Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditI've been trying to avoid commenting on specific personnel for the Obama administration, because it's hard to know what's real and what's rumor, and because it's also difficult to get my head around what the proper evaluative criteria is. The federal bureaucracy is inordinately complicated and there may be reasons to put certain people in certain positions that has nothing to do with their ideological bona fides. That said, I pretty much agree with Chris Bowers:
I know everyone is obsessed with the "team of rivals" idea right now, but I feel incredibly frustrated. Even after two landslide elections in a row, are our only governing options as a nation either all right-wing Republicans, or a centrist mixture of Democrats and Republicans? Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration? Also, why isn't there a single member of Obama's cabinet who will be advising him from the left? It seems to me as though there is a team of rivals, except for the left, which is left off the team entirely.
Not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in the new administration. Not one. Remember this is the movement that was right about Iraq, right about wage stagnation and inequality, right about financial deregulation, right about global warming and right about health care. And I don't just mean in that in a sectarian way. I mean to say that the emerging establishment consensus on all of these issues came from the left. There's tons of things the left is right about that aren't even close to mainstream (taking a hatchet to the national security state and ending the prison industrial complex to name just two), but hopefully we're moving there.
And yet, no one who comes from the part of American political and intellectual life that has given birth to all of these ideas is anywhere to be found within miles of the Obama cabinet thus far. WTF?
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
We'll do this like in college:
1. Define progressive.
2 Give three examples of suitable progressives. (Or two. Or four.)
Posted by twillie at 11/21/2008 @ 3:29pm
Why, Mr Hayes....I think I know.
He's trying to avoid any "Lani Guinier" moments in his first 100 days.
Fair or unfair, Guinier and image (fair or unfair) that she wanted "affirmative action democracy with more votes counting than others"....created the initial image of Clinton in 1993 that he "ran centrist, but was governing as a wacky lefty" (throw in the immediate push for a tax hike, gays in the military, Hillary-care, etc. NOT that those were bad ideas, but the PR was awful.).
Ergo, Obama is trying to stop "Obama's new _______ (position) once told ______ (liberal activist group) that _______ (distorted/out-of-context idea/statement)." coming out of Rush, Sean, Fox News, etc.
e.g. "Mitchell, Obama's new Civil Rights AG, once told the ACLU that every Southerner was a racist" or similar.
Posted by Mask at 11/21/2008 @ 3:39pm
We are getting all the reasons for restoring the Clintonistas back to power because they are "experienced," but we elected Obama because of his lack of experience and trust that he could navigate his way.
The Catch 22 of experience guarantees business as usual.....gotta have experience for the job.........but how do you get the experience if you can't get the job.............the closed door to change.
Posted by OneVote at 11/21/2008 @ 3:44pm
Nice post, Chris.
I caught Democracy Now yesterday with David Corn and Jeremy Scahill discussing the Obama choices so far. I respect David Corn and I think he's a genuinely concerned journalist, but I have to say that he was pretty thin in trying to point out the "bright side" of Obama's picks and transition team make-up. Scahill was much more scathing as well as informative.
Here's a link to Jeremy's latest Alternet offering, "This is Change?":
tinyurl.com/5n48tm
Excerpt:
"What happened to all this talk about change?" a member of the Clinton foreign policy team recently asked the Washington Post. "This isn't lightly flavored with Clintons. This is all Clintons, all the time."
Amid the euphoria over Obama's election and the end of the Bush era, it is critical to recall what 1990s U.S. foreign policy actually looked like. Bill Clinton's boiled down to a one-two punch from the hidden hand of the free market, backed up by the iron fist of U.S. militarism. Clinton took office and almost immediately bombed Iraq (ostensibly in retaliation for an alleged plot by Saddam Hussein to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush). He presided over a ruthless regime of economic sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and under the guise of the so-called No-Fly Zones in northern and southern Iraq, authorized the longest sustained U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2008 @ 3:50pm
Under Clinton, Yugoslavia was bombed and dismantled as part of what Noam Chomsky described as the "New Military Humanism." Sudan and Afghanistan were attacked, Haiti was destabilized and "free trade" deals like the North America Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade radically escalated the spread of corporate-dominated globalization that hurt U.S. workers and devastated developing countries. Clinton accelerated the militarization of the so-called War on Drugs in Central and Latin America and supported privatization of U.S. military operations, giving lucrative contracts to Halliburton and other war contractors. Meanwhile, U.S. weapons sales to countries like Turkey and Indonesia aided genocidal campaigns against the Kurds and the East Timorese.
The prospect of Obama's foreign policy being, at least in part, an extension of the Clinton Doctrine is real. Even more disturbing, several of the individuals at the center of Obama's transition and emerging foreign policy teams were top players in creating and implementing foreign policies that would pave the way for projects eventually carried out under the Bush/Cheney administration.
End quote --but by all means, read the rest Nationheads.
I don't think anyone should be shocked here, but the key point to me is that much of the support that Obama derived from the progressive community was based on the assumption that he was a true progressive at the core. Perhaps, but I strongly suspect that caution and ambition are his driving animators.
Obama's caution gene appears to be over functioning in a massive way. That's the kindest way to portray it at this point I think.
Finally, we are absolutely overdue for a mass movement of aggressive progressive activism.
The time is short.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2008 @ 3:50pm
This is completely the Left/Progressives fault. Groups like moveon.org who pushed so hard for Obama, didn't push as hard for the actual reasons for electing some one like Obama. He spoke the rhetoric of change, but his stances on the WAR and beefing up the Military, that isn't change. But the idea to Not replace Bush with another Bush cronie (mccain) became the main focus of the left, and sort of brushed to the side the issues. If you just foolheartedly throw your support in the direction of a candidate or a party, without true demands of what you (we the people) expect from a candidate (outside of the TALK of Hope & Change), if we didn't let them know right from the start, that we want a progressive president in charge, that we want some balance given to the left, since it is been so lopsided all these years. You know if a "progressive" candidate stands in the middle of an unbalanced scale it will still be unbalanced. Obama is trying to please the "middle" and in doing so he is NOT being progressive. We need someone who is going to stand on the Liberal side of the scale to balance out that unfair weight this country has been living with since the reagan days. But because the Left, the Liberals, the Progressives didn't demand more of Obama, they got him elected, but he doesn't have to bend over backwards for them now. It's really a shame, and hopefully once President elect Obama is sworn in, maybe he will swing his pendulum in our direction, but if he doesn't it is the DUTY of the Media and outspoken vocal and interested citizens like myself to point out all the mistakes or lack of effort being made by this new administration, we need to inform, the media needs to be critical and informative to the public. The people need to be active & march& fight!
Posted by kristofeR! at 11/21/2008 @ 3:52pm
This is the Era of Change, and we need change! We NEED to END these Wars and Bring Peace to our globe. We Need to fix the Financial mess this country is in and rebuild our infrastructure, or industries and our dignity! But we have to unite to be strong to fight. Like the Prop 8 people are doing (which is great) they are out there demanding to be equal, regardless of the voting and whether or not is should have even been voted on. This is what we need to do over the War, lets re-ignite the anti-war movement, start marching! Lets demand Gaza and Palestine be treated with dignity and respect. As well as everyone else in the middle east and the world over for that matter. The Nation, Democracy Now, the Real News, media like you have to be the leading voices in pushing for the change we need, and us the citizens of this country have to take it on as our duty, our job to be informed, informative to others and active and vocal in what is wrong in this country and the world. We broke a barrier with Obama, but that is only the very very beginning. We need to break the barrier of classes and division of the people, unite together and fight together to change this country and the world! Please visit my blog at http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com
Posted by kristofeR! at 11/21/2008 @ 4:01pm
Nice timing, Kristofer.
And well said!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2008 @ 4:03pm
Nice blog spot as well, I might add, Kristofer.
Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" is a gripping read --with an appropriately alarming subject matter.
