Is there "one president at a time" or not?

[rateyes]

Today, President-elect Obama has shown great leadership in working with Nancy Pelosi, telling her that a stimulus package cannot wait. He wants the Congress to pass a bill, before he becomes POTUS, in order that he can sign it into law on day one of his administration.

But, when asked to take a leadership role on the crisis in Gaza, the reply is "there is only one president at a time."

I like Obama. I voted for Obama. I'm glad he's going to be POTUS. However, I will not refrain from criticizing him when I think that criticism is warranted. He erred with the Warren selection for the Inaugural Invocation, IMO, and he's being inconsistent now with his "one president at a time mantra." It seems to me that "there is only one president at a time," when it comes to certain issues.

Flame away.

[firedupdem]

1. I'm glad you started a new thread....but I thought you were upset

about him not speaking out on Gaza? How did Warren get in there?

[rateyes]

6. It's just a criticism expressing disagreement. Nothing more.

[lamp_shade]

2. In matters of Foreign Policy, there can only be one pres at a time.

[rateyes]

19. In Constittutional law, there can only be one president at a time...

so why use it as an excuse only in one area of policy??

[GB Observer]

143. Obama often speaks about the economy

Why the double standard? Why can there be two presidents at a time with regard to the economy and not foreign policy?

[Uzybone]

3. More pathetic flame bait

[rateyes]

9. Thanks for your opinion on my post.

Want to argue with the assertion? Or, do you cede the point?

[Uzybone]

13. I think the other responders have it covered

I am sure you know that the US cannot be seen to have 2 opposing voices on foreign policy issues. It would be beyond stupid for Obama to publicly disagree with Bush about a current foreign policy crisis. The campaign is over, anything Obama says now has real heft. If there are sensitive negotiations going on, anything Obama says could scuttle them. It sounds like excuses, but its real world politics. A responsible leader cannot have his government send mixed messages like that.

[rateyes]

24. And, he will have to speak in 2 weeks. Will he scuttle them, then?

Or, will he just accept what Bush's team negotiates?

[Uzybone]

32. They'll be his negotiations then

he can tear them up on 1/20/09 if he wishes. Right now all he can do is be a cog in the wheel of any progress if he speaks.

[rateyes]

37. He could be a cog, or he could be a catalyst.

Whatever Bush is doing now isn't progress. You can bet on that.

[merh]

65. He is the leader of the Democratic Party, soon to be the president.

He has asked the leader of the majority party in the house, Nancy Pelosi, to work to get the legislation passed so that, when he is the president, he can sign it into law.

How you see that as some presidential act is beyond me. As president, he has no control over congress and as PE, he cannot sign legislation, just as he is not authorized to speak on US foreign policy. But, as the head of the DNC, he can ask the dems in the house and the senate, to pass legislation.

It is pretty simple - you might want to go read up on the separation of powers and the powers of the presidency. Then look into the DNC and who is considered the leader of the party.

:hi:

[Political Tiger]

4. There's a huge difference between

long term domestic issues and a current international flare-up.

[rateyes]

11. Agreed. But using the "one president at a time" as an excuse

for not speaking out on Gaza flies in the face of his acting like a president on economic issues now. He, at least, IMO, should state the real reason he has for not speaking out.

[Political Tiger]

26. He's given the real reason.

The real reason is there is one president at a time.

In an international situation like Gaza, the person speaking out should be the current president, not both the president and the president-elect because to do otherwise would send the message to the world that we have dual governments, which is not the message we want to send out.

And why just Gaza? There were 400 people slaughtered in Congo over Christmas yet not one person demanded Obama "speak out" about that. In fact, all over the world there are conflicts going on. It's not like everything is just fine and dandy in the world except for Gaza, but nobody is demanding Obama speak out about all the other things going on in the world.

I find this sudden concern to hear from Obama about this one foreign conflict to be disingenuous at best.

[rateyes]

31. Thanks for the news about the Congo. Hadn't heard it.

And, he should be giving some direction as to what his foreign policy will be. The world knows that whatever Bush says now about anything very will might change on the 20th. Therefore, for the next two weeks, the USA will have nothing of any import to say about foreign policy.

Meanwhile....more children die.

[Political Tiger]

38. Why should he be giving some direction as to what his foreign policy will be?

He's not running for anything. He's already done that. For him to say anything now would just undermine, or perhaps even bolster Bush.

