Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditBarack Obama not only had the good judgment to oppose the war in Iraq but , as he told us earlier this year, "I want to end the mindset that got us into war." So it is troubling that a man of such good judgment has asked Robert Gates to stay on as Secretary of Defense--and assembled a national security team of such narrow bandwidth. It is true that President Obama will set the policy. But this team makes it more difficult to seize the extraordinary opportunity Obama's election has offered to reengage the world and reset America's priorities. Maybe being right about the greatest foreign policy disaster in US history doesn't mean much inside the Beltway? How else to explain that not a single top member of Obama's foreign policy/national security team opposed the war--or the dubious claims leading up to it?
The appointment of Hillary Clinton, who failed to oppose the war, has worried many. But I am more concerned about Gates. I spent the holiday weekend reading many of the speeches Hillary Clinton gave in her trips abroad as First Lady, especially those delivered at the UN Beijing Women's Conference and the Vital Voices Conferences, and I believe she will carve out an important role as Secretary of State through elevating women's (and girl's) rights as human rights. As she said in Belfast in 1998, "Human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights." That is not to diminish her hawkish record on several issues, but as head of State she is in a position to put diplomacy back at the center of US foreign policy role--and reduce the Pentagon's.
It's the appointment of Gates which has a dispiriting, stay-the-course feel to it. Some will argue, and I've engaged in my fair share of such arguments, that Gates will simply be carrying out Obama's policies and vision. And a look at history shows that other great reform Presidents--Lincoln and Roosevelt--brought people into their cabinets who were old Washington hands or people they believed to be effective managers. Like Obama, they confronted historic challenges that compelled (and enabled) them to make fundamental change. But Gates will undoubtedly help to shape policy and determine which issues are given priority. And while Gates has denounced "the gutting" of America's "soft power," he has been vocally opposed to Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan. And at a time when people like Henry Kissinger and George Shultz are calling for steps toward a world free of nuclear weapons (a position Obama has adopted), Gates has been calling for a new generation of nuclear weapons.
For Obama, who's said he wants to be challenged by his advisors, wouldn't it have made sense to include at least one person on the foreign policy/national security team who would challenge him with some new and fresh thinking about security in the 21st century? Isn't the idea of a broader bandwidth of ideas also at the heart of this ballyhooed "team of rivals" stuff?
Powerful establishment voices have been quick to praise the continuity, expertise and competence of Obama's team. But if President-elect Obama is really serious about changing the global perception of the US--not just in Paris, London, Tokyo and Berlin but in the Middle East, the global South and the developing world--he would worry less about reassuring establishment stakeholders and the representatives of the tried, the true and the failed, and make some appointments that represent some genuinely new departures and new directions. Instead, as one longtime observer of US-Russian relations reminded me the other day, in Gates, a veteran Cold Warrior, you have "an establishment figure with the longest institutional involvement in our failed Russia policies of anyone in DC."
And with all the talk about the importance of foreign policy experience, why is there so little attention paid to the quality of that experience? (Let's not forget, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney had quite a bit of Washington experience.) What we need after eight ruinous years is experience informed by good judgment. What is gained by bringing in people who traffic in conventional wisdom and who have shown the kind of foreign policy timidity that acquiesced to disasters like the Iraq war?
Obama may believe that Gates will give him the cover and continuity he needs to carry out his planned withdrawal from Iraq. But so could many others, including Republicans like Chuck Hagel who, at least, opposed the Iraq war. By keeping Gates on Obama worsens the Democratic image on national security--- sending the message that even Democrats agree that Democrats can't run the military. And even more troubling for our future security, Gates has sounded ominous notes about how more US troops can pacify Afghanistan. Speaking only days after a National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the US was caught in a "downward spiral" there, Gates asserted that there is "no reason to be defeatist or underestimate the opportunity to be successful in the long run." Extricating the US from one disastrous war to head into another will drain resources needed to fulfill Obama's hopes and promises for economic growth, health care, energy independence and crowd out other international initiatives.
Of course, Obama still has an opportunity to change the mindset that got us into Iraq and, more important, he has a popular mandate to challenge and change failed policies and craft a smarter security policy for this century. But he's sure making his work tougher by bringing people like Robert Gates on board.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
So if Bob Gates gave an inspring speech on women's rights you would be on board with his appointment?
Posted by OneVote at 12/01/2008 @ 10:03am
Kat, your partisanship is showing!
Just cause he's Repub doesn't mean he's delusional. That silly.
You know, like when Ann Coulter says John Kennedy (by virtue of his party affiliation) is a traitor?
That's silly too.
Please don't be like Adolph Annie.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/01/2008 @ 10:27am
The only rights that Bill Gates seems to care about are copyrights.
Posted by boing007 at 12/01/2008 @ 10:27am
"Barack Obama not only had the good judgment to oppose the war in Iraq but , as he told us earlier this year, "I want to end the mindset that got us into war.""
So maybe he deserves some bennie of the doubt on Gates, hmmm, Ms vanden Heuvel?
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 10:30am
Posted by boing007 at 12/01/2008 @ 10:27am
boeing is that a joke, or do you really think that the Secretary of Defense is also the CEO of Microsoft?!??!?!?
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 10:31am
I don't see anything wrong with Gates holding this position, he wasn't always in agreement with Bush and that to me is a good thing. Obama wanted folks from all sides to be in his cabinet, but I don't think it really matters who he chooses, it will be wrong for somebody somewhere!!!!
Posted by Caj at 12/01/2008 @ 10:40am
This article is simplistic, superficial, and reveals a singular lack of understanding of DOD. Gates is perfectly acceptable has a holdover for one or two years.
Gates is no loony-tunes ideologue; he belongs to the "pragmatist" school of Republican foreign policy whose chief exponent is Brent Scowcroft--who WAS against the war in Iraq, and for exactly the same reasons Obama cited in this 2002 speech. Moreover, Gates is has a lot of credibility on Capitol Hill, in foreign governments and military establishments, and--most importantly--with the senior DOD military leadership.
Some of Gates' public observations about policy may reflect the views of his military constituency in DOD, and not necessarily his own. Military traditions and culture (rightly!) look unfavorably upon senior officers openly voicing opinions to the public civilian world; it has long been a practice of having the SECDEF serve as an acceptable conduit.
Finally, the real problem and real danger are the second-tier civilian positions in DOD. Gates inherited many Cheney-Rumsfeld creatures. THEY are the ones that need to go, especially the Undersecretary for Defense Policy. The key thing to watch is the second-tier appointments (or holdovers).
Posted by IceNine at 12/01/2008 @ 11:10am
So far, I've been disappointed and/or uneasy about all of the appointments--bye, bye credibility if policy reflects these people. I assume BO thinks we're intelligent, so I presume he knows we don't like this and doesn't care...but doesn't he care about being perceived as basing his differences from McCain on a lie? His behavior is very disturbing and he is bound to alienate many people if there is no change. What was the point of calling for it only to drop it the day after the election? What might he suppose we'd think of him for that--that we have no choice but to stew, with Palin waiting in the wings? If I were BO, I'd be mightily uncomfortable knowing the inconsistency between promises and action...I think he's asking for trouble (lobbying, demonstrations) with this apparent betrayal. Shame on him if this is simply to be a Clinton 3rd term...I will vote 3rd party next time if this goes any farther, after I demonstrate for four years.