A couple of my other favorites over the last several months are from the retired conservative Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich's "The Limits of Power", and ex-CIA operative Robert Baer's "The Devil We Know".
Both are relatively brief and compelling reads.
Here's Baer on Fresh Air recently:
tinyurl.com/4jgvlu
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2008 @ 4:13pm
How about some examples of suitable progressives? Don't be afraid. Name some names.
Posted by twillie at 11/21/2008 @ 4:14pm
yawn, wake me when Obama is actually pres. someone open the window, the hot air here is stifling.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @ 4:26pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2008 @ 3:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Corn was a little hard pressed to keep up with Scahill. A much more persuasive case was made by Scahill.
Posted by OneVote at 11/21/2008 @ 4:27pm
Mr. Obama's "Lincolnian" team of rivals seems to missing its Salmon P. Chase. So much for balance.
Dr. Dean in the mix might have convinced me, Daschle, Clinton and Richardson do not.
Posted by srsjones825 at 11/21/2008 @ 4:38pm
"Clinton for all his faults comes off very well in comparison to the goddamn Bush."
~"Emile Rolff"
All praise for small victories I suppose.
But seriously, the larger point is that there is a foreign policy establishment in the U.S. and no matter who is elected President, we are stuck on stupid.
Whether fast with Dubya or slow with Clinton and apparently Obama too, we still drive off the cliff to insolvency and a probable gut wrenching collapse.
Enough already!
By the way, tomorrow is the 45th anniversary of the JFK assassination. Another likable guy whose reality was far from his mythology, and who's death roughly marked the sharp turn toward the trajectory we're on today.
It'd sure be swell to see Obama mark a new turning point --without the assassination of course, and in a sharply positive direction. Ever since the absurdly obsequious AIPAC speech in June in particular, I've had a really bad gut feeling about Barack Obama, sadly.
I hope like hell I'm wrong, but the evidence thus far says I'm probably not.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2008 @ 4:38pm
One of the most disappointing endorsements of Obama by a major progressive group was certainly that of moveon.org's as kristofeR pointed out. That was a clear indication that the influence of imagery and slogans and and a common enemy (neo-cons) had once again trumped intelligence and critical thought. Scahill has done some fantastic reporting regarding the new cabinet members, now let's see if some of the "Left" (by O'Reilly or Hannity's standards) mainstream media are going to be as critical as they were toward Bush in his second term...cough cough, Olbermann/Maddow...please step up. You too Maher.
Posted by drivin71 at 11/21/2008 @ 4:39pm
yawn, wake me when Obama is actually pres. someone open the window, the hot air here is stifling.
~emile
Better yet, stay asleep. You can conjure a whole new reality in there and more readily escape the "hot air".
Sweet dreams.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2008 @ 4:43pm
I hope like hell I'm wrong, but the evidence thus far says I'm probably not. Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2008 @ 4:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Enough already!
Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @ 4:48pm
Booo!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2008 @ 4:50pm
I'd like to say let's wait & see what his admin brings (shower of fetid objects approaching me) but I agree with Chris, we need more progressives placed in the new govt. Step forward unashamedly, those of you with the cachet to garner media attention. We'll see what happens.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/21/2008 @ 4:50pm
YOU, emile. And you, b kool. How about some suitable progressives? C'mon. Name names.
Posted by twillie at 11/21/2008 @ 4:53pm
As a dyed-in-the-wool progressive (and then some), I'm not surprised in the least. Anyone who expected Obama to embrace the progressive movement was kidding themselves. Obama was quite clear on many issues, e.g., "Out of Iraq" in one breath, and then promised to escalate the war in Afghanistan in the next. That's what MoveOn wanted? That's what progressives wanted? That's what the anti-war movement wanted?
Indeed, when Obama held his big meeting after the election with his economic team, there was *not a single person representing labor or working people*, except maybe Robert Reich, but you know what I mean. This is going to be pro-business Clintonism wrapped in better rhetoric.
Chris is dead-on. I'm all for pragmatism, but pragmatism that sells out real progressive and transformational change for "no drama" is a waste.
Again, though, listen closely to what Obama said for two years and you'd know that he never promised what we wish he was promising.
At least he's not appointing timber industry lobbyists to head the Park Service. Oh, how low our expectations are!
Posted by witcity at 11/21/2008 @ 5:00pm
You drive a hard bargain there, Twillie.
Are you a "negotiator" in real life?
I'd have to do some research to make more thoughtful picks, but to start off without any vetting process etc. I'd be delighted to see a man of the caliber of Andrew Bacevich as our new SecDef.
The guy is a rock of solid reasoning and cool deliberation. And he's a "conservative", but in my book he's a progressive --which points out the meaninglessness of those labels when scrutinized.
I value intelligence, wisdom and guts.
I have serious doubts about Obama's guts.
In any case, your query is a bit silly Twillie. There are people out there who would make far better choices than we've seen from Obama thus far.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2008 @ 5:02pm
Speak for yourselves. I'm one liberal who has no desire to revisit our success of 1980, 1984 and 1988. We liberals insisted on ideological idealism and got bupkus.
If there weren't such serious issues to consider, I might find this amusing. Isn't it our side that is supposed to avoid pre-judging people? How about waiting to kvetch and moan until AFTER we have an inauguration and AFTER specific legislation and policy is put forth BY THE PRESIDENT?
I distinctly remember how many of the liberals on multiple blog sites were wringing their hands throughout the campaign about how Obama and his advisers were blowing it. And, yet, they were proven correct EVERY SINGLE TIME.
When Clinton got elected he didn't focus on getting the best, experienced people surrounding him and it hindered him from the word "go." I have full faith that Obama will not be a hands-off President with no control like Shrub. It is good that he has people who many perceive as being to the right of him. He needs their opinions in order to avoid going to avoid making mistakes. However, I have no doubt that once he makes a decision, if any of them cross him on it, they will be gone.
Do not mistake our overwhelming election victory as an endorsement of going from all the way right to all the way left. It was a rejection of all the way right and a willingness by the electorate to give a leftward track a chance. What we have to do is prove our ideas work. Then, we will be more able to convince the country to go further left.
I'm not saying "no big ideas." In fact, Obama and Emanuel have expressly made it clear that that is their purpose. Why not have some trust in them in knowing best how to set the table for those to be successful?
Short version: Chicken Littles, please shut up.
Posted by LogicalConsideration at 11/21/2008 @ 5:04pm
It is official. Our scrappy senator has in fact become tweedle dee or is it tweedle dum. We now have one of the master architects of this mess in treasury. Tim Geithner is a protege of Summers and Rubin. The "Let's build a new economy from the bottom up", seems to have been pure horse manure. How many votes did Geithner get on this site? Google this guys name and if that doesn't scare the bejesus out of you, you have more courage than I have.
Posted by lachatte at 11/21/2008 @ 5:10pm
"witcity"
A fine post. I love it when we get some intelligent dialogue on these blogs.
I like to urge others with some horsepower under the hood to feel free to join the conversations here more often.
Too many are the days of domination by the likes of Maskot and Happy the Clown types.
No offense, Maskot, I like you well enough --especially versus Happy-- but it's always a joy to hear fresh voices with challenging and/or well designed words.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2008 @ 5:10pm
Where would these genuine progressives come from?
All the liberals/democrats I'm aware of that have even minimal requisite experience in navigating government rose up after the 80s.
I mean, we can't throw it all to Bernie Sanders.
I guess we could raid local zoning boards or something, but I think we did a pretty good job getting the guy at the top in there.
Posted by MasonMcD at 11/21/2008 @ 5:12pm
No offense, Maskot, I like you well enough -
a ringing endorsement. hahahahahaha
Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @ 5:14pm
"LogicalConsideration" my ass.
More accurately you are the true "kvetch and moan" liberal here.
If a movement is to have any effect, it must strike while the iron is hot.
Now is precisely the time to pound Obama.
Period.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2008 @ 5:14pm
Now is precisely the time to pound b_kool_66
Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @ 5:16pm
Posted by "Reverend" Larry "Liberty".
