Obama in 2001: Rumsfeld in the Mainstream

Jake,
If this is all you can find on Obama then i think that he has a real shot to win this thing. I’m not even leaning democrat. However, i remember that Rumsfeld was in 2001 on the cover of Vanity Fair, hardly a conservative newspaper. I remember that time that the majority of the country wanted to give to the newly elected administration the benefice of the doubt and the opportunity to work for the country. You date your quote on January 2001 just before the inauguration. Rumsfeld became a nightmare after 9/11 with the beginning of the drumbeats to the war in Iraq.
I have even more respect for Obama with this thing. it proves that he is not an ideologist and he is willing to give a chance to an opponent to make his case or to proves him wrong.

Typical Obama talking, he flip flops and talk according with the winds of the time!
We can trust him!

I think it just proves that Obama will say ANYTHING to make political gains. I for one will not be swayed by savvy speeches, but ONLY by action.
GOOOO HILLLARY 2008!!!

This is a BS argument Jake. It’s typical fearmongering from the Clinton campaign. It’s meant to appeal to those disgusting rumors about him being a Muslim. You should be ashamed of pushing the Clintons’ smears.
There is just as much we don’t know about Hillary. How many people knew about her work on the Walmart board before Obama mentioned it? How many people knew about her support of NAFTA? How many people know the details of her support for the War in Iraq and initial refusal to admit she made a mistake?

So, a simple statement of the obvious truth is a problem. Obama clearly gives an example of his disagreement with a military system Rumsfeld favored and never indicated that he had any special affinity to Rumsfeld. He simply made the point that, unlike Ashcroft, Rumsfield was seen as in the “main stream.” Is your point that Republicans are ALL by definition incapable of being seem as in the main stream? If this is the case then how did Bush of many other Republicans (whom I detest) win the Presidency? Maybe sir, you are not in touch with “main stream” America in the way the Obama (and the next President of these United States) needs to be.

Not sure I understand the point of your post. Below is a quote from the article you linked to on Rumsfeld’s confirmation. You tell me, wouldn’t these qualifications suffice to consider Rumsfeld “mainstream?”
Rumsfeld, a former congressman from Illinois and White House chief of staff under former President Gerald Ford, was the youngest-ever defense secretary at age 43 serving under Ford from 1975 to 1977.
During his long career, Rumsfeld also held high-level posts in the Nixon administration and headed a bipartisan commission that concluded two years ago that U.S. intelligence officials have been too relaxed.

So Rumsfeld had to go through the Armed Services Comm. which Clinton served on and she did not raise objection to his confirmation. She had the opportunity to oppose his nomination.
How is this a story?

Ha ha the Obama followers learned fast the politics of triangulations. They can’t see a dark spot on Obama, The can’t do wrong candidate. LOL

Nice attempt at a hatchet job, but this is pathetic. All this took place before Rumsfeld proved to be incompetent. At the time, most of America was saying it was an unsurprising choice for Defense Secretary. I’m waiting for you to unearth the “exclusive story ” that when 5 year old Barack saw a picture of a wolf dressed as grandma talking to Lil Red Riding Hood, he didn’t think he looked so bad. Shocking!

One word for this NONSENSE!!!!

For the Obama followers was fine to criticize Edwards for a $400 dollars hair cut that his campaign paid for it; but is OK for Obama to have done a house deal with Rezko knowing his past and that he was investigated by the Feds! For Obama is ok to do shady deals with the “fixer” so long he gets a good deal on his dream mansion home in Chicago.
The Obama campaign gave to charity today another $77,000.00 dollars from Rezko fund risings; but there is more money out there.

Obama is not a radical democrate, a left winger and he has said it several times that he would like to work with a majority as Reagan did so that there will be Obama Democrates, Obama Independants and Obama Republicans. He strongly believes that is the way to build a new governance in the US and get certain key issues solved such as Health care, social security, economy, ending the war, getting US shining in the world.

OBAMA WILL TURN OUT TO ANOTHER BUSH !!! NO MAMA PLEASE NO OBAMA!!! HE WILL BE THE BIGGEST HYPED JFK MLK … AND FAIL MISSERABLY.. DEMOCRATS WILL BE EVEN WITH REPUBLICANS IN SENDING THE MOST CRAPY PRESIDENT!!

