Katrina vanden Heuvel, I love you... but you're starting to piss me off...

[zulchzulu]

I was listening to The Nation's radio version (podcast link below) and Laura Flanders egged her on to Katrina's (at around 34:00 in the interview) opinion on Gates and particularly her handwringing on Obama's choice of both Gates and General James Jones as somehow making it all seem as one big conspiracy that Obama is somehow for more neocon militarization and is sneaking these appointments in as some kind of "hard hit" on progressives... namely what she thinks progressives are (by these choices) being punished by these choices.

I would assume Katrina has heard of Google. As for Laura, she's always outstepping and out-progressing everyone if only because she sounds so cool with her Brit euro-sensibility. Whatever... both brainy, both attractive... but many times off the mark.

As I have inferred in past posts to those that are hand-wringing over Obama's cabinet choices, there seems to never be a "progressive alternative" to his choices. I would welcome that discussion greatly. Diss the choice, but consider offering an alternative... I would venture to guess we could skewer that choice if given the chance.

To just suggest that what both Gates (who is against going to war with Iran and is on record saying the Iraq War should end quickly) and General James Jones (who was originally against the Iraq War and wants it to end quickly) are bad choices suggests to me a careless lack of actually doing some homework on these choices.

Katrina vanden Heuvel (and many on The Nation staff) needs to review Obama's choices from a more realistic, less Utopianesque lens and actually also perhaps not jump the shark and condemn his choices before they even get the keys to their office. We all love Utopian solutions when we are talking in the parlor, but now that we are the boss, we need to consider more balanced, reviewed and researched opinions and policy discussions.

Podcast: http://thenation.hipcast.com/deluge/897b7f3a-c194-9751-2c16-b467890f3ba4.mp3

[jaysunb]

1. K&R

[babylonsister]

2. I love you. Rec'd, and that goes for every progressive out there who

is angry, disillusioned, whatever. Suggest an alternative who would be better, and why.

[zulchzulu]

16. I love you too, baby

I mean it. You rock...

:hi:

[Cha]

3. Yeah, and jump the

gun, too. It's like they're getting caught in the trap of not paying attention to what Obama's about.

[FourScore]

4. General Clark could easily replace Gates.

Clark would also work well with Hillary Clinton.

[FrenchieCat]

8. If Clark could be SOD, but he can't until 2010.

[FourScore]

21. I didn't know that. Why is that?

Thanks.

[Shiver]

24. Clark retired in 2000

Members of the military need to have been retired for 10 years before they can serve in the Defense Department.

[Titus Andronicus]

5. Shinseki was on the mark about needing more troops,

Gates is right about withdrawing from Iraq in a responsible time frame.

[boppers]

6. Professional Hand-wringers cannot be pleased....

By definition.

Their job is to fret, and moan, and kvetch, and worry.

Nothing wrong with that, as long as we listen to, and understand their concerns... it's their job to worry about things, just as it's other people's job to listen to the concerns and make decisions.

[Captain Hilts]

7. People assumed, incorrectly, he was a progressive. They were so blinded by anti-Clintonism. nt

[PassingFair]

18. No, we KNEW Clinton was no progressive. We figured we at least had a SHOT with Obama...

Jury is still out, but I was
VERY happy with his response
to the Chicago Window Co. siege.

Bet some corporate dems spit out
their caviar listening to THAT
presser.

[dionysus]

22. sour grapes much?

don't you have a cardboard cutout to gnash about?
:rofl:

[Celeborn Skywalker]

27. I think he is a liberal.

But then again, I also think Hillary Clinton is a liberal instead of the neocon that everyone here seems to think she is.

[stillcool]

9. Career spooks, and military brass.

are what they are. The Pentagon is now bigger and more powerful than the United States Congress, or perhaps Congress has ceded it's power to the Pentagon. I guess that's why I don't have a strong opinion one way or another. I don't know who the tail is wagging the dog.

[zulchzulu]

10. Again, name me someone who'd be better...

The unfortunate thing about living in the real world is that utopian sophistry only works in parlor talk, hanging around the bong or when you're yakking at a bar where the music is too loud.

Calling Gates a "career spook" or Jones one of the "military brass" is something some people enjoy for fodder and ridicule, mindless as it is. But it doesn't bring about anything but something akin to a comment you could barely hear from someone you don't know across the room. It doesn't mean jack...

When bloviating in a half-blind utopian swagger, a lot of people offer nothing more than the intestinal gaseous releases for others to "consider".

[stillcool]

11. there aren't any...

Again...I say...career spooks and military brass are what they are. I really don't believe you will find any person who has risen up the ranks in the business of war/defense that is any different. It is their job description. It is what they do.

[zulchzulu]

12. I guess that sort of proves my point...

People complain about Jones as head of the NSA or Gates as Secretary of Defense without offering an alternative. As you implied, a position as head of the NSA demands they have in intelligence background and a Secretary of Defense position demands a defense-based background.

I suppose it would be nice to replace them all with stoned bongo players from Golden Gate Park. But that's not likely to happen.

[PassingFair]

19. Put Comey in at NSA... Clark or Powell as Sec. of Defense.

I think Powell would have done the right thing
for the right people.

He would probably be thrilled at the chance to
correct his mistakes and temper his historical
record.

[stillcool]

13. You might get a kick out of this..

It is from Ferdinand Lundberg's book "The Rich and the Super-Rich"..I think the copyright was 1965...

But the reason Democratic presidents must be sympathetic toward the big wealthy at all times, short of allowing them to upset the new synthesis, is simple: All these people, even if Republican, carry great weight in American affairs because of their intimate hereditary involvement through professional subordinates in complex enterprises penetrating into every corner of society. They may no longer be self-made they may have been sired by trust, testament or codicil out of holding company, foundation and monopoly-but they are independent power wielders. They aren't average citizens. And this is a political fact, not likely to be overlooked by any serious politician.

Any criticism of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson for the nature of their top appointments should face up to this question: Where should they look for Cabinet officers? Kennedy and Johnson looked for them where Eisenhower looked for them, and where Roosevelt looked: in the large financial and industrial organizations. These organizations belong to the wealthy. They are part of their plantation, which in its broadest sweep is the market place itself.

Experts of greater if not complete independence of judgment are to be had, to be sure, from the leading universities, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy both drew heavily upon them for certain tasks. But scholars have neither the habit of command nor is their authority apt to be recognized by men practiced in the arts of expedient manipulation--Plato's men of the appetites. Any president has to look to the big enterprises, selecting competent men who are least compromised by egocentric self-service.

To be sure, it is not the quintet of Du Ponts, Rockefellers, Mellons, Fords and Pews that alone has supported the Republican Party in its struggles to protect and nourish big wealth and is now playing around the edges at least of the Democratic Party. They have had many collaborators among groups of lesser wealth, most of them strong Republicans in the past as now, even though some of them seem inclined to take fright as latter-day woozy fanatics come to the fore in the Republican Party.

[zulchzulu]

14. It goes all the way back to landowners and slave owners Washington and Jefferson

This country has always been about appointing the upper, upper, upper and did I mention upper crust for positions of leadership. They do have a lot of money to get educated and get on the fast track, which many times is the Fa$t Track...

FDR is a good example of someone who had bezillions of dollars who also was sympathetic to the common person. Not all people with money are asshats. Most, but not all...

:hi:

Thanks for the link, comrade.

[rucky]

15. She could always get the band back together.

[KittyWampus]

17. Laura Flanders does some of the worst interviews I've ever heard. She's more interested

in proving how much she knows.

[zulchzulu]

20. I love Flanders too, but she does tend to "out-left" an average leftist

I bet she would have complaints about Utopia.

[butterfly77]

23. I feel the same about...

Rachel Maddow she seems to be trying her best to find something wrong with everything Obama does before he even takes office. I also have been listening to a lot of the so called left on these talkshows, finding something wrong with every choice he picks for his cabinet, they won't be satisfied with whomever he chooses. He is trying to bring the country together and he will be the one making the decisions no matter whom he chooses.

[bertman]

25. Giving President-elect Obama time to get his team together without TOO MUCH crap coming

in from the peanut gallery is a good idea.

That said, I'm glad we have LOTS of lefties who are willing to keep the heat on. It never hurts to keep reminding the folks around the PE that we are not going to go quiet into the night.

Gut feeling: Our new Prez is going to be a progressive force to be reckoned with.

[Mass]

26. zulchuchu, I love you, but you are wrong.

First, let's just say that this discussion between Obama's fanatics and professional handwringers is getting more and more ridiculous. Yes, some people will never be happy with anything, but consider that it is possible to have worries about some of Obama's picks without being either professional handwringers or unfair to Obama. They just express their honest opinion and deserve respect for that.

I am among those who are wary about this national security team, and, Hillary Clinton is indeed the one I am the least worried about. You are stating we should be happy with Gates and Jones because they were against attacking Iran or Iraq. Once again, you are among those confusing tactics and strategy. All those who opposed the IWR did not do it with the same goals in foreign policy. They may have been companions of a moment and a fight. It does not mean they pursue the same objectives when it comes to foreign policy. Yes, some Republicans had the common sense to oppose Bush's invasion of Iraq or to understand that attacking Iran would be foolish because the military would be in no way able to substain this. People like Pat Buchanan are among them (at least for Iraq). By your standards, it would mean I should feel fine with Pat Buchanan anywhere near the White House (and I know some people here think that he is such a great guy). I have no doubt Obama would never consider that, so I am not worried about that. But the truth is that, while I know Gates and Jones care about the military and I can respect them more than many Republicans, I do not know anything (or very little) about where they think this country should develop its foreign and military policy, and, while I know Obama will determine these policies (which is why I am not up in arms against these choices except when I see the nth thread telling that we should not express any doubt or concerns), Gates and Jones will be in first line with advising Obama for these choices and this is an area that worries me.

Now, am I ready to let Obama start governing before blaming him endlessly? Definitively. But I am also tired of those who will attack relentlessly anybody who dares emit a shadow of a criticism about these choices.