Silicon Valley Is Filling Up With Ex-Obama Staffers

HughPickens.com writes: Edward-Isaac Dovere reports in Politico that the fastest-growing chapter of the Obama alumni association is in Silicon Valley. For the people who helped get Obama elected and worked for him once he did, there's something about San Francisco and its environs that just feels right: the emphasis on youth and trying things that might fail, chasing that feeling of working for the underdog, and even using that word "disrupting" to describe what they do. "A lot of people who moved out here were present at the creation of the Obama '08 campaign," says Tommy Vietor. "There's a piece of them that wants to replicate that." Vietor left the White House two years ago, and he and his business partner, former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau, founded a communications strategy firm with a focus on speechwriting for tech and other start-ups. "If you're writing for a CEO out here, they're more likely to be your peer than your grandfather," says Vietor. "They're young, they're cool, they get it."

Other former Obama staffers who have come to Silicon Valley include former campaign manager and White House adviser David Plouffe at Uber, Kyle O'Connor at Nest, Semonti Stephens at Twitter; Mike Masserman, at Lyft; Brandon Lepow at Facebook; Nicole Isaac, at LinkedIn; Liz Jarvis-Shean at Civis; Jim Green and Vivek Kundra at Salesforce, Alex McPhillips at Google; Gillian Bergeron, at NextDoor; Natalie Foster at the Institute for the Future; Catherine Bracy at Code for America; Hallie Montoya Tansey at Target Labs. Nick Papas, John Baldo, Courtney O'Donnell and Clark Stevens at AirBnB, and Jessica Santillo at Uber.

There are so many former Obama staffers in the Bay Area that a recent visit by former White House senior adviser David Axelrod served as a reunion of sorts, with more than a dozen campaign and White House veterans gathering over lunch to discuss life after the administration. Obama himself rarely misses an opportunity to come to San Francisco. He says he loves the energy there, loves the people and according to Dovere, the city's ultra-liberal leanings mean he was greeted as a rock star even during the dark days before last year's midterms. Obama's even become friendly with Elon Musk. "There should be a welcome booth at the SFO airport," says Jon Carson, the former Organizing for Action executive director now at SolarCity.

Comments

huh

[Anonymous Coward]

"They're young, they're cool, they get it."
Translation: Fuck opportunity based on skill, this is a politically based system of finding the youngest possible candidates at the lowest price. If they are bandwagoneers, all the better.

Re:huh

[Mashiki]

Look at what's happening in colleges and universities. You've got radical leftists and radical feminists pushing for racial quotas instead of merit. Even several universities have come out with their "meritocracy is a microaggression" bullshit. AKA University of California campuses. Surprise, those young, kids who want to be protected from everything...

Re:huh

[Ol Olsoc]

Look at what's happening in colleges and universities. You've got radical leftists and radical feminists pushing for racial quotas instead of merit. Even several universities have come out with their "meritocracy is a microaggression" bullshit. AKA University of California campuses. Surprise, those young, kids who want to be protected from everything...

Holy canolli! That read was simultaneously hilarious and pathetic. As it turns out though, that kind of ultimate whining victimthink has been around on campuses for a long time. Like at least from the 60's

In the end, you just write it off to whiny folk, at the far end of the spectrum, sort of like the liberal versions of Ted Cruz. Too far out to be taken seriously.

Re:huh

[operagost]

It's easy to write them off, but the fact is that we already have an affirmative action infrastructure in the USA, which could easily be adapted for every conceivable "protected class". Affirmative action should have been retired 15-20 years ago, once it had outlived its usefulness. Now, it remains as a dangerous tool of political manipulation.

Re:huh

[Ol Olsoc]

It's easy to write them off, but the fact is that we already have an affirmative action infrastructure in the USA, which could easily be adapted for every conceivable "protected class".

Somehow I doubt the microagression folks will gain much of a toehold. Way too far to the left, and catering to a demographic that I fear might have some basic human genetic parts missing. If they cannot handle any disagreement without calling it aggression against them, they are doomed to failure.

It's roughly the same thing as the far right's litmus tests. You could be the most charismatic, most competent leader possible, but unless you toe the line. as in you must be anti-abortion, pro certain middle east countries (always in flux) anti Obamacare (despite it being a Republican invention) and all the other touchstones, you won't make it through the primaries.

I have a dream.

Barry Goldwater rises from the grave, smiting the kooks, and returning conservatism to it's rightful place.

This is what a conservative sounds like:

https://www.brainyquote.com/qu...

He was prophetic:

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”

~Barry Goldwater

More good Goldwater reading:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2...

So perhaps I err in trying to compare the kooky lef to the religious right, but only in magnitude. The religious right have firm control of their party.

Re:huh

[cayenne8]

Perhaps they can move even further away from Washington (and the US govt in general)....to Europe for instance.

They all seem to want to try to turn the US into a socialistic type society modeled after much of Europe.

Right now we're looking more and more like Greece in a few years after they've left....

Re:huh

[scamper_22]

Here's the interesting thing.
Let me preface all this by saying my values generally agree with you. You should earn your living. You have no right to be better or more well off than someone else except if you are able to be of more service to the world and convince people to voluntarily pay you more money.

That all said, these kids who want to be protected from everything and who want no responsibility for themselves. The ultra-feminists and ultra-leftists as many would point out. Well here's the thing. do we need responsible and self-sufficient people anymore?

I pose that as a serious question. If there is no need for something, I don't see any reason why it should remain so valued?

As we enter the age of automation, so much of *need* is generally taken care of. I'm under no illusions that society still needs a lot of human labor. So much of it done by overseas or migrant labor. But play along with the thought experiment.

Heck, I barely feel hot anymore, because I'm protected via air conditioning. Oh how the conveniences creep up on you in life :P My biggest bill is housing, which has little to do with the actual cost of a home, and everything to do with low interest rates and outbidding my fellow citizen to get into a *hot* area/market.

I'm protected from disease via vaccinations and a decent universal healthcare system (I'm Canadian).

I'm protected from crime, by a decent police force and welfare system.

I'm protected from employee abuse by labor laws (well somewhat :P)

So while, I still hold that scarcity immigrant mindset of being self-sufficient and responsible, I at times wonder if it is even needed anymore. I doubt I'll be able to change. I'm young, but too old to suddenly change all my values.

