Ideas for Change

Mark Green, president of the New Democracy Project and Air America, called me on the phone the other day to talk about the now released book he co-edited, Change for America: A Progressive Blueprint for the 44th President.

"So it turns out that these past eight years in the wilderness allowed--or compelled--scores of progressive thinkers to do promising work in think tanks, universities, congressional offices," he said.

Green told me he approached Center for American Progress (CAP) president John Podesta (now on leave to serve as transition chief for President Obama) in December 2006 about gathering together "the best thinking of progressive scholars, activists, and officials into a one-stop shopping, comprehensive volume discussing how to move from a conservative to progressive presidency." Green edited a similar book for President Clinton in 1991 and wanted to repeat the effort for the 2008 cycle.

Yesterday, nearly two years later, Green and co-editor Michele Jolin-- senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund-- released the 300,000-word opus that features chapters written by 67 scholars, advocates, authors, and officials. As Green described to me the book is "a one volume manual of ideas--not just a list of solutions but its bricks and architecture; its nuts and bolts and framework. The proposals are organized around four values that should animate us from 2009 through 2016."

The four core values at the heart of the book are: democracy, diplomacy, economic opportunity and a greener world. These values are the foundation for the plan which the editors call "Progressive Patriotism" because--as Green notes in his introduction--"there's nothing more American than always seeking to do things better."

A look at the contributors reveals writers and thinkers who Nation readers will be familiar with: Bracken Hendricks and Van Jones writing about a low-carbon economy; Michael Waldman of the Brennan Center on Renewing our Democracy; Joan Claybrook on Green Reforms for Environmental and Consumer Safety; Peter Edelman and Angela Glover Blackwell on Economic Opportunity for All; Lawrence Korb on Redeploying from Iraq; Joseph Cirincione on Securing America from Nuclear Threats; Ellen Miller on Government Transparency.

There are also no shortage of Clintonista contributors--like Sandy Berger, Henry Cisneros, Carol Browner, Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Jack Lew--and we'll see if their ideas for a "bold agenda" are at the scale needed to tackle a cratering economy, broken healthcare system, two wars, poverty and inequality, and the stained US reputation in the world. But the grim reality of this time may lead even those who once counseled more cautious approaches to tack in a new direction. (Even Larry Summers--who this magazine thinks would be a bad choice for Treasury Secretary--now recognizes the need for real public investment, for God's sake. Also, see Gene Sperling below.) It's a question of boldness and scale, and Green noted these ideas can serve as "benchmarks" towards progressive change.

Some of the ideas discussed in the book (full disclosure--I've only read the preface, intro and some galleys) that appeal to me include: an Office of Democracy to keep the fundamental but unsexy issues of repairing our still dysfunctional democracy on the radar; public financing with matching funds for small contributions; uniform federal standards for administering elections; a "Medicare for All" universal health insurance; a plan to cut poverty in half by 2016; a National Infrastructure Bank; an International Peace Corps modeled on our domestic one; fair trade with strong labor and environmental standards; a plan to abolish nuclear weapons; and an expeditious transformation to a low-carbon economy.

After the book release event, former Clinton national economic advisor Gene Sperling spoke on an afternoon panel at CAP and talked about the need to implement a bold agenda at this time of fiscal crisis. Sperling said, "We need to take a Powell Doctrine approach to economic stimulus in 2009.... The idea of the Powell Doctrine is that you come at a problem with overwhelming force.... The risk of being slow, careful, and incremental are too slow, too careful and too incremental - far exceeds the risk of expanding the deficit...."

Sperling called for a minimum of $300 billion in direct spending "as the starting point with an understanding that we may need more." (And many progressive economists would say $300 billion per year for two years might be more along the lines of what is needed.) He spoke of "jumpstarting jobs and jumpstarting the future... find areas that both inject demand quickly but are down payments on our long-term priorities." He cited green jobs and green infrastructure; school modernization and green schools; federal matching Medicaid payments to prevent states from painful contractions; the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) expansion; investments in healthcare information technology.

Sperling spoke to the mainstream media/inside-the-beltway conventional wisdom that "in light of this...perhaps as high as a trillion dollar deficit and this financial crisis, the [presumed] right and virtuous answer is to talk about the fact that you're going to have to cut back and delay the major national priorities that President-elect Obama ran on - such as climate change, universal healthcare, education. I want to say... that we could not disagree more. The highest cost is the cost of inaction."

