Yes But the Wienerdog said that about gay marriage so if what you are saying is you agree with him that gay people are perverts then you are a bigot and a moron just like he is.

That particular passage from the Savage Weiner is illuminating because it suggests that he’s coming unglued. In it, he philosophically aligns himself with Germans who supported Hitler. He points out that they didn’t like perverts and proudly adds that he doesn’t like them either!

Nice going, Weiner. Keep talking.

November 26th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
______

I disagee with Savage on almost everything, but I’m right there with him on proudly saying I don’t like perverts. ;)

Nope; If I were Obama I’d feel a lot “safer” with Hil. at SOS.

¶ AIO

I’m just enjoying all the rich irony of the Clinton haters during the primaries on this blog….and you know who you are.
You’re singing a different tune now, huh.

So you equate the VP and SOS as the same?

I am glad he came out and said this, I still have my reservations, serious ones as I noted yesterday, on his asking Gates to stay on, but I will hold further judgment on that until I see the results. And he can always show Gates the door if he doesn’t follow his orders.

Exactly! And less shredding from the crooks.

Perhaps the media is so used to a president doing incredibly dumb shit that they are having trouble getting used to one who would think through stuff like this.

Exactly! Bush needed “handlers” to make sure he stayed on point and those “handlers” spent many a moment cringing. Obama is Obama’s handler – or more precisely, he is a leader!

There are at least three possibilities: 1. maybe she didn’t want the VP position; 2. maybe she feels Secretary of State is a more powerful and prestegeous position; and 3. maybe she’s honestly dedicated to doing what’s best for the country and the new administration.

Let’s keep in mind Krugman’s “Clinton rules.” The “Clinton Rules” dictate that every decision or action by a Clinton will be judged through a prism of assuming the worst of intentions and motives. I don’t believe in the Clinton rules.

We could have a very progressive president.

Fair enough. I am a cynic too.

Having said that, it’s hard not to be hopeful. Seriously, there is no way Barack Obama could do any worse than the current occupant of the White House. If he does, the current financial meltdown will be the least of our concerns.

¶ AIO

toasterhead replies:

hussein toasterhead Says:
Let’s not kid ourselves here – the Clinton administration wasn’t all that successful from a progressive perspective – NAFTA, GATT, financial deregulation, increased government privatization, the starving of Iraq, supporting Suharto, just to name a few. Yes, Clinton had some successes – I won’t deny that. But we shouldn’t sugar-coat his record either.

I was just judging on the basics. Prosperity, balanced budget, debt clock running backwards, job creation, such as that.

These are the things that must be addressed first…..from that perspective Clinton was pretty sucessful.

I suspect that Obama will be able to perform better than both of them. His idea of using the Internet to connect with Americans is fabulous, and I’m anticipating some of his direct-to-America messages. If he can take advantage of technology and provide us with unprecedented insight into how he intends to enact his policies, I think we’ll be living under a transparent administration.

As much as I dislike his support for FISA…well, I’m willing to turn the other way and see if the government Obama will control is honest and free. I have more reason to think that it will be, as opposed to the opposite.

The uplifting of individual rights and movement to the left of Latin American countries have benifited greatly from Hugo’s efforts. Millions of people are better off because of Hugo Chavez.

I’m not sure that’s true, especially after listening to a segment on NPR earlier this week. I believe that Chavez wants to do well for millions of people, and that he has for the first time raised the profile of the poor in Venezuela, but his actual programs do not appear to have accomplished much.

Worse, he appears to be completely invested in the cult of personality and the belief that he is the State–much like Castro’s inability to separate himself from the Revolution and Cuba’s citizens.

November 26th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
________

Let’s not kid ourselves here – the Clinton administration wasn’t all that successful from a progressive perspective – NAFTA, GATT, financial deregulation, increased government privatization, the starving of Iraq, supporting Suharto, just to name a few. Yes, Clinton had some successes – I won’t deny that. But we shouldn’t sugar-coat his record either.

That having been said, I’m glad to hear this coming from Obama. It does put a lot of my concerns at ease. I hope that it is indeed the case that the people he’s choosing for these White House and Cabinet positions will be implementers rather than the influencers. And if all goes well and this administration is able to stop the economic skid, we can begin to pressure Obama to adopt more and more progressive policies in the later years of his administration.

Fred Says:
Chavez is my hero. He’s no bush.

Wayne Says:
Chavez a hero? He has done alot of wrong things, as well as some things that were right.

Has he been perfect, of course not.

The uplifting of individual rights and movement to the left of Latin American countries have benifited greatly from Hugo’s efforts. Millions of people are better off because of Hugo Chavez.