Surely he can do better than this?

[Smiling Assassin27]

Granted, no appointments have been made, but the rumours about Obama's cabinet don't exactly inspire confidence. Dude seems awfully uninspired with these choices.

Secty Of State: Kerry or Clinton? Huh? I guess it's a case of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. Um, does ANYONE consider either of these folks to be an expert on foreign policy? Hardly. OK, she was almost shot down over Bosnia...ROFL!

Secty of Education: Colin Powell. Well, if his incompetent run as Secty of State is any indication, this should be a disaster. Dude was dishonest and disloyal--why would anyone want him on their team?

Treasury: Robert Rubin. Clinton re-tread--not exactly sweeping change in the air here. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here cuz Rubin's competent.

Ambassador to the UN: Caroline Frickin' Kennedy. How she is qualified to be a UN Ambassador is beyond me. If Obama wants to reward her for her support, make her a freakin' ambassador of somewhere that's irrelevant, like Luxembourg.

Defense: It looks like Gates may stay on. If so, this is a tacit approval for the job and policies he carried out under, uh, Bush. No sweeping change here, folks...move along. Lucky for Obama, Gates is competent, relatively non-controversial, and liked by Repubs. Considering we're in wartime, keeping Gates would be good for this transfer of power, I'd say.

[Crushaholic]

Clinton makes a heck of a lot more sense than John Frickin' Kerry...:spit:

[Smiling Assassin27]

Clinton makes a heck of a lot more sense than John Frickin' Kerry...:spit:


I'm not exactly sure how. Bill Richardson outshines them both, but again, a Clinton re-tread.

[Rohirrim]

Believe me, if Obama could resurrect Winston Churchill and appoint him SoS, SmilingAss would still be spewing his inane bs.

[Crushaholic]

I'm not exactly sure how. Bill Richardson outshines them both, but again, a Clinton re-tread.

She brings the Clinton name to international talks. Obama, being so inexperienced, would be well served to surround himself with people who have done this before.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Believe me, if Obama could resurrect Winston Churchill and appoint him SoS, SmilingAss would still be spewing his inane bs.

Coming from the Kool Aid guzzler, this post makes sense. Critical thinking is not Roh's strongest suit, apparently. Snide and irrelevant remarks, however, are his specialty. I guess you think this Cabinet's already bordering on divine. :notworthy

[Rohirrim]

Coming from the Kool Aid guzzler, this post makes sense. Critical thinking is not Roh's strongest suit, apparently. Snide and irrelevant remarks, however, are his specialty. I guess you think this Cabinet's already bordering on divine. :notworthy

You're an asswipe and a troll. Your only purpose here is to emulate your jack-off buddies, Hannity and Rush by deluging this forum with waves of stupidity in the hopes it will somehow rub off and create more new stupid people you can carry on a conversation with at your own level. It's a real shame you didn't get the attention you craved growing up, but we can't fix that here. Make an appointment with your high school counselor.

[Smiling Assassin27]

You're an asswipe and a troll. Your only purpose here is to emulate your jack-off buddies, Hannity and Rush by deluging this forum with waves of stupidity in the hopes it will somehow rub off and create more new stupid people you can carry on a conversation with at your own level. It's a real shame you didn't get the attention you craved growing up, but we can't fix that here. Make an appointment with your high school counselor.

Hey, after reading years of tripe like the stuff below from you, it's clear that the troll is you. You sure like dishing it out but wilt like a pansy when it's heaped on you and yours. I've said many times that Bush is a marginal president, but the way you and others here have gone about dismantling the guy (and 'Rightards', whatever the hell that is) is cheap, slimy, and over the top. Welcome to it, you wimp. The next time you engage in an actual argument will be the first, as evidenced by your idiotic first response. You still haven't been able to answer--do you like the Cabinet or not?

Man, it's a Rightard meltdown in the ole WRP today! All the usual suspects have sunk to new lows of viciousness and slime. The anger is palpable. Hey, guys, it's just a black guy taking the Oval Office. He's not bonking your sister. Relax.

If you're this bent tonight, I can only imagine what happens tomorrow night. Do us all a favor, Rightards. Call your docs tomorrow and get some meds. Have the BP checked. Take some deep breaths. Meditate. Buy a crystal. Go to Whole Foods and soak up some vibes. Walk the dog.

And don't worry about a thing. Pretty soon, us Lefties will be in charge. The nightmare of the last eight years will be over.


p.s. Rush and Hannity are garbage. But i'll bet you cream over Al Franken, dontcha...

[TailgateNut]

You're an asswipe and a troll. Your only purpose here is to emulate your jack-off buddies, Hannity and Rush by deluging this forum with waves of stupidity in the hopes it will somehow rub off and create more new stupid people you can carry on a conversation with at your own level. It's a real shame you didn't get the attention you craved growing up, but we can't fix that here. Make an appointment with your high school counselor.


He's been a little whiny bitch ever since McCain lost the "race to the WH". Why even respond to his whining?

[Smiling Assassin27]

He's been a little whiny b**** ever since McCain lost the "race to the WH". Why even respond to his whining?

Typical. You have an argument about uninspired cabinet choices before you. Will you engage it or just pi$$ and moan about the same stuff that you've done around here for years? I didn't vote for McCain, so your assertion is foolish.

[TailgateNut]

Hey, after reading years of tripe like the stuff below from you, it's clear that the troll is you. You sure like dishing it out but wilt like a pansy when it's heaped on you and yours. I've said many times that Bush is a marginal president, but the way you and others here have gone about dismantling the guy (and 'Rightards', whatever the hell that is) is cheap, slimy, and over the top. Welcome to it, you wimp. The next time you engage in an actual argument will be the first, as evidenced by your idiotic first response. You still haven't been able to answer--do you like the Cabinet or not?







p.s. Rush and Hannity are garbage. But i'll bet you cream over Al Franken, dontcha...

An actual argument?

Stop your constant crying!

Roh has been a very intelligent poster of the years, whereas you have come into the WRP forum and are flooding the floor with your "Elephant tears".

[TailgateNut]

Typical. You have an argument about uninspired cabinet choices before you. Will you engage it or just pi$$ and moan about the same stuff that you've done around here for years? I didn't vote for McCain, so your assertion is foolish.

...and I'm sure you didn't vote for Bush, just like all the rest of the whiny ass bitches.

Re: the cabinet. Anyone Obama picks would trump Bush's "flip o the quarter nincompoops" which helped create the disaster we have to clean up.

[Rohirrim]

Hey, after reading years of tripe like the stuff below from you, it's clear that the troll is you. You sure like dishing it out but wilt like a pansy when it's heaped on you and yours. I've said many times that Bush is a marginal president, but the way you and others here have gone about dismantling the guy (and 'Rightards', whatever the hell that is) is cheap, slimy, and over the top. Welcome to it, you wimp. The next time you engage in an actual argument will be the first, as evidenced by your idiotic first response. You still haven't been able to answer--do you like the Cabinet or not?



p.s. Rush and Hannity are garbage. But i'll bet you cream over Al Franken, dontcha...

Just shows what a dumb **** you are. There is no cabinet to judge, fool.

[Smiling Assassin27]

She brings the Clinton name to international talks. Obama, being so inexperienced, would be well served to surround himself with people who have done this before.

I see the logic in that, but here's the thing. Obama sent out a lengthy memo completely disparaging Hillary's foreign policy credentials. It was a pretty snarky and demeaning memo. So either he thinks she's a complete screw up at foreign policy as he campaigned on, or he really thinks she's formidable and was lying all the while. Not to mention she loses her Senate seat.

To: Interested Parties From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department RE: Senator Clinton's claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words? DA: March 11, 2008
When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed "the Commander- in-Chief test" is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims - i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign - would conclude that Senator Clinton's claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland." It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, "[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord." With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that "[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one."

News of Senator Clinton's claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph's report at the time, "[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: "The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn't on it."

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that "Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn't hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage."

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, "I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments - U.S. diplomats. President Clinton's top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, "I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue." Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration's National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that "she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations."