Hillary and Bill will not disclose her records in the white house. Bill has refused to disclose his source of funds for his library which sources say are mostly from the middle east. The clinton have been proven to be scandalous. We all know that. There is no story here Jake.

The Obama supporters missed the point. The author didn’t comments on the content of the clip. His point is the press simply not doing enough investigation into his past. There are still plenty of unknown (good or bad) about Obama.

Instead of work and hope for a better day coming we could just let the right wing wacko fascist movement bury this country and then start the recovery. Pick which one you like failed abc MAINSCREAM…PS Rumsfeld brought in private sector employees to cut military health benefits in case you abc hacks have not noticed yet and some are still there doing the dirty deed…

You’re quite correct in your assertion that Sen. Obama hasn’t been thoroughly vetted, but dredging up old comments to confront him with is similar to your mother posting on the internet pictures of you from the 1970′s and us asking why you aren’t wearing bell-bottoms and puffy shirts anymore.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Eminent scientists who once declared that the atom could not be split had to revise their thinking in the 1940′s. Eminent politicians who believed that communism would always exist had to revise their thinking in the 1980′s. Eminent pundits who believed that Donald Rumsfeld was the right Secretary of Defense for the times had to revise their thinking a couple of years ago. Rumsfeld showed by his micromanagement of the mess in Iraq and his knee-jerk reactionism to any proposed non-military solutions as being decidedly OUT of the mainstream of US politics. All that this proves is that times change and intelligent people change their views based on the facts. Just ask Sen. Clinton if she still is a “Goldwater Girl.”

Why is ABC promoting Obama, I mean bringing up he supported Rumsfield is Great because he is a great man, Rumsfield has done a lot for this country with what was handed to him from the Clinton’ss and McCain.
Anything and Everything that we could bring back from Reagan is a great improvement and is needed.

It’s negative Obama spin but if Clinton sneeze sideways she is a devil.
Barrack has some serious issues because NOW finally, the media sees they will look like fools if they do not admit that Super T is not All Obama All The Time. The dream sequence of non-critical study has come to an end. The stories are going to start coming. And the media has padded themselves by giving such a HUGE WIDE NICE push for Obama that no matter how much crying goes into this, the future very detailed, specific, QUOTE material on Obama cannot be construed as racist.
This tack cannot work now. They have given him a very positive easy ride until now. And once Rezko starts, they will blow that out of proportion to try and twist people in the OTHER direction.
It is like the media is the underwater wave maker and we are the ocean. They thrash us left. Then they thrash us right. But it is clear, they are flexing their power by pushing our groups around and then watching how WE FOLLOW THEIR LEAD. They are getting off on the power trip.
And now the cycle is about to shift at Obama. And all the screaming about negative stories is on its way. But they don’t notice the burrage (spelling?) of negative Clinton stories on dozens of news shows. I jump between them, all day long, and except for MSNBC which is TRYING I think to play a bit 50-50, they are dumping on Hillary like a Sceptic Tank Co. She has been the landfill for the last 2 weeks but that is now going to turn. Watch and see.

Since we still suffer from the 40 year right wing wacko republican led downfall movement, Rumsfeld was exactly as MAINSCREAM as that can be. Now all you ronnie rayguns huggers need to read REAGANS REIGN OF ERROR by Mark Green, it is an easy read so put it by your toilet since you might get a charge out of it.

January 17, 2001 – this quote is from before Bush even took office? Rumsfeld sailed through the Senate confirmation with no opposition – even from liberal Democrats. Was Barack Obama supposed to have a crystal ball to tell him what Rumsfeld would do 2 years in the future?

Kudos to Jake Tapper !! Finally a journalist who has the courage to mention that there is a lot about Obama that we don’t know yet.
FYI..after criticizing Edwards for letting 527s run ads in support of Edwards, now Obama is doing the SAME thing !!!!
Here is a link :

What is your point? Are you saying Clinton voted against Rumsfeld’s appointment, but Obama voted for him?

Well, some of us who have been in politics for a long time have been yelling our heads off that this guy has not been vetted AT ALL.
The press has largely used his own darn books as their source! Um. Hellooooo?????
He would be a freaking disaster in November. Disaster.

