The "Change" Has Begun

Can we wait until the guy is sworn in first, please?

~Zoo

It's hard to Zoo when all this stuff is happening NOW. 

Actually, I believe his spiritual advisor is Joel Hunter. He's gone to him a bit more than three times.

i'm more concerned about getting a group of economists to explain the financial crisis to the American people. i just hope he isn't getting spiritual advice on the taxpayer's dime because that is a private matter.

What?  And waste 2 months of "I told you so"s?

A homosexual priest/pastor/reverend. Isn't that like a contradition? That's like a Black person being racist against Black people because they are Black.

BTW, we will see change, I'm sure one of Obama's priorities is changing the bowling room for a basketball court in the White House.

It's interesting to see people not wanting to point out Obama's "slips" just because he is not the President just yet. Last I check he was voted in to be President and while he may not be the President just yet, everything he does today will reflect on him afetr Jan 20th.

Who is Joel Hunter?  Haven't heard this yet. 

He might as well be President right now with all the news about him.  I'm seeing/hearing more about Obama than Bush. 

I've never seen such hoopla surrounding an incoming Prez like this.  Usually they're elected and that's it until Jan 20th for the most part.  It's almost as if Obama or his people are trying to push Bush out before his time.  I heard a quote from Bush who said, "I'm still the President" as if some needed to be reminded. 

I hear a lot of people saying they wish Obama could be President right now so that Bush can just go already. What I don't get is if people love this country so much why do they feel the need to change everything just change sake? Since when did this become a "minority wins" country? I always thought things had to go based on majority decision. They got him elected, isn't that enough? They don't seemt o wanna wait for Obama to either screw everything up with his policies or go against everything he promissed in order to save this country.

the devil is always in a hurry! 

And yet, here we are rambling on about appointments, advisors, and various other structural measures that are indicative but not substantial in the arguement about change.  You can't argue that his promise of change has not been met after only a short amount of time and due to the fact that he is still President-Elect.  What he does today is preparation for a smooth transition.  What he is not doing today is implementing policies of change nor is he destroying your precious lives.

BTW, good for Obama.  Pick whomever you want to be a spiritual advisor.  Last I checked, we had freedom of religion in this nation.

Listen to Zoo everybody!!

What you seem to fail to notice is that a man who claimed we needed change from the same old politics is chosing people who have already been in Gov't positions before. Why not give a new person a chance to prove themselves with fresh new ideas and less corruption just like the American people chose to give the new guy a chance to run the country? If you can somehow prove to me this is change then I will keep my mouth shut from here on, but "last I checked" (I like that phrase) change means something different not using or doing the same thing.

What he does today gives a glimps of what he will be like once he is President. Chosing the same people is not change. But I doubt you will agree since you seem to wanna defend him even when it's obvious he is not doing what he said he would do even before he takes over.

Actually if you think about it, picking people who have already done these jobs before to do them again pretty much means he is already implementing policies, they just won't take effect till after Jan 20th. Tell me this, if you had a daughter, would you allow her to marry a guy without getting to know him first or if you see things in him that don't point towards a person of good character? Or would you wait till they are married and realize you should never have allowed this to happen once you got to know him and realized he was wrong for her (assuming he is)?

Hmmm, where is anyone saying he can't choose? This is not about whther he can choose or not but of who he chose. Look, regardless of how high you may see Obama (maybe sitting next to God), he is just another American like you and me and he was given (not inherited) the right to run the country by the people which means we have the right to watch and criticize him as we see fit. Just like Obama has freedom, so do we.

I hear him, I just don't always pay attention to what he says.

Again, Charles, this comes down to the fact that what you forsee happening due to people he has chosen will not necessarily happen.  Look, just because the people who Obama has chosen have been in government before doesn't mean that it is not change.  You're looking at the message wrong, or at least you must have been not paying much attention during the debates, speeches, interviews, etc.  The message was clear, quit with the same old politics of the Bush administration.  Reverting back to a Clintonesque presidency is a much better alternative than the shit we've been putting up with for 8 ridiculous years.  Granted Clinton wasn't the best of presidents either, but at least those years were better than the most recent 8.

You seem to think I hold Obama on this pedestal like the crazed fans without any idea or purpose.  I'm a proud liberal.  I lean to the left on most issues.  I see that we are both trying to be rational here, but I think instead of expecting a complete overhaul of the government, change means getting rid of that nonsense we have had going on in the oval office.  It always did mean that, it was meant for the hard times the American people have been facing.

While using that example of getting to know someone dating your child before marriage, don't you give them an expectation and then an opportunity to prove themselves without scrutiny.  Why don't you follow your own tactics and stop expecting failure about a job that people haven't even started performing yet?

