You made a big deal of the fact that Obama endorsed him, implying that Obama made such endorsement despite the fact that he knew the Governor to be a shady character. Otherwise, what was the point of your post?

 

Perhaps that people (Republican or Democrat) should not endorse somebody just because of their party affliation and instead only endorse those that they expect to be people of competence and high ideals.

 

I agree. My whole point was that the endorsement came a while ago, which means he may not have known Blagojavich was not a man of competence and high ideals.

 

The point of endorsing someone though is that you KNOW them well enough to vouch for them. You put yourself "on the line" to show that this person is accountable.

You made a big deal of the fact that Obama endorsed him, implying that Obama made such endorsement despite the fact that he knew the Governor to be a shady character. Otherwise, what was the point of your post?

 

Perhaps that people (Republican or Democrat) should not endorse somebody just because of their party affliation and instead only endorse those that they expect to be people of competence and high ideals.

 

I agree. My whole point was that the endorsement came a while ago, which means he may not have known Blagojavich was not a man of competence and high ideals.

 

The point of endorsing someone though is that you KNOW them well enough to vouch for them. You put yourself "on the line" to show that this person is accountable.

 

Don't overvalue endorsements. They're meaningless. They only matter when a Powell endorses Obama or a person of one party endorses someone of another party. Don't make this a bigger deal than it is. The complaint clearly makes Obama look clean. It's routine to endorse someone of your own party. People like you will never ever be positive about Obama. Ever. So I guess this is wasted effort.

You made a big deal of the fact that Obama endorsed him, implying that Obama made such endorsement despite the fact that he knew the Governor to be a shady character. Otherwise, what was the point of your post?

 

Perhaps that people (Republican or Democrat) should not endorse somebody just because of their party affliation and instead only endorse those that they expect to be people of competence and high ideals.

 

I agree. My whole point was that the endorsement came a while ago, which means he may not have known Blagojavich was not a man of competence and high ideals.

 

The point of endorsing someone though is that you KNOW them well enough to vouch for them. You put yourself "on the line" to show that this person is accountable.

 

Don't overvalue endorsements. They're meaningless. They only matter when a Powell endorses Obama or a person of one party endorses someone of another party. Don't make this a bigger deal than it is. The complaint clearly makes Obama look clean. It's routine to endorse someone of your own party. People like you will never ever be positive about Obama. Ever. So I guess this is wasted effort.

 

I am talking about what an endorsement is supposed to be. It has nothing to be positive or negative with Obama about. I actually gave Obama a lot of kudos for his proposed tax plan. I wrote about the CCH IRS Bulletin that he sent out and how it could a really good plan.

Well, I think you're right, but let's be realistic here. It's a fact of political life. This is how endorsements work.

I would agree that endorsements aren't that big of a deal unless it is a major, well-known political figure doing the speaking (Colin Powell, Bill Clinton, etc.). I rarely see news stories even published when some Congressman/woman from a state who is an unknown endorses a Presidential candidate.

 

Illinois needs to get their act together when it comes to governors. This is now the second straight governor of IL to be taken down on these kinds of corruption charges. You also had a former IL governor in the late 1980s getting himself sent to jail during the S&L debacle. However, at the time he had been out of public office for about 8-10 years.

I would agree that endorsements aren't that big of a deal unless it is a major, well-known political figure doing the speaking (Colin Powell, Bill Clinton, etc.). I rarely see news stories even published when some Congressman/woman from a state who is an unknown endorses a Presidential candidate.

That's completely irrelevant to what we've actually been talking about.

Maybe on a national level, but in local parts Congressman have huge effects through endorsement. A reason that Hillary Clinton carried a Johnston, RI is because of the mayor (longtime state senator and now mayor gave that endorsement) and needless to say it helps. No one else in RI may care what the mayor of a midsized town endorsed but the locals do. So Congressmen and women also play a role through endorsements.

People like you will never ever be positive about Obama. Ever. So I guess this is wasted effort.

