All Things Probama

[BigSqwert]

I think you are confusing outrage with something else. Everytime someone points out something wrong or something that doesn't look quite right, it isn't 'outrage'. Now if the reply would have been something like "That f&cking Obama chose that a$$hole to pick his vp! He couldn't pick his nose right, how's he gonna pick a vp!", you might have outrage.

My point is this "issue" isn't even a blip an anyone's radar screen. A non-event if you will.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Reason #1 Hillary is not on the ticket: Bill Clinton

Among the party leaders Mr. Clinton alienated over time by his angry tirades was South Carolina's Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third-ranking House leader and a civil-rights-movement veteran.

 

Before South Carolina's primary, Mr. Clyburn admonished Sen. Clinton for suggesting President Johnson deserved more credit than Martin Luther King Jr. for civil-rights laws. On primary night, Mr. Clinton called Mr. Clyburn and they spoke for 50 minutes. "Let's just say it wasn't pleasant," Mr. Clyburn says.

 

Mr. Clinton called Mr. Clyburn an expletive, say Democrats familiar with the exchange. Mr. Clyburn's office would confirm only that the former president used "offensive" words. Some day soon, the congressman says, he'll write about the incident. On Tuesday, he endorsed Mr. Obama for president.

[southsider2k5]

I'm not sure what your issue is here. Obama is not asking him to be the VP. He's asked him to be part of the staff that vets the potential VP. Johnson isn't being asked to help out with policies or stances of the Obama campaign. I think you are manufacturing your own outrage.

 

I honestly doubt this is something that will impact voters.

 

It probably won't impact voters at all, which is unfortunate. Its just another hint that dispite all of the propaganda otherwise, the exact same types of people are going to be running an Obama White House as a McCain White House or a Clinton White House. Its ironic that Obama has the gall to say he doesn't take money from special interest groups, yet hires a person responsible for the mortgage meltdown to help pick his VP. Yeah, I am sure there won't be any conflict there... Sort of like no one had a problem with Bush and Cheney picking energy executives to write energy policy, right?

[Balta1701]

It probably won't impact voters at all, which is unfortunate. Its just another hint that dispite all of the propaganda otherwise, the exact same types of people are going to be running an Obama White House as a McCain White House or a Clinton White House. Its ironic that Obama has the gall to say he doesn't take money from special interest groups, yet hires a person responsible for the mortgage meltdown to help pick his VP. Yeah, I am sure there won't be any conflict there... Sort of like no one had a problem with Bush and Cheney picking energy executives to write energy policy, right?

According to the blurb posted a page ago, he was at Fannie Mae from 91 to 98? Is that incorrect, or do you have information about the work he's done with Perseus LLC (whatever the hell that is) which is listed according to Wikipedia as his current employer? Considering that the mortgage market craziness basically started after his time ended there, I'm hoping you'll elaborate as to his connection.

[BigSqwert]

It probably won't impact voters at all, which is unfortunate. Its just another hint that dispite all of the propaganda otherwise, the exact same types of people are going to be running an Obama White House as a McCain White House or a Clinton White House. Its ironic that Obama has the gall to say he doesn't take money from special interest groups, yet hires a person responsible for the mortgage meltdown to help pick his VP. Yeah, I am sure there won't be any conflict there... Sort of like no one had a problem with Bush and Cheney picking energy executives to write energy policy, right?

Big difference in the 2 things I highlighted.

[southsider2k5]

Big difference in the 2 things I highlighted.

 

You're damned right there is. The VP is a MUCH bigger deal.

[southsider2k5]

According to the blurb posted a page ago, he was at Fannie Mae from 91 to 98? Is that incorrect, or do you have information about the work he's done with Perseus LLC (whatever the hell that is) which is listed according to Wikipedia as his current employer? Considering that the mortgage market craziness basically started after his time ended there, I'm hoping you'll elaborate as to his connection.

 

Sounds like he is working private equity group. Much better.

 

Anyways, don't kid yourself. The lax mortgage lending standards didn't start January 20th, 2001. This stuff has roots back into the 90's when the stock market put money into tons of peoples pockets. Notice how even with the Clinton Recession and 9-11 the curve doesn't break down like it does on the chart for other recessions. That tells me all I need to know.

 

[Balta1701]

Of course it has its roots in the late 90's. But look at the very inflation adjusted graph you posted...it is essentially horizontal from 1991 to 1998. 1998 was when we saw the first and almost negligible tick upwards of housing prices relative to inflation. You're trying to pin that entire bump on the guy who was in charge during the flat spot just by saying "Oh the conditions were there", but without acknowledging the fact that he could do nothing to stop any of the problems because he was no longer working there!

[BigSqwert]

You're damned right there is. The VP is a MUCH bigger deal.