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote - urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda - in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America's failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama's speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women's rights. But Senator Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton's speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama's speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called "a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics." In that speech, he said prophetically: "[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would "fan the flames of the Middle East," and "strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda." He urged the United States first to "finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda."

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama's advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation's history. Some of the most "experienced" men in national security affairs - Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others - led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign's argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim - as the TV ad - consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation - the War in Iraq - Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled "The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq." As she cast that vote, she said: "This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction." In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued - remarkably - that she wasn't actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization - like a blank check - to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader - an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

[barryr]

John Kerry is a waste of space, but is the left's idea of an expert and genius.

[BroncoInferno]

Just shows what a dumb **** you are. There is no cabinet to judge, fool.

It won't matter who Obama picks, SmilinAss will find something to complain about. Hillary is very smart and capable woman and would be a fine choice, though I was hoping for Dick Lugar (he said he wouldn't be interested).

[BroncoInferno]

Why don't you tell us who he ought to pick instead, Smilin?

[Bronco Bob]

Coming from the Kool Aid guzzler, this post makes sense. Critical thinking is not Roh's strongest suit, apparently.

The hypocrisy here is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
Admit it, you and Needa are just trolling the forum to see if
you can get a rise out of people.

[Smiling Assassin27]

The hypocrisy here is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
Admit it, you and Needa are just trolling the forum to see if
you can get a rise out of people.


Another dolt who would rather bury their head in the sand than look at things as they are. I don't give a crap who 'rises'. I went into the election with the conclusion that the president elect is a sham not based on partisanship (i'm no Republican) but based on his own words, deeds, and ridiculously insufficient record and accomplishments. These posts are no more than looking at the president elect's deeds and comparing them to his words. I held Bush to the same standard and found him lacking in many areas as well, so what? Bush is done and Obama is now susceptible to the same scrutiny, isn't he? Many here post as if they think he is not, despite leveling ridiculous smears--almost to the point of violent reaction--against his predecessor and other candidates.

Trolls don't make arguments and trolls don't hold up mirrors. You have several arguments against this president elect and his empty promises, yet seem content to leave the arguments alone and use the convenient, but incorrect, charge of troll/hater. Deal with the issues or put me on ignore, fools.

p.s. learn the meaning of hypocrisy. have a nice day. :thumbs:

[BroncoInferno]

First of all, you are criticizing a cabinet that has not been selected yet. Why not at least wait for the actual nominations? Second, if these candidates are so lacking, why don't you name us some superior candidates?

[Odysseus]

Why don't you tell us who he ought to pick instead, Smilin?

Smilin used to be a pretty solid poster. Now he (?) is acting like an angry teenager who has been grounded and their XBox is locked away. It's just sad.

[Fedaykin]

Typical. You have an argument about uninspired cabinet choices before you.


Actually, as you readily admit, this is speculation and rumor and thus really is pointless.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You're an asswipe and a troll. Your only purpose here is to emulate your jack-off buddies, Hannity and Rush by deluging this forum with waves of stupidity in the hopes it will somehow rub off and create more new stupid people you can carry on a conversation with at your own level. It's a real shame you didn't get the attention you craved growing up, but we can't fix that here. Make an appointment with your high school counselor.

Hmm...you have a problem with his posts, but have no problem with LA Propaganda Machine?

SA is a bright guy who will engage in discussion. LAPM is a straight shill.

But then again, you have made no bones about your being devoted to partisan politics to the detriment of intellectual endeavor. Ha!

[Rohirrim]

Hmm...you have a problem with his posts, but have no problem with LA Propaganda Machine?

SA is a bright guy who will engage in discussion. LAPM is a straight shill.

But then again, you have made no bones about your being devoted to partisan politics to the detriment of intellectual endeavor. Ha!

I'm certainly not surprised the drama queen would come to the troll's defense.