If I were Hillary, I’d leave this alone. She can be the one who actually stays true to the pledge of keeping her campaign positive. If the media want to expose him, that’s one thing — after all it is your duty to inform, but Hillary has a strong message to share and she should not dilute it with mention of Obama.

Wait a second. This article is editorializing a bit much. He did not “praise” the man at all, as the article claims. He simply stated that the choice was not outside of “mainstream” opinion.
This article does the same thing that happened with the Reagan comment, paints a comment as something that it was not.

Obama
“I admire Ronald Reagan”
“The Republicans have all the ideas”
“Rumsfeld is not out of the mainstream”
“I would argue that the same would be true for the vast majority of the Bush nominees”
Obama the new Republican/Democrat. Is he now running to be Mccains vice president? Odd.
I think it is time to CHANGE our minds about Obama and BELIEVE in a true Democrat who can UNITE us. HILLARY 2008 / 2012

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
This is a non-story. Comments about W’s cabinet appointments from 7 years ago. Give me a break.
Voting to go to war for no reason and then voting again on the Iran bill in 2007 is a little more offensive to me as a democrat.
I’m funny that way.

Yeah, Hillary: “a true Democrat who can unite us.” Errr, are you referring to Republicans perhaps?
This just in from inside the Republican machine, Bob Novak’s email sent out today:
“Republican political leaders are split over whether they would rather run against Clinton or Obama, but the big majority of them see Clinton as a more beatable foe. There is no difference of opinion among Democratic political leaders. They see McCain as the most difficult Republican to defeat.”

And there’s a lot we don’t know about you. So what!
Again, Obama’s remarks evince rather sound judgment. Mainstream America circa 2001 voted in Bush and Rumsfield was a shoe-in for Hillary and most “mainsteam” Congressmen. Obama, ever the intellectual, refuses to be pigeon-holed by lesser mental talents who insist on black and white answers to questions that defy the illogic of false-dilemma thinking.

TWO PRESIDENT CLINTONS TOO MUCH ANYWAY – AND SO WHAT IF BILL IS NOW MUZZLED? IT’S ONLY A TEMPORARY TACTIC:
“…One problem with the George W. Bush administration is that it has brought a kind of plural presidency in through the back door. Vice President Dick Cheney has run his own executive department, with its own intelligence and military operations, not open to scrutiny, as he hides behind the putative president.
No other vice president in our history has taken on so many presidential prerogatives, with so few checks. He is an example of the very thing James Wilson was trying to prevent by having one locus of authority in the executive. The attempt to escape single responsibility was perfectly exemplified when his counsel argued that Mr. Cheney was not subject to executive rules because he was also part of the legislature.
We have seen in this campaign how former President Clinton rushes to the defense of presidential candidate Clinton. Will that pattern of protection be continued into the new presidency, with not only his defending her but also her defending whatever he might do in his energetic way while she’s in office? It seems likely. And at a time when we should be trying to return to the single-executive system the Constitution prescribes, it does not seem to be a good idea to put another co-president in the White House.”
GO OBAMA
YES WE CAN

Yet another non-story. Well, what else can I expect considering you got all the mileage you could out of the ‘Snub’. Please return to real journalism or go out and canvas for Clinton, this is getting ridiculous.

You’ll notice he doesn’t actually praise Rumsfeld. It’s just like the other week. He didn’t praise Reagan.
Mainstream could mean being a part of the “conventional wisdom”, something we all like to challenge.

There’s a lot voters — and the media –do not know about him.
WOW!!!!!! LOL there’s a lot the media does not know about him? The media not able to find some negative about someone? Jpt don’t you think Obama has just live a normal life just like many of us. For your information there are a lot of people who have little drama in their lives.

This is such a non-story. You can’t be serious.
Really? Really? Please.
At least he didn’t vote to confirm him as Hillary did. Playing this up would be a blatant manipulation.
I can’t wait to see the Hillary people start the BS machine up about this.

You said Hillary voted to approve Rumsfeld, even with all her supposed experience. Also, this was 7 years ago. America has learned alot in 7 years.
I have not decided who to support. This article of yours is only a tad interesting.