Maybe it is time we self-sufficient and responsible men learned to relax a little. No need to work so hard. No need to take on societies burdens. We do have the organization and technical automation for us all to live decent lala land enjoyable lives.

That all said. Will society survive? Will it collapse if everyone buys into the left-wing feminist ideology? I have no idea.

I could write a critique on the left very easily. They want everything for free, while ignoring those who do the productive work (migrant workers, overseas working, the factory workers... They have no idea what things would cost if that self-sufficient responsible person suddenly adopted their entitled values.

But it's something I've been thinking about. I'll still raise my kids to be self-sufficient because if society has struggles, I want them prepared to deal with shit. But I leave the door open. Maybe its needless worrying on my part and we can all just enjoy life a bit more and worry less about being responsible/self sufficient.

It's an open question in my view.

Re:huh

[Curunir_wolf]

The religious right have firm control of their party.

Not really. They haven't gotten what they want from the party for quite some time. The Neocons are firmly in control these days. They are the ones that put up McCain, then Romney (eviscerating the Ron Paul wing in the process). Oh, they get a lot of play in the MSM (easy targets), but influence in the GOP - not so much.

Re:huh

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the first example (of 'badness') is âoeI believe the most qualified person should get the job.â

(Mind you, the rest are the opposite. Which is even more confusing. Is it good or bad to treat people differently because of their gender/race? apparently both!)

Re:huh

[kaatochacha]

Wow, you beat me to pointing out the most ear gratingly bad quote of the piece.

Re:huh

[AmiMoJo]

They cite that as an example of someone complaining that minorities are given jobs not on merit, but because they are a minority. The relative merit of that exact phrase depends on context. In the context of "I think a meritocracy is a good thing" it's fine, in the context of "they only got that job because they are black and there is a lower bar for them" it's problematic.

The problem with linking to individual documents like this is that people take them out of context or without understanding the language they use. You really need to read the whole body of work to judge it properly.

Re: huh

[Anonymous Coward]

And what then about
1) the NBA
2) runners

Re:huh

[Darinbob]

So basically the same hiring strategy as other parts of Silicon Valley.

(although the article makes the erroneous assumption that Silicon Valley includes San Francisco)

Re:huh

[Darinbob]

Except that affirmative action has not yet succeeded in its goals. We have in no way reversed the centuries old system that was in place so that there's equality today. People only think there is equality because the law forbids slavery and discrimination in voting, and they think this is all that is needed. As long as we tell the underclasses that they're equals, they think, there is no need to actually make them equals. This is not just something from the distant past, we still have people with power who want to keep segregation, who keep introducing ways to deny equal voting opportunities, and so forth.

If affirmative action needs to be retired then it is because it has not actually worked to create equality and basically is used only as a rallying cry for hard right nut cases as an example of government overreach, and also used as a code word to mean that someone does not deserve their current status in life (poor white people who succeed in school and life do it on their own merits, but poor black people succeeding in school and life are too often accused of being helped out by affirmative action).

As for microagression, it's just some bizarre out of touch left wing wackos. Just like Trump is a bizarre out of tough right wing wacko. Neither should be taken seriously except as something to laugh at.

Re:huh

[Darinbob]

Problem with Goldwater was that with foreign policy he was an outright warmonger.

Re:huh

[ChrisMaple]

Liar. But obviously, the concept of "peace through strength" is too complex for you.

Re:huh

[Ol Olsoc]

The religious right have firm control of their party.

Not really. They haven't gotten what they want from the party for quite some time.

Are you seriously trying to say that a pro-choice candidate could ever get the Republican nod for president?

You even see Republican presidential candidates, when asked if they believe in evolution, making a canned reply of "Well, I'm not a scientist", as if caving to a batshit insane idea of 4004 bce creation date is a possibility..

The Neocons are firmly in control these days. They are the ones that put up McCain, then Romney (eviscerating the Ron Paul wing in the process).

The Neocons, that trotskyist group that wants eternal war in the middle east - and has probably pretty much succeeded in entrenching us in it, are yet another group that has taken over the republican party. If democrats had brough in a foreign speaker to contradict a republican presidents policies, they'd be screaming for the gatling guns to be unleashed upon anyone to the left of the KKK. They are just one more group that has hijacked the republicans. But they are just one more addition, not the single group

We'll just have to disagree on the extent of the Reigious right's influence. I'm saying if you can't pass their litmus tests, you will not be the parties presidential nominee. I see no change in that coming. Already, in the crowded primary field, we have a group that seems to think that they have to increase the nutty by 100 percent over 2012, which was also a big increase from 2008.

And for a person like myself, who views the political spectrum not as a left-right straight line, I see the further you get from the center, the closer left and right extremists become in actuality, if not rhetoric.

Re:huh

[Ol Olsoc]

Problem with Goldwater was that with foreign policy he was an outright warmonger.

And the neocons are not? They make Goldwater look like the college kids putting daiseys in the rifle barrels of the national Guard soldiers.

Re:huh

[Darinbob]

"Peace through strength" sounds like straight up Orwell double-speak from 1984, except it's not being used in a fictitious setting.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
"I could have ended the war in the month. I could have made Vietnam look like a mud puddle"
"You've got to forget about this civilian. Whenever you drop bombs, you're going to hit civilians."
"The only summit meeting that can succeed is the one that does not take place."

Domestically though, I think he'd have been better than Reagan.

Re:huh

[Ol Olsoc]

"Peace through strength" sounds like straight up Orwell double-speak from 1984, except it's not being used in a fictitious setting.

Orwellian might be more like war is peace. or making war for peace.

"Peace through Strength" sounds like a reasonable thing to me. I can't imagine having peace through weakness.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

"I could have ended the war in the month. I could have made Vietnam look like a mud puddle"

Exactly. One should never ever go to war unless one is prepared to win it. Limited warfare does not have a good track record.

"You've got to forget about this civilian. Whenever you drop bombs, you're going to hit civilians."

If you are going to be in a war - you will kill civilians. A blunt, yet completely true statement.

"The only summit meeting that can succeed is the one that does not take place."

Perhaps Barry was commenting on the negotiations with the North Vietnamese:

http://www.clemson.edu/caah/hi...

Highlighted by months of arguments over the shape of the table. Perhaps in that context, his remark might not seem odd.

It appears that some folks might take possibly get excited over out of context one liners, and completely ignore his more substantive statements. He was pro choice, pro gay rights, anti fundamentalist, and fiscally conservative, and socially "leave people the hell alone" (my quote)

None of which applies to the Republican party today.

And strong on defense? Yeah, that too. My kinda guy. My kind of conservative

Re:huh

[epyT-R]

Denying the problem is not automatically a 'microaggression', especially when the denial is truthful. That's why this kind of language is always seen in these 'behavioral guidelines.' It's to silence criticism, giving one side the trump card at the expense of the other. "Your policy is bigoted!" "No, it's not, here's why." "See! your denial is proof!"

Re:huh

[epyT-R]

Honestly, this sounds like bible thumpers claiming the bible is misinterpreted..

"they only got that job because they are black and there is a lower bar for them"

It's not 'problematic' if it was true. The only way to respect equal opportunity on merit is to abolish policy that plays favorites on irrelevant attributes on some assumption of bias. killing off affirmative action would be a good start.

Re:huh

[Curunir_wolf]

Are you seriously trying to say that a pro-choice candidate could ever get the Republican nod for president?

Nice. A subject change AND a straw man all in the same form-of-a-question response. Kudos to you, sir!

I said what I said, not what you said. Are you saying that the Democrats are clamoring for a pro-life candidate? Is this binary litmus test running the country now? Maybe a good question for your favorite Democratic candidate would be "Can you explain the moral difference between the crimes for which Dr. Kermit Gosnell was convicted (first-degree murder of infants shortly after birth at 23-25 weeks into pregnancy) and late-term abortions?"

No wonder the parties have such identical positions on so many other issues. This has got to be the single most asinine way to select a government in the history of mankind - convince a large block of voters to select or reject candidates on the sole basis of a single, decided issue that won't ever move more than minor degrees in one direction or another. You are a HUGE problem with politics today, by promoting this myopic view.

You even see Republican presidential candidates, when asked if they believe in evolution, making a canned reply of "Well, I'm not a scientist"

Hey, fucktard, you ever see Democratic presidential candidates even asked this question, hmmm? Why is that? You can't think your way out of a paper bag, can you? What a fucking idiot you are. Oh, everyone knows the Democrats love science and Republicans are anti-science, right? We'll just put the questions out there to bash our opponents with. Yea, we know 98.65% of all reporters are Democrats, that's a well-known partisan fact, too, right? Am I right?

The Neocons, that trotskyist group that wants eternal war in the middle east

Right. I count Obama among them.

are yet another group that has taken over the republican party.

More demonstration of ignorance from you (not unexpected). Which group has "taken over" and which has not? I've got news for you - the Neocons are into pushing left (they call it "moderate") as much as possible, and want the religious right to just shut up and vote. They are in opposition in the party. I expect a hyperpartisan moron like yourself to be ignorant of the various Republican party factions, but you seem to even be ignorant of factions within your own party. I don't even know why I'm responding, you're so obviously stupid about politics.

If democrats had brough in a foreign speaker to contradict a republican presidents policies, they'd be screaming for the gatling guns to be unleashed upon anyone to the left of the KKK.

I assume you're referring to Netanyahu? Nothing but a made-up controversy. And entirely irrelevant to the rest of your post.

We'll just have to disagree on the extent of the Reigious right's influence.

We "disagree" because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about - that's clear.

I'm saying if you can't pass their litmus tests, you will not be the parties presidential nominee.

The FIRST thing you did in this thread was introduce a litmus test! Wow - how the left can project!

And for a person like myself, who views the political spectrum not as a left-right straight line, I see the further you get from the center, the closer left and right extremists become in actuality, if not rhetoric.

You view it from mainstream Democrat party talking points, and that's about it. Your opinion doesn't really matter in politics these days, because you will pull the lever for the "D" no matter who's name is there. Just like the racist "solid south" Democrats always did, and how all the useless eaters that care more about their free health care than how their children will find jobs, do today.

Re:huh

[AmiMoJo]

Slashdot's moderation system has been taken over by the MRAs. Offtopic and troll for answering the (modded up) parent with factual information? Offtopic/troll is not your personal -1 Disagree mod.

Thanks to whoever modded me insightful.

Re:huh

[Mashiki]

Slashdot's moderation system has been taken over by the MRAs.

Up next, person who doesn't understand culture outside of their little fiefdom screams "racist" at milk duds. Is there a world shortage of soup? Is Gamergate to blame for it, or have they opened a new salt mine. Find out when parent poster gets his news from Gawker etl.al.

Do they know?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did someone tell them that there are capitalists in Silicon Valley?

Re:Do they know?

[Curunir_wolf]

Did someone tell them that there are capitalists in Silicon Valley?

Maybe they're trying to change the system from the inside...

Re:Do they know?

[BECoole]

Yes, but these are *cool* capitalists. They don't make their money selling things - that's just oppressive. These are the kind that make their money by having the government disrupt/destroy markets with new regulations (that they helped write) and are into other "Big Government" things like making sure that everyone thinks the same.

Just great

[Sqreater]

Watch them destroy silicon valley with political correctness and hyperliberalism.

Re:Just great

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! Just like they've destroyed our health care system! Oh, wait...

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."

And there's still time for the Obamacare premium death spiral to set in. How much higher can insurance rates go?

Re:Just great

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."

You prefer that there was a law passed which forced companies to offer the same plans for eternity?

If it's so obvious, then obviously Obama knew he was lying when he uttered those phrases.

Re:Just great

[SylvesterTheCat]

I prefer intellectual honesty.

You comment only addresses one of the two comments that you quoted.
I get it that plans change. Conditions change so it is reasonable that plans offered change as well. That is NOT what POTUS promised. It was a foolish promise and never should have been made.

Re:Just great

[khallow]

Reminds me of the adjacent story, "Harbingers of Failure".

Re:Just great

[I'm New Around Here]

What is this "sub-standard" you mention?

Re:Just great

[I'm New Around Here]

Yet another dishonest leftist shill trying desperately to change the conversation, because he can't hope to win the argument.

Re:Just great

[I'm New Around Here]

No, Boehner and McConnell gave a sigh of relief. The majority of the party wondered why so many members of the Supreme Court lost the ability to read.

Re:Just great

[I'm New Around Here]

That's right, it can't be considered liberalism if private ownership of property is allowed.

Re:Just great

[Curunir_wolf]

Doctors are not federal employees

Well how did they get out of it when the rest of us are working for the Federal government for almost 5 months?

Or you prefer that doctors be drafted?

That's not the goal? After all, if healthcare is a "right", you need someone drafted to provide it...

Re:Just great

[Curunir_wolf]

You're not familiar with Obama, are you? They're going to change things for the better, not destroy things for the worse.

You made up the "for the better" part. That was not in the script.

Re:Just great

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Blue Cross in Michigan used "Oh, our mainline plan, good for 50 years, is now legally substandard because it doesn't offer (fuck if I know, abortions for Pekingese maybe) as an excuse to dump tons of people off the gold standard Blue Cross plan, and then offer new plans for thousands of dollars more a year.

There was nothing substandard at all about the previous plan, as it was the mainline Blue Cross plan, and even if so, that's irrelevant, because a Man Who Wasn't Lying said you could keep your plan. Well, we couldn't because that fraudulent liar made that plan illegal.

Re:Just great

[ScentCone]

If you were actually proud of how they've trashed the health care system with a hyper-partisan piece of monstrous legislation, you'd actually attach your /. handle to your post. But you didn't, because you know that whole thing is a disaster.

Re: Just great

[Curunir_wolf]

Yeah, cause all of the developed countries in the world that have public healthcare, have "drafted" their doctors.

Oh wait, no they haven't. Guess that was just a strawman by you after all.

Are you sure about that?

Re:Just great

[ganjadude]

and who should you blame? the company for playing by the rules as written??? or the people who wrote the rules (and lied about it)

[T]hings that ... fail: lots of experience at that

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Obama staffers have a lot of experience at failure.

Syria: Fail. The "JV" has taken over.
Libya: Obama's exercise in failed "regime change" has left Libya more fucked up than what W did to Iraq. Why'd Obama depose Qaddafi again?
Iraq: Yep, fail. Sending troops back in...
Iran: About to surrender to crazed mullahs looking to get nukes. When the FRENCH call it a bad surrender...

US labor participation rate is the lowest it's been in 40 years. Only jobs being created are all part-time. Under-employment is at an all time high.

Obamacare FAIL: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

Lame duck

[tomhath]

A couple of dozen people moving to SF hardly qualifies as "filling up " that area. But it does indicate what shape the Democratic party is in; these are the people who got Obama elected - now there's no place for them in Washington and especially no place for them in the Clinton machine.

Re:Lame duck

[phantomfive]

Confirmation bias aside, he's actually been far better than many we've had in decades.

That's confirmation bias. The first thing he did was hire bankers to solve the banking crisis. Instead, he should have listened to wise people like Paul Volcker, who said, "Any company that is too big to fail is too big to exist. If a company needs government bailout money, it should be broken up and sold off in pieces."

ACA was a step in the right direction if you ideologically favor government control of healthcare, and it did help some people without healthcare, but it would have been cheaper to just buy those people healthcare (also, the law was so poorly written it took heroic interpretations from the supreme court to save it).

He favored gay marriage.....once it was politically expedient.

He got us out of Iraq......then back in, in a worse situation than when we left.

He started a war, then messed around in another war, and stuck his foot into situations he didn't understand, making a mess of things (Egypt, Honduras).,

He promised transparency........of all the things he promised, that was the one I most hoped for, because it could have the biggest effect. Fail on that point.

He failed to get his trade bill, which is either good or bad, depending on your ideology, but it shows his lack of competence for working with congress.

He did do some good things.....I would say he helped improve race relations, and personally he seems like a great guy; but overall, we haven't had a competent president in over a decade. It's depressing enough that I am voting, not on party, but entirely on competence. Right now there are a couple candidates from either party who I would be willing to vote for.

Re:Lame duck

[kyubre]

Brilliantly enumerated and eloquently expressed.

Re:Lame duck

[minijedimaster]

Helped improve race relations? Are you kidding me?! He's just as bad as as the ambulance chasers crazy uncle Al and Jesse. Any opportunity that presents itself to capitalize on some "race related" situation (Baltimore, Ferguson, Travon) he pounces on to keep fanning the flames of hatred for any who are not black. Seems to me he's purposely trying to prompt a race war, not "improve relations".

Re:Lame duck

[JackieBrown]

I would say he helped improve race relations

I'd have to say this is one of his biggest failures. I have never seen a president try to play races against each other as much as this one. "If I had a son, he would look like Travon?" WTF?? Can you imagine if Regan/Bush Sr/Clinton said "If I had a son, he would look like [insert white victim killed by black man]"

Re:Lame duck

[operagost]

He got us out of Iraq......then back in, in a worse situation than when we left.

"You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." - John Kerry

Re:Lame duck

[sycodon]

"The Police acted stupidly".

If the cops showed up at my place because I was trying to break in, I'd prove I lived there, then thank them for showing up.

Re:Lame duck

[T.E.D.]

He favored gay marriage.....once it was politically expedient.

That's hindsight. It was still a minority position when Obama "came out" in favor of it, and he was handing a huge issue on a silver platter to all the folks who hate him. However, his statement immediately made it a partisan issue, which brought around a large amount of Democrats who were on the fence about it. Overnight it became a majority opinion. Perhaps it looks obvious in retrospect, but he was going out on a bit of a limb when he did it.

Now perhaps he was a master strategist and saw that all this would happen. Or perhaps he just decided it was time to do the Right Thing.

He failed to get his trade bill, which is either good or bad, depending on your ideology, but it shows his lack of competence for working with congress.

Bad congressional relations is probably the most legit possible complain about this POTUS. However, framing it as a matter of his "competence" is just flat out wrong. He did great working with Congress while Democrats ran both houses, and lots of legislation got passed. That included universal health care legislation that has eluded every president since FDR started trying it nearly a century ago. So he's clearly got the chops.

It was only after Republicans took over that he couldn't get anything done with Congress. Congress also can't get anything done amongst themselves right now either though. The Republicans can't even get things done within their own Caucus. Blaming the POTUS for this is just downright weird.

