As Obama said clearly and strongly in the press conference re: criticism concerning change

[Windy]

he said, and I quote, "the change comes from ME".

People, that is the mantra of this new administration. He is bringing experience and knowledge into his cabinet to serve as advisers, but the buck stops with him. I think his actions since the beginning of his campaign have proven that he is a man of his word.

I hope that people will stop complaining about the man before he even gets into office and give him the benefit of the doubt based upon his word. He has given me no reason not to trust him thus far.

[firedupdem]

1. I was glad he made that clear. He has the final decision. n/t

[Windy]

3. He is all about responsiblity... accepting it and running with it.

Something that has been sorely lacking in our goverment for decades.

[Two Americas]

77. responsible to whom?

The Bush administration has been responsible to an extreme degree, in the face of all opposition. The problem is with to whom they have been responsible. Ask the wealthy few what they think of the Bush administration. Those are the people the administration works for, answers to. They think that the administration has done a spectacular job, been very competent, and very responsible.

The one weakness of the Bush administration is that they failed to bamboozle quite a few people, although it is remarkable how little that mattered.

[Jennicut]

2. Yes. If it was not obvious before, it is now.

Obama is the change agent, he will have experienced people to put into place what he wants done.

[bunnies]

4. Of course. Thats what many of us have been saying.

Its pathetic that Obama had to spell it out for the hand-wringers. They'll still piss and moan though. You betcha.

[skeewee08]

5. Change comes from the top

and the top is President Obama! Luv it!

[Bjorn Against]

71. Actually change usually comes from people at the bottom pressuring the people at the top.

Throughout history the people at the top have generally been resistant to change until the people have pushed for that change. Civil Rights was not something that came about because politicians wanted all people to have equal rights, civil rights came about because people marched in the streets and demanded those rights. The Vietnam war did not end because the politicians suddenly started believing in peace, the Vietnam war came to an end because after years of protest the people sent a clear message that they wanted the war to end. Women were not granted the right to vote because the men in power wanted them to vote, women got the right because they marched in the streets and demanded those rights.

While I think Obama is truly more accepting of change than most Presidents who came before him that does not mean he is going to completely defy history and bring all the change that is needed, if we want change we can not expect it to come from the top we as citizens have to push for that change.

[Raineyb]

78. Exactly! That's what the STFU faction seems to forget.

If we don't speak up there will be nothing standing in the way of the corporsatist from getting their way. The corporatists already have their people attempting to bend the right ears in order to get what's in their interests which is the opposite of what's in the people's interest. We cannot be silent or we will lose all over again.

People didn't hold Clinton's feet to the fire and we got Republican lite. We cannot let that happen again.

Regards

[Merlot]

6. Exactly what I've been thinking.

The people he works with don't set the agenda, they carry out his agenda. They give input based upon their experience.

[happychatter]

7. yup.... I lost audio for the question and much of the response but I caught that part

yup

k/r

let them with ears to hear, hear

[lamp_shade]

8. What was Ed Henry thinking when he asked that question?

What kind of answer did he expect? Jeez.

[happychatter]

9. I don't want people to not complain....

we need to keep up the heat... I like amy goodman... I like noam chomsky... I LIKE jeremy scahill... I LIKE NAOMI KLEIN

we have every reason to watch and comment...

now those that are slinging snot and wringing their hands... or subscribing to wacky conspiracy crap, springing from their low opinion of Clinton?

well... they just need to get yelled at once in a while...

I like THEM too

I even like the Clinton folk from the primaries that haven't had a decent word for Obama since HRC dropped out

they're back and yarfing at everyone to get behind OBAMA

that cracks me THE HELL UP

gawud love them too

[happychatter]

10. OMG Bush is drunk as a skunk

oops wrong thread

shameless kick... thanks for posting

[nichomachus]

11. Is he saying that he's the decider?

That's pretty much what it sounds like.

[Cha]

13. Fuckin'

A.

[bunnies]

16. Not one for hating subtly, are you?

:eyes:

[happychatter]

28. one by one, they earn their way back to my private nether realm

it's sad really

[bunnies]

31. It amazes me...

how good some of them have gotten at avoiding the pizza. Lots of practice, I suppose.

[Runcible Spoon]

36. it amazes me that YOU have avoided tombstone when you are outright attacking DUers

and posting nothing but nasty smears against fellow Dems. You and your little hyena pack's actions and tone are dispicable.

