The Obama folks have been leaking like a sieve – the Clinton vetting and Rahm Emanuel job offer were all over the place. At the end of the day, leaking that kind of stuff is no biggie so I don’t care if its off message, but it shows that inside folks don’t have the bunker mentality they have had for the last year.
My guess is once inauguration has come and gone and business starts getting serious they’ll be back to their more tight-lipped ways with leaking being more strategic.
At least I freaking hope so.
Still no commment on the dozen or so lobbyists Obama has put on his transition team? Gee, what a surprise…
J.
I don’t tell you how to write your blog, do I? And lobbyists werent running Obama’s campaign like they were McCain’s, nor was the campaign accepting their money like McCain’s.
Oliver, absolutely you can write whatever you want. If you choose to turn a blind eye to the situation, that’s completely within your rights.
Just like it’s within your rights to insist that lobbyist influence is far more significant and corrosive and corrupting within a campaign than in a presidential administration.
I kinda feel sorry for you, Oliver… you had so much hope pinned on this guy, and he’s turning out to be just another pol.
More disappointing, just another product of the astonishingly corrupt Chicago Democratic machine.
I’d feel even worse for you if so many people hadn’t warned folks about this.
J.
So a few in his transition team equal the legion that was with McCain?
Better yet how dare you insult the harding working politicans of Chicago? You can not blame the many for the few. There are corrupt politicans in every city. Attacking Chicago just shows how far you will go to attack Obama.
If we were talking about campaigns you could make the comparison but it is over.
Seriously Jay let it go. If you have so much issue with what Oliver says stop reading it. No one is forcing you to come here everyday and post.
You were saying, Jay?
Duros, I’d say that I missed that nuanced distinction during the course of the campaign.
Probably because it wasn’t being made back then. And probably because at that point, Obama’s absolute “no lobbyists” policy was still operative.
I have to say I do find it slightly refreshing. Between Obama’s bringing in so many recycled Clintonites, backing off on this and a bunch of other promises, and some other things, it’s like he’s suddenly discovered pragmatism and reality, and plans to govern accordingly. And that lets me hope that the next four years won’t be as bad as I feared during the campaign.
J.
Yes, I feel so horrible that the best progressive politician in a generation is taking the country in a new direction after the absolute failure you championed for almost a decade of fail.
The horror.
If Obama, who is backtracking on so many of the things he campaigned on, is “the best progressive politician in a generation,” then I am confused. Either I have misunderstood what “progressive” meant, or the standard for “best” is seriously trivial.
But as I said, I welcome his move towards moderation and compromises of his campaign rhetoric with reality.
J.
I find it rather unsurprising that you are confused, and that you have misunderstood the definition of “progressive.”
News we already knew.
At least Hillary clammed up when reporters tried questioning her. She didn’t try stealing the spotlight. She demurred to Obama.
OK. Found the Hillary quote: “I’m not going to speculate or address anything about the president-elect’s incoming administration, and I’m going to respect his process.”
a few more & I might hijack this thread back to its original ideas…
it’s like he’s suddenly discovered pragmatism and reality, and plans to govern accordingly.
I would hardly call it a sudden discovery.
Duros, I’d say that I missed that nuanced distinction during the course of the campaign.
Probably because it wasn’t being made back then.
You do get the distinction between candidate and President-elect, right?
New sheriff in town.