Team Obama dabbles in drama

[Beacool]

Roger Simon Roger Simon – Tue Jan 6, 4:24 am ET

For an outfit known for its lack of drama, Team Obama has become a downright thrill show.

Bill Richardson! Rick Warren! Rod Blagojevich! Roland Burris! Talk about a ride through the fun house.

President-elect Barack Obama doesn’t bear responsibility for all these speed bumps on the road to a better, happier, more respected America, but he certainly bears responsibility for some of them.

Obama’s selection of Bill Richardson for secretary of commerce didn’t seem like an awful idea. Richardson certainly has accomplished some things in his life, and he wanted an administration job really, really badly. He wanted to be vice president and didn’t get it. He wanted to be secretary of state and didn’t get it. So he lowered his sights to “Anything in the Cabinet Whatsoever,” and he got it.

Exactly why Obama felt he had to give Richardson something is unclear. Maybe it was an act of compassion. Maybe Richardson had threatened to hold his breath until he turned blue. In any case, he got the nomination.

But Richardson clearly did not get the vetting that is supposed to go along with it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090106/pl_politico/17089

[opihimoimoi]

1. I think Team Obama got snookered with less than honest answers...IMO

[PurityOfEssence]

42. Boy, if there was ever a "no comment" or "hey, look over there" moment, this is it

They should have just smiled and walked away. They're supposed to be competent; they're supposed to KNOW these things. If they're playing the "I was duped" game, it makes them look like rubes. I would have expected this image-conscious group to avoid such a possibility like the plague.

There would have been virtually no egg on their faces had they not commented, but when they tried to blame Richardson's people, then they were tangling with a wounded ninny, and they're dangerous.

Maybe it's just that they're so unaccustomed to actually standing and fighting that they don't know which fights to start, how to fight them or when to stop. At least they made good with Feinstein; that was a great move and calms some of my worries about them being cocksure control-freaks.

It makes me wince. They fucked themselves up by not doing due diligence and now they're digging themselves in deeper.

They're sharp though, they won't keep making this mistake and it'll die out. I've had enough of
Richardson for a lifetime, though, and hopefully he can go back to something for which he's more suited, like bringing skeletons home from abroad.

[Jennicut]

2. Richardson said he felt this would go away and it did not

But if the MSM wants drama, well Bill Clinton's transition was much more drama-filled in my opinion and his appts were much more controversial, Zoe Baird, Jocelyn Elders?

[SoxFan]

3. Hillary lost. Deal with it or STFU.

[Beacool]

5. It's a democracy, deal with it!!

Your rudeness does not add anyhting new.

:eyes:

[foo_bar]

6. at least decide if the problem is a) not enough drama, or b) too much

Well, he can play that game for only 2 more weeks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8060887#8061251 (Re: "They don't call me 'No Drama Obama' for nothing!")

Team Obama dabbles in drama

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8061287 (you are here)

I mean, unless this is anti-D. underground, you might only be able to play this game for 2 more weeks.

[Beacool]

9. What game?

Every politician, and certainly every president, should have his feet held to the fire. Obama is no exception. Do you expect everybody to be muzzled for the next 4 years? I thought that was the right's way of doing business........

Dissension is healthy for a democracy. Suppressing freedom of speech leads to totalitarianism.

;)

[foo_bar]

13. the virtue in question is consistency

If you despise the nominal leader of the Dem party for contradictory reasons on different days/posts, that tends to deprive the rebellion without a cause of any moral imperative, thus freepers and functionally identical disruptors have never been openly permitted on DU since their one trick gets old.

[Beacool]

21. The two posts you quoted are totally different.

I think that Obama likes to play it both ways with this "one president at a time" mantra. In the case of the Gaza issue some comment from him would be appreciated right about now. I personally think that Israel has a right to defend itself from Hamas' rockets, but not at the cost of the lives of hundreds of civilians. Who knows how many more innocent people will be dead by the 20th?

:(

[Hieronymus]

32. It's not surprising that a Hillary supporter would think Israel is right.

[dionysus]

50. pretending you don't despise obama = fail

:rofl:

[Alexander]

66. pretending we don't notice it's PUMAs who post this crap = epic fail

[Renew Deal]

11. Huh?

I don't see this as a bitterness thread. Though it wouldn't surprise me if it was.

[SoxFan]

34. Beacool has been pissing on Obama constantly

As a primary candidate, as the nominee, and now as president-elect.

[Alexander]

44. Yep. PUMAs are crawling out of the woodwork.

You'd think they'd realize their tactics never worked.

[Beacool]

46. Oh please............

That PUMA mantra is getting old.

:eyes:

[Alexander]

47. If the shoe fits...

...wear it.

[Beacool]

48. Would these do?

:7

[Alexander]

54. Whatever keeps you from pissing on our president all the time.

I suppose if you're busy clicking your heels, you won't have time to constantly tear down Obama.

[Beacool]

56. Geez, so dour.............

:eyes:

:P

[Alexander]

57. So truthful.

It's really all you've been doing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Second.

[Alexander]

45. This is how they are dealing with it.

Pissing all over Obama at every turn.

[dionysus]

52. you're not surprised are you?

:hi:

[Alexander]

55. Nope. Par for the PUMA course.

These people must be a real hoot in person.

[ClarkUSA]

4. Roger Simon was a pro-McCain/Palin shill during the general election so this drivel doesn't surprise

How the hell does he know Richardson didn't get vetting? More like the Bush II F.B.I. decided to drag out the
investigation for the hell of it.

[Beacool]

7. Personally, I don't think that anything is going to come out of the Richardson investigation.

Though I am chuckling about it on a purely personal basis.

As for Warren, Obama has no one to blame but himself for that misstep. The decision to have Warren give the invocation at his inauguration is a big blunder. It is offensive to a large group of people who supported him during the GE.

:(

[karynnj]

15. If you think it is nothing - why "chuckle"?

This would be a case of someone losing something when he is innocent. If the reason is that he was not "loyal" to Clinton, consider that Obama is not using the same loyalty rules - he has risen above it and picked many who endorsed HRC - and HRC herself. Would you "chuckle" if the Bush people started a HRC investigation on say fund raising - and she had to opt out?

If there really are problems, I blame Richardson for not seeing past his own career to a greater good and I blame the vetting. If there is nothing there, it is a gracious act of Richardson's if it was voluntary.

[Beacool]

23. Richardson chose to withdraw his name.

It appears that no one forced him to do so. I don't like the man, that's why I'm chuckling. If Hillary had to withdraw her name for whatever reason, I would be fine with it. I always preferred her to be at the senate anyway where she is independent and has her own power base. Besides the fact that she would be great on the domestic issues that need to be dealt with right now.

[ClarkUSA]

24. Why are you "chuckling about it on a purely personal basis"? That's what Republicans are doing...

And I am sure the same Democrats who forgave/accepted/ignored it when Bill Clinton for having homophobic and
anti-semitic Billy Graham and for DOMA and for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" can't possibly be so hypocritical as to be
grinding their axes about Warren, considering Obama's groundbreaking LGBT appointments so far.

[Beacool]

27. I did say that it was personal.

I simply don't like Richardson.

As for Bill, he did what he could at the time. The political and social climate in 1993 was vastly different from 2008.

:-)

[ClarkUSA]

31. Why would you possibly dislike him personally? He endorsed our President-Elect, didn't he?

As for Bill, he passed/approved/pushed rotten policy that has adversely affected LGBT to this day (which is not vastly
different from 1993 because of it).

As for your clucking over Warren and then excusing Bill's choice of homophobe and anti-semite Billy Graham, I can
only be amused at the predictable hypocrisy.

[grantcart]

40. Giggling because Bill made the other Bill fly across the country for a football game.

But I am just guessing.

[dionysus]

51. so you admit you wish richardson ill because he betrayed your royal highnesses?

at least you admit you're still bitter over hillary

[RepublicanElephant]

8. yeah, i remember simon's snide remarks about obama on hardball,

right up to the election.

[DevonRex]

10. He's nothing but a republican shill, unworthy of an audience. nt

[Political Tiger]

12. Life is Drama. n/t

[WI_DEM]

14. So far Obama transition has been somewhat smoother than Bill Clinton's in '92

even with the problem of Bill Richardson, who at least, had the grace to take himself out of it. People forget that in '92 that Janet Reno was Clinton's third public choice for Attorney General after he had nominated Zoe Baird and Kimba Woods. These things happen.

[karynnj]

16. Not to mention Lani Granier

There were MANY contested appointments in the beginning and in the second term when Jesse Helms initially held up all the ambassador nominations. So, far, one Obama appointee has bowed out - we don't yet know how smoothly the nominations will go. I have not heard of extensive flack against them yet.

[Beacool]

20. I agree on that point.

Clinton's transition had plenty of drama too.

