Well there's a suprise...

Liberal hot shots can afford to send their kids to private schools, but they don't believe other people should have the choice.

According to Liberals, public schools are great, why isn't Obama sending his brats to public school? I am sure the teachers' union will give him a pass on this one.

I wonder how many Cabinet Secretaries and members of Congress send their kids to D.C.'s public schools. How many past Presidents did?

Obama has "brats"? I thought his children were exceptionally well-behaved. Perhaps his wife is also a "bitch".

There would be more physical security at a private school. Given the number of loons already gunning for the Communist Muslim Obama, the man is entitled to all the security he can get for him self or his family.

"What's Obama track record for change thus far...."

Ever since his Inauguration November 1st I've been wondering about that, too.

I'm not sure you get it. First and foremost, Obama is not neoconservative George W. Bush. The change is vast by definition.

Then I think he's done very well. As someone smarter than myself put it, he's trying to reassure the American people with his selections, make a break from the hysterical (literally) style of the Bush Administration.

Prudent move. Public schools in DC are glorified felon factories and gladiator camps.

"Liberal hot shots can afford to send their kids to private schools..."

Don't be an asshole.

I'm a plumber in rural southwest Virginia (hardly a liberal "hotshot") and I send my daughter to a private school. What's the big deal? I manage to afford it, and I still pay taxes for other kids to go to public school and I don't piss and moan about it.

Besides, public schools are not equipped to handle all the bullshit required to deal with a presidents' child's attendance.

""man is entitled to all the security he can get for him self or his family.""

Now if only the rest of Obamas followers would say this when more useless gun control legistlation inevitably comes up, I might actually get along with them for once :)

"He has to be something new, fresh...."

We see this differently. He is new and fresh. Whether he is transformational we'll see in time.

George W. Bush was transformational. Being hard-working, mature, and intelligent may be enough for most of us.

ATTENTION FUNDIES (rhymes with undies):

African-Americans are allowed to attend private schools.

Be Well.

"Useless gun control legislation...."

I support the 2nd Amendment. Having said that I'd like some admission from the gun club that modern weapons facilitate school massacres more than muzzle-loaders.

Dave the Plumber?

"Dave the Plumber?"

Yep.

That's me.

And it's no wonder I can afford to send my kid to private school, 'cos plumbers make 250K, don't'cha' know.

He is also not the aged senator from AZ,
(Who, by the way, proved his near senile incompetance by selecting as his running mate a charming but obviously unprepared Gov Palin to take over the nation when the esteemed senator of AZ is no longer able to perform his duties.)

It doesnt matter who it was who defeated your candidate, its not about Obama, its about your own discomfort about not being in the main stream of American judgement.

If it really was about Obama's performance, you would at least wait till he is sworn in to challenge his commitment to change.

If you really think that a president elect who has not solved all the problems of the nation before he is swarn in is a problem, you are cartoon stupid folks.

We give you more credit than that.
We hear you and reflect, no, they cant be that dumb, but they can be that partisan.

Go ahead and keep ankle biting. Yap, yap, yap. We all know how to interpret your harumphing and pretend outrage. Be a cadre of little rushbots. Fine.

But when time comes to vent a legitamate contrarian observation dont be suprised if we are all too tired of your inane whining to give you a fair reading.

We all have only so much credibility in our arsenal; you guys are gonna be out of ammo before Obama is inaugrated.

SKIP, are you DETHSPUD's ghost writer?

The "ankle-biting" Obama hasn't changed enough things already and will inevitably disappoint those who supported him is taken from Rush Limbaugh this very week.

You ask why liberals listen to that man. The answer is to see what you guys will be thinking next.

I certainly see the idea of blasting politicians for not allowing everyone to have the same choice as they do but i really think this is a whole different deal.

and another thing. I think its a little crazy to announce where they are going
I know that there will be plenty of security but announcing it all over the telly and radio???

or am is that not a problem...with the first black guy, I wonder if they shouldnt have announced it.

