President-Elect Obama's First Press Conference: The Rhetoric and Symbolism of "Working Families"

I had the opportunity to watch online President-Elect Barack Obama's first press conference. 

I noted the Nancy Reagan and "mutt" comments, but these were not my primary interest.

Instead, what I found interesting was his repeated invocation of the term "working families".  His economic agenda, we are told, is directed toward assisting this particular group.

What is the significance of this term?  It has enormous rhetorical value.  After all, why would anyone oppose supporting the interests of a working family?  In this nation, we exalt the inherent worth of working; and the intrinsic value of family.  Who could oppose these things, especially if they are juxtaposed against each other?

But we need to look a little deeper.  Significant portions of Obama's pre-election constituency likely consisted of those who do not work, but instead extract various types of welfare benefits; and also households that do not represent traditional family units.  He would do little to assure that more people work instead of relying upon governmental assistance.  And he would propose few if any legal changes to reverse the breakdown of the family.

The term "working families", however, still has enormous rhetorical value for him.  But from where does it come?  What does it mean, and where did it originate?

To answer these questions, we need to recall Obama's previous membership in the New Party, a democratic socialist political party that has endorsed him in the past.  I invite you to visit the website of the New Party, which contains a prominent link on the lower left side to "Working Families".  When you click that link, you are directed to the website of the New York Working Families Party.  It turns out this is the incarnation of the former New Party in New York State.

We learn further from Wikipedia:

The New Party was a third political party in the United States that tried to re-introduce the practice of electoral fusion as a political strategy for labor unions and community organizing groups...

The party could best be described as social democratic in orientation, although party statements almost invariably used the terms "small-d democratic" or "progressive" instead. Its founders chose the name "New Party" in an effort to strike a fresh tone, free of associations with dogmas and ideological debates...

So it turns out that the rhetorical device used by Obama, "working families", has also been used by the socialist New Party of which he was once part.   And that party was rooted in the community organizing movement, of which he was also once part.

So when President-elect Obama speaks of "working families", he is not really speaking of solidly middle class or upper middle class families headed by those who work.  Instead, he is using a more politically acceptable variation on the Marxist usage of the term, "Proletariat".  He is referring to the working class, and perhaps the lower middle class:

In Marxist theory, the proletariat is that class of society which does not have ownership of the means of production and whose only worth is their labor in exchange for a wage(s) ...

Socialist political parties have often struggled over the question of whether they should seek to organize and represent the entire proletariat, or just the wage-earning working class.

So in any case, it is clear to me that President-Elect Obama's usage of the seemingly salutary term "working families" is rooted in his socialist background.  This is a bit reminiscent of his usage of the term "change", which appears positive on the surface, but is actually rooted in the Alinsky/community organizing/socialistic tradition.

One can make the argument that it is important to strengthen the working class and the lower middle class.  In fact, I have made that argument in the past.  The question is what one is willing to do to achieve that end.  So much of the economic difficulties faced by households in the recent past has been rooted in failures of marriage formation, and marriage breakdown.  But again, Obama is not really proposing to fix that.

Instead, we see at his press conference yesterday that his economic agenda, and his plan for dealing with the financial crisis, will pay special heed to how working families can be helped.  The premise is that aggressive action by the federal government to repair the economy, with extra help given to these folks, is much better than more sensible measures, and otherwise allowing the economic cycle to run its course.

Harvey Golub, the former CEO of American Express, had a scathing piece in the Wall Street Journal this week (HT: Red Clay).  He emphasizes that so many of the economic remedies being discussed will potentially make things worse; and that there is little discussion of some of the things that truly need to be done.  While Obama at his economic summit was consulting Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan-- who has led a state with an economy in meltdown-- Golub offers the following:

I am pessimistic about whether our next president and the savants in Congress can deal with the massive economic issues we face.

Members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation or yesterday's results, will continue to meddle in matters beyond their knowledge. In doing so they will exacerbate our current economic downturn and delay the recovery of our financial markets.

In recent months, Congress has displayed a fundamental lack of understanding of how our economy and our financial markets actually work.

But when we righteously line up behind "working families", it is the political gesture-- and the ideology-- that matters.

Comments

[Stormy]

Obama says and believes that the solution to our economic problems will come from the bottom up, or a sort of trickle up policy. Of course, we all learned in 7th grade physics class that nothing trickles up. Jobs are created by businesses in a capitalistic society, and like it or not, at this time, we are a capitalistic society.

