Gee, here I was feeling a little good about Obama's team

[LSK]

and I come on DU and apparently Gates and Clinton will tell Obama to stay in Iraq indefinately and order martial law or something.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[hendo]

1. heh

never underestimate the conspiracy theorists :-p

[derby378]

2. You serious?

Hey, I think keeping our troops in Iraq until 2011 is a bad idea - I want them out by the end of 2009. But let's sit back and give Hillary at least one day on the job before writing her resignation speech.

[AlCzervik]

3. ignore them, it's not that difficult.

i think both picks are fine and i think HRC will be a very good SOS.

[no limit]

4. You know, there are smarter ways to get your point across than using strawman arguments

There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of these picks. But nobody is claiming that because of these picks we will be in Iraq forever and martial law will be set up.

But I guess we should become freepers and just swallow everything that is fed to us because it is coming from democrats.

[LSK]

5. your right, strawman arguments

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3624720

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4566301&mesg_id=4566301

Maybe I am reading into things too much???

[no limit]

6. I don't see anywhere in that first thread where it says Obama will declare martial law

nor do I see anything in that thread about the cabinet.

In the second thread the guy has a point. Why only people that supported the war, why not some that actually made the right call at the time?

[LSK]

7. so tell me, what are those 20,000 troops for then???

[no limit]

8. Doesn't matter. According to you we don't have the right to ask this question

since Obama will be in power during this time.

Isn't that your point? That we should all just shut the hell up now that the democrats have won?

Whatever your point is nobody was saying that by keeping Gates and appointing Clinton will lead to martial law. It is a strawmen on your part, it doesn't reflect the legitimate criticisms of these appointments.

[leftchick]

9. I have not felt good about any of his picks

all are linked with corporate criminals, banks, and aipac. More of the same shit for the next four years.

[Mari333]

10. yes,it looks like it doesnt it.

same old crap. if this continues for 4 yrs, he will lose his grassroots base completely. it was the antiwar people who worked their asses off to get him in, and if he continues this shite and continues perpetual war and illegal occupation, he will be toast in 4 years because i for one will vote 3rd party. I didnt vote for him to play war games.
he needs to pull something out of his hat, and fast.

[L0oniX]

12. I only voted for Obama for the lessor of 2 asscarrots ...and now IMO its the same as it ever was.

Durring the primary I remember Obama separating himself from Clinton by deriding the Washington insiders and now most here on DU seem to think there are no better choices than to pick from the Washington insiders and Clinton employment pool. I didn't vote for Clinton but I got Clinton anyway. I will never be a repuke but I wish there were a "viable" alternative to the Dems at this point. Maybe the progressives and others will break off and form their own party and then the Dems can continue go as center right as much as they want.

Peace

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. "lessor of 2 asscarrots"

:evilgrin: Progressive candidates haven't much of a chance in Corporate America.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

14. Agreed.

Obama was not Clinton and not McCain -- that was his single selling point for me. I said way back we had a 50-50 shot with him as President -- he could live up to his rhetoric or he could be Bill Clinton II -- talk a lot of nice talk and then govern like an old school Republican.

I am not feeling very hopeful these days. :(

[FrenchieCat]

11. Just folks with strong feeling,

but without any facts.

Naysayers are here to give us the worse vision that is to come from the upcoming future,
although they know no more than we do about it.

It is all Premature speculation at best.

What we do know is that Barack Obama was anti-Iraq dumb war before it was cool...
and ran on the promise that he will end this war....once he is sworn in.

Until he shows us otherwise, We are free to reject the extreme views put out by those
who claim to know what lies ahead in our future....
because the real hard facts are that they don't know anything more than we do.

[L0oniX]

13. After decades of politics as usual I see no harm in people being skeptical.

Once people get power they can and do change and no one including Obama is immune from that. I only hope he will do as he has said he will do but I'm not going to hold my breath over it.

[Mari333]

15. we have been disappointed sooo many times

see: pelosi in 2006 and dems in 2006.
if it all goes repub-lite, I am voting 3rd party next time.
we shall see.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Those who choose to be skeptical, certainly should do so......

but again, they are basing their skepticism on their speculation made now about the future.

As long as they understand that, and don't start talking as though what they speculate
is instead facts, then they should go for it.

I choose optimism, because I've had too much pessimism, and I am not getting any younger.

I read Obama's books, and have not forgotten his work helping organize the poor, beint a civil rights attorney, a constitutional scholar, and his being against the Iraq war from the start and him clearly stating such......This track record was not a mirage set up in order for him to become President, and then to do differently from what he stated during the elections. So no matter the skeptics, I believe that I have more evidence to base my optimism on they those skeptics have for feeling as they do.

Beyond that, we are all free to speculate the future as we see fit.

[polmaven]

16. Don't forget that the terrorists

in India were taking their orders from Hillary.