Posted by mimsky at 12/01/2008 @ 11:22am
I was horrified to hear that he wants to keep Gates-the engineer of Iran-Contra, former CIA hgh roller, etc-but there is another side to this as well. He is giving Gates the opportunity to be the person who represents reaching across the aisle. By keeping him in place it calms the neocons who are in a panic right now. It also gives him time to "clean out" the DOD and get rid of alot of the civil service employees who are extremists and fill the dept. with less hawkish and more progressive picks at the lower levels, which will ultimately strenghten the DOD as a defensive and not offensive (ooh, a pun!) organization. He can ALWAYS fire Gates, at any time, remember. I am looking at this appointment with reservations, but I don't think it is a critical failure. He will have some extra time to recruit and have a replacment waiting in the wings (perhaps a really great one, like Gen Wes Clark), so let's give him at least a month in office. If it looks like things are not changing as the drawdown if Iraq is supposed to be starting, then I'll join mimsky on the demonstration line.
Posted by oldintel at 12/01/2008 @ 12:15pm
The whole "we need a Repub in the Cabinet" thing is kind of like reverse racism. That said, at least Gates fired higher-ups(or forced them to retire) in response to the Walter Reed treatment of soldiers. And like oldintel said, he can always be fired (or forced to retire).
Since you mentioned Hillary in the first part, let me offer an unrelated idea: Hillary is going to need a replacement in the Senate, and I think the perfect person for the job (until a Supreme Court position opens up) would be Glenn Greenwald. Think about it. Kat, maybe you know how to get him considered.
Posted by gizzardboy at 12/01/2008 @ 1:09pm
KVH
Your website is pedaling Russian brides. Are you aware of this? Mail order brides from Russia really goes beyond prostitution. Isn't there something you can or should do about this?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 1:44pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 1:44pm
I hate to break this to you smart guy, but I do believe a lot of the ads here are generated based on information about YOUR internet usage...I'm not sure what the actual technical speak for that is, but it has more to do with YOU than with the website...I've never seen anything resembling that, EVER, on this website.
So maybe if you stop searching for mail order brides, you won't be seeing these ads...?
Or maybe your wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend has some 'splainin to do?
LOL
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/01/2008 @ 2:03pm
When Robert Gates took over for Rumsfeld, one on the first things he did was move Admiral Fallon from Pac Com to Cent Com. Admiral Fallon had proven himself as the Pacific commander. He had slowly and quietly gotten rid of the terrorists in the Phillipines. Soon after Admiral Fallon moved to Cent Com, Dick Cheney ordered another aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. (You remember the rhetoric about Iran at the end of 2005? It was the same rhetoric we heard leading up to the war in Iraq.) Admiral Fallon said, "Not on my watch. The Iranians are paranoid enough without another war ship in the gulf." The aircraft carrier did not go. That's all I need to know about what kind of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is.
Posted by MarilynDiane at 12/01/2008 @ 2:05pm
Oh and darin, the word is "peddling" not "pedaling".
Unless of course mail order russian brides come with wheels and handlebars these days.
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/01/2008 @ 2:09pm
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/01/2008 @ 2:03pm
BTW, not sure where the "beyond prostitution" thing comes into play?
I just heard on NPR how Russian professional women are regularly ignored by Russian men, who prefer those who eschew any form of feminism and just want to be "homemakers and mothers"...and they emigrate out of Russia despite high-paying jobs.
Second, I believe they studied such "mail-order bride" marriages and discovered a lower divorce rate than national averages.
Third, odd Darin wouldn't attack "TN" for having Ann Coulter ads on its pages....given she's one of the biggest whores there is. heheh
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 2:20pm
In case any readers are confused, Sen. Chuck Hagel did vote for the war resolution, but also did publicy oppose, in January of 2003, unilateral US military action against Iraq. To say that he opposed the war may have led some readers to believe that he actually voted against the war, which he didn't.
Posted by stancajm at 12/01/2008 @ 2:25pm
Third, odd Darin wouldn't attack "TN" for having Ann Coulter ads on its pages....given she's one of the biggest whores there is. heheh
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 2:20pm
LOL!
I wasn't even going to go into the specifics of the russian mail order brides, I figured it would probably hurt his little brain, but you are indeed correct.
Just remember anything that doesn't fit into his concept of things is obviously wrong and/or the exact antithesis of all things moral and right.
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/01/2008 @ 2:31pm
Hillary should have been appointed ambassador at large or a new ambassador for women's issues if you expect her to concentrate on women. There are so many more important issues that deserve the SoS's attention at the moment that it is just ridiculous for your to suggest women's issues should be her focus.
As for Gates, he has done an excellent job improving a bad situation since he took office. I agree with Obama that continuity is important at this point. And I am sure he has talked frankly with Gates as he did with Petraeus. If Gates hadn't agree with Obama's approach, he would have found someone else.
Posted by AmiBlue at 12/01/2008 @ 3:04pm
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/01/2008 @ 2:31pm]
No doubt, we'll have some Righties take up the gauntlet to defend poor Ms Coulter's honor....
which should provide a lot of fun as they defend the incredibly asinine quotes that can be thrown up....or an explanation for why a "good Christian conservative" woman was not only dating liberal Democrats...but the son of a pornographer! (Bob Guiccione Jr.)
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 3:52pm
i agree Katrina, gates isn't a Bill Cohen, but he is a good soldiers and will hopefully bring some people from the dark side over. We need to convince the testosterone crowd that war isn't the answer.
Posted by julien38 at 12/01/2008 @ 4:19pm
Wow. You wrote this article as if the anti-war crowd was right along. So President Bush didn't liberate 2 countries, win one war (Iraq), prep the victory in another (Afghanistan), and establish the base for long-term victory against terror. Did you not notice how not only are our alliances strengthened (in Europe and Africa, but especially in Asia), but we manage to maintain partnerships with countries not traditionally our allies. How about impeding terrorist attacks on US soil for the last 7 years, does the President get credit for that?. The worst US foreign policy disaster? How? It's messy, true, but we've rolled back terrorism across the board, and energized a people. Did you miss that too? Bob Gates is a perfect choice, he's one of the architects of the improved conditions overseas, and he's clear-eyed on our national security priorities. I'm sorry your opposition to the Iraq War didn't lead to the defeat you were hoping for, but that doesn't make the anti-war position any more rational. War isn't the answer, until it is - a point your crowd never gets, no matter how much diplomacy has been expended. It doesn't really matter, President-elect Obama apparently has adopted the current administration's approach to both wars (he'll tweak it of course, hopefully for the good, and take the credit). That is pretty smart of him, and so is his assessment that he doesn't need the anti-war crowd or their continued obstinence and nonsense. Does reality ever intrude on the anti-war crowd's little bubble?
Posted by dcanales at 12/01/2008 @ 4:30pm
Wow. You wrote this article as if the anti-war crowd was right all along. So President Bush didn't liberate 2 countries, win one war (Iraq), prep the victory in another (Afghanistan), and establish the base for long-term victory against terror. Did you not notice how not only are our alliances strengthened (in Europe and Africa, but especially in Asia), but we manage to maintain partnerships with countries not traditionally our allies. How about impeding terrorist attacks on US soil for the last 7 years, does the President get credit for that?. The worst US foreign policy disaster? How? It's messy, true, but we've rolled back terrorism across the board, and energized a people. Did you miss that too? Bob Gates is a perfect choice, he's one of the architects of the improved conditions overseas, and he's clear-eyed on our national security priorities. I'm sorry your opposition to the Iraq War didn't lead to the defeat you were hoping for, but that doesn't make the anti-war position any more rational. War isn't the answer, until it is - a point your crowd never gets, no matter how much diplomacy has been expended. It doesn't really matter, President-elect Obama apparently has adopted the current administration's approach to both wars (he'll tweak it of course, hopefully for the good, and take the credit). That is pretty smart of him, and so is his assessment that he doesn't need the anti-war crowd or their continued obstinence and nonsense. Does reality ever intrude on the anti-war crowd's little bubble?
Posted by dcanales at 12/01/2008 @ 4:32pm
Hillary is going to go to Arab and African countries and talk them into giving females equal rights. I gotta see that.
Posted by petelush at 12/01/2008 @ 5:27pm
I don't think that Gates is a bad choice. He's still in the process of cleaning up the mess left by Rumsfeld. We still are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it doesn't hurt to have some continuity within the Defense Department.
Gates also has credibility to help reform the bloated Defense budget that Obama couldn't on his own. If Obama says we need to cut this or that defense program, you know he'll get called all sorts of names by the Republican press. If Obama has Gates on his side cutting this program, he's a bit innoculated from it (not that the Republican press won't attack him anyway, they just won't have any credibility with moderates).
Also, if there is to be any Republican choice, shouldn't it be Gates, who has repeatedly indicated his goal is to get the hell out of Washington as soon as possible? There will be no messy Obama-Gates divorce. Obama will ask him if he wants to go home, and Gates will be gone faster than a 9-year-old boy on the last day of school.
Posted by georgewfan at 12/01/2008 @ 5:55pm
So sorry Katrina. You lose!!! Maybe the country is not center-right any more, but we sure as Hell aren't leftist! Looks like you're PERMANENTLY stuck on the kook fringe!! Ha! Ha! Change we can believe in my stinking sphincter!
Posted by Herman2 at 12/01/2008 @ 6:52pm
Katrina is center ring bulls-eye on this topic.
Gates is a figure with a very troubling past --including the inflation of the Soviet threat in the 70's and 80's-- in addition to a troubling present.
Check out "The Gates Inheritance" by former National Security Council staffer Roger Morris:
tinyurl.com/2jo32o
Scintillating stuff.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/01/2008 @ 7:52pm
Gates my be the wrong man, but if your goal is to CYA on the national security front, I can think of no better way to do it than keep the current guy on and change the tune a bit. No one will be able to claim Obama mismanaged the transition, and if Gates doesn't play it right, he can be turned into a scapegoat.
It goes without saying that Gates and Rumsfield should never have had the job in the first place - Iran-Contra and personal meetings with Saddam to sell weapons when he's gassing people and all that. But, that particular ship has already sailed.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/01/2008 @ 8:15pm
Journalists of the left who failed to support Ralph Nader's candidacy and chose, with nothing but hope to sustain them, candidate Obama have misled the left and helped to install another establishment lackey for the next four, possibly eight, years. These writers could instead have joined together in building a third party by dispelling the notion that voting for Nader would be throwing away one's vote and would elect John McCain.
I think union leaders, particularly John Sweeney of AFL-CIO, were equally wrong in denying Nader support. We'll see what they get from Pres. Obama. Change? Hmmm, maybe nickels and dimes.
I think those who could have led others to support Nader and did not should resign from their positions of left-leadership as editors and journalists. They do not lead. That takes courage!
Posted by goedel at 12/01/2008 @ 11:32pm
by srjenkins at 12/01/2008 @ 8:15pm...
Well reasoned, srj...
Posted by ttr at 12/01/2008 @ 11:42pm
KVH (the publisher of this mag) still refuses to see the facts: Obama took liberals for a ride. He was always a Clinton hawk. He knows where the power is in American politics: the corporations, the military-industrial complex, the Israeli lobby. At this moment of truth, he shows his real colors. And it is definitely not progressive.
Posted by philbq at 12/02/2008 @ 01:02am
The legions of idealistic but naive young people, and even greater numbers of other Americans who are suffering and desperate for positive change in this collapsing society all got suckered by Obama and Co. The MSM was of course complicit in this grand con. As Obama's actions thus far demonstrate, he is wholly subservient to the worst elements of the Establishment--Wall Street and Big Business (cf. Summers, Geithner, Orszag, et al.), AIPAC and the Zionist agenda (cf. Rahm Emanuel), the multiculturalist nihilists and race panderers (cf. Cuellar, Napolitano, Villaraigosa, et al.), the venal Influence Peddlers (cf. Holder and most of the rest of the list), the blood-soaked War Mongers (cf. Gates, Clinton, S. Rice, et al.). Status quo, here we come again.
The obvious response from quaking Obamatons desperate to defend an ebbing faith in their Savior is to cling to the hope that all these rotten people from the worst crevasses of the Establishment will "only be implementing policies set by the Great One." Yes, yes, of course. And in a few months, these same true believers will be dismayed at how nothing has changed and will then yammer "if only He knew what his evil minions were doing…." Humans have this pathetic knack for clinging to unfounded beliefs even in the face of powerful evidence to the contrary. Too bad all the shlubs angry at 8 years of Bushite failure simply fell for the first pretty (black) face pretending to offer "change."
Posted by feinfein at 12/02/2008 @ 01:44am
by feinfein at 12/02/2008 @ 01:44am...
Are you this brutal when you look at yourself in the mirror? Do you embrace your partner with such negative visualizations?
You haven't even started your car yet... and you're already convinced that you're going to have an accident on the way to work this morning...
Take it easy... K?
Posted by ttr at 12/02/2008 @ 02:00am
Hello there, ttr,
Thanks for your input. Yes, I am quite self-critical and even quite critical of my wife, who--believe it or not--actually desires a high level of criticism and is happy to return the favor. We make a fine pair, and we are raising children who will likely be great contributors to the betterment of the world, although they of course have their own free will to exercise. Granted, none of us is preparing to occupy the most important political office in the country and, arguably, still the most important one in the world at a time of ominous political, military, economic, cultural, even civilizational crisis. We have our own, much smaller gardens to tend and try to do so with integrity and with consistent self-reflection and improvement. We only wish that Obama and those who staff his regime would try to do the same in their much higher stations. He did seek out the job after all.
Posted by feinfein at 12/02/2008 @ 03:40am
Indeed GATES is a bad choice however it's not just GATES but also OBAMAS Center -Right Democratic party picks for top jobs in his administration.
Posted by danos714 at 12/02/2008 @ 05:24am
Either you trust Obama or you don't. I don't care if Gates is still SecDef, the man pulling his strings will be a progressive, finally. I'm sure that Obama told Gates that he is expected to give the president his honest opinion, but then act on whatever final decisions Obama himself makes. And I'm sure if Gates had a problem with that, he would not have accepted the invitation to remain in the cabinet.
I'm not sure what some of you people were expecting, but Obama has made it clear that he intends to actually get things done, to actually make "progress", and not just stick to a hard ideological agenda. The latter is exactly what Bush did. I think Obama is better and smarter than that, and I voted for him because I trust him to make the decisions that are best able to inch this country in the right direction. Some of you seem to want it all, RIGHT NOW! But attempting that would only increase resistance to any form of change, not make change more likely.
I think it is best to take reasonable, smaller steps in the right direction, let the public see the positive results, and THEN pick up the pace of change. Obama intends to at least start by governing from the center, and building a gradual consensus for the big changes we all know we need. That's pretty much what he's been saying all along, and now that he's doing it, we as progressives should support him, not start complaining before the man even takes office.
