Lecture to "the left" from an Obama spokesperson, one named as possible DNC chair.

[madfloridian]

Okay, this is just too much for me to take in. There is the assumption that anyone who questions anything at all is just too effing "left" to know anything at all. I despise that assumption. It is annoying and frustrating....and very very obvious.

When I came to DU in 2002 I was one of the most moderate center type people here, and I often got mocked for it. Now I am often said to be too lefty, liberal, fringe.

I'm not, you know. It's just that I question.

So now we have Howard Dean, a centrist, but a populist one....stepping down as chair and receiving absolutely no damn credit at all. His name is never ever mentioned by insider big deal Democrats now.

And now Steve Hildebrand is being mentioned as possible chair along with Paul Tewes....so he decides "the left" needs a lecture.

A Message to Obama's Progressive Critics

The point I'm making here is that our new President, the Congress and all Americans must come together to solve these problems. This is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions about the Cabinet and White House appointments that President-Elect Obama is making. Some believe the appointments generally aren't progressive enough. Having worked with former Senator Obama for the last two years, I can tell you, that isn't the way he thinks and it's not likely the way he will lead. The problems I mentioned above and the many I didn't, suggest that our President surround himself with the most qualified people to address these challenges. After all, he was elected to be the President of all the people - not just those on the left.

Oh, gee, Steve...I thought he was elected just for me and my needs. :sarcasm:

Seriously, though, Steve. We kind of got the message when Rahm was picked even before election day to be Obama's gatekeeper.

David Sirota had a reaction to this as well.

Mandate Watch: Were Democrats Elected to Attack "The Left?" Part II

First thing's first: I absolutely agree with Hildebrand that you can't draw concrete conclusions about Obama based only on his personnel decisions - and I've written that repeatedly (and I've also said that most of Obama's policy declarations have been pretty progressive). However, Hildebrand implying that those personnel decisions really don't matter at all is straight up silly. It supposes that all the enormous egos that populate a White House are just mindless functionaries, and that even though those egos are heading major federal departments or are key advisers, they have no hand in making policy and/or their advice to a president makes absolutely no impact. Please - let's get real.

But far more important than that is Hildebrand firing up the whaaaaaaaambulance to whine and cry and moan about "the left." Really, what is with top Democrats explicitly attacking "the left wing of the Democratic Party" in Fox News-style talking points? Why is every substantive, non-partisan, non-ideological question of pragmatism from progressives almost automatically portrayed as some sort of super-Trotsky-ite, ideological and wholly inappropriate demand for Obama to be a president "just for those on the left?" Can anyone even ask a non-ideological question of Obama without being attacked as some sort of raving left-wing lunatic?

Amen, David.

The Democrats soundly attacked "the left" last year, when the voted to sanction Move On of its Petraeus ad

The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly voted to condemn the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org for a recent advertisement attacking the top U.S. general in Iraq.

By a 341-79 vote, the House passed a resolution praising the patriotism Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and condemning a MoveOn.org ad that referred to Petraeus as "General Betray Us."

Will Marshall has lectured us over and over from his perch at the lefty DLC/PPI.

Polarize this

"Since the 2004 election, wealthy liberals, lefty bloggers, and interest groups have been demanding that Democrats reciprocate their opponents' belligerent partisanship. Only by standing up for core liberal convictions, they argue, can Democrats galvanize a new progressive majority and "take America back." It sounds stirring, but there are three problems with that theory.

First, most 2006 voters expressed a strong preference for cooperation over partisan confrontation between Bush and the Democratic Congress. Second, in moderate America, there simply aren't enough liberals to get Democrats anywhere near a majority. Third, liberal and centrist Democrats sometimes interpret their party's core principles differently, especially on such important issues as the use of force, the benefits of trade, the role of government, and questions about religion and morality."

Since the election of Obama, the centrists have sent out their cowardly anonymous sources to attack one of the most centrist of Democrats who governed to the right as a governor...but who helped us take our party back.

Hit pieces started at once.