:)

[FrenchieCat]

18. Roger Simon has an opinion that Blames Obama for the Media Circus that they so love? No Way, Jose!

:wow:








:sarcasm:

[janx]

49. Simon is trying to create drama, in effect.

He's writing one more column of sheer speculation, based on at least one other sourceless opinion piece based on MORE more speculation (Jake Tapper). God, what passes for news these days...

And another thing: I've found that when I find a rhyming headline, it's often a sign. :rofl:

[apnu]

19. With the exception of Warren, all of those scandals have nothing to do with Obama.

None at all.

Richardson's problems are his, and Richardson is, at least, big enough to step down to keep Obama's administration scandal free.

Blago and Burris are purely products of Illinois ongoing political circus. We've always had these problems, in fact nutty governors who abuse their power (and mayors of Chicago also) are the norm here. The only thing that's different is that this current ring of the local Illinois circus is now playing out on the national stage because of Obama's seat. Obama has not one thing to do with Blago and they loathe each other. In fact all of the real Democrats in Illinois loath Blago, we elected him to a 2nd term because the alternative (Judy Barr-Topinka) was a lot worse and tied to our other, recently indicted, governor, Ryan.

Warren I'll give you. He's had a thing about trying to harness the power of churches in the US as a mobilizing force to fill in for government shortfalls and also to gain voter support (don't all politicians do this) and the Warren invocation choice is a bone for the very powerful evangelical Christian groups in America. Its a poor choice given that Warren is a total nut-bag and there are much better evangelical choices to do this stupid (and unnecessary, IMO) prayer and Obama owns this one himself.

[Deja Q]

22. So other peoples' reactions don't count as drama, is that it? It's all Obama's fault, is it?

:eyes:

[Beacool]

25. It depends.

Blagos' mess is Blago's fault, but the Warren issue is all Obama's doing.

;-)

[AspenRose]

26. And it seems that you couldn't be happier about it.

Gleeful, even.

[awoke_in_2003]

28. Any chance to piss on Obama

fills that one with glee.

[PresidentObama]

59. "that one" WTF? Senator McCain, is that you?

[awoke_in_2003]

72. Listen, my friend...

I am not John McCain. :)

[PresidentObama]

75. LOL!! I know you aren't, but I jumped at the "that one" reference.

:P

[awoke_in_2003]

77. I know...

just gave me a chance to use another McCainism :hi:

[PresidentObama]

78. Which you performed oh-so-well.....

:P

[Forkboy]

29. Wrong spot.

But while I'm here... :hi: DR!!! :)

[AspenRose]

33. Hi sweetie!

:hi:

[Beacool]

35. Hey you two, get a room.

This is a family oriented thread.

:evilgrin:

[Forkboy]

30. Try not to get your panties wet over the story.

[Beacool]

36. Fork, I'll thank you to stay away from my panties!!!

:P

}(

[DevonRex]

38. Bea I love it when your sense of humor comes to the fore. You should

laugh and smile more often. It looks good on you. :)

[Beacool]

39. Why, thank you kind lady.

:pals:

[Forkboy]

53. Shouldn't be a tough request.

[Beacool]

84. Oh, I wouldn't be so quick to judge if I were you.

You've never met me........

}(

[jesus_of_suburbia]

37. Richardson about cried on national tv when he didn't get VP... I can only imagine how he feels now.

I'm sad for him.

[Beacool]

41. Heck, he's still crying about Bill C. not talking to him.

:7

[Life Long Dem]

43. Bill Richardson blew it.It is a misfire by Obama on the vetting

But I don't think Obama missed it. And I don't think it's alright to try to sneak through someone who makes deals on the side with million dollar contracts.

Yes, Bill Richardson ran for the exit door before MSM went wild on him.

As it is now, Obama misfired on the vetting. But whenever CNN wants to display the vetting of let's say Hillary Clinton, they can be my guest to have a ball digging through her excess luggage. But you know CNN would never to her, where they can use her to their advantage right where she is.

[PresidentObama]

58. I love how a good portion of this thread is people falsely claiming the OPer is a PUMA.

Disagree with the OP? Let's hear it.

Namecalling isn't going to dispute the talking points in the OP.

[dionysus]

60. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

"people falsely claiming the OPer is a PUMA"
you see when a poster does nothing but piss on Ob--- oh wait, you do it too. nevermind


thorazine..stat...

:rofl:

[PresidentObama]

61. Really? I piss on Obama?

I guess you consider telling people to chill the fuck out because they attacking Obama before he was sworn in is attacking.

I guess defending him on Rick Warren even though I'm gay and it somewhat offended me is attacking.

I guess defending him on BlagoSandwich is attacking.

You're pulling things out of your ass.

[dionysus]

63. maybe i confuse you with someone else, but the op is hardcore PUMA.

it's really easy to tell when all they do is aggressively (primary) and passive-aggressively (now) piss on the man.

[PresidentObama]

64. Must be, and I accept the apology you didn't give for lying about me.

And no, the OPer isn't PUMA.

Does he/she love Obama like me or you would? No.

Does that make them PUMA? No.

I'm pretty sure they've said multiple times they voted for Obama.

[Alexander]

65. It's funny because most of us here know it, but the PUMAs still think they're clever.

Posting negative threads about Obama all the time doesn't really work when the OP's own credibility is in question.

[Alexander]

62. There's nothing false about it. Do you have any evidence the claim is false?

I'm guessing the answer is "no" and you'll respond with more whining about "name calling", even if the name is perfectly accurate.

[PresidentObama]

67. Beacool has said more than once that he/she voted for Obama.

PUMA is someone who didn't vote for Obama, and instead are Democrats advocating against Obama and for McCain.

Beacool voted for Obama and against McCain.

Beacool isn't PUMA.

Does she/he love Obama? Nope.

Are me or you more pro-Obama? Yes.

Does that make he/she Puma? Nope.

[Alexander]

68. And I can fly and magically turn things into gold. I bet you believe that, too.

When all a DUer does is post negative threads and posts about Obama, the "I voted for him! I'm not a PUMA!" defense rings quite hollow.

[PresidentObama]

69. You're right, maybe I take people for their word.

I assume that Beacool voted for Obama, because he/she said so.

Same goes with your or me. I assume you voted for Obama/Biden. And I'm sure you assume I voted for Obama/Biden.

We don't know that for sure, but we're going off of what we've both said in the past on here.

I'm assuming that based on what she/he said, they voted for Obama. Which means they aren't a PUMA.

Now if you would have said this poster was a little too anti-Obama, I wouldn't be here saying anything about it.

[Alexander]

70. I like to look at actions as well as words.

For example, what kind of articles someone typically links to, if they can disagree with Democratic elected officials without trashing them, and so forth.

You are correct in that we are assuming everyone else supports Obama.

But when I see a poster linking to endless negative articles about him, attacking him from both the left and the right, and that same poster was a rather vocal supporter of Hillary Clinton in the primaries, when the inevitable "I voted for Obama! I'm not a PUMA!" defense is brought up, it's a little less believable.

It's up to you whether or not you want to believe certain people voted for him. I choose not to if the person has a long and memorable history of constantly attacking Obama, and if they continue to do do in a passive-aggressive manner.

[PresidentObama]

73. I guess we'll have to settle on agree to disagree.

I believe the poster is not pro-Obama, but is also not PUMA.

You believe they're Obama and lying about voting for Obama.

I guess that's just our personal opinions.

[Beacool]

71. Hi Kerry, thanks for your support.

You're my knight in shining armor!!! If you were here I would give you a hug.

Heck, I'll give you a virtual one anyway.

:hug:

[PresidentObama]

74. Not a problem. I disagree with you plenty, Beacool.

A lot of times on Obama, and I remember you made some anti-Richardson comments I didn't like.

But I know you aren't PUMA.

[Beacool]

82. Well, if we all agreed about everything it would make for a darn boring life.

I don't like goose-stepping to anything. I like some Democrats and I don't like some others. Around here it appears that some feel that no one can say anything critical about Obama, but they feel free to say any vile thing that comes to their mind about the Clintons. Well, they were Democrats before Obama and I knew what it even meant to be one.

Besides, I'm not the only one criticizing some of his choices. There are plenty of threads on Gupta, for example. And there were a myriad ones on Warren (justifiable IMO).

Once again, thanks and hugs!!!!

:pals:

PS: If I were a PUMA, I wouldn't even bother coming to this board. What for?

[AtomicKitten]

76. "Maybe --------- had threatened to hold his breath until he turned blue."

At least he didn't claim he was offered the job before he was actually offered the job.

Clinton Fabricated Initial Obama "Offer":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25/report-clinton-camp-fabri_n_146489.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/25/202450/78/248/664880

[PresidentObama]

79. Hello AtomicKitten, how have you been?

I don't even remember what our last argument was about, but we haven't talked since.

We fight like cats (or better yet kittens--AtomicKittens :P) and dogs.

Hope all is well.

[AtomicKitten]

80. *

:P, :hi:

[PresidentObama]

81. Not my eyes, AK ;)

:)

[Beacool]

83. Oh please,

quoting from two Clinton hating sites like KOS and Huff?

:eyes: