was to your top foreign post...and yet he picked someone to the right of him (which is still left). So in some ways, it was not a change, in others, it was.
I think some republicans here are intentionally twisting Obama's message to an utmost extreme to get a "gotcha" situation. If he appoints someone with ANY washington experience at all, they cry "Its not change, its not change!". However if he appointed someone WITHOUT any washington experience they'd cry out "He's not experienced, he's not experienced".
There is more to a nomination beyond where a guy worked to tell you if its like the standard things.
My issue is not with believing this to be a bad appointment, I believe it is.
My issue isn't even saying negative things about Obama's promise of change. (Hell, I did that myself in my first post. Because this was EXACTLY the type of Change I thought Obama was truly meaning, but managed to present himself in such a way that people just naturally THOUGHT he was meaning more)
My issue is with attacking people for not being "disallusioned" with Obama when he's not completely broken with his campaign statements and with it still possible to look at what he's done and come up with a reasonable explanation that its in line with what he's said. My issue is with people trying to say he flat out lied about change, but defend Bush didn't lie, when to reach a conclussion that he actually intentionally purposefully knowingly mislead one must make assumptions about what kind of Change he meant exactly.
You have to change Washington from the inside. Do you think alienating Congress would bring about any change? He has to reach out to the establishment to an extent in order to get anything done. I'm not happy about the Hillary appointment, but I understand it. I doubt she would have taken a lesser role and he needs her allies on board in order to accomplish things.
So you still think Obama is going to change how business is done in washington as he promised?
To an extent. Change is a gradual process. I don't think he'll outlaw lobbyists in his first 100 days or anything.
We'll just have to wait and see.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?