On the one hand you liars try to argue that you want what is best for the country and how much you would like to see bipartisanship and then on the other hand you start ripping the guy to shreds (a la Hannity, O'Reilly, Rush) two months before he enters office. Total hypocrisy. Total :bs:

Everybody can clearly see what is happening here. It's the same thing the Rightards pulled on Clinton. Attack, attack, attack. Mindless, ignorant attack. If your party doesn't win, you want to tear down the country until your party can get back in power. SOS

[epicSocialism4tw]

I'm certainly not surprised the drama queen would come to the troll's defense.

Go Team! We Love Fascists! ^5

[Bronco Bob]

Go Team! We Love Fascists! ^5

That seemed pretty obvious, considering the people you two support.

[epicSocialism4tw]

That seemed pretty obvious, considering the people you two support.

Rohirrim the fantasy nerd and myself, we love to limit individual freedoms in this country. We also love the idea of funnelling all speech into a government-approved secularist dialogue. We dont need free speech here anyway, do we? Everyone outside of the loop is just an imbasil anyhow. They need to be controlled. That's what we hope of Obama...that he finally controls all of those idiots and makes them bow to the state.

[Rohirrim]

Rohirrim the fantasy nerd and myself, we love to limit individual freedoms in this country. We also love the idea of funnelling all speech into a government-approved secularist dialogue. We dont need free speech here anyway, do we? Everyone outside of the loop is just an imbasil anyhow. They need to be controlled. That's what we hope of Obama...that he finally controls all of those idiots and makes them bow to the state.

Seriously. In the interests of safety. I suggest you go around your house and look for the gas leak.

[gunns]

Secty of Education: Colin Powell. Well, if his incompetent run as Secty of State is any indication, this should be a disaster. Dude was dishonest and disloyal--why would anyone want him on their team?


I don't believe we know what kind of job Powell would do in a cabinet. The most disappointing thing about him is that he allowed the Bush admin to control him like a world class marionette and by the time he figured out the lies he was being fed by the cartel and saying in front of the country the only thing left to do was resign and leave.

Ambassador to the UN: Caroline Frickin' Kennedy. How she is qualified to be a UN Ambassador is beyond me. If Obama wants to reward her for her support, make her a freakin' ambassador of somewhere that's irrelevant, like Luxembourg.


Her qualifications? It's a rarity for those who were on the Bush admin bandwagon but the woman has got brains. Intelligence and I'm sure if she doesn't feel qualified she won't take it.

As far as Clinton and Kerry, I'm not a big fan of Kerry's but I do think he's more than qualified having served on a variety of committees including foreign affairs. Clinton, well she's a woman and not one like Palin. ;D

[gunns]

Rohirrim the fantasy nerd and myself, we love to limit individual freedoms in this country. We also love the idea of funnelling all speech into a government-approved secularist dialogue. We dont need free speech here anyway, do we? Everyone outside of the loop is just an imbasil anyhow. They need to be controlled. That's what we hope of Obama...that he finally controls all of those idiots and makes them bow to the state.

Oh I think Obama wants to do just the opposite. After 8 years of the above, the people spoke.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Typical. You have an argument about uninspired cabinet choices before you. Will you engage it or just pi$$ and moan about the same stuff that you've done around here for years? I didn't vote for McCain, so your assertion is foolish.

Here's an argument for you:

I hope Obama chooses Hillary just so I can watch you cry like an eight year-old girl with a skinned knee, you ignorant, backward-ass douche nozzle.

4321~

[cutthemdown]

Some of the ways Obama is trying to pass off lobbyists if pretty funny. He said now lobbyists now its no lobbyists who lobbied in the last 12 months on the subject he would work on in the govt.

Still a bunch of professional lobbyists IMO.

Not a huge issue in my mind lobbyists probably among the most knowledgeable in there respective fields. That's why they got paid big bucks I guess. Still Obama IMO thought if the worst that happens is you win and go back on some promises you didn't keep, who cares your still President and that's a good problem to have.

Still as long as the people do the job well I can't see that it really is a bad thing. Time will tell I guess. Still it would have been cool to see no lobbyists get jobs and finally just end them. But in reality they will go on as usual. It's just now they will quit lobbying a yr before there gravy train get's into office. They will call it the Obama exception.