So there are a lot of doubts about Emmanuel's selection?

[GaYellowDawg]

I'll say this: I questioned President-elect Obama's election strategy at times. I questioned some of the things he said in debates. Every time I was eventually (and at times, almost immediately) demonstrated wrong. I've learned my lesson. I'm done with hand-wringing for a while.

People, we've elected a President who's a good deal smarter than most of us, unless anyone reading this is the intellectual equivalent of the editor of the Harvard Law Review, and I'm going to give this selection, and every other selection, time to work out because of that. I think President-elect Obama has, in garnering the first Democratic nonincumbent landslide election since FDR, earned some trust. Yes, we're Democrats. We don't do the blind loyalty thing. However, I think we ought to have a good deal of confidence that an individual as brilliant as President-elect Obama is making the right decisions. I think he's earned it.

[K Gardner]

1. You must not realize the peoples on DU are WAY smarter than Obama. That's

why he listened to so much of the hand-wringing during the primaries and GE. I'm surprised you didn't know that. He will be unable to govern effectively without us.

:sarcasm:

[GaYellowDawg]

3. I did my share of the hand wringing.

Right around November 4, I decided my wrists were sore for no particularly good reason. :) It's a tremendous relief to stop - I think that there are others who would like it if they tried it. I'm not saying they must, by any means! I just think they'd like it. :)

[The Magistrate]

2. Not Really, Sir

Just a bit of grouse from a few who enjoy carping....

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. Even smart people make mistakes. Sometimes *collossal *mistakes.

Don't have to be on the Law Review to have it occur to you : "Hmmm. Maybe, if I want to be president, it might be a good idea to find a less ....shall we say... *controversial* spiritual mentor." It took about twenty years , and a ton of bricks falling on his head, for Obama to figure that one out.


Emanuel appears to be another *bad* choice. No harm in pointing out the obvious, seems to me. One may actually be performing a public service.

[GaYellowDawg]

7. Why not wait?

Emanuel may be a fantastic chief of staff. He may be an abject disaster. And I'll point out that President-elect Obama has phenomenal people skills as well as being brilliant intellectually. What I'm saying is this: the man is smarter than you. Or me. Give the choice time to work out before screaming disaster. It may not be as *obvious* as you think.

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. So how do you explain Rev. Wright?

>>>And I'll point out that President-elect Obama has phenomenal people skills as well as being brilliant intellectually.>>>>

That's point one.

Point two: I don't scream. ( or *very* rarely.)

Point three: It's pretty obvious. I give several examples further down the page on another thread. This is like beating a "DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!" horse. ( Edit to ad: see below)

Or just read thru his wiki entry from beginning to end. ( I know it's "wiki"... but it corresponds to my impression of him over the years.)

Gotta go.


>>>>>Emanuel is said to have "mailed a rotting fish to a former coworker after the two parted ways."<16> On the night after the 1996 election, "Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! ... Dead! ... Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name."<2>>>>>>
Again, he's the original bad news bear. A really , really, bad first step.

[GaYellowDawg]

11. I explain it this way:

Wright probably said a lot of things that Obama agreed with and some he didn't. I've never agreed 100% with any preacher in the churches I've gone to. And when Wright went overboard, Obama severed the connection.

I will also point out that Jeremiah Wright was not a political appointment, and many of the people who had a problem with Wright did not have a corresponding problem with Sarah Palin's witch hunter.

Apparently, Emanuel is someone who, when pointed in a direction, gets shit done. He may be a pitbull, but the man holding his leash is Obama - and I feel very confident about the man holding the leash.

[KharmaTrain]

5. Campaigning Vs. Governing

Some are still stick in campaign mode. The game now is to make those promises and polices happen and work efficiently. It's not time for settling old scores or holding "purity" tests...we saw how well that worked for the GOOP. Their biggest failure was to prove that they couldn't govern...that the concept of "less government" actually meant disfunctional.

President Obama is looking at how he can most effectively implement his plans and is now putting a team in place to make it happen. Emanuel isn't going to be a policy maker...he'll be a gatekeeper...responsible for getting his bosses agenda passed. The fact he pissed Boner off so much shows how he doesn't roll over and he has both the Executive and Legislative experience that will be needed to move the Obama agenda through the House & Senate.

President Obama has shown his ability is finding the right people to get things done and to let them do their thing. He knows his future plans depend on getting a solid start and using his majorities to his advantage. Emanuel is a very good pick in being able to bang the heads and move the mountains to get this realized.

Also, for those who just can't stand the guy, this takes him out of the House leadership and opens up the chance for a Progressive to move up the ladder.

I get a kick out of how people have understimated President Obama...it's a big reason he's soon to be the 44th President.

Cheers...

[bowens43]

6. Yes , because obviously, Obama doesn't know what the hell he's doing.........

[Olney Blue]

8. Obama made a telling comment: Emmanuel will have his back.

Obama needs brilliant and loyal folks around him to be effective. It's his decision, for chrissakes.

