"...How do the young, fresh-faced college bloggers who voted for “change” feel about the fact that Obama’s cabinet has turned out to be a composite of has-beens and never-should-have-beens from the Clinton administration? He literally went backwards almost two decades to recruit cabinet members, and, as such, his cabinet suggests the promotion of entrenched interests instead of change.
Think about it; the generation of college kids who voted for Obama weren’t frightened away by his socialism because they don’t remember socialism. They don’t know the U.S.S.R. from Cheyenne, Wyo. They only knew that Obama’s words sounded good, thus his promise of “change” was followed by chants of “yes we can,” and, without having any real idea about what kind of change he intended, throngs of ignorant youngsters volunteered for his campaign and got the t-shirt.
Now that they realize they’ll be looking at Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the foreseeable future, as well as Tom Daschle and Hillary Clinton, some of these euphoric bloggers have become concerned, if not enraged. They’re beginning to realize the joke is on them, and they’re starting to sound off.
A disappointed Kevin Martin, of Peace Action, now fears that “the president-elect is ‘a fairly centrist guy’ who appears to be choosing from the [Democrat] foreign policy establishment -- “‘and nobody from outside it.’”
On michaelmoore.com, the Lefties have latched onto the fact that Obama is filling his cabinet with politicians who voted for the war in Iraq, and they are dismayed. One article on the site quotes the Institute for Public Accuracy’s Sam Husseini as saying, “It's astonishing that not one of the 23 senators or 133 House members who voted against the war is in the mix.” In the same article, Kelly Dougherty, of Iraq Veterans Against the War, is quoted as saying: “Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning.”
On commondreams.org, a gathering place for liberals the world over, John Nichols has a piece posted wherein he complains that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, is not partisan enough. Nichols describes Emanuel as a man who has “worked very hard for a very long time -- first in the Clinton administration and then in Congress -- to change the [Democrat] Party into a more cautious, centrist and compromised institution,” and he is disgusted by it.
Like so many on the left, Nichols’ words betray his thirst for political blood. Neither he the loons on michaelmoore.com, nor the kooks on moveon.org want cautiousness or centrism: they want the hard left policies Obama ran on implemented now...
...These people are going to knock on Obama’s door until he opens it and gives them everything he promised or moves out of the house. It’s as simple as that. (And he will, in the next two years at least, start giving them what they want.)
So we must remember that as stupid and shameful as his promises of government intervention, income redistribution, and the Europeanization of America sounded to those of us who are still proud, self reliant, Americans, the people who supported Obama are certain we’d be better off if we were Frenchified. Thus they not only supported the man who talked about taking our hard earned money and dispersing it among the lazy and the feeble, but they are angered that he has not moved to take our money quickly enough.
Fortunately for now, Obama’s inexperience has him frozen in place, and all his talk on the campaign trail has proven to be just that. But this will change soon enough, especially as those to whom he made promises continue to approach him with their hands out."
excerpts from - I voted for Obama and all I got was a lousy t-shirt