Above all else, Obama is a pragmatist, and I for one trust his judgment, motivations and intentions for this country. That's why he got my vote. If you don't trust his judgment, why did he get yours?
Posted by pjthornton at 12/02/2008 @ 07:16am
Posted by pjthornton at 12/02/2008 @ 07:16am
Obama's not a "progressive". He's a shrewd center-right politican. But, I agree that he is pretty much doing what he has been saying all along, but remarkably, there seem to be those that believe that what he is doing has anything to do with "progressive" change. He's a less partisan version of the Clintons, which is an improvement but not much of one.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/02/2008 @ 08:42am
There was a time when I figured that there was only one party in the US, and that the elections were a pretense because the GOP would never give up their power. Not after Bush went to all the trouble of enacting horrifying laws --like making it a cinch to declare martial law for instance--many of which have still not been tested. Then Obama came along and I was utterly taken in by him. But now I am suspecting that I was right the first time. The GOP knew they were done for and so they annointed a man who agreed to their conditions and made a deal with him. Before the election he was pure as the driven snow, too good to be true.Now suddenly even before he takes office, he is selecting people as if he was another person. He has reneged on his promise to repeal cutting taxes for the rich and he hasn't even been inaugurated yet; Now we may stay "longer" in Iraq; He selects Hillary, a total anathema. Same with Gates. "Fool me once..."
Posted by mystic at 12/02/2008 @ 10:53am
One more thing: Knowing how ruthless Israel and AIPAC is---just wait till Netanyahu comes into office in February--Does anyone really imagine they would sit back and do nothing about securing someone who would guarantee to continue their agenda? Israel has infiltrated every corner of Congress and controls our foreign policy lock, stock and barrel. Even Pelosi, who had sat in on torture meetings, admitted Israel told her not to impeach Bush (otherwise she would be incriminated for warcrimes also). What more does one need to figure out we have, yet again, been scammed and conned.
Posted by mystic at 12/02/2008 @ 11:13am
We make a fine pair, and we are raising children who will likely be great contributors to the betterment of the world, although they of course have their own free will to exercise.
hahahahahahaha. whattaclown.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/02/2008 @ 12:05pm
osted by mystic at 12/02/2008 @ 11:13am | ignore this person | warn this person
the jews did it, and it's all their fault.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/02/2008 @ 12:07pm
Gates will do for now. Obama has a much bigger fish to fry now, even bigger than the Iraq war. hint: it starts with an e.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/02/2008 @ 12:36pm
"For more than a half a century, we know that we prospered because of a bipartisan consensus on defense and foreign policy. We must do more than return to that sensible, cooperative approach."
Hillary Clinton Speech to the Council on Foreign Relations December 15, 2003 New York, NY
Posted by OneVote at 12/02/2008 @ 1:00pm
I'd rather see Clinton retreads and Bush holdovers than the radicals Obama previously associated with. Even during the mid 1990s, Barack and Bill Ayers were pushing funding for radical education under the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. According to Bill Ayers, the purpose of education was to get students to resist American racism and oppression. On the contrary, I'm very relieved that his ilk are not front and center in the administration.
Posted by stevkalk at 12/02/2008 @ 1:04pm
Posted by stevkalk at 12/02/2008 @ 1:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you are peddling guilt by association. you are also misinformed. Ayers by his own admission barely knew Obama. change the channel, too much FOX rots your brain.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/02/2008 @ 1:22pm
Well, I guess some people figured out that Barack Obama wasn't their ideal of a left-wing Bush, who would push a left-wing agenda no matter the cost. Obama intended to bring people from across the political spectrum, as opposed to his campaign promise to, well, I don't know that he made any campaign promise to the contrary.
Obama only won 53% of the vote. If he's center-right, then I guess he'd have never won as a progressive or liberal or whatever. That'd have done no good. Ideas can't do much if you can't implement them.
As long as Obama and the Democrats fight to greatest threat to our economy, security and planet (global warming), he's fine by me. That's the change we really need. That alone is worth any necessary conciliation he makes to conservatives to gain their support.
If you want Kucinichian ideas implemented, you've got some mind-changin' to do. As Don Rumsfeld might say, you win an election with the electorate you have, not the electorate you wish you had.
Posted by georgewfan at 12/02/2008 @ 1:41pm
Rationalization time on "the Left"? How many times does Lucy have to snatch the football away from Charlie Brown before he "gets it," i.e., Mr. Obama is another corporate representative? Isn't it past time for The Nation and similar people to begin thinking long term, avoiding repeat crisis mode every four years, e.g., sticking it to Nader in 2000 and the ABB of 2004? For instance, how about a concerted effort for instant runoff and fusion voting, easier ballot access for alternative parties, public financing of public elections, and so forth?
Posted by fragen at 12/02/2008 @ 2:19pm
Posted by emile duBois at 12/02/2008 @ 12:36pm
e.?
you mean energy?
The evil oil corporations?....
The price of gas is so low that we are paying tax only...so much for wind fall profits, eh?....
...also gives one a true picture of how much of the gas price is tax.
The "Change" we seem to be seeing is a dejavu(sp) of the Clintonian fog...
and the view you all here are seeing, off to the left....that is an oil pan...to the right...the exhaust system...
...for you are looking up at the under carriage of the bus.
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/02/2008 @ 2:22pm
For instance, how about a concerted effort for instant runoff and fusion voting, easier ballot access for alternative parties, public financing of public elections, and so forth?
Posted by fragen at 12/02/2008 @ 2:19pm
I've been thinking that now, with the division on the right, that it'd be a good idea to push for some form of proportional representation (my pet is 100 or 200 national reps on top of single-district reps, but whatever) among Republicans. Think about it, the dittoheads could be persuaded about how the McCain folks took over the Republican party, and form their own Limbaughnian Party and elect a portion of the House to force some of their own cockamanie schemes (a 700-foot high Border Fence) on the Republicans should they need their support for a working majority. Meanwhile, liberal progressives could get the Green Party some representatives, to help fight corporate government, environmental degradation and the War on Drugs (please?).
It seems the Republicans are more hostile to innovative and improved forms of electioning. So, now is the opportunity to get their support for it. Now, we can figure out fanciful ways of implementing this that gets around the entrenched interest of the Republican and Democratic parties to exclude smaller parties while on said Drugs. But still, if not now, when?
Posted by georgewfan at 12/02/2008 @ 2:37pm
Posted by stevkalk at 12/02/2008 @ 1:04pm
I'm sure the the idea of democratic schools where people learn self-reliance, critical thinking, and control over their own development and share the skills the have learned with others must be terrifying to advocates for the status quo.
When school has come to mean a Pavlovian "educational" system designed to socialize students into responding to bells and authority, I'm sure alternatives would make the current system's supporters want to turn anyone into a Ayers like bogeyman.
Posted by georgewfan at 12/02/2008 @ 1:41pm
"That'd have done no good. Ideas can't do much if you can't implement them."
World peace. Unlikely to be implemented, but the idea has done plenty - certainly better than not having the idea at all.
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/02/2008 @ 2:22pm
Life finally straighten out enough that you can now find time to comment?
Posted by georgewfan at 12/02/2008 @ 2:37pm
We already have coalition government in the interest of a fairly narrow swath of the electorate that pretends to speak to the "majority's interest". Why on earth would either major party be interested in further diluting their power by opening the door to Libertarians, Greens, Constitition and other so-called "third-parties" under proportional representation?
