Home » News » Obama Adds Washington Insiders to Staff – Change is Gone

Obama Adds Washington Insiders to Staff – Change is Gone

What a difference a few days makes. Obama preached “change” (and people swooned) during the primary, and then does a flip-flop after securing the nomination and gets old Washington insiders to add to his staff. It’s just standard peer group shift.

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama named a three-person team including Caroline Kennedy to lead his search for a running mate Wednesday while expressing confidence that the Democratic Party would soon unify after a bruising battle for the presidential nomination.

Campaign officials said Kennedy, who is the daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy, as well as former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder and longtime Washington insider Jim Johnson have already begun compiling information on potential running mates. They disclosed no names.

Holder is a former federal prosecutor and District of Columbia Superior Court judge who held the No. 2 job at the Justice Department under President Clinton.

Johnson is widely known among Democrats for having helped previous candidates, including John Kerry four years ago, sift through vice presidential possibilities. He is a former chief executive officer for the mortgage lender Fannie Mae.

A Kennedy, Clinton staffer, and John Kerry member. Some change — Obama is just more of the same old uber-left politics, wrapped in “change” rhetoric (and no experience).

Of course, you should remember Mr. Holder from the Clinton Administration:

On his first day as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama has made his first clear, serious mistake: He named Eric Holder as one of three people charged with vice-presidential vetting.

As deputy attorney general, Holder was the key person who made the pardon of Marc Rich possible in the final hours of the Clinton presidency …

The primary is over, so here comes the peer-group shift and flip-flops. Be prepared. He’s already flipped on Iran — when he needed to appeal to the far-left, he had quite a different tone than today.

FLIP (far-left strategy for the primary):

During a debate last summer, he said he would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders and other American adversaries “without preconditions” during the first year of his presidency.

FLOP (general election strategy completely opposite from the primary strategy):

[A]s president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States. That is my position. I want to be absolutely clear.”

We’re absolutely clear — it’s quite different than what he said earlier as the flip-flops begin for political expediency.

In other news, Obama was selected, not elected. For all the complaining the far-left did about Bush-Gore and the popular vote, Obama didn’t get a majority of the vote, and (depending on how you count MI/FL) didn’t even win the popular vote. But now that their guy won, the far-left isn’t saying a peep about the popular vote (which Hillary won).

For her part, at least Hillary is consistent with the position Democrats laid out in Bush/Gore claiming the popular vote is what matters (see the HBO movie “Recount” for the far-left perspective), and elections should be decided on that (she’s wrong now, just as the far-left was in Bush/Gore when they used the argument, but give her credit for being consistent, something her pals on the far-left aren’t as they seek to change the rules to suit their desired outcome).

Another uber-left flip-flop — we guess that’s the change they’re referring to — the popular vote was critical in Bush/Gore, but irrelevant to Obama/Hillary. Sigh. All this shifting ideas makes our head hurt — whatever happened to following the rules? Oh yeah … CHANGE.

Obama’s “change” was nothing but political maneuvering to garner votes (and cover a lack of experience) — and it worked as the change theme was a major issue in the campaign (but then, we’re still waiting for what change means, but as long as people swoon, why bother with details?); people swooning over change is as bad as giving your computer password for a piece of chocolate.

If you believe Obama is “change”, we’ve got a bridge for sale; he’s the same old recycled uber-left candidate with the same old far-left views. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Nothing to see here, move along.



  1. Marc says:

    It’s fairly easy to say change is gone when you yourself, have defined it, instead of mmmm, say, Obama?

    First, of course a VP selection committee will consist of national figures (so called washington insiders) because you have to have a committee which knows people all across the political spectrum. The fact that Marc Holder, a Deputy Attorney General who was most likely just following orders in the pardon of Marc Rich, is a fairly weak allegation.

    Did you miss where Obama forced the DNC to stop accepting donations from lobbyists and PAC’s this morning?

    Also, in a close race to the end, its impossible to have a majority of the vote if, at some time, there was a third person in the field. Suprise, suprise, when you split votes fifty/fifty (or close to it) a third candidate, maybe like john edwards, only needs to grab 1% of the vote for you to have a minority candidate.