I've long argued that the political center in this country has shifted - that people are seeking a government that speaks to the issues that are at the center of their lives. Change for America offers some compelling notions on how to move in that direction--it's a resource not only for policymakers, but for citizens who want to see many of the ideas being put forth by some of the people who will have a role in the Obama Administration.

Comments (39)

1. Push it if you like, Ms vanden Heuvel...but admit the WHOLE THING, please?

   By that I mean-

   "and accept we may have over a trillion a year in deficits..or more..for some years to come; and a likely National Debt near 50 Trillion before it stabilizes"!

   Posted by Mask at 11/13/2008 @ 1:34pm

2. Flat Tax, after exempting some set amount....like $30,000! Every income earners pays! Only if one pays, is one inclined to actually try to understand...not that everyone will. Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/13/2008 @ 1:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   an idea which is DOA.

   I have a better idea, bring back the 90% top tax bracket, we are after all in a war, or two.

   tell us again how the economy is not in the ground. or how well YOUR stock portfolio is doing.

   Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 1:39pm

3. I'm sure this is what Mr. Obama really needs: A bunch of ideas from those still my "my agenda" mode instead of "big picture" mode.

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/13/2008 @ 4:02pm

4. Great article Ms. Huevel.The political center has indeed shifted(hopefully).I know MY political center has shifted,over these past 8 yrs.I used to drink the libertarian koolaid,but I spewed out their "Al Capone" economics(ie. we gotta get rid uh deze cops),and their Robinson Crusoe philosophy(EVERY man is an island).The broad left(progs,libs,soc dems),also NEED to manage/cultivate the shift in perceptions/attitudes: *taxes are the DUES we pay for the privilege of living in a decent & civilzed nation. *huge concentrations of wealth in private hands is a threat to our democracy & our constitution,a crime against humanity,a sin before God(to bring the Christian LEFT into the alliance). *the FREEDOM that our founders longed for is the ORGANIZED freedom of the little commoners FROM the depredations of the owning/ruling class(ie. wallstreeters/city-o-londoners,etc.) They would probably call it a citizens' union(sorta like a labor union, only MORE PERFECT) *monetarism=BAD,public credit=GOOD(ask rep.Kucinich about this;also Stephen Zarlenga & Richard C Cook). *the REAL source of wealth is the creativity & ingenuity of the human mind,NOT mere money(and the controllers/manipulators of money).We owe our modern existance to scientists,engineers,technicians,machinists,mechanics,factory workers,farmers,distributors,suppliers,manager/organizers of these work processes,ETC... & STATESMEN of our Gov't to make sure this all PROMOTES the general welfare/common good/public good. *we once lived in a "mixed economy"with a strong & vigorous PUBLIC sector,as well as private sector;& it was the best of times for our American civilization.We can "be there" again. If we CANNOT see that the above is the truth,then we are headed for a LITERAL dark age nightmare.

   Posted by LNBOW at 11/13/2008 @ 6:19pm

5. LNBOW- I am not really picking up a lot of what you're putting down. What's a Citizen's Union exactly? If implemented, how might this look say in 2011?

   Posted by winyahn at 11/13/2008 @ 7:30pm

6. Flat Tax, after exempting some set amount....like $30,000! Every income earners pays! Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/13/2008 @ 1:25pm

   Lets analyze your proposal concretely and see where it would lead. Lets compare the 2009 progressive income tax vs your flat tax with a $30,000 exemption (i will use 2 flat tax rates at 17%). I choose those rates because steve forbes and dick army promoted the 17% rate, and in 2005 Senator Sam Brownback (R) from Kansas, had lobbied for a 15% tax rate.

   I'll use a lower middle class worker who makes $30,000 and a banker who makes $250,000(or Joe the plumber if you prefer). Both people are single. Also I will not include any investment income from capital gains, dividends or interest payments. It might be hard to follow along but I'll try to make it clear.