Does this make “judgment” an issue? No! Because Hillary voted to confirm both Rumsfeld AND Ashcroft…and sided with Bush/McCain on Iraq, Iran, talking to enemies, etc. Obama at least had the good sense to oppose Ashcroft. And, this was pre-9/11, as they say. How many of us were even aware of neo-cons at this time…especially Illinois State Senators?

In your opinion does this support Hillary Clinton’s position that Barack Obama is yet to be fully “vetted”?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1663
.

Do you people follow politics or just write anonymous comments about it?
The Republican Party has veered out of the mainstream since 9/11 and the decsion to go to war in Iraq-that is not to say we agreed with them before (grin).
Rumsfeld was NOT out of American Mainstream thought in early 2001. Neither was Bush or Cheney. These guys were simply cold warriors, a tough crusty, old cold warrior.
I only wish the had stayed that way.
To act as if Obama is some sort of neo-con for saying what he did is silly.

Fair point, but i dont know how you can really fault him for not knowing what rumsfeld was going to do because this was january 17th, its not like this was post 9/11, or even after his policy was really put on display.
At the time he was preaching non-aggression, and a more reserved role for the US, he wasnt running around like a war hawk.

Oh here we go again, now he’s got to defend a comment about Rummy made back in 2001 — when I will remind you everyone thought Rummy was a good guy. It really is unfortunate for anti Obama folks, they can’t find enough concrete to sink him.

Please don’t make me *gag* at this~!!! Everybody, including Hillary Clinton….who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to confirm Rumsfeld…..and none of us, including Obama had any clue about the kind of Defnse Sec. he would turn out to be….none of us have crystal balls….so I suppose abcnews.com wants to make having a crystal ball a prerequisite to getting the nomination~!!! If you are backing Sen. Clinton…..why don’t you come out and say so…….I would rather have someone fresh and unspoiled like Obama…than someone used and worn-out like Clinton

please.. vet away all you want.. harvard law degree..first african american to head Harvard law review board. A Constitional Law Professor for ten yrs at the highly respected Univ of Chicago.. only african american elected and currently serving in the US senate in the 5th largest state.. community organizer-won a tough primary in 04-surged late to win and scared off any GOP opponent in the state as they knew they had no chance to beat him so they mailed in Alan Keyes. wonderful wife and two beautiful kids..an ideal candidate for president! Only candidate to oppose the war from the start as he understood the powell pottery barn doctrine of you broke it-you bought it. hilary and mccain though it was a cake walk and just wanted political cover when they ran in 08 .. little did they realize what a fiasco it would turn out to be that they voted to authorize the first pre-emptive war in our history ..the definition of operational excellence is to do it right the first time! go OBAMA!!!!!!!

“Why are Obama supporters bristling at someone even suggesting that Obama needs a closer look.”
This isn’t merely suggesting Obama needs a closer look. This is suggesting that he’s a Rumsfeld fan, which is categorically untrue, just as it was untrue that he was a fan of Reagan’s policies. There is a difference between looking closely at someone and misleading the public by distorting his comments, which if read in their entirety, are perfectly reasonable.

Barack Obama claims to be special.
He isn’t.
He’s just another politician wanting to get elected.

PLEASE LOOK AT THE DATE! He said this, Jan. 17, 2001 In fact, it was right around W’s inauguration. At that time, Rumsfeld was highly regarded as a qualified Sec. Defense. I think it’s impossible for anyone to know how the Bushies would pervert 9/11 and scare the country into the Iraq fiasco. Obama was clearly against Iraq from the very beginning. The key to this is the date.

Once again this one of those remarks that is not really complimentary, but is being taken into context that is IS complimentary. The fact is- is that he said it, and now the lesser folks who only see black and white (no pun intended) will just use it to their advantage.
I think the problem inherent is that Obama is not perfect. He never claimed to be. But honestly he’s way more perfect than any other candidate out there. I’m mean, if we had to listen to all the idiotic things that Hillary or McCain had said throughout the years…enough said.
It’s humorous really that the right has to try so hard to find anything that Obama has said that might be somewhat, but, of course, never truly outright hypocritical. Keep digging.

Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post (a conservative rag) endorsed Barack Obama today, but it’s a pretty peculiar endorsement.
Here’s what Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper says about Obama in the endorsement:
“For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning: Regarding national security, his worldview is beyond naive; America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation.
“His all-things-to-all-people approach to complicated domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. “Change!” for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make. But he remains a highly intelligent man, with a strong record as a conciliator.”

why should wee not look closser at obama his church values on abortion and same sex marriage olso barack husain obama pastor rev jeramiah speakes favorably about anti semite nation of islam louis farrakhan acording to washington post columnist richard cohen

Obama + Rezko = Bernie Kerik

I had rather him make a mistake on Rumsfeld than a vote for the war, a “vote I’m glad didn’t pass”, “I had no knowledge”, and “I can control Bill”. Good Lord, that experienced leader is for sure one we don’t need.
By the way, there were a lot of people that were fooled by Rumsfeld. At least he didn’t vote for the war.

So? In 2001, Rumsfeld was not out of the mainstream. Americans (reporters in particular) have a very short memory. This comment was made before the Iraq debacle.
Hellooooo!

A comment from 2001 about an appointment that no one in the media (that’s you, in case you’ve forgotten) opposed.
Nice investigative reporting.

Good grief. THIS makes you wonder “what else we don’t know about him? He was wrong about Rumsfeld and that makes him unreliable? I was very happy with Rumsfeld because with Bush as President I thought we needed someone with much experience heading Defense. I knew LOTS of people who felt that way. Democrats all. I do not think Obama has never been or will never be wrong, but I am starting to think he must not be wrong about much of substance if this is a scoop for you all.

Obama praised Rumsfeld on January 17, 2001…so what? The praise was given before September 11, 2001 and before war declared on Afganistan and Iraq. Typical Clinton nonsense.

“Bill”‘s comment on Jan. 30 @ 4:42:32 PM is a MUST READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joe is absolutely dead-on right about this. This is a pathetic post. It’s even picked up by the likes of Taylor Marsh. The Clintonistas embarrass all Democrats with the triviality.

Please. Stop with the “everyone thought Rumsfeld was a great guy” arguments. I didn’t. The Capital Times didn’t. W’s supporters trot out the “everyone thought Saddam had WMD’s” BS every chance they get, and they get rightly torched for it. With Edwards out I’m now an Obama supporter, but he better be ready to address crap like this.

Wow.
This is really devastating.
If I had known this about Obama… well… my goodness… I just don’t know WHAT I would have done.
I just don’t know…
Vote for him, I guess.
Thanks, Jake.
That… was… close.

You know what, I know absolutely NOTHING about Barack Obama other than he gives a pretty good speech. That doesn’t cut it for me, and it doesn’t cut it for the majority of Democrats. I’m done arguing with you cult of personality idiots. Those of us with clearer heads are taking back the white house! For REAL democrats!
Unite that!

This is a non-story. Have you seen Senator Lincoln Chafee’s recent story about how the Senate Democrats, including Hillary, disregarded their Constitutional responsibility in authorizing the Iraq War. Chaffee said it was a disgrace that these senators went along with Bush solely for political reasons and they knew there was no case for war. They all wanted to look “tough” and thought the war would be a walk in the park and popular like the first gulf war. That’s the real story and Hillary to this is unaplologetic.

Pathetic. This constitutes reporting?
Obama clearly was using his remarks about Rumsfeld as ballast against his rejection of Ashford. This is what politicians, and the rest of us, tend to do when giving bad news: look for some honey to help the medicine go down. Many of the posters here have pointed out the tide that Rumsfeld was surfing at the time, one that Hillary thought impressive to avoid by voting to confirm him.

Each time Hillary wants to be listened she runs to ABC. You work for ABC, obviously favor Hillary and want to be taken as a credible source. Once again, this reafirms my position about Obama. He is my candidate. I can’t even start thinking about all the scandals, contradictions and flip flops that Hillary Clinton was involved. Desperate and dirty tactics used by desperate politicians and their aids. Say and do anything so you can win.

What about Hillary’s attacks against Obama in Iowa, NH (I live here so I saw them first hand), NV, and SC? I’m sorry but you are peddling false information once again.

