Obama staff will say cu l8r 2 IM
Posted By: In W.H on 2009-01-18
In Reply to:
In W.H., Obama staff will say cu l8r 2 im
By: Ben Smith
January 17, 2009 09:16 PM EST
Barack Obama may get to keep his Blackberry, but David Axelrod is losing his IM.
The lawyers broke the bad news to Obama aides at a briefing Friday morning convened by incoming Deputy White House Counsel Cassandra Butts: Not only are they leaving the modern world to enter a White House where some of the clunky desktop computers still run Windows 2000 but—worst of all—they'll be forced to surrender a form of communication staffers have relied on for the last two years to communicate with each other, outside allies, and the press.
From Axelrod, the chief campaign strategist, down to junior staffers in the press office, Obama's campaign relied heavily on software many of them began using in high school—AOL Instant Message and Google Chat. Instant messaging, though little mentioned, is—perhaps as much as email—deeply woven into contemporary politics and media, whose fabric is the constant, quick, gossipy transmission of spin and information. But a calculus that's perhaps one part security, one part law, and two parts politics, has long barred instant messaging from the White House.
"They just told us flat out we couldn't IM in the White House," groused one senior staffer Friday.
"It sucks. It's really going to slow us down," complained another, saying that lawyers had warned that, along with Instant Messaging, White House software will restrict users to a range of sites roughly "like your average grade school."
The clunky technology is standard issue for government offices, but the bar on instant messaging is particular to the White House. Legal and security experts say it is dictated by the fear of embarrassment if IMs were to be disclosed. The Presidential Records Act requires White House documents to become public five years after a president leaves office, and most lawyers think it would apply to any instant messages discussing government business.
"People have to be conscious that when you put something on paper you think it through," said former Clinton White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum. With IM, he said, "you think you're talking but you're really writing."
The Bush Administration has been rebuked by federal courts for the apparent destruction of emails sent by political aides on non-governmental accounts, and Obama's aides are intensely aware that any instant messages written must be preserved, and will become part of the permanent record, which may not be desirable.
"They're going to realize, once you go inside the bubble, it becomes much more difficult to maintain contact with the outside world," said Reginald Brown, a former associate White House counsel for President Bush. "IMng encourages a kind of casualness in conversation that will be the bane of the lawyers down the line. The reality is that if you want to engage in the equivalent of IMing, you have to pick up the phone."
Brown noted that, along with entering the permanent record after the presidency, the IMs could become public sooner in response to Congressional subpoenas or lawsuits.
"These lawyers - [incoming White House Counsel] Greg Craig in particular—come out of a law firm environment and knows how onerous e-discovery has been for clients," he said.
Instant messaging—like email—also brings security concerns, though Beryl Howell, an lawyer who specializes in cyber-security, said it would be "feasible" to encrypt IM and block potential avenues for viruses.
Others called the policy a reasonable, and perhaps even helpful, way to avoid public embarrassment—and even to inspire more sober thinking.
Hillary Clinton's former chief strategist, Howard Wolfson - who exchanged pleasantries with Axelrod on IM even in the heat of the primaries - emailed that the ban is "probably a blessing. Less distractions."
The instant message ban is just part of a maze Obama's lawyers are preparing to enter, as the 1978 record act faces up to contemporary technology. Lawyers believe, for instance, that any government-related content Obama's aides put on social-networking sites like Facebook and Twitter will be covered by the act and must be preserved.
And the difficulty of Obama having email isn't just that he will have to be careful about what he writes; any message, however embarrassing, that
is written to him must be preserved.
Many veterans of the Bush White House—who have been accused of channeling compromising political conversations to outside email accounts, which they deny—say they've found it intensely frustrating.
"Did you all think the White House just didn't know that Facebook at Twitter existed?" asked Almacy, blaming the lawyers for the archaic feel of White House web operations.
A current Bush aide said the law didn't contemplate the shift of hallway conversations to instant message and email.
"Do you really want every one of those hallway conversations preserved for the official record?"
But the controversy over the Bush emails, and Obama's promise of transparency, make it unlikely that the new president and Congress will pass legislation lowering the veil of secrecy over new technologies. So for now, Obamas aides will have to cope with telephones and email alone, a shift that will afflict Axelrod—whose habit of using punctuation and complete sentences in his IMs amuses young staffers—as much as any.
Asked by email about the impending technological downgrade, he emailed: "I will reply to this by registered mail."
"I don't' think it was necessarily a national security issue—I think it had mostly to do with the records act," said David Almacy, the former Bush White House Internet Director, who noted that to keep IM, a White House would probably have to "work with an external contractor to preserve all that communication in real time."
Obama's lawyers told staff Friday they'd be reviewing current White House information security policy, and the IM ban drew mixed reviews from outside experts, with some saying that could cast the staff into some of the same isolation that Obama, by insisting on keeping his Blackberry, is seeking to avoid.
"Does there really need to be a trade off here? The net effect is that the president and all of his top staff are going to be put into a bubble," said Tom Blanton, the director of the National Security Archvie. "There should be ways for the President's staff to take advantage of the latest IM technology—otherwise they're living in the hothouse, and strange plants grow in hothouses."
Hard to believe the White House is still using Windows 2000!
LINK/URL: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17567_Page2.html
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Bush Chief Of Staff To Obama...Put On Your Jacket
On Wednesday night former Bush Chief of Staff Andrew Card told "Inside Edition" that he's not pleased with President Obama's lax Oval Office appearance. (Obama has instituted an even more relaxed weekend dress code.) According to the Inside Edition website:
"There should be a dress code of respect," Card tells INSIDE EDITION. "I wish that he would wear a suit coat and tie."
Card is the first member of the Bush administration to bash Obama, and he's going after him for forgoing a coat and tie.
"The Oval Office symbolizes...the Constitution, the hopes and dreams, and I'm going to say democracy. And when you have a dress code in the Supreme Court and a dress code on the floor of the Senate, floor of the House, I think it's appropriate to have an expectation that there will be a dress code that respects the office of the President."
Card continued, "I don't criticize Obama for his appearance, I do expect him to send the message that people who are going to be in the Oval Office should treat the office with the respect that it has earned over history."
MSNBC dissected the dress code controversy on Thursday morning, and pointed to a similar fashion "faux pas" by President Clinton while in office:
Video
Unfortunately for Card, the New York Times dredged up this picture:
It seems the former Chief of Staff is as wrong as he is bitter.
Link
who said it is staff?
I saw that one week was for 7th and 8th graders that were hosted for a black history month affair, then one night was congressman, etc. (I think they were they ones that did the conga line; I don't think anywhere I have read did it say that it was for staffers.
On HC and other staff appointees...
I will reserve comment momentarily on the "increasing number of former Clinton staff," to see if you have further comment on my OP. To some extent, I share your concern about HC, but my feelings about her are pretty mixed. Her behavior during the primary was predictably brutal and I am sure she still has her own political aspirations for the future. SOS position would be a definite feather in her cap toward that end IF she meets the expectations as laid out during Obama's campaign in terms of troop withdrawal from Iraq, a more surgical focus on the Afghanistan/Pakistan front, A 2-state solution in the Palestine/Israel conflict and more open diplomacy overall.
Should she "go rogue" on Obama in this regard, she would be doing herself more harm than good. The SOS serves at the behest of the president and what the president giveth, the president can taketh away. Case in point, Colin Powell. In terms of Obama's strategy, I truly believe Obama the fox is in charge of that decision. As a senator. HC has the potential to affect policy on a much BROADER range than she does has SOS. In any case, there seems to be a log-jam of sorts over the vetting of HC in terms of conflict of interests with Bill's financial dealings, so this is still in the wait and see mode.