[bunnies]

37. Are you on crack?

Seriously. WTF are you talking about? :shrug:

[Runcible Spoon]

38. play dumb, you're good at it!

[bunnies]

39. I'll take that as a yes.

[Debi]

47. Oohhhh can I join your hyena pack?

:bounce:

[bunnies]

49. Debi!!! (((hugs)))

Of course you can! :hug: I know how much you love smearing other Democrats. Just like me! :bounce:

Hows blue Iowa treating ya? Happy Turkey Day!! :hi:

[Debi]

76. Blue as blue can be! YAY

or heyyyyyyaaaaaaa <--- my hyena laugh.

[Occam Bandage]

17. They see me rollin'. They hatin'.

[Runcible Spoon]

35. ............

:rofl: it's so sad but funny because it's true

[tekisui]

67. Don't hurt yourself on that reach.

Jeezus.:eyes:

[Cha]

12. And, that's what I knew all along.

It's amazing to me after all this time..there are so many around this board who don't get Obama or maybe they don't want to.

[yowzayowzayowza]

14. Methinkz we're having a bad case of *hangover.

Then again itz been so long since left of center folks have had cause to trust leadership they don't know how what to think.

[Cha]

19. I'm still

celebrating:bounce::party::patriot::fistbump:

[Doctor_J]

15. Has Obama already had more press conferences than * had in 8 years?

Seems that way

[Cha]

18. And, it's driving

hasselbeck ilks crazy.

[BelgianMadCow]

61. And three times the # of Q&A sessions

refreshing, indeed

[Kalyke]

20. Actually, the change comes from US.

We are his boss.

Look, I'm not thrilled with many of his cabinet picks. I'm tired of the same old recycled crew (my opinion has little to do with whether they're left, right, DINO or DLC - I wanted NEW faces). I do like some of his picks, though, but none have made me go :wow:

And, it's not necessarily him I don't trust - it's some of these recycled faces with untrusting brains behind them. :hi:

[Windy]

21. If you were looking for the far left, like Kucinich, you aren't going to get that with obama.

He has never been to the far left, unlike what the republican propaganda machine has said. He is a centerist who is brilliant and pragmatic. That is WHY I voted for him!

[tomp]

22. kucinich is not "far left".

stop marginalizing reasonable and constructive views based on the needs of ordinary americans. now!

[Windy]

23. I believe that he is in a lot of respects and I never said that I didn't agree with

some of his positions. Stop being so damn angry. By doing so, you are no better than the ideologues on the opposite side...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

26. Oh dear

I've taken those political ideology tests and I'm always far to the left of Kooch! :crazy: I do hope that some of Kucinich's ideas are utilized or at least looked at by Obama.

[happychatter]

30. One of Kucinich's economic advisors was on DemocracyNow yesterday

you can BET, Obama will hear his point of view and that he knows, a lot of us love Dennis and agree with him

my ears were on fire when that cat got done talkin

This is an emergency and we need all hands on deck, and all the votes we can muster from that pit of snakes we call congress

We need Dennis where he is... not up in the Executive branch on some damn committee

[ecstatic]

24. What has Kucinich actually accomplished?

:shrug:

[LittleApple81]

27. He was the only one with the guts to read articles of impeachment in the House.

He is too honest and decent for the country right now. That is what he has done lately. But he got in trouble in Cleveland for protecting the property of the city's commons against the corporations that wanted to steal them from the people with the help of the banks. These banks drove the city to bankruptcy to punish him.
I am sorry I cannot ennumerate his accomplishment, but seeing an honest person that after being the the House for so long and is still poor, should be an indication.

[Sunnyshine]

32. As if only centrists are brilliant and pragmatic? Obama never labeled himself centrist, others do.

I think it is ugly and not even funny how certain groups try to own PE Obama as if he should be branded
"he is more like me, than he is like you" nan-e-nan-e-na-na! Keep it up and this party will be ripped apart again.

Far left is republican propaganda- and many on DU are repeating and using this in a derogatory manner against half of Democratic party voters. Plenty of people that are to the left of the no movement middle have just as much brilliance and pragmatism as many others from across the political spectrum. Pragmatism is not exclusive to one group of the electorate.

It was not pragmatic to invade Iraq. Obama along with the pragmatist in the progressive left knew it was a bad decision and opposed it even though it many in the middle went along with it. So, no one is better politically than anyone else in this party.