Are you projecting much this morning BLT?

"I think its a little crazy to announce where they are going"

Yeah...that's a secret they could keep.

Bushblowertwo, yer stupidity is appalling.

I don't get it. Democrats are against vouchers, they are more interested in fairness than economics, so how does it make sense that he sends his kids to private school? If he was for vouches, everyone would send their kids to the school of their choosing, but he clearly didn't like the voucher concept in the debates. I'm not against him sending his kids to private school, I sure would if I lived in DC, but I would like to hear his plans to fix the school system so he doesn't have to send his kids to private school, or finds a way so that more people can do the same as he does.

"If he was for vouchers, everyone could sent their children to schools of their choosing....."

The guys that had vouchers for $10,000 would send their kids to schools that charged $10,000.

The guys that had vouchers for $10,000 AND $50,000 dollars extra would send their kids to schools that cost $60,000.

Yes, that's choice alright.

Well, he "organized" the "community," benefited from its allegiance, and then demonstrated his view of "the community," by refusing to allow his children to associate with children "of the community."

Now, I don't blame him. The children whom the D.C. school system is trying to educate, just might lack the intellectual capacity to benefit from tutelage. I wonder if educational guru Bill Ayers counseled his buddy and protege Obama on this decision to abandon "the people." Isn't this a common complaint of activities in the black community, that once blacks "make it," they remove themselves from "the 'hood?"

As I indicated, I don't blame the Obamas. There is no way a system striving to educate children to a level that they don't have the intelligence to attain, is not destined to "failure." But it seems that there is no reality check, and such misguided programs as "No Child Left Behind," are maintained and continue to misuse resources on the mistaken premise that these children can be educated and attain a level of competence that is beyond them, and that unless this goal is achieved, "the system" is at fault. Nuttiness.

The one salient fact you have yet to admit Oohrah, is that Obama is not president yet.

Most of the crap you have railed on thus far has been speculation and hearsay, and the one actual thing you've had is personnel, which you can't really talk about honestly, apparently.

He's choosing competent people who follow orders and carry little to no baggage. There are only so many of those around, and he's had to make an exception here or there, such as Hillary, but the fact is, he's putting the strongest people in play where their strengths are needed most, and here's the big one that is actually the primary Obama definition of change: He's putting ideology and litmus tests and even personal feelings aside to work with those strong, qualified people, because unlike McLame, HE ACTUALLY IS PUTTING COUNTRY FIRST.
You piss because some of these people had ties to Clinton? Of course they did, Clinton was president and leader of the Democratic party for 8 years and his wife is a powerful senator from a key state. My 8 year old gets this. Why can't you? Incidentally, the Reagan connection is just as strong from what I'm seeing. Should I complain about this? Where are all the rookies and unknown quantities in his plan? Where they belong - lower down the ladder.

You voted for who?

I voted for Obama, and I did it hoping he would do exactly what he has been doing. For the first time in my life, I feel like I actually got to vote for a decent and qualified president. He promised change, he is delivering it. Or was his announcement on job creation today too much like FDR to count as "change"?

As for where his kids go to school, who gives a fart? Being against vouchers is not a stance mutually exclusive to sending your kids to a private school, especially when the presence of your kids would completely disrupt any attempts at teaching or normalcy for a public school.

How many people here railing against Obama not publicly schooling his kids also feel a former pornstar becoming a teacher's aide is wrong?

"The children whom the D.C. school system is trying to educate, just might lack the intellectual capacity to benefit from tutelage."

"There is no way a system striving to educate children to a level that they don't have the intelligence to attain, is not destined to "failure."

Posted by Johnson

Just damn.

Did you tell us somewhere who you actually voted for, Oohrah?

I hope you managed to bring yourself to vote for Obama.

I think your remarks today would benefit from us knowing.

As I indicated, I don't blame the Obamas.

So, Johnson, you are saying that in spite of being Maoist, Marxist Stalinist psychopaths they made a good decision?

Oorah,
Yap yap yap.