Bush did that - from the most unethical administration in recent memory, to one of the most ethical. I hope Obama's change is not going back to the corruption of the clintons.

Ethical?  I think you need pinch yourself and wake up from that delusion you're having.  In any case, at least there wasn't all of this overstepping of Constitutional authority.  That nonsense you refer to from the Clinton era also produced record low unemployment rates and a surplus, so please explain to me how a "going back" could possibly hurt the struggling America at present.

the reason we're in this mess to begin with is NOT Bush's fault.  His first six years in office there was NO complaining because we did have record low unemployment.  Did you forget?  We couldn't find enough workers to fill the positions. Remember?  Real Estate was booming both at the construction level as well as the existing homes.  Anyone in the construction business  were having their best years ever.  I know because we were doing their tax returns.  People were making more money than they ever had. Business was good.  Very good for most.  Many were making money hand over fist BEFORE Congress turned over two years ago.  Coincidence?  I don't think so. 

We had our best years in the stock market before this last year.  We made lots of money as did everyone I know who invested.   Didn't hear anyone complaining two years ago when the getting was good. 

The problem is....not to many prepared for the rainy day that was coming.  That's the problem.  If anyone is to blame it's those who lived like there was no tomorrow (eat drink and be merry)and are now complaining because of their own greed and lack of planning. 

No kidding!  Bush brought integrity back to the White House. 

Does anyone remember the mess the Clinton's left behind?  Do you remember the trashed computers and the Whitehouse grounds and offices that were left in disarray with foul language plastered everywhere? 

The orders have already gone out from President Bush that the White House will be left in a very clean organized state.  There will be no trashing and disorganization of the place as they found it eight years ago. 

What Clinton left behind eight years ago, now that's what I'd call nonsense. 

Care to prove that clown case?  And let's stick to facts, not opinions.  LIke Fact: Clinton committed Perjury.  Fact: Sandy Burglar tampered with evidence.  Fact: Mike Espy - Bribery and Fraud. Fact: James Riady. Fact: Web Hubbel. etc.

Please stick to the "facts" and not "I think he lied" or other opinions.

I'll call it a delusion if I want to, Dr Guy.  My opinion is that your focus on the ethical questions of Clinton's office is vastly unimportant to the questions of Bush's leadership in the wrong direction and overstepping his Constitutional authority.  Same with Cheney.  Bush's administration has been no more ethical than the last one.  They are politicians.  Don't try telling me that Bush is clearly better than Clinton when it comes to running the show, because that is in no way clear.

Your choice, no one is denying to you (yet).

Yes indeed it is.  Unfortunately facts do tend to go against that opinion.  A man can have the opinion that the moon is made of green cheese, and no amount of facts will ever persuade him otherwise.  SO it is with this.  I am not talking a difference in policy, or how you would have done things.  I am talking court of law charges and convictions.  The implication is that Obama is going to take us away from what in essence - from a legal standpoint - is one of the cleanest administrations in the last 30 years.  To what?  Back to the most unethical and illegal administration in the last 30 years?

It would seem so from the rhetoric.

Clearly that is your opinion, and not even on the issue I asked about.  That you avoided the facts is a credit to you.  We can disagree on how the administration was and never agree - and neither be right or wrong.  But when faced with somethign that can be factually presented and argued - that was my question.  I dont care if Clinton cured world poverty (far cry from it as his and his wifes coffers attest), that he did so by illegal means does matter to me.  Apparently the ends do justify the means to some.

Nevermind.

We all agree there's lots of problems out there and Obama believes the government can solve them. "Change" is going to come in the form of Big, Big, Big government. He's going to make good on his campaign promises to the special interests groups that supported him.

Obama's change will be to advance the homosexual agenda and the proposals for this are outlined under the Civil Rights section of Obama's website, Change.gov.  

Can you imagine seeking spiritual guidance from a guy like Bishop V. Gene Robinson who divorced the mother of his two daughters to live in a "civil union" with another man? In Anglicanism and Episcopalism, founded by a dissident Englishman, King Henry VIII, Tudor in 1534,  divorce, abortion and sodomy are acceptable. King Henry executed a number of his wives and he too came to a miserable end.

I couldn't agree with you more, KFC...change from Billy Graham to this guy...?   

Obama's change is he changed is mind from changing anything to changing nothing or was it changing it back to the Clinton Admin?

The way the MSM is treating Obama he might as well be president. Never have I seen such a lust to assume an office before, I keep praying this does NOT turn into a "be careful what you wish for, you just might get what you asked for" situation.