A standard politician would have certainly kept someone who clearly does not agree with him on all of the issues, and who criticized him so much in the primaries as far away from his cabinet as possible.
A standard politician would have signaled Congress to cut loose the guy who supported his opponent in the election.
Obama, however, is no standard politician. Will the traditional media ever grasp that fact?
Please, show me this unimpeachable source you must have access to that nobody else has access to, which shows what the definitive definition of "landslide" is.
There are many who believe that in modern presidential politics, anything over 300 EV's is a landslide.
Some think it has to be 400 evs. However, there is no clear consensus.
My opinion, as it was before this election, is that anything over 350 EVs is a landslide. Especially for a candidate that is not running for reelection. Reagan's 400ev's in 1984 wasn't that impressive considering he was a popular incumbent.
...the Jermoe certainly gets the "Rich Lowry" 2008 award for "massive failure to predict presidential races without letting your own biases get in the way".
After all, according to Jerome, Obama couldn't win, he was the "worst nominee in a decade".
Then after Obama won by an extremely comfortable margin, Jerome disappeared for days. Only to return and let everyone know that blogging just ain't that important, ya know?
But hey, when you insult the intelligence of your audience, your audience goes elsewhere. As evidenced by the fact that it now takes only one single rec to get a diary on the rec list.
I'd say all my pissing and moaning about Jerome will probably get me banned, but seeing as how posters here can post racist comments without repercussion, you don't think I'd get banned just for being honest, do you?!?! ;-)
Wow, your attack has so many flaws I don't know where to start.
Obama is certainly the agent of change, especially compared to how McCain or Hillary would govern. ITs painfully obvious already, in seeing the leaks out of Clintonland regarding the Sos spot. Will she? Wont She? How about who gives a fuck? She hasn't even accepted the position yet and I'm already tired of her as SoS. And trust me, this is what we would be living with every day if Hillary was POTUS. Drama, drama, drama, drama. It's no surprise that her supporters (like you) are just as filled with the drama.
Obama is already showing us change by not playing the silly political games that people like you think are so important. He kept Lieberman because he understands that while revenge would be nice, governing is more important. And meeting with McCain again shows that, just as he did throughout the campaign, Obama is going to continue to take the high road.
You could learn a thing or two from Obama (as could we all).
But the real problem with your bitter post is that Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet, and you've already got the knives out. People like you are no better than freepers, constantly flailing around looking for the next little piece of irrelevancy that you can spin against Obama.
Once Obama is sworn in, and he implements real solutions to our job woes, health care woes, Global Warming, etc. you will start to see the real change from what we've had the last 8, nay 20 years.
If Obama fails to address those issues, then maybe your complaints will have some merit. Until then, it's just baseless, sore-loserish whining.
Look, I've seen your previous posts and I know you have a strong desire to downplay Obama's landslide victory, and I'm not even going to engage you on it, because frankly, there's bigger fish to fry.
Your speculating based on your deeply held feelings that Obama was a flawed candidate. Obmaa led in every poll post primary, except for the one to two week period where McCain had a convention bounce. That's indisputable fact, but feel free to spin it in an anti-Obama way any way you like, but it won't change a thing. Let's just say I think that is a far-fetched, reality-challenged observation, and leave it at that.
FactCheck: Obama was up in the polls before the Financial Crisis hit. McCain took a temporary lead due to the RNC and Palin. But we can debate all day whether it was the financial meltdown or the Moose Hunter Meltdown that brought down McSame.
I am 100% confident Obama would have won whther the financial crisis had happened or not. I will conced that he may not have won in such a dramatic fashion, but he would have won nonetheless.
However, Secretary of State does not set the foreign policy agenda, at least not unilaterally. The direction of our foreign policy will be determined by one person, the President. The SoS is responsible for implementing the President's foreign policy agenda.
And your concerns are legitimate. There's many people with legitimate questions and concerns.
However, contrary to what some of the media sops want us to believe, what there is not is any group or subgroup of Obama supporters that oppose Hillary as SoS, especially not based solely on the events of the heated Primary season.
People have their questions and concerns, but there is no backlash. Just a media-manufactured controversy.
Methinks the Media is sad that Obama doesn't bring any Drama so they gots to make some sheyat up.
Who, exactly, is upset about this potential move? I see a lot of people like Ben Smith insinuating (w/ blind quotes no less) that Obama supporters are upset about this move. However, I fail to see any evidence of any real opposition to this move.
If anyone would be upset about this move, it would be me. I supported Obama from day one, detested the Clinton's behavior in the Primary, and yet I still realize that Hillary is very intelligent and a perfect fit for SoS. Plus, I realize that surrounding yourself with people who do not always agree with you is how Obama said he would govern from DAY ONE.