I think its a little crazy to announce where they are going"

Yeah...that's a secret they could keep.

Bushblowertwo, yer stupidity is appalling.

#25 | Posted by Dave at 2008

yeah thats right numbnutts

attack me for wanting to be cautious about the safety of the presidents young children..

what the fuck is your problem with that????

I know they cant keep it a secret but they also have announced it all over the media....

and whats wrong with home schooling ..I mean we are talking about the president and home schooling in the white house.....

"attack me for wanting to be cautious about the safety of the presidents young children.."

My bad.

I misunderestimated yer lack of concern fer the Obama children.

Yer stupidity, however, is still appalling.

For Obama supporters here... when you bought into his 'change' mantra... are you pleased to this point? If so, why? If not, why... and what should he do moving forward to align himself with your expectations?

#5 | Posted by OohRah

Could we just get one thing straight here? The change promised by Obama is NOT particularly about who he selects for various positions. Change will be embodied by what he DOES as President and what those people DO under his direction.

So there is no reasonable way to comment on your question until (1) Obama and his administration take office, and (2) They've had some time to actually get something done.

"attack me for wanting to be cautious about the safety of the presidents young children.."

My bad.

I misunderestimated yer lack of concern fer the Obama children.

Yer stupidity, however, is still appalling.

#37 | Posted by Dave at

okay I accept your apology and you may now kiss my fat white ass...........LOL

I would say just blow me a kiss but I might be on the wrong side of the fight between gays and blacks

why isn't Obama sending his brats to public school?

Are you really that retarded?

You are? Okay, here's a clue fer yas.

Maybe it's cos America is chock fulla racist wingnuts who wish him harm and would stoop to any level to do so including hurting his family?

ie. It's a security thang, ya gotsta understand.

Here's another clue.

Private schools are the preserves of the elites.
Obama is an elite.
The entire power structure of DC is made up of elites.

But here's the good news, Obama is the good type of elite.

Unlike Dumbya who rode his daddy's coat-tails into the Ivy League and into his FAILed business ventures and eventually into the WH itself and unlike John McCain who hid behind his military royalty family name at his acadamy in order to prevent being tossed out on his ass on numerous occasions and who gold dug his way into a fortune that enabled him to run for office Barack Hussein Obama earned his position every step of the way.

He has the brain and the temperment and the mentality to lead the US through the very trying times ahead.

So cut him a little slack would yas.

Be Well.

Actually Hillary Clinton enjoys a pretty good reputation in the Senate for working across party lines. And Tim Geithner has worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Bill Richardson and Janet Napolitano also both have reasonable appeal across party lines. And I still think you're going to see a Chuck Hagel or similar with a cabinet spot. Add to that that there is a good possibility Gates will be staying on, at least for a while in DoD, I think Obama is doing just fine.

Heck, even Mitch McConnel said yesterday that Obama was off to a good start.

According to Liberals, public schools are great, why isn't Obama sending his brats to public school? I am sure the teachers' union will give him a pass on this one.

The Obamas' two little girls' safety comes before all else. Does anyone really expect him to put his two girls into Washington DC public schools with gangmembers, etc.?

Besides, Washington DC is totally new to the Obama kids and they've had enough changes in their lives and being in the public eye since this never ending presidential campaign started.

Sidwell is run by Quakers and has educated many children of politcians and the well-known in DC and the school knows how to handle the press and to offer the protection and privacy needed.

The Obama girls have made friends with Joe Biden's grandchildren who also attend the school so at least they'll have some friends already in school when they start class. Also a good reason to have them attend.

I see nothing wrong with Obama wanting to give his daughters a good education along with a guarantee of safety and privacy. That doesn't mean Obama won't work to better the public schools while he's in office. Obama's going to have enough to worry about every day in the Oval Office without also having to worry about if his two daughters are safe while in school and/or getting a good education.

Could we just get one thing straight here? The change promised by Obama is NOT particularly about who he selects for various positions. Change will be embodied by what he DOES as President and what those people DO under his direction.