Mr. Dean certainly had a liberal fan club pushing for him. A medical doctor by training, he burst onto the presidential scene in 2004 on the strength of his "universal health care" plan as governor of Vermont. The militant Netroots crowd -- which he was among the first Democrats to cultivate -- has remained loyal and has been howling for his appointment. Some left-wing Democrats also felt he deserved the job as payment for the electoral victories he oversaw as head of the DNC.

Back in reality, however, Mr. Obama was having none of it. Plenty of top Democrats were fine with letting Mr. Dean run the DNC. His attack-dog style and Internet savvy were well suited to a job that was focused on winning elections. But his personal aggressiveness couldn't be more at odds with Mr. Obama's cool demeanor. And putting Mr. Dean in control of one of Mr. Obama's most cherished initiatives (health care) would've made John McCain's Sarah Palin pick look safe

That was from the Wall Street Journal, there were two others as well. Anonymous cowards.

And now Steve, who is being mentioned as the new chairman lectures "the left."

I am beginning to think that Sirota was right. The Democrats are in office and feel they have a mandate to attack "the left."

Call me Debbie Downer, but note what I say. If you speak out, you will be called "the left". Not in a nice way, in a negative way.

[polichick]

1. My God, if the left is not appreciated and celebrated now - WHEN?!?

[Life Long Dem]

279. One word "divide". To divide us...

MSM still has an election going on. Because this is the Democratic party that voted for Obama, and nothing else.

[madfloridian]

2. From the comments in Sirota's blog at Open Left. Oh yeh.

"That the Dean Revolution is unfinished. The center-right folks who ran this party and this country back into the ground are returning via the Obama Administration and their prime task is to ensure that we on the left do not undermine their power or their policy goals.

The scary thing is that they may have figured out the best way to beat us - by building a movement that defines itself by loyalty to a leader, not by citizen activism to change the basic policies and assumptions of the country.

They basically feel they can run the party and the country as was done in the 1990s with impunity"

And someone else mentioned that Steve's being so close to Obama and part of his campaign is doing this lecture with Obama's blessing.

Fed up.

[Generator]

191. Loyalty to a leader!!

That's it. And that's why DU has been so shall we say, goddamn creepy since Obama won. Forget what HE DOES. Forget WHO he appoints. He is OUR LEADER and no doubt a good guy so who are we but BAD DEMOCRATS to dare criticize our DEAR LEADER.

Creepy cult of personality. I didn't like it with Hillary or Al Gore or Edwards-or anyone. They work for us. They are not GODS.

[sce56]

276. I'm with you on that one!

My type of generator

[pnwmom]

282. What is creepy to me is how unwilling some people here are to give him half a chance.

It's not surprising though, considering that many of these people fought hard against him in the primary -- so they were primed to continue their negativity now.

Here's what I believe about Obama. He's nothing like Bush. He won't be a puppet President, led around by his Cabinet. He's going to be telling them what his policies are, not the other way around. So what if a Cabinet member is a centrist? If the person is competent, s/he will be able to carry out the policies Obama sets, even if they are more progressive than the policies this person has carried out before.

And people who try to undermine Obama won't last long in his Administration.

I might be wrong. Or the people who distrust him now might be wrong. But it seems fairer to keep an open mind when we haven't even seen his Administration in action yet for a single day, much less a month or a year.

[orleans]

290. hope you're right. n/t

[madfloridian]

334. We supported him in the primaries...still do. But the references to "the left"

need to stop. We are part of the party. We are the ones who fought so hard to get him elected.

Those on the inside need to be careful with their words.

[LooseWilly]

356. I personally think the "centrist/right" Dems just can't help themselves...

They attack the "left" out of knee-jerk habit. They got so beat up for being hippies and whatnot in the day... or in some cases they just grew up hearing it.
Whatever.
In many cases it seems to be rhetoric meant to be consumed by those on the right, to undercut any attempts at creating a rallying cry for the base on the right.

In any case, I think Obama himself, if not quite all the staff he's picking, knows the fate of a Dem who decides to ignore the left.
He's appointed a reminder to Secretary of State.
I'm still convinced that Hillary lost the primary because she ignored the left to court the center and right-of-center. And she did it not just in words, but in actions (I'm thinking of her multitude of corporate ties, her courting of companies that actively try to headhunt jobs to overseas employees, not to mention her vote on the declaration of the Iranian Quds Forces as a terrorist organization despite the fact that its state affiliation makes that declaration non-sensical).
Obama, on the other hand, has yet to actually DO anything to ruffle feathers on the left (with the exception of caving on the telecom immunity bit... which I admit is cause for a bit of vigilance).

