What do you make of Leon Panetta's comments on Barack Obama's leadership?

[IceSpear]

Accurate comments. The guy has been a White House Chief of Staff, CIA Director and Sec Def.  He doesn't need to promote himself or have other motives.

To sell books, Grumps. To sell books...

Oh he'd sell plenty without, but he's such a staunch Dem, blasting Obama solely to sell books makes no sense.

I'm not sure about that. It certainly starts a conversation that I'm not sure would occur otherwise. Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems like some memoirs go unnoticed if they don't include "juicy" tidbits like these.

In all reality, Panetta is a Clintonista......so maybe a few jabs were necessary.  

We really need to take down the entire Clinton wing of the party.

Well considering half the party supported Hillary in 2008 and like 70% of the party supports her now, you'll be awfully lonely if that succeeds.

Most of that 70% has no idea how right-wing she is.

LOL

Hillary might not be as liberal as you like, but calling her "right wing" is ludicrous.

Are you going to tell me that her husband wasn't totally Republican-lite as President?

Even if he was, exactly how is that relevant to Hillary?

But just for the record, yes I will. There's more to government than just the presidency. Most of the bad legislation Bill signed was overwhelmingly passed by a right wing Congress (controlled by Gingrich and the proto-Tea Party) with veto proof majorities. The 90s could've been a lot worse if Bill wasn't around to curb the worst excesses of said right wing Congress. But I digress. I'm far more interested in my initial question.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Accurate comments. The guy has been a White House Chief of Staff, CIA Director and Sec Def.  He doesn't need to promote himself or have other motives.

To sell books, Grumps. To sell books...

Oh he'd sell plenty without, but he's such a staunch Dem, blasting Obama solely to sell books makes no sense.

I'm not sure about that. It certainly starts a conversation that I'm not sure would occur otherwise. Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems like some memoirs go unnoticed if they don't include "juicy" tidbits like these.

In all reality, Panetta is a Clintonista......so maybe a few jabs were necessary.  

We really need to take down the entire Clinton wing of the party.

Well considering half the party supported Hillary in 2008 and like 70% of the party supports her now, you'll be awfully lonely if that succeeds.

Most of that 70% has no idea how right-wing she is.

LOL

Hillary might not be as liberal as you like, but calling her "right wing" is ludicrous.

Are you going to tell me that her husband wasn't totally Republican-lite as President?

Even if he was, exactly how is that relevant to Hillary?

But just for the record, yes I will. There's more to government than just the presidency. Most of the bad legislation Bill signed was overwhelmingly passed by a right wing Congress (controlled by Gingrich and the proto-Tea Party) with veto proof majorities. The 90s could've been a lot worse if Bill wasn't around to curb the worst excesses of said right wing Congress. But I digress. I'm far more interested in my initial question.

Truman vetoed Taft-Hartley despite veto proof majorities. Hillary is closely tied to Bill's record. But she has a record of her own, whether it's lying about an Al Qaeda link to Iraq, voting for Kyl-Lieberman to threaten Iran, criticizing Obama for not being enough of a warmonger, close ties to Indian outsourcers, pushing fracking on other countries as Secretary of State, and is generally pro Wall Street.

[Maistre]

Yawn. Looks like Panetta wants to follow the gravy train that Gates paved and sell some books. Though it's partly Obama's fault for keeping such obvious quislings on his team.

Hmm? I figured you would be happy about this. He's doing this for your girl you know.

[IceSpear]

Yawn. Looks like Panetta wants to follow the gravy train that Gates paved and sell some books. Though it's partly Obama's fault for keeping such obvious quislings on his team.

Hmm? I figured you would be happy about this. He's doing this for your girl you know.

I don't see how piling on and bashing the current Democratic president does any favors to Hillary. True, she'll need to distance herself from him in meaningful ways, and the Obamabots who threw fits when Hillary dared to do so were extremely annoying. But Panetta's criticism just seems self-interested in order to sell more books, and most people are just going to see it as more reasons for why Democrats are supposedly incompetent 3 weeks from a midterm election.

[IceSpear]

Accurate comments. The guy has been a White House Chief of Staff, CIA Director and Sec Def.  He doesn't need to promote himself or have other motives.

To sell books, Grumps. To sell books...

Oh he'd sell plenty without, but he's such a staunch Dem, blasting Obama solely to sell books makes no sense.

I'm not sure about that. It certainly starts a conversation that I'm not sure would occur otherwise. Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems like some memoirs go unnoticed if they don't include "juicy" tidbits like these.

In all reality, Panetta is a Clintonista......so maybe a few jabs were necessary.  

We really need to take down the entire Clinton wing of the party.

Well considering half the party supported Hillary in 2008 and like 70% of the party supports her now, you'll be awfully lonely if that succeeds.

Most of that 70% has no idea how right-wing she is.

LOL

Hillary might not be as liberal as you like, but calling her "right wing" is ludicrous.

Are you going to tell me that her husband wasn't totally Republican-lite as President?

Even if he was, exactly how is that relevant to Hillary?

But just for the record, yes I will. There's more to government than just the presidency. Most of the bad legislation Bill signed was overwhelmingly passed by a right wing Congress (controlled by Gingrich and the proto-Tea Party) with veto proof majorities. The 90s could've been a lot worse if Bill wasn't around to curb the worst excesses of said right wing Congress. But I digress. I'm far more interested in my initial question.

Truman vetoed Taft-Hartley despite veto proof majorities. Hillary is closely tied to Bill's record. But she has a record of her own, whether it's lying about an Al Qaeda link to Iraq, voting for Kyl-Lieberman to threaten Iran, criticizing Obama for not being enough of a warmonger, close ties to Indian outsourcers, pushing fracking on other countries as Secretary of State, and is generally pro Wall Street.

What good would vetoing legislation that was veto proof do? And Hillary never criticized Obama "for not being enough of a warmonger", she disagreed with a few of his tactical decisions (some of which are now proving prescient). "Being pro-Wall Street" is a fantasy conjured up solely based on a speech she gave when talking to big money donors and unfair extrapolation from Bill's presidency. As for the other things, you're going to have to cite sources.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yawn. Looks like Panetta wants to follow the gravy train that Gates paved and sell some books. Though it's partly Obama's fault for keeping such obvious quislings on his team.

Hmm? I figured you would be happy about this. He's doing this for your girl you know.

I don't see how piling on and bashing the current Democratic president does any favors to Hillary. True, she'll need to distance herself from him in meaningful ways, and the Obamabots who threw fits when Hillary dared to do so were extremely annoying. But Panetta's criticism just seems self-interested in order to sell more books, and most people are just going to see it as more reasons for why Democrats are supposedly incompetent 3 weeks from a midterm election.

It doesn't hurt to have someone else help you distance yourself.

[IceSpear]

Yawn. Looks like Panetta wants to follow the gravy train that Gates paved and sell some books. Though it's partly Obama's fault for keeping such obvious quislings on his team.

Hmm? I figured you would be happy about this. He's doing this for your girl you know.

I don't see how piling on and bashing the current Democratic president does any favors to Hillary. True, she'll need to distance herself from him in meaningful ways, and the Obamabots who threw fits when Hillary dared to do so were extremely annoying. But Panetta's criticism just seems self-interested in order to sell more books, and most people are just going to see it as more reasons for why Democrats are supposedly incompetent 3 weeks from a midterm election.

It doesn't hurt to have someone else help you distance yourself.

Yeah, but there's plenty of time for that later. In less than 3 weeks there's a midterm election. The last thing Dems need at this point is more friendly fire.