   The US has 6 income brackets: the banker qualifies for 5 brackets, the worker qualifies for 2. worker :: banker 30,000 :: 250, 000 1st layer of income 8,350 :: 8,350 2nd layer of income 21,650 :: 25599 3rd layer of income 0 :: 48299 4th layer of income 0 :: 89299 5th layer of income 0 :: 78449 Now the income has be chopped up into brackets, let's tax it according to the 2009 rates 1st layer at 10% 835 :: 835 2nd layer at 15% 3247 :: 3839 3rd layer at 25% 0 :: 12074 4th layer 28% 0 :: 25003 5th layer at 33% 0 :: 25888 Total progressive tax 4082 :: 67639

   Flat tax with $30K exemption @ 17% 0 :: 37400

   Tax change with flat tax from progr. tax -4,082 :: -30,239 at 17%

   Total income w/ progress. tax 25,918 :: 182,361 Total income w/ flat tax at 17% 30,000 :: 212600

   My point is any flat tax forces middle class taxpayers to subsidize the wealthy and that is inherently unfair. How would you fund a govt, 1) cut govt operations(i say trim the DoD), 2) squeeze the middle class, 3) borrow

   Posted by hdthoreau at 11/13/2008 @ 7:50pm

7. correction: i only used 1 flat tax rate at 17% because the 15% rate had an even greater disparity.

   Posted by hdthoreau at 11/13/2008 @ 7:57pm

8. Has anyone noticed that after the Treasury Chief Paulson announced yesterday that he will no longer buy the toxic assets from the investment banks that the fat cats dumped their cash in Wall Street today? Must be nice to be King!

   Posted by tormadji at 11/13/2008 @ 8:08pm

9. Hey,

   President-Elect Obama is hard at work getting this country back on track, but he's counting on all of us to get involved.

   I just signed up to learn more about the presidential transition, and I thought you might want to do the same.

   Just visit http://www.change.gov, and enter your e-mail address in the top right corner.

   The voters have spoken, but I don't believe this was a mandate for the Democrats. It was a mandate for Obama's promises of cooperation and bipartisanship, of treating each other with respect and dignity. It was a vote for the hope of a Washington that functions for the good of the American people.

   Can Obama lead America to that reality, as he has promised? Time will tell. But, as Obama has said, getting there requires all Americans. It's not something he can do by himself. It's a challenge to all of us to work together so our nation can see better days.

   Barack Obama Plan for America

   Energy and Environmental http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy

   WE WILL ROCK YOU! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0Gkp3wTU1o

   TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE A CHANGE! http://www.yourchoiceforchange08.org/index.php?d=SmFtZXMgRXZlcml0dA==

   Thank you for taking the time to look at this booklet. President Elect Barack Obama and Vice President Elect Joe Bidens Plan for America http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

   Posted by jameseveritt at 11/13/2008 @ 8:37pm

10. Flat Tax, after exempting some set amount....like $30,000! Every income earners pays! Only if one pays, is one inclined to actually try to understand...not that everyone will.

    Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/13/2008 @ 1:25pm

    no. no. no.

    lift income taxes and tax carbon consumption.

    win - win.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/13/2008 @ 9:38pm

11. I'm sure this is what Mr. Obama really needs: A bunch of ideas from those still my "my agenda" mode instead of "big picture" mode.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/13/2008 @ 4:02pm

    if they've got money, we call them "lobbyists".

    if they're screaming helplessly to the wind, we call them "voters".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/13/2008 @ 9:40pm

12. I know this is over simplistic but, if $1 billion spent on infrastructure creates Twenty-four Thousand jobs then, the $700 billion (cost of bailout) spent on infrastructure would be 16.8 million jobs or 5.9% of the population. Seems to me that would pull us right out of this economic depression to merely a recession. How much are we spending on the wars anyway? We could put that money towards the infrastructure too. Okay okay, our woes aren't going to be solved by a magic bullet but, surely we can still manage a common-sense approach to get out of this mess.

    Posted by OccidentalPeninsular at 11/13/2008 @ 9:41pm

13. I think many of you would really like The Standards of LIFE.

    Check out their plan for Obama at http://standardsoflife.wordpress.com

    Energy/carbon Taxes/social Democracy

    interesting stuff...

