So if McCain won , he too would have a Clinton heavy staff ?
Baba,
Let me ask you an honest question and it's not a trap or anything like that, it's an honest question looking for an honest answer.
But before I ask it, I'd like to paint some of the foreground first and look at Obama. All we heard going in about Obama from his side was all about change. I mean to hear him you had to be thinking literally all new kinds of faces coming to Washington. Now some of that change many felt would be overt socialism, etc. etc. but the expectation was change from the status quo. The only change Obama is bringing IMO is he's African American because his adminstration is again the same old tired retreads Washington recycles when elections bring about party change. There's really nothing new here at all. Obama's adminstration is made up of Democrat Leadership Council type characters so how is this change on Obama's part. Treasury is going to be run by a Federal Reserve Bank of NY guy and Wall Street loves him. Gee I wonder why!
Now that said, is it really hard then to believe looking at the people Obama is picking that McCain, we're talking John McCain here who almost became a democrat a few years back and has a history of working with democrats on issues, that McCain could not as easily worked with them as well? Would McCain in the case of Rahm Emmanual really be opposed to Rahm's idea of incorporating the Israeli Public Civil Service model into the United States or would McCain really object to Rahm's strong arm tactics? Do McCain and Hillary really share a wide difference in foreign policy having both at every turn supported our Mideast policy for example under Bush? Even when Obama voted, he himself voted to fund every request made in order to support that cause. Did McCain rush back to Washington to defend true free market principles or did he join the democrats in supporting the nationalization of Wall Street along now it seems with every other industry that comes to Washington with a hardluck story. Has McCain ever voted against expanding nationalized healthcare? You think we don't have nationalized healthcare? What do you call it then when by law every American at age 65 must go on a federal healthcare plan called Medicare and do you think with the huge retirement population in Arizona that he votes to un-nationalize healthcare in this country? So much for the myth of oppsoing universal healthcare because in America we don't have such socialism.
McCain was so weak on conservative principles his campaign choose to resort to gimmicks in order to attract the votes of the so-called conservative masses out there and it worked no doubt!
Did it not seem odd the other week when Obama and McCain sat down and discussed working together going forward. Idealogical opposites (remember McCain called Obama a socialist) typically don't have common ground to begin with in which to work from but those who share common ground can easily find compatible issues and work together going forward. In order to work with someone you have to have a common connection from which to begin.
Now the true question is, deep down inside, when you really look at this whole thing and you look at gov't over the years, are you deep inside really thinking that this might somehow really be true? If you are thinking the answer is or might be yes, the next question is what or where do you go going forward?
To me, "if" this turns out to be true afterall, the funny part is for so many years I've heard democrat/republican party loyalist tell me at election time I was throwing my vote away voting for 3rd party or independent candidates and from their POV there was some truth to that but this time the irony at the end of the day is that both democrat and republican voters may have in the end thrown their vote away because no matter who won, you'll still get the same thing in the end!
I could easily revel in that but it pisses me off to think it's possible that the American voter may have been conned like this!
JMO.
