Comments on: Obama’s Bus Flattens Another

By: Icy Texan

Icy Texan — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:42:16 +0000

One wonders what Obama would have done if his nominee was from a state with more electoral votes.

By: Vermont Neighbor

Vermont Neighbor — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:56:21 +0000

Of course, one problem is that Governor Richardson was one of the best of Mr Obama’s selections.

So true. The DNC is only on a temporary money-funded high. Cracks in the boat.

By: Rip van John Hitchcock

Rip van John Hitchcock — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:20:01 +0000

If Obama keeps selecting headgear for donkeys, perhaps the masses will realize their mistake and partially correct it in 2010. I can dream, can’t I?

By: The South Park Dana

The South Park Dana — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:08:28 +0000

Then again, considering his recent experience in trading things, perhaps Rod Blagojevich would make a good Secretary of Commerce.

By: The depressed Dana

The depressed Dana — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:07:23 +0000

Of course, one problem is that Governor Richardson was one of the best of Mr Obama’s selections.

By: Rob Crawford

Rob Crawford — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:26:55 +0000

What happened here was the opposite of vetting, as any number of people on Obama’s staff could have uncovered the fact that Richardson was under indictment for, basically, handing a juicy contract to someone who gave him a lot of money.

Ya see, the problem is, for most of Obama’s people, that’s business as usual.

By: Dmac

Dmac — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:38:23 +0000

Pointing out intentional distortions is not being too picky.

Very well; then you’re an anal – obsessive git.

Second, humor is predicated on precision.

Judging by your Teutonic insistence on a strict definition for a common political expression that’s used to describe a variety of actions, you don’t seen to have any relevant knowledge on that subject, either.

By: Scott Jacobs

Scott Jacobs — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:34:32 +0000

Who says? You can’t continue to vet someone you’ve offered a job to if you have a few more weeks before they actually take it? That sounds like something a smart person would do, to me.

Do you not understand the idea behind vetting?

You vet someone to make sure there are no embarrassing little surprises waiting around that will make you look like an idiot of the “You offered it to THAT guy, who is under indictment/a convicted pedophile/known to wear dead squirrels on his head for dinner” variety.

Vetting exists so that when you name someone, you can be relatively sure that no one can dig up any major dirty to use as leverage against him, or deny the nomination.

What happened here was the opposite of vetting, as any number of people on Obama’s staff could have uncovered the fact that Richardson was under indictment for, basically, handing a juicy contract to someone who gave him a lot of money.

By: Sarlberid

Sarlberid — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:22:53 +0000

The thing is, the vetting is supposed to be done BEFORE you offer the job…

Who says? You can’t continue to vet someone you’ve offered a job to if you have a few more weeks before they actually take it? That sounds like something a smart person would do, to me.

By: Sarlberid

Sarlberid — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:17:55 +0000

You’re not supposed to have a grand jury doing the vetting of your political appointments, Sarlberid.

Yeah, that’s not what’s happening.