[Joe Guarino]

Ah, but there's the rub, Stormy.

You see, Obama has said that he wants to "fundamentally transform" this nation. It can be difficult for a President to enact wide, sweeping changes, but he will have very strong majorities on his side in Congress.

[Roch101]

"He would do little to assure that more people work instead of relying upon governmental assistance."

Why don't we give the guy a day or two in office before jumping to conclusions?

[Roch101]

"One can make the argument that it is important to strengthen the working class and the lower middle class. In fact, I have made that argument in the past."

Marxist!

[Sherry]

The term "working families" has been bandied about over the last 10 years by the democrats and it always sends a shiver up my spine - aren't we all "working families"! What do they think we do out here in flyover land??? Now you have explained it so that it really sends a shiver up my spine.

[Ed Cone]

Found via Google in less than one minute:

White House website, 10/4/04: "President George W. Bush signs H.R. 1308, the Working Families Tax Relief Act."

The Campaign for Working Families is a PAC founded by Gary Bauer, "dedicated to electing pro-family, pro-life and pro-free enterprise candidates to public offices."

Ronald Reagan, nomination acceptance speech 1984, refers twice to "working families."

Etc etc. Marxists and socialists everywhere!

[Roch101]

Damn, we are riddled with Marxists!

[Stormy]

Roch called in the heavy artillery for close support.

[Joe]

Here's Obama's official response.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/28/KurtzSmears

Of course, I'm sure it's a lie! The current Republican President pretty much nationalized the banks and you're here peddlin' this stuff.

[Stormy]

Great point, Joe.

[Bubba]

"Roch called in the heavy artillery for close support."

No, he just called in another lightweight pea shooter.

You will notice, of course, that they avoid any comment on the substantial merit of Joe's analysis. Based on their past contributions, it's doubtful that either of them understands the process by which that sort of thing comes into being.

I've said before that we probably owe Obama the benefit of the doubt. That same courtesy does not apply to the Usual Suspects, particularly the two locals who have chosen to comment on this thread. The history of both these people in these matters is well known.

The courtesy extended to Obama has a very short half-life. Based on his words and actions of the last few days, the courtesy period is ready to expire.

[cm]

I followed your link to the Working Families web site. I read their Issues page. Good stuff all around, I thought. I couldn't find anything objectionable on that page, but something tells me there's a secret, communist, socialist, Marxist agenda hidden there that I'm missing, that you no doubt see very clearly. Thankfully, you're on top of it, so I can go on living peacefully in my ignorant bliss. :)

[Joe Guarino]

Ed, the point of my post is Obama's meaning when he uses the term "working families". When other people use the term, it may mean something different.

Joe, I do not accept at face value the representations on the "fight the smears" website. It has been demonstrated very well elsewhere that Obama almost certainly had to have been a member of that party. I am fairly familiar with third party endorsements and places on the ballot; and one does not receive such an endorsement or place on the ballot without, well, wanting it.

Bubba, Obama is taking a very high profile quite early in his transition period. He is advocating economic legislation to be enacted; and conducting high-profile conversations, and making arrangements for more of these, with foreign nations. It is perfectly legitimate for the blogging community to analyze what he is doing, and what his worldview is.

Michele, I am glad you have found a political party you find pleasing.

[Stormy]

Had anyone noticed that Obama had created a new office for himself? I admit that I hadn't. This is too funny, and goes to show that Mr. O is too full of it. The man does like the trappings of power.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/11/office_of_president_elect_of_t_1.html

[Joe Guarino]

Yes, Stormy, someone who had watched this on a larger-screen TV pointed this out to me. I did not catch it when I was watching on my PC monitor.

That was pretty presumptuous. He states there is only one president at a time, but behaves otherwise.

[cm]

Joe, I have not found a political party that I find pleasing, nor am I looking for one. I am an unaffiliated voter and will remain so. Unless something changes dramatically, I will not register with a party again. And the Working Families "Issues" page did not address many of the issues that I am concerned about. I support many of the things that they do -- including affordable housing, equal rights and healthcare for all. I'm also for the death penalty and against abortion, issues they don't mention on that page. My political positions don't fit into any party.

My pastor recently preached about "God and politics." He talked about how the Republican party has typically been associated with morality issues (righteousness), and the Democrat party is typically associated with justice issues. But we serve a God of righteousness AND justice. They cannot be separated, and they are of equal importance. So Christians cannot be Republican only, or Democrat only.

That's why I'm an unaffiliated voter. I make voting decisions based on the individual, not the party, and I'll continue to do so. Partisan politics is a bitter and wasteful game.

[Everest]

I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt as well...I mean, certainly that's always the position of those on Democrat side when a Republican takes office...

What's interesting here is the graciousness of President Bush to the Obamas...invitation to the White House, public direction to his staff that they are to remain highly professional, his extension of security clearance to BOTH camps early so they could hit the ground running, regardless of who was elected. That's in pretty stark contrast to the Clinton exit...as you might expect.

But I, for one, agree with Bubba - I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and pray that he is indeed a good President. We face challenges today that we have rarely faced - further, I agree with Harvey Golub's column yesterday, adding to the concerns. All you have to do is watch Senate/House conferences to know that few members even understand what is going on, much less how to fix it. Thus, you see Congress do all it knows to do - throw money at it...and hope it works.

While I'm not hung up on where the term "working families" comes from, I do think it's interesting that he campaigned on tax cuts for "working families"...that's funny, my wife and I both work, have a family and yet our taxes will go up - not just on income, but capital gains, dividends, etc...across the board. So the rub is that the cuts aren't for working families...just those families that HE deems worthy. There's that strong pragmatic leadership again....

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

CM, with all due respect (raised in a Republican household/now also unaffiliated), I have seen NO EVIDENCE that, at least in North Carolina, the Democratic Pary is the party most associated with "justice".

The mantra of the Obama campaign was "change". People supposedly wanted something different. Yet we in NC sent the SAME crowd back to Raleigh (if you believe the pundits, on the coat-tails of Obama). We also tossed out a (Republican) state auditor who has done much to expose and fight the corruption there.

In the wake of the election, I'm a just a little bit bitter about that - but I am also resolved not to back down or be silent - and to work it to my advantage. These people must now deliver.

The sad, sorry truth is that most of the voting public does not look beyond the very top of the ticket. It also seems to me that, with Obama, many, many, many people are projecting what they want to see rather than what is really there. Only time will tell. I expect about half the country will be disappointed - and it won't be the half that won.

To me, the KEY issue between the parties is the personal responsibility that comes with "rights" and their pursuit of happiness. It's simply not the government's job to support a citizen's every whim and mistake. We must have a moral compass - we must have limits. And there must be consequences.

That's what real "freedom" is.

[Stormy]

Dr. Mary,

When Dems talk about "justice", they primarily mean social justice.

Social justice means the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society, or in a broader sense that includes economic justice, racial justice, cultural justice, etc. Refer to the Amnesty International statement on justice. Justice here does not mean just in the legal sense of the word; it really is more defined in political terms.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGIOR510022008&lang=e&rss=recentnews

[Joe Guarino]

Michele, I appreciate your explanation. I, too, do not believe any party is perfect. While I am a Republican, I am probably most ideologically consistent with the Constitution Party. And I have my doubts about how well, and how wisely, the Democratic Party, left to its own devices, would serve the cause of justice. But I think political discussion, and our partisan political system, is valuable when the discussion is guided by principle. People are not always going to agree.

Everest, I thought the same thing about the Bush Administration's attitude toward the transition. What a refreshing change from eight years ago. And you are right-- Obama is picking and choosing which "working families" are worthy of his beneficent touch; and that is one of the ways wealth gets spread around, and redistribution takes place. It is the place where "pragmatism" serves ideology.

[Anthony]

"Significant portions of Obama's pre-election constituency likely consisted of those who do not work"

Any evidence or support for this?

"Had anyone noticed that Obama had created a new office for himself?"

Actually, the office of the President-Elect was created by the Presidential Transition Act of 1963:

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?noc=T&contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=24780

Obama only would have been about two at the time, but I suppose he could have managed to pass that act before going off to bomb buildings with Ayers at age eight.

[Joe Guarino]

Anthony, the passage of that 1963 act does not require Obama to stand in front of a podium with a presidential-appearing seal and make policy pronouncements a couple of days after being elected.