Again, will reserve comment on the staff picks to see what you have to say after reading the OP. On the economy, I want a little bit of both. I think it would be wise for Obama to select people who are innovative and open to new approaches and even sweeping systemic reforms. I agree with your observations about the current cronies. So far, there is not much to say about this since the only economy-related selection so far has been Orszag, who did serve on the Council of Economic Advisors under Clinton during years that were not exactly disastrous in that respect. In fact, a balance budget was achieved then and in that respect, he probably tried to err on the safe side with this pick.
I think you may be selling Obama a bit short on the cabinet/administration relationship. It is not a foregone conclusion that the cabinet runs the leader. I believe Obama's style will be more or less the "iron fist in the velvet glove." That too remains to be seen. You may want to consider that even former CLINTON people may be interested in propelling themselves into the future world and shaking these types of perceptions. I also do believe there is plenty of room for those fresh faces that we both would like to see step forward, but it is not difficult for me to understand his focus on experience and name recognition in these top key posts. HC has some of the former and much of the latter. If she is not as experienced as some of the other potential picks, it could just be that she would be less independent in this capacity and, by necessity, would have to look to her boss for guidance.
When he was WH Chief of Staff...
he said he knew nothing about ML servicing old Billy boy under the desk....right under his nose. Just think how he'll run the CIA! He's either a fool or a look the other way kinda guy, take your pick!
Chief of Staff or Enforcer?...
Here are a few thing I've found just after a short search about Mr. Emanuel:
Mr. Emanuel, who received training in ballet as a boy, has shown no lightness of step in his political career: would-be enemies are advised to heed the story of a pollster who wronged him and promptly received a large, decomposing fish in the mail.
The intense, eventually successful campaign took a serious toll on him. Colleagues reported that amid a discussion over a celebratory dinner about which political figures had earned the new president's enmity, Mr. Emanuel became so enraged that he grabbed a steak knife, stood up and began reciting a list of names, plunging the knife into the table and shouting "Dead! Dead! Dead!" after each one.
Reflecting on his own foul-mouthed, attack-dog style, Mr. Emanuel has said: "I wake up some mornings hating me too." Commentators have suggested that Mr. Obama, who ran a lofty campaign based on national unity and bipartisanship, has recognized the need to employ a tough enforcer to push through his policies.
You would prefer he not have staff on day 1? Or have a plan of action? sm
He has done nothing that previous Presidents-elect have not done in the days between election and inauguration.
Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff disturbs you how?
could you please expand on your concept of the Chicago political machine? I must have missed those posts in the past.
The President's Chief of Staff is basically an administrative coordinator who oversees the white house staff. He manages the president's schedule, Under his supervision are his own deputy, White House Counsel and the White House Press Secretary. Sounds like an executive butler to me. He has experience as a political staffer and advisor, a successful campaign director and fundraiser on both the state and national levels. Senior advisor to Bill Clinton on political affairs, policy and strategy. Returned to the House of representatives from the 5th district in Illinois 4 times. He must be doing something right.
Though he had expressed his interest in staying in the House and possibly aspiring to Speaker of the House, he has now decided to leave the legislative branch and become part of the executive branch. He seems to be imminently qualified for the job and does not have any direct legislative powers. Please tell us what it is you find so foreboding about the appointment of this White House butler guy.
Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved
(Almost five years after 9/11, just how committed is Bush to keeping Americans safe?)
Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press WriterFri Aug 11, 5:56 PM ET
While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.
Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.
Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course, Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.
The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security, the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget.
Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short.
They clearly have been given lots of resources that they haven't been using, Sabo said.
Homeland Security said Friday its research arm has just gotten a new leader, former Navy research chief Rear Adm. Jay Cohen, and there is strong optimism for developing new detection technologies in the future.
I don't have any criticisms of anyone, said Kip Hawley, the assistant secretary for transportation security. I have great hope for the future. There is tremendous intensity on this issue among the senior management of this department to make this area a strength.
Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.
The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.
The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.
The British plot to blow up as many as 10 American airlines on trans-Atlantic flights was to involve liquid explosives.
Hawley said Homeland Security now is going to test the detector in six American airports. It is very promising technology and we are extremely interested in it to help us operationally in the next several years, he said.
