Man, it’s GOT to be disheartening to be an Obama supporter who believed CHANGE was more than a marketing theme. His foreign policies are the same as the Bush/Cheney policies. He and the Democrats’ Congress won’t have any money for their domestic program campaign promises. He can’t tax the top 5% of Americans and raise money by tripling the capital gains tax because of the investment crisis. Even the anti-war Democrats are upset. Now…progressive Democrats.

Obama Throws No Bones to Progressive Base

Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Prize-winner in economics and a critic of corporate globalization. He should be Treasury Secretary. Senator Russ Feingold is a champion of civil liberties. He should be Attorney General. Robert Greenstein is head of Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He would make a much better OMB director. Arlene Holt Baker, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO, would be a tremendous Secretary of Labor. And if Obama really wanted change, if he really wanted to honor progressives who backed him early on and then did the grunt work against McCain, he’d nominate Dennis Kucinich as Secretary of State.

That sure would indicate a welcome departure from empire as usual.

But at this point, progressives are getting absolutely nothing from Obama.

link

Where’s that CHANGE we heard so much during the TWO YEARS Obama was a professional Presidential candidate (and a U.S. Senator on the side)?

  • Share/Bookmark
Print This Post Print This Post
This entry was posted on Friday, November 21st, 2008 at 4:42 am and is filed under Barack Obama, Baracks Broken Promises, Dem eats Dem, Moonbats, Politics, The Clintons, foreign policy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

  1. The LEFT Growing Concerned over Obama’s Cabinet Choices … Obama Throws No Bones to Progressive Base | Scared Monkeys

16 comments so far

nina
 1Reply to this comment  

That’s change u can beleive in !!!

November 21st, 2008 at 5:10 am
 2Reply to this comment  

Not that Obama had anything to do with it, but the moonbats can at least take solace in having Henry Waxman as Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

November 21st, 2008 at 7:22 am
Dave Noble
 3Reply to this comment  

Scott,

“His foreign policies are the same as the Bush/Cheney policies.”

You want to let him get Inaugurated first and then see what his foreign policies are?

But then again you have to have something to talk about until then.

November 21st, 2008 at 8:04 am
gregory_dittman
 4Reply to this comment  

I believe Obama is not getting the people he wants and is having trouble finding qualified people willing to jump through hoops and have people dig through their trash. The first clue should have been Obama getting one of the “town’s drunks” to be his vice president candidate.

November 21st, 2008 at 9:20 am
road warrior
 5Reply to this comment  

Change, he obviously isn’t changing the people in office. He is just bringing back all the old dems from the Clinton days. The change that i really hope we see is in the policies. The liberal illuminati promised it to us and Obama won the election on that note. We better see it!

November 21st, 2008 at 9:21 am
Steve Rowland
 6Reply to this comment  

Wellll….maybe Obama made a deal with Hillary that he would resurrect the dead of the Clinton Camelot, and she could be Secretary of State, what better way to watch the fox while its in the hen house.

You know, when Clinton ran, I did not see ANY ‘centrist’ campaigning so to speak. With the recent Obama run, I did not see ANY centrist campaigning, once each had won the election, BOTH were touted by the MSM, the pundits, and pollsters on what a fine ‘centrist campaign they had run. That’s simply bullshit, but unfortunately, ‘centrist’ is a relative term. Every person to the left of center considers themselves a ‘centrist’ and they consider anyone to the right of center as ‘Far Right Wing’ demagogues. Trust me. The left is a disgusting lot, in bed with gays and advocating baby killing.

November 21st, 2008 at 9:34 am
 7Reply to this comment  

You guys starting to believe that Obama isn’t about principles, but is rather about Obama?

It took Nixon to go to China.

It took Clinton to gut welfare.

It took Bush to expand Medicare.

It’ll take Obama to move the Democrats right into the sweet spot center of the political spectrum and drive the GOP so far to the Right that they’ll be wandering through the Sinai, bitterly disappointed that the ingrate Iraqis won’t even grant them solace, much less shelter.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

November 21st, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Craig
 8Reply to this comment  

“You guys starting to believe that Obama isn’t about principles, but is rather about Obama?” (Larry W.)

We are not starting to believe it… we have always believed it. Where have you been? We knew from the start that this guy doesn’t give a dam about nothing and nobobody except himsefl. His has a narcissic personality disorder and this is exactly what this country does not need. I still cannot believe that some Americans voted for THIS ONE. There is a lot of Americans that do not understand what politics is all about.

November 21st, 2008 at 7:15 pm
 9Reply to this comment  

I’m still confused by your comments of driving the GOP so far to the Right that they’ll be wandering through the Sinai… Larry.

What is so danged “right wing” and gawd awful about wanting small government and conservative fiscal spending?? You make it sound like these platforms are radical, and unappealing notions. When, in fact, everyone who voted for your guy did so with the explicit desire for *TAX CUTS*.

Or do you believe the conservatives are driven solely to abolish Roe v Wade and shove Christianity down everyone’s throat? That hasn’t been the main focus of conservatism for quite a while now. Nowadays, it’s concentrating on financial and govt intrusion into our lives.

I believe Obama may try to come to the center, but he will not give up on universal health care, energy and education. The costs of these federal programs alone will drive far more of the DNC into the arms of fiscal conservatism…. assuming we have any fiscal conservatives in Congress at all.

November 22nd, 2008 at 8:19 am
Oh hell no
 10Reply to this comment  

The only change they will get will be Chris Mattews saying everything TPTB did in the last 8 yrs is ok now bec BHO is the POTUS.

November 22nd, 2008 at 9:48 am
sanjay
 11Reply to this comment  

They may not be progressives, but their vision certainly is intended to bring progressive change:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/us/politics/01policy.html?bl=&_r=1&ei=5087&en=999dc033151c2b6c&ex=1228366800&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1228241720-B3BIERqELkR2sMYX32cb8A

December 2nd, 2008 at 10:26 am
sanjay
 12Reply to this comment  

(WP) … many of Gates’s top deputies are expected to depart their jobs, according to senior defense and transition officials…The anticipated turnover of many key positions suggests that although Gates will help provide some continuity, the status quo will not necessarily endure at the Pentagon.

Continuity is likely to come in the form of Gates and military commanders leading the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, while a new deputy and team of undersecretaries would manage the Pentagon and focus on longer-range issues such as “the budget, the Quadrennial Defense Review, missile defense, relations with allies and preparation for the next crisis.”

Removal of the Pentagon status quo is “change you can believe in”.

December 2nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Scott
 13Reply to this comment  

what is the status quo, and what will it be? Not all change is good.

December 2nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Scott west
 14Reply to this comment  

But Bush said of Weinberger and the others accused in the Iran-contra episode, “their motivation — whether their actions were right or wrong — was patriotism.”

So where is my 15 million casper left me oh ya just another patriot act in bushes pocketsorry my bad scottyrockit@hotmail.com

December 2nd, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Scott
 15Reply to this comment  

link to the quote, or any evidence that Bush got money from Iran Contra? Lacking evidence, your accusation has as much merit as claims that Hillary got the money.

December 2nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

If your comments get caught in spam a lot please log into your registered account before trying to comment again. You can email me if your comment is caught in spam

 

Identity Verification: If you wish to verify your commenter identity, so no one can steal it, click the below button: