Wednesday, November 12, 2008

You Did Say "Change," Didn't You?

So how is it that B. Hussein Obama has three notable ex-Clintonistas on his transition team (did I forget any)? Namely:

  • John Podesta, former senior Clinton advisor and White House chief of staff turned chief of the B. Hussein transition team
  • Rahm Emanuel, former senior Clinton advisor turned future White House chief of staff
  • Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton deputy attorney general turned possible AG candidate
How's that "change" working out? Did Hillary approve? And most importantly, can we start calling the president-elect "Clinton 44?"

UPDATE: And now here's Greg Craig, whose foremost accomplishment for the Clinton White House was sending Elian Gonzalez back to a miserable life Cuba at gunpoint.

Those were the days.

5 comments:

Chenoa said...

If I may ask, why call him 'B. Hussein'? It has nothing to do with anything and comes across as petty and small. You know me, and I don't like to pick fights, and I hate talking politics, but that's starting to bug me a bit. I mean, the man is a good devout Christian (even moreso than Bush, from what I can tell) and has no say in what he gets named any more than the rest of us. Because my father is named Charles, just like Charles Manson, should I get worried?

Paul, most of your arguments and points seem very well backed, and I respect them for what they are even if I don't agree with you most times politically because you are a devout religious conservative man who has made a point of researching things before talking about them. But calling Obama 'B. Hussein'? Please, hon, that's below you; you're better than that.

Chenoa said...

Oh, and since we're talking politics, I fully will acknowledge that Obama's doing *almost* what Bush did, though for different reasons. So, can I call Bush "Bush, Round Two"? Since Bush elected a bunch of people from his father's staff?

Hold everyone to the same level please.

Cygnus said...

Chenoa: Re B. Hussein: Point made and taken, and I'll respond in a separate post.

My point on the rest of the post was that (oh, all right) Obama was the guy whose campaign theme was "Change You Can Believe In." To me, the people he put/may put in these posts shows me little has changed.

In that regard, I won't argue with you about Bush 41 and 43, but in his campaign, 43 wasn't ramming "change" down our collective throats. Also, it is true that once someone makes it to the inner circles of the White House, he or she may well want to stay there, regardless of party, although that's not always true; many Cabinet members do resign in a president's second term.

Still, wasn't Obama's victory was supposed to be the repudiation of the Clintons? We may stealthily be getting Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Oh, Jeb? (He's probably more accomplished/capable than either 41 or 43, but thanks to his last name, he won't be elected anytime soon.)

Thanks for your comments!

Cygnus said...

I also appreciate your compliment above. I haven't discussed politics much with you, but I have with Jon, and I find his beliefs similarly rooted in more than just talking points. I trust you're the same way.

Anita Moore said...

And now, of course, to the list of ex-Clintonistas we can add the Second in Command herself.