    This argument doesn’t matter anyway, because by 7 out of the 8 ways you can count the popular vote, Obama wins. Hilary is only ahead if you disenfranchise the caucus numbers in 5 states.

    Don’t believe me? follow the link, Poblano shows you how to count for yourself.


    It’s good to learn to count by yourself, instead of just repeating other peoples rhetoric. No?

  2. Oh please. Just because he chose some insiders does not mean he gave up his message of change!
    Get a grip!

  3. Just because he chose some insiders does not mean he gave up his message of change!

    He definitely hasn’t given up the message, but it’s his actions we’re interested, not the slogan.

  4. It’s fairly easy to say change is gone when you yourself, have defined it, instead of mmmm, say, Obama?

    If you read the article, it states “we’re still waiting for what change means” — we’ve just observed using old Washington insiders isn’t really change under any definition — certainly other people are qualified.

    7 out of the 8 ways you can count the popular vote

    8 ways to count votes? How do we determine which method of counting to use? Best 2 out of 3? Or 3 out of 5?

    What happened to “count all the votes”?

  5. Marc says:

    Well, when you “count all the votes” as you stated, you count all 5 of the caucus votes that Hilary has not included in her count. South Carolina, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and the Texas Caucus.

    As you probably know Obama won 4 out of 5 of those caucuses, and 2 of them by alot, and texas by a not so shabby margin.

    Hilary also counts the territories, including her overwhelming win in Puerto Rico, which is fine except they don’t count in the general election.

    So, if you “count every vote” even all of florida and michigan and puerto rico, she loses. If you’d actually followed that link I’d provided, or listened to the commentary between Russert and Ickes a week ago, you’d know this.

  6. If you want to play dueling counting methods that seems like a waste of time (as we’ve already said *depending on how you count* — MI/FL included/excluded, count ALL uncommitted MI as Obama, etc) — the two points are:

    Obama’s choices are old-school Washington (Jim Johnson is tied to Countrywide and the subprime mess). Not good for someone touting “change” and cleaning up Washington. When it comes down to it, Obama is just the same far-left ideology recycled in new packaging.

    Today Obama said “these aren’t folks who are working for me” (referring to his poor choice of VP vetters). The VP selection advisers aren’t working for him? Pleeeease — that’s perfectly Clintonian.

    Second, the far-left shouting “the popular vote doesn’t matter” — the opposite of what they said in Bush v Gore. So much for consistency … oops “change” is the word this time around.

    Let’s be clear — the popular vote doesn’t matter. It’s delegates and electors. The story is the far-left picks whatever argument suits them at the moment — but that goes along with Obama’s theme.

    We’re only pointing out at least Hillary is consistent and using the same argument the left did in Bush v. Gore (even though it was wrong then, and wrong today). Hillary may (or may not) have won the popular vote, but it’s fun to see the contortions of the same people who shouted “popular vote” in 2000 reject the exact same argument today.

    But we guess that’s change.


    Just for fun: ABC News (Counting FL/MI): Clinton 17,802,135 — Obama 17,501,599

    So just like 2000, you can play the “how do we count the votes” game if you want, we’d rather not as it misses the real point.

  7. Marc says:

    It’s not ctually an argument of whether the popular vote “matters,” its whether or not it exists, and the DNC was never going to consider the Hilary argument anyways, as its stated nowhere in the rules.

    The states all had different voting methods, some open, some closed primaries,some caucuses, some primacaucuses, and so on and so forth. So, what do you count; democrats mostly except when there were independents and republicans, and assume that lower turnout in caucuses is natural. Please, granted, the DNC rules are retarded, but, the popular vote count just doesn’t exist. Also, as far as the popular vote goes, us in the “far left” (a term you apply somewhat liberally, yuck yuck) wouldn’t have gave a damn about the popular vote if it wasn’t for Florida, and lets not even try to compare the two situations, based on the flaws in the democratic primary system.

    Second, who do you expect Obama to hire for his veep selection team? His college interns? Of course they picked “Washington Insiders,” you have to interview everyone in Washington to make a good selection. You’d have to be an idiot not to pick people from The Hill.