Japan has been using the liquid explosive detectors in its Narita International Airport in Tokyo and demonstrated the technology to U.S. officials at a conference in January, the Japanese Embassy in Washington said.
Homeland Security is spending a total of $732 million this year on various explosives deterrents and has tested several commercial liquid explosive detectors over the past few years but hasn't been satisfied enough with the results to deploy them.
Hawley said current liquid detectors that can scan only individual containers aren't suitable for wide deployment because they would bring security check lines to a crawl.
For more than four years, officials inside Homeland Security also have debated whether to deploy smaller trace explosive detectors — already in most American airports — to foreign airports to help stop any bomb chemicals or devices from making it onto U.S.-destined flights.
A 2002 Homeland report recommended immediate deployment of the trace units to key European airports, highlighting their low cost, $40,000 per unit, and their detection capabilities. The report said one such unit was able, 25 days later, to detect explosives residue inside the airplane where convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid was foiled in his attack in December 2001.
A 2005 report to Congress similarly urged that the trace detectors be used more aggressively, and strongly warned the continuing failure to distribute such detectors to foreign airports may be an invitation to terrorist to ply their trade, using techniques that they have already used on a number of occasions.
Tony Fainberg, who formerly oversaw Homeland Security's explosive and radiation detection research with the national labs, said he strongly urged deployment of the detectors overseas but was rebuffed.
It is not that expensive, said Fainberg, who retired recently. There was no resistance from any country that I was aware of, and yet we didn't deploy it.
Fainberg said research efforts were often frustrated inside Homeland Security by bureaucratic games, a lack of strategic goals and months-long delays in distributing money Congress had already approved.
There has not been a focused and coherent strategic plan for defining what we need ... and then matching the research and development plans to that overall strategy, he said.
Rep. Peter DeFazio (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon, a senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said he urged the administration three years ago to buy electron scanners, like the ones used at London's airport to detect plastics that might be hidden beneath passenger clothes.
It's been an ongoing frustration about their resistance to purchase off-the-shelf, state-of-the-art equipment that can meet these threats, he said.
The administration's most recent budget request also mystified lawmakers. It asked to take $6 million from Homeland S&T's 2006 budget that was supposed to be used to develop explosives detection technology and instead divert it to cover a budget shortfall in the Federal Protective Service, which provides security around government buildings.
Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the top two lawmakers for Senate homeland appropriations, rejected the idea shortly after it arrived late last month, Senate leadership officials said.
Their House counterparts, Reps. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and Sabo, likewise rejected the request in recent days, Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Brost said. Homeland said Friday it won't divert the money.
___
Associated Press writer Leslie Miller contributed to this story.
Abramoff Attended staff-level meetings at Bush White House
White House Silent on Abramoff Meetings
WASHINGTON, Jan. 18, 2006
(AP) The White House is refusing to reveal details of tainted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits with President Bush's staff.
Abramoff had a few staff-level meetings at the Bush White House, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday. But he would not say with whom Abramoff met, which interests he was representing or how he got access to the White House.
Since Abramoff pleaded guilty two weeks ago to conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion charges in an influence-peddling scandal, McClellan has told reporters he was checking into Abramoff's meetings. I'm making sure that I have a thorough report back to you on that, he said in his press briefing Jan. 5. And I'll get that to you, hopefully very soon.
McClellan said Tuesday that he checked on it at reporters' requests, but wouldn't discuss the private staff-level meetings. We are not going to engage in a fishing expedition, he said.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, along with three other Democratic senators, wrote Bush a letter Tuesday asking for an accounting of Abramoff's personal contacts with Bush administration officials and acts that may have been undertaken at his request. The American people need to be assured that the White House is not for sale, they wrote.
McClellan has said Abramoff attended three Hanukkah receptions at the White House, but corrected himself Tuesday to say there were only two _ in 2001 and 2002.
McClellan said Bush does not know Abramoff personally, although it's possible the two met at the holiday receptions.
