Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama in Plunderland: Down the Corporate Rabbit Hole (18 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If Obama, as many here have said, is (0+ / 0-)

    a "corporate shill", "a Republican", "in the pockets of banksters" and just an all around "horrible president" who has "betrayed America", why do you feel he would appoint someone you agree with again?

    I mean it's interesting how individuals can call the President "extremely bad" then end up acting surprised he has done something they claim to be “extremely bad".

    Were you all just playing the last time you thought he was "extremely bad" and it's just that this time you are really really serious he is really "extremely bad"?

    And is there a description beyond extremely bad? This is like the movie "Spinal Tap" is this 11? Then why not make ten 11?

    •  additive processes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lostinamerica

      the 20th punch hurts as did the 1st; after all, each appointment or policy move is an opportunity to do the right thing.

      But let's not go with your effort to change the subject. It's about the policies pushed, after all, and not heroes and villains.

      Do you think these are good picks, people likely to represent the people's interests, even if they conflict with corporate interests?

      Surely you have an opinion about that you're eager to share.


      Actual Democrats is the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats

      by Jim P on Thu May 09, 2013 at 05:42:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  One of the description used on the so called (0+ / 0-)

        "Obama Sux" side is the description of the President as "evil".... And yet diaries proliferate with great surprise that the so called "evil" President is not being anything but "evil."

        What is going on here is the producers of extreme rhetoric being hoisted on their own petard. In any logical paradigm people who are “evil” aren’t expected to do so called “good” things.

        And there is no going around that....

        •  So you don't want to say whether (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NedSparks

          these appointments are good for us or bad for us. Got it.


          Actual Democrats is the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats

          by Jim P on Thu May 09, 2013 at 06:16:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  In terms of Pritzker, I'm neither for nor (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jim P

            against, I know that she is a long time advisor and supporter of the President, even before he entered the presidential race in 2008. So, I give him the benefit of the doubt of wanting to work with someone he is close to.

            I know she has had a rough relationship with labor, and she has had a bank in her family which failed, but, ultimately, the President has always guided what goes on in his administration and he will do the same here.

            He has said that he chose her due to her performance as one of his advisors on his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness and on his Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

            So to answer your question, I am neither for nor against, but I also am willing, more than most here to give the President the benefit of the doubt.

            I have made it known on many occasions, here in this community, that  I think the President has done a great job since entering office, especially turning around the economy, despite Republican sabotage, and I feel he should have the benefit of his own appointments.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site