• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Leon Panetta to be nominated CIA Director

Thank you Binary...its nice that despite some posters claiming they provided what I asked for "Three times", someone was able to produce the actual full transcript instead of just snipping something out of it that, outside of context, kind of proves their point.

that said...

Moderator's Warning:
Please remember the fair use rules, next time post a few paragraphs and then link to it if possible.
 
I'll watch, but to mimic your attitude real quick in regards to IT in another thread just providing entire threads to you when he was asking for something specific....

Is there a specific point in this youtube video I should be watching for, a specific line of conversation, etc? Its 7 minutes, and going to go watch it now, but some direction would be helpful.
 
Let me continue:


Barack Obama, December 27, 2007:
"The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result."





Note this was during the primaries and this statment was directed towards hill-dog..... ;)





some more"


"DES MOINES, Iowa - Barack Obama declared today he’s the only candidate who can bring true change in Washington, hoping to persuade Iowa voters to give him the first victory in the Democratic presidential race.

Making his case against Hillary Rodham Clinton without naming her, Obama said, "The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result.""



Obama says Iowa voters should end Washington’s ’food fight’ - BostonHerald.com
 
Nevermind, found it :p

Okay, first hte question is for his response to clintons claim that fiscal responsibility isn't a priority for him.

He states people are looking for someone that will solve problems and not resort to the same typical politics in washington. Again, this is not stating he's going to put people into power that have nothing to ever have done with washington or have no experience in Washington.

A "change in politics" could be a change in theory (A business manager in the lead of the CIA instead of a intelligence person).

Or it could be that he's meaning in regards to how you respond to other people with typical untrue (in his mind) political attacks. (as you can see by this, he then immedietely goes into talking about a number of attacks by Clinton against him taht he says are untrue, backing this possability up).

Not to mention, he states its what people are wanting not necessarily what he's going to do.

Once again, if that is what you're referencing, you're simply proving my point. You are hearing his words and ASSUMING you know EXACTLY what he means or what he is stating there. You are placing meaning onto his words that he does not state, and then using that meaning to claim he is lieing. (By you, more the generic you there).

His exact words:

"I think that part of what the people are looking for right now is somebody that is going to solve problems and not resort to the same typical politics that we've seen in washington. That is something that I hear all across the country. So, when President clinton says I wasn't opposed to the war from the start or says that its a fairy tale that I opposed the war, that is simply not true." (Then he goes on to state some more claims of what he says is "not true").

Now, MY assumption there would be, based on the CONTEXT of it, that he's talking about the politics of making accusations that are untrue in attempts to score political points and slander your opponents. However, I don't know what the "question" at the bottom of the screen exactly is refering too and more than that I don't know what is in his head.

What I do know is that nothing he said there indicates that he made a promise or a statement that he was going to put into power only those that had no washington experience or only those that were not previously involved with other administrations.
 
I'll watch, but to mimic your attitude real quick in regards to IT in another thread just providing entire threads to you when he was asking for something specific....

Is there a specific point in this youtube video I should be watching for, a specific line of conversation, etc? Its 7 minutes, and going to go watch it now, but some direction would be helpful.



right in the beginning, then FF past hill-dog around 5 mins, then keep ff again till you see obama... ;)
 
are we out of synch or did you miss my piece de resistance? :lol:



"DES MOINES, Iowa - Barack Obama declared today he’s the only candidate who can bring true change in Washington, hoping to persuade Iowa voters to give him the first victory in the Democratic presidential race.

Making his case against Hillary Rodham Clinton without naming her, Obama said, "The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result."


Obama says Iowa voters should end Washington’s ’food fight’ - BostonHerald.com
 
Last edited:
"DES MOINES, Iowa - Barack Obama declared today he’s the only candidate who can bring true change in Washington, hoping to persuade Iowa voters to give him the first victory in the Democratic presidential race.

Making his case against Hillary Rodham Clinton without naming her, Obama said, "The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result.""

