Drink up, Kool-Aiders

[Guest Guest]

Not many from the Clinton administration, you're joking right?

I expect the new President to appoint the best people. Don't you think you should wait to see his appointments before complaining about them?

[Guest Republcan Guest]

Apparently you want a free pass to criticize people you don't agree with you, and we're not supposed to fight back. Get used to the criticism. Better still, try looking for some good in the people you don't agree with.

Well said, I couldn't agree with you more! Repubs and Dems here need to read your words and take the time to reflect on them for awhile.

[Bern]

Not many from the Clinton administration, you're joking right?

Of course there will be some from the Clinton adminstration. Clinton had some good people and you pick what's good. Why should he pick losers such as Brownie the Clownie from New Orleans fame?

And so what if the Obama admin (which it won't) becomes an exact copy of the Clinton admin. We had it good under the Clinton admin.

[Guest French]

Not many from the Clinton administration, you're joking right?

Yes, those Clinton years sucked. Wait. They didn't. I'll be able to literally breath easier under Barack. That's all I really give a shit about. The fact that I won't be breathing in coal fumes 24/7 is just one thing that will remind me of the Clinton Administration. Stupid Americans.

[WilliamK]

Not many from the Clinton administration, you're joking right?

It's all very preliminary, but of the names that have emerged so far, and of the subset of those that I either am familiar with or have checked, former Clinton appointees are a distinct minority.

You'll have to do your own research. Here's a list to get you started. Google a reasonable sampling of the individual names and you'll find that the majority are not former Clinton administration people: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/a...istration_jobs/

Or just keep posting in complete ignorance. Suit yourself.

[Guest Guest]

Of course there will be some from the Clinton adminstration. Clinton had some good people and you pick what's good. Why should he pick losers such as Brownie the Clownie from New Orleans fame?

And so what if the Obama admin (which it won't) becomes an exact copy of the Clinton admin. We had it good under the Clinton admin.

Right now about 37 out of 41 names floated are from the Clinton administration.

We had it good under the Clinton administration? Really? Tell us about it and be specific. I think even Paul admits little was accomplished during those 8 years. Of course he'll blame it on Reagan and Bush.

[Guest Guest]

Right now about 37 out of 41 names floated are from the Clinton administration.

We had it good under the Clinton administration? Really? Tell us about it and be specific. I think even Paul admits little was accomplished during those 8 years. Of course he'll blame it on Reagan and Bush.

Little was accomplished because the government was divided. Clinton tried major health care legislation, which was shot down. He also balanced the budget, for which he was "rewarded" with the loss of Congress to the Republcans. After that, no real change could get through.

Besides, an intelligent person looks for quality in a president's appointments. Most of Clinton's appointments were good. What's the problem, and where are you getting your "information" about 37 out of 41?

[Guest Loki]

Little was accomplished because the government was divided. Clinton tried major health care legislation, which was shot down. He also balanced the budget, for which he was "rewarded" with the loss of Congress to the Republcans. After that, no real change could get through.

Besides, an intelligent person looks for quality in a president's appointments. Most of Clinton's appointments were good. What's the problem, and where are you getting your "information" about 37 out of 41?

Clinton balanced the budget BECAUSE of the Republican Congress. When welfare became "workfare", Clinton was, again, assisted by the Republican Congress. Much of the success of the 90's is because there were people more interested in getting things done, than assigning blame. Not unlike these last eight years. Yes, these Democrats are certainly more hindrance than help.

But, don't take my word for it, what major initiatives have you seen from Pelosi and pals in the last two years?

[Guest Guest]

Right now about 37 out of 41 names floated are from the Clinton administration.

We had it good under the Clinton administration? Really? Tell us about it and be specific. I think even Paul admits little was accomplished during those 8 years. Of course he'll blame it on Reagan and Bush.

I remember that under Clinton we had a surplus, I also remember under both Bushes we had a recession. In the Reagan years our deficit tripled, honestly no joke why do you want another republican in? Can you tell me when a republican help our economy?

If you want me to list specifically of why I liked Clinton administrators:

I could afford to getting a house, the housing bubble start in Bush administration the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble

I didn’t have to worry about the deficit

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/10/m...-l_n_96011.html

You want more? If I made any grammar mistake I do apologize in advance, since the recession I can’t really afford to go to school

[Guest Guest]

I remember that under Clinton we had a surplus, I also remember under both Bushes we had a recession. In the Reagan years our deficit tripled, honestly no joke why do you want another republican in? Can you tell me when a republican help our economy?

If you want me to list specifically of why I liked Clinton administrators:

I could afford to getting a house, the housing bubble start in Bush administration the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble

I didn’t have to worry about the deficit

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/10/m...-l_n_96011.html

You want more? If I made any grammar mistake I do apologize in advance, since the recession I can’t really afford to go to school

I didn't say I wanted a republican in. I'm pleased that Obama won but seeing the people he's considering for his administration I'm starting to wonder.

[Guest Extinguisher]

Clinton balanced the budget BECAUSE of the Republican Congress. When welfare became "workfare", Clinton was, again, assisted by the Republican Congress. Much of the success of the 90's is because there were people more interested in getting things done, than assigning blame. Not unlike these last eight years. Yes, these Democrats are certainly more hindrance than help.

But, don't take my word for it, what major initiatives have you seen from Pelosi and pals in the last two years?

I don't agree with your 90's summary. The federal budget was balanced with the 1993 tax increase, pay-go spending and a sharp reduction in the military budget from the Cold War "peace dividend". It was a Democratic Congress in 1993 and 1994 and a Republican house during the remainder of Clinton's years. And welfare reform didn't reduce its outlay, only controlled the growth in cost of welfare expenditures.

You want to go back to the 1990's?? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government by rejecting the President's budget? Or the year and a half that was lost to the Starr investigation and the impeachment proceedings?? It was partisan government at its worst.

The Democratic agenda the past two years has focussed on ending the Iraqi war and health care reform, both of which the President opposed and the Republicans filibustered in the Senate. Notwithstanding disagreement on those key issues, this Congress increased vehicle CAFE standards (first time in 32 years), enacted a significantly expanded GI college bill, adopted renewable energy incentives, increased the minimum wage and adopted the $700 billion TARP bail-out.

Now that this election has resulted in an almost filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, it means that the list of accomplishments will grow significantly in the next session of Congress, including the big issues of Iraq and health care reform.