Abramoff was one of Bush's top fundraisers, having brought in at least $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney '04 re-election campaign and earning the honorary title pioneer. The campaign took $6,000 of the contributions _ which came directly from Abramoff, his wife and one of the Indian tribes he represented _ and donated it to the American Heart Association. But the campaign has not returned the rest of the money Abramoff raised.
This post really makes me WANT to vote for Obama. I am undecided, but this pushes me closer to Obama
...Thanks for the info!
Obama was cool, while grouchy man steamed. Obama!!!
I'm so happy. The dippy people on here who are haters and racists and mccain lovers must be so po'd today. HAHAHAHAHAHA
If Obama gets elected, then it was meant to be! Go, Obama!
nm
Go Obama/Biden! I don't like it and will VOTE OBAMA/BIDEN!
Obama has shown great judgment in the people who surround him. He picked a great VP choice, and his wife is impeccable as a helpmate and is a fantastic role model for the American children.
Obama
I believe Obama has an awesome political future. He sure is a bright light, and he would be someone I would seriously consider voting for.
Someone I like even better is Rep. Harold Ford from Tennessee. Every time I hear this man speak, I like him more and more and more.
I think there are lots of good candidates out there who don't fit the profiles you outlined, which I also believe to be true, and I think we're well overdue in considering those candidates because, in my opinion, what we've been offered in the last several elections -- on BOTH sides -- has been pretty pitiful. The "box" isn't working, and it's time to look outside of it.
Obama is the man!!!
I think he will make an excellent president some day. Maybe Hillary/Obama would be a good ticket choice.
obama
FYI - he never attended a midrasha. This was later corrected.
Obama 08...nm
Obama et. al.
If we get Obama or any of the other candidates we will get more of the same. War and taxes. Empire building. If you like that kind of stuff, vote for any of the candidates EXCEPT.......... RON PAUL. The only candidate for peace, limited government and minding our own business. 
Obama
As I posted on the other board, it is crazy that in one breath people are freaking out saying he is a Muslim, and in the next one, they are freaking out because of his stand on abortion. Being pro-choice really does not go with being a Muslim.
I like Obama, and I like his stance on choice. I really could care less if he is a Muslim. But, he belongs to a Christian church and has for over 20 years, before he had a political career.
People never cease to amaze me!
Obama
My husband just returned from Iraq, we support the war-- but if I had to vote democrat, definitely Obama, please!! But I vote republican, hee hee.
Go Obama!
What a great victory for Obama!
Did anyone see the Kennedy’s endorsement for Obama and his speech this morning? I have never been more excited and inspired in politics. In my life I’ve voted both sides (usually not voting for a candidate but rather voting for the other side as a vote against a candidate). I usually tune out in politics because of outright lies. Barack is the first candidate that I finally understand what he stands for, what his plans are, and he is someone who can connect with everyone in every walk of life. He is a trustworthy, inspiring, and humble person and his voting record and other aspects of his government life give me the confidence that he would be a great president. Listening to his speeches gives me hope for a better country/future for everyone.
I respect everyone’s choice for who they think would be a better president, but I’m sick to death of Clinton and what she stands for. All you have to do is read up on the history of her and what she did when she resided in Oakland California (who her mentors/ colleagues were and what her motives/plans are). She claims to have all this “experience” but doesn’t have it. She takes what her husband accomplished and if it was something good she claims credit to it and if it was bad she had nothing to do with it. Meanwhile her husband is so consumed/greedy (not sure which word best suits him – maybe consumed with greed) to get back into the white house that he is purposely destroying the opponents (even Ted Kennedy had to call and admonish him), but that is the Clinton legacy, destroying other people’s lives. Then when someone does call him on something he will point his finger at them in a threatening way and plays the victim role. It makes me ill just thinking of having someone as corrupt as both of them back in the white house.
If Bill was such a great president they should bring up all the great things that happened under his presidency, but we are not hearing any of it, why? Because there is none. In my opinion he was one of the worst presidents in history. Not one thing he did was for the good of the country. And if anyone believes that she was such a “good wife” while he was out messing around with other women think again. She had her mind set on being president a long time ago. She just uses him to get what she wants. Everything she does has always been calculated.