So I’m wondering. In all this digging you think needs to be done, do you plan on informing people of Obama’s spectacular successes as a community organizer, constitutional lawyer and legislator? Or are you only going to focus on nit-picking old quotes that you don’t really put into context. (e.g. – um, most people thought Rumsfield was a good balance of experience for an inexperienced president.)
Why don’t you tell your readers how Obama has accomplished things over the years? He has risen not because he gives good speech, but because he has truly impressed his co-workers at his abilities to get things done that no one else had managed: video surveillance of interrogations/confessions in Illinois and ethics reform in the US Senate are two examples. Talk to his opponents on those as see how they feel about the outcome. In both cases he was expected to fail spectacularly and ending up passing legislation with everybody’s praise.
This is why Obama supporters want him in office. They like THE WAY he gets things done. He’s a stark contrast to the contentious style of the Clintons.

“dionysus ” writes: “This is STUPID!!! In January 2001, everyone thought Bush could do no wrong.”
You couldn’t be more wrong.
I — and a lot of other people — tried our best to get Al Gore elected. We KNEW the truth about George W. Bush because we had done our homework.
Do not ever think “everyone thought Bush could do no wrong.”
If that had been the case, how would you explain the fact that Al Gore garnered a half million MORE votes than Bush did?
Do not ever try to explain this stupid Obama comment away by saying “everyone thought Bush could do no wrong.”
The point is that Obama’s judgment is NO better than anyone else’s. He’s just another politician: he has good points and weak points.
And in this case where he credited Bush (when Bush announced who his Cabinet members would be) with picking people in “mainstream of American political life,” Obama displayed his poor judgment.

How do the Obama supporters explain away Rupert Murdoch’s endorsement of Obama?
Rupert Murdoch also supported George W. Bush in both of Bush’s presidential campaigns and Murdoch LOVED Ronald Reagan.
Doesn’t that even give the Obama supporters a bit of a pause?
Good grief, is the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News also going to endorse Obama?

“sam”:
What about Whitewater?
You apparently know zip about Whitewater and just like throwing it around like an accusation.
The Republicans spent $80 million of our tax dollars “investigating” the Whitewater land deal — two separate Independent Prosecutors led separate investigations into Whitewater and came up with zip about the Clintons.
The Clintons were never found guilty of anything in the Whitewater land deal and, in fact, they had lost money on it.
Were there ever any formal charges brought into a court about all the other things you mention?
So, after spending $80 million of our tax dollars “investigating” every nook and cranny of Bill Clinton’s life, they came up with the fact that he had a flirtation with a woman old enough to know what she was doing — and it was an affair that was never consummated.
Boy, I guess that’s rare in Washington D.C. (sarcasm) — having an affair and lying about it.
I’ll bet if we spent $80 million on any politician, the investigators might come up with something — an affair would be the least of it.
You had better come up with something better than Whitewater, because that well is dry.

Obama talks a lot, but his deeds don’t always match his words.
Obama was elected in Nov. 2004 and entered the U.S. senate in Jan. 2005.
——————
As a candidate for his Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama said repeatedly that he WOULD HAVE voted AGAINST an $87 billion war budget that had been requested by President Bush.
“When I was asked, ‘Would I have voted FOR the $87 billion,’ I said ‘NO,’ ” Obama said in a speech before a Democratic community group in suburban Chicago in November 2003. “I said ‘no’ UNEQUIVOCALLY because, at a certain point, we HAVE to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we’re not going to stand a chance.”
Yet Obama HAS voted FOR ALL of the president’s WAR FUNDING requests since coming to the Senate, and is poised to vote in favor of the latest request when it comes to the Senate floor this spring. Liberal groups have demanded that lawmakers cut off funds for the war as a way to force its end, but Obama has joined most Democrats in the House and Senate in saying he would not take such a move.

DREAM on clown. As I have said before, many Hillary supporters, especially the gals, are going to be disappointed that the first woman president is not going to happen yet. It should have already been Pelosi after bush and cheeny were removed, and our recovery should have been underway. That is where you gals and steny hoyer failed us.

oBAMA SAID HE DISAGREED WITH RUMSFELD BUT THAT RUMMY WAS MAINSTEAM AS FAR AS AMERICANS WERE CONCERENED.WHERE IS THE CONTROVERCY?

