I've kept my mouth shut, but can't take it anymore

Of course it's not a bad thing to be sensitive on how things are worded, but the website for the "office of the President elect" ought to have it's editing spotless and I'm not talking about small syntax errors.

Let's give them time. I don't think any of us could possibly understand the word "scramble" like the people on this transition team do- or the people that worked full time on both campaigns. Since they are trying to get information to us ASAP, they deserve our support, not scorn.

Let's give them time. I don't think any of us could possibly understand the word "scramble" like the people on this transition team do- or the people that worked full time on both campaigns. Since they are trying to get information to us ASAP, they deserve our support, not scorn.

well said...

better read up on the site quickly, they've been "scrubbing it" over the weekend, changing controversial wording etc...

Well, it is called, "Change.com."

Well, it is called, "Change.com."

Nope. Change.gov!

Camp Creek, you have your mind made up and just keep rehashing negativity from the campaign. If there is a specific stated policy or idea you would like to discuss, I am certainly interested in hearing your views and opinions, but not in recycled sour grapes.

The majority of voters disagreed with you and elected Obama president. He campaigned on change and a different platform from the current administration. It is not fair to now criticize him because he now wants to actually change things in line with those same stated policies. Guantanamo, stem cell research, alternative fuel sources, drilling, are all things he clearly stated and discussed in detail during the campaign.

Yes, he is reviewing Bush's executive orders - as there were more than 250 of them and Obama and Bush differ greatly in their opinions, obviously there are some he will wish to counteract.

Yes, he has selected a fellow Illinois Congressman w/ experience in a Democratic White House as his chief of staff. As there has been only one Democratic president in the last 20+ years, obviously there would be ties to the Clintons if he chose someone experienced.

Yes, he wants prisoners in Gitmo to have trials instead of being held indefinitely without trial. This has been a shameful and anti-American practice that I certainly don't have a problem with him ending.

His connections to Wright (yes), Ayers (slight), and Farrakhan (no) and their possible influence and shared beliefs (or severe lack thereof) are quite well publicized and have been fully dissected and spotlighted by the media. How about we revisit them only if one of them shows up at the White House OR does something wrong in this decade?

Thanks to the internet and the wide variety of sources available, there are MANY options for information and enough independent voices that bias and secrecy are non-issues. It has always been the chore of intelligent people to sift through large amounts of information and evidence, weigh possible biases, and then decide for themselves which ones to believe. You can't find a 100% unbiased source, which is why you need to garner information from more than one.

You forgot Saul Alinsky the socialist father of community organizers whos "bible" (Rules for radicals) for community organizers was dedicated to Lucifer...

If he'll wait until he takes office to start his presidency....

It only seems that way because the current president has such little presence at this point in time.

Obama is inexperienced and new to national politics. He is a legislator, not a governer (as in person who govens, not a Governor) and how he will lead is an unknown. His record in the Illinois Senate and his short unfinished term as a U.S. Senator are not enough to let Americans know who he is. We all know that campaigns are full of rhetoric of bi-partisan promises and "reaching across the aisle." However, all indications, even this early, show that Obama is going to hit the ground running by fulfilling obligations to his party. For example, his appointment of Emanuel as Chief-of-Staff, a hard-line Clinton-ite, only demonstrates his commitment to the party. Talk of executive orders immediately upon taking office on issues such as Guantanamo, oil drilling, stem cell research, etc., only prove that he and his team want to make a dramatic turn to the left, not exactly bi-partisanship. I hope he proves otherwise, but until he does, I cannot trust him.

His past associations in college and early in his career show that he has had quite radical leaning tendencies. I'm waiting to see if he is going to maintain his associations with the Ayers and the Wrights and the Farakhans. While he disavows any connection with these men, time will tell whether he is being honest.

