Obama WILL re-nominate Dawn Johnsen

[bluestateguy]

All you people who whined "betrayal" and assumed that Obama would abandon her have been proven wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/06/obama-frustrated-by-slow_n_413475.html

As Gibbs briefed reporters, sources said that the White House will push to re-nominate seven of those judicial and political appointees who have been held up in the Senate, including Dawn Johnsen, the controversial nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. What about us who were dissatisfied at Obama's level of support for her over the past year

and were waiting to see if Obama would renominate her?

Can we be invited back into the fold?

eta: unrecommended because of the attitude

[Cha]

23. President Obama is the one who

nominated her in the first place and he wants her and all the ranting and raving isn't going to deter him from his focus on what he thinks is the best way to do his job.

[last1standing]

2. Unrecommending for tainting a good article with needless snark.

Does it make you feel good to attack other posters without reason?

[DevonRex]

9. Oh, so you believed that bullshit article saying he killed the nomination. nt

[berni_mccoy]

10. You can bet if it sounds bad for Obama, but smells like bullshit, it'll get recs here. Lotsa recs.

[DevonRex]

11. And woe to the person who doesn't believe the bullshit and says to

wait and see what Obama actually does, too.

[Cha]

25. Oh, yeah, the agenda is clear.

This is what they were whining about that wouldn't happen so now it's happening and they don't want to be reminded that they pissed and moaned about it.

[last1standing]

28. I never even read the article saying he had killed the nomination

But the OP was spoiling for a fight so he/she posted in a snarky manner to get that going. You obviously want that fight just as much so you goad it along. That's a real problem with some people.

[Ken Burch]

3. Good. Now, this time, he needs to FIGHT for her and the others

We now know that it doesn't work for the prez to stay out of it.

[LiberalAndProud]

4. I think he his learning curve is very short.

We will see. If he's putting them up for renom, he's not backing down. That's a good thing, no?

[Ken Burch]

5. It is, which I said in the post you responded to.

Why didn't he listen to those who told him he'd have to fight IN THE FIRST PLACE?

It's not as if he didn't KNOW what the Senate is like.

[DevonRex]

13. You have no idea what he fought for. Unless you're following him around 24/7

to see what phone calls he made. And I kind of doubt you or anybody here is in a position to do that.

Not long ago, everybody here believed that bullshit article about him "killing the nomination." The fucking author of the article didn't even know what he was talking about, much less people pounding on the keyboard here at DU.

And let me be clear, I do think he needs to fight for these nominations. That is not my beef with your statement. But, IMO, saying that he needs to fight THIS time for the nomination assumes that he did NOT fight before. And you cannot know that because you're not in a position to know anything, just as I am not in a position to know.

[Ken Burch]

15. He's repeatedly made a point of announcing he was staying out of the legislative process

It was logical to assume he was adopting the same approach to his nominees, since he's made sure so far that only the bland, tame, corporate-subservient ones(a term that fairly describes everyone in the Cabinet OTHER than Hilda Solis)got through.

[DevonRex]

16. But nominations ARE his business since he makes them. Your logic doesn't follow. nt

[Ken Burch]

18. Legislation is his business since he can't do much of anything without legislative approval

Yet he's been laid back about most of his legislative program.

[Cha]

26. President Obama has to be exactly

the way they perceive he should be bc they know so fucking much about it..of all the insufferable, egomaniacal, meddling on the internet.

[DevonRex]

27. I think some people have never read the constitution, for one thing.

And for another, Harry Reid said he does NOT take orders from Obma. Period. And that was right after the inauguration. Seems like he meant it, too.

I'm wondering just WHAT the fuck people think Obama can DO to legislators? Punch them? Tie them up and not let them go until they do what he wants? If Reid isn't on board with Obama's agenda or even time table, then what leverage does Obama have over the Senate?

Pelosi did a good job in the house, moving the agenda along in the right direction and in a timely manner. We can't say the same about our Senate leadership.

[mmonk]

6. Good.

[depakid]

7. Can't have an insightful take without getting short circuited by by Manichean thinking

Sad- though I guess after so many years of Bush (knowing little else) people adopt the mind frame of those that they claimed for so long to hate.

[Kdillard]

8. Good news.

[DevonRex]

12. That's great. Guess Obama didn't "kill" her nomination after all. nt

[Ken Burch]

14. It would have been enough to say she'd be renominated

No one here deserved to be attacked in the OP. It's the RIGHT that's the enemy, not us.

[DevonRex]

17. People who said that the original article just MIGHT not be correct were attacked.

Did you defend them? Did you say that maybe, just maybe, the article might be wrong?

[Ken Burch]

19. I don't actually remember being involved in any discussions about the ORIGINAL article

Until this story emerged(and how many weeks or months later was it?)there was no reason to think he WOULD resubmit her.

Some of us have learned not to take anything from ANY politician "on trust". You should learn that as well.

[DevonRex]

20. Sorry, but there's no TRUST involved here. Just logical thought

and waiting for the FACTS to come out. And some people should learn not to trust every bullshit anti-Obama article that floats around the tubes. Many have been proved wrong, yet the "true believers" of anything anti-Obama will believe anything and everything as long as it paints Democrats and Obama in a bad light.

Sometimes criticism is valid, sometimes it's not. But taking anything from a web "journalist" "on trust" is just as stupid as taking any politician "on trust."

[DevonRex]

21. To your credit, you were NOT involved in those threads.

I was bored, with some time on my hands, and checked. Kudos to you for that. I give credit where credit is due.

:hi:

[Ken Burch]

30. Well, thanks.

n/t.

[Cha]

24. Yeah, they did..after all the OPs pissing and moaning

on President Obama. Sure they did.

[Cha]

22. They "didn't want to jump to conclusions" but

jump before looking they did bc that means donations, doesn't it? Doesn't hysteria get the dough in the coffers of the so called lefty blogs..MOFO Red Meat.

[SpartanDem]

29. You mean the frothers at WarmPuppyPuddle were wrong?