[snappyturtle]

9. I think Emmanuel is a good choice if for nothing else than his 'close'

relationship and understanding of Congress. He needs someone with Rahm's tenacity for the post.

[MadashellLynn]

12. No doubts here.

I remember Rahm from the Clinton years as well as the last few, and he is exceptionally smart, is really good in a fight, and he and Obama go way back. I think he's the man for the job.

[Romulox]

13. No doubts at all; the Corprocrats are ascendant. nt

[LWolf]

14. If I read this correctly,

you are telling us that people, voters, citizens, aren't as smart as their "leaders," and should just blindly trust them to know better than us.

I don't share that view, to say the least.

It's nice that Obama is smart. So are a lot of people. It's great that he has a good education. It's nice that he got the scholarships.

Many of us, myself included, chose colleges based on what was close and cheap, that we could get to after work, and cheap enough that the student loans would hopefully not bankrupt us when we were done.

That doesn't mean that we aren't "smart," or that our education is of less value than anyone else's. We earned our degrees, too.

The naivete of people who would trust someone, and believe they must be "smarter," because they were able to attend an ivy-league university, while most of the nation, academic record not withstanding, cannot, is beyond belief.

"We the people" aren't sheep, to flock together and follow the leader blindly, whether in the meadow or the church.

Very few people in this world, let alone politicians, have earned my trust.

Obama's speeches don't earn him any favor with me. His actions could. The chief of staff pick doesn't earn any favor.

[GaYellowDawg]

15. You don't read it correctly.

I am not telling you "that people, voters, citizens, aren't as smart as their "leaders," and should just blindly trust them to know better than us." I am telling you this leader is smarter than most of us, and that thus far, he's made very good decisions, which should engender trust that he will generally make more good decisions. I am telling you that I think this man is smart enough to warrant some trust.

It's nice that Obama is smart. So are a lot of people. It's great that he has a good education. It's nice that he got the scholarships. Many of us, myself included, chose colleges based on what was close and cheap, that we could get to after work, and cheap enough that the student loans would hopefully not bankrupt us when we were done. That doesn't mean that we aren't "smart," or that our education is of less value than anyone else's. We earned our degrees, too.

I chose my undergraduate school and my first grad school for the same reason. I can tell you from experience that there are some universities that are significantly better than others. Just because you got a BA at West Bumfuck State doesn't mean that your degree is equivalent to one from Columbia. "Nice that he got the scholarships"? You almost make it sound like an accident. Obama earned those scholarships. He didn't get into Ivy League schools because of who his daddy was. He got into them on pure merit, which means he probably is a good deal smarter than most on this board. Like it or not, some people really are smarter than others. Obama is George Carlin's "smartest motherfucker in the room."

The naivete of people who would trust someone, and believe they must be "smarter," because they were able to attend an ivy-league university, while most of the nation, academic record not withstanding, cannot, is beyond belief.

Nope. What's beyond belief is that you choose not to acknowledge excellence when you see it. Columbia, Harvard Law School, editor of the Harvard Law Review - these are not things that come to people unless they are brilliant and extremely hard-working. Yes, you can be a legacy moron and go to an Ivy League school if you have the right name. "Obama" was not one of those names. Therefore, it's a good bet that he's smarter than most of us. I'm pretty damn smart myself. I pulled a high GRE score, and have gotten through some very high-level genetics courses in my PhD program. I'm also smart enough to know brilliance when I see it. And Obama is brilliant. Therefore, unless he shows a propensity for fucking up, I'm going to have a little trust.

"We the people" aren't sheep, to flock together and follow the leader blindly, whether in the meadow or the church.

I knew someone on here would be stupid enough to have this kind of knee-jerk reaction. Sorry it was you. If someone demonstrates a capacity for leadership and making good decisions, then sometimes it's not a bad thing to wait for some actual results before second-guessing his/her judgement. You probably assume that you could conduct research on the same level as Marty Chalfie or Roger Tsien.

[LWolf]

16. I've always acknowledged

that Obama is excellent at organizing and motivating people.

I don't acknowledge that he is "smarter than most." Or "smarter than me," for that matter.

While his speaking skills, organizational skills, and ability to "inspire" are excellent,

his positions on issues have always fallen far short of "excellence." His purported intelligence and education haven't helped him there, unless you think he chooses his positions for their political value for him, rather than for their real value to the nation and to the world.

While I acknowledge that some think that aligning himself with some efficient power brokers, regardless of the ethics, motivations, and positions of said power brokers is an "excellent" choice, I obviously disagree.

And there is absolutely nothing you can say or do to overcome that disagreement.

Obama could convince me, if he chose to do so. I've given him awhile. While I'm not open to any of his fan's cheers or pom poms, I'm still open to supporting his presidency. For now. He is the one that will close that door, or not.

Is he "smart" enough, or "well educated" enough to do so? Or does all that intelligence and education lead him to cut his losses with the left wing of America?

If you think THAT is the smart thing to do, then you ARE the enemy. My enemy, anyway.