Re:Lame duck

[I'm New Around Here]

He favored gay marriage.....once it was politically expedient.

That's hindsight. It was still a minority position when Obama "came out" in favor of it, and he was handing a huge issue on a silver platter to all the folks who hate him. However, his statement immediately made it a partisan issue, which brought around a large amount of Democrats who were on the fence about it. Overnight it became a majority opinion. Perhaps it looks obvious in retrospect, but he was going out on a bit of a limb when he did it.

Now perhaps he was a master strategist and saw that all this would happen. Or perhaps he just decided it was time to do the Right Thing.

Or perhaps he favored gay marriage all along, but lied about it to get elected president. Then after securing obamacare, he knew anything he pushed would have to be allowed because anyone who stood against him was labeled racist by every liberal shill and the mainstream press. So he finally admitted that he had supported gay marriage for years and that he also had placed Justices on the Supreme Court who already had their agenda set on the issue.

Re:Lame duck

[Howitzer86]

We've never caught Obama calling for riots and disruption like we have with those two. The harshest word he's ever had for any white person is a cop who behaved "stupidly" for arresting a black professor for looking suspicious on his own property.

Re: Lame duck

[Fwipp]

Personally, I'm rooting for a Sanders/Warren ticket. It's farther left than might be safe, but I don't think anyone the republicans have are any good this cycle, so I think it could work out.

Re:Lame duck

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

ACA was a step in the right direction if you ideologically favor government control of healthcare

Thats one way of looking at it. But what if I see healthcare as a totally different type of market that anything else. That it's not a true market with info and choice. There's also insurance as not really being a market, and moral hazard every place. The side effect is - it takes someone outside of the market to regulate this and create something. In this case, that outside force is the government. Government control is not an ideology, but necessary because of special mechanics, It doesn't have to be an explicit goal to be necessary.. Remember, before Obama took it over,the conservative Heritage Foundation invented what is now the ACA,

and it did help some people without healthcare, but it would have been cheaper to just buy those people healthcare

A lot of people wanted this, but this wasn't going to fly politically. It took procedural tricks, and a rush job, to get this through the senate without procedural filibustering squashing it.

Re:Lame duck

[Rockoon]

Remember, before Obama took it over,the conservative Heritage Foundation invented what is now the ACA,

..which makes the Left just as evil as the Right.

Oh you thought that this fact defended the ACA? Since you sit there actively defending evil, we can only conclude one thing: You are evil too.

Re: Lame duck

[TwoEyedJack]

Personally, I'm rooting for a Sanders/Warren ticket. It's farther left than might be safe, but I don't think anyone the republicans have are any good this cycle, so I think it could work out.

That ticket would get maybe 25% of the vote and would lose to Cruz/Trump.

Re:Lame duck

[Curunir_wolf]

He failed to get his trade bill, which is either good or bad, depending on your ideology, but it shows his lack of competence for working with congress.

No, actually, the TPA was recently passed, providing fast-track for the TPP (and the TPIP), which means it will only get an up-or-down vote when Obama finishes negotiations. Maybe they'll keep it secret until after that vote, too, who knows. I don't know what kind of bribes and/or threats were used to get it passed, but there it is.

Frankly, it's stunning how much of the Neocon agenda can get implemented when there's a Democrat president pushing for it. If a Republican president had done some of the things Obama has done, DC would be full of Democrats with pitchforks. For some reason they "trust" Obama ...

Re:Lame duck

[Curunir_wolf]

That's a big part of what gave him a chance to win, the Republicans didn't take him seriously and spent most of their time fighting Hillary. Hardly anyone expected him to get the nomination much less win the presidency.

It was a good demonstration of the power of the MSM. Obama was their darling, going way back to his run for the US Senate. They started covering him, I think it was Time that did the first big fluff piece about him, way back in 2003. Other far-left "reporters" picked up the mantle and ran with it. They created him, and put him in place. It's no wonder he got such favorable coverage.

Re:Lame duck

[ganjadude]

microagressions count

Re:Lame duck

[Howitzer86]

Yeah if you're a powder keg.

Re:Lame duck

[mjwx]

"The Police acted stupidly".

If the cops showed up at my place because I was trying to break in, I'd prove I lived there, then thank them for showing up.

As they held you down with a knee on your back whilst shouting "stop resisting".

Re:Lame duck

[phantomfive]

Neocons are dead, they pretty much gave up when Iraq showed their goal was a failure.

Re:Lame duck

[phantomfive]

That's hindsight. It was still a minority position when Obama "came out" in favor of it, and he was handing a huge issue on a silver platter to all the folks who hate him. However, his statement immediately made it a partisan issue, which brought around a large amount of Democrats who were on the fence about it. Overnight it became a majority opinion. Perhaps it looks obvious in retrospect, but he was going out on a bit of a limb when he did it.

Among people who would likely be persuadable to vote for Obama, the issue already polled well. He tested the waters by pushing his VP out first. It was clearly a political calculation.

Re:Lame duck

[phantomfive]

The way I look at it, he helped people understand the black perspective.

Re:Lame duck

[phantomfive]

The way I look at it, he helped people understand the black viewpoint. Beyond that, he showed that a black person can be wildly successful (although many people have already shown that; he did it on a large stage).

Re:Lame duck

[Curunir_wolf]

Neocons are dead, they pretty much gave up when Iraq showed their goal was a failure.

I wish. They are still firmly in control of the GOP. Sure, Cantor was ousted, but Rove came up with a war chest to oust the opposition from the party. Jeb Bush is their candidate, and he's raking in the campaign cash.

Re:Lame duck

[phantomfive]

Rove isn't a neocon, he's a partisan Republican. He will support whoever is in power, as long as it's a Republican.

There is no one left who will say, "What's good for America is good for the world" as a justification to start wars, and PNAC closed a long time ago.

Re:Lame duck

[T.E.D.]

Now perhaps he was a master strategist and saw that all this would happen. Or perhaps he just decided it was time to do the Right Thing.

Or perhaps he favored gay marriage all along, but lied about it to get elected president. Then...

I think this is just a restatement of my second option, but dipped in a huge vat of venom.

Re:Lame duck

[I'm New Around Here]

Fair enough.

