Lawrence O'Donnell just pointed out that NEVER BEFORE has a Democratic president

been criticized by fellow Dems. for his choice of Chief of Staff, and that this is what Obama has to deal with. He has Adam Green on right now and I'm sure Lawrence will destroy him.

Just saying because I'm 64 and in all my years don't recall it being something we thought about.

but I'm only 43.

I can remember the pre-cable/internet days when I'd have to wait until the Sunday shows to get my political junky fix.

I blame my college political science professor for making me a political junky. Instead of any text books he had us all get a subscription to Time Magazine and we learned the technical aspect of politics using current events. It was and still is the most interesting and exciting thing going.

To quote the Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times." That we do.

and make sure he doesn't get out of line. Vanity Fair had an article on Rahm Emmanuel when he was chief of staff. He had a tiny device on his desk where he could actually watch Obama's every move.

Free Obama From the Clinton/Bush Fascist movement in the US

as Bush destroyed our country; & we continue to pay attention because we don't trust the government.

Nothing, that's what.

:dunce:

riling up the folks. Talk radio is the big change in last 15 years.
And now we have teabagger types to deal with on top of all that.

Way back when, a lot of the talk radio was liberal. That was in NYC but even here in Colorado there were lots of liberals on the radio. Although we did have one local conservative who gave it his own balance. But ever since Limbaugh and his Clinton bashing every single day - it got our collective attention. That was the '90s and by then the internet was taking hold.

being criticized for such minutia.

:rofl:

:rofl:

own. We've never had a President so disrespectful of his base either so it goes both ways.

accurate. The Internet is fueling a lot of this, and frankly a lot of ulterior motives from non-Democrats.

I can't think of any reason to unrec, unless the motive isn't Democratic.

Are you saying Obama disrespects his base more than Bill Clinton did?

he ran on passing NAFTA etc. We knew what we were getting so there was no deception. Obama was no flaming liberal but he ran on things that he now runs away from. Can't you see a difference there? I also don't recall being called names by his administration.

I always wonder this when people throw out Bill Clinton, apparently thinking they've just checkmated the shit out of someone by invoking his name. Clinton was awful. But if he's your measuring stick, no wonder you think Obama is the mostest.

I think he was a more experienced and adroit "politician"..and was wise enough to avoid the obnoxious "hippy punching" Rachel spoke of last night, but in essence, I find them to be quite similar.

But feel that the clintons control his administration. The US did not want hillary as president. Bill and hill treated Obama pretty shabbily during the primaries. She tried to get him to pay off her campaign debts so she would withdraw her candidacy long after she had no chance of winning. Bill and hill are a couple of shills who's expiration date has long since expired.

that were far more liberal!

and since I remember Ike and know something about history, I would agree.

I find what seems to be blind loyalty to ANYONE over democratic principles, hard to understand...I can only imagine that a lot of these people might be too young to remember when we HAD a real democratic president and real democrats in congress.

This isn't their fault, of course, and in fact may be the fault of so many DINOS in the party who have lowered their expectations by betraying those principles.

It makes no difference who is in office. Corporations make policy and rule.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Not if I had my way.

who the hell is Adam Green? I googled and learned he is head of the Progressive Change Campaign, and a brief bio on Huffington Post.

I still say: who the hell is Adam Green? (I'm thinking we should start a new party, modeled on "The Rent Is Too Damned High" party but called the "Who the Hell is Adam Green?" Party. Anyone wanna be my Chief of Staff?)

And even for things he doesn't say or do.

It's unbelievable, and it's new.

Lots and lots of predictive hand wringing and hyperventilating about how Obama hated gays and had no intent to get DADT overturned.

Then he gets it overe turned and many of the same hyperventilators, rather than say "sorry, my bad", instead change their song to "sure, he signed the bill, but he didn't want to".

Its all part of a larger anti-Obama agenda.

I have been around since Truman and I have never seen expectations at such unrealistic levels. I also have never seen so much outwardly vocal disrespect for a president from the other side. I know the reason for much of it but it doesn't make it any less depressing.

it's sad that too much of that comes from our own side.

making cuts to Social Security & Medicare -- parts of the New Deal, the program which was begun by FDR, a Democratic president whom Obama said he admires.