I'm uncomfortable with how his campaign has slighted the press that did not endorse him. I'm uncomfortable with how the press that did endorse him was so obviously slanted toward him. Geo, you proved this point yourself when you suggested that I listen to NPR as opposed to Rush Limbaugh and watch CNN and opposed to O'Reilly. Limbaugh and O'Reilly are political commentators and therefore openly take a stand. Limbaugh is conservative, while O'Reilly is Libertarian. When you listen to/watch their programs you know what you are getting. NPR and CNN are news organizations that are ethically supposed to present a balanced view of the news. Even you recognize that this has not been done and by your post prove the point that they are liberal leaning. However, not everyone has such a wide range of sources as I and while I get information from both sides, not everyone does. It alarms me that the media such as NPR and CNN and NBC, etc., present news as unbiased when in fact it is often very left-leaning. This does not bode well for those who are trying to find the truth and leaves it to the individual to sift through all the media and to watch our leaders in order to make judgments ourselves instead of letting the news tell us what to think. I do not trust the mainstream media to be objective about Obama.

Obama knows that he is being watched carefully. His staff knows that he is untested and that we are all waiting to be introduced to the Barack Obama as President of the United States. The moves he makes in the next few weeks will be very telling.

I want Obama to succeed, but I don't trust him yet. He is a politician after all, he is only a man and therefore has flaws. I hope he turns out to be a person of integrity, someone that I can respect even if our political views are different, but he will have to earn that respect from me.

Did you vote for Bush over Gore? If so, then you have proven willing and able to move experience down the priority list in favor of other attributes. Same point applies if you forgive Palin as a VP pick...

In the last quarter century, what has any other president done moreso than Obama before they were elected to "reach across the aisle"?

Have you ever scrutinized the pick of a Chief of Staff until now?

You mentioned Guantanamo, oil drilling and stem cell research. But I am having a hard time believing that you feel as strongly as you do about Obama based on his stance on these issues. I'm just not buying it- just being honest.

Gordo pointed this out for me already but I still feel the need to clarify what I thought was obvious in my previous posts in this thread-

I never suggested you replace your existing news/information sources. I encouraged you to broaden and balance things. Don't listen to NPR as opposed to Rush Limbaugh or watch CNN as opposed to O'Reilly. Listen to NPR and watch CNN in addition to Rush and O'Reilly...

CCK, I don't find it odd that folks like yourself are watching everything Obama does because they didn't vote for him, because they don't trust him, because they don't know how he will lead and because he is untested on a national level of governing. I find it odd that I never heard folks feeling this way about a president elect until now- until this one...

No. He is the President-Elect therefore all his actions leading up to the actual inauguration are fair game. The team he has now is the same team he will have in the White House.

How can you expect a new president to do anything until he is INAUGRATED????????????????????????????????????????????????????
DUH
He is president ELECT

I find it odd that I never heard folks feeling this way about a president elect until now- until this one...

You mean "that one."

I threw this out there-

Just curious. What is it about this president elect that makes you and many others want to watch him so carefully? I hear this a lot from folks who did not vote for Obama but I do not recall ever hearing anything like this from folks whose preferred candidate did not win in any previous election. Even if they were watching and listening carefully I never heard so many declare there was a need to like I do these days...

Thx to the few who responded so far.

So this was a loaded question. I already had an opinion as to why so many want to watch him so carefully. So here it is.

I believe the fearmongering of the McCain campaign worked. I believe we have a whole bunch of folks in this country who are afraid of the socialist, the communist, the liberal, the terrorist, the celebrity, the "messiah", the one, "that one".

I don't believe folks are afraid of opposing viewpoints on issues. I don't believe folks are afraid of a tax rate reset for the rich to Clinton levels. I don't believe folks are afraid of a president elect because they didn't vote for him.

I blame the negative ads.

You mean "that one."

Yep, this is exactly what I mean. I was just trying to be subtle, for lack of a better word...

All of you confuse me...do any of you really KNOW what you want???? (just a POST election question)

All of you confuse me...do any of you really KNOW what you want???? (just a POST election question)

I want to be able to eat steaks and crabcakes and drink Blue Moon and not get fat or be hungover...

I want to be able to eat steaks and crabcakes and drink Blue Moon and not get fat or be hungover...

That I can relate to.... (but it is going to happen anyway....:roll

Did you vote for Bush over Gore? If so, then you have proven willing and able to move experience down the priority list in favor of other attributes. Same point applies if you forgive Palin as a VP pick...

In the last quarter century, what has any other president done moreso than Obama before they were elected to "reach across the aisle"?