Look at it this way. Say it's January 5th, 2001, and Bill Clinton is still in office about to replaced by Bush in two weeks, and Israel invades Gaza. Would we really want Bush to speak out while Clinton is still in office?? No! We'd want him to keep his mouth shut until he's president!

It's the same thing here, the same principal.

[rateyes]

46. And, what would change on the ground in either scenario?

If Obama could help by speaking now, to hell with Bush. He's tearing the world apart at the seams.

[Political Tiger]

Yes, to hell with Bush

...but unfortunately, right now, Bush is the Commander-in-Chief, and to undermine him now would set precedent for the next Republican (God forbid!) President-Elect to do the same thing to the current sitting Democratic President. For instance, say in 2016 Sarah Palin is elected (God forbid!) to replace Obama as president.....would we want her sticking her nose in Obama's business before she is sworn in?

Patience is needed. I mean, if we and the world were able to survive 8 YEARS of Bush, I think we can survive two more weeks of him.

[rateyes]

91. You call what's happening now, (precisely because of the timing, IMO),

surviving??

[MadMaddie]

147. Actually it would be unwise to even mention where his

foreign policy will go. Why? Because * is a rotten bastard and he will do anything to sabatoge Obama's plans. There are 14 days left and Obama will tell the world what his plans are.

You have to ask yourself, why now? Why did Israel decide to retaliate against Hamas now. My belief is because Israel figured since they have the support of the current * to do any action they want without repurcussions.

Again, I have no problem with Israel defending itself but they are not allowing any civilians out and humanitarian aid in.

[cali]

5. For obvious reasons, when it comes to foreign policy

there's only one president at a time.

[gravity]

7. Crafting a bill doesn't undermine the current president

[rateyes]

14. And, neither does stating a disagreement. Why is it that the American

people do not yet know where Obama stands on this issue??

[jenmito]

20. If he disagrees with the current administration’s position even slightly and says so,

that would just cause more havoc in the world. We need to have just one position on this issue which as to be THIS admin.'s-even if it’s the wrong one.

[rateyes]

39. How would stating disagreement now cause any more havoc

than stating it in two weeks?

[jenmito]

41. Because America would be sending two messages! n/t

[rateyes]

45. So what? Why not send the one message that is going to

count for the next four years?

[jenmito]

48. HE'S NOT PRESIDENT YET!

[rateyes]

56. I HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME.

That doesn't answer my question. Bush's voice is irrelevant, unless we allow it to be relevant. And, in two weeks, he can do a helluva lot of damage to the world.

[jenmito]

127. But you still don't GET IT! Bush is irrelevant to US, but he IS STILL the

president. I don't like it as much as YOU don't like it.

[rateyes]

128. Yes, I do get it.

[jenmito]

131. Then you shouldn't have to keep asking the question.

[rateyes]

149. Fine.

[babylonsister]

8. Did you miss the part about foreign policy

where there are 'delicate behind-the-scene negotiations' going on with the current administration, and he doesn't think two talking heads with possible differing opinions would be healthy? Sounded logical to me even though I'd prefer Obama in charge.

[rateyes]

17. Well, since Bush's foreign policy stance will be irrelevant in two weeks,

and this crisis is going to be long term, it seems to me that the American people have the right to know where he stands on this problem, and it might just help the world if he declares some intentions.

[DevonRex]

61. And in 2 weeks, Obama's stance will be relevant. It isn't right now.

Israel chose to do what they're doing now for a reason. Because Bush is still president. No matter what Obama says or doesn't say, that is the fact. And if Obama speaks out, who says Israel won't escalate even further just to do as much as they can in the next 2 weeks?

[Clio the Leo]

10. So you think it would be a great idea.....

... for Bush to say one thing about Gaza and Barack to say another?

Dont you see the problem that would cause?

Unless you have found a way to get Bush to hush and let Barack do all of the speaking, that is the ONLY way he needs to address the matter until 1/20.

The world does not have a concept of "Barack America" and "Bush America" ..... when it comes to internationl matters, there's only ONE voice who should speak ... and sadly, it's not our guy.

They would no doubt have differing opinions on the matter and that divergent opinion would only make the situation more complicated.

[rateyes]

22. I think it more than a coincidence that this war is being waged at this time...

I think that Israel may very well have started this now, because they want "America's one voice" to be Bush's. What happens when that voice changes in two weeks? Or, more to the point, will it change? Or, will Obama continue with the same policy?