Thanks, Larr.
More confirmation of what we've been discussing here.
And thanks too, Barack "The weak-kneed One" Obama.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2008 @ 5:18pm
Now is precisely the time to pound b_kool_66
~emile
Your facility with the language is impressive, young Jedi.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2008 @ 5:20pm
It's not about the "Chicken Littles" sqwauking over nothing, this is what we NEED to do, all these 4 and if it turns to 8 years. We can Not, not again, drop the ball. We need to be on top of our politics, and our president no matter who it may be. If we just blindly put our faith in the Hope of things changing for the better without us fulfilling our roles as critical, informed civilians, this country will never pull itself out of this hole we are in, but continue to further the downward spiral. It is OUR duty as American citizens to watch and talk about and offer help where we can, every decision that is made from here on out pertaining to OUR government. Remember, Obama is OUR employee, those of you who voted for him hired him on as Chief Executive Office, to do Our bidding as American citizens in this world. We failed to fire the last miserable president who escalated all our already real problems. We can no longer sit on the side lines. That means the media has to say the truth even if it isn't fashionable or popular, people with blogs have to help spread that word. Citizens need to march and protest and speak out on both sides the wrong and the good decisions. We need to all make our citizenship a part of our daily life and to never give that up again. We have to help guide the president elect Obama in the direction we need him to go! And to all the people who agreed or complimented my earlier comment, thanks. Keep posting comments, spreading the word and get out there and be active however you can! http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com
Posted by kristofeR! at 11/21/2008 @ 5:23pm
Your facility with the language is impressive, young Jedi. Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2008 @ 5:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
it's a gift. some have it, some don't
Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @ 5:25pm
So what?
Leeross, San Francisco
Posted by Leerossh at 11/21/2008 @ 5:26pm
Obama is not progressive. He never has been.
His mentor was Joe Loserman.
So why would he have any progressives in his cabinet?
When are you progressives who dissed Ralph gonna wake up?
Posted by neaguy at 11/21/2008 @ 5:31pm
When are you progressives who dissed Ralph gonna wake up?
~NEA guy
Don't blame me......
:-)
P.S. That third party turnout was a damn shame.
I liken it in some important aspects to those supposed "third world", banana republic or totalitarian state election results of 90+ percent for the "favorite".
Americans should be alarmed and ashamed, but most are clueless under a well designed propaganda state.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2008 @ 5:38pm
Alright, I'm out.
Good talkin' to you dudes --and dudettes perhaps.
Even you, emile. You are a very bright guy who I truly value on the site.
Cheers.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2008 @ 5:43pm
P.S. That third party turnout was a damn shame.
perhaps the third parties did not have a compelling message.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @ 5:43pm
Support Obama without any conditions and then expect him to represent you.
Yeah. That's a great plan.
Posted by Mandaliet at 11/21/2008 @ 5:50pm
WAIT A SEC!
Progressives were right about the Iraq war, as was Obama!
Progressives were right about healthcare, as is Hillary and Obama!
Progressives were right about global warming, as is Al Gore, guess what Clinton Administration heaven forbid!
What does the far left really want? Who would they suggest? Nader?
Good grief this is really a non-issue I think folks are just bored and need stuff to complain about.
Posted by Extraneous at 11/21/2008 @ 5:58pm
Yes, it might indeed kill him.
The dream is over, wasn't it a quick one?
Any bets on how many Afghanis we "obliterate" in the next 4 years? Half a million? More?
That'll be one way to set them free, but with such eloquent packaging & showmanship.
Posted by sloper at 11/21/2008 @ 6:08pm
Posted by neaguy at 11/21/2008 @ 5:31pm
His mentor was Joe L.? I thought everyone was saying it was Reverand Wright? I thought he had the most liberal voting record in the Senate? Like Kerry before him and basically all Democratic nominees?
What really concerns me is his appointing of elected officials like my govenor Napalitano, if she steps downs we will have a republican Gov here. She has been the only check on our republican dominated state legislature and it hurts the state of Arizona with her departure.
Posted by Extraneous at 11/21/2008 @ 6:08pm
It's fascinating that neither Chris Hayes nor any of the posters here that support him can name a single suggestion for a Cabinet nominee from the left. Not a one!
People seem enamored of the idea of moving more leftward, but can't think of anyone who could actually do it while competently handling Treasury, State, Defense, HHS, Justice, etc. Unlike the kibbitzers here, Obama has real responsibilities in these areas and huge damage to be undone.
I think Daschle is someone who has a real shot at getting universal health care through Congress. Geithner has a strong working knowledge of the Fed and Treasury, and has shown greater for Federal intervention when it's needed than did Rubin during the Clinton years. Napolitano can help forge real immigration reform. Holder has been strongly on record against torture, for closing Gitmo, etc.
None of these people will pass a left-wing ideological purity test, but they can actually get stuff done. As opposed to the people proposed by the left here - oh, wait a minute, nobody is proposing ANYONE from the left!
Posted by DB55 at 11/21/2008 @ 6:20pm
Just for the Record, The Third Parties message is as always has been a compelling message! It was not the lack of message by third party candidates, but lack of Fair coverage given to them. Between the Media basically blacking them out of the picture and the Debate Commission which is run by Democrats and Republicans, the 3rd Party candidates has NO chance to get their message out. That is going to change though. I plan to be a part of helping that change by continuing to push for third parties. I voted third party! I voted Nader. the Republican party is having a rough time right now and if they don't get a Uniter, a Savior of their party they are going to fall apart and split into two, maybe three factions. Thats will inevitably change the outcome of how elections are currently operated. That will also help with the rise of Third Parties for future elections! Please visit my blog @ http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com thanks. Lets all bring the PEACE!
Posted by chen at 11/21/2008 @ 6:21pm
I'm new to politics and I am so fascinated (actually confused) by these labels: Liberals, Progessives, Democrats, Centrists, Moderates, NeoCons, Conservative, Far Right, Far Left? I see why most Americans get turned off by politics. What is the difference between these groups anyways? Why is it so important to have a Progressive - don't you agree with Obama's policies or the goals he has set? We see that he is serious about health care, I believe that he is very serious about a Green economy - He read Hot, Flat and Crowded - he plans to close Gitmo, He still plans to get out of Iraq and run a smart war in Afghanistan. Obama has a plan and he is picking the people who can best do that. One very important thing to remember: You may think your recommended person for a specific cabinet post may be better, but Obama and his vetting team know much more than you do. They have access to information that you don't and your guy/girl probably didn't past the test.
Posted by allonfla at 11/21/2008 @ 6:22pm
Well, now I was justified -- for not voting for McCain or Obama in 2008. As a liberal, whom is a former card carrying member of the Democratic Party; I can give a few reasons why a change in politics in DC will not occur.
The main reason being that liberalism is historically; not a populist political philosophy, but rather a radical form of anarchism that seeks to change the status quo; of popular and unjust ways.
Obama - - as I knew -- could not, even if he wanted to bring the change that he was propagating -- simply because he was not a liberal or a progressive -- but he was a progressive in name only, giving all the -- million man march -- sheep voters lip service to get elected.
The Military-Industrial-Complex elected their CIA man Obama; just as they have been electing presidents from the day JFK was shot.
With the exception of perhaps being President Gore, but he was never expected to win -- so when he did, all hell broke loose--quite literally.
Posted by Philip_Shore at 11/21/2008 @ 6:24pm
I think you guys need to stop being the wall flower and just get out on the floor and ask for someone to dance with you. Obama's camp have been sending me e-mails and surveys asking me to provide my input about how we can make this country better. I have also gone to change.gov and wrote about my vision for this country. Have any of you done that? or are just gonna leave posts on this website and complain the whole time. I believe you are also able to send in a video.
