Wait, how is saying “you spied on us illegally because the President asked you to, but never mind, that’s fine” protecting my privacy?
My understanding was that it was the best Obama felt he could do at the time politically. It was better than nothing, and Obama is a guy who will settle for a nickel if he can’t get the quarter he was asking for.
I’ve used this analogy in discussions with my family - whether it’s better to be a person who gets a quarter once and four nothings, or a person who gets five nickels, but now that I think of it, I don’t think it’s quite a valid analogy. I think guys like Obama get a nickel three times, nothing once and a quarter once.
I’m something of a purist myself, a child of the sixties, and it frosts my ass to say it, but Obama’s right, and Bill Clinton was right. Until such time as the true majority of the country feels as I do, they’ll always aim for the stars, but then settle for the moon, and occasionally they’ll make it all the way to the sun, which in itself is a huge achievement. And it’s no flaw of Obama’s that he’s willing to settle; it’s my flaw for demanding an ideological purity from him rather than the hard-headed pragmatism that not only do I know he has, but was one of the reasons I thought he’d make such a good president.
Which doesn’t mean that we lefties shouldn’t keep the pressure up, because the Limbaugh right won’t stop bitching from now until the next Republican is elected, and even then they’ll insist that the liberal elites are “really” in control, just as Lee Atwater and Karl Rove taught them to. The balance must be maintained, or Obama will be pushed over, and that would be disastrous. This would be true for any president, but will be particularly true for one where the situation is as dire and the expectations are as high as is true in the US now.
Not a good start:
Meet the new boss:
So, because he probably won’t polarize the country by hauling our last President in on criminal charges, he’s the “same as the old boss”, who actually did all the torturing?
Look, I’d like to see Bush and his cronies strung up on piano wire just as much as the next guy. But his entire campaign–hell, his entire life–has been about uniting, not dividing, our nation. Despite the fact that it’s fashionable for Republicans to denounce Bush right now, many of our country’s redder half will defend each of his policies if you push them hard enough. I’ve met a lot of people who say they hate Bush because that’s what they’re supposed to say, but who don’t have any real qualms with the guy on a political level and would be outraged by anybody actually doing anything about Shrub’s many crimes. That spells political disaster, and although putting the dude and his cronies on trial is the right thing to do, it could set the stage for someone who’s really the same as the old boss to take back the White House and the Senate in 2012. We’ve got to look long-term at this.
On the other hand, I’d be tickled pink if Shrubby found himself hauled in on his next sojourn to Baghdad or the Hague.
He pronounces “divisive” to rhyme with “permissive,” instead of “decisive.”
Afraid that’s all I’ve got.
Lemme read the whole thread, instead of doing a search on the word “divisive”, and I’ll see if I can think of any others.
That sounds about right.
Holder is black and a friend of Obama’s, so, what…he’s not having to go through the same vetting process as everyone else? Or, he has been vetted and these things don’t matter? If Bush had picked this guy, Democrats would be howling at the moon in anger.
Maybe it’s not true. Maybe Hillary as SOS isn’t true. But they both might be, and I have to say, my liberal schoolgirl crush on and hope for our new president is quickly starting to fade.
But at least, he’s gotta be better than McCain, and certainly better than Bush.
Well, shit.
Another Holder tidbit:
That’s from 1996. I don’t yet have a link, but someone said that he’s also against medical marijuana.
He’s a Blackberry addict. That’s a big personal flaw in my opinion.
Just out of curiosity, where’s the personal flaw in that? I’m just not familiar with that connection, so I’d appreciate if you would humor me by spelling it out.
With your thumbs.
He’s going to have to go cold turkey on the BlackBerry, though.
I think his greatest flaw is that he can be too optimistic, particularly about the character and intelligence of others. I’m intrigued by his approach to bipartisanship and compromise, but I sometimes worry that he counts too much on those on the other side rising to the occasion. Will he be wary enough when he brings rivals into his administration, or sits down to talk with enemies, that he doesn’t get manipulated, blindsided or stabbed in the back? I’ve decided to take a leaf from his book and expect the best of him, but I’ll be curious to see how it all works out.