[Radical Activist]

40. Exactly.

Take the title of Alinsky's book: "Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals"

Obama being pragmatic does not exclude the possibility of his being liberal.

[Two Americas]

59. yes, that is a big part of it

There are three main components: the general public, us, and the elected officials. is it our job to represent the politicians and sell them to the people, or represent the people and pressure the politicians?

The people are already there. They have rejected the whole Reaganomics free market libertarian crap. The politicians will change and move. But between those two stand us - the writers and thinkers and activists. We are becoming the most powerful force for conservatism now. We tend to be dominated by those who are upscale, gentrified, and aristocratic, by those who may be very "liberal" when measured by the cultural war issues, but who are deeply conservative on economic issues. Politics has always been about power and economics, and that is the way to measure right versus left.

[AyanEva]

25. ...

I knew this in my head but it's reassuring to hear him say it personally. I'm so used to expecting the worst from the government and seeing people break their word. It's hard to break that habit.

[Radical Activist]

41. I think its hard for a lot of people.

I see people writing about Obama the same way they right about Bush or Bill Clinton, assuming from the start that he isn't going to stand up for progressive values at all.

[yurbud]

29. It would be nice to see some appointments that put the fear of god in the elite

like high level appointments of some of the bravest dissidents from the Bush era.

The thrust of his appointments seems to be to designed to placate the people he should be prosecuting.

[stillcool]

72. He should be 'prosecuting'?

Which person that is now in his cabinet would you like prosecuted? And more importantly how does Obama 'prosecute' anyone?

[Two Americas]

33. this is so weak

If we keep this up, the right wing will be able to regroup, return with a vengeance and eat our lunch.

I am not criticizing Obama. He is a brilliant man, expert politician, and inspirational leader. Whether or not the administration is successful depends largely upon us - the activists, the writers and pundits and opinion makers.

Some of the statements I have read here recently -

"Obama IS change!!"

"If we are not going to trust his decisions, why did we vote for him?"

"He is a lot smarter than we are!"

"He is the PE, and he has a right to make decisions without interference from us!"

"We selected him as our ruler! Now we need to support him, not criticize him!"

None of this "supports" Obama nor the administration, it weakens it and it undermines him. When we do this, we are asking him to be our fearless trusted leader, a "man on horseback," a larger than life figure upon whom we project our hopes and desires. Only a dictator could satisfy those fantasies. In a representative democracy, that approach isolates and cripples a politician and alienates potential support.

This is a very weak approach, because if it is not even persuasive to most people here, it is certain to flop spectacularly with the general public.

I think people have a personal need to place faith in Obama, and are confusing that with "support." Others are using the "trust Obama" movement to advance conservative ideas, and know that if dissenters are shouted down then only conservative and corporate voices will control the narrative and so be heard by Obama, he will have no cover for moving to the Left or meeting the needs of the working people, and the administration and the party will be forced to drift to the right to survive ands "win." That will squander the mandate the public just delivered, weaken support from the people and handicap the new administration.

[Radical Activist]

42. And there's another problem from the opposite side.

Is it possible to move Obama left without making distortions or putting a negative spin on his actions? Can we encourage Obama to go left without Chicken Little hysteria that says he's going to abandon his campaign promises because of a few appointments? Can we ask him to be more liberal without inaccurately portraying him as more centrist than he really is?

The left seems to have a real problem doing that. Everyone wants to frame things the same way they did with Bush or Bill Clinton. The template goes something like, "Bush (or Clinton) is undermining xxx progressive value by xxx horrible action so call now and stop him!" Can we learn a different approach that doesn't start out with a negative, alarmist claim about Obama doing something wrong?

There's a difference between skepticism and cynicism. Right now cynicism is the biggest enemy of progress for liberal causes.

[Two Americas]

44. yes

If only it were not for the Left we could move Left. The Left is the enemy of the Left now.

[Radical Activist]

46. The movement should be capable of self evaluation.

I guess you have no constructive response to what I wrote. The cynical tactics aren't working. They're a barrier to progress. A new approach is called for. Obama's progressive message of hope drew a lot more support than Nader's message of cynicism. You can choose to learn from that or not.

[Two Americas]

48. ok

I am not sure what you are saying, but I will respond.