First, he's not going to be the VP. Second, Darth Cheney excluded, when has a VP ever done anything worth noting (EDIT: in recent history)?

Edited June 5, 2008 by BigSqwert

[BigSqwert]

Sounds like he is working private equity group. Much better.

Based on Johnson's last 2 chances to help pick the Dem's VP (Ferraro and Edwards) I think it's obvious he has an extreme pro-housing market agenda that was intended to crush our economy and line his pocket book.

 

/sarcasm

[Gregory Pratt]

that guys comment on his smile is dead on! It seems so forced lame.

 

I don't know what he says, but on April 7th I wrote this in an article called "Waiting for Godot" in my college newspaper (http://media.www.chicagoflame.com/media/storage/paper519/news/2008/04/07/Opinions/Waiting.For.Godot-3305372.shtml)

 

Listening to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, I cringe. What John McCain calls a smile - that's what I do.

 

The rest of the article has nothing to do with McCain. It's just an article I wrote about how I don't believe in these two candidates' ability to win, and they don't particularly inspire me. But since we're bringing up cracks about McCain's smile, I thought I'd bring this one up. I thought it was pretty good.

[Gregory Pratt]

First, he's not going to be the VP. Second, Darth Cheney excluded, when has a VP ever done anything worth noting (EDIT: in recent history)?

 

Al Gore was a VERY active and influential Vice President. George H.W. Bush, too. Lyndon Baines Johnson is "recent history" enough, but those other two are quite important.

[southsider2k5]

I know I could spend all night here getting nitpicked apart in the details and I know, I know, it is different now that Obama is doing it...

 

But the BIG PICTURE here is that I think it is hilarious how the excuses are getting made for him here. This is the exact same thing that the Democrats have been complaining about for almost 8 years now, and that is corporate America having too much influence over the White House. I don't see how bringing in someone who has been involved in many of the samethings that Obama himself has rallied the troops against the Republicans out on the campaign trail, is "change we deserve", but I guess that is just me.

 

The funniest part about it is that personally I don't have a problem with it. I prefer my officials to have corporate experience, as it aids them in understanding the business cycles and macro-economics. I have a problem with the two faced campaign that Obama is running here. I'd have much more respect for the guy if he actually put his money where his mouth is.

[BigSqwert]

The funniest part about it is that personally I don't have a problem with it. I prefer my officials to have corporate experience, as it aids them in understanding the business cycles and macro-economics. I have a problem with the two faced campaign that Obama is running here. I'd have much more respect for the guy if he actually put his money where his mouth is.

This guy is not going to be VP. He is not part of the Obama cabinet. He was the CEO of Fannie Mae 10 years ago. I don't see the equivalent with what "we" have been complaining about for 8 years. GWB actually appointed his cronies to high level positions that actually affected policy. This guy is asked to help vet VP choices. To me it's apples to storm windows.

[southsider2k5]

This guy is not going to be VP. He is not part of the Obama cabinet. He was the CEO of Fannie Mae 10 years ago. I don't see the equivalent with what "we" have been complaining about for 8 years. GWB actually appointed his cronies to high level positions that actually affected policy. This guy is asked to help vet VP choices. To me it's apples to storm windows.

 

Because picking the second most powerful person on the planet doesn't affect policy? Come on. You know better than that.

[BigSqwert]

Because picking the second most powerful person on the planet doesn't affect policy? Come on. You know better than that.

He's not selecting the VP. He is vetting the possible candidates.

 

What about the Edwards and Ferraro choices leads you to believe that his Fannie Mae experience caused some sort of conflict of interest?

[southsider2k5]

He's not selecting the VP. He is vetting the possible candidates.

 

What about the Edwards and Ferraro choices leads you to believe that his Fannie Mae experience caused some sort of conflict of interest?

 

Nope, I am sure that his past experiences have nothing to do with who he will recommend, that only happens when evil Republicians get involved.

 

I probably should walk away from here now, as you won't want to understand what I am saying here.

[lostfan]

I know I could spend all night here getting nitpicked apart in the details and I know, I know, it is different now that Obama is doing it...

 

But the BIG PICTURE here is that I think it is hilarious how the excuses are getting made for him here. This is the exact same thing that the Democrats have been complaining about for almost 8 years now, and that is corporate America having too much influence over the White House. I don't see how bringing in someone who has been involved in many of the samethings that Obama himself has rallied the troops against the Republicans out on the campaign trail, is "change we deserve", but I guess that is just me.

 

The funniest part about it is that personally I don't have a problem with it. I prefer my officials to have corporate experience, as it aids them in understanding the business cycles and macro-economics. I have a problem with the two faced campaign that Obama is running here. I'd have much more respect for the guy if he actually put his money where his mouth is.

Personally I don't see how an administration could run Washington without having Washington insiders at your side. Whether people hate them or not, at some point something's got to give.