DREAM, I always vote Democratic and will be there for Hillary if she wins. I voted for a republican once, for CESS POOL SUPERVISOR, because the job description fits them to a TEE…GO HEELS

There you go again 2009, hugging on POLLS to guide your thinking. Fluid situations change rapidly…tsunamis do that. Banking on your super delegates that count 10 times as taking Hillary to fruition? stop that…don’t tell nancy who I am pulling for…the USA!!!! ronnie rayguns

Where’s the story?

Obama is a master of illusion. He creates spectacular light shows, sings ideological ballads, and plays a fiddle with opposing tunes. His apostles buy into his magic act and ignore his flips and flops and inconsistencies.
Obama has spoken out of both sides of his mouth many times, and it is been well documented but his apostles ignore the inconsistencies. His followers are no different than the neo-con supporters of the Bush Administration; they are just on the opposite end of the political scale.

The take on this video strikes me as kind of a canard. Obama didn’t know the man personally; he was saying he seemed like a fairly normal Republican technocrat circa Reagan 1 or 2. The right portion of the stream is considerably farther over than it was then, virtually a different river now. Nobody really imagined just how deranged the Bush admin was going to go. Nader would have been run out of town on a rail if he’d tried to run with the Bush we know now, vs. the weak governorship/‘humble foreign policy’/apple doesn’t follow too far from the tree candidate Bush of the 1st campaign. He looked like a spoiled rich kid, and I didn’t much like the tree he fell off of (& worried maybe he hurt his head in the fall), but most liberals thought of Cheney and Rummy as steadying influences, unattractive in terms of policy preferences, but probably not as bad as some movement conservatives he might have chosen. Reagan only had one James Watt, Bush might have had a dozen. So it’s kind of a cheap shot to say now “Oh my heavens, he didn’t know that Rummy was going to bully the generals and that they wouldn’t stand up and say the war plan’s stabilization phase isn’t strong enough, and that he would effectively exile Shinseki when he answered honestly and talk only to his subordinate ’. No one expects that kind of judgment (at least, not from the candidate they prefer). If they do, their looking for a prophet, not a president.
Also, if you look at the complaints in the article that were raised at the time of Rummy’s nomination, the main complaint was that he was a “throwback to the Reagan era” – the Cap Weinbergur, Ed Schultz crowd. His “approaches to defense policy and spending,” he was “a dyed-in-the-wool hawk,” [says some fellow from the Council for a Livable World, which I’m sure was right up there with the Council on Foreign Relations and The Ford Foundation back then]. Just listen to the concerns: “Rumsfeld’s unquestioning support of …Star Wars…the B-1 bomber, the Trident…and the MX missile…his …opposition to…SALT II… the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and other attempts to reduce the risk of nuclear war…” They were mad because they thought he was like a Secretary Gates from an older generation. Well such a throwback to Reagan, sadly, would still be a big step up.
So the critics were completely ignorant of the real problem that emerged, the complete unilateralism, the utter lack of respect for military professionals and politicizing of the defense Department’s intelligence product, the incompetence and blithe condescension towards disagreement even with those who largely shared his own paradigm,’ the support for extrajudicial action like extreme rendition, the incompetence.
The reality is that what those people thought was wrong with Rummy & Cheney THEN wouldn’t have put our bacon in the fire in the first place without a real reason, a plan, and enough support. Those people had really no idea what these men were bringing to the table. It wasn’t just more Bechtels, a six hundred ship navy, reflagging Kuwaiti tankers and picking fights with Khadafy over the international boundary. Man, what some wouldn’t give for those days.
Contrary to the reporter’s concern with what ‘we don’t know about Obama’, I think this underscores what we do know. I think the fact that Obama was willing to go part way and give the man the benefit of the doubt when he’d served his country from a different ideological stripe fairly ably is WHY people who think they don’t like us Left Coaster & so-called Eastern Establishment folks still find themselves liking Obama. This video, along with his position on the war, actually makes his case quite well in a nutshell: he can give the benefit of the doubt and listen to people who disagree with him, but he still keeps his own council on the policy. Plays well with others and decides straight. That’s what we want in a President.