Both parties are hostile to new and imporoved forms of elections because it threatens their monopoly. Don't look for any kind of change there unless people vote specifically for a third party advocating it.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/02/2008 @ 4:11pm
BTW, as far as Nader goes? Basic numbers-
2.9 million votes (2.74% of the popular vote) in 2000
to 405,623 (about 0.35%) in 2004
to 727,259 (about 0.56%) in 2008.
And he'll be 78 in 2012.
That ship has sailed for Valinor from the Grey Havens!
Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 4:12pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/02/2008 @ 2:22pm
Life finally straighten out enough that you can now find time to comment?
On what?
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/02/2008 @ 4:19pm
Posted by emile duBois at 12/02/2008 @ 12:36pm e.? you mean energy?
no, the economy. energy, read oil, will not become a big issue again until the world wide economy recovers. then you will again see $150 barrel of oil.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/02/2008 @ 4:21pm
Bob Gates has done a fine job at the Pentagon. How long ago was the Iran contra affair anyway, let it go. Gates was doing his job at the time. Obama isn't even president yet, but here we go with the chicken little talk. Name someone who would do anything different in Iraq or Afganistan than what has been stated by Obama. Webb? Wes Clark? Jack Reed? Hagel? I doubt it. Even Petreus is saying we can't win with just the military. I haven't heard anyone talking about turning Afghanistan into another Iraq. That is a very simplistic view of Gates' position. Ultimately, it isn't up to the Sec. of Defense to determine which war to fight. That is the job of the President. Period. No one was conned into voting for Obama. He was the one praising Bush 41's foreign policy. He is the guy who admittedly talks to Colin Powell and Brent Scocroft for advice, or didn't any of you notice? So it should shock no one that he picked a Bush 41 guy. Or should Obama take the route of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Bring in a bunch of fresh faces to the administration that don't understand Washington, D.C., get nothing done his first two years, lose the congress and get trapped in the same Washington gridlock? That is not what the country needs. I don't expect ANY president to deliver on everything they say during a campaign, but if Obama can just get Universal health care, immigration reform, green energy, and improve our image abroad, then he would have done a hell of a job in my book.
Posted by dckid at 12/02/2008 @ 4:26pm
srjenkins - I guess proportional representation can only start at the state level, where there's the initiative process.
I don't share your total cynicism about the two parties. They do have divergent views on important issues. While on a broader scale, they may serve similar masters, there is the ability to change their stands. We just don't do it. The parties want to get elected. Only through persuasion can we fix this, which is to eliminate the strangle-hold of single-member district representation.
It's like people who say all politicians are crooks. Of course they are. People vote for crooks, so politicians are crooks.
It's like why girls complain about guys being ass-holes. Of course they are. Girls like ass-holes, so guys are ass-holes.
Successful politicians fit into a certain narrow political philosophy. Why? Because American politicians who don't aren't successful. That's my general problem with these attacks on Obama. If he had the ideas of many Nation readers, he'd never have been elected. If you like Nader, that's fine. But don't expect him or his ilk to get elected. IT'S NOT CURRENTLY POSSIBLE!
Obama is the best we can hope for in the present American political climate. It's not realistic to think otherwise. It's why our best presidents have been idealistic pragmatists. They have a certain idealized vision of America, but they're realistic enough politically to get elected.
I guess the best you can do is vote as liberal as possible to get as much political power as possible while doing your own small part to change the mindset of as many Americans as possible so they aren't so beholden to the narrow-minded fear-mongering of some current leaders.
Don't blame Obama for our political climate.
Posted by georgewfan at 12/02/2008 @ 4:54pm
no, the economy. energy, read oil, will not become a big issue again until the world wide economy recovers. then you will again see $150 barrel of oil.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/02/2008 @ 4:21pm
I agree...
so should we help Big Oil now that they are not making money?
I think giving money to Detroit and the unions is just as wasteful as giving money to big oil..
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/02/2008 @ 4:55pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/02/2008 @ 4:19pm
At all. Maybe I haven't been watching too closely - but it seemed for awhile that people that self-describe as conservative vanished. Environment gets a little better, suddenly, conservatives start posting again. Curious, don't you think?
Posted by dckid at 12/02/2008 @ 4:26pm
If Gates was willing to allow the selling of arms to Iran in order to divert funds, illegally, to fund a proxy war favored by the administration, what makes you think he wouldn't do it again? I think it is very relevant to his current position and not a historical footnote as you would like to pretend.
I'm certainly not foolish enough to think of Iraq in terms of winning or losing - particularly when people using those terms can't be bothered to define them.
What's a win look like? A secular "democracy" in the Middle East? We had that, it was called Saddam - until he stopped following orders.
You might also want to recheck Obama's policy positions. He never once said he was going to try to implement universal health care coverage.
On the style front, you may want to avoid phrases like "hell/heck of a job" that bring to mind other disasters like Katrina and the readability of your posts would be drastically improved with the use of paragraphs.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/02/2008 @ 5:04pm
so should we help Big Oil now that they are not making money?
stop this nonsense at once.
Detroit has been bleeding huge losses for some time. big oil has come off the most profitable quarter of any business, ever.
your posts should at least make some sense.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/02/2008 @ 5:12pm
Posted by georgewfan at 12/02/2008 @ 4:54pm
"I don't share your total cynicism about the two parties. They do have divergent views on important issues."
If you define important issues as to mean social issues like abortion, gun control, euthanasia, etc. then perhaps.
If you define important issues to mean addressing our militaristic foreign policy, flawed justice/prison system (such as ending the War on Drugs), diversity of our media landscape, problems of ballot access, income inequality, and so forth, then no, the two major parties don't have divergent views at all.
"Only through persuasion can we fix this..."
Elections and the ballot have always been the citizen's weakest weapon, and there are frequently many ways to address the problem beyond those people tell us are the "only" ones.
Your comments about Nader are more or less true. However, I think the problems of getting greater diversity in representation have more to do with systemic problems related to ballot access and corporate media, then it does with the average citizen. It simply a question of overcoming a perception of limited options and limited share of voice - all there by design.
"I guess the best you can do is vote as liberal as possible to get as much political power as possible while doing your own small part to change the mindset of as many Americans as possible..."
This is very simplistic. I don't put much stock in voting, but I do vote.
Locally, I vote against the establishment and for competence, which means I split my ticket and vote no on keeping anyone on - like judges.
In state and federal races, I tend to vote for third parties if they are blow outs, and I vote for the sanest candidate if it is close.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/02/2008 @ 5:33pm
Posted by georgewfan at 12/02/2008 @ 4:54pm
I should also say my central issue is our foreign policy. So, neither major party is addressing my central issue. I'd vote for an non-interventionalist "Old Right" politican like Ron Paul over a Clinton style Democrat, every day of the week.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/02/2008 @ 5:36pm
I agree Gates is a stay-the-course choice, and Hagel would have been much better. But I think you've overrated Obama's progressive agenda. Yes, he gave a fine anti-war speech, but once in the senate, he voted exactly as Clinton on every Bush war issue, with one exception: Hillary voted against a Bush promotion for a general, Obama voted for it. Re Afghanistan, all through the primary and general election season, Obama has said we need more troops there. Let's lose the cataracts re his progressive credentials.
ellenlev
Posted by hfb at 12/02/2008 @ 5:49pm
srjenkins -
There are certainly issues where there is no divergence. There are also issues where there is significant divergence. Certainly, the prison system we have is excessively harsh. I'll agree that neither party really does anything significantly different on that. Republicans browbeat Democrats into supporting harsh penalties. There's some minor quibbles (should 200 or 0 people be put to death each year?), but not enough true introspection into the problem that we have the highest incarceration rate in the world. It's a fact, and our policy leaders don't do anything to respond to it. Are we worse people than the rest of the planet? Is our system too harsh? Nope. The rest of the world is just a bunch of pussies.
On the structural electoral issues, such as ballot access and media, frankly, most voters don't give a damn. Ask the average voter what he thinks of proportional representation or greater ballot access. Just imagine the response.
On income inequality, health care, the environment, immigrants, and constitutional rights, I actually do believe there's a difference.
As far as foreign policy, I agree it's too militaristic. It's bizarre the way so many people equate patriotism solely with military service. It's like Zell Miller saying at the 2004 GOP convention that it's the soldier not the journalist who guarantees the right to free speech. That's just ignorant and short-sighted, but way too many Americans probably blindly said "yep, he's right." There are important differences.
While we need a military deterrent, we ultimately must attack the root driving the perceived necessity of an aggressive foreign policy. Primarily, we need to get off oil, and that goes back to the environment and energy. That's the best long-term solution to our militarization.
Posted by georgewfan at 12/02/2008 @ 5:55pm
The thing that puzzles me about these bad Cabinet choices is that we're supposed to believe that at least one of the reasons for them is their "experience." If "experience" is so critical, then why didn't we all vote for McSame? I also wonder if Obama fears being challenged from his left.
Posted by dshandy at 12/02/2008 @ 6:01pm
srjenkins - I am distressed that our national foreign policy debate is quite ignorant of the source of bin Laden, 'terrorists', and Islamic sympathizers hatred of this country. And there is not much thought given to the Rumsfeld memo asking if we are capturing and killing more terrorists than we're creating. Seems to me that that's actually a brilliant formula. But we don't even think about it. We don't ask if our current militaristic policies are exacerbating problems which resulted in large part from our earlier militaristic policies.
Posted by georgewfan at 12/02/2008 @ 6:06pm
The pundits are all defending Obama's decision to keep Gates on by claiming we're at war. Not war with Iraq or Afghanistan but with that nation-state called Terror.
THAT'S the mindset that got us involved with those other two, very real, wars in first place.
Posted by KJusko at 12/02/2008 @ 6:17pm
Birds of a feather flock together. These people are the physical manifestation of Obama's mind/views. All of the rationalization (by others) of why he has chosen them ignores the obvious.
The only consolation is that McCain would have been incalculably worse.
Posted by Perspective at 12/02/2008 @ 6:59pm
Perspective - The obvious is that nobody capable of getting elected President of the United States at the present time would be deemed acceptable -- but by your "incalculably worse" standard -- to many people posting on The Nation website.
Posted by georgewfan at 12/02/2008 @ 7:12pm
Obama said he has the final say, the final word, we shall see. But I have to say Gates is a scary one to leave in, I don't fall for the experience shtick or the he is already a part of it scenario either. Obama has NOT given anything to the side that elected him. The progressives have NO true representatives in this administration. He is playing it safe and playing it towards the right, that is NOT change, not significant enough change anyway. How can you leave a Cold War proponent in there at a time like this in which we are already pushing Russia over the Georgia thing and then the Missile thing in Poland. Then there is the Middle East, Iraq (thankfully) is working on the SOFA to get us out of there, but Gates is not a shining light on that deal. Then Afghanistan! More Troops? Come On now, how much longer is this going to Last? We can't even afford to be at war anymore. I have a question, what is their definition of Victory in the Middle East? Does that mean leveling the entire landscape, destroying all the people who live there, both the guilty and the innocent? I think victory for the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and the United States would come from an as soon as possible withdraw and an End to These WARS! Gates being in Obama's office does not help me feel any better over the situations we face as a nation. I am still waiting to see Obama give some credit to the Left and the Progressives and award them some seats in his administration! Visit my blog @ http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com
Posted by kristofeR! at 12/02/2008 @ 9:58pm
Although I dislike Gates, I think it is wise for Obama to leave a few posts as is....for the sake of consistency in the transition. He can always get rid of him later.
Posted by sporter at 12/03/2008 @ 01:23am
If Obama had run saying he would bring back the third Clinton administration, do you think he would have had the support from youth and liberals? No way. If he had said he was going to fill his top appointments with people who pushed and voted for the Iraq invasion, do you think he would have been elected? No. All through the primaries, he criticized Hillary for voting for the war. Now we can see that was only political posturing. EVERYONE he has appointed supported the war. Which makes his attacks on Hillary dishonest. I believe he would have voted for the war if he had been in Congress. Everything he does is in synche with the Establishment. And in service of the Empire. Change...not a chance.
Posted by philbq at 12/03/2008 @ 01:40am
philbq - If Clinton had lost the nomination, do you think Obama would've endorsed her or Nader? He'd have endorsed Hillary. If you actually investigate the primary, it was not a policy debate, it was a personality choice. If you were deluded into thinking Obama was an electable Kucinich/Nader, then you don't understand the American electorate.
Let me ask you, based on realistic potential candidates for President, name ONE that would get elected without you berating them four weeks after election day for being just another corporate hack. Name ONE. That could actually get elected President. Not in your fantasy world. But in America. Right now.
I didn't think you could think of one.
Get over the fact that your fringe ideas are not going to govern America. Obama will be 10x better on global warming/energy/environment than Bush. His foreign policy will reflect a deeper understanding of the problems while not compromising our security and emboldening the people that our past policies have enraged. Whatever part of the wars he maintains will be managed with an eye towards international standards of decency. He'll work to help uninsured people get closer to insurance.
Will he pull American forces out of all foreign endeavors in an attempt to adhere to President Washington's farewell warning? NO! Nobody that COULD be elected President of the United States would.
GET IN TOUCH WITH POLITICAL REALITY!!!
Posted by georgewfan at 12/03/2008 @ 02:58am
Mr. Obama is experiencing the difference between campaigning and governing. During a campaign nothing is impossible, everything can be changed and perfection is on the drawing board.
He is now coming to grips with all the hard decisions and who is going to handle those decisions. For one thing he is discovering that presidents have been authorizing torture of prisoners ever since the Revolutionary War. Of course before Bush none were stupid enough to release pictures of it going on.
He is also discovering that all the really loud-mouthed, impeach Bush/Cheney, Republican haters are useless when it comes to running a country. They do well in campaigns where reality takes a back seat to rhetoric, but you won't find any of them being considered for any positions in an Obama administration.
You see, you poor leftists thought you were electing a Messiah, and what you got was a politician. And a damn good one at that.
Posted by jean22 at 12/03/2008 @ 06:47am
George, cool down. I supported Kucinich. Perhaps he doesn't meet your definition of "realistic" because he was not rolling in corporate donations. That is a sad statement on our political system. Obama got tons of money from Wall Street. Guess it turned out to be a good investment since Obama wholeheartedly supports the trillions of bailout money thrown at Wall Street. The corporate media decide who is a "realistic" candidate. Corporations liked Obama. They don't like Kucinich. Maybe because only Kucinich proposes a healthcare system that would cover everyone affordably. I guess that is not "realistic".
