I am a legitimate undecided independent voter who has many concerns about
both candidates. My chief concern with Obama is who or what types of people
would he choose for his cabinet and appoint to the Supreme Court. He has
not shown sound judgment in picking his associates in the past and I am not
sure he will do so in the future. (Many of the current administrations
problems are the result of the president choosing the wrong people to help
him run the government.) Does anyone who follows Obama have any insight on
who his choices might be?

Jack G

Jack G wrote:
> I am a legitimate undecided independent voter who has many concerns about
> both candidates. My chief concern with Obama is who or what types of people
> would he choose for his cabinet and appoint to the Supreme Court. He has
> not shown sound judgment in picking his associates in the past and I am not
> sure he will do so in the future. (Many of the current administrations
> problems are the result of the president choosing the wrong people to help
> him run the government.) Does anyone who follows Obama have any insight on
> who his choices might be?
>
> Jack G

Chuck Hagel would be a good guess for Defense. Obama
has worked with him quite a bit in the Senate and they
share similar views on Iraq.

Lee Hamilton would be a good choice for Homeland Security.

Max Cleland for Veterans Affairs.

State: maybe Bill Richardson, possibly even Colin Powell.

Beyond that, I don't really have any specific guesses.
Probably 2 or 3 Republicans. From what he's said in the
past it sounds like he's not going to simply appoint yes
men to his cabinet:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-proposes.html

Jack G wrote:
> I am a legitimate undecided independent voter who has many concerns about
> both candidates. My chief concern with Obama is who or what types of people
> would he choose for his cabinet and appoint to the Supreme Court. He has
> not shown sound judgment in picking his associates in the past and I am not
> sure he will do so in the future. (Many of the current administrations
> problems are the result of the president choosing the wrong people to help
> him run the government.) Does anyone who follows Obama have any insight on
> who his choices might be?
>
> Jack G
>
>

Of all the things people have said about Obama, one area where he
greatly outshines McCain is in the judgment he's used in picking his
closest advisers.

Even those (Republicans) that complain that he's done little in his five
years in the Senate begrudge him the fact that he's picked top-notch
associates.

There's no reason to believe that, if elected, he wouldn't pick equally
bright advisers and cabinet members. It's not going to be losers like
Condie Rice or Henry Paulson.

For the Supreme Court, you can rest assured that there will be no more
like Thomas or O’Connor or Scalia, but instead justices that respect the
constitution like Warren, Marshall, and Breyer.

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 20:57:54 -0700, "Jack G"
<remove.jgrouell@comcast.net> wrote:

>I am a legitimate undecided independent voter who has many concerns about
>both candidates. My chief concern with Obama is who or what types of people
>would he choose for his cabinet and appoint to the Supreme Court. He has
>not shown sound judgment in picking his associates in the past and I am not
>sure he will do so in the future. (Many of the current administrations
>problems are the result of the president choosing the wrong people to help
>him run the government.) Does anyone who follows Obama have any insight on
>who his choices might be?
>
>Jack G
>

One thing you can be sure of...

Barry's choices will be LIBERAL.

What this country does not need is a LIBERAL in charge of anything.

This financial mess was brought to you by LIBERAL policies.

I share your concern with BOTH choices.

Barry has made terrible choices for friends, I would not expect
anything better after his election.

--

Scott in Florida

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:44:52 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>
>Of all the things people have said about Obama, one area where he
>greatly outshines McCain is in the judgment he's used in picking his
>closest advisers.

ROFLMAO

You can't be serious, can you?

--

Scott in Florida

Jack G, 10/8/2008,11:57:54 PM, wrote:

> I am a legitimate undecided independent voter who has many concerns
> about both candidates. My chief concern with Obama is who or what
> types of people would he choose for his cabinet and appoint to the
> Supreme Court. He has not shown sound judgment in picking his
> associates in the past and I am not sure he will do so in the future.
> (Many of the current administrations problems are the result of the
> president choosing the wrong people to help him run the government.)
> Does anyone who follows Obama have any insight on who his choices
> might be?
>
> Jack G

The choice of Cabinet members would not concern me so much as the
handlers he has telling him what to do now. They will still be telling
him what to do if he became president. You don't think they will just
give up the newfound additional power they have created, do you? I am
no fan of Barack Obama but I am more concerned about those who are
pulling his strings now.

--
"My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating." ~
Ashleigh Brilliant

"Scott in Florida" <MoveOn@outa.here> wrote in message
news:5kcre4h82kgngj23ji0lci8mi44uobfc87@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:44:52 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Of all the things people have said about Obama, one area where he
>>greatly outshines McCain is in the judgment he's used in picking his
>>closest advisers.
>
> ROFLMAO
>
> You can't be serious, can you?
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida

That's what you get when you smoke your own shit. . . . Serious brain
damage.

Charles

Scott in Florida wrote:

> One thing you can be sure of...
>
> Barry's choices will be LIBERAL.
>
> What this country does not need is a LIBERAL in charge of anything.

They'd be a lot better than the current bunch of incompetent neo-cons.

> This financial mess was brought to you by LIBERAL policies.

They didn't cut taxes and raise spending wrecklessly over the past
eight years and double the national debt and relax government
regulation. You stupid right wingers and your cokehead GW Bush did
that. Of course you'll like about that, as you always do.

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 06:23:06 -0700 (PDT), "larry moe 'n curly"
<larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote:

>
>
>Scott in Florida wrote:
>
>> One thing you can be sure of...
>>
>> Barry's choices will be LIBERAL.
>>
>> What this country does not need is a LIBERAL in charge of anything.
>
>They'd be a lot better than the current bunch of incompetent neo-cons.
>
>> This financial mess was brought to you by LIBERAL policies.
>
>They didn't cut taxes and raise spending wrecklessly over the past
>eight years and double the national debt and relax government
>regulation. You stupid right wingers and your cokehead GW Bush did
>that. Of course you'll like about that, as you always do.

Cut Taxes is a GOOD thing.....ding bat...

YOU idiots are in charge of the purse strings now.


How are YOU doing?

PISS POOR!

--

Scott in Florida

The Dims like to pay taxes (or should I say, enjoy watching those of
us who are productive) pay taxes because they think the Feds do a
great job of using it wisely. They want the government to give us
everything, and therefore tell us how to think and act, thus their
ultimate goal is a taxation rate of 100% and nobody "owning"
anything. This is how they define "fairness".



On Oct 9, 9:34*am, Scott in Florida <Mov...@outa.here> wrote:
>
> Cut Taxes is a GOOD thing.....ding bat...
>
> YOU idiots are in charge of the purse strings now.
>
> How are YOU doing?
>
> PISS POOR!
>
> --
>
> *Scott in Florida- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -