Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
AnninCa
Published Letters: 38
Of course, not. Hillary wouldn't have run had there been a problem.
It's complex. However, there's nothing askew.
Hillary Clinton always promoted a more progressive health care program. From his initial foray into national politics, it was quite easy to see that Obama's only real appeal to progressives was that he was a minority and that he was not Hillary.
His actions even in the campaign were quite clearly Rovian in nature, so no radical change could be assumed from the way he campaigned. His vote on FISA made is even clearer.
By the time the GE came along, he really had to live down a few statements regarding the handling of foreign leaders, etc. By then, it was pretty clear that he was a cautious centrist. Only the fringe elements thought otherwise.
I'm not sure how much the progressives helped him. On the internet, it looked big. In reality? I haven't seen a good analysis yet on the actual impact.
But I do know that nobody is too worried if they are bothered.
Most people don't pay the slightest attention to the new 'media.'
They aren't even home to watch the nitwits yammer on, they don't buy the hysterical exaggerated comments anyway, and they feel quite competent to make up their own minds.
Obama's campaign tactics showed a decidedly centrist approach. Looks to me, so far, that was an accurate assessment on the part of center-planted voters.
This request by Obama is absurd and a clear violation of privacy rights.
It will be interesting to see how many people with strong principles refuse to comply with the request.
Bill Clinton warned Democrats early in the primary season that they were buying a "pig in a poke" with Obama.
Guess Bill was right.
It would appear a lot of apologists for this would probably, then, agree that Bush had the right to "edit" scientists reports.
Good gravy, change that scares normal people.
is you would have to reveal this on Obama's new survey for workers in his admin. :)
I'm amazed by the apologists for this nonsense.
It's a violation of privacy, pure and simple. And it's a violation of the role of any employer into the private lives of employees.
Ah well, it's up to people to stand up for their rights. An employer, even if it's Uncle Sam, does NOT have the right to ask me about my private communications.
I would leave that blank.
Or better yet, fill it in with references to past boyfriends who posted nasty pictures in anger on some idiotic blog.
Unbelievable to see people defend this.
I'm impressed with both the White House and Obama's approach. Dire times call for this level of cooperation.
to Washington insiders. That is how he won the primary. The super delegates are the epitome of the Washington elite corps.
What IS rather fun to watch is that many of them backed Hillary.
I always saw that those backing Obama were the B team crowd, not the A team.
The reality that it is difficult to identify yet where the terrorists originated is, in my mind, beside the point. Terrorism is a global industry, in short.
The reality is clear. This was well-organized and effective, and that's not good.
It was horrible. I was interested mostly in the post about the outdated police system in India. I know very little about that topic, but I certainly understand the public's demand for action.
This was horrible.
"That being said, Deeply Imbedded should understand that the way this attack was done is likely what is causing the reaction - as it was mentioned (in the article, I think), this attack was not a bomb in a garbage can, it was an invasion that caught the police and defense personnel with their pants down."
That is, in fact, the reason. At some point, many carnages in the world reach a tipping point, where it appears nearly hopeless for intervention.
This is not such a tipping point.
"David's piece is nothing more than layers of pure B.S.. Obama was elected by the 'little people' out there, the volunteers, the contributors, the canvassers, the callers. We, put him in office and we expect real results. Thusfar, it does not look good as it appears that he has enabled Podesta, and other insiders, to appoint a Bush/Clinton cabinet. We, the people, he works for, will not permit him to screw this up."
The last objective analysis I read, the entire story about the small doner contributions was nothing but a myth. Certainly, the primary SD vote wasn't about the "little people." Many of them voted AGAINST their constintuents' choice.
As for having great power? *cough*
If this faction had great power, you'd be seeing a different cabinet.
Clearly, that's another puffed up ego myth.
Nana's reply hit the essential nature of Hillary Clinton. This job does, indeed, allow her to bring together a lifetime of skills and experience for the good of others.
In my own profession, the goal was ALWAYS to be given those opportunities. The money and power or lack of power sort of just trailed behind. The real deal was getting to find opportunities to apply my own potential.
This job never once seemed to me to be anything she'd pass up. It's meaty. It's challenging. It's tailored for her.
Kudos to Obama and to Hillary.
The explanation of conspiracy theories and why no evidence is sufficient is excellent.
That is precisely what has occured. Several blogs I used to read and post have now been overrun by these types. Their emotionalism is amazing, and no proof is ever going to be enough to convince them.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