Have you ever scrutinized the pick of a Chief of Staff until now?

You mentioned Guantanamo, oil drilling and stem cell research. But I am having a hard time believing that you feel as strongly as you do about Obama based on his stance on these issues. I'm just not buying it- just being honest.

Gordo pointed this out for me already but I still feel the need to clarify what I thought was obvious in my previous posts in this thread-

I never suggested you replace your existing news/information sources. I encouraged you to broaden and balance things. Don't listen to NPR as opposed to Rush Limbaugh or watch CNN as opposed to O'Reilly. Listen to NPR and watch CNN in addition to Rush and O'Reilly...

CCK, I don't find it odd that folks like yourself are watching everything Obama does because they didn't vote for him, because they don't trust him, because they don't know how he will lead and because he is untested on a national level of governing. I find it odd that I never heard folks feeling this way about a president elect until now- until this one...

Geo, you don't remember all the folks promising to leave the US if Bush were elected in 2000? Do you remember the couple of celebrities who called him stupid and an idiot?

Here is an article by a journalist who shadowed Bush for years in Texas and talks about his ascendancy to the national stage - and oh yeah, how he once said publicly how stupid Bush is.

http://www.poynter.org/content/content_print.asp?id=5156&custom=

And there was plenty of talk about Bill Clinton's lack of experience on the international stage. Here is a story in the NY Times.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DD1331F936A35752C1A964958260

Again, the reason there is so much attention given to Obama is that we have a wartime transition. Consider the challenges thrown the way of past new Presidents. Kennedy was tested by the Soviets as they brought nuclear missiles into Cuba. Carter experienced kidnapping of Americans by Iran. Clinton was in office several months when the terrorists bombed the World Trade Center. And Bush was in office just several months when 9/11 reared its ugly head. Today there was an article in which Bin Laden promised another attack much larger than 9/11. Iran probably is very close to having nuclear weapons and already has an arsenal of Shahab missiles. Iran has stated that Israel should not exist. North Korea, who knows? There are a lot of issues for a President elect who has virtually no national security experience. Listen, I have no doubt that he will surround himself with smart, experienced people such as, I hope, Colin Powell but the truth is that sneaky world leaders focus the world through the prism of other world leaders especially the US.

I threw this out there-


Thx to the few who responded so far.

So this was a loaded question. I already had an opinion as to why so many want to watch him so carefully. So here it is.

I believe the fearmongering of the McCain campaign worked. I believe we have a whole bunch of folks in this country who are afraid of the socialist, the communist, the liberal, the terrorist, the celebrity, the "messiah", the one, "that one".

I don't believe folks are afraid of opposing viewpoints on issues. I don't believe folks are afraid of a tax rate reset for the rich to Clinton levels. I don't believe folks are afraid of a president elect because they didn't vote for him.

I blame the negative ads.

Uh no. It is because he is inexperienced and we do not know who he is. The same scrutiny would be given by the Democrats had Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal been elected president during this election because they too have limited experience, the difference being they do have executive experience. Every other president since I have been born, from Nixon to George W. Bush has been either a governor or a nationally known political figure before being elected president. That may be good or that may be bad, but at least you know what you are getting into.

I am afraid of how Obama will "rule" on all of the issues from taxes to the war in Iraq to redistribution of wealth because I have no idea what to expect of him and how far left he will go. Added to that is the fact that he will have a lot of help from Congress.

You are casting non-supporters of Obama as weak-minded believers of what you call fearmongering propaganda. Sorry to disappoint, but most of us are free thinking and passionate about our beliefs in the Constitution and what is best for the country.

Uh no. It is because he is inexperienced and we do not know who he is. The same scrutiny would be given by the Democrats had Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal been elected president during this election because they too have limited experience, the difference being they do have executive experience. Every other president since I have been born, from Nixon to George W. Bush has been either a governor or a nationally known political figure before being elected president. That may be good or that may be bad, but at least you know what you are getting into.

I am afraid of how Obama will "rule" on all of the issues from taxes to the war in Iraq to redistribution of wealth because I have no idea what to expect to him and how far left he will go. Added to that is the fact that he will have a lot of help from Congress.

I think progress has been made because you started out with the assertion that Obama is showing signs of being a dictator, and now you're just concened about his experience and policies. Sounds more reasonable to me.

Geo, this is the first Presidential transition during a war in a long time so this time around, it really is different. It is well accepted that Obama is thin in the national security arena hence the salvos from the ever-opportunistic Russians and Iranians. Obama's response to the reporter's question about Iran was disconcerting.

The Iranians understand and respect strength and resolve. I know many on this board disagree but it is how I see the world. Remember when the Iranians grabbed the hostages when Jimmy Carter was President? They viewed JC as weak and it turns out they were correct. When Reagan campaigned for President in 1980, in response to questions concerning the Americans held hostage in Iran, he would simply say that every option is on the table. Within a few minutes of Reagan being sworn in, Iran released the hostages. Obama will learn and will build a good national security team. The lesson he has to learn IMHO is that diplomacy works best when it is not your primary option.

you would admit, at that point, iran had much to lose and little to gain in holding the hostages any longer. diplomacy has been completely lacking the last two terms.

you would admit, at that point, iran had much to lose and little to gain in holding the hostages any longer. diplomacy has been completely lacking the last two terms.

What I think is that the Iranians thought that Reagan may have sent in a missile or two into Tehran. It is not reality but perception sometimes drives the world.

Diplomacy without every other option left on the table is meaningless and useless. Look how long we have been involved in diplomacy with Iran over its nukes. Iran is playing games but the UN is so serious about diplomacy. Don't misunderstand me: I am not for war. I favor bringing our troops home as soon as possible and I don't mean Iraq and Afghanistan. I mean from the Arabian penisular, Germany, Japan, etc. I want to play defense from now on. A mean brand of defense but defense nonetheless. I would raise the bar for good behavior by the bad boys of the world. Iran, you send in a few nuclear tipped Shahabs into Tel Aviv, here, in painful detail, is what we will do. Your ball.

What I think is that the Iranians thought that Reagan may have sent in a missile or two into Tehran. It is not reality but perception sometimes drives the world.

Diplomacy without every other option left on the table is meaningless and useless. Look how long we have been involved in diplomacy with Iran over its nukes. Iran is playing games but the UN is so serious about diplomacy. Don't misunderstand me: I am not for war. I favor bringing our troops home as soon as possible and I don't mean Iraq and Afghanistan. I mean from the Arabian penisular, Germany, Japan, etc. I want to play defense from now on. A mean brand of defense but defense nonetheless. I would raise the bar for good behavior by the bad boys of the world. Iran, you send in a few nuclear tipped Shahabs into Tel Aviv, here, in painful detail, is what we will do. Your ball.

I don't know if perception works quite the way it used to. There are too many media outlets at least capable of communicating reality. One reason McCain lost is that he didn't realize that. His old school communication style was rendered obsolete IMO.

I don't know if perception works quite the way it used to. There are too many media outlets at least capable of communicating reality. One reason McCain lost is that he didn't realize that. His old school communication style was rendered obsolete IMO.

Well, it seems to me that what really matters is how other world leaders view reality or the perception of reality. If we consider thugs like Russia, Iran and now Venezuela, their perceptions of Obama at the moment must have them smiling. He looked pathetic in the news conference as he replied about Iran. Don't misunderstand me: I am not piling on Obama. Just could not help but notice his response on Iran. He was an uncomfortable as one can be. That is why I hope and expect that he will surround himself with talented and respected national security advisers like Powell.

Uh no. It is because he is inexperienced and we do not know who he is. The same scrutiny would be given by the Democrats had Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal been elected president during this election because they too have limited experience, the difference being they do have executive experience. Every other president since I have been born, from Nixon to George W. Bush has been either a governor or a nationally known political figure before being elected president. That may be good or that may be bad, but at least you know what you are getting into.

I am afraid of how Obama will "rule" on all of the issues from taxes to the war in Iraq to redistribution of wealth because I have no idea what to expect of him and how far left he will go. Added to that is the fact that he will have a lot of help from Congress.