What reason has he given us to be positive? I'm being dead serious. Most of what I've feared during the campaign is already coming true and he hasn't even served a day in office yet.

 

Well, I think you're right, but let's be realistic here. It's a fact of political life. This is how endorsements work.

And that's perhaps why the Illinois political system is a joke.

 

It is foolish for us to have to settle for corruption and incompetence just because it is widespread. I'm not even that fatalistic.

 

What did you fear and what has Obama done to confirm that fear? You're implying that Obama is accused of something shady, which is completely untrue. I haven't heard or read of any other potential scandals, so please inform your readers what you're trying to say.

People like you will never ever be positive about Obama. Ever. So I guess this is wasted effort.

What reason has he given us to be positive? I'm being dead serious. Most of what I've feared during the campaign is already coming true and he hasn't even served a day in office yet.

 

Well, I think you're right, but let's be realistic here. It's a fact of political life. This is how endorsements work.

And that's perhaps why the Illinois political system is a joke.

 

It is foolish for us to have to settle for corruption and incompetence just because it is widespread. I'm not even that fatalistic.

 

What did you fear and what has Obama done to confirm that fear? You're implying that Obama is accused of something shady, which is completely untrue. I haven't heard or read of any other potential scandals, so please inform your readers what you're trying to say.

Nothing to do with scandals.

 

He campaigned on the notion that he would be bringing troops home from Iraq while now he says is really just redeploying them to Afghanistan.

 

He claimed to oppose lobbyists while he is currently packing his White House with prominent zionists.

 

He is offering no real solution to the economic turmoil and displays close affinity to Bush in that respect by advocating a massive stimulus project that brings us no benefit. Based on his stated goals in terms of the economic sector, it's likely that he's only going to make things worse.

 

You still haven't answered my question. What reason do I have to be positive?

 

Well, you are talking about policy disagreements. I respect policy disagreements. I disagree on your first and third points, and have no idea what the hell you're talking about in your second point.

 

But policy disagreements hardly rise to the level of corruption or scandals. You can disagree with someone but not think they're horrible people.

Of course I'm talking about policy. I never even mentioned the prospect of scandal in context. Only you did.

 

Please answer the question, though. What reason should I have to be positive?

 

You, none. Me, plenty. Our policy positions are not compatible. I can respect that you are not positive about him based on your worldview and various policy positions. I happen to think you're wrong.

Why don't you wait for him to govern instead of judging him on his appointments.

Why don't you wait for him to govern instead of judging him on his appointments.

Because he is making decisions right now. As we speak. Decisions that have an effect on the country. To avoid them is irresponsible. Whether or not he has taken the oath of office is completely irrelevant.

 

While it may not be official, he is governing right now. He isn't campaigning anymore for votes.

 

He's appointing people.

Why don't you wait for him to govern instead of judging him on his appointments.

Because he is making decisions right now. As we speak. Decisions that have an effect on the country. To avoid them is irresponsible. Whether or not he has taken the oath of office is completely irrelevant.

 

While it may not be official, he is governing right now. He isn't campaigning anymore for votes.

 

He's appointing people.

Those aren't making decisions? Those appointee's aren't people who will also have an effect on the country? These are all decisions about how he will govern and how he is picking the people he will delegate to.

His appointments are important, but you have to remember that he's the "decider." I won't evaluate his performance until late 2009. It's ridiculous to read so much into it so early.

While I was not that happy to see Robert Gates stay on as SecDef for at least another year, the other appointments were basically what I expected. Despite the rantings from the right during the election season that 'Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate', I knew that was far from the truth. He is more of a center-left figure who would rather work with the other side than worry as much about political bickering.

 

I am cautiously optimistic about his Iraq position. I still believe that Obama and his team will be working on a withdrawal plan from Iraq once he gets into office, if they aren't already working on it now. I don't buy the rhetoric that Hillary will convince Obama to be more hostile towards Iran. That seems like random speculation to me.