[jenmito]

27. I think so, too...

which is why Israel must think he WILL call for a cease-fire. But we gotta wait 'til the 20th.

[rateyes]

29. I think he has the leverage to call for a ceasefire now. It could save some lives.

And, I hope he backs that call up on the 20th with a real threat to pull funding from Israel is there isn't.

[jenmito]

33. No he does NOT. He is not president yet! n/t

[rateyes]

35. He's going to be in two weeks, and it will be HIS foreign policy

that controls for the next four years. Like HELL, he doesn't have leverage. Of the two, (Bush and Obama), Obama is the only one with any REAL leverage at the moment.

[jenmito]

40. And in two weeks he will have the ability to speak out and change policy.

How could you not see that it would cause havoc if he spoke out against Bush's position?!

[rateyes]

49. Tell me HOW it will cause more havoc. Maybe then I could see it

as clearly as you.

[jenmito]

129. It will make Hamas say to Bush, "Why should we listen to YOU when the incoming president

doesn't agree with you?" And it will make Israel say to Bush, "Hey-why are you letting the person who's not president yet send a different message than yours? Who's president right now ANYWAY?" And different countries will respond in one of the two ways, too.

[movonne]

12. We have a very smart PE Obama...and why should we second

guess him...How many directions can we pull this man...right now the stimulus package is the most important thing to do... we cannot get into a huge depression...

[closeupready]

15. No flames from me. I completely agree.

And I also will not remain silent when he missteps. I will criticize him here and anywhere else. Period.

[leftofthedial]

16. right now there is zero president

[JuniperLea]

18. Now that's a response I can get behind!

Lame ass duck that he is and all.

[rateyes]

25. Ain't that the truth!

And, no Congress, either.

[JuniperLea]

21. There's a huge and obvious difference...

Between foreign and domestic policy. There is nothing untoward about Obama discussing his expectations about domestic policy with Pelosi. It would be a major faux pas if he were to comment on the current uprising in the middle east. Major.

[DevonRex]

23. Foreign policy is off limits. Pretty simple. Sorry you don't like the answer but it won't

change the answer one bit.

FYI, you really weakened your OP when you brought Warren into it.

[rateyes]

28. Sorry to weaken it.

And, "foreign policy is off limits," is bull. He's going to be in charge of foreign policy in two weeks, and he was a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, along with his new Secretary of State. If he's NOT involved in this, he's not doing his job as President-elect very well.

[democrattotheend]

30. Foreign policy is different

It's extra important that there only be one president at a time on foreign policy because otherwise it would send mixed signals to foreign leaders. For that same reason, it's traditional for senators and members of Congress who travel abroad to avoid criticizing the current administration while overseas and vice versa (that's why Bush's possible shot at Obama from the Israeli parliament last year was such a big deal).

[rateyes]

34. I think that leaving it like that is what sends mixed signals.

As it stands, whatever Bush says is irrelevant, and the world needs to know where we are going to stand in the long run. By allowing Bush to run the show, and the world not knowing if Obama is going to shift course...the signals are mixed. If Obama stated what his policy would be, then the world would know what it's going to be. Nothing mixed about that.

[GB Observer]

144. mixed signals are better than Bush's signals

If you ask me.

[grantcart]

36. There is a big difference between working on ongoing legislation as a President

elect and speaking for the country as President elect on foreign issues, there is no inconsistency.

The President as Chief Executive has to give orders to diplomatic and military bureacracies. Having input with legislative leaders is different than confusing people around the world on who the President is.

[rateyes]

43. He's going to be speaking for the country in two weeks...

and, hopefully, it will be a different message than is being sent now. I don't know if the world can wait two weeks to hear it, though---just like we can't wait two weeks to begin talking about an economic stimulus package.

[grantcart]

97. This is the problem with our system

A parlimentary system allows for immediate change when the Prime Minister has parlimentary support.


There is nothing in the constitution that allows for removal of a President for being stupid.


I am not advocating a change because I don't think a parlimentary system would work well in country as big as the US, but that's the reality.


Our system also makes it almost impossible to make any big changes unless there is a crises, too much divided power, and that is the reason why we are the only developed country without socialized medicine.

All other countries were able to bring it in with a simply legislative majority. We have Executive control, legislative majorities in two houses and the Republicans can still block it in the Senate. Without the depression it is unlikely that we would have ever passed Social Security.

[EFerrari]

42. Yes. While I understand that he has to pick his fights right now

he will always have to pick his fights.

