Is this the new definition of change?
Written by Steve · Filed Under The Big Picture
November 18, 2008 | Email this post
| Share on Facebook |
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Two families have dominated US politics over the past quarter-century. The Bush family, with “41″ serving as Vice-President for eight years, then President for four, and “43″ in office for the past eight. Then there is the Clintons, with Bill serving as President for eight, and wife Hillary getting elected to the Senate and making an unsuccessful run at the Presidency.
Along comes a new shining star running on the promise of change. He soundly defeats both families on the way to the white house. Now the word is he wants to name Hillary to his top Cabinet post.
Some change. Someone wake up Jeb. He might get his chance in four years…
Two words:
hell
handbasket
Of course this isn’t change. This is the change THEY believe in. It IS change, but they have since changed what change IS, since the first time they announced that there would be change. Call it the “Changing Face of Change.”
Maybe this was a concession for not naming her as his VP candidate?
A concession to be sure. I was thinking that P/E Obama would prop her up for a potential vacancy on the SCOTUS. Now, as a Cabinet member, he can keep her “on the reservation.” In the event that things go poorly in his first term, she can’t be out there as a talking head, trashing his administration, or orchestrating a potential run at his seat in 2012. “Keep your friends close, your enemies even closer….”
Oh for pete’s sake..according to Hillary she never knew that Bill was cheating or fooling around with the intern in the White House…and now “they” want her to deal with all the leaders in the world on our country’s behalf…I don’t think so. Are our future leaders really this stupid?? We need someone with strong foreign policy experience and one foreign leaders will respect or least be willing to have a discussion with..Hillary is definitely not that person.
you know, I thought about Hillary being named to the SCOTUS, but wondered if she would have gotten through. How many Anita Hill’s could the pubs find?
Well, at least none of these people…
http://www.slate.com/id/1002023
I know, I know, the article is 9 years old
Quality, Steve!
The confirmation hearings could be more “Must See TV.”
They could call the episode “The One Where Vince Foster Got Whacked.”
She will still have to withstand confirmation hearings as a potential SecState. There have already been rumblings about some unwillingness on the part of Pres. Clinton to disclose all of his financials as it deals with his foundation.
The change, boys, is at the top.
There is no change…its not Monday anymore.
GD!
I like Emanual, am wondering about the rest.
GD!
The first appointment is Rham, who is a partisan hack. He is vicious and an indication the the “Change” will be for the worse. The definition of bipartisanship will be that the opposition simply agree on everything.
Dave…I like emanuel because hes a wacko who is not afraid to get in the mix…his past history leads me to believe he understands the mid east.
I’m not happy with appointing the other 95 percent of the Clinton administration.
I do think this shows we are not seeing any change. I think he has absolutely no new Ideas or is willing to try new things…hence NO CHANGE.
Go Dagger !
I’m tickled at al qaeda (and friends) being reduced to hijackings and name calling. Soon they will be reduced to…poopft….nothing.
Go Dagger !
To Steve…
Did you mean JEB? You said Jed, Im thinking Clampett.
GD!
good catch Richie.