Obama disappoints at Agriculture

Given McCain's post-election push for comprehensive immigration reform aka amnesty (during a recession!), I think the case can be made that the alternative to Obama would have been far, far worse.

He has to pay left-liberals back somehow,

No he doesn't, no more than the Republicans had to pay the religious right. That is to say, not at all.

The only change the Obama represents is a change of name on the door of the Oval Office.

Larry,

I don't disagree. The amount that it will take for the Reverend to "pay" left-liberals "back" will be as small as the amount it took for Bush to pay back the religious right. But the Reverend *will* have to pay that small price, which will come mostly in the form of Supreme Court appointments, though those can, of course, be consequential far beyond the short-term politics involved.

It's worth nothing that the Reverend is about as likely to go out on a limb for ... say ... gay marriage by amending the constitution as Bush went out on a limb to ban abortion by doing the same.

I like that you take note of the symmetry between the secular left and the religious right.

It's ironic that the former group is so hostile to the latter group, since they resemble each other so well.

One can perhaps chalk the animus up to sibling rivalry.

"Mr. Big Agribusiness"

I hate this. I am so glad I didn't vote for Obama (or McCain).

All elections are about is the guy running getting power and making a name for himself in history. Sort of like Achilles, if you want to be remembered, you need power (is the thought). So these ego-maniacs run for President. The 'issues' are always just side dressing that are meaningless and used to dupe the idiots into voting for them. If Bush was pro-peace, then Democrats would be pro-war. It's all a big shell-game.

I'm thrilled with Obama's choices thus far.

They're pragmatic, non-idealogical, and, far as I can tell, no loyalty oaths have been required.

In other words, he's hiring grownups with experiences in the areas for which they're being chosen.

That alone makes it a welcome change from the last 8 years (Monica Goodling, anyone?).

At least we got some empty rhetoric thrown at us in the press conference this morning. *roll*

So much for being a radical Marxist, the common refrain in these parts leading up to the election. He's a centrist--as anyone who honestly looked at his positions--would have known and the radical label was always more bluster than reality.

Wrong as usual, Daniel.

The Reverend is indeed a radical, just one without cajones enough to do much about it but talk instead of walk.

In other words, he's a fairly ordinary left-liberal -- not unlike yourself.

Which is reason enough to oppose him -- and to pray he never "grows some."

And, in any event, neoliberal economics, neoconservative foreign policy, and "progressive" social values -- the witches brew of the status quo -- are themselves already radical assaults on the teachings of a certain Jewish carpenter who's still the boss of some of us "clinging" to Him still.

Anyone who could read, even a little, between the lines would have known a year ago that the only "change" President elect Obama really wanted was his body in the Oval Office chair. When he needed radical support to get power he became a radical, if he needs centrist support to stay in power he'll choose centrists. Bottom line: It's all about him, baby, and he'll do what he needs to make sure it stays "him" for as long as possible. Oh come on now, you can't be really surprised that he turned out to be a politician after all? Please!

If Obama turns out to be the greatest president in American history

When pigs fly ... or wear lipstick. :)

I think we've perhaps already had the greatest president in American history, i.e., either George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. (The recent American Heritage article on Lincoln's military leadership and skill-acquiring skills was quite interesting.)

It's too bad we can't still celebrate their birthdays separately, but must do with "President's Day" - which agglutinates the noble with the nefarious.

Rufus, anyone who uses the term "Left-Liberal" is an idiot, and has nothing worthwhile to say to anyone about anything.

With all the ballot stuffing, vote rigging, identity fraud, payoffs and internet trolling we all know went on during the election because we all remember it, the only reason this Obama criminal isn't in federal custody is the massive threat of Africans rioting across America, resulting in the massive burning of most of our major cities and unprecedented death to American citizens. And this is from a guy who's history, origins and identity is still a complete ambiguous mystery. A guy who is the true, and the ONLY, mystery enshrouded "President-elect" in American history. And we're all expected to put all of our food and our families lives into the care of this evil invisible menace living and ruling within America. Within Washington DC. Within The White House.

This is the day to take a stand for us all.

Dean writes " And we're all expected to put all of our food and our families lives into the care of this evil invisible menace living and ruling within America. Within Washington DC. Within The White House."

Well Dean, we do have an enigma for a President-Elect. Yes he was almost certainly born in Kenya of only one American parent and therefore not Constitutionally qualified to be President. And other issues. But most of the people are not agitated about this because of the Depression (let's call it what it is). This issue may come back but not at the moment.

So I suppose most of us are looking to see what he is going to try to do, or how he will structure the executive branch of the government and if it will be suitable for the current times. We are in difficult times and many of us do not know what to do. I suspect we elected someone who is faily intelligent but had no thought of ever winning, and now that he has won is overwhelmed with the responsibility.

Well, that is my opinion.

rod,

seriously, his cabinet is a massive change from 8 years of bush. you have to admit they are a huge, huge shift from cheney, rummy, condi, hank paulson

the election was to follow bush - change was about changing from what he has done to our country

c'mon rod, for once, take your foot off the cynic pedal as it relates to obama

Panama's sovereign, and was also sovereign when Mr McCain was born there as well. (Believe it or not, folks even took up an argument against HIS natural-born citizenship. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028/ )

It seems that for a period (1914 to 1974) Panama canal was practically U.S. territory, administratively. But some question as to whether being born on it during this time frame would make one a citizen. Moot point, if one or both or your parents are citizens, you get U.S. citizenship. Sounds pretty natural to me. Interestingly, this has not been settled legally and finally. Obama's SAID he was born on Hawaii, which even WERE his parents African (which is true) and "Eurasian" (whatever that is supposed to mean) would grant him citizenship. The rest of your comment is not really worth addressing.

Insane Kitten
And this is how almost every discussion about Obama will devolve-- with whacky, unsupportable assertions about Obama's supposed non-citizenship and silly accusations of criminality. Pathetic.

There's an argument he could have nipped this in the bud by immediately producing copies of his birth certificate, instead of allowing it to run around the right-blogosphere long enough to get in all the loonies' conspiracy theories, and only then discrediting it. (1)

And, yes, it is completely discredited. Newspapers have seen the actual original birth certificate, and there's also the birth announcement in the newspaper, and the fact that Obama's mother never lived in Kenya anyway.

It's possible he could have stopped it, although the real way to deal with such slander is to ignore, but I'm really glad he didn't anyway. It's the new 'Vince Foster was murdered by Clinton'.

So it lets all sane people have a warning sign as to who the wackos are. The people you want to ignore even if they are, in theory, on the same side of a debate as you.

On the left, of course, we've got the damn 9/11 Truthers to deal with. But they're easy to spot too.

Obama's birthplace is the most completely idiotic theory ever. At least the Truthers are confused by actual unintuitive behavior of collapsing buildings and the other blatantly illegal actions of the Bush administration. It is 'Bad Science' stupidity. It is 'Free Energy' stupidity. (In fact, there's a surprising overlap between the two groups.)

However, the Obama-American-Deniers (Do we have an official name for them yet?) are just obviously making things up and have no positive evidence of their theory at all, just a constant insistent that the accepted facts do not have enough evidence. It is 'I Have No Evidence And You Have Plenty But I Don't Accept It And Think That Somehow Proves I'm Right' Stupidity.

I know I'm probably biased, but the left's insane theories, although clearly wrong and stupid, actually appear to be based on ignorance of rather complicated things, plus, obviously, paranoia. Whereas the right's insane theories appear to be based on...um...nothing, except some sort of absolute faith in the idea that everyone is lying.