I'm sorry he didn't see fit to make a statement about Gaza. That's a failure of leadership. Someone as smart and as gifted in public speech as Obama is could have managed it without going out of bounds.

[closeupready]

44. He doesn't strike me as being much of a fighter, and

if he anticipates being harshly criticized, he seems to shut up/back off. I'm not sure that's going to serve him (or us) well.

[Uzybone]

50. Ridiculous; whats your evidence of that?

name some issues that Obama has backed off of because of anticipatory criticism.

[closeupready]

54. This one.

n/t

[Uzybone]

60. So he was set to speak about Gaza?

When did he give any indication he would comment on Gaza?

[EFerrari]

58. It seems to me that he is a fighter but that he choses his public moments

very carefully. We'll see soon enough.

[closeupready]

62. Could be. Time will tell.

n/t

[rateyes]

53. I agree.

[AtomicKitten]

47. On foreign affairs in particular, there can only be one voice.

[rateyes]

51. And, why should that voice be Bush's, when that voice is

irrelevant? You think Bush and the Republicans will shut up if Obama changes the policy in two weeks? :shrug:

[leftstreet]

52. Excellent point

No, the Republicans won't be shutting up in two weeks.

[AtomicKitten]

57. Because he is president until 1-20-09 -- then Obama is on deck.

Emotionalism aside, this really should be a logistic no-brainer.

[Thrill]

64. BECAUSE BUSH IS THE PRESIDENT

sometimes I wonder if the people from freeperville are posting here

[DevonRex]

67. You, too? Sheesh. This place can be so

anti-Obama it's laughable. Or it would be if all these posts were over at freeperville.

[AtomicKitten]

69. What is anti-Obama about acknowledging he isn't president until 1-20-09?

It's logistics, pure and simple. Are you suggesting he stage a coup and take over the White House now? Oy!

edited for typo

[DevonRex]

71. My reply wasn't to you. It was to Brent. I agree with you.

[AtomicKitten]

74. sorry ;)

[DevonRex]

80. Hey, no problem. :) I knew you got the replies mixed up. nt

[rateyes]

78. Criticism does not equal "anti-." And,

you do know it's against the rules to accuse a poster of being a freeper, don't you?

[DevonRex]

83. Might want to read my post again, Einstein. nt

[rateyes]

95. I read what Brent said, and your reply.

You both implied "freeperism" on my part. Now, it's your turn to deny it.

[DevonRex]

105. My reply has nothing to do with you. I simply said "you too?"

to Brent's wondering if freepers post here. Sometimes I do wonder. More often I wonder about people trying to fight primary wars ad nauseum. But that has nothing to do with you, either.

[rateyes]

130. What Brent said, he said in response to me. Context is everything.

[DevonRex]

140. Brent's all caps caught my eye. I responded to his post. That's all.

And just so you know, I would never in a million years think you belonged over with the freeps. You're a solid liberal. I just happen to disagree with you on this one.

[EFerrari]

68. And Obama is the president elect. He has a seal and an office

and security and everything. Good grief. He's not hiding in a closet or in cold storage in the freezer.

[rateyes]

75. Thanks, Brent, for implying that I'm a freeper.

I thought you knew me better than that.

[zulchzulu]

55. OK... write down what he should say and let's see what that would cause...

Of course, you know he's not president yet...

OK. Here goes. It is a political minefield to have Bush saying what he's saying, which is... Yay! Go Israel! And gee, fellas... can ya not kill babies for the Ol' Cowboy...

So Obama comes out and says that Israel should friggin' stop the bullshit with killing innocent Palestinians and should leave Gaza pronto.

What does that do? It's called usurping the power of the presidency and it sends out mixed signals about who is in charge.

[DevonRex]

59. And that might even make Israel step UP their attacks, trying to get as much

done in the next 2 weeks as possible - before they have to deal with Obama. And nobody can tell me they wouldn't, either. They did this now for a reason. And it can get a whole lot worse now too, for the very same reason.

[EFerrari]

66. Baloney. He could make a personal statement as the president elect.

"I see with sadness that there is again a military offensive taking place in the Gaza strip, and I want to support President Bush and the European Union and the United Nations in calling for an immediate cease fire. If we are committed to change, we must be committed to the pursuit and process of peaceful solutions. No Israeli or Palestinian child should have to wonder on a Monday morning if they will lose a parent before dinner time.