You are casting non-supporters of Obama as weak-minded believers of what you call fearmongering propaganda. Sorry to disappoint, but most of us are free thinking and passionate about our beliefs in the Constitution and what is best for the country.

If we knew then what we know now, would we still have voted for Nixon or Bush? I think not. One was a lying crook and the other has bent the Constitution to serve a very twisted political agenda. What history has shown us is that neither did what was best for the countries people as a whole.

Don't you think we should wait until there is evidence of what IS happening before any judgement is passed? Being afraid of something that may or may not happen is simply a projection of one's mind, a way of thinking. It does not exist...and may never exist. Nothing has actually happened yet. What is there to be afraid of?

As Jung stated long ago "the collective unconcious hasn't woken up yet". I think it is past time we did. If we all change our way of thinking to a more positive, present methodology, maybe there won't have been any reason to be afraid in the first place. Our collective good intentions may, just may, make some positive difference, have some positive effect in the world. Don't you think it's worth a try...or have we become so jaded that even trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt and hope for a change for the better is out of the question?

Does anyone else out there believe that "be afraid, be very afraid" is unnecessary for a free thinking and passionate people to survive and thrive, even in a dangerous world? Be vigilant and skeptical, not feaful and cynical...please.

How about putting more positive energy into the coming change. It might just make a difference. What can it hurt to try? I don't think it's too much to ask, do you?

CCK, I don't find it odd that folks like yourself are watching everything Obama does because they didn't vote for him, because they don't trust him, because they don't know how he will lead and because he is untested on a national level of governing. I find it odd that I never heard folks feeling this way about a president elect until now- until this one...

... but Obama is the "uniter," so surely everyone will come to love him.

Well, it seems to me that what really matters is how other world leaders view reality or the perception of reality. If we consider thugs like Russia, Iran and now Venezuela, their perceptions of Obama at the moment must have them smiling. He looked pathetic in the news conference as he replied about Iran. Don't misunderstand me: I am not piling on Obama. Just could not help but notice his response on Iran. He was an uncomfortable as one can be. That is why I hope and expect that he will surround himself with talented and respected national security advisers like Powell.

I don't know if uncomfortable is the word , more like unsettled, but I agree, as a whole he looked unsettled, not just about Iran, but on everything. he started to gain more composure towards the end of the press conference. I am not sure what you mean though about his response regarding Iran. He didn't say anything we haven't heard already, and the Iranians already are in an uproar about his comment related to not tolerating their aiding terrorists. Also, lets not forget that there is a an election for the Presidency in Iran and Ahmandinejad is playing the politics game. Obama's got Poland spreading rumors that he said the missile defense program was go, Russia is breathing down his throat about it. We've got major economic problems here for him to contend with. The CIA and FBI have reported an exponential amount of domestic death threats since September. He's got Pelosi and Reid to deal with and setting up his Cabinet and staff members. To boot, I am sure there is intelligence that, we the public, are not privy to. Let's give him some time to gain his footing.

Hail, if it were me, I would be looking for some remote island for me and my family and to heck with it all.

Below is the transcript from his first press conference that reflects the Iran question and his answer. I am sure the video is on YouTube and you can easily see his cheeks turn red as blood. Thugs look for such signs. Plus the transcript does not show all his delays, uhs and stutters.


QUESTION: Senator, for the first time since the Iranian revolution, the president of Iran sent a congratulations note to a new U.S. president.
I'm wondering if, first of all, if you responded to President Ahmadinejad's note of congratulations and, second of all, and more importantly, how soon do you plan on sending low-level envoys to countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, to see if a presidential-level talk would be productive?

OBAMA: I am aware that the letter was sent. Let me state -- repeat what I stated during the course of the campaign.

Iran's development of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable. And we have to mount a international effort to prevent that from happening.
Iran's support of terrorist organizations I think is something that has to cease.
I will be reviewing the letter from President Ahmadinejad, and we will respond appropriately. It's only been three days since the election. Obviously, how we approach and deal with a country like Iran is not something that we should, you know, simply do in a knee-jerk fashion.

I think we've got to think it through.

But I have to reiterate once again that we only have one president at a time. And I want to be very careful that we are sending the right signals to the world as a whole that I am not the president and I won't be until January 20th.