Posted by allonfla at 11/21/2008 @ 6:25pm
Obama - - as I knew -- could not, even if he wanted to bring the change that he was propagating Posted by Philip_Shore at 11/21/2008 @ 6:24pm
Maybe I missed it, I thought I was paying attention, but what exactly is the change everyone thought he would bring? Change means alot of things and everyone has a different interpretation. He is bringing change, no matter how you look at it. The policies on a gazillion issues are going to be different under Obama. Changing everything in the way DC politics are run is just plain insane, as is the suggestion that the CIA- military industrial complex guides the elections. If anything the Hawk, McCain would have been their choice.
Posted by Extraneous at 11/21/2008 @ 6:38pm
Change is happening -- it is (for lack of a better word..) progressing.
First came the election and now the formation of government begins with picking the "team". Then we progress along to the actual policies and actions being carried out -- the work.
Considering the many areas where change is needed and the varying degrees of immediacy -- taking some baby steps is imperative.
Some giant steps are also called for and we will have to wait until after 1-20-09 to see what step is used on the myriad issues facing our country.
I have confidence in Barack Obama. I am a moderate and I voted for him based on many things -- change being at the top of the list. Frankly -- the fact he is an intelligent and thoughtful, pragmatic man whom I TRUST is 90% of the change I've been hoping for.
Those of you farther "left" than me will find fault, I imagine, just as I am certain those to the "right" of me will scream and yell like spoiled children who lost their favorite toy. But, you progressives will be ultimately better served -- I hope.
Posted by AloeVera at 11/21/2008 @ 6:51pm
Even you, emile. You are a very bright guy who I truly value on the site. Cheers. Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2008 @ 5:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person
best post by far.
seriously, thanks. I tease you now and then, but I appreciate your posts.
and that's how I feel about most posters here, with some glaring exceptions.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @ 6:54pm
Good thought allonfla...
Absolutely folks -- go to change.gov and send in your ideas. I also filled out the survey and have not been one bit shy about sending them my (thoughtful, well articulated) opinions... spell check and all! :-)
It is awesome to have an administration that actually asks "we the people..." what we think, want, expect.
I call this step way cool change -- progressive as ever and based on 200+ year old uniquely American principles.
Posted by AloeVera at 11/21/2008 @ 7:01pm
Study the history of spying, the best spooks, never even knew they were spies! Posted by Philip_Shore at 11/21/2008 @ 7:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
c'mon now, that's preposterous. Richard Sorge, Klaus Fuchs, et al.
you may elaborate.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @ 7:14pm
Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @
c'mon now, that's preposterous. Richard Sorge, Klaus Fuchs, et al.
-----------------------------------
Mata Hari
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mata_Hari
Posted by Philip_Shore at 11/21/2008 @ 7:35pm
I'm new to this site, so I'm not sure on all of the posters' "voices" -- like is someone being tongue in cheek or sarcastic, or whatever...
but Philip_Shore...
What the hell?
How can a spy not know they are a spy? And, if the best spooks never knew they were spies -- then how do they end up in the history of spying?
Oh by the way Justine, you were a spy when you took that trip to France -- sorry about the sour wine and bad cheese, but you had to be unconscious for us to get your intel...
sheesh
Posted by AloeVera at 11/21/2008 @ 7:43pm
"On one occasion, when interviewed by British intelligence officers, she admitted to work as an agent for French military intelligence, although the latter would not confirm her story. It is unclear if she lied on this occasion, believing the story made her sound more intriguing, or if French authorities were using her in such a way, but would not acknowledge her due to the embarrassment and international backlash it could cause."
from the wikipedia article re: Mata Hari *************************************** It seems she had some idea she was spying...
Really, it just seems wasteful and careless for a spy to "not know" they are gathering information. I wouldn't classify the kinds of people who require this kind of information to be wasteful or careless by nature.
Anyway, Barack Obama is not working for the CIA or the M/I gang.
He's too smart.
Now let's hope he broadens the political scope of his cabinet.
Posted by AloeVera at 11/21/2008 @ 7:53pm
Posted by AloeVera at 11/21/2008
Anyway, Barack Obama is not working for the CIA or the M/I gang.
___________________________
A liberal point of view is to reduce the military budget (which includes the Military-Industrial- CIA-Complex) by between 90 and 95%.
How much is Obama going to cut?
Posted by Philip_Shore at 11/21/2008 @ 8:19pm
There "ARE" good people out there. Jamie Galbraith, really sharp pedigree and good thinker as well as a humanist. Sheila Bair a real shit kicking, no nonsense, problem solving gal, with enough cubes between her ears to solve our current problems, "from the bottom up". She is the gal that puts the lie to Larry Summers little, " women can't learn math", fiasco.Paul Krugman who really knows economics and has a global understanding of business. True he is really soft spoken and gentle, but maybe it's time to try gentle instead of all the bull that we have been fed. Tim Geithner is ghost of Christmas past and part of the Wall Street gluttony that got us here. A really, really...really poor choice for a new century. Look at what all the pontificators have brought us. A Las Vegas economy where the only winners are the owners of the house, and the crap table,
Posted by lachatte at 11/21/2008 @ 9:52pm
.bcool, kris- good posts. I absolutely could be wrong. I differ. A light casts a shadow, the bigger the light the bigger the shadow. I believe that any reality-based reckoning of the history scope of this election points to it being turtle time more than hare time. That we had to have a war criminal sign our blood and treasure over en mass before we could muster a victory speaks to the still lethal military-industrial-corporate-media complex. The more progressive appointments, I believe, could very, very easily lead to the same sort of insanity of 24-7 media bloodlusting we saw during Clinton's presidency. Whitewater, Paula Jones, Vince Foster, Monica. The threat is probably higher right now, even with this victory, given the shock doctrine vulnerabilities. Were Obama to pick some more progressive types, the first medium sized surprise would be fashioned by the corporate media whores along the fault lines - dangerously liberal, promised to be bipartisan but he's gone socialist, rich refusing to pay taxes or some farce leading to impeachment rumblings, high crimes for unfair taxation, met with Iran pres and then cut Pentagon budget, we're in serious danger, militia's forming, total congressional stalemate, hearings, investigations, some nasty Jeb sort in 012... You think this is all behind us. Maybe about 1 millimeter. Don't cast a big shadow. Never before have we had reality-based folks in all the major posts. We need this first, then some legal binding of the run amok, unconstitutional Trojan 4th estate. Work on scaling back from the middle east hot seat, scaling up Medicare-like insurance for the uninsured, letting this economy purge the toxins, just get some of the floor laid, steady through this my brothers --- let's not underestimate what lurks in t
Posted by winyahn at 11/21/2008 @ 10:21pm
lurks in the shadows. The world depends on it.
Posted by winyahn at 11/21/2008 @ 10:25pm
B kool Just came in from wood cutting & saw your post. Wow, you slapped off my cowboy hat with that one. Feel kinda like Jon Voight minus the republicanism. Can you recommend any specific therapy?
Posted by Sorelish at 11/21/2008 @ 10:33pm
vote one***Keep in mind...Judgment trumps experience nearly every time. That's why Obama got elected...Good Judgment, not wrongful drawn out experience. Sometimes it's not what you're doing but who you're doing it with and Obama hopefully will surround himself with those who actually are "the change we've been looking for"... not those who lack any vision beyond what they've already experienced.
Posted by bjobotts at 11/22/2008 @ 03:18am
"why isn't there a single member of Obama's cabinet who will be advising him from the left? It seems to me as though there is a team of rivals, except for the left, which is left off the team entirely."
But the answer is obvious; there is someone on the left with whom Obama's "team of rivals" will have to contend: Obama himself. He's a socialist, remember; he's so far to the left that he needs a cabinet filled entirely with center-right people in order to be able to make even a token gesture towards a modicum of moderation.