Re:Lame duck

[Curunir_wolf]

Rove isn't a neocon, he's a partisan Republican. He will support whoever is in power, as long as it's a Republican.

You are quite wrong. Rove started the American Crossroads PAC specifically to oust the liberty and evangelicals from party leadership, right down to the local committee level. I've seen it in action. If he's supporting the Neocons (he is) maybe it's because they are still in power, right?

There is no one left who will say, "What's good for America is good for the world" as a justification to start wars, and PNAC closed a long time ago.

PNAC may have dissolved, but the Kagans (including Robert Kagan's wife, Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland) are still very active promoting the same type of interventionist foreign policies. And still very influential. Their latest funding / lobbying group is the Foreign Policy Initiative. Check it out.

Re:Lame duck

[phantomfive]

You are quite wrong. Rove started the American Crossroads [americancrossroads.org] PAC specifically to oust the liberty and evangelicals from party leadership, right down to the local committee level. I've seen it in action.

AFAICT AC hasn't fought particularly against any Republican. A good chunk of their money goes to hurting Democrats.

Re:Lame duck

[Curunir_wolf]

You are quite wrong. Rove started the American Crossroads [americancrossroads.org] PAC specifically to oust the liberty and evangelicals from party leadership, right down to the local committee level. I've seen it in action.

AFAICT AC hasn't fought particularly against any Republican. A good chunk of their money goes to hurting Democrats.

As I said, I've seen it in action. I'll just leave this right here. A lot of their money is not tracked, because it doesn't go to candidates in partisan elections at all - it goes to candidates for leadership offices within the Republican party.

Has nothing to do with idealism

[NotDrWho]

Has everything to do with:

1) Corporations' cozy relationship with politicians
2) Ex-staffers promising companies inside info and access

Convenient lobbyists

[phantomfive]

It's common knowledge that Silicon Valley companies are hiring more and more lobbyists (especially ones that have a high need to change regulations, like Uber).
Obama staffers make convenient lobbyists. They have connections.

Re:Convenient lobbyists

[fustakrakich]

Obama staffer -> Lobbytist -> Hillary staffer -> Lobbyist -> ....

Re:Convenient lobbyists

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly this. Many of these jobs are political patronage jobs. Crony capitalism has reached new heights under the Obama administration. I didn't think any president in my lifetime could be worse than George W. Bush but Obama is making me question my assumptions.

You could see Obama's character in '08

[MikeRT]

When riding high on his popularity, he voted for the telecom immunity bill. If he'd voted against it, he'd have been able to walk into the debates like a rock star because he'd be one of the only big names who actually acted on his promises. Even many of his opponents would have given him props for sticking to his guns.

Ironically, if Obama had done even half of what he promised to clean up the government, he could have asked for a Cuban-style health care system and his popularity would have made it impossible for the Republicans to stop him. We've reached the point where an honest politician with balls could practically control the federal government just by sheer force of the people's awe at his honesty.

Re:You could see Obama's character in '08

[nazsco]

sorry to break to you. but you're too much of an engineer to even begin to grasp politics.

he managed a few little changes because he gave others up. popularity means very little. specially on a two part system.

Re:You could see Obama's character in '08

[T.E.D.]

Ironically, if Obama had done even half of what he promised to clean up the government, he could have asked for a Cuban-style health care system and his popularity would have made it impossible for the Republicans to stop him. We've reached the point where an honest politician with balls could practically control the federal government just by sheer force of the people's awe at his honesty.

This reads like a work of fan fiction.

I live here in the real world, where 30% of the country votes Republican and hates Democratic presidents no matter what, and a large part of the rest listens to these people, or are just plain racist. A 2008 black president would never, never, never (oh, and did I say "never"?) have been able to talk Congress into passing socialized medicine. The fact that he passed any kind of universal coverage at all is in retrospect just ridiculous. I'm still in awe that he managed it. I say "he", but frankly a lot of people sacrificed for this. And it still teetered on a razor's edge at multiple points.

Do you not remember Senator Robert Byrd being wheeled into the Senate Chamber straight from his deathbed to break a Republican filibuster? They were trying to delay a vote (on an unrelated bill ahead of ACA on the docket) until he died and they could likely pick up his seat and kill the whole effort. Remember him whispering "shame shame" at his fellow senators for forcing him to do that, as many of them cynically applauded him? That's my memory. Thereafter Byrd did die, and they did pick up the seat, which stuck Congress with the bill in the form the Senate passed. Nothing new could possibly get past the filibuster.

If Obama had delayed even a couple of days in starting the process, we wouldn't have the ACA today. That's a fact.

Re:You could see Obama's character in '08

[towermac]

Yes, if memory serves, it was passed in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve.

Really something to be proud of...

Re:You could see Obama's character in '08

[T.E.D.]

Yes, if memory serves, it was passed in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve.

Really something to be proud of...

Your memory is pretty good. The only thing missing is that this was the Republican strategy from the get-go: Delay everything, even bills they supported, so that the ACA could not be gotten to by the Christmas recess. So the credit for the passage goes to the Democrats, while the "credit" for it being in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve goes to the Republicans.

I suppose which part is worthy of being proud of is a matter of perspective.

Re:You could see Obama's character in '08

[Strudelkugel]

, if Obama had done even half of what he promised to clean up the government, he could have asked for a Cuban-style health care system

Cuban-style health care system? I know an American who lives in Cuba. His wife (Cuban) had a spot on her tongue and was worried it might be cancer. The Cuban health care system could not schedule an exam for her for two months, so her husband flew her to the US to be looked at the next day. Turned out a dental fixture was irritating her tongue. Whenever the people I know have a problem they think requires immediate attention, they fly to the US. This doesn't happen very often, but at least they have a choice. In the meantime Cuba rents^H^H^H^Hsends its doctors to other countries to bring in money for the regime. No thanks.

Re:You could see Obama's character in '08

[ChrisMaple]

Democrats had supermajority control of both houses. ALL Republicans voted against Obamacare; there was nothing they could do to stop it. Democrats blindly - literally blindly, nobody had read the whole bill when it passed - followed Herr Fuhrer Obama. This was an example of Democrats drunk with the arrogance of unlimited power.

yep

[Anonymous Coward]

"young" used to be a gentle way to say "gullible", "ill-informed", "not yet experienced enough in life to exercise proper caution and restraint particularly when the lives, liberty, and property of others are concerned", etc.