Posted by philbq at 12/03/2008 @ 06:55am
Jean...I suggest you read my previous post regarding Obama running a dishonest campaign. (Which he did).
Posted by philbq at 12/03/2008 @ 07:02am
All of you apologists for Obama should go read Michael Gerson in today's Washington Post. He says thatObama's choices ratify the Bush policies since so many of Obama's choices were part of Bush policies. He calls the Obama appointments the equivelent of a McCain administration. I think he is right. But is this the "change" that we were sold? Not at all. Obama is a Clinton corporate Democrat...no change there. But he ran a dishonest campaign. Millions of idealistic voters believed his mantra about "change". I did not. I voted third party.
Posted by philbq at 12/03/2008 @ 07:22am
Obama got tons of money from Wall Street.
name one candidate for pres who didn't. ever.
you think Kucinic would not have gotten Wall St. support had he been as compelling a candidate as Obama?
Phil? another nattering nabob.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 08:43am
Emile...amusing that you would use the William Safire label concocted for Nixon. Actually I would describe myself as a man of principle. Maybe all of you Obama apologists don't understand the concept of principle. Maybe you think winning is all that matters. If so, you get more Clinton: ever-expanding military, corporate-friendly government policies, belligerent imperialistic foreign policy, distain for human rights (Palestine), etc. If you require no principles from your politicians, you get more of the same. And it looks like that is what we will get from Obama. Perhaps you are satisfied with that. I am not. Please don't hate me for having principles.
Posted by philbq at 12/03/2008 @ 09:04am
If so, you get more Clinton: ever-expanding military, corporate-friendly government policies, belligerent imperialistic foreign policy, distain for human rights (Palestine), etc. If you require no principles from your politicians, you get more of the same. And it looks like that is what we will get from Obama.
the guy has not even been sworn in and you go off on your Jeremiad.
principles? you abandoned them long ago by taking your vote and throwing it away. the choice was between McCain and Obama. it's called reality.
I don't think you were paying attention. at no time did Obama suggest he would govern from the left. quite the opposite. he is attempting to govern from the center.
you can contrast Obama's cabinet choices with Bush, who brought all his Texas cronies into the gov't.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 09:22am
"Ayers by his own admission barely knew Obama. change the channel, too much FOX rots your brain."
According to records released by the University of Illinois, Ayers applied for the $50,000,000 grant to "raise political consciousness" in Chicago public schools. Between 1995 and 1999, Obama distributed the $50,000,000 and supplemented it with $60,000,000 raised from civic groups.
The money that the schools received was determined mainly by the radical agenda it preached. Math, science, and reading achievement counted for little.
Posted by stevkalk at 12/03/2008 @ 09:39am
There are no real differences between Bush and Clinton policies in many areas: foreign policy, military budget, trade policy, oppression and denial of human rights in Palestine, invasive government spying. (I could go on.) Obama seems to be reassembling a third Clinton administration. I opposed the last one on principle and I will oppose this new one. Emile, I think you are in denial of reality: you think there are big differences between the two ruling parties. Face reality: there are not.
Posted by philbq at 12/03/2008 @ 09:44am
"you think there are big differences between the two ruling parties"
evidently the american people agree with me, as evidenced by the last two elections, in which the people decided that there were indeed great differences, and that they'd had enough of the repugs.
you are like one of those holier than thou christians. no one is quite left enough for you. get over it. Obama is pres for the next four years. carping prematurely is not helpful, nor is it particularly interesting.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 10:11am
I am trying to understand the anger that apologists for the Democratic Party have for progressives (or "leftists", as you projoratively label us). Is it because we have principles, and you have none? We judge candidates by their platform and policies, not by their ability to raise vast sums of money (which is called viability in your political lexicon). If a politician will continue Bush policies(Obama), then we must oppose him. We don't support politicians just because they have a Demo after their name. That is what principle means. You probably would't understand the concept.
Posted by philbq at 12/03/2008 @ 10:13am
You probably would't understand the concept. Posted by philbq at 12/03/2008 @ 10:13am | ignore this person | warn this person
pffft.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 10:24am
or "leftists", as you projoratively label us).
say whaat?
and it's pejorative
Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 10:40am
Emile...you have not answered why you (and the Demo establishment) despise principled progressives so much. We believe principles matter. Does that bother your mind? Is winning all that matters even if you sell your soul?
Posted by philbq at 12/03/2008 @ 10:47am
I despise only those who claim to be more principled than I. same with holier than thous, like the satanic preacher for instance.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 10:53am
Posted by georgewfan at 12/03/2008 @ 02:58am
Perhaps the problem is your framing. Who are "realistic potential candidates for President," "Right now"?
The bottom line is that right now "realistic" candidates are determined by their ability to raise money. The ability to raise money is typically correlated to supporting the status quo.
However, if the status quo becomes a problem - say we have four years of depression, you are going to find "fringe ideas" are going to be front and center.
Your argument also doesn't take into account that ideas, fringe or otherwise, have nothing to do with running for President. Ross Perot ran for President on his pocketbook, not the strength of his ideas. Any one of the dozens of billionaries in the United States could decide to run for President, on their own dime, and win. But generally, they prefer to leave that to a proxy.
So, please. Let's not equate winning elections with ideas. The two are not correlated.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/03/2008 @ 10:56am
So, please. Let's not equate winning elections with ideas. The two are not correlated. Posted by srjenkins at 12/03/2008 @ 10:56am | ignore this person | warn this person
this is not born out by this last election. "change" is an idea, and it won.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 11:07am
Any one of the dozens of billionaries in the United States could decide to run for President, on their own dime, and win.
this is not true. the landscape is littered with those who tried. Forbes, Bloomberg, Romney anyone?
Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 11:17am
srjenkins at 12/02/2008 @ 08:42am
I disagree. Obama IS a progressive, at least to my way of thinking. But he knows that lasting progress is impossible to achieve all at once, and is thus pursuing a less radicalized strategy. But even if you disagree with my assessment, referring to Obama as "center-right" is just absurd. There is nothing about his philosophy that could itself be described as "to the right". The fact that he has included some center-right personalities in his cabinet means he is attempting to achieve his goals in a more bi-partisan manner, not shifting his political frame of reference. I stated before that, above all else, Obama is pragmatic, and that's why including someone like Gates in the cabinet will in effect provide a foundation for bigger change later on. The "right" is at least willing to listen to Obama now, and he has begun to earn their respect. That may not satisfy you now, but in the long run, it will help Obama achieve long-lasting and bi-partisan supported change. He hasn't scared the right to death, which is exactly what they thought might happen.
During the height of the election season, I read a piece somewhere in which the author said something to the effect of "It doesn't matter to which side the pendulum has swung. Once it has been there too long, it will start heading in the other direction." Obama could step right in and swing everything as far to the left as he possibly could, but all that would mean is whatever change he achieves will eventually be reversed in some kind of a retaliatory maneuver. I think Obama knows if he can just nudge us to the left a bit at a time, any eventual reverse in the direction of the pendulum will also be gradual. It is the ridiculously wild swings to BOTH sides that can really hurt us.