So there is no reasonable way to comment on your question until (1) Obama and his administration take office, and (2) They've had some time to actually get something done.

#38 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

YES! Very well put, I'm waiting 'til he's actually taken Office, and had some time to get some things done.
All this whining about who he's hiring is just bullshit whining because they lost.

As far as the vouchers thing.
I don't give a rat's ass where anyone sends their kids for school.
I pay property taxes to pay for kids' schooling in public school. I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay MORE taxes for somebody to send their kids to some church school-you dumbfucks wanna send your kids to be indoctrinated in church schools? Go ahead. I won't stand in your way.
But don't even TRY to make me fay for it.

"Heck, even Mitch McConnel said yesterday that Obama was off to a good start."

Well...we won't really know fer sure until "johnson" weighs in on the subject.

"At this point are we seeing it?"

Yer right, oooooorah.

No sign of change.

Let's start impeachment proceedings now!

Call it what you want. Obama taking a dump is national news as the incoming POTUS. Every act, every comment... all are analyzed. OORAH

Well put..
Maybe not in your case, but a lot of others have really been whinin'...anyhoo..
I personally think he's off to great start.
He seems to be trying to get Intelligent, capable people into jobs that desperately need competence.
Which-you'd have to admit-is quite a change from-"Heck uva job, Brownie".....as well as a bunch of other choices Bush made early on-that were obvious Ideology driven-rather than capability.

AND AGAIN....you cant call us whiners when the media has already elevated him to abe and fdr status...........cant have it both ways anymore

Sorry about your feewin's-buttlickertoo-I had nothing to do with what the media says.
I think the man's doin' a good job. You can disagree. I'm not sayin' you can't. I just think it's sour grapes on your part-cause you lost so badly...spitballin'-as it were...

Oohrah,

Experience and judgment count. President Obama ran on a platform of Change in the direction of Government and the direction this country is taking.

You seem to be under the impression that what he meant by change was filling his cabinet with fresh young faces from outside of the political establishment. Most all of us that supported him never thought that was what he meant.

I see good decisions coming from him. Like her or not, Hillary Clinton is widely respected around the world, she is a brilliant woman and has a very well rounded understanding of the global political climate. She is an excellent choice for State.

Rham Emanuel is about as tough and as no nonsense as they come. Chief of staff is a position that demands a hard ass personality. He's perfect for the position.

Tim Geithner for Treasury is another really solid pick, he's very well respected, has worked at the NY Fed, has a great understanding of the workings of Wall Street without having made a killing on Wall Street. He's also usually the smartest guy in the room at any given gathering.

Janet Napolitano is another very well respected politician. In 2002 she squeaked out a win for the governorship but in 2006 she was re-elected with 62% of the vote. I'll be honest, I don't know much about her, I'm gonna be doing some research, but from what I do know, she's a strong, capable woman.

Bill Richardson? Commerce? Yeah, I can get behind that. He's another very smart person. Former Secretary of Energy and with Obama's Energy and Job Creation plans, he's a good fit for Commerce.

Eric Holder, former Superior Court Judge, US Attorney and Deputy Attorney General. Strong background, widely considered fair and level headed and for the most part very well respected on both sides of the aisle. You'll bring up the Mark RIch Pardon I am sure, but before you do, go ahead and research what Holder had to say about it.

No Oorah, I don't see Obama as failing his campaign promises for change. He's surrounding himself with capable people, some of whom have been political rivals and none of whom could be considered political yes men.

So far, I'm very pleased with what I am seeing.

As for the Obama children attending private school? Others have answered it already, but I will say this...The Obamas sending their children to Private school is NOT a betrayal of the public trust.

Republicans have legitimate ideological and political policy differences with our next president, how about trying to talk about those for a change?

Well put, Trees.

Yes OOrah, we can call you a whiner.

It's cause you are a whiner.

Your gettin yer undies in a bundle way too early.

Remember the boy who cried wolf so often that he was ignored when the Big Bad wolf actualy showed up?

