I don’t suppose I’m big enough to link to this post at Shakes’s Sis and simply say “what she said.” I don’t agree with her examples—Clinton strikes me as too conservative to be that thoroughly at odds with Republicans—but I certainly agree with the thrust of her argument.
I almost cheered inside when I heard about the “I won” thing, but didn’t: I got the sense that he was, metaphorically, winking, saying “ha ha, of dourse I’d never really say something like that,” like a stand-up comic who’s taken up vulgarity. If so, it’s not working: “The laughter that followed was doubtless a mixture of disbelief at Obama’s arrogance in speaking that way to Congressional leaders.”
The fact is, Obama did win (and by more than Bush even in 2004). And that means he has no obligations to the other party. A majority of people voted for his ideas, not the alternative, and he should be applying his ideas, not the alternative. There is a continuum from appointing his former opponents to the cabinet and bending, for all the good it did, on family planning services in the stimulus package. Clearly the stimulus package passed with no GOP suppport, but now they know he’ll back down.
He shouldn’t be trying to surround himself wth the best and brightest, but the best and brightest liberals. The hyothetical question “what if the most qualified expert is a conservative Republican?” is based on a flawed premise. The most qualified expert to advise the president to move the country in the direction the people have said they want it to go is a liberal one. The minority party is in the mnority for a reason.