[Anthony]

But that's not what you guys said Joe - the claim was that he "created a new office for himself", which is demonstrably false.

Any evidence to support the other assertion I mentioned?

[Anthony]

And just for comparison, here's a press conference by President-elect Bush (the first one) about a week after the election:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE3DA1F38F936A25752C1A96E948260

There's policy talk in there, so it's really not too different qualitatively. Can't tell if there was a podium or a seal in attendance, so feel free to work yourselves into a lather over that critically important detail.

[Brenda Bowers]

Anthony, I believe standing in front of a podium with a sign like the one Obama used was in very bad taste. The ruling by Congress in 1963 did not in fact create an official "Office of the President Elect of the United States" regardless of how you want to interpret the act. It merely required that office space be provided for the president elect and his staff in the capitol and at public expense to help facilitate and require the briefing of the president elect on national and international matters and assist a smooth transition. It was done because this courtesy had been left to the president in office at the time to decide what information he would allow the in coming president to have. Since allowing the president elect to take office on inauguration Day stone cold was not in the best interest of the country and since some presidents were jerks (Clinton was one, Eisenhower another.) anotgher)

This action was in bad taste and just as "low class" as his 30 minute infomercial that he staged where he said nothing of substance, but he did it merely to point out that he had the money to do it. I have never seen it done before and hope never to see it again. It points out very well my contention concerning Barrack Obama all along: he is a man lacking in character. President Bush on the other hand is showing his breeding by his graciousness. BB

[Joe Guarino]

Anthony, I agree with Brenda's statements about what that act apparently did and did not do.

The elder President Bush was acting Vice President in the Reagan administration when he gave that press conference to which you link, so the situation is not a good comparison with what Obama did. He already had the trappings of national office, and had the standing to speak on behalf of the previous administration and the new one. And Obama's seal was a very interesting touch.

I really don't feel the need to search out "evidence" that significant numbers of those not working supported Obama. That should be self-evident. He received a majority of the national vote; he likely received the support of more than 90% of African Americans, among which there is likely higher rates of unemployment; and he is a bigger supporter of the welfare state than John McCain was. Do you think, Anthony, that those not working refrained from supporting Obama, and if so, do you have any evidence they did?

But we are getting way afield from the central idea of this post, which is Obama's political use of the term "working families", and what that means.

[Anthony]

Good to see where the priorities are here. Cheney declares himself to be a fourth branch of the government, beholden to neither the executive nor legislative branch - something with actual Constitutional implications - and there isn't a peep. Obama adds "The Office of" to his title - and you get all incensed. Ridiculous.

The partisan sniping and hackery of the Clinton years and the Bush years are going to pale in comparison to what you guys are apparently gearing up for here. Sad.

[Joe Guarino]

I wouldn't characterize the reaction over the press conference as being "incensed". Concerned? Yes.

My perception is that Cheney has had as much authority and power as Bush granted him. That tends to be how it works with vice-presidents. He had a lot of power because he was much more prepared on defense issues and foreign policy than Bush.

I expect we may see Biden taking a very active role for similar reasons. Obama is utterly unprepared for his foreign policy/defense role; so it is hoped more knowledgeable, experienced folks will pick up the slack for him.

[Roch101]

"Significant portions of Obama's pre-election constituency likely consisted of those who do not work" -- Joe

To being with, so what? But, to the heart of the matter, which is, unfortunately, to dispel more make believe: There are currently 10.1 million unemployed in the US.(1)

Let say they are registered at a rate that mirrors the nationwide repgistration percentage: 71% or 7.1 million

And let's assume that they turned out to vote at a rate equal to that of the total general population, estimated to be 62.2%, even though the lowest quintile of voters by income historically has the lowest turnout. (2). That puts their turnout at 4.4 million.

Obama got 53% of the national vote. Let's say unemployed people were twice as likely as the general population to vote for Obama over McCain: Say 77% of the unemployed voted for Obama. 77% of 4.4 million is 3.4 million.

Obama got 65.4 million votes. So, under generous assumptions favoring Joe's assertion, the unemployed accounted for 5% of Obama's support.

"Significant" portion? I guess it depends on how you define significant. Significant enough to justify the continued (and rejected) fear mongering. No.