    Posted by AndrewP at 11/13/2008 @ 9:43pm

14. I would be interested in learning about the recommendations in this second edition of Change for America about how the role and function of the Federal Reserve Bank should be changed. It seems to me that, unless the FRB is brought under the control of government, rather than the other way around, we will never find a way to support a democractic economy. Keep in mind that the FRB creates money out of thin air and all the currency it creates is debt owed to private banks. The government could legally issue currency, based on the faith and credit of the United States, without charging interest for it.

    As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in 1933, "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson." Cited from Ellen Hodgson Brown's book, Web of Debt.

    Posted by ArthurHimmelman at 11/13/2008 @ 11:20pm

15. no. no. no.

    lift income taxes and tax carbon consumption.

    win - win.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/13/2008 @ 9:38pm

    Graphite tastes like crap.

    Posted by Benchrest at 11/13/2008 @ 11:25pm

16. ever try buckyballs?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/14/2008 @ 12:39am

17. Posted by frosty zoom at 11/14/2008 @ 12:39am

    Too hairy.

    Posted by Benchrest at 11/14/2008 @ 01:05am

18. actually, those are nanotubes...

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/14/2008 @ 01:11am

19. The only thing to do is the transfer of wealth from up down now. It has been so many years that bank and companies have scamed the people that the real problem now is that our internal market is now extremely weak. No more trickle down economy of supply, turn it to economy of demand and creation on wealth based on solid assets ( be them infrastructure or scientific and technological development) but not anymore on stock exchange or housing fables nor on accounting innovative practices. Government supervision will be critical to transform this savage capitalism into humanistic capitalism.

    Posted by Frank42 at 11/14/2008 @ 01:55am

20. Has anyone noticed that after the Treasury Chief Paulson announced yesterday that he will no longer buy the toxic assets from the investment banks that the fat cats dumped their cash in Wall Street today? Must be nice to be King!

    Posted by tormadji

    The Treasury is going to have to change the bailout because the big investment banks that were in jeopardy and accepting the bailout cash, used the cash to pay dividends, executive bonuses, acquire smaller banks, etc...In other words, increase their shareholders' profits. All the while refusing to lend money, which is what the bailout cash was supposed to be for.

    Just about everyone who posts here was right about those slimy bastards (investment bankers.)

    Posted by koroviev at 11/14/2008 @ 01:58am

21. Ummm..

    If there's anything to the rumors we're hearing about Obama's cabinet you may have to wait awhile on the "progressive" stuff.

    Maybe get the country back to "normal" the first term then give Obama this book.

    Posted by bleedingheart at 11/14/2008 @ 02:17am

22. actually, those are nanotubes...

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/14/2008 @ 01:11am

    If we ever need a space elevator...

    Posted by Benchrest at 11/14/2008 @ 10:15am

23. Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/13/2008 @ 1:25pm

    The problem, Happy, is you spend too much time listening to and reading right-wing radio personalities.

    A flat tax shifts the burden of taxes to poor people, which is precisely why people like yourself are for them. Further, a flat tax doesn't pay for the costs of government - particularly wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, weapons development, corporate "bail-outs", and all the other ways that both Democrats and Republicans feed their friends at the public trough.

    What makes Republicans particularly despicable is that they give their friends at Halliburton, Enron and JP Morgan public dollars while lying about wanting "smaller government".

    Ronald Reagan talked about the scarest words being, "I'm from government and I'm here to help," and talked about smaller government, while racking up debt on the government charge card that would shame a gold-digger wife/husband if it were done on her/his scale.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/14/2008 @ 10:38am

24. Ronald Reagan talked about the scarest words being, "I'm from government and I'm here to help,"

    how about:"I'm from the private sector and I'm here to help."

    you know it's gonna cost you a lot of money when you hear that.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 11:30am

25. KVH:

    "progressive thinkers"

    oxymoron?

    Posted by sntauri at 11/14/2008 @ 11:59am

26. In typical fashion, The Nation has no Green in it's vision. That is like looking at a forest and seeing only the Trunks.

    Where are the inputs from James Hansen or Van Jones or anyone else who really understands the issues at the nexus of global warming, energy and the economy.

    Wes Rolley CoChair, EcoAction Committee Green Party

    Posted by wrolley at 11/14/2008 @ 1:15pm

27. I agree with KVH that we SHOULD NOT put Education on the backburner. Didn't we all notice the abundance of ignorance in the electorate again this year? Didn't anyone else find it a bit scary?