[Two Americas]

51. response

You: "Is it possible to move Obama left without making distortions or putting a negative spin on his actions?"

Of course, I think so, However, it apparently is not possible without people hearing any and all opinions other than fully "trusting and supporting" as "negative spin."

You: "Can we encourage Obama to go left without Chicken Little hysteria that says he's going to abandon his campaign promises because of a few appointments?"

No, apparently not. Any reservations about anything he says or does keeps getting characterized as "Chicken Little hysteria" and framed as a debate about whether he is or is not "abandoning his campaign promises."

You: "Can we ask him to be more liberal without inaccurately portraying him as more centrist than he really is?"

Probably not, because "how centrist he is" will always be a matter of opinion, and you cannot compare what a person "is" to what they do.

You: "The left seems to have a real problem doing that."

Well, yes, So does the right. I don't know how one can express oppositional opinions without being, well, oppositional. It is pretty hard to say what you have to say without those who disagree with you disagreeing with you.

You: "Everyone wants to frame things the same way they did with Bush or Bill Clinton."

Of course. It is worse than that. I frame things the same way I did with Lincoln and FDR. I don't believe that history is over.

You: "The template goes something like, 'Bush (or Clinton) is undermining xxx progressive value by xxx horrible action so call now and stop him!'"

Of course. Those who side with and defend the powerful few do not need to speak out. Those who oppose them do.

You: "Can we learn a different approach that doesn't start out with a negative, alarmist claim about Obama doing something wrong?"

Probably not, because the complaints about the way we are doing it never end. I think they are covert ways to oppose what we are saying, not the way we are saying it.

You: "There's a difference between skepticism and cynicism. Right now cynicism is the biggest enemy of progress for liberal causes."

No idea. I cannot see how cynicism stops progress for liberal causes.

[Radical Activist]

68. You must be reading a different DU.

I don't see much thoughtful criticism. I see articles like, "Maybe Ralph Nader was right in predicting that the same Wall Street hustlers would have a lock on our government no matter which major party won the election."

Could the criticism of Obama's appointments been made without jumping to conclusions and painting a worst case scenario of what it means? That article is followed with comments at common dreams like, "Anyone who truly believes that Obama will deliver anything beneficial to the non-elite in this country is likely suffering from a form of dementia."

Similar threads are posted here with dire predictions that every pick means Obama will bring no change. My favorite was the post claiming that absolutely nothing good will happen for the next four years because Obama didn't seek revenge against Lieberman. The poster then defended himself by claiming we have the right to speak out and need to push Obama left. As if that's what the thread was doing.

Cynicism stops progress by leading people to believe that there's no point being politically involved because nothing you do will make a difference. It makes people give up.

No one is being silenced. You're free to post what you just did. I'll be happy to see intelligent criticism you argue for instead of the hysterics I see on DU...any day now. I'd be happy to see criticism of Obama's picks without the defeatism, distortions, negativity, fortune telling and mind-reading. I'm waiting.

From your post:

RA: "The template goes something like, 'Bush (or Clinton) is undermining xxx progressive value by xxx horrible action so call now and stop him!'"

TA: Of course. Those who side with and defend the powerful few do not need to speak out. Those who oppose them do.

RA: When did I argue against speaking out? I argue for speaking out with accuracy and without mischaracterizing Obama's positions. That isn't happening much right now.

[Two Americas]

70. ok...

RA - "I don't see much thoughtful criticism."

TA - We need more of that. But that is not merely the fault of those with whom you disagree.

RA - "I see articles like, 'Maybe Ralph Nader was right in predicting that the same Wall Street hustlers would have a lock on our government no matter which major party won the election.'"

TA - So what? Which opinions are OK to post, and which not?

RA - "Could the criticism of Obama's appointments been made without jumping to conclusions and painting a worst case scenario of what it means?"

TA - Sure. Go ahead and post your ideas. Others post their ideas.

RA - "That article is followed with comments at common dreams like, 'Anyone who truly believes that Obama will deliver anything beneficial to the non-elite in this country is likely suffering from a form of dementia.'"

TA - People should not make personal attacks like saying people are "suffering from a form of dementia." That is true regardless of what opinion people are expressing.

RA - "Similar threads are posted here with dire predictions that every pick means Obama will bring no change."

TA - Whatever. If that is someone's opinion, so be it.

RA - "My favorite was the post claiming that absolutely nothing good will happen for the next four years because Obama didn't seek revenge against Lieberman."