In addition, I understand that there is a developing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. I commend the Israeli government for their every effort to stem that crisis and I support the international community's efforts to provide fuel and food and medical supplies to the residents of Gaza even as international leaders meet to resolve this conflict."

How effing hard is that, exactly?

[merh]

76. What the hell is it with folks?

Is Obama a messiah or just the PE?

Why do you want him to speak now, it isn't his place and the foreign affairs of this nation are so fucked up as it is, having 2 presidents making statements on foreign policy is just insane. Should hillary also join in.

As to the lame comparison the OP makes, see my reply up thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8059051&mesg_id=8059380

[EFerrari]

79. Obama is the president elect. We call this period "transition".

The world knows that.

It's not difficult.

Eta: This is the real deal, though. Our government is officially calling for a cease fire but, of course, no one takes that seriously. If Obama even issued a statement endorsing the same position, that's all, it would help.

[merh]

85. Yes, it is difficult.

GWB is the CnC and is in charge - how'd you feel when you found out Poppy Bush was making deals with the Iranians for the release of the hostages?

What do you think Obama making a statement will accomplish?

[EFerrari]

94. Obama signalling that he agrees the bombing should stop

and that aid should be allowed in would give diplomats all over the world a small lever to keep working for a cease fire.

This isn't a secret deal like Reagan or Poppy did. This is just an open statement endorsing our public position. The difference is, everyone knows Bush doesn't mean it. If people believe Obama does and will mean it, that changes the dynamics.

[zulchzulu]

108. If Obama told Israel to stop bombing now without being President...

...it would be viewed as a pro-Hamas statement, since it would mean Israel would have won the battle, but lost the war... Obama couldn't do anything about a statement from Israel in response.

Why?

He isn't President.

[EFerrari]

110. He doesn't need to tell them to stop. That would be inappropriate.

He could simply support the calls for a cease fire that are coming out of the Bush White House, the EU and the UN.

It's all about nuance. What is Israel going to say to him in response? "We repudiate the in-coming president's call for a cease fire. And we're going to make sure to stir up trouble with him before he is inaugurated because we're idiots."

[merh]

111. I do not understand why you think Obama saying something now

carries any weight - he has no authority and is untested.

GWB is the war monger - we all knows he shots without reason.

So if they don't comply with the call for a cease fire, what do you think GWB should do?

And if they don't comply, what do you think Obama can do and/or will do when he takes office? What are the alternatives?

[EFerrari]

114. Because power is flowing to Obama.

We all know and the world knows the chimp will do nothing.

If Israel disrespects Obama, they have to figure they will pay for it in the next 4-8 years.

I sure don't mean he should go on an anti-Israeli rant, you know that. But even signalling in a quiet way that he supports a cease fire may make a difference to this process. It doesn't need to be big or loud at all. Even a small "This is a disappointing turn of events" remark from him could have an impact, imo.

If the Israeli government ignores him, that will be their problem later. There will be consequences for them and I believe they know that.

[merh]

117. My fear is that GWB will do something before he leaves office

and that is to step in on behalf of Israel against Iran - it is not as easy as you think. Foreign policy is not simply standing up and stating a position, there is so much more to it than that, especially in that region.

[EFerrari]

118. Oh, I've had the same fear ever since I figured out these rats

might leave someday.

Foreign policy is not easy, that's for sure. But, that's the job.

Obama will probably not incur any political damage at home if he does nothing.

[merh]

119. He is not "doing nothing" - I would bet he has all those folks

he can manage trying to keep the lid on this so that GWB will not shot one last time from that evil hip of his.

I would bet that there are contacts being made and negotiations had - I just don't think that Obama wants to risk shaming GWB into acting - one last hoorah before he hits the door (and think about it WWIII - executive orders and martial law).

[EFerrari]

122. I don't ever want to make the mistake of underestimating Obama.

[merh]

I think the only safe course of action is not to let egos get in the way.

14 days - just 14 days.

[rateyes]

150. Remember the 6-day war?

14 days is an eternity to a child caught in the crossfire between the assholes shooting at each other.

[merh]

153. And guess what

Obama isn't president, he can't do a thing - so stop expecting him to bring about a miracle.

[rateyes]

155. So, get elected president, and you lose your voice

for 2 months. Right?

[merh]

161. when it come to foreign policy issues such as this, yes, he has no

voice until he takes office - that is when he will be heard and that is when his voice will mean something.