Posted by DBR at 11/22/2008 @ 03:34am
Great article Chris.WTF???These events make sense to me when I look at them thru a larouche template,or a steve zarlenga/AMI template,or a richard c cook/global research.ca template.We're coming down to an "end-game" situation,in a centuries-old war between 2 competing sets of ideas:"We The People"with govt of/by/for same(&econmic democracy/credit-as-public utility)VS Empire with its private monitary control over EVERYTHING(a "masters-of-the-universe"powerful kind of MAFIA).The institution of our Presidency has NEVER had a free hand(a PEOPLES hand)in composing itself.ALL of our assinations were carried out by "agents-of-empire",acting on orders from that global mafia I refered to,ESPECIALLY when the prez makes a move towards PUBLIC control of the money power(Lincoln&greenbacks/JFK&ending-the-FED).Obama will need much finesse in composing his Presidency.He's smart.He cant just swing a "LEFT-HANDED"bludgeon.He has to be more "RAPIER"-like in his actions. Anyway,that's how I make sense of the situation.A very complex,centuries-old,global "chess game" is in progress;& we're getting very close to "CHECKMATE" time.
Posted by LNBOW at 11/22/2008 @ 08:35am
--YAHOO-UK:
US elected officials scored abysmally on a test measuring their civic knowledge, with an average grade of just 44 percent, the group that organized the exam said Thursday. Skip related content
Ordinary citizens did not fare much better, scoring just 49 percent correct on the 33 exam questions compiled by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI).
"It is disturbing enough that the general public failed ISI's civic literacy test, but when you consider the even more dismal scores of elected officials, you have to be concerned," said Josiah Bunting, chairman of the National Civic Literacy Board at ISI.
"How can political leaders make informed decisions if they don't understand the American experience?" he added.
The exam questions covered American history, the workings of the US government and economics.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/22/2008 @ 09:23am
You may now (nearly) have Obama, but you still have America - a set of patterns* with a certain tenacity and endurance, even a certain power. The Land of Big Business is hardly going to ditch all that, and dash over to the left. And nobody out here in the rest of the world really expects it to. Just refraining from the insanities of the Bush era will be blessing enough.
It will be interesting to see whether Obama is capable of steering the juggernaut even an inch to the left.
*patterns: of power, of established relations and relationships, of bureaucratic practice, of a great accumulation of little laws and regulations, rules and habits, of desire, of trade and wealth... and so on and on.
Posted by mikecope at 11/22/2008 @ 09:32am
If you had to describe the Bush administration in one word, few would be more apt than the word incompetent. From the historic foreign policies blunders of Iraq and Afghanistan to the tragic do-nothing domestic policies of Katrina, 9/11, and managing the economy.
Not only have the policies been incompetent, but those with positions of responsibility in this administration have been incompetent. Bush, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Chertoff, Miers, Brownie, Cheney, Libby, Rice, Bolton, Goodling and many more. These individuals were not the best and brightest of what this country has to offer, rather they're party loyalists who share a similar disdain and disrespect for the positive role that government can have in people's lives.
A familiar theme from Barack Obama on the campaign trail was that government can't solve every problem, but at the very least, it should do no harm. With all of the serious challenges that we face as a nation, Obama seems convinced that surrounding himself with very smart people is more important than where a person leans politically.
Instead of selecting partisans and rewarding political hacks with cushy positions where they have no business being, Obama is selecting open-minded and qualified individuals who are well-respected throughout Washington and abroad.
Are Obama's selections the progressive all-star team some of us might have preferred? Obviously not. Still, few can say that his appointments are incompetents or partisan hacks or ideological die-hards. It seems that Obama is attempting to provide a sense of confidence in the team that he is assembling, to give assurances to all that he intends to provide responsible government.
Posted by kaneblues at 11/22/2008 @ 09:47am
More important then cabinet picks... will the puppy be a lefty or a centrist? Lhasa apso or Golden Doodle?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/22/2008 @ 10:15am
Prince Charles is out driving one day and feels a bump. He get's out and realizes that he has run over one of the queens Corgis. He is distraught and worried. As he leans against his limo he sees a shiny thing in the ditch. Lo and behold it is a lamp! He polishes it a little and POOF! the genie pops out.
"One wish I will grant", booms the genie, he issues the normal caveats."I cannot undo death or make someone love you."
Prince Charles says sheepishly "I just killed one of my moms dogs, can't you do something?"
"Rule #1- no undoing death!" Genies says emphatically.
Charles reaches into his pocket and pulls out pictures of Dianna and Camilla. He says "Dianna was smokin' hot, but man! What a beeyatch! I love Camilla with all of my heart, she is smart and whitty and my soul mate. but, as you can see, she is not someone that gets the royal Wheee going. Genie, could you make Camilla as beautiful as Dianna? That is my wish."
Genie looks at the to pictures, looks at Camilla, looks at Dianna, looks at Camilla.... and says.... "Let's see about that dog."
Posted by crabwalk at 11/22/2008 @ 10:25am
If Obama surrounded himself entirely with liberals and progressives, he would breathe life into a dying Republican party. The GOP would be emboldened to fight and obstruct every piece of legislation, and they would attempt to paint Obama and Democrats as extremists and out of touch. We would end up with four more years of bickering in Washington with very little getting done.
In surrounding himself with very smart and open-minded people, people who are respected on both sides of the aisle, Obama is making it much more difficult for partisans and republicans to vilify him, his administration, and his policies. Rather than giving life to a modern day wannabe Newt Gingrich and losing the gains of Congress, Obama is laying the groundwork to not only increase those gains, but also strengthening the Democratic brand in the minds of the country. The obstructionists will soon show themselves to be the ones who are the extremists and out of touch, while Obama and the Democrats will solidify themselves as the party that gets things done.
Surely Obama understands that the country has moved to the left. But to bring the rest of the country along, he must do it in a moderate fashion. Remember, when a pendulum swings from the right, it must pass through the middle before it gets to the left.
Posted by kaneblues at 11/22/2008 @ 10:56am
We all know the feeling when a horror movie seems to wind up and suddenly a corpse lifts its dead arm up and everyone screams...That arm is the neo-cons.They're alive and plotting and scheming more than ever. Just wait till Netanyahu exhales fire not breath in February and Rahm, Hillary,Dennis Ross and surprise! Barack (paid and feathered),stand to attention. The horror movie has not ended.
Posted by mystic at 11/22/2008 @ 11:45am
Posted by kaneblues at 11/22/2008 @ 10:56am
Why, you've got no principle atall.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/22/2008 @ 11:45am
If Obama weren't owned lock stock & barrel by Wall Street (as is the rest of DC), he wouldn't have gotten any closer to the White House than Kucinich. There will be no accountability for the torturers, nor for the illegal wiretappers. If Bush doesn't attack Iran before Jan. 20, Obama will soon enough. Obama supported the bailout because he knew that the banksters would pull their support if he didn't. We. Are. Screwed. (but we always have been...)
Posted by pointus at 11/22/2008 @ 12:20pm
We. Are. Screwed. (but we always have been...) Posted by pointus at 11/22/2008 @ 12:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
never so much as in the last eight years. pay attention.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/22/2008 @ 12:26pm
Tim Geithner is ghost of Christmas past and part of the Wall Street gluttony that got us here. A really, really...really poor choice for a new century. Look at what all the pontificators have brought us. A Las Vegas economy where the only winners are the owners of the house, and the crap table,
Posted by lachatte at 11/21/2008 @ 9:52pm | warn this person
Indeed. Geithner got his entree to power appointments from the humble beginning of working with Kissinger & Associates, whose clientele include the likes of AIG. He is also a 2006 member of Group of Thirty whose agenda was to push global financial markets and derivatives trade. Group of Thirty published Derivatives: Practices and Principles -- a text used by derivative traders and written largely to overcome fears of purchasers of derivatives and default swaps.
Posted by OneVote at 11/22/2008 @ 12:39pm
emile: Obama just picked Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary. From NBC: "Geithner has been a key player in the current economic crisis -- helping Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and his team manage the wall street bailout."
I think that says it all.
Posted by pointus at 11/22/2008 @ 12:40pm
The Group of Thirty's groundbreaking work on derivatives, Derivatives: Practices and Principles, published in 1993 was commissioned in the 1990s just as the use of derivatives grew and began to move into the mainstream of finance. It was based on a wide ranging survey of the industry. At the time many, both inside and outside of the financial industry, were uncomfortable with derivatives activity. They saw it as complex and obscure, potentially subject to abuse that might lead to the failure of individual firms or even to a crisis in the financial system. The G30's final report, Derivatives: Practices and Principles, recognized and addressed these concerns by explaining derivatives and their uses and by formulating and disseminating recommendations about their proper management. It is still widely read today, often being used as a textbook for students of accounting and finance and market practitioners, due to its relatively plain language. It gives a comprehensive explanation of what derivatives are, the needs they serve, their risks, and their relationship to traditional financial instruments.
Source: Wikipedia; Query: Group of Thirty
The impending collaspe of the derivatives and credit default swap market was well known in advance of Paulson's "crisis" announcement in Fall 2008. Look for our new Treasury Secretary to continue to attempt to prop up global derivatives trade using treasury debt (taxpayer's money) for collateral.
Posted by OneVote at 11/22/2008 @ 12:44pm
I think that says it all. Posted by pointus at 11/22/2008 @ 12:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
not all. the market jumped 500 points upon the news of his appointment. that in a week that saw daily drops of 500 points.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/22/2008 @ 1:09pm
Obama got approximately 68 million votes to McCain's 59 million. Just how far left do you think the 68 million who voted for Obama are? Are 90% as far left as KVH and the Nation's writers? Take a guess. Unless its a really big number, HE DIDN'T GET A LEFTWARD MANDATE! Put away your fantasies of Euro-Socialism and Venezuelan solidarity.
Posted by sntauri at 11/22/2008 @ 1:30pm
Posted by sntauri at 11/22/2008 @
The Nation's writers? Take a guess. Unless its a really big number, HE DIDN'T GET A LEFTWARD MANDATE! Put away your fantasies of Euro-Socialism and Venezuelan solidarity.
_________________________
I don't speak for liberals....however, myself being a ultra-liberal I have no regards for communism.
Liberty and justice for all, and freedom ring in my ears,; when the rights of the minority are respected and tolerated. It is a sign of a true democracy, when the majority of the people tolerate the rights of the minority -- no matter how much they may offend the popular majority.
In our popular march to identity politics , we destroy a true democracy, that is the goal of all Americans.
Liberalism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.
Posted by Philip_Shore at 11/22/2008 @ 2:18pm
Do you mean to say that Obama's appointees were wrong on Iraq, wage stagnation and inequality, financial deregulation, global warming and health care. Some of course were ---HRC comes to mind---but not only "progressives" were right.
By the way, the singular is criterion.
Posted by ascott at 11/22/2008 @ 2:40pm
Before I go, thanks for the props, Sorelish.
Not sure which post you refer to, but I can't take personal credit for some of the best things I post. In this case, Jeremy Scahill was the one worthy of praise for his Alternet piece.
My prime directive here at The Nation is hopefully establish connections to stuff I think will be help lay down fruitful tracks to a more aggressive and progressive readership, overall, here at The Nation.
That readers of The Nation would detest someone as intelligent and charming as an Alex Cockburn is one example that proves that more work is always needed to light people's minds on fire.
By all means, keep passing the torch around, fellow agitators.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/22/2008 @ 4:20pm
emile: "the market jumped 500 points upon the news of his (Geithner's) appointment"
"the Market" is a spoiled child. If the investor class doesn't get their way on such things as looting the treasury of $3 Trillion, they throw a temper tantrum & start panic-selling while Goldman Sachs lobbyists blackmail our "representatives" into selling out our children's futures. Of COURSE the market was happy with Geithner's pick. They want the free money to continue! If Obama had had the courage to stand up to Paulson's swindle & vote "NO", he would have probably gotten over 70% of the popular vote. But what's done is done... let's see just how much Obama can get done now that the money is all gone. And he has no one to blame but himself. At some point China and Saudi Arabia will decide to stop underwriting the Great American Empire-- we haven't even begun to see the brown stuff hit the fan yet: The Great Depression will pale in comparison... and here's why: back in the 30's, FDR faced enormous pressures from the left-- the more economic dislocation took place, the greater the danger of popular revolt. That's a lot of what forced him to enact the New Deal policies which began to reduce chronic wealth inequality. Nowadays, the "national security" apparatus (warrantless spying, halliburton camps, militarized police) has nullified any chance of real public pressure from the left. Did you see what happened in St. Paul during the RNC, when peaceful citizens tried to seek redress for their grievances against a government gone haywire? They were met with universal violence and brutality. The "Change you can believe in" mantra? Marketing. As Obama names more and more neocons, hawks, NAFTA & WTO types to his cabinet, I become more proud of my vote for McKinney.
Posted by pointus at 11/22/2008 @ 4:25pm
@twillie's request for specific progressive names is spot on. Is there a specific gripe? Name it.
For me, i'd love to see Stiglitz, Krugman or Reich at Sec Treas and see Summers or Geithner at Labor or Commerce.
Treasury drives economic policy.
And the best way to take a hatchet to the Nat'l Security state is to starve it.
Posted by MikeBoyScout at 11/22/2008 @ 4:27pm
"...the most portentous American political event in a long time --the DC AIPAC conference last June."
Indeed, Kool.
For some, that was something of an epiphany, at which Obama was obsequious far above & beyond the call of duty.
After that, his cabinet & staff appointments come as no big surprise.
Obama is a man who has been well mentored & assisted for many years. Like Holder. They, and ambitious bright others like them, are irretrievably indebted.
Change? In style & appearance & not much else.
Posted by sloper at 11/22/2008 @ 5:10pm
When the liberal media declares Hillary it's darling, you know you're in deep...
Hillary Clinton Brandishes Liberal Agenda Washington Post October 24, 1999
Liberal Group Says It Is Preparing Ad Campaign Defending Hillary Clinton New York Times - Sep 29, 1998
Hillary at the UN National Review Online - Jun 6, 2000 This was 100-proof Hillary Rodham Clinton, pure liberal, pure wonk,
The Women With a Ticket to Ride Washington Post Jul 16, 1992 Hillary Clinton was making the scene this morning at a private breakfast at ... "If you listen to her closely, it's clear that she's an extreme liberal"
THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE FIRST LADY; For Georgia Name-Calling, Nothing Is Lower Than 'Hillary' New York Times - Nov 4, 2000 ''It's because Hillary is not well liked down here,'' he said. ''She is viewed as an extreme liberal, someone who, like her husband, would do anything to ...
Posted by winyahn at 11/22/2008 @ 7:27pm
<i>Posted by Sorelish at 11/22/2008 @ 11:45am </i>
Yes...if by "no principle" you mean "a grasp of reality"...two feet firmly planted in the air, anyone?
Posted by Thrawn at 11/22/2008 @ 7:32pm
I did not contribute to, nor did I vote for, nor was I inspired by anyone else but Barack Obama and his closest associates. I have not hoped for anything from the past that labels itself Progressive to add anything to any ticket short of the lack of statesmenship and thought that permeates the realms of elected officials. The "crazy left" in my Democratic Party has been as bizarre and corrupted as the "crazy right" has been bizarre and corrupted. We can argue that the right and its media loudmouths have come close to destroying the nation, but this does not excuse the ideologues who would sell their Grandmothers for uttering the wrong phrases or representing things unprogressive. Before I would even consider the question posed as being something worthy of consideration... I would have it prefaced with a list of those worthy persons ignored by Obama. I would guess offhandedly that I would find them as wanting. Remember that when FDR rode into Washington in the midst of another Republican, Business magnate, free enterprise, unregulated mess Greed and Corruption created, the greater majority (including the head of the Democratic National Committee) of established Democrats were feeding at that same trough. Like the people who overwhelmingly reached around the Party's established, worshipped and largely ignored empty ideology then, I will be glued to U-tube for the weekly fireside chat and clear thought and clear direction of President Obama now.