As for his presidency, I think people are forgetting….he lied under oath and he was impeached for it. Which brings me to another question…why does anyone believe anything he has to say now? Remember the phrase “that all depends on what the meaning of is, is”. Then there was Waco Texas – people were burned alive. But they called them members of a cult, so I guess that made it okay. Then let’s see…Somalia, Bosnia, Monica (and no it wasn’t just about having an affair with her or all the other women), receiving illegal contributions, Vince Foster, and the list goes on and on and on.
An article I just read said it better than I can….
“The problem for Hillary Clinton is that, as usual, she wants it both ways. She wants to be judged on her own merits and not be treated as Bill's Mini-Me. But she also wants to reap the benefits of Bill's popularity, and offers voters the reassuring suggestion that if there's a crisis while she's in the White House, there will be someone around who really does have executive branch experience - namely, Bill - to lend a hand. But the Clintons are playing a dangerous game. The more they remind us of what we liked about Act I of the Bill and Hillary Show, the more they also remind us of what we hated.
If you are interested in reading the whole article this is the link…
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-brooks0128.artjan28,0,7018385.story
Obama
He would be better than the one that has been there for 8 years. No matter who is elected, it will take a long time to fix what Bush as screwed up!
<3 Obama too!!
:)
Obama
If she keeps lying from today until November she might actually catch up with Obama!
Go Obama
Haven't seen any posts here for awhile. Very excited about the outcome of tonight's election. I am so glad to see that people are not buying the "gimmicks" Hillary proposed. Gas tax holiday?...give me a break! Someone needed to ask her, "So what happens when the holiday is over", you charge back up the gas price!
The big joke is that Bill Clinton raised the gas tax in his first year in office. It was included in a package of tax increases that amounted to the biggest tax increase in history. It was raised by 4.3 cents. Not only did he raise the gas tax, but he wanted to raise it even higher.
So you should all get this straight...Hillary is "claiming" she would give drivers 3 whole months (wow - imagine that) 18 cent a gallon cut after her husband forced drivers to pay an extra 5 cents for 15 years.
Unfortunately there were some people who bought into her pandering (which by the way is another word for lying), but thank goodness enough people with an education and most important most of the with common sense could see right through her lies.
Way to go North Carolina - I'm so pleased. And Indiana too. It was a close race thank goodness.
Now she needs to step down. Why? Because its the right thing to do. Do the numbers. There is no way she can win and anyone who believes so needs to wake up. What we need is for her to support Barack Obama (that is if she's telling the truth about the most important thing is nominating a democrat for president). Somehow though I do not believe she has the best interest of the party or the american people in mind. Her goal is to serve herself. She needs to graciously bow out and put all her efforts into getting a democrat in the office.
P.S. - Note to the "ditto heads". Maybe we should rename Limbaugh followers "dumbo heads". Not only did your little plan fail Mr. Limbo, but it failed badly. In a poll taken (and yes I know polls can be misleading), but not only did the republicans change parties to vote for a democrat but the majority of them voted for Obama. Then on top of that over 75% of republicans that voted as democrats said that Obama could be McCain (or as I am hearing him being referred to as McBush), but only around 25% said they believed Hillary could win. So not only does Hillary need to do the math, so does Mr. Limbo.
Obama
Is Barack Hussein Obama the Antichrist?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=94d_1202965504
I am for Obama because...
My point in fact is agreeing with the republicans in that Obama does not have a lot of experience - I think not having a lot of experience is a good thing because it means he is not "hand-in-hand" with all the people that have been in charge for so long - he can form his own opinions, make his own decisions, and not go with somebody just because they did this or that for somebody or they contributed this or that to somebody...