You know, you want a savior, it isn't Obama. Try a little critical thinking and some common sense, put your emotions aside and think - that may help you realize that your expectations are too high and they would be too high for any man/woman/leader to meet.

[rateyes]

90. It's not a lame comparison. If he's going to remain silent, then he shouldn't

say why he's remaining silent, when that reason isn't consistent with everything else he's doing.

[merh]

93. It is a lame comparison.

He is the head of the DNC, he can propose legislation for the dem majority to pass and that is not acting as president, that is acting as the head of the DNC.

What do you think it will accomplish for Obama to take a stand?

[DevonRex]

98. Funny how folks who don't like him are the ones who expect him to be the messiah.

The rest of us think he's an ordinary PE, completely human, who has to follow the same rules every other PE had to follow. Mainly, you don't mess with foreign policy until you're inaugurated.

[zulchzulu]

82. Actually that statement doesn't really say anything...

I agree with the tempered statement idea, but your statement that he might use doesn't say anything that isn't obvious.

Making a comment on a issue close to home like getting the economy back on track helps those hurting as well as those investing to get some confidence.

Making a comment on an ongoing war where you have no power to do anything about it yet is essentially usurping the office of the President. I don't think that Obama is not making overt comments about the Gaza war is because he's for killing Palestinians or is a secret Likud member. If he did a "if it were me, I'd" speech, it clearly sends mixed signals to all sides.

[EFerrari]

88. That statement says two things. 1) Stop the bombing and 2) Let the aid through.

No one expects Obama to do more. But, doing less looks pretty bad to a lot of people. In sending no message at all, he's letting people fill in the blank on their own. Imho, that's a mistake.

[Uzybone]

87. Not hard, but useless

that's a total fence straddler. It would be better if he says nothing.

[EFerrari]

96. No, it's not to people who understand the language of diplomacy.

[rateyes]

72. "I call on Israel to leave Gaza, immediately. In two weeks

I will be the POTUS, and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the U.S. Israel must remember that the U.S. has no formal alliance with Israel. An attack on Israel will not be seen as an attack on the U.S. If Israel refuses to pull out of Gaza immediately, on January 20th all US aid to Israel will be frozen. My administration seeks a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and, like we have done with other countries, we will insist that Israel comply with all UN Resolutions passed against it. Without such compliance, the US will no longer be able to justify aid to Israel.

The US is not innocent in these matters. We went to war in Iraq without justification. We, however, will not compound that mistake by allowing Israel's disproportionate use of force against Palestinian civilians in Gaza, against whom Israel has placed an embargo, depriving Palestinians of the basic necessities of life.

I also call upon Hamas to join, once again, in a cease-fire against Israel. If Israel pulls out of Gaza, and Hamas continues firing rockets into Israel, the US will respond with appropriate sanctions against Hamas. Israel must begin the process of withdrawing from all the occupied territories, to be completed by the end of this year. Negotiations must start now to determine the status of Jerusalem, and agreement must be reached on a right of return for the Palestinians.

If, however, either party in this conflict takes violent actions against the other, or works against such a two-state solution, the US, under my administration will reserve the right to take punitive measures against either party."

---------------------------------------

And, mean it when he says it.

[zulchzulu]

86. That would be a nice, big hint for Israel to level Gaza into dust before Obama gets in

Kaplooie!

[rateyes]

100. Really? You think the real threat of losing US support

would give Israel the go-ahead to level Gaza? Right.

Israel needs us much more than we need Israel.

[zulchzulu]

109. Imagine someone who starts in two weeks at your job stopping by to order people around

Yeah, let's say Chuck got the new gig as manager. Shit, why not just show up a couple weeks early and start kickin' some ass!

For Obama to act like he's President BEFORE he's President is essentially the same thing.

[Thrill]

63. You can't compare talking about the American economy and a Foreign Policy voice

He can't be out there taking a different position than Bush on an International conflict. I mean come on. Be realistic

[EFerrari]

70. The US has "officially" called for a cease fire. Obama could support that

without an iota of conflict.

[Thrill]

73. Why? If that is the position. Why does he need to say anything?

The country has to speak with one voice on this. Obama said the same thing about Foreign Policy when he was in France at the Presser with Sarkozy

[EFerrari]

77. He needs to say something because his words carry weight.

Because people are dying and getting their legs blown off and his statement could slow that down.

Is that a good enough reason?