It is as clear to me as it was to my Grandfather in the time of President Roosevelt that it is the established politicians of the past that need to alter their stale conceptions and remake their persons and ,given that, be allowed a seat at the table. I shall stand behind Obama and let his reason rule.
Posted by LannyNorth at 11/22/2008 @ 10:02pm
Posted by LannyNorth at 11/22/2008
I did not contribute to, nor did I vote for, nor was I inspired by anyone else but Barack Obama and his closest associates.
___________________________
I could not vote fir Obama or McCain -- because they both represent the Military-Industrial-complex machinery, which is frankly causing hell on earth.
Obama, has no intentions of not supplying the fuel that feeds the beast of the - -military-- and as a ultra liberal I have a deep understanding of aggression; and the ways to stop it.
The only way to stop it is by a liberal form of democracy; which can only be awakened by a radical form of liberalism -- seen by the actual founders of liberal anarchy Gandhi and Franz Jägerstätter.
Why? We live in apocalyptic times even more dangerous then our historical past, including the Nazi era. And, Obama acts more like Farrakhan and Malcolm X, rather then a true man of peace -- whom is seeking a true democracy of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Obama, has to simply connect with the roots of Christian pacifism and non-violence in his own religion, to become a world leader that is respected, rather then despised like Bush was, and will always be in the world history of books.
Franz Jägerstätter From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Jägerstätter
Posted by Philip_Shore at 11/22/2008 @ 11:05pm
Philip_Shore: "And, Obama acts more like Farrakhan and Malcolm X, rather then a true man of peace -- "
Malcom X?? Don't I wish. Obama is acting alot more like Bill Clinton: can you say tri-an-gu-late?
As interesting as the "horse race" election was, its outcome was no surprise. All the top candidates were vetted by the bankers, the military-prison-industrial complex, and AIPAC.
Posted by pointus at 11/23/2008 @ 01:36am
Posted by pointus at 11/23/2008
Clinton: can you say tri-an-gu-late?
Clinton Triangulation (politics)....
That is the reason why I left being a card carrying Democrat. I had faithfully, voted the party line ticket year after year even voting for Bill Clinton twice -- because he was packaged as a Democrat, that was not a liberal.
So as a liberal Democrat; I thought he was at least tolerant of liberals; I had no idea what the DLC was; and that at the same time I was voting for Clinton he was defaming liberals at DLC secret meetings.
I voted as usual this election in 2008 for Democrats along the party line, on the state level -- but I did not vote for Obama or McCain.
Triangulation (politics) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_(politics)
The term was first used by President of the United States Bill Clinton's chief political advisor Dick Morris as a way to describe his strategy for getting Clinton reelected in the 1996 presidential election. It is often referred to as "Clintonian triangulation". Morris advocated a set of policies that were different from the traditional policies of the Democratic Party. The idea Clinton used behind some of these policies was to be "more Republican than the Republicans." These policies included welfare reform, tax cuts for the middle class and balanced budgets. One of the most widely cited capstones of Clinton's triangulation strategy was when, in his 1996 State of the Union Address, Clinton declared that the "Era of Big Government is over."
Posted by Philip_Shore at 11/23/2008 @ 02:20am
How about this?
Obama is a "manchurian candidate" of .....
The GOP!
???
Posted by bleedingheart at 11/23/2008 @ 06:11am
Obama seems to be spelling "same ol',same ol' ", Question: How can the free traders keep yelling, " more free trade", when that seems to be what got us here? Triangulation anyone? And how is a, "under sniper fire" Hillary going to solve our international problems? Which other country likes pathological liars? Does any one else feel that the gushy corporate mainstream bode poorly for these choices. I like Gibbs and Daschle. Jessie Jackson may have been right, this guy is neon white. Not only are we on our way to deindustrializing ourselves to a third world country, we are beginning to act like one.
Posted by lachatte at 11/23/2008 @ 07:14am
It's official, now I'm really worried. Watching, " Meet The Press", and Jim Backer just went all gushy over Geithner. We were worried about job exodus, I just heard that giant sucking sound in stereo. The big complaint that Backer-Reagan had against the American car companies is that they paid reasonable wages, retirement and health care. Then "Meet The Press" followed with Lieberman. We are seeing the corporate media being complicit in "The big lie", American cars are terrible and foreign cars are so good, especially those made in Tennessee, by non union workers. Hey Dobbs, where are you? Why is it so good to trade all the sweat equity of labor to corporate gluttons so that they can shop for Italian cars and shoes? Hey Paulson were did that 300 billion go? The corporate stench seems to have really gone our politics as well? By the way why is every one ignoring the fact that Toyota, Honda etc... are heavily subsidized by their countries?
Posted by lachatte at 11/23/2008 @ 09:51am
James Jones as National Security Advisor?
Ponti will love that one!!
Posted by crabwalk at 11/23/2008 @ 10:29am
Unless its a really big number, HE DIDN'T GET A LEFTWARD MANDATE! Put away your fantasies of Euro-Socialism and Venezuelan solidarity. Posted by sntauri at 11/22/2008 @ 1:30pm |
Can you point out any poster here that holds up Venezuela as a utopian goal? (marxistsoxialist does not count, he is a con poser).
Posted by crabwalk at 11/23/2008 @ 10:50am
SNTAURI is a good example of many of the cons that visit us. He does not see the difference between Switzerland's capitalistic socialism and Venezuela, a difference between Germany and Cuba. I would be willing to bet that he is a fan of the China experiment though. And that he can't count high enough to tell us how many times the word "socialist" (or a variant) is used in the Chinese constitution.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/23/2008 @ 10:54am
OH well - if Obama isn't even a little progressive and doesn't stop the trickle down disaster economy we now have thanks to 26 years of friedman economics it'll be a short 4 years and he'll be gone. The right won't vote for him and the left will leave him to the trashbin of history. How about ravi batra as economic adviser? How about instead of bailing out the auto industry just buy the company and let the unions take control. We are only saving the companies to save the jobs anyway. Now that would be progressive....good luck...
Posted by mtdon at 11/23/2008 @ 12:18pm
Well, since not one of the screamers here was able or willing actually NAME ANYONE they wanted to see selected instead of who Barack has theoretically chosen, why don't we all take a moment and examine whether we are merely demanding different players or do we actually want CHANGE?
Do any of us actually behave or think exactly the way we did 15 years ago? So is it perhaps safe to assume that the men and women at issue may have mellowed their stances and actually learned something since we were last in office?
Barack wants change. To assume he won't insist on it is cynicism at its best (or worst). If we trust the man we voted and campaigned for, maybe we owe him the benefit of the doubt.
Or were you just demanding new and different names on the doors, regardless of what they might actually be able to accomplish?
Posted by HeartSleeve at 11/23/2008 @ 2:03pm
Ralph Nader convinced me long ago that he is a truly progressive candidate, if I correctly understand "progressive" to mean the intention to make life a little better for most and a lot better for those who really need it. But, he is treated as a pariah by many because (1) he doesn't have the blessing of Republicans or Democrats; (2) it is easier to buy into professionally crafted campaign rhetoric complete with jingoism (this year it was "change we can believe in," a few years ago it was "it's the economy stupid")than it is to give serious consideration to true issues and possible solutions; and (3) Ralph has been saying the same things for so long his cautions sound shopworn, and voters want to hear something new.
There may come a day when there is real progressive change as those who call themselves real progressives imagine it, but it won't be happening with the incoming administration. He is not going to throw open prison doors and set prisoners free in a latter day "storming of the Bastille," he is not going to seriously trim back the excesses of the military industrial complex.
Sorry, better luck next time.
Posted by jsens at 11/23/2008 @ 2:41pm
Google the name Geithner!!!!!!
Posted by lachatte at 11/23/2008 @ 3:59pm
Christopher Hayes ended his article with a question: "WTF"?
So here's my answer:
1.- PROGRESSIVE - the name of the largest Congressional Caucus.