    How can we send students into the world with no understanding of geography, no interest in reading newspapers, no ability to express themselves articulately, no familiarity with the U.S. Constitution...

    Oh yeah...that was the nominee for Vice President...

    Posted by lorijen at 11/14/2008 @ 2:23pm

28. no. no. no.

    lift income taxes and tax carbon consumption.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/13/2008 @ 9:38pm

    Yes. Yes. Yes.

    Posted by mikecope at 11/14/2008 @ 3:16pm

29. Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/14/2008 @ 11:22am

    Except, if you do the math, it doesn't work out. That's the problem flat taxers want to ignore. Flat tax doesn't pay for government - even if you tried to counter-act the reduction in the treasury by a reduction in government spending. If you read the books about Flat Tax, they all presuppose an enormous economic boom that there isn't any evidence for.

    Flat tax also shifts the burden of paying taxes to the lower end of the tax bracket, which is obvious if you simply think about how a progressive and flat tax work. So, your arbitrary $30,000 limit doesn't address that problem.

    Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/14/2008 @ 11:28am

    The argument is that at least Democrats aren't selling me that they want to reduce government as they enlarge it. Unfortunately, Republicans can't say the same.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/14/2008 @ 3:21pm

30. the repugs don't want to pay for gov't. they want their kids and ours to pay for it. no matter what they say, this is what they do. check Reagan and most of all that goddamn Bush Jr. what he has done to our country dwarfs what Bin Laden did.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 4:15pm

31. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/14/2008 @ 4:12pm

    Obfuscate all you like, the bottom line is that Republicans run on a philosophy of less government and Democrats don't. Yet, when Republicans get in office they increase the size of government - same as their Democratic counterparts.

    Democrats, at least, never say they are going to make the government smaller. Call me crazy, but I like a group less that consistently lies to me about what they stand for - or tries to paint the hypocrisy of their own behavior as a problem with the other guy.

    Own it. Don't try to justify your party of lies with some sad schoolyard argument that the other guy is just as bad. It's beside the point, and it's adding another lie on top of the old one.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/14/2008 @ 4:52pm

32. Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/14/2008 @ 5:01pm

    Reduced to its essentials: I got mine; screw the other guy. The logical outcome is creating a world where there is so much of a difference between rich and poor you'd have to look to Brazil to understand why your family was kidnapped.

    "Giving allegedly favorable contracts to vendors..."

    Their is a reason why you have cooks on a Navy ship and that they all trained in damage control. Logistics is no different in the Army, and the fact that you are making these arguments shows that you both don't have any military experience, that you don't have a good grasp of how contractors are being used in Iraq and the historical precedents of using mercenaries and what impact they have on governments.

    "Letting it play the energy-trading market is enlarging the Gov't?"

    Cheney's energy task force meeting with Enron executives on how to divide Iraq's oil was part of the power grab of the philosophy of the unitary executive and was used as part of the bad justifications that supported war in the first place. The War of Terror, most definitely, enlarged the government, and this was a piece of that rationale that was very Enron-like in its execution.

    Why is it that I'm explaining this to you, Happy? Why are you also avoiding the main point that the Flat Tax won't work? Have you used the "Hey, look over there!" ploy to distract people from how bad your arguments look naked so many times that it has become instinctual or what?

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/14/2008 @ 5:36pm

33. the flat tax is regressive. bring back the 90% tax bracket.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 6:43pm

34. Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/14/2008 @ 6:50pm

    Again, try living in Brazil. That's the life you are advocating.

    Cooks in the Navy are actually an excellent example of why privatized logistics don't work. Same principles apply to the Army.

    I'd also call bullshit that mercenaries are a more effective fighting force or make our fighting force more effective. Further, I know you cannot argue that it is more cost effective because it is one of the lest transparent expenses in Iraq. Wishing it is the case doesn't make it so.

    "Really now? So, how has Iraq's oil been divided?"

    The fact that Cheney had secret meetings based on his flawed reasoning doesn't mean it is actual - particularly after Enron imploded.

    Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/14/2008 @ 7:04pm

    Try running the math. Take a look at current expenses and current tax revenues - those that have left us with nearly 10 trillion in debt, and feel free to explain how a flat tax is going to pay for defense spending, interest payments, and so forth and so on.