Posted by pjthornton at 12/03/2008 @ 12:02pm
It is the ridiculously wild swings to BOTH sides that can really hurt us. Posted by pjthornton at 12/03/2008 @ 12:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I have yet to see a wild swing to the left in this country.
pjthornton, could be described as the nuanced Thornton of this blog.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 12:08pm
Posted by pjthornton at 12/03/2008 @ 12:02pm
By what criteria does Obama make it as a progressive? If you don't like definitions, perhaps you might try using Clinton as a foil. In what way is Obama more "progressive" than Clinton? Or, maybe, you'd like to argue that both Clinton and Obama are progressive. However you'd like to do it, perhaps you could offer up some reasons rather than simply making the assertion.
Referring to Obama as "center-right" is absurd only when you look at it from the very narrow "center-right" spectrum of political discourse in the United States. I have a friend that put it this way, "Obama would not be far enough left to make it into Norway's Concervative Party."
I also question your ideas around Obama's intentions. What evidence do you have that he wants to take anything to the "left"?
Posted by srjenkins at 12/03/2008 @ 1:01pm
srjenkins -
If there's a way to make full public financing a part of Presidential campaigning, then we should do it. How to determine who gets how much seems to be a huge practical impediment.
Of course it's sad that Obama had to spend $600 million or whatever to get elected, and that he's still beggin' for more cash. But what was his alternative? He still barely won. And I'll bet if he came out for public financing, he'd have won by less. And if he'd not gone for independent financing, he might have won by less. And if he'd supported the policies some on this site wish he did, he would have lost.
If he had railed against the military-industrial complex, he'd have lost. Because so many Americans falsely believe the more the military the more the patriotism. Because so many people's jobs actually depend on those $450 billion the Pentagon gets. If he wants to get any cuts, he has to have somebody like Gates who has credibility with the pro-military crowd. It's easier to get military cuts with a Republican in charge of it.
The way to cut our military budget in the long-term is to develop alternative energy sources in America that make the Middle East's oil irrelevant, and pursuing a prudent and deliberate withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq that doesn't allow most American voters to be scared into sending the troops right back.
I have seen no reason to think Obama will not pursue such a strategy.
Always remember that President Obama has a much tougher reality to navigate and govern than you or I might wish he did.
Posted by georgewfan at 12/03/2008 @ 2:17pm
Posted by georgewfan at 12/03/2008 @ 2:17pm
Middle East oil is irrelevant. Cut that out with alternative energy, then there will be new justification for our foreign policies - like fresh water. For an example, all you have to do is think about how easily "terrorist" supplanted "communist" in the national discourse. Oil will be the same.
I think financing is only one part of the systemic problem with elections. You cannot just tweak it and think it's going to be all better.
I agree with your assessment of Obama's electability. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are clear examples of what happens to anyone foolish enough to deviate from the script. But I think you are blaming the U.S. citizenry rather than the powerful that make those kinds of campaigns untenable. That's a mistake.
All of which brings me back to the main point, electoral politics isn't going to solve our problems. Nothing wrong with partipating in them, but we would be foolish to place too much of our "hope" there.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/03/2008 @ 2:35pm
All of which brings me back to the main point, electoral politics isn't going to solve our problems. Nothing wrong with partipating in them, but we would be foolish to place too much of our "hope" there. Posted by srjenkins at 12/03/2008 @ 2:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
what else ya got?
Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 3:31pm
srjenkins -
There is only so many countries we can attack over fresh water. I vote for Canada!
You're right, that is a weakness to my argument. They replaced Hitler and the Japanese with Communism. And They replaced Communism with Terrorism. So, presumably, They will try to replace Terrorism with something. There is always a threat to be made to lurk around the corner.
I am blaming the American citizenry. They let it happen to them. They take it. They believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11 even though a 3-year-old could find out that's false in five minutes. They sit back and take it. Not to absolve the media of complicity and intention to deceive through THEIR TOTALLY AWESOME GRAPHICS! And then Americans get patted on their back for hard work and are expected to spend their free time chugging beer, following celebrity news, watching football, and then listen to self-interested candidate politicians making 10-second sound-bite speeches. Boom! They've participated in democracy.
On some level, we are ultimately responsible for our democracy. With the internet, it's hard to say that watching the "liberal" cable TV network which is owned by a gigantic corporation, and reading your local newspaper which is also owned by a gigantic corporation is the only way to be informed.
Americans are are comfortable with the status quo. They like it. America kicks ass and doesn't need to take names. America is #1. And that's what the people want to believe. So they believe it. And if you go too far from what they believe has worked, the people get nervous. That's why nobody can transform the country into a Kucinichian paradise in four weeks. That's why the President has to keep people like Bob Gates around.
Posted by georgewfan at 12/03/2008 @ 3:39pm
Note that the local newspaper I described which is also owned by a gigantic corporation is a "liberal" newspaper owned by a gigantic corporation.
Posted by georgewfan at 12/03/2008 @ 3:41pm
Posted by georgewfan at 12/03/2008 @ 3:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I'm not sure where you're going with this. you buy your gas from a gigantic corporation, exxon you watch TV brought to you by a gigantic corporation, GE and you shop from a gigantic corporation, Walmart.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/03/2008 @ 6:50pm
Posted by georgewfan at 12/03/2008 @ 3:39pm
I think it is too easy to blame the American citizenry. I'd argue that democratic institutions have been under attack for decades, and there has been professionalization of government at every level - from the legislature to the organizations that support them such as think tanks, lobbyists and administrative staff - that is incentivized to cut the American people out of the process.
Instead, they are presented with over-simplifications that frame the decision making in the interest of the presenter. It's the problem of CEOs, where the people reporting to them don't give them the information they need to make the right decisions. While CEOs are culpable for not doing all they can to find out the ground truth, I don't think the problem is solely theirs.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/03/2008 @ 9:10pm
By commenting belatedly, I get the last word. (Unfortunately, I forgot what I had in mind.) Anyhow, Kat at least MENTIONS relations with Russia as questionable with Sec't Gates at the helm. With President Bush anxiously or carelessly steering us towards Cold War II meantime, you'd suppose that more Nation's readers would notice the Big Time risks involved therein too---but you'd be mis-supposing.
Posted by HiRoller at 12/05/2008 @ 3:56pm
Reading John's Bolton's letter to the next President was shocking. It compelled me to write to him directly calling attention to what I know is madness. His writing a letter like that immediately after the Obama victory confirmed that the filament to the bulb in his head is definitely clipped.
My response via, Veronique Rodman, at AEI
"Bolton sees things as he chooses to believe regardless of the opacity of his vision which is generally corrupted on the short sell as opposed to the long. Thus when faced with a crisis that demands his releasing an old paradigm, he's bound to a premise that reflects failure as a solution.
Immediately after the letter, Medvedev responds to Bolton's threat hidden clearly in plain sight. Since then the tension between us has gone up and down without mention by the cable networks. Obama responded in an attempt to properly diffuse the retaliation declaring that it would be silly to point a defense system that every one knows doesn't work--Everyone then sighs and Medvedev goes to Venezuela.
Since this break in the action to the befuddlement on the left, Mr Gates and Ms. Clinton, have been brought into the mix also leaving those on the Right in a twitter. This decision by Obama has become an overly analyzed occurrence on the twenty four hour network news feed which for me can be summed up simply as diplomatic opacity. We are faced simply by the calculations of some to be left in the dark because not only do infants incubate there, but it's often the best place for pundits, and other sovereign nations.
As the proverb says about the left hand not knowing what the right is doing, some conditions of mind are better left confused. Sometimes judgment must remain in the dark as mercy fortunately is doing its thing.
Posted by drkaza12 at 12/06/2008 @ 9:10pm