(1) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.ht
(2) http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/breaking-down-voter-turnout-numbers-451/

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Spare us the faux outrage, Anthony. The sign was tacky . . . even the liberal pundits on the Sunday morning news shows were tsk-tsking the notion that Obama should be doing anything that might send the DANGEROUS message that executive power is in anyone but the CURRENT President's hands. Whatever conservative bloggers may be "gearing up for" pales in comparison to what the Bush-haters have doled out for years. But hold on tight anyway.

Stormy, justice is justice. I thought we were supposed to be getting "change". I believe the excuse you're excusing (and I know that you're not) is called "situational ethics".

Ask Roch. He knows all about it.

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, the data you are using draws from unemployment figures. But that, if I am not mistaken, only reflects those actively seeking work. There is another universe of folks who do not work, who may rely on assistance, who are not included in those figures-- those regarded as disabled, those that stopped seeking work, those on various forms of welfare, etc.

Further, I was not implying these folks represent a majority of Obama's support. I used the word "significant" because it does not imply any particular percentage.

And there was no fear mongering intended. I was merely pointing out that the emphasis on "working families" is in part a political ploy, and in part ideological. Obama is not claiming to turn his back on his non-working supporters-- far from it.

[Bubba]

"The partisan sniping and hackery of the Clinton years and the Bush years are going to pale in comparison to what you guys are apparently gearing up for here. Sad"

No.

What's sad is the continuing debasement and out of hand dismissal of any theme that doesn't fit into the mindset exhibited by you (or Roch, Cone, or the rest of the local cast of similar Sophists), and requires immediate gang up by the Usual Suspects to support some unsupportable nonsense.

You may be able to get away with that when enabled elsewhere, but not here, nor at Sam's, nor at my blog.

I'll repeat the comment I made at Sam's about you and your tag team partner, and direct it here to you:

"For five days we’ve had to deal with your incessant babble arguing against the obvious.

If jaycee, or any of the others who nail you to the wall with regularity made a statement that 'the sky is blue', you two would immediately respond with “No! the sky is GREEN!”, and demand proof of the assertion that the sky is blue.

There are none so blind as those who will not see, and you two are proof positive of that adage yet again."

The many gaffes and displays of arrogance by the holder of the "Office of President Elect" are long and indisputable. Yet you seem to think this guy is magically exempt from criticism.

What's next? Labeling all of us as "racists" because we dare point out the emperor has no clothes?

[Roch101]

"requires immediate gang up by the Usual Suspects to support some unsupportable nonsense."

Funny. Funny how the "unsupportable" views are the ones that cite sources, statistics and empirical data, while Bubba's rise to defend the views of those who "really don't feel the need to search out 'evidence'". Funny.

[Everest]

I think what you've heard here Anthony is that those of us who didn't vote for (or would ever consider voting for)Obama will give him some time to show what his true goals/objectives are...that doesn't mean we won't be critical, as there is much in his platform many of us disagree with...but we all have a bit of a vested interest in his success. It will be interesting to see what his FIRST priorities consist of...if even HE knows...

But what I do notice from the Obama supporters, even on this blog, is that NO ONE identifies what his specific proposals will be to help guide the economy back on track. Either his supporters don't know (a good guess) or they don't care...they just voted for a great speech and "change." Roch...? Anthony...? Been waiting to hear about those policies for months now, so how about enlightening us.

[Roch101]

"Roch...?"

I really don't feel the need to search out "evidence."

[Everest]

Why does that not come as a surprise...? Been trying to find out for months about those specific economic policies of Obama's that were going to help our economy...why can't any Obama supporter answer that question?

Well Anthony, since Roch AGAIN declines the invitation to enlighten the rest of us with these Obama specifics, can you? Can anyone?

[Joe Guarino]

Everest, those policies have been changed at various times in his campaign. But we need to remember that his victory speech included a call for an unspecified sacrifice on the part of his supporters. He did not speak a lot about sacrifice during the campaign. So we have to presume that could somehow be part of his economic plan.

He talked at his press conference, if I remember correctly, about stimulus packages, and extending unemployment benefits, and protecting homeowners against foreclosure.

I think it is fairly clear that he will do something different than what he may have promised at any one point during the long campaign season. It may involve that unspecified sacrifice.

Everest, the one thing about George W. Bush is that, for the most part, he delivered something very close to what he promised during the campaign. With the exception of what he felt he needed to do in response to 9/11,, there were no surprises. Whether you agreed with him or not-- NCLB, tax cuts, compassionate conservatism, judges, culture of life, etc.-- he did something fairly close to what he said he was going to do.

