Comments on: Obama’s Bipartisan Cabinet

By: rodney dill

rodney dill — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:42:44 +0000

So he didn't keep his word. In some cases we should be glad he won't keep his word. He apparently isn't keeping his word to the ACORN people and community organizers that he told he would invite to washington (first thing) to help define his administration. As most of the 'heavy lifting' of defining is administration is being done now via cabinet appointments, etc.., he can only invite some of them (ACORN) in later as a token move. (Which I doubt he will do).

By: DL

DL — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:27:23 +0000

Why would we ever expect a politician to actually follow through on what they promised when running for office?

Everyone knows that it's all for show to attract votes and that deception is acceptable for running for the highest office in the land.

People who don't value truth in their everyday lives can hardly get excited when their leaders lie to them, can they?

By: odograph

odograph — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:45:06 +0000

Can we see a stronger promise by Obama? This bit looks like a politician's typical "absolutely" than a premeditated thing:

Charlie Gibson of ABC News asked Obama in late October if he wanted Republicans — plural — in his Cabinet, Obama replied, “Absolutely.”

BTW, is "- plural -" part of the Gibson quote?

By: sam

sam — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:31:15 +0000

And there's still the appointing of the under-secretaries in DOD (Army, Navy, Air Force). These aren't cabinet-level posts, so I'm not sure if placing Republicans in some of these posts would assuage the folks at CQ. But such appointments would count as bi-partisan, I think. Just not on the galactic level.

By: Triumph

Triumph — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:29:54 +0000

This is just further evidence that Obama is a Barney Frank/Nancy Pelosi/Barry Bonds-type liar.

He is clearly unqualified to make decent appointments and would be well served by allowing Bush to stay on.

Let Bush run things and Obama can traipse around the world as head of government--a la Michaelle Jean.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:55:44 +0000

You're right: it's a weak argument. And President-Elect Obama has already answered it: one says things in the heat of a campaign that don't completely represent what one might do or believe. But more than that we don't have a parliamentary system. We don't elect platforms or parties; we elect presidents. If you voted for the guy without knowing enough about him to have any idea what he'd do as president, that's your problem. If you didn't vote for the guy, you've got no gripe at all.