No, Obama gets it better than many do
Check out this award-winning article written by Fareed Zakaria, a foreign policy expert, right after 9/11 called "Why They Hate Us" - http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/101501_why.html
Most people at that time (myself included) said that question was irrelavant, but understanding why they some have those attitudes helps us understand better what the U.S. can do to help change it. The fringe extremists will never go away, but their support by the general Muslim community as a whole will diminish (and already is). Free markets and capitalism would go a long way toward this goal and I think Obama gets that.
obama wants to be GOD
He wants to change the structure of the U.S. and he wants to bargain with and change the structure of Europe.. He is a destroyer.
obama
Muslims are dedicated to destroying the US from within. Obama is Muslim.
Obama..........
I think the pictures speak for themselves....although there will be plenty of Obama lovers who will sing his praises and find excuse after excuse why the flat is no longer on the plane. He could have just as easily left the flag and put his little slogan on there with it, but chose to remove the flag altogether. Speaks volumes!!!!
Obama is Muslim, will always be Muslim, and it is very disturbing to me that anyone would want a Muslim president. No Muslims have ever spoken out about 9/11 which also speaks volumes!! He has learned his Muslim faith from a young child, and the little boys are taught to hate the US and anyone who isn't them...he is no different. There are too may who sing his praises but refuse to state the obvious. Just because they hate republicans sure doesn't mean you put the fox in charge of the hen house. At no time during his speeches have I ever heard him speak of his love for the United States. He just repeats over and over where he came from, who raised him, and what their faiths were, and folks better open their ears and listen up.
No candidate for President of this country would so boldy make a point of getting rid of the very thing that is such a strong symbol of this country. Try doing that in another country and you will be hauled off to jail....the end!!
And, I don't want to hear about this is a free country and he can do what he wants. The whole point of this "free" country is to support the US and our beliefs, not Muslim beliefs which are definitely that of hate. A lot of feathers will be ruffled with this comment, but I really don't care to sugar coat the facts just because some hate republicans or other parties to the point they will accept anything in the white house....a wolf in sheep's clothing, and there will be MANY because of their hatred for the other candidate, who will be sucked into his beliefs as well.
Obama
You know, there is not a nickel's worth of difference between any of them. They all have ghosts in their closets. They just hope we do not find out about them. Bush Sr. had a girlfriend while he was in service. Eisenhower did, LBJ was a womanizer. Jimmy Carter is a good human, still working for Habitat and the poor people. Bush Jr. used cocaine while he was at Camp David about 10 years or so ago. Not that long ago. Let's not forget John Edwards. Like I said there are no clean cut guys or ladies. We do not know that much about OBama yet. I have my doubts about him. He came out of nowhere, too strong and the younger population fell for whatever he has said.
EVERYTHING YOU SAY ABOUT HER CAN BE SAID ABOUT OBAMA!
I can see your problem with McCain but every bash you make about her is the same about Obama. No experience for either of them, at least she's got EXECUTIVE experience. Tell me, what kind of foreign policy knowledge does Obama have again? Oh wait, that's why he chose Biden as his running mate. No matter what you people say, I believe it was a good choice, because she represents something new and exciting, just like Obama himself!
Obama
It is interesting that she would use his whole name..kind of makes you wonder..I noticed that she does NOT use the whole names of the other candidates but several times I have seen postings on this board..so what if he has a middle name that is Arabic..
Obama
He's just a talking head, somebody's puppet, aint nothing without his teleprompter and written speeches...gimme a break!
Right, Obama has run nothing!
nm
And yet Obama wants to
help these people so they can continue to sit on their butts and do something while the rest of us bust our humps. No thank you!
Obama: It's about you, not me."
With RNC behind us now, dems are faced with the daunting challenge of making the 2008 election a referendum on issues, not a personality contest. Here are 2 links that got thrown under the bash bus.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/97198/top_ten_most_disturbing_facts_and_impressions_of_sarah_palin/
http://www.alternet.org/election08/97350/8_more_shocking_revelations_about_sarah_palin/?page=3
Though the title of these articles may lead one to conclude it is more about Palin bashing, there is a gold mine of pertinent information to be found there. Embedded within the articles are more links that are overwhelming on first inspection, but well worth the time it takes to review them. Laid out there between the lines is a structured blueprint for facing the upcoming 60 days with effective campaign strategy.