And again here, the same thing. Even more here it seems he's specifically making the case against HILLARY, saying that people shouldn't play the gamble in THIS ELECTION by voting for the "same washington players" that have been playing throughout this entire "mess" in his mind of the past 8 years (which hillary has been).

Look, I'm flat out saying, I don't know his intent. I don't know his meanings. I can read his context and come to a conclussion. And so can you. We come to different conclussions. And that's fine...

But that is NO DIFFERENT than what the liberals have been doing to Bush for years to justify their "He's lying" campaign. Now, personally, I like to be constant. I like to use logic the same across the board and not pick and choose when I use it. His words can be construed a number of ways and to me, the only way he can be "lying" is if people are purposefully adding qualifiers to what he says or are assuming he's meaning something that he NEVER explicitly states...which is the same thing people have been doing to Bush. I don't call Bush a liar, and I'm not calling Obama one. Not in this case at least.

Neither of these at all show where he has specifically stated that the people he will appoint to government will have no previous washington experience or will not be a portion of any past administration, which is the impression I'm getting from many of those that are saying he's "lying" by doing this very crappy appointment.
 
is he "lying"? i don't think thats the point. he made a clear campaign promise of change, then picked the very antagonist against that change for sec state.... to me it sends a message that the campaign of change was a prevarication at best and that he while maybe he is now being pragmatic, is doing exactly what he campaigned against.


This pick for example is not that he picked someone inexperienced, this is a fact. the issue here is it is yet another clinton retread, or as he charged against hillary "same old washington politics".....


There is no "change".


See he is "playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result." This is precisley what he campaigned against.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Please remember the fair use rules, next time post a few paragraphs and then link to it if possible.
It wasn't the whole transcript, but it was more than 2 paragraphs so I'm still a DP delinquent. My bad. :3oops:
 
Even more here it seems he's specifically making the case against HILLARY
He said Hillary is one of the "same Washington players" that produced the "same results" he's criticizing, but then he picks her as the Secretary of State?
 
is he "lying"? i don't think thats the point. he made a clear campaign promise of change, then picked the very antagonist against that change for sec state.... to me it sends a message that the campaign of change was a prevarication at best and that he while maybe he is now being pragmatic, is doing exactly what he campaigned against.

This pick for example is not that he picked someone inexperienced, this is a fact. the issue here is it is yet another clinton retread, or as he charged against hillary "same old washington politics".....

There is no "change".

See he is "playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result." This is precisley what he campaigned against.

See, I disagree.

He campaigned on change.

There is change.

Hillary is a huge change from the foreign policy of Condi. The guy in charge of the CIA is far different in skill set than the other ones. The appointments so far have been far more liberal than conservative.

That is CHANGE.

Now, you can say its not as much change as he promised. But that's a matter of interpretation. He never said EVERYONE of his appointments would be completely fresh to Washington or not tied to past administrations. His talk of "politics as usual" in some places seems more tied in the way people use politics to attack people, not actual policies, etc.

You can not tell me, seriously, that the appointments he is putting into place are a "change" from the past 8 years Reverend. You just can't tell me that with a straight face.

You can tell me its not the change YOU Thought he was talking about, or hoped he was talking about, but that's opinion. The fact is, it IS a change from the past 8 years.

Which takes me back to the original statement on my part.

If a democrat heard his words and his rhetoric and expected a systematic change in the way government works, with no washington insiders or veterans at all in any cabinet position, and every portion of government being turned on its head 100% then yes...it'd be a let down.

If a democrat heard his words and his rhetoric and expected it to be a change from appointing people in line with the political views of the President, that he has ties to in some way, or may be for political reasons as much as logistic reasons then yes...it might be somewhat of a let down. (for example, Hillary in matters of foreign policy IS farther from Obama than Condi is from Bush, which is a bit of a change)

If a democrat heard his words and rhetoric and expected a change from the policies and philosophy of the past 8 years. If they believed it was a change from the large spending on a long standing war on terror, little government oversight, and fiscal irresponsibility (in their mind). If they believe it was a change from the use of divisive wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage or politics of fear.....then no...they may NOT be let down now.

My initial issue was the very aggressive, condescending way in which people responded to aps saying she isn't let down yet. From everything I read of aps...and if anyone says I'm just a liberal loving/aps lover you can go back and see me and her argued a LOT about Obama...she seems mostly in that last category, with a little of the 2nd category, and very little of the first. So I think its perfectly understable for her not to be let down yet.

People then countered me by saying how could she not be let down with him lieing about "change"...which led to this whole discussion of me showing that he didn't LIE about change, the issue is the ASSUMPTIONS people made about HOW MUCH change and WHAT KIND of change he meant.
 
You can disagree all you want my friend.


it is obvious however from my links the context he was talking about. he was the washington outsider canidate, his statments in dec 07 were directed at hillary, the icon of the old guard.....


Here is another article that was swooning over the change obama promised.

Obama Vows to Change Washington


some more:

IPI General Opinions - Editorial - Will Barack Obama Change Washington?




"At this defining moment in history, we believe that Americans of all parties want and need their leaders to come together and change the bad habits of Washington so that we can solve the common and urgent challenges of our time," they said in a joint statement.

note he says on nov 18th that leaders of both parties should come together to change washington..... he is with mccain when he makes this statment.

Obama, McCain Agree on 'Change' for Washington - WSJ.com


and the socialists are pissed too....

From politics of hope to politics as usual | SocialistWorker.org



he lets people blog on his sight about this very change:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Gary Lynch's Blog: Not politics as usual





I can keep going, but to me this "change" was to change washington, not change from bush. show me one post prior to the election where ANY poster suggests this, even Aps. For them now to claim that the change was the change from Bush (he couldn't run again so we were getting that change anyway) is ludicious, and they are all fooling themselves.
 
Last edited:
here is a link from a thread.

McCain says 'change is coming' - Jeanne Cummings - Politico.com


what change is McCain talking about?

Now onto aps...

This should dispell all question:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archi...orses-mccain-over-obama-2.html#post1057549948

After reading IT stating that hillary is what we need the change from and that obama should be hammering on it.

Aps agrees.....

Obama does exactly this throuught the campaign.

She was fully aware all the way back in March....




A post where she acknowledges Obama is a "change" from Kerry:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ndorses-obama-president-3.html#post1057503083




here she states that if Carville joined hill dogs staff it would prove she is not about the change Obama claimed to be:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...stuns-obama-mccain-wins-2.html#post1057501427





I think I more than proved my case that Aps and the rest of the left viewed this change as change from all washington politics, not just Bush.
 
I think I more than proved my case that Aps and the rest of the left viewed this change as change from all washington politics, not just Bush.

I definitely thought he meant change from Washington politics.
 
I definitely thought he meant change from Washington politics.




Thank you for your honesty.

Let me ask you, are you concerned about his picks thus far, given they are exactly not the change from Washington politics he promised?

I mean picking Hillary alone quashed that idea.
 
And doing such from a hypocritical stance doesn't work. You can't demand the liberals/dems to hold their candidate to the same standards as Bush when you yourself are holding Obama to a higher standard than you held Bush.
What it comes down to is that the liberal/Dem criticism of Bush will be shown for the partisan bigotry that it was.
 
You have to change Washington from the inside. Do you think alienating Congress would bring about any change? He has to reach out to the establishment to an extent in order to get anything done. I'm not happy about the Hillary appointment, but I understand it. I doubt she would have taken a lesser role and he needs her allies on board in order to accomplish things.
 
You can disagree all you want my friend.

Ditto my friend.

Thanks for all the links that in no way show that he stated he would unequivically change every facet of how washington worked and would use nothing but people without experience in washington for his appoitned positions.

I can keep going, but to me this "change" was to change washington, not change from bush.

And thank you...that's my point all along. To you. Your interpritation. Your assumption. Your belief from the words he said and the way he portrayed himself. Just like peoples assumption, interpritation, and belief about Bush and the Iraq War and 9/11.

I definitely thought he meant change from Washington politics.

Then yes, you seem to fall into category two that I wrote...unless you thought everyone he'd appoint would have no connection to any other democrat, never worked in washington, etc.

The carvelle thing is a great example. Carvelle was known as a master at attack, mud slinging politics which...by Reverend's own youtube video...Obama seems to be decrying as "typical Washington Politics". Bringing carvelle on wouldn't be a change from that, Obama was trying to say his campaign was.

Politics is a gigantic sweeping term, that can run the gammot from policy to presentation.

I would question you aps if you weren't a bit disallusioned by the pick of Hillary because it seemed not a change to "typical politics", as it seems likely that it was a pick of someone for political appeasement. At the same time, I could understand wanting to "see how it goes", as "typical" washington politics would've also meant appointing someone as far left on the war as Obama was to your top foreign post...and yet he picked someone to the right of him (which is still left ;) ). So in some ways, it was not a change, in others, it was.

I think some republicans here are intentionally twisting Obama's message to an utmost extreme to get a "gotcha" situation. If he appoints someone with ANY washington experience at all, they cry "Its not change, its not change!". However if he appointed someone WITHOUT any washington experience they'd cry out "He's not experienced, he's not experienced".

There is more to a nomination beyond where a guy worked to tell you if its like the standard things.

My issue is not with believing this to be a bad appointment, I believe it is.

My issue isn't even saying negative things about Obama's promise of change. (Hell, I did that myself in my first post. Because this was EXACTLY the type of Change I thought Obama was truly meaning, but managed to present himself in such a way that people just naturally THOUGHT he was meaning more)

My issue is with attacking people for not being "disallusioned" with Obama when he's not completely broken with his campaign statements and with it still possible to look at what he's done and come up with a reasonable explanation that its in line with what he's said. My issue is with people trying to say he flat out lied about change, but defend Bush didn't lie, when to reach a conclussion that he actually intentionally purposefully knowingly mislead one must make assumptions about what kind of Change he meant exactly.
 
Thank you for your honesty.

Let me ask you, are you concerned about his picks thus far, given they are exactly not the change from Washington politics he promised?

I mean picking Hillary alone quashed that idea.

I am concerned. I was appalled when Hillary was selected for Secretary of State. I have come to terms with it and will wait to see how she does in that position. I feel pretty confident that a deal was made for this position when Hillary finally bowed out of the nomination race.

I don't know much about Leon Panetta, but when I heard he was the choice for CIA, I thought, "WHAT?" I totally understand why people are up in arms. It's a weird pick. The fact that Obama didn't talk to the leaders of the intelligence committee is ridiculous. What could he have been thinking?

Having said that, I am still reserving judgment on these picks to see how they handle their jobs.
 
Was Bush 41 an intelligence insider?
 
Ditto my friend.

Thanks for all the links that in no way show that he stated he would unequivically change every facet of how washington worked and would use nothing but people without experience in washington for his appoitned positions.


Moving goal posts now?

Where did I or he state that he would "unequivically [sic] change every facet of how washington worked"?


I did not claim he made that claim....


And thank you...that's my point all along. To you. Your interpritation. Your assumption. Your belief from the words he said and the way he portrayed himself. Just like peoples assumption, interpritation, and belief about Bush and the Iraq War and 9/11.

Ok then I showed you where posters like IT, Iriemon, and Aps stated they believed as I did.

He was changing from all politics as usual not just bush.


I posted articles to back this up. Everyone from Brits, left, right, Socialists, alike. It is common knowledge.


Then yes, you seem to fall into category two that I wrote...unless you thought everyone he'd appoint would have no connection to any other democrat, never worked in washington, etc.


Never stated that. However he has picked essentially a proto-typical democrat cabinet, no change whatsoever from the usual suspects.


What happened to "warren buffet"?




The carvelle thing is a great example. Carvelle was known as a master at attack, mud slinging politics which...by Reverend's own youtube video...Obama seems to be decrying as "typical Washington Politics". Bringing carvelle on wouldn't be a change from that, Obama was trying to say his campaign was.

YES! EXACTLY! but hillary is no better than a carville. She is the most inside of inside politics.


Politics is a gigantic sweeping term, that can run the gammot from policy to presentation.

I would question you aps if you weren't a bit disallusioned by the pick of Hillary because it seemed not a change to "typical politics", as it seems likely that it was a pick of someone for political appeasement. At the same time, I could understand wanting to "see how it goes", as "typical" washington politics would've also meant appointing someone as far left on the war as Obama was to your top foreign post...and yet he picked someone to the right of him (which is still left ;) ). So in some ways, it was not a change, in others, it was.


I disagree. Had he picked someone as anti-war as himself, I would not be able to levy this "politics as usual" charge. Simple as that. Face it. he is no different than any other president thus far as far as picking the washington insiders for jobs....

This as I have proven, is not what he campaigned on.

I think some republicans here are intentionally twisting Obama's message to an utmost extreme to get a "gotcha" situation. If he appoints someone with ANY washington experience at all, they cry "Its not change, its not change!". However if he appointed someone WITHOUT any washington experience they'd cry out "He's not experienced, he's not experienced".


What does this "right wingers are meanies" crap have to do with our discussion here? I think like many on all sides think Pannetta was a moronic pick as was Hillary. These are clinton retreads and not the change he promised.

Had Obama picked someone else for Sec State, someone outside the beltway, who was far left, I would not be able to argue the change angle, and indeed argue the liberal angle. What is the problem with this?

General Jones on the other hand was a brilliant pick.


There is more to a nomination beyond where a guy worked to tell you if its like the standard things.

My issue is not with believing this to be a bad appointment, I believe it is.

My issue isn't even saying negative things about Obama's promise of change. (Hell, I did that myself in my first post. Because this was EXACTLY the type of Change I thought Obama was truly meaning, but managed to present himself in such a way that people just naturally THOUGHT he was meaning more)

My issue is with attacking people for not being "disallusioned" with Obama when he's not completely broken with his campaign statements and with it still possible to look at what he's done and come up with a reasonable explanation that its in line with what he's said. My issue is with people trying to say he flat out lied about change, but defend Bush didn't lie, when to reach a conclussion that he actually intentionally purposefully knowingly mislead one must make assumptions about what kind of Change he meant exactly.


Aps, just admitted that this change was not what was promised. And I find it disingenuous given my links of others to now monday morning quaterback and change what they said about this change to something that fits reality as opposed to what is reality.
 
You have to change Washington from the inside. Do you think alienating Congress would bring about any change? He has to reach out to the establishment to an extent in order to get anything done. I'm not happy about the Hillary appointment, but I understand it. I doubt she would have taken a lesser role and he needs her allies on board in order to accomplish things.




So you still think Obama is going to change how business is done in washington as he promised?
 
So you still think Obama is going to change how business is done in washington as he promised?

To an extent. Change is a gradual process. I don't think he'll outlaw lobbyists in his first 100 days or anything.

We'll just have to wait and see.
 
To an extent. Change is a gradual process. I don't think he'll outlaw lobbyists in his first 100 days or anything.

We'll just have to wait and see.




Thank you as well.



Now are you disapointed at some of his picks, Were you expecting at least some washington outsiders, not clinton retreads (I know slightly loaded).......



I mean what is different about his cabinet as far as where they came from compared to previous administrations?


Does it at least appear or can you see how it could appear to many that he is as of right now, "politics as usual"?
 
Back
Top Bottom