2.- On the other hand, PROGRESSIVE is a term used interchangeably with LIBERAL by NEOCONS.
3.- PROGRESSIVE Legislative Initiatives don't have to come from the Executive Branch (Dennis Kucinich was reelected, for instance - and there are others).
4.- Don't worry about it. Give the Obama Government a chance! He hasn't even taken office yet.
dhinds
Posted by cedecor at 11/23/2008 @ 5:08pm
If you believed the hype-you deserve what you get.
Posted by behonest at 11/23/2008 @ 8:28pm
"Or were you just demanding new and different names on the doors, regardless of what they might actually be able to accomplish?"
Posted by HeartSleeve
**********
I, for one agree with your post HeartSleeve.
It does seem like a lot of people -- by whatever political definition they identify with -- are being pretty damn pissy-before-the-fact concerning Obama and his choices for his governing team.
Governmental change doesn't just apply to political affiliation. It means going from one state or situation [etc] to another. One very minute example: If we have been living in a time of being ignored, can't we consider being listened to as change.
Please, take a deep breath folks and stop with the gloom and doom. Give the new prez a chance -- at least let him take office before you condemn him.
The right is whining because they just got their toy taken away and the left is whining because they don't think they're gonna get their toy. Meanwhile the middle goes out in the backyard and finds a really cool stick and makes their own toy.
Peace, liberty and progress to you...
Posted by AloeVera at 11/23/2008 @ 8:33pm
HeartSleeve: "Well, since not one of the screamers here was able or willing actually NAME ANYONE they wanted to see selected instead of who Barack has theoretically chosen, why don't we all take a moment and examine whether we are merely demanding different players or do we actually want CHANGE?"
Well for starters, how about anyone except for Larry freakin SUMMERS? Sure, the pro-NAFTA, anti-regulation derivatives crowd on Wall Street love him, but it would be a whole lot better for America's middle- and working-classes to have someone without such a narrow, pro-free-trade outlook advising Obama... someone such as Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, Nouriel Roubini, or James K. Galbraith. The neoliberal bankster types (Rubin, Summers, Paulson, Greenspan, etc) are the ones who have thrown the US (not to mention the World) economy down the crapper. Looks like we'll be getting more of the same. And as MtDon points out, if Obama keeps things going the way they have been (which his appointments indicate is the case), he won't get a 2nd term. Since Clinton prioritized NAFTA over health care, his party lost the Congress 2 years into his 1st term. That should be a lesson for Obama, but apparently it isn't.
Posted by pointus at 11/23/2008 @ 9:11pm
RE: Left out.
Well, who care the left out or in. Obama won this election thanks chiefly to Bush hate. Now with Bush gone, he has to make friends with the right -just to satisfy his ego to enter history as prez of all Americans.
Posted by HelenDAO at 11/23/2008 @ 9:14pm
2.- On the other hand, PROGRESSIVE is a term used interchangeably with LIBERAL by NEOCONS.
So, what's the difference? it seems to me that many people are designating themselves progressives, because "liberal" has become such a dirty word in politics recently.
Posted by twillie at 11/23/2008 @ 9:27pm
pointus, my dear(if i may?)
You quoted HeartSleeve -- but you STILL didn't answer the question.
Taking a stance whereby you reply to a question that asks "who?" with the answer "anyone except______?" doesn't show you actually have an answer.
Come up with better choices and let us banter and blither about how wrong or right you are, or... maybe dig the fact you don't know the future any better than he does... and give the incoming prez a chance.
Peace, liberty and progress ... rock
Posted by AloeVera at 11/23/2008 @ 10:34pm
Reading comprehension is suffering. If I read this thread I get:
Krugman
Stieglitz
Reich
Richardson
and more
Could people have offered up more suggestions? Sure. Could POINTUS have offered criticisms of those names? Sure.
Learn to read.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 07:19am
It's the blame game. but it is nobody's fault except Obama's. Continued Bush policies will drive this country into the ground - that is plain FACT.
Posted by jimijazz at 11/24/2008 @ 4:21pm
Might be the puppeteers are still in charge...
Posted by structurequity at 11/24/2008 @ 8:41pm
Is anyone truly surprised at how centrist Obama's policy & appointments have been?
Here's a clue: his wife worked for the administration for a hospital - it's like "single-payer health care" was a dirty phrase during the whole election - just like the "L-word" - it's still verboten -
This is spin/pr - I just hope someday they get beyond spin & are able to make some changes -
I can't say I was a huge fan of Hill & Bill - but largely we're seeing a lot of their ilk being put into posts.
Posted by songsinger at 11/24/2008 @ 8:46pm
How about Ralph Nader for head of the FTC? I know it's not a cabinet post - I can't imagine Obama would do it - Businesses US (& global) would be up in arms - but is there anybody else who has fought harder or longer for consumer protections for the US?
Posted by songsinger at 11/24/2008 @ 8:55pm
I would like to see Robert Reich in there. Perhaps as Secretary of Labor?
Posted by jeaninec at 11/25/2008 @ 12:51pm
Chris, he wants to FIX problems, not make them worse, so, no regressives on the team.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/25/2008 @ 3:03pm
Democrats - they never pass up a chance to criticize their president.
Obama won and he gets to appoint anyone he wants and STILL they're not happy? As we approach the governing stage, the Left seems very unhappy with the choices he's making.
Besides dumping Hillary, what would make the Left happy? What do they want that Obama's not giving them?
Posted by savdavid at 11/25/2008 @ 3:11pm
Melody Barnes is progressive, and yet she hasn't even been mentioned here -- pretty darn, I'd say.
Posted by jibal at 11/25/2008 @ 3:42pm
Er, pretty darn <i>ignorant</i>, that is.
Posted by jibal at 11/25/2008 @ 3:43pm
"I would like to see Robert Reich in there. Perhaps as Secretary of Labor?"
Then the loons would complain about him being a "Clinton retread".
Posted by jibal at 11/25/2008 @ 3:44pm
Face it folks; there's not going to be any "Change." Just another corporate-"centrist" Democratic administration. We'll probably wind up at war with Iran, too, courtesy opf Hillarious Rotten Clinton and Rahm "I keeels you!" Emmanuel.
Man, am I ever glad I voted for Nader!
Posted by KevinRiley at 11/25/2008 @ 5:25pm
You talk like the voters for Obama are a monolith. They are not. Plenty of us centrists helped elect him. And we have a say in how he manages his Presidency and what he is doing is fine with us. So try your strong arm hate mongering and see how he reacts to it. Or you can settle down and see how he manages his presidency and I hazard to believe that even the most liberal here can support Obama's program as he develops it. I think Obama will be the most progressive President we have had since the depression.
Mari
Posted by mJJ at 11/25/2008 @ 9:55pm
How do you liberal all like your golden boy now?
Posted by Voyska_PBO at 11/26/2008 @ 06:37am
You know your position is weak when you're pleading for tokenism. The Nation is about to get really boring. They're much better as a running critique of right-wing lunacy than as an attempted "loyal opposition" to something which of course embodies none of their actual "principals." I remember in the Clinton years many writers at The Nation seemed to believe that Clinton was a liberal at heart who just needed to be made to see the political viability of progressive politics. Some articles actually imagined Clinton speeches to the country which would be the opening salvo of his path to Nation-esque politics. You got the impression that the writer actually believed that there was an off-chance that he might actually hear something like his imagined speech on TV. It was truly sad. The Nation staff should read Frances Moore Lappe's Democracy's Edge, and devote a section of the magazine to grassroots efforts to solve social problems. In our cities and neighborhoods, how are people coming together to deal with crises in housing, education, and the environment? What is driving local efforts to reshape food systems, and where are these efforts leading? If anything pushes Obama to the left, it will be the result of grassroots efforts like these. The Nation shouldn't beg for tokenism. Instead, it should change its focus.
Posted by jasonrhodes at 11/26/2008 @ 11:15am