Friday, November 21, 2008

Is The Honeymoon Over Already?

I expected at some point Obama's most liberal supporters would experience a giant collective hang-over; it seemed inevitable after expectations were set so unrealistically high during Obama's campaign. But I anticipated the buyers remorse to set in maybe a few months into next year, after Obama had taken office and had an opportunity to actually do some stuff.

Not surprisingly, Obama's "Clintonesque" cabinet, including the almost certain appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is not helping him win over his base supporters. Add to that the forgiveness of Joe Lieberman by Democrats for what some considered to be a betrayal of the party, namely his support of John McCain's presidential campaign and attendance at the RNC, and the result is some unhappy folks. Some of Obama's most loyal following who were celebrating a future of new hope and a different kind of government on November 4th are already showing signs of having buyers remorse.

From KOS, courtesy of Daniel Harper over at Pajamas:

Kos, from the radically left DailyKos, called the decision to keep Lieberman as chairman of his committee “idiotic.” And, in another post, the radical Left’s standard bearer derided the Democratic Party as being “spineless capitulators” for allowing Lieberman to keep his post.

As Harper suggests, maybe Obama is showing a more moderate, bipartisan side in his treatment of Lieberman. And that would maybe be a good thing, but I am frankly baffled at the possibility of Hillary as Secretary of State. There is no debating whether or not a Clinton addition to Obama' cabinet aligns with the "Change" mantra, but it would at least be understandable and forgivable if Senator Clinton had the pedigree for the job. Her foreign policy credentials are limited to visits to foreign countries as First Lady, where she acted in a nondiplomatic capacity. She certainly is no Condi, that's for sure.

It is anyone's guess what Obama is up to, but it goes without saying he has created quite a bit of drama, especially for someone who has yet to actually assume the office of President. Time will tell whether this let-down will have any political impact.


Shaw Kenawe said...

"She certainly is no Condi."

With all due respect, Sir Bullfrog, I understand that as a compliment.

Can you give us a list--yes a list, because a successful SoS should have many accomplishments under her belt--of the outstanding achievments Condi has accumulated during her term as SoS?

Tell us, for example, how she has advanced the peace in the Middle East? What accords has she put forth between the Israelis and Palestinians? How has she tamped down the violence there?

As for Hillary? She's known all over the world, and like it or not, the Clintons are well liked and admired all over the world.

She will bring a lot of smarts and prestige to the State Department and certainly everyone in the Senate--Republicans included--say she is a very quick study.

But I certainly understand your role as the opposition is to criticize each and every appointment Obama makes and to predict that his administration will fail.

Just understand that you are a distinct minority in this hope.

Dave Miller said...

But Shaw, if the reports from KOS are accurate, one would have to feel saddened by the left's attitude at what was really Obama's first stab at bi-partisanship, the restoration of Senator Joe.

You know that i too am a supporter of Obama, and honestly i have wondered how the extreme left of the party would react if Obama made good, or even attempted to make good on his promises and hope for a new tone in D.C.

Bullfrog said...

Shaw: So, putting Condi next to Hillary, your money is on Hillary? Couldn't disagree more, especially due to Hillary's significant other and the drama that would bring.

Whether there is a Republican or Democrat in the White House, they hold the highest office in the land and have the power and influence to significantly impact my life, so I reserve the right to keep a watchful eye.

Show me where I predicted Obama will "fail". It has been just the opposite, in fact I believe with little opposition Obama may be the most effective administration in many years. Whether that is a failure for America is a different story.

I couldn't care less if my opinion doesn't align with the status quo, in fact being a dissenting voice appeals to me.

I wish Obama the best because in just weeks he will be the leader of the free world, and arguably the most powerful man on the planet.

Bullfrog said...

Dave: You get it. I think in Obama's promise of change is an implicit pledge to act in a bipartisan manner. So either his suppoerters didn't get that, or just don't care because they have designs of their own. The 3rd option is they just hate Republicans and McCain didn't stand a chance against anyone.

Bullfrog said...

Here is an excerpt from a New York Times article, courtesy of Newsmax:

"The Times writes that Hillary will be powerful, but “will have … to subordinate her own agenda and ambitions to Mr. Obama’s and sacrifice the independence that comes with a Senate seat and the 18 million votes she collected during their arduous primary battle.”"

Her thirst for power and ego could be a bit of a problem.

Shaw Kenawe said...

I actually cheered Obama's decision not to punish Lieberman. I agree with it.

And I actually agree with Sir Bullfrog on the perception that Hillary may be somewhat of a prima donna, but I also believe she's a very smart and capable politician and will do the right thing and not undermine Obama--that would be a big mistake for her.

And I don't agree with the extreme far left of the Democratic Party or with their "take no prisoners" mentality.

We don't have the time nor the luxury at this point for revenge.

And, Sir Bullfrog, I made an assumption that you were like other conservatives who wish Obama failure. I was wrong.


BB-Idaho said...

Condi has the qualifications, no doubt, as did Powell. Hard to fly like an eagle when you work for turkeys....

Bullfrog said...

BB: First, thanks for stopping by. For foreign affairs, I would never choose Hillary over Condi. How can Hillary be objective when her and Bill have made millions overseas from countries we will be negotiating with?