Bill Clinton's NAFTA has hurt the common people A LOT, but I had no idea at the time because I was a true-blue believer back then.

When did the President do this?

he planned to cut Social Security. It was a hint he wanted solutions to deficit reduction. The commission failed to produce a valid report. It was also not the first Presidential deficit reduction committee that ever produced lousy ideas.

The President has not hinted at cutting Social Security.

I'd love more than anything to be wrong.

to the commission. Instead, he should have used the occasion to tell the truth about SS and to declare it off limits.

has never added a dime to the deficit." Why? Why hasn't he told the truth? Why does he take the Reich Wing position?

Seriously?

Okay, here's a simple explanation: He's not a hand-puppet. He's a human being.

A more complex explanation would explain that your choice of words is wrong, because Social Security invested in treasury bills, which increases the debt load, which increases loan costs, which increases the deficit.

military spending? By cutting out health care for the troops. All the cuts are to the poor.Tell on fascism.

Do tell.

would reflect this.

In the face of HUGE public opposition how can he even contemplate this? Clinton and the Democratic Party are now saddled with NAFTA as a legacy. As a party we don't need even more destructive trade agreements dragging us down.

Obama set the level of expectations unrealistically high!

to "unrealistic" levels

Audacity of Hope!
Hope and Change!
We Can Do It!

He was gonna kick some serious ass and reverse the disastrous course of the bu$h years. But he surrounded himself mostly with status quo advisors, and looks to Ronald Freakin' Reagan, rather than to great Democratic leaders, for guidance.

Other people's opinions are not the President's fault.

That's kind of how it works.

but rather a book title and 2 campaign slogans. Did you ever hear of "The New Frontier" or "A Time for Greatness" or "Putting People First" or "Peace and Prosperity"? Geesh!

Sorry, but he wallowed in that lavish language about his abilities and goals, and he did so with intention. He also says he is such a devout Christian that he can not bear the idea of gay people having equal rights. So it seems you need to show us where in his Scriptures Christians are given the freedom to use hyperbolic language, spin, to enhance their own image using language that is not entirely true. The fact is that Christians are commanded to use only the most painfully honest and precise language, seeking only utter clarity of meaning. So tell me why those Scriptures do not apply to the Devout One, but must apply to teh gay?
What in that faith gives permission to say that which one does not actually mean? Hypocrisy, served on the half shell. Chruchy folk with demands for the lives of others, yet no standards at all for themselves. I reject that dogma.

Obama even called the level of hope he expected us to nuture audacious. Is it any wonder so many are disappointed? Obama over promissed and under delivered.

projects his own "audacity" by whining and bitching about progressives, the group who probably did the MOST to get him into office.

It's almost as if he feels "entitled" and I don't know where this comes from, but I know of NO other president who has done this.

Even Bill Clinton -- no friend of progressives, and himself a target of their criticism -- never did this.

And right on.

and "right on" is..right!

Dems have to stop "falling in love" as the saying goes, and keep their wits and their principles about them.:toast:

There have been fewer slams to progressives from high placed WH unnamed sources.

has, did you not?

I don't think unreasonable expectations were justified by an campaign slogan.

Or any, or all, of Reagan's inner circle? Or W's inner circle? Really?

I'm not comparing any of them to Obama, but like you I've been around a LONG time and bashing presidents inner circle is an evergreen activity...

and a financial meltdown caused by deregulation of the Banking system overturning what FDR put into place to stop Wall Street from causing another Great Depression. Misguided low interest rate policies by Alan Greenspan causing a Housing Bubble and Global Banking Crisis which resulted in ordinary taxpayers having to bail out and reward Banksters and Corporatists who had caused the problem in the first place.

Two Wars...loss of Civil Liberties and no investigation that was worthwhile over "9/11" attacks and Iraq Invasion along with the above mentioned...did lead to some expectations that might have been higher for a Candidate who Branded Himself as "Change You Can Believe In."

Just saying....

Great post!

Just imagine, these traumatic events have nearly destroyed the nation, and might still. As a nation we have seldom been in greater need of bold, strong and decisive action. Instead we get pandering to the right wing assholes that caused the entire mess we are in. This is NOT change I can believe in. Not even close.

....to his inner circle...

ESPECIALLY, the one who was commissioned to sell NAFTA under Clinton....

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Poor Barack. Are the people picking on him because he let the fox in the hen house again?

Poor baby.

Under Bush or Clinton?

Every little thing President Obama does is judged endlessly, from choice of dog to length of vacation to every single appointment.

He needs them. But his appointments are neo con..with a d in front of their names.

:rofl:

But it never really materialized. At least not in any grand sense.

He's better than McCain would have been (thank FSM) but on fundamental issues such as reforming the economic system and ending corruption in Congress, sadly, no.

The one best thing you could say about Obama is "He kept the status quo"

that this one can't help but be an improvement.

of the President to do a job the President wants and needs done the way the President wants it done. Same with the press secretary and other Presidential aides, assistants, advisors and whatevers.

Do we jump up and down about the choice of White House chef? President's secretary? Security Council members? First lady's appointments secretary?

Quite frankly, we hired the President to do a job for four years and it's really none of our fucking business who he has hanging around to help him do it.

(Does anyone with the time to write whiny posts even know what the Chief of Staff does, much less how to find a good one?)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Thanks.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The roles of the Chief of Staff are both managerial and advisory and can include the following:

Select key White House staff and supervise them;

Structure the White House staff system;

Control the flow of people into the Oval Office;

Manage the flow of information;

Protect the interests of the President; &

Negotiate with Congress, other members of the executive branch, and extragovernmental political groups to implement the President's agenda.

Though there were claims that Rahm was more powerful than the President.

A lot of people ignore the word "allows."

He works for the President.

"Quite frankly, we hired the President to do a job for four years and it's really none of our fucking business who he has hanging around to help him do it. "


This is one of the most absurd things I have ever read on this website. If you think his advisers and chief of staff play no role in the presidents decision making process you are out of your mind.

No more absurd than Russ Feingold voting for John Roberts based on the claim that a President deserves his appointments. That was posted here.

The President gets to choose his staff. Cabinet members and other political appointees must be confirmed, but he picks his advisers and staff. We have no say in that matter. In a handful of cases, valid protest may result in reversals, but the President would have to deem the objections valid.

who can't get their noses out of their own self important blogs and postings can positively affect the White House.

You aren't making any sense. You claimed that we shouldn't have opinions on a presidents advisers because we elected him president and therefor he gets to appoint whoever he wants without criticism.

I made the simple claim that a presidents advisers, specifically his chief of staff have a large amount of influence on the presidents decision making process and that if the president chooses someone who is consistently on the wrong side of many issues, we have a right to be upset about it because that person will constantly be pulling the president in the wrong direction. I am in no way saying that Obama will be listening to everything Daley tells him and will always do what Daley tells him to do, I am simply saying that I would prefer for Obama to have a chief of staff who was on our side and would be pulling the president in a more progressive direction rather than a more centrist direction.

Your little statement about self-important blogs and postings has nothing to do with what I was saying, so I don't really get what point you were trying to get across.

That's the way things are heading here anyway, right?

Never before has a Dem. president's choice of a Dem. Chief of Staff drawn so much criticism-from FELLOW DEMS.!

Really?

as bankers or on Wall Street. Just blind hatred of those people, regardless of their abilities or whether they'd fit the job.

as did mclarty, clinton's first chief of staff.

democrats have never made it a point to close ranks on such matters, and excel at the circular firing squad.

Look, early on in this administration, a lot of us, while somewhat concerned by some of the President's staffing choices, nevertheless decided to hold any criticism in abeyance. We hoped for the best, even as we were a bit alarmed, by his selections of Geithner, Summers, Gibbs and various left overs from the Clinton administration, et al. In the intervening two years, on issue after issue, we've watched as promised and much-needed reforms were reduced to tinkering at the margins, mostly in favor of big business and big finance. Turns out our fears concerning many of those appointees were quite well founded. So, at this point, many of us are simply calling it like we see it, and doing so when we see it.

-Laelth

Add to that the fact that there's an abundance of media via that likes to talk about process stories via the internet and the cable shows and there you go.

when I was just old enough to vote...I and other Dems have always taken a big interest in who a Democrat picks for his cabinet. But, then years ago there was more diversity in the media and people read newspapers and magazines because there was real and diversity of reporting.