I don't know we will see anything like that with Obama, because his policy positions have been all over the place.

[Bubba]

"....those who "really don't feel the need to search out 'evidence'"."

Like you, as evidenced at Sam's.

Keep digging your hole deeper. I've got a backhoe ready when the time is right.

[Roch101]

Obama is a pragmatist, not an ideologue.

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, do you think the current discussion a few days after the election regarding his intent to undo Bush's executive orders reflects his pragmatism, a move to the center, bipartisanship-- or does it reflect his status as an ideologue?

It seems there are some hot topics involved steeped in ideology-- drilling, embryonic stem cell research, abortion, etc.

[Fred Gregory]

Obama's favorite movie: Broderick Crawford as Willie Stark in " All The King's Men ".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWKDUy70Id4

[Everest]

"Obama is a pragmatist, not an ideologue."

Roch - oh, okay, THOSE economic policies...

There is nothing in his legislative record to indicate he is anything BUT an ideologue. While you're looking for those economic policies of his that are going to help the economy, how about find ONE piece of key legislation that (1) bears his name, and/or (2) involved him bucking his party's leadership, or even (3) was a departure from the party line...unless finding that "evidence" strains you too much....

[Anthony]

I find it amusing that no one seems to have realized that Roch's "I really don't feel the need to search out 'evidence'" was a direct quote from Joe. For some reason, it was received differently by the masses when Joe said it...

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Anthony, speaking as someone who has jumped through all the hoops for Roch (and Cone and others) to no avail, "searching out evidence" to make HIS point is not high on my list of things to do. I expect others (like Joe) feel the same way.

Even though we have been delivered to the "promised land".

One of Roch's favorite tactics is diversion and goose chases.

Of course, number one is put-downs and name-calling.

[Everest]

So....Anthony, are you also taking Roch's approach?

Why is it that none of Obama's supporters want to (or can?) outline and/or defend his economic proposals and argue why his proposals will be good for the economy...?

[bubba]

Let's establish this once and for all: There is NO OFFICIAL OFFICE OF "PRESIDENT ELECT", REGARDLESS OF WHAT THESE HERO WORSHIPERS WANT TO BELIEVE.

There is also no such official office as "Former President of the United States".

From a constitutional standpoint, Obama is not even the president elect yet, whether any of the Usual Suspect rocket scientists like it, or not.

[Anthony]

Everest,

You and I already discussed actual specifics of his plan in the other thread a couple of weeks ago - tax cuts vs. rebates, capital gains adjustments, etc. I outlined my understanding of his plan, and why I think it could be helpful (though again, not a magic bullet to fix everything). Are you looking to repeat that thread here?

[Brenda Bowers]

Does this strike any of you as the Same Tune Second Verse?

Go back in Joe's archives to January 2006 when the Wray Fray got started and you will find the chorus line is composed of almost the same people and saying almost the same things. And of course taking the same positions against each other with the same acrimony, name calling, irrelevant referrals to other blogs/articles/etc.

I expect jw and her moralizing and Sue with her warning that "you're going to get your ---- sued" to show up any time now.

Of course Ed will continue to sit on the picket fence (his buns must be well callused by now!) while David H., when he gets into it, will play Jumping Jack from one side to the other always wanting to be on the winning side and never being able to decide for himself which side that is.

Anthony and Roch will eventually just drop the subject altogether when the evidence shows beyond even their blind adulation that Obama is everything we are, have been, and will be saying on this site and others.

We can be sure of one thing: not one of them will admit that they made a mistake. Unfortunately in the case of Greensboro-David Wray-Mitch Johnson the damage was kept to a few people and on a local level. With Obama the damage is going to be devastating to our nation and will affect the entire world to some extend. BB

[Roch101]

Focus, Brenda, focus. You implied above that I carried water for Johnson. Proof?

[Stormy]

"Jarrett said Obama is currently working with the White House to make his transition to power as smooth as possible, and is focusing on economic and national security issues.

"It's important that president-elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one," she said."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081109/valerie_jarrett_081109/20081109?hub=CTVNewsAt11

Rule Day One? I guess we really do have an imperial president now. Somehow, I don't think that was a slip.