These hyper-political slimy freaks are going to where they will be most-comfortable: San Francisco - the home of American crypt-fascist corporate-politico evil where people are punished for not engaging in group-think, and engineering new ways to spy on, and manipulate, people for both corporations and politicians are the preferred way to get rich. The Bay Area and Team Obama deserve each other.

This is how big business pays-off corrupt politicians and their staffs for all the political favors they gave while in power:

Give 'em high-paid jobs they did not earn and are not qualified for

Put them on the Board of a corporation, with stock options which they can then cash-out and get rich from (Apple and Al Gore ring any bells?)

Line them up for access to some nice IPOs

Re:Illuminati infiltration

[PvtVoid]

This is a blatant infiltration of one of the centres of power by the illuminati., If you don't know what the illuminati is, please do your research,.

Sadly, this is one of the least delusional posts on this story so far.

Sanctuary City?

[Anonymous Coward]

In other less rah-rah I-heart-Obama news, "Kathryn Steinle, 32, was shot dead by an illegal immigrant on San Francisco's Pier 14 on Thursday"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

So, yay 'Frisco?
(Let the -1 "ignore-truth" downvotes commence)

Re:[T]hings that ... fail: lots of experience at t

[minijedimaster]

Yes, because everything the government touches just blossoms like a rose. Lets pump more tax payer money and government oversight into education. That'll fix it.

Obama

[operagost]

trying things that might fail

Unlike in government, in business you don't often get to fail, then redefine the objective and declare success.

Re:Obama

[davek]

"For the 5th year in a row, potatoe production has far exceeded government estimates!"

"We have now experienced an unprecedented 64 straight months of job growth!"

Government will never fail. Programs are judged by their intentions. Similar to how "businesses" in Frisco can have billion dollar IPOs without any positive revenue, or plans to make any.

We live in bizzaro-world.

Re:Obama

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Unlike in government, in business you don't often get to fail, then redefine the objective and declare success.

Isn't that what a pivot is?

But pivots are often only for startups. IN a large company, you most certainly can redefine the objective to some degree and/or have it set so low initially that it's a guaranteed success.

Re:Obama

[DigiShaman]

"What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes." - Harry Houdini.

A magician by any other label is a con-artist. And America is getting conned by those who elected them.

Re:Obama

[ChrisMaple]

"For the 5th year in a row, potatoe production has far exceeded government estimates!"

Dan Quayle, is that you?

Re:Obama

[davek]

>> "For the 5th year in a row, potatoe production has far exceeded government estimates!"
> Dan Quayle, is that you?

You caught me :)

I was using the odd spelling on purpose, since I was referencing backwards-R russia.

That said, the trailing-e spelling is, and has always been an acceptable spelling of the word. The lib media decided to paint Quayle as an idiot and thus the lie was spread. Similar to how most people think GWB is dumb. 100% manufactured propaganda.

Re:[T]hings that ... fail: lots of experience at t

[tomhath]

Historically only a small portion of the labor force has been well educated. The vast majority of the workforce was farm workers, laborers, factory workers, etc. Today most of those jobs are gone - partly because of mechanization, partly because manufacturing is too expensive in the US. Plus millions of people are out of the workforce because the government has made it so easy to qualify for disability.

Political types use connections: News at 11

[msobkow]

Political types use their connections to stay employed.

News at 11.

Re:[T]hings that ... fail: lots of experience at t

[operagost]

Of course they don't have jobs. There are no jobs to be had. Do you understand? THERE ARE NO WHITE COLLAR JOBS. If you send your hypothetical undereducated person to get a four year degree, now he is a well-educated, still-unemployed person. Most Americans-- heck, most people in the world-- are not looking to expatriate for employment, so the "world job market" is not relevant. Education is great, but it's not the cause of this problem.

CONSPIRACY!!

[Gizan]

Obama is sending all his disciples to invade the Internet of things and build back doors for the NSA!

Fortunately the reverse is happening too

[peter303]

Washington. is filled with staid contractor types not versed in the fast-paced new methodologies and technology. Witness the near failute of healthcare.gov. Now more SV types halping Washington.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-th...

In other news,

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

It's confirmed, Silicon Valley has jumped the shark.

Working for the underdog

[morgauxo]

As underdogs Obama and staff were so fake.

Yup.. they will do well in Silicon Valley!stumpwm area out of bounds

Color Blindness is a "Micro-Aggression"

[Kunedog]

Haha read some of the offending quotes under Color Blindness. "I have a dream" would fit right in.

Re:Color Blindness is a "Micro-Aggression"

[Shortguy881]

Lol, yeah after reading this the only option left is to not talk to someone that is a minority or a woman. Anything you say is a micro aggression.

Here are some addendums:

White men should not congregate together. Groups of white men send the message that women and minorities are not welcome.

White men should not congregate with minorities or women. It trivializes their struggles and and makes it seem like you are patronizing them.

Re:Color Blindness is a "Micro-Aggression"

[Anonymous Coward]

It is simply anti-white politics. Racism never goes away, it is human nature. Instead it attack the group that peoples can get away with. And by excluding women, the professional victim, this will go on for a long time because men will not accept to plead victim-hood to make it stop.

This is brilliant social engineering. There is no way out of this situation, the enemies of the West has already won.

Re:Color Blindness is a "Micro-Aggression"

[AmiMoJo]

Did you read the explanation in the column next to it? I sounds like you didn't.

Saying colour is irrelevant trivializes or denies the problems associated with skin colour. It's really not hard to understand. Don't discriminate or generalize about skin colour, and don't deny that it's a problem in society.

Re:Color Blindness is a "Micro-Aggression"

[Shortguy881]

I honestly doubt it. Either you add nothing of interest to a conversation, no opinions of your own, and only state bland facts; you say the right things to the right people all the time, and are as such a very manipulative person; or you are one of those who doesn't realize when they offend someone. Even if this wasn't the hyper-politically correct world we live in, it is impossible to please 100% of the people 100% of the time.

