http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081105/D9492S2O0.html
Staying true to his word to bring change to D.C. by selecting a Clinton staffer for his chief of staff on Day 1.
I missed the place where he campaigned on picking a certain person as chief of staff. However, am I surprised you've started a thread like this where you omit any mention of Republicans being considered for cabinet positions? No. Why? Because you're going to post whatever info you need to make your (bogus) point no matter the context.
Not only that, but if he's really serious about "change," doesn't having a chief of staff defeat that goal? After all, every other president has had a chief of staff.
This isn't change.
LOL Mr. Peabody.....
Reminds me of that bizzaro Seinfeld episode....
Things were pretty good when Clinton was in office, so if BHO wants to bring some of those guys in, that's ok with me...
Aggie's reaching, and come up his hands full of .
A guy can't even select a CoS and Aggie's accusing him of not "changing".
Let me get this straight ... he picks a staffer from the one competent presidency this country has seen in the last 40 years, and you guys start ing? What should he do, appoint someone from the freaking Bush administration? How about one of Reagan's economic policy advisors?
He should pick up Newt.
When he names a Republican to his staff, I'll give him some props for it. It's not about posting whatever I want. He ran on change, and his first personnel move is appointing a Clinton guy as his chief of staff. I thought D.C. needed a fresh start or some .
Or am I supposed to follow along with the bull media and pretend like Obama never said anything like that when he goes back on his word? Gimme a break Manny.
He said he wanted change. Newsflash for your bigoted ass - every time Obama breaks one of his campaign promises or themes, he's going to get called out for it. And he deserves it.Aggie's reaching, and come up his hands full of .
A guy can't even select a CoS and Aggie's accusing him of not "changing".
No, but the fact that you think this is somehow going back on his word is severely out of whack.
What happened to 'change we could believe in'? Or was that just another soundbite?
Yeah, its not even 1.20.09 yet and you're already saying Obama is failing on his campaign promises. Besides, who gets to decide what type of change we find acceptable? You who didn't vote for him or me who did?
Obama Broken Campaign Promise #1 - Appoint a CoS AHF approves of.
Do you know anything about him Manny? The Great Uniter just made his first hire a spiteful partisan lib. Good move, Obama
Seriously AHF, keep posting this stupidity. Rebuttals for this type of bull are easy as .
So who should he have choosen for CoS?
I'm pretty sure Obama didn't make a promise to hire only people who've got no political experience. I'm also pretty sure that if Obama had made a Saint his choice for WH Chief of Staff, those who voted for McCain would largely lambaste him for that choice.
I'm utterly shocked he picked a Democrat. Shocked and appalled! He promised me change so he should appoint a Republican to one of the most important positions in his administration!Do you know anything about him Manny? The Great Uniter just made his first hire a spiteful partisan lib. Good move, Obama
Shocked and appalled!!!
Damn can the man get sworn in at least??
Last edited by florige; 11-05-2008 at 10:49 PM.
Actually, I think he should have just asked McCain who would have been on McCain's cabinet and staff and then just filled his Administration with those people -- talk about change!!!!
Seriously! The ing day after the election and we're actually seeing someone claim he's broken a campaign promise? The ing change he was referring to is going to come when Emanuel helps ram through legislation not with the selection of Emanuel.
I'm shocked that he picked a biped for Chief of Staff. Every other Chief of Staff has used two legs for locomotion. Real "change" would have been a quadruped.
at this thread. It's a good thing that conserva s have resumed their role as the opposition.
Accepting McCain's concession was such typical Washington politics. What a fraud. A true agent of change would have conceded to the candidate with FEWER electoral votes.
That's not really change. We just had a president who got the position despite having fewer votes than his opponent.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