    Lets keep in mind too that these “insiders” aren’t picking the VP, they are vetting them, aka, running their credentials through the grist mill t make sure everything is clean. Also, how do you figure that Caroline Kennedy is an insider? Because she’s a Kennedy? Bush is 7th cousin to the Queen of England, does that make him royalty. Not in the brits eyes.

  8. As to Obama’s poor judgment in picking advisors, we expect him to live up to his rhetoric. If he’s the “change” candidate, and the guy who will clean up Washington, we expect him to walk the talk. He’s the one who railed about Countrywide and the subprime mess, and then chose an advisor caught up in it. He’s the one who picked someone involved in the Clinton pardon scandal.

    Bottom line, his actions don’t line up with his lofty words — deep down, he’s just another old-school politician who says one thing to be elected, but acts completely different when (he hopes) no one is watching.

    And now he claims his advisors aren’t working for him, so none of their past problems matter? Right. Don’t you find that a little strange, or can Obama do nothing wrong and just wave his hand and the masses swoon?

    He’s perfectly Clintonian in his double-speak — “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘work’ is.”

  9. News is just coming in that Jim Johnson resigned. But since he never worked for Obama, what’s to resign?

    Waiting on more official news to be sure exactly what’s going on. How will Obama spin this? Since Mr. Johnson never worked for him, how can he quit?

  10. Marc says:

    As I already stated, I fully expected him to pick insiders because for once, this is a place where only insiders could do a good job in vetting the candidates.

    It probably was a mistake to have not sufficiently “vetted” the vetter, but one can see how Johnson was thought to be a safe pick as he had already vetted for several other campaigns.

    Still not so sure what your beef is with Caroline Kennedy. Also, in defining “work,” the vetters work on behalf of the campaign for the democratic party, or had you already forgotten that in fact the party choosing the veep, not the candidate. However, i admit, thats a technicality because of precedence.

    Finally, who are you blazing the guns for here CC? McCain? Lets not discuss lobbyists ties on top of everything and the problem of surrogates life choices contradicting the message of the campaign.

  11. who are you blazing the guns for here CC? McCain?

    You might want to have a look at the About us page for more info, but briefly (to quote a part of the page):

    Political ideologies have many names: Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat are among many. Conservatives became synonymous with the Republican party, liberalism with the Democrats. However, this is not always true; the political label Conservative can be confused from the many flavors of conservatives (not all of which would traditionally be classified as such).

    We introduce a new term, “Constitutional Conservatism” (not the exclusive claim of any party) to express a set of principles, not a detailed political platform. It is an idea which anyone can ascribe to, Republican, Democrat or any other.

    Why a new label? Most people associate conservative with Republican, but as the Republican party abandons it’s principles (bearing little resemblance to conservatism), the conservative label becomes tarnished. In fact, they use the term neo-conservative to illustrate their break from traditional conservatives. On the other hand, Constitutional Conservatives don’t fit into any one ideological group. Paleo-conservative, blue-dog Democrat and traditionalist all have similarities (and differences).

    If you look at past articles, we’ve had criticism for Romney, Paul, Bush, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and so on.

    We have four basic principles (detailed elsewhere on the site): Textual interpretation of the Constitution, Fiscal responsibility, Charity, and Personal responsibility (it’s definitely not Libertarian, if that’s your next question). If you’re interested, we’ve got a PDF available with details.

    In short, we’ll support a candidate ascribing to those (admittedly broad) principles, and won’t if they don’t — party affiliation isn’t important. Not many Democrats pass the test, not because we’re against them en mass, but because their philosophy is directly opposed to what we’ve laid out (tax and spend, Constitution as a “living” document, etc).

    Our beef with Obama is he claims hope and change, but in the end he’s no different from any other politician (say one thing and do another) — with much less experience and far-left ideology to boot.

  12. Marc says:

    Well, in the matter of civil liberties, you have my agreement, and though we differ in our politics and our candidates, i look forward to future debates.

    Feel free to drop by In One Ear…Out The Other and leave some commentary anytime.

    Also, if their are any “youths” amongst you, feel free to submit a guest blog, as we respect all intelligently articulated opinions and wish to spur more focus on youth opinions this campaign season.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: