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.