Re:Color Blindness is a "Micro-Aggression"

[fldsofglry]

I'm sorry...I just have to disagree with you there. I assume you are referring to Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech. I don't think he ever alludes to any of these messages in his speech: Assimilate to the dominant culture. Denying the significance of a person of color’s racial/ethnic experience and history. Denying the individual as a racial/cultural being. I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. He isn't being colorblind. He is saying to me that "I accept your racial/ethnic history---I just want to sit down at your table too." Perhaps you are thinking of this one: I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. He isn't being blind to color, he just doesn't want judgement because of color. Or maybe it is this one: I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. Again, he isn't being blind to color. He sees that there are white and black girls, it's just that they can join together as equals. But hey, don't take my word for it. It's all right here: http://www.archives.gov/press/...

Re:Color Blindness is a "Micro-Aggression"

[Darinbob]

"Enemies of the West"? What sort of claptrap is that?

Re:Color Blindness is a "Micro-Aggression"

[Darinbob]

Which is fine. The real world will never be 100% fair. As adults most people learn that things aren't perfect yet we try to improve ourselves anyway or just deal with things. The problem is that some people want to try and enforce this. I still think it's just some fringe wackos on colleges, but those wackos do seem to think that they can and should be able to a comfort zone around themselves.

Re:Color Blindness is a "Micro-Aggression"

[ChrisMaple]

Racism never goes away, it is human nature.

Don't conflate yourself with humanity in general.

Re:Color Blindness is a "Micro-Aggression"

[epyT-R]

It initially targeted the universities in the 50s.. now it's built up 5th columns in every major industry and institution in western society, especially the media and government.

What do they *do*?

[T.E.D.]

That sounds cool and all, but what do they actually do there? What does an Engineering business need with a political functionary?

For the most part, the value in having a former administration official is in leveraging their political ties. However, the Obama administration had notoriously bad relations with Congress, so there just won't be a lot of value there.

The best I can come up with is that It does get you an in with the White House for the next year and a half or so. Since Congress can't do anything, that's the only branch that matters right now. So its good to have someone in your employ who the head of the FCC will answer a phone call from. Sure, their utility ends in a year and a half, but by then most of these folks will have left to join political campaigns anyway. There are now 5 dems running, so experienced operatives are going to be in demand. If you are lucky, you may even end up with a former employee working in the next White House. It sure doesn't look like Congress will get any more functional in the meantime.

Re:What do they *do*?

[Agripa]

That sounds cool and all, but what do they actually do there? What does an Engineering business need with a political functionary?

Lobbying usually has a much greater return on investment than research or manufacturing.

Hahahahahah

[argStyopa]

"Change"

"This is going to be the most transparent administration ever"

"There will be no place for Lobbyists in the new Washington"

Did I miss any?

Re:[T]hings that ... fail: lots of experience at t

[Mashiki]

Facts hurt your feelings? All that shit is true and that should tell you something. That you think they're talking points shows that you have no idea what's actually going on with your government. And it's something that a foreigner like me already knows about.

Re:where?

[I'm New Around Here]

And by the current leftist standard, anyone who agrees that people can own property is right wing. Anyone who owns two properties is extreme right wing.

Re:[T]hings that ... fail: lots of experience at t

[I'm New Around Here]

By that standard, everyone in every country other than the US should never complain about our import/export and copyright laws. Because, hey, they aren't part of the US, so we obviously can't affect them in any way.

You take imbecility to a new level.

Re: [T]hings that ... fail: lots of experience at

[Fwipp]

Is that you, apk?

Re:[T]hings that ... fail: lots of experience at t

[Rockoon]

That you think they're talking points shows that you have no idea what's actually going on with your government.

This isnt quite correct I think. It isnt that he doesnt know whats going on. Its that he doesnt understand the significance of the facts. He only understands the "significance" of the sound-bites that tug on heart-strings. This is the guy that thinks that when it comes to public policy, that "everyone's opinion is of equal worth." Opinion trumps data and facts in his world.

Re:where?

[k6mfw]

well I am getting really tired of this two-party, two-modes of thinking, NFL style mentality. This concept of only two teams like football, you are either with one or the the other (no other choices). And like football, you can only cheer or boo but really have no idea what their game plans are (you see them huddle before the play but that's it). The whole concept of multiple voices and combining different options of running societies is so mysterious for most people. And like football there is only two tiers of people: Rich and poor. You are either in one or the other. SF illustrates this as housing is very expensive, or there is the Tenderloin.

Re:[T]hings that ... fail: lots of experience at t

[ScentCone]

free like it is in the other 95% of the world

You don't even actually understand who pays for things, do you?

Re:[T]hings that ... fail: lots of experience at t

[ganjadude]

and who has run the schools for the past 40 years???

Re: [T]hings that ... fail: lots of experience at

[ganjadude]

or spend the money they have better.

not everything is a 1 or the other situation

Re:[T]hings that ... fail: lots of experience at t

[ganjadude]

were you in a coma for 6 years??? i mean he hasnt been president for a while now, read a news paper

Re:[T]hings that ... fail: lots of experience at t

[LynnwoodRooster]

I don't think it's the price; more people than ever have college degrees. Rather, it's the quality of the education they're receiving. Which says a LOT about those who put so much faith and trust in our higher education system.

Re:Illuminati infiltration

[LynnwoodRooster]

I beg to differ! The original poster should know that the Bay area isn't a center of power of the Illuminati, but the Bilderbergers and Freemasons. The Illuminati are a bit down the coast, in Santa Barbara...

Re:[T]hings that ... fail: lots of experience at t

[painandgreed]

Libya: Obama's exercise in failed "regime change" has left Libya more fucked up than what W did to Iraq. Why'd Obama depose Qaddafi again?

From my reading, that was actually Europe, mostly France and Italy. They were willing to push their agenda and get rid of Qaddafi, got Europe involved, and then realized that they couldn't carry out such a mission without NATO resources, which meant dragging in the US. I can't find real reference to it, but I suspect that Europe basically said "we supported you in Iraq, now you can support us in this" and we had to get involved in North Africa to scratch Europe's back. Notice that that was the NATO operation that we were not in charge of.

Re: [T]hings that ... fail: lots of experience at

[ChrisMaple]

We've been spending more money on education, and the results are getting worse. Education should not be expensive, anything pre-college is actually pretty easy to teach. Currently, in the US we're spending about twice as much as is necessary.