So, it might depend on how long you've been voting or how active you were in the Democratic Party. :shrug:

the WH Chief of Staff was when I was a small child, in part because the entire country was glued to the criminal activities of HR Haldeman, WH Chief of Staff. He went to prison for his work. This was in the 1960's.
A person would have to be in a coma to not know what and who is the Chief of Staff in the WH. And many of them have been criticized, although for those of you who 'learned' from the West Wing, well, I guess you are taking Larry's fictions as truth, in more than one area.
The West Wing is where you get your knowledge? Wow.

I'd have loved to see the drama behind Clinton's picks.

I agree with your comment 100%. Some prefer to stick their collective heads in the sand and dream that all is well with the administration. I'd rather know the ugly truth and based on the legislation passed so far I see that our "Democratic" President is a Trickle Down follower, a Corporate stooge, and a big fan of big banks and corporations --yet has done nothing to actually create jobs and crack down on fraudulent foreclosures of working people's homes. We might as well be in year 10 of "dubya's" Presidency.

.... and thanks for giving me a chance to say that. ;)

Once more, we're expected to simultaneously believe that his critics are an irrelevant, insignificant handful of easily-disposable malcontents who aren't even a part of Obama's base anyway....AND that they're placing SUCH BURDENS upon him that we are to seriously be counted as part of "what he's dealing with" in his Presidency. Right. Al Qaeda, the economy, and us.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

racist? Explain yourself.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

they are just such brutal bullies! :sarcasm:

Democrats needed him to get re-elected in 2012.

the President picks a COS who speaks fluent Republican... Where is the news? How are people surprised?

To my mind it would have been a bigger surprise and certainly more worthy of discussion if he had gone elsewhere with this pick.

This is playing ball just the way Clinton did, down the center of the fairway. A very conventional choice from an apparently now quite grown up fellow.

Some of us thought that a President is there to do the "Work of the People" and not the work of Wall Street and Party Machine insiders along with more "Free Trade...not Fair Trade" agreements. We didn't elect a Dem President to undermine SS and Medicare, either. Then there are those two wars bleeding us dry as the MIC grows larger and surveillance of Americans grows stronger with the new Drone purchased for Miami-Dade County.

The work of the people actually requires a governing majority of another 535 people to act in concert with the President as an actual governing majority. We haven't seen this and aren't about to, because the left is lazy and lays down after taking the Whitehouse assuming mistakenly that this was enough.

What should have happened in 2010, if the left really wanted to teach a lesson to the "party machine" was massive losses to the parties and individuals that did not get on board and support the change we clearly voted for in 2008. If it actually took voting for real progressive change to win elections, keep their jobs, and stay in power, we would have all the progressive change we wanted. 2010 only proved that voting for even modestly progressive change is the surest path to losing an election, becoming unemployed, and being out of power.

Only people who are in office actually get to do the "work of the people". Getting re-elected is always the only object of this profession, and reliably re-electing people when they do some or most of what you want is the only way to have influence on them. Re-election is the only tangible measure of support that matters. Politics is actually hard work, you don't just get to win a single election and walk away expecting good results.

for what you feel.

both Dems and Republicans. This is the one thing they have in common, a desire to keep the job. If you can get them elected, or raise them lots of money to increase their chances of being re-elected, you will be attended to. If your support is conditional and ineffective, you are done.

It doesn't matter how "right" you may be ideologically. You can have the best arguments and thought out positions in the world. The problem is that we use the wrong metric. We see correct as the most morally justified position. Politicians are all but universally situational beasts. Their lives are dominated by the election in a few weeks or the one in two years. They are raising money for the next campaign from day 1. It is a profession that is all about winning elections and not angering too many of the wrong folks in between them.

How does one become one of the "wrong folks to anger"? You do it by being in their corner constantly and reliably as a significant source of votes and money. This kind of relationship is not created by a single election, it is built over a career. Why was Kennedy a "liberal lion"? In part because he believed in it, but in easily equal measure because he could count on being re-elected doing it. If this were not the case, he would have lost doing it, and losing candidates are never "liberal lions".