Well, you are the guy who cried bull shit too often and you will likely be ignored should you ever have a salient point.

Assuming that you ever find such a point, which to date, you have not.

So far, you and BLT are joint owners on the 'zero credibility' plan.

I voted McCain. The lesser of two evils, but I'd indicated that during the campaign. - Oohrah

Yes, I know you indicated it, but your posts today made me think that perhaps by the end of the campaign you had perhaps been able to force yourself into a more reasonable position and figured out that if you were still going to vote based on "the lesser of two evils" the only reasonable choice was Obama/Biden as opposed to McCain/Palin.

I agree with others that though it's OK to say anything you want here, I don't see why you are finding it interesting to make unreasonable criticisms of somebody you didn't vote for before they have taken office.

why isn't Obama sending his brats to public school?

#2 | Posted by member2586 at 2008-11-22 10:18 AM | Reply

To his credit, President Osama doesn't want a couple more Amy Carters running around

My query was to get a sense from Obama supporters for how he's doing thus far relative to personnel choices and policy comments. Surely you have an opinion beyond targeting me for asking the question.

Sure - I think he is doing just great.

Been around for a while Oorah, though generally used to be much quieter. Not trying to get you up in arms, but it does sound from your earlier posts like you yourself feel he's dishonest and/or incompetent and/or just like Clinton.

I disagree strongly. His actual announcements thus far indicate that this is going be drastically different than Carter or Clinton, and in very good ways.

I had a bunch more I was going to say, but the rest of the crowd already put it better than I would have been able to, but again, I'm stressing the point that you are calling it Clinton III why? Because he appointed 2 or 3 former Clinton admins? Whoopedy doo. He's still in charge, and Hillary is following his lead, not setting policy.

Sure, Daschle has ties to Clinton and is an entrenched congressional Dem. But when has Daschle ever been able to work this directly on one of his most passionate issues, health care? And do you really think Hillary being Ambassador in charge is not a good fit? The world still loves her, minus US Libertarians and the redder sections of America and Putin. She's a solid fit, and has been a fairly competent senator the past few years as well.

In Clinton's admin, she was a powerless healthcare czar pushing a radical agenda against a diametrically radical congress.

Sure, Obama has some of the same pieces Clinton did, but he's putting them in better places, and setting the tone. If there's one thing you can say about his campaign and thus far his transition, it's that he is in charge. He's good at it, and he's got a pretty firm agenda that so far doesn't remind me anything at all of Clinton's.

So that's really the question I have for you, I guess - What specifically about Obama's agenda thus far reminds you of Clinton's? Who he's picked for cabinet and staff are a mix of Clinton, Carter, Reagan, and rookie, and even some Bushies, so you cannot use his picks as a basis for judgement.

I don't recall Clinton launching a New New Deal, f'rinstance....

As for your last question, again, I always took his "Change" to mean throwing throwing the bipartisan drama to the wayside and working past personal differences and petty childishness on in the corridors of power, restoring America's dignity and standing in the world, and bringing the US infrastructure into the 21st century, since Bush has been so intent on bringing back the Dark Ages himself...

He's doing that all, to great effect, in my opinion. And it's only going to get better....

OOHRAH it is FAR too soon to be making interpretations, but you go right ahead.

I am still disappointed that you didn't vote for him, however, because I hate to lump you in with those who voted the way you did.

In caps for the benefit of righties who'd squawk no matter where they sent Malia and Sasha:

It's a QUAKER school, guys. That means minimal attention to peace, justice and such jeebus values. Seems kinda unlikely for an antichrist soshalist moose-lim, don't it? herm

I went to a Quaker school. Turned me into a Liberal Pacifist.

"No Wars Daddy!"

Obama would have to be out of his mind to send his girls to a public school in Washington, DC. High crime, drugs, lousy academic environment, crummy teachers. It's one thing to get the votes of every family who has no choice but to send their children there, another to get campaign contributions from everyone who works there. But it's another world entirely to subject your own children to it. That would be barbaric.