TA - I didn't see that. If someone said that somewhere, that is their opinion. I don't agree with it, but who cares? If that is what someone thinks, they should post it.

RA - "The poster then defended himself by claiming we have the right to speak out and need to push Obama left. As if that's what the thread was doing."

TA - I didn't see it. I would be surprised if your description is accurate.

RA - "Cynicism stops progress by leading people to believe that there's no point being politically involved because nothing you do will make a difference. It makes people give up."

TA - Seems to me it fires people up, of anything. Are you really saying that certain opinions could not be expressed because that might discourage people?

RA - "No one is being silenced."

TA - We should all be familiar with the way this is being done, since the right wing has used the same tactics against all of us with such effectiveness.

Ad hominem attacks are suppressive of freedom of speech and dissent. By discrediting the speaker, the listeners are encouraged to dismiss out of hand the things the speaker is saying.

Judging the group by the individual and the individual by the group is suppressive of freedom of speech and dissent. How often do we hear hate radio people say "well you are a liberal, so of course you would say that." In other words, what the person "is" should cause us to discount what the person says. And what defines a person as a "liberal?" Anyone who disagrees with the far right wing. "Oh you never believed in Obama" - with the implication that therefore nothing you say is credible or sincere - is something I have seen more than once just in the last 24 hours.

Loyalty tests are suppressive of freedom of speech and dissent. "Why do you hate America" is not much different than "why do you hate Obama."

"Now is not the time" is suppressive of freedom of speech and dissent. The right wingers say "while we are at war." Many here say "until we get them elected" and now "until they take office." There are endless excuses for telling people that it is not the right time, or the right place, or the right issue to express dissent.

"I am tired of hearing that" is suppressive of freedom of speech and dissent.

In each of these cases, rather than debating the merits of the message, the messenger is undermined, ridiculed, dismissed or otherwise placed under suspicion or hostility.

RA - "I'll be happy to see intelligent criticism you argue for instead of the hysterics I see on DU...any day now. I'd be happy to see criticism of Obama's picks without the defeatism, distortions, negativity, fortune telling and mind-reading. I'm waiting."

TA - Where have I engaged in "hysterics?" What criticism have I made that is not "intelligent?" Where have I posted any "distortions?" If you see people doing those things, challenge those people in those threads.

RA - "When did I argue against speaking out? I argue for speaking out with accuracy and without mischaracterizing Obama's positions. That isn't happening much right now."

TA - Go correct the specific inaccuracies in the specific posts by the specific people. Making these generalizations is an obvious attempt to place any and all people you disagree with into the same category, and then ascribe motives to all of them and therefore distracting people from the message and asking them to focus on the messenger. That threatens freedom of speech.

[Radical Activist]

73. It seems like you would rather set up straw men

than respond to anything I actually argued. We agree that Obama needs criticism from the left. I find it ironic that you argue for criticizing Obama, but simultaneously suggest that my critique about the weakness of those criticisms is somehow a threat to freedom of speech. Would you prefer I remain silent and not respond to unfair criticisms of Obama? By your own logic, aren't you trying to limit my freedom of speech by assigning nefarious motives me and my arguments? Aren't you trying to discredit and silence me by suggesting that I'm trying to silence others? Or would you like to drop those accusations and just agree that disagreeing with someone doesn't equate to silencing them?

There is an undeniable trend in the progressive community, of which I gave several specific examples, that is not productive or helpful to the movement. Pointing out the weakness of those arguments is not an attempt to silence them. I think you're playing martyr by claiming that.

All I argued is that jumping to unsubstantiated negative conclusions about Obama's actions is ineffective and spreads cynicism. So far you haven't written anything suggesting you disagree with that but you've written a lot of rebuttals to some other argument that I've never made. Its like you expect and want someone to trying silencing you after eight years of Bush. Maybe you've been conditioned to expect the worst.

In regards to cynicism you wrote:

"TA - Seems to me it fires people up, of anything. Are you really saying that certain opinions could not be expressed because that might discourage people?"

We see how many people are fired up by Obama's message of hope compared to Nader's message of cynicism. And as for your little straw-man, I'm saying that the left should think about which arguments are effective and which drain energy from the movement.

[Two Americas]

74. that is the best I can do

You will have to be satisfied with it. I spent a lot of time on it, tried to be as clear and as considerate and respectful as I could, and answered each of your points.

Broad brushed generalizations about any and all critics, and then ascribing destructive motives to them, is a clear and obvious attempt as suppressing dissent. It is the most common argument made by those trying to suppress dissent. That is my view and I have stated it clearly and honestly and, I am convinced, supported it adequately. You don't agree, or cannot see it. That is fine. Others can and do.

[BeFree]

43. Well

I have never trusted any politician as much as I trust in Obama. Really, he is our last great white hope to turn this country around. He's it. And we're backing him, 'cuz if he fails, we're all down the tubes.

We are Team Obama, and he's the QB. It'd be stupid as hell, while we are in the huddle, to start complaining about the team leader. _{to use a football analogy}

[Two Americas]

45. who was looking for that?

This is like saying "I have been looking for a plate of feces that was more palatable then the last ones."

Obama is not the "quarterback," or any sort of dictatorial authoritarian leader whose decisions cannot be questioned - not in a representative democracy.

One person is our "last great hope to turn this country around" and we must "support him" - the way that football players in the huddle support the quarterback - or "we're all down the tubes?"

Are you sure that is what you wanted to say?

[BeFree]

50. Exactly

To use the football analogy.

So now you equate my love for Obama as a plate of feces? who was looking for that?

As concerns the environment, Obama is the last hope we have to turn the tide, literally and figuratively. But you knew that. And there are many other things that will add up to keeping us from going down the tubes. I see no one else with the power or the will to do what Obama says he will/can do. Carter, and later, Gore, were there. They failed. Clock is ticking. It's the two minute warning.

Ahhhh, that's the way I see it. Feces? Gawd.

[Two Americas]

53. no

I see placing our faith in princes as the same old plate of you know what.

No one person could ever be "the last hope we have to turn the tide" or we are in big trouble.

[BeFree]

54. Hey!

You do understand what I wrote!! Cheers!

Go over to the environment forum and see that the light at the end of the tunnel is a freight train, if ya don't believe me.

[Two Americas]

56. I hear you

We are traumatized.

[political_Dem]

57. Bravo.

What makes a leader inspired to do policies to change the fabric of his country is not the silence and complicity of his people; it is the action, criticism and questions that are brought to his attention.

Do you seriously think he's going to do what the people wants if they just lay down, roll over and trust him?

The fact that the corporations, the centrists and the moderate Republicans have not wasted time in putting their ideas in Obama's ear ought to convey this very fact.

We must certainly not be silent and complacent.

[Runcible Spoon]

34. how many of these fucking threads do we need a day?

Why don't you just cut to the chase and post the loyalty oath you've been working on :eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

52. I thought Freedom of Speech was applicable to all,

or is it?

[Two Americas]

55. of course

But we can go around in circles on that.

"Those criticizing Obama should shut up."

"Stop telling us to shut up."

"Hey, telling you to shut up is our freedom of speech!"

[FrenchieCat]

62. And so it goes....

[Two Americas]

60. what I would prefer

I wish people would debate the issues, rather than argue about which personality is a saint or a devil and attack each other for supporting or not supporting some personality or the other.

The conservatives here should present and defend their views, not attack the people on the Left.

[Kahuna]

58. The M$M is just trying to drive a wedge with Obama and his base...

It is obvious with the pile of poop dubya is leaving that Obama doesn't have the luxury of a team of newbies. I would have been disappointed if he hadn't realized the need for experience to help with our economic collapse and our decline internationally. It would be lovely if he could appoint all new people, but that is just not realistic at this point.

[Diamonique]

63. I always knew that, but I'm glad he stated it clearly so others will get it.

Obama is the decider. The people he chooses to work under him will be implementing *his* policies and programs... not theirs.

[dailykoff]

64. It's a lame defense and he shouldn't have to make it.

If his appointments from day one didn't stink, and yes I mean Rahm, Gates and Billary, he wouldn't have to.

[Vinca]

65. Chris Kofina (sp?) was on MSNBC early this afternoon and made

a comment that was easy enough for a freeper to understand. He said in the current administration the policy goes from the bottom up, but in the Obama administration it will start at the top and go down.

[Life Long Dem]

66. Yes!

:woohoo:

Those few words say a lot!

[FlaGranny]

69. They don't say a lot - they say everything. n/t

[democracy1st]

75. K & R