 

Overall I am going to withhold my judgment until he actually starts trying to get legislation passed. Some of us liberals (particularly the pessimistic ones in the article above) lost all patience after 8 years of insanity, and they want things to change RIGHT THIS SECOND.

So Sarah Palin is no longer the dumbest governor...

While I was not that happy to see Robert Gates stay on as SecDef for at least another year, the other appointments were basically what I expected. Despite the rantings from the right during the election season that 'Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate', I knew that was far from the truth. He is more of a center-left figure who would rather work with the other side than worry as much about political bickering.

 

I am cautiously optimistic about his Iraq position. I still believe that Obama and his team will be working on a withdrawal plan from Iraq once he gets into office, if they aren't already working on it now. I don't buy the rhetoric that Hillary will convince Obama to be more hostile towards Iran. That seems like random speculation to me.

 

Overall I am going to withhold my judgment until he actually starts trying to get legislation passed. Some of us liberals (particularly the pessimistic ones in the article above) lost all patience after 8 years of insanity, and they want things to change RIGHT THIS SECOND.

 

Iraqi officials voted and said out by 2012, I am sure thats what he is going to do. He might withdraw a little faster, but I am sure stay til close to 2012 and then move them over to Afghanistan.

While I was not that happy to see Robert Gates stay on as SecDef for at least another year, the other appointments were basically what I expected. Despite the rantings from the right during the election season that 'Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate', I knew that was far from the truth. He is more of a center-left figure who would rather work with the other side than worry as much about political bickering.

The left is extremely war-mongering too. Their foreign policy is identical to that of the neo-conservatives.

the politicians are yes, too bad the followers see more the ideals than real policies. =/ :confused :confused

While I was not that happy to see Robert Gates stay on as SecDef for at least another year, the other appointments were basically what I expected. Despite the rantings from the right during the election season that 'Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate', I knew that was far from the truth. He is more of a center-left figure who would rather work with the other side than worry as much about political bickering.

The left is extremely war-mongering too. Their foreign policy is identical to that of the neo-conservatives.

Only some politicians on the left are hawkish. The average one is not.

how about the new news?

 

Rahm Emmanuel might be on the tapes? Also, with Obama saying he knew nothing is sort of odd... Since it is his seat and naturally he would look for someone with similar ideals... I mean why wouldn't he want to have a say or be part of the search for the new senator?

 

I think with Rahm now on these tapes and the 1 million dollar fundraiser they were trying to get for Blagojevich via JJ Jr. might be putting Obama in a little trouble. Is that the reason they want to stop the search? Is that the reason Rahm is not allowed to talk about it? hmmmm

how about the new news?

 

Rahm Emmanuel might be on the tapes? Also, with Obama saying he knew nothing is sort of odd... Since it is his seat and naturally he would look for someone with similar ideals... I mean why wouldn't he want to have a say or be part of the search for the new senator?

 

I think with Rahm now on these tapes and the 1 million dollar fundraiser they were trying to get for Blagojevich via JJ Jr. might be putting Obama in a little trouble. Is that the reason they want to stop the search? Is that the reason Rahm is not allowed to talk about it? hmmmm

Obama has already explained his relationship to the governor (I feel like a broken record, since I said the exact same thing with Bill Ayers). It looks like Emanuel had the most direct contact with the governor when it came to this seat. They reportedly wanted Valerie Jarrett (not familiar with her) to take the seat. However, Blago lost interest after the Obama campaign refused to give him a kickback in exchange for the seat.

 

I mean, I know that the Hannity's and Limbaughs have their fingers crossed that Obama is somehow involved in this, but I guarantee that if he was involved at all, we would have heard about it already. Reporters don't sit on this stuff, especially since the election season is over.

 

I know half of the people who post in this forum are dying to see the evidence that they have been hoping for that ties Obama to the corruption in IL, but there isn't anything. Sorry to burst the collective bubble.