The guys that had vouchers for $10,000 AND $50,000 dollars extra would send their kids to schools that cost $60,000.

Yes, that's choice alright.

#27 | Posted by Zed at 2008-11-22 11:48 AM | Reply

Since the vast majority of private schools cost LESS THAN $10,000 a year -- yes, that's choice.

Besides, you are already pissing away the same money on public schools. Satisfied with it? Don't you want better value for your money?

BTW, Congrats to Osama for placing his children in an excellent school that he can afford.

The president should be an example to the rest of us, and Barry & Michelle are just that. They remind all of us that the needs of our children come first.

That's freedom in America.

"Since the vast majority of private schools are $10,000 a year, yes that's choice...."

Given that's true, it won't last in a world where education is entirely privatized.

You'll get patterns where like settles with like. I think you know what I mean. There will be red-lining at the worst and clustering by economic class at best.

There will be a demand for $60,000 private schools, as there of course is now. And schools much more expensive than that.

And the economoically well-off will want to see their kids in those schools, for the same reasons and advantages they want to see them in places like Andover now. This is nothing more than you know, and nothing more than millions on the richer side of this equation want.

This issue points to how the "conservative" wing in American politics still doesn't get it, and may be psychologically unable to do so. You can't just state your politics is closer to the reality of human nature. It really has to reflect human nature.

You can't fit square human behavior into round conservative holes by getting meaner, and meaner, and meaner. Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding.

The mass of men rebels against the mean, for one thing, which is in part what happened to you guys the last two major elections. That's human nature as well.

Well its nice to see our new Prez has faith in our Public education system. So much so that HE has HIS children in a Private school.

I know some one will say something about a security issue or some garbage. Since when is a Presidents/Senator family more important than anyone elses? THIS IS NOT ROME.

Surely NO one faults our president-elect for choosing this school. The logistics of protecting the girls in a public school would be horrendous, Secret Service checking for weapons, etc. herm

For Secret Service security precautions this would be necessary as protection would be much more difficult to provide at a public school.

"The president should be an example to the rest of us, and Barry & Michelle are just that. They remind all of us that the needs of our children come first."

Yes they do and also in their views about tax cuts for wealthy folks that leave trillions of debts for those same children to pay off.

I don't see why you are finding it interesting to make unreasonable criticisms of somebody you didn't vote for before they have taken office.

#55 | Posted by sitdown at 2008-11-22 03:10 PM

And the libs and dems didn't do this when Bush was elected in 2000 now did they?

-----------

They only have the choice of private school for the girls. The public schools suck in DC.

---------

Obama the man of change and of Clinton redux.

Obama the man of change and of Clinton redux.
~McAnkles

What a Great Change!

We can only Hope!

Come on McAnkles You Can Do IT!

President Barack Hussein Obama

Obama has received more death threats against him and his family while president-elect than ANY other president-elect (about 2x the avg). Good old 'christian values' of the extreme right at work.

The Children of the President attending a Public School is unfair to the Faculty and other students of that school. It puts the other students in a potentially dangerous situation and is a major distraction for all.

The only way to adequately protect the presidents children is to have them attend a private school.

Fairfax, Montgomery and Prince George's counties are really pieces of crap that admit kindergarten students who cannot speak a word of English, other than a cursury "hello", "thank you" or "please". I simply canot afford to have educated children at this point in my life. Barack is very wise to conclude that the D.C. area schools are inferior to any acceptable standard, and he is very wise to send his daughters to private shools. It's good to see young black women having a chance; their counterparts in Suitland have none.

I think its a little crazy to announce where they are going
I know that there will be plenty of security but announcing it all over the telly and radio???

or am is that not a problem...with the first black guy, I wonder if they shouldnt have announced it.

#23 | Posted by bushlovertwo at 2008-11-22 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

I have to agree with you on that, it shouldn't be public, but all of the schools actually compete to have the presidents children attend and keeping that a secret is tough to do.