Jude 2

WASHINGTON — Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has accepted President-elect Barack Obama's offer to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, Democratic officials said Wednesday.

Is it any surprise?

Obama's team was Daschle's team. Dakota didn't want him and America doesn't either! Bad move Barack.

I'd just like to say the title of this thread offends my little ears.

Is the thread title a freudian slip?

You're just Old fashioned Gerald.

The more things change the more they stay the same!!! That's all I have to say about that!!

Jinjer

The Obama administration is shaping up to look alot like the Clinton administration.

And we expected anything different????????????

Not I!

BTW

With the history of some of BHO's "heroes" or associates, I won't be surprised (in the least) to read the headlines about another "blue" dress, cigar, or something similar.


After all, he is the "reincarnated" JFK and is being compared at all levels to JFK and Camelot. So, anything less would be a departure from the "norm".

and let's not forget that BO is the fulfillment of the dream and the dreamer himself, MLK Jr., had his fair share of affairs

Full Quiver wrote:You're just Old fashioned Gerald.

Gerald gets little respect, but I agree with him on this one.

pa

I don't have an opinion on Daschle, because I don't know much about him. (Shame on me.) But in some respects Clinton's administration wasn't all bad. It's a mixed bag. In some ways Clinton's administration was better than Bush's. In other ways Bush's was better. It's unlikely that McCain's "maverick" administration would not have been staffed with a lot of Bush 43 people. One of Carter's mistakes was bringing in a slew of people who had no experience.

I have mixed feelings about an Obama administration regarding the economy. On the one hand, Clinton-people influence would probably be a good thing, because they would tend to counter Obama's anti-free-trade philosophy. On the other hand, many of Clinton's money people are as steeped in Wall Street graft as the top people on the Republican side. On the whole, a Clintonesque economic policy would be worlds better than either a Bushite or far left policy, although Bush hasn't left Obama with much with which to work, on that score. A Ron Paul economic policy, of course, would be my preference, by far.

Clinton is not necessary for free trade. He had to sign NAFTA because of a republican congress.

Full Quiver wrote:Clinton is not necessary for free trade. He had to sign NAFTA because of a republican congress.

Bill Clinton lobbied hard for it, against Democratic Party resistance. Without his support it would not have passed.

Why did he lobby for it? His union backers were and are against it. I hear it every time I go to a Union meeting. He wanted to make deals with the GOP.

I'm looking for anything to mitigate Obama himself, and I'm hopeful that these Clintonistas will do that. So, for now, the more Clinton people he brings in, the better. And, when I'm proved wrong on that, and I'm sure I will be, I'll gripe more then.