Serving liberals are not in "safe seats" because they were already liberal and happen to move there. Neither do they change the District to a more blue shade. They become liberals because this is what the voters in these areas have supported with consistently dollars and votes. The politician is the product of the process, not the other way around.

played a large part in destroying health "care" reform. (Quotes provided since it is basically welfare for big insurance.) For me, however, my expectations have hit bottom so I wouldn't care if Ronald Reagan came back to life and served as his Chief of Staff.

Oh, wait. Didn't Lawrence O'Donnell make gazillions as a consultant and writer on that show?????

Obama has not.

http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/IndianaJonesHOlyGrail.jpg

And I'm sure the whiners will get their knickers in a twist about Gibbs' replacement as well. Press Sec appointments are never constroversial, but I'm sure this one will be . . . with a certain small group.

I've gotten to the point where I love it when they get pissed.

:puke:

and got more than criticism for it. Of course he was an admitted Republican, but in my lifetime Chief of Staff has been convicted of crimes and sent to prison for them. Forgive me for having a memory, but this is a job that is defined in my mind by HR Haldeman.
O'Donnell is making up dream info. There is NO position in the WH that has never before been criticized. The idea of that is just funny to me.
Sure Larry, no one ever criticized a CoS before. Whatever you say. The sky is green, the sea is orange, whatever you say, Larry.

the criticism I mean.

Deal with it.

What a stupid comment.

Yes, deal with it.

president's choice of a Dem. CoS.

O'Donnell's down playing of the job was lame.
Does anyone think Daley would take a job that didn't come with a considerable amount of power?

And was. It wasn't lame to point out the facts. And Daley was chosen by Obama to get HIS message out. Adam Green doesn't get that.

hey you liberals, drop dead!

Not "drop dead," just "get lost??"

:rofl:

So transparent.

NGU.

I don't HAVE a post #98! Check again! :rofl:

Now that people can know when Obama has taco shits, it's apparently a big deal. I can only imagine what DU would have done with people like Clark Clifford. Or Bob McNamara. Or Ted Sorensen.

Truth be told, Obama ignored his advice when he had to.

President Johnson was brought down not by Republicans but by Democrats who were opposed to the War in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. The criticism from the estimable likes of Robert F. Kennedy, George McGovern, Eugene McCarthy and others was unremitting.

Presidents Carter and Clinton (to a lesser degree) was also criticised by Democrats.

and although they may have responded critically to those other dem politicians, as the game calls for, they did NOT strike out at rank and file members of their base, and as I recall, the base was even more liberal then than it is now.

I could have forgiven it happening once, maybe even twice..He is, after all, relatively inexperienced, politically and he IS dealing with a lot.

That being said, he and his aides have done it repeatedly and without apology -- and that, in my opinion, is inexcusable.

Not for staff appointments which is O'Donnell's point.

knew who was on presidential staff. You can bet if they had it would've been subject to critism then too. It's not unfairly aimed at this president, it's the information we have because of the time we live in.

This president has had to endure a level of criticism for minutia that no other President has had to.

the cyberspace perpetual whining chorus would complain that President Obama was prejudiced against the living.


They find things to be outraged by, and the leftbaggers have far more in common with their brethren on the right than they care to admit.

Yes they were not Chief of Staff, but Clinton was indeed criticized for bringing these assholes into his inner circle by the whiny hippie liberal left progressive insignificant non-base.

from both parties.

Pretending this isn't always a fairly powerful position is nonsensical. I'm interested in most appointments since execution of the law is nearly as important as legislating or interpreting it.

If you don't pay attention to the bureaucracy that is YOUR bad not some failing of those that do.

He promptly surrounded himself with DLC leaders,
to the almost complete exclusion of Progressive
advisers. I say almost, because there might have
been one Progressive in his cabinet, but I don't
know who it would have been.

THIS is why there is criticism.

Duh. :crazy:

TV news.

Before the internet being a major factor it was localized.

Cell phones with internet access increased it further.

No Facebook,
No Twitter,
Cell phones were expensive and rare,
No Democratic Underground,
No Fox News

So it was not easy to criticize anything on a public forum.

your reasoning is ridiculous....perhaps that's just a reflection of the poor choices Obama makes