[zulchzulu]

99. I understand your opinion, but Obama's words as a PE don't carry weight internationally

What do you think Israel would do if a President-Elect, who isn't the official President, told Israel what it should or should not do?

They'd laugh off his comments, since he isn't "official". This isn't the high school playground where someone tells the punk kids to stop picking on the other kids. There is a lot of power-playing, a lot of official diplomatic steps and an inherent understanding of who is in power and who isn't.

[EFerrari]

103. No one is going to laugh at what the incoming President has to say.

Are you kidding? How much do you think Israel is spending today, just today, trying to figure him out? :)

[zulchzulu]

113. Why do you think Israel attacked Hamas in the transition period?

They know or somewhat can figure out that Obama is not going to be like Bush and fail at some kind of peace talks. They knew they had a window to try to take out or dissemble Hamas and they have attempted to do so.

Again, Obama is not President. He doesn't have the power of the President yet nor does he have the ability to mobilize troops if Israel rejected his "advice" and went even more nuts.

You and I have to wait until he's actually President before he can be President.

[EFerrari]

120. Obama speaking up, however carefully, would pretty much dispell the idea

that the United States shuts down during transition.

[Uzybone]

123. It usually doesn't, its just that Bush has taken the last 2 months off

I think Clinton actually worked till his last day. Bush is like the guy who takes his 20th cigarette break of the day 15 minutes before its time to leave.

[EFerrari]

126. Bush on a smoke break means the world is safer.

lol

Agree. But the point is, there's nobody at the helm right now. That's just dangerous.

[merh]

81. No shit, this just boggles my mind.

I'm willing to wait until he takes office to chastise him (if deserved) for his stances. Doing so before he takes office is just a waste of outrage.

[EFerrari]

101. Citizens who have no political power at all are speaking out.

Obama is not in a soundproof booth until Jan 20.

He has an opportunity here to show his skill. If he doesn't take it, most people won't fault him. But, he will come into office having passed on this opportunity and there are world leaders, not to mention just folks, that will remember that.

It's a mistake. I'm not outraged at him. I just think he's making a choice that will bite him back later.

[merh]

115. It amazes me, it is as if you think he is some type of god.

You think his word will make all the difference - it won't - not at this time. What you fail to realize is the change in administration is what will make the difference. Shift in policies and leadership, shift in mindset and goals.

At that point, Obama can use the diplomacy he has been advocating, he can call in the reps of both sides and begin to find a solution (or advocate his position and the U.S.'s position). Until then, he cannot do much of anything, he has to wait until he has taken the office.

[EFerrari]

124. No, I don't think of him that way at all. It's more the power of the office.

The change in administration is happening right now. BushCo and the crazy people in the Israeli government are exploiting this period. A statement could be a way to apply some brakes.

The funny thing is, at this moment, Obama can't push a button and summon our armed forces. But, he can push a button and summon the media.

[merh]

138. The media doesn't mean squat

when it comes to what is happening now.

The power of the office, Obama doesn't hold it yet, don't expect miracles while the other SOB still has the keys, just hope he keeps it on the road until it is Obama's turn to drive.

[zulchzulu]

116. We can argue this until the cows roll over the moon

I'm outraged by the Gaza situation.

I also understand that Obama is not the President yet and for him to usurp the executive power of the President by making foreign policy statements beforehand would actually weaken the power of the President. There is one President at a time.

If people think that he didn't make a statement that should be weighed as one made by a President before he was President, then they don't understand simple principles like the transfer of power and what that power of being the official President is.

Would Obama be blamed for what Israel did to those in Gaza when he didn't have any power to assert policy? Maybe for some...

[EFerrari]

134. I agree that we won't agree. But making a personal statement

isn't usurping anything. And insisting that he's not president yet overlooks the real part he started playing on November 5.

[DevonRex]

92. Realism has flown out the window in their fervent efforts to smear Obama.

[rateyes]

104. I'm not trying to smear Obama.

Sheesh, you should take some time to learn something about who the hell you are talking about. And, who the hell is "they?"

[EFerrari]

106. That's ridiculous.n/t

[Danger Mouse]

84. Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue.

[DevonRex]

89. Is this the right day for me to start? I swear...

I got nothing. I just swear.

[Danger Mouse]

102. Are we in the minority, Jen?

[DevonRex]

107. I don't think so. I think it's the same folks posting over nad over so

it may look that way. So... What kind of glue is the best anyway?

[EFerrari]

112. I put up a poll so people can weigh in:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php

[ecstatic]

121. Do those who are breathlessly awaiting PE Obama's comments on the ME

view him as their Messiah? Like, they can't move or function or form an opinion until they hear from PE Obama first? :shrug: :rofl:

[DevonRex]

141. That's what I'd like to know. Rather ironic, eh?

:evilgrin:

[mopinko]

125. if legislation would change anything in gaza, i suspect he would be on it.

but since there isn't anything that he can do directly, it will have to wait until he is in control of the bully pulpit.
he is the pe of the u.s., not israel.

[IndianaGreen]

132. On Gaza, yes! On everything else, including the terror attacks in Mumbai, No!

Haven't you been paying attention?

:crazy:

[Bjorn Against]

133. There is only one President (or in the current situation pResident) at a time.

Notice that he is not planning on signing the stimulus package until he is in office, there is a reason for this.

[GB Observer]

145. But Obama gave his opinion about the stimulus; no opinion yet regarding Gaza

That's the difference. No one is asking him to sign any documents with regard to the conflict.

[quickesst]

135. Many people wish....

...there could be, somehow others believe their can be, and the rest understand that the difference in planning the initiation of a program when he becomes president is not the same thing as making decisions on issues that were initiated by and in progress under the current administration. I'll edit the little snark and add that whatever his opinion, ideas on Israel/Gaza, it won't accomplish anything to comment, just as planning his stimulus package won't change anything until he is sworn in. Then, as now, there will be only one president. Thanks.
quickesst

[leftstreet]

136. If the President Elect can have an office and staff - then he can have a Position!

When did they start calling them "president-elects" anyway?

[Cha]

137. Maybe he disagrees

with bush on this one.

[rateyes]

152. I hope he does. And, if he does, he should say so, now.

[crimsonblue]

139. The issues aren't really related...

Foreign diplomacy is very different from domestic issues. If Obama goes and plays president before bhe actually becomes president, with regards to Israel, the US will be shown as weak, a clear and consistent message cannot be developed, and this will harm our relations with others. That sounds like nitpicking, but it is important to keep up the facade for another couple of weeks with respect to this issue.

About the stimulus, this is just Obama cajoling Pelosi. She has repeated stated and acted like she is going to act in a generally adversarial manner (but of course she couldn't act that way to Bush). IMO, she is on a power trip. She thinks the huge Dem. congressional gains are a mandate for her ineffectual weakness. I wish to God the Dems would oust her and put Waxman as speaker. While they're at it, take out Reid, and replace him with Feingold or Boxer.

[rateyes]

151. I had high hopes for Pelosi.

I can't stand her, now. She is a terrible leader.

[VADem11]

142. There is

I don't see any upside to having Obama speak about Gaza right now. Anything he says would be regarded as policy but the situation could look quite different in just two weeks. Besides what else could he say that hasn't already been said by others? If he were to speak now he would probably just issue a bland statement that would add nothing.

[bridgit]

146. Well there would be if the other one wasn't already g.w. bush, that being the case...

Obama is the only 'one' president at this time, and even if it's uber-genteel and highly lawyerly, he has to start saying something imo buh-sides...No such parlimentaries seemed to bother Cheney for the last eight years, that 'one prez @ a time' premise has been made null by this neocon junta

[TheKentuckian]

148. He shouldn't say squat because its politically stupid to do so

why burn the capital without power to back it up. Further, he shouldn't say shit because it would be the set up to be undermined in 4-8 years.

[MasonJar]

154. He has spoken out on other foreign policy issues. That was a criticism

of his Gaza failure (to speak, that is) on Oberlmann tonight. He has to take a stand in two weeks. Why not now? Lives might be saved...children's like his two daughters. Probably not, but who knows. One thing is for sure, the psychopath Bush will never try to save a life.

[rateyes]

156. That's what I'm saying. He can't make things worse. nt

[polmaven]

157. The President Elect's discussion

with Speaker Pelosi was about what he would like to see WHEN he is President. Since the situation in Gaza is ongoing right now, and at this point would not be appropriate.

[Romulox]

158. Obama also punted on the Big3 bailout. He's "not the President" only when it suits him.

[Orsino]

159. There is only one president at a time.

Do we expect Congress to negotiate a treaty?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

160. it would be weird to have Pres Bush saying one thing and Pres Elect Obama saying the other

I'm sure Obama will take every one of them on board when he becomes President.