Ed Schultz wants Obama to can Rahm Emanuel.

[ej510]

Thom Hartmann wants Obama to can Rahm Emmanuel to as do most duers. President Obama and Rahm Emanuel are close friends. I doubt he would ever can this corporate shill.

[yurbud]

1. restrict his duties to whipping up votes in congress and fetching coffee...no choosing candidates or

policies.

[librechik]

2. you are correct--DUers are going to have to get used to Rahm

or get rid of Obama in 2012. Yes, we can!

[Cha]

4. Try and get rid of President Obama

in 2012..it ain't gonna happen.

[librechik]

13. haha--I know--that's why I advise everyone to get used to Rahm

he's going to be around for a long time.

[PassingFair]

43. They said the same thing about Joe Lieberman....and he won't be elected Dog Catcher ...

in any subsequent elections.


I'm still waiting for the Blagojevich tapes to be
released...I think there's conversation on there
that would SINK Rahm.

[Algorem]

42. yeah,the demcrats did so well on tuesday.

[ooglymoogly]

56. The ones that stuck to their democratic roots did very well indeed.

Deeds was a DINO and lost in a not so important election. The far more important race in 23 was won because the candidate stuck to Democratic principles; This plus another victory, another seat won makes a pretty impressive gain in the two far more important elections.

[Peacetrain]

8. BULL HOCKEY

[jonnyblitz]

16. yeah, it would be nice to have an actual liberal as president

but Obama will run again and I will vote for him because he won't suck as bad as the republican.

[librechik]

17. of course--but how long do we keep this up?

until we get actual change? somehow I think just doing the same thing over and over and expecting spomething different is going to work.

[tigereye]

34. yeah, because Obama is behaving just the same as Bush did

:eyes:


I think you can look at all this legislation and realize that Bush would never have done any of it. And as scary and nasty as Rahm may be, he managed to get Dem control back.

[Jim Sagle]

23. Hey, I'd settle for an actual Democrat.

[ooglymoogly]

55. +1 nt

[yurbud]

Obama & Rahm: good cop & corporate-owned cop

[ej510]

5. Sometimes it is better to hire people you have

no emotional ties to.

[yurbud]

18. Obama seems to be very smart and good at playing the long con...

Maybe he's playing a very long con on Rahm for our benefit.

Either that or he's playing a very short and obvious con on all of us. But he couldn't have gotten into the White House if he was planning something so stupid.

[amandabeech]

57. Yes. n/t

[bvar22]

30. Obama & Rahm: corporate-owned cop & corporate-owned cop.

Painfully obvious since day one:

The DLC New Team
Progressives Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

[yurbud]

36. ouch! who the fuck would brag about Larry Summers being in the administration?

[joeycola]

48. +1

[change_notfinetuning]

49. You mean the new smirking chimp? Check it out - every time he's

interviewed, he's always smirking.

[yurbud]

60. what the smirk (and his whole face remind me of:

[yurbud]

3. Obama & Rahm: good cop & corporate-owned cop

[Jennicut]

6. Would that change the way Ed thought about Obama?

I really could care less about Rahm. He is not President. No one cared about Mack MClurty, Leon Panetta or Andy Card. As cos is just a cos. Personally, Summers and Geithner can go first.

[ej510]

7. Everyone wants Summers and Geithner to go.

[Jennicut]

10. Yes, and if Rahm left would anyone who is unhappy with Obama

really be any happier with him afterward? I think they dislike Obama but blame it on Rahm, maybe it is easier for some people?
Obama is in charge and calls the shots and yet it is Rahm did this, Rahm did that. Rahm is against the troop increase for Afghanistan by the way. I mean, really, Rahm is not that significant to me.

[ej510]

12. I agree, but getting rid of the corporate dems

in the Obama administration would allow people to see if Obama is pushing waterd down legislation.

[SIMPLYB1980]

9. I like Rahm.

But then I am an Evil moderate.

[Jennicut]

11. I neither like him nor dislike him.

There must be no outrage meter on me. He is just kind of there for me. A chief of staff.

[rudy23]

32. Moderate and Corporatist are not interchangeable terms. nt

[SIMPLYB1980]

33. LOL!

:popcorn:

[vaberella]

14. Well I like Rahm. So I say keep him and I'm a DUer. n/t

[democracy1st]

38. just curious why do you like him ?

[valerief]

15. We all do!!! Good thinking, Ed!!!! nt

[Cleita]

19. Well, George W. Bush eventually canned Karl Rove,

his beloved turd blossom, who still continued to operate behind the scenes, however, the change seemed to make Bush more moderate. I think Obama needs a chief of staff who isn't connected to the DLC. Sure Rahm will probably still be operating behind the scenes too, but his influence will be lessened just like Rove's was. Obama needs to feel the constant pressure to make the change.

[Phx_Dem]

20. And I wouldn't mind seeing MSNBC can Ed. So what.? Everyone has an opinion.

[Kdillard]

21. Yeah like that is going to happen but Ed can keep giving all the useless

Advice and criticism he wants.

[diane in sf]

22. I agree with Ed, Rahm is way too corporate/DLC

[girl gone mad]

24. The sooner the better. n/t

[polichick]

25. Is Obama less corporate than Rahm, or is Rahm just a scapegoat?? nt

[change_notfinetuning]

29. Good question, but there is no doubt about Rahm. The jury is still out on

Obama. Personally, I still have a great deal of hope for him, but it's like a cult. He's surrounded, by his own doing I admit, by negative influences. We need an intervention, or at least some way to ensure that other views reach his ears.

Unfortunately, he has insulated himself just as much as every other president in recent memory. So, good luck!

[polichick]

31. I like your "intervention" idea - we could send the brightest progressives...

...from several fields to the White House!

[leftynyc]

39. No, the jury is not out

on President Obama. He obviously likes Rahm right where he is. Those who behave as if Rahm is pulling the President's string are simply fooling themselves into believing that without Rahm, none of the moderate/corporate decisions would be happening. The problem is not Rahm.

[change_notfinetuning]

26. Can the Rahmpublican. It's a start.

[Dinger]

27. Awwww, Bless His Heart

I couldn't agree more.:patriot:

[wowimthere]

28. I want Obama to can Emanuel

[Vidar]

35. Good for Shultz. Recommended.

[depakid]

37. Chiefs of staff often have short tenures

[lovelyrita]

40. Does the President care what Liberals think?

He does not seem to based on the health care bill and the Goldmanitazation of the government.

[SIMPLYB1980]

46. No he just doesn't care to listen to fools

using tea bagger talking points.

[lovelyrita]

51. Fools?!

Having a problem with the corporate give away to the insurance companies and former Goldman Sachs executives calling the economic shots makes one a fool? Are those teabagger talking points?

[rudy23]

59. They're DLC talking points. Except they mostly say them behind closed doors. nt

[ej510]

47. No!

[Algorem]

41. Obama's the one in charge.He needs primary opponents.

[ej510]

44. I agree, but he won't get one.

[Vinca]

45. It seems Rahm is giving the POTUS terrible advice.

[mod mom]

50. Canning Rahm whould be a great service to this country. His self serving greed

and corporate pandering represent what is wrong w this country!

[Aramchek]

52. Ed Schultz is a loudmouthed, windbag

and not very smart, to boot

[Captain Hilts]

53. Emanuel was THE first guy the prez chose. He likes him and Emanuel does what he wants done. nt

[SandWalker1984]

54. Rahm, Goldman Sachs and Wall Street - a cozy group

Do a google search of Rahm Emanuel and you'll find dozens of stories about his connections and ties to Wall Street and especially Goldman Sachs.

This is from a Daily Kos story posted 11/08/08 titled
Rahm Emanuel: Bought and Paid For

Considering Obama’s promises to stand up for Main Street and take on Wall Street, Emanuel’s deep ties with Wall Street are noteworthy. Emanuel was a chief advocate of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout this fall, toiling to pass it through the House
after it was first rejected.

Just as Emanuel has helped Wall Street, Wall Street has helped Emanuel. This past election cycle, more than a third of Emanuel’s campaign contributions from political action committees came from financial sector PACs.

His top source of campaign funds this year was the subprime-rattled UBS (the Swiss bank’s PAC and employees gave, corporations cannot give campaign contributions), who benefited from the housing bailout which Emanuel supported and has already shown an interest in expanding.

Hedge funds and private equity firms are also close with Emanuel. Over his career, Emanuel’s best source of funds has been the private equity firm Madison Dearborn Partners. Hedge funds, facing a new slew of regulations, handouts, and rules,
dramatically increased their contributions this year, and Emanuel was also their favorite House member.

The $96,900 Emanuel pulled in from hedge funds places him above any Senator besides presidential candidates. In fact, Emanuel garnered from hedge funds more than the top 11 Republican lawmakers, combined.

Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are also in Emanuel’s top-five career sources of campaign cash. As reported by the Center for Responsive Politics, Emanuel received more money from the securities and investment industry—$600,500 as of September 30—than did any other member of the U.S. House, and more than two presidential candidates (including Joe Biden) and the chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee.

Commercial banks lined Emanuel’s pockets, too, with $121,100, placing him fourth among House members.

Remember, too, that all of these industries that have favored Obama’s next chief of staff so well also gave more to Obama than to McCain. And while Obama studiously rejected lobbyist contributions to his campaign, Emanuel had no such scruples.

In money from lobbyists, Emanuel was in the top 10% of House members, which is made more interesting by the fact he didn’t face a competitive reelection at all in his
solidly Democratic House district.

What does it portend for an Obama administration that his closest advisor would be someone so steeped in fundraising and so close to Wall Street?

Back in 1993, Fred Wertheimer lamented fundraiser Emanuel’s top spot in the Clinton White House, calling it “a very dangerous appointment for the Clinton administration because it places in the White House an individual whose principal responsibility has been to raise huge sums of money from special interests seeking influence over government decisions.”

Indeed, Emanuel had been crucial in steering Wall Street money into Clinton’s campaign. His record suggests he will the financial industry’s man inside the Obama White House. At a time when the Washington-Wall Street relationship is changing rapidly, will Emanuel be the man to guarantee it’s change the Wall Street firms need?

*******************

Obama knew what he was getting when he selected Rahm. Didn't know when I was voting for Obama his slogan should have read "Chains" instead of "Change" we can believe in.

[amandabeech]

58. Didn't Clinton demote Rahm, who then eventually left? n/t

[ncteechur]

61. I don't because I don't know the conversations they have and it is President Obama's

decision--not Ed Schultz'