[BigSqwert]

Nope, I am sure that his past experiences have nothing to do with who he will recommend, that only happens when evil Republicians get involved.

 

I probably should walk away from here now, as you won't want to understand what I am saying here.

You haven't provided a shred of evidence to suggest that Johnson directly created the predatory lending fiasco. Insinuations don't hold much water.

[southsider2k5]

You haven't provided a shred of evidence to suggest that Johnson directly created the predatory lending fiasco. Insinuations don't hold much water.

 

Obama runs a campaign that brags he doesn't take money from lobbyists. Instead he has them pick his VP. We hear all about corporate American is ruining this country and stealing our money, and yet here they are playing a key role picking the second most influencial office on the planet. The evil private equity companies need to be taxed and regulated, but in the meantime, who would be a good VP? You keep missing the forest for the trees. Barack Obama might as well be Hillary Clinton or George Bush because he is doing the exact same two step on his campaign versus reality.

[southsider2k5]

Personally I don't see how an administration could run Washington without having Washington insiders at your side. Whether people hate them or not, at some point something's got to give.

 

That's how I see it, then again, I wouldn't be out trying to portray them as what is wrong with this country before enlisting their help either...

[Balta1701]

Obama runs a campaign that brags he doesn't take money from lobbyists. Instead he has them pick his VP.

So, I just checked, as far as Opensecrets.org is telling me, there is no James A. Johnson who is currently a registered lobbyist in this country. Again, can you provide a citation for this claim?

[NorthSideSox72]

Obama runs a campaign that brags he doesn't take money from lobbyists. Instead he has them pick his VP. We hear all about corporate American is ruining this country and stealing our money, and yet here they are playing a key role picking the second most influencial office on the planet. The evil private equity companies need to be taxed and regulated, but in the meantime, who would be a good VP? You keep missing the forest for the trees. Barack Obama might as well be Hillary Clinton or George Bush because he is doing the exact same two step on his campaign versus reality.

SS-

 

I understand what you are getting at here. Obama isn't nearly as far from corporate America as he protrays, and his administration certainly won't be the dramatic 180 degree turn that its marketed to be. There is some hypocrisy in that. I agree.

 

But, I think you're going a bit far the other direction here, saying everything would be the same. I guarantee you that there will be significant policy and personnel differences between BushCo and any Obama administration. Big, important ones. So, as silly as it is to believe that Obama will suddenly turn Washington on its head, I think its also silly to think he won't bring anything new to the table.

 

[southsider2k5]

So, I just checked, as far as Opensecrets.org is telling me, there is no James A. Johnson who is currently a registered lobbyist in this country. Again, can you provide a citation for this claim?

 

OK forget lobbyist.

 

Like I said, the details are where you guys are making your arguement, instead of the big picture. NO ONE has actually addressed the big picture conflict of what Obama is saying and what he is actually doing at all. To me THAT is more telling than anything. Keep looking at the details, ignore what is going on behind the scenes. This was done for eight years with the Clintons, and look at the monster that built. I know I won't get anywhere with you all, and that's fine. I really didn't think anyone sold on Obama would have an open enough mind to understand what I was trying to say anyway. Turns out I was right.

[NorthSideSox72]

OK forget lobbyist.

 

Like I said, the details are where you guys are making your arguement, instead of the big picture. NO ONE has actually addressed the big picture conflict of what Obama is saying and what he is actually doing at all. To me THAT is more telling than anything. Keep looking at the details, ignore what is going on behind the scenes. This was done for eight years with the Clintons, and look at the monster that built. I know I won't get anywhere with you all, and that's fine. I really didn't think anyone sold on Obama would have an open enough mind to understand what I was trying to say anyway. Turns out I was right.

Oh come on now. First, Obama hasn't even begun showing us his cabinet yet - and that will be a real indicator of what his administration would be like. Second, I don't think anyone is saying that Obama will be some entirely new kind of President. If they are, that's ridiculous. Third, the details ARE important! For example, if you have a team of people doing energy policy, is there a difference between having some oil-type people, and mostly or entirely oil-type people? I think the answer is unequivocally YES. I haven't heard anyone, even Obama, say he won't include some big corporate types in his adminsitration. I am sure he will.

 

And by the way, as far as how to build an administration, I'll take a Clinton monster over a Bush monster every day and twice on Sunday. At least Clinton had the brains to know you shouldn't surround yourself entirely with people who all think exactly the same way as you do. But, that said, I think Obama's administration (if he even wins) will probably have a broader variety of views than either of those monsters. Just my opinion, but, that seems to be his way of thinking. We'll see if I'm wrong.

 

Those last two sentences in your post really irk me. Just because people are saying this particular individual in the VP committee isn't an indicator of much, you think that means that all people currently backing Obama are too closed-minded to understand what you are saying? Isn't that a bit over the top?