There is another post that also got buried in the mud which will be brought back up to the top momentarily on issues. If it get buries again, it will be brought back up to the top again. The bashes it may inspire will be ignored. The issues will continue to get the focus.
There is another battleground in this election aside from the issues push. It is the one fought on the field of values and vision; specifically, the Obama vision versus the McCain/Palin vision of what kind of America they/we see in our futures and what sort of change each candidate promises to deliver. The link below is an article that addresses this subject. It is a self-effacing piece I believe dems should take to heart when considering how to frame their upcoming campaign tactics. Here's that link.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/97193/the_palin_choice%3A_the_reality_of_voters%27_minds/
The introduction to this post expresses a basic premise from which I will be operating. I will not be diminishing the power of Obama's message by indulging in petty squabbles, dead-end distractions, one-upmanship and a race to get the last word. There is important work here, people, and we best rolls up our sleeves and get started.
Obama to appear on
Countdown Monday night. Can't wait.
Obama - do as I say, not as I do
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_craftiness.html
No, that is what they all DO. Obama is the one...
who says do as I say, not as I do.
This is an out and out lie. Obama
will give small-business taxcuts and taxcuts to businesses who will keep jobs in America. Get it straight!
Obama/PP
The Messiah camp rips a McCain ad citing Obama's support for a kindergarten
sex ed bill, calling it a lie. But we have Obama on tape (and video) telling a Planned Parenthood crowd: "It's the right thing to do."
Are you saying Obama was
under your bed? I read the black arms and then the rest and can only see the reason to post this on a politics board is . . .
If you believe that Obama does not have a ....
socialist agenda and Joe Biden was not wrong in his initial assessment of Obama....
The same old Obama...
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-voted-for-sex-ed-for-kindergartners
Video here, plus the actual language of the sex ed bill.
obama does not have
a beard, honey. Once again, you are mixing up Obama and Osama. Not r-e-a-l bright.
Right on, Sam. Obama is on TV right now, saying
nm
I was pro Obama too
I was so much for Obama, arguing with people on this board, arguing with my MIL and anyone who spoke out against Obama. I absolutely hated Hillary but mostly because of her husband and what he did to us (this country). But now finding out all this info about Obama is really worrisome and I don't like it. I have to say having a new plan sounds great (the last 8 years have not been fun and joy), but Obama's plan that's coming to light is pretty darn scary, and that's why I've been comparing each candidate's plan and will choose which I like better. But Obama's plans for all these socialist programs that we will have to pay for, and the people he associates himself with, and especially the people who are in charge of him (the ones who pay his salary and tell him what he will do) are some of the scariest. Obama's ideologies are scary and worrisome. Everyone kiss their freedoms goodbye if he gets in. The tax things worry me so much. We need to move forward in our lives, not go back to the way it was when Clinton was in office. Taxes were over 40% of our paycheck and even then at the end of the year they told us we didn't pay enough and I'd end up making payments through the next year (which took me all of about the whole year to pay off, before it was time to file again and take another loan to pay the next years taxes). McCain and Palin at least offer hope. I haven't heard McCain interviewed yet but Palin is very smart when it comes to knowing how to balance a budget, knowing how to get the economy back on track, and especially knowing the way to create wealth for people is not punishing them by taxing them more. She's smart on getting the country becoming energency independent and the path and she and McCain I feel is the right path, and believe they can lead us in the right direction. I read all the attacks on Palin and they are just nasty nasty and for now good reason. Now I read an article that SNL did a skit suggesting T Palin had sex with his daughter?????? That is not a joke because some nut bags out there will actually believe it.
I believe McCain/Palin will be the best choice for America and I will keep on defending them.
Actually, I am the same age as Obama! nm
x
I'm sure Obama would...uh...
....uh...say something....uh....eloquent...uh...if he had....uh....a......uh....teleprompter.
NOBAMA!
|