    I'll bet you'll try for the magic economic boom that supposedly happens when taxes are cut - because it is the only way you can argue for flat taxes. Again, wishing doesn't make it so.

    I'll give you that tax code is complex. I'll give you that you can set a floor on who pays taxes. But the bottom line, something it appears you don't even understand yet, is that the math doesn't work out - no matter how you slice it.

    If you are going to argue tax reform, you should know what you are talking about. Run the numbers, and explain to me how it will work. I've looked at them. I've been charitable, but it simply doesn't work out.

    Now, either explain how the math works or find another cause to champaion - one you can explain.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/14/2008 @ 8:36pm

35. I can't imagine flat tax can be any worse than what we've got.....

    this is one of the worst reasons to try something untested.

    is there any country that has this system? if it is so great why has no one else tried it?

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 8:49pm

36. I BEG YOU TO NOT ADVOCATE FOR PUMPING MORE $ INTO A FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED AND ALREADY WAY OVER-BLOATED US HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

    Pumping large sums of $ into a conceptually and fundamentally flawed US health care system should NOT be part of our economic crises solution

    We have a bloated "disease care system" which harms in many cases arising out of the myth that more is better in health care.

    I'm for infrastucture and green jobs

    "JOBS is my health care plan"

    Dr. Rick Lippin Southampton,Pa

    Posted by drricklippin at 11/15/2008 @ 4:13pm

37. I don't know why The Nation is not reporting on all this talk about Hillary as Secretary of State?

    Aside from her obvious disdain for direct talks to adversaries, which puts her squarely at odds with Obama's approach, Bill has NOT come clean with who these donors are to the Clinton Library and what do they want in exchange for their donation?

    It is clear that Bill promised these donors "something", and we need to know if fulfilling such promises through Hillary would undermine Obama's foreign policy vision or his foreign policy objectives as president.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/16/2008 @ 10:51am

38. There are so many weaknesses to this document that it requires a complete rewrite to create any sense of "change that we can believe in." It is obviously written by people who have lived off the public dole for most of their lives.

    But, let's begin with the Office of faith etc. Excuse me, but whatever happened to the constitutional notion of separation of church and state? Oh, yeah. George Bush ditched it among many other civil liberties to promote his military agenda. Well, let's not ask Obama to continue down this path, even though he has volunteered his own self. It's bad enough for corporations to be pimping the nation's treasury, we don't need these pastors doing the same. What's the percentage of people who attend church? So, as progressives, let's not cheer lead him on. Creating anything that smacks of religion should be detestable to progressives and Obama must eliminate the entire infrastructure in my opinion. It's a bastion for wayward rightwingers that Bush needed jobs for. Of course, they get quality health care on our dime, the majority of us do not. Let them go and find a job in the corporate sector. lol

    Finally, there is not much red meat for the poor nor the middleclass.

    Posted by afrothetics at 11/16/2008 @ 9:50pm

39. There is only one progressive who has the President-elect's ear and as a South American resident, I'm very glad that person is Gregory Craig.

    No, Craig isn't a progressive policy person, he's just one of the best litigators Williams & Connolly has and is an expert on Latin affairs. If you have pie-in-the-sky "progressive philosophies" about burning fund-managers and everybody who wears glasses at the stake, Craig isn't your guy.

    If you're jammed up in a federal beef though and maybe you would like to see your family sometime again, they don't come much better. Yes, Craig is that one step beyond "progressive." He's a criminal defense lawyer who's been fighting the real fights for liberty everyday.

    Sadly, Obama seems to be of the "progressivism-for-me-but-not-for-thee" school. You're goddamned right he's got a real civil libertarian as his White House counsel. That's for dough.

    For show, watch the treatment Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed, Dennis Kucinich, Robert Wexler and Barbara Lee get. Just watch.

    Anybody naive enough to think that there was a fight between Obama and the Clintons? Please. It was always Obama and the Clintons against Howard and Jim Dean.

    If Obama doesn't make it right with Dean after one assfucking following another, there will BE a protest movement indeed but it won't be from religious Republican psychos. It will be from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.

    Posted by DexterManley at 11/17/2008 @ 1:49pm