I say give him a chance to show what he's going to do. His appointments to the Cabinet and so on, may reflect some centrism in terms of leanings/campaigning, but they also reflect COMPETENCE, which I think is Obama's main thrust at the moment.

As long as they're competent at the posts that Obama hires them for, I'll give Obama a chance to teach them not to be foolish enough to keep trying to talk down to those of us on the left.
As I said before, old habits die hard.

[Two Americas]

336. this is "a chance"

What we give elected representatives a "chance" to do, is a chance to listen and be influenced. That is how a representative democracy works. The reason there is so much debate this early is because Obama is moving extraordinarily quickly to name cabinet picks.

We are not required to "trust" elected officials. In fact, it is our moral responsibility and civic duty to do hold them to account.

We do not live under one man rule, and should not look at the administration as though we do. It matters not how wonderful the one individual is.

Had Lincoln appointed pro-slavery people to his cabinet, there would have been a minority - the Abolitionists - objecting to that. As Obama appoints corporatists and free-marketeers to his cabinet, there is going to be a minority objecting to that. That is how politics works.

[EFerrari]

373. I supported Obama in the primaries and I gave him my vote

not a blank check.

Maybe I have more confidence in him than you do but he seems to me perfectly capable of taking criticism and dealing with it constructively and effectively.

[pmorlan1]

301. I agree

I agree with you and the original poster. I'm really tired of all the attacks against anyone that dares to question. It reminds me of the Bushies.

[defendandprotect]

310. This doesn't begin or end at DU --

these concerns are out there among all liberals/progressives --

LABOR and huge anti-war sentiments --

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=14A56161-18FE-70B2-A8A464273788ECC7

Lose LABOR --???

Wanting unions is now problematically "lefty" -- ?

It takes a lot of votes to beat GOP election stealing --

and they'll be a new election in two years --

Pretty dumb of anyone working for Obama to try to toss liberals/progressives

overboard, unless you're actually looking to put government back in GOP hands.

[Dragonfli]

3. K&R

[annabanana]

4. Just WHO THE HELL do they think made up that super-donation machine?

WHO THE HELL do they think went a-marching, State to State to knock on doors? Just WHO THE HELL do they think was at the phones Nationwide?

Public Opinion Giveth
Public Opinion Taketh Away

[Frisbee]

250. They may be in for a very rude awakening...

when those same people have a hard time getting so fired up and putting in the long hours and money they really can't afford when the 2012 campaigns get rolling.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

255. We give it, but we can take it away if they start with the centrist bs again

The centrists, the DLCers, etc. need to know we want nothing that even remotely smells of right wing.

[Gman]

321. You would be that stupid?

Do you prefer unjust war, millions murdered in Iraq? Millions here without health insurance? No more jobs here? Banks do what they damn well please? YOu'd be that stupid?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

353. Excuse me but what are you talking about? nt

[pnwmom]

284. Millions and millions of individuals, who don't march in lockstep. n/t

[pnwmom]

285. Interestingly, people making over $200 K a year voted for

Obama by a margin of 6%. The highly educated also voted for him by a wide margin.

It was uneducated people and Southerners who gave McCain most of his votes.

So huge numbers of people voted for Obama, from all walks of life -- except in the South.

[humbled_opinion]

341. Exactly.

So explain why that Margin of the "RICH" would have a problem with Obama doing as he campiagned to do by rolling back thier excessive tax breaks Bush gave them.

They wouldn't. So why is he?

[H2O Man]

5. Nominated.

This fellow is playing games. The progressive left isn't demanding to run the whole show. We just want to be seated at the table, the same as everyone else. And we aren't going to be fooled into forgetting that we helped set that table.

[polichick]

6. It's pretty astounding that we should even have to think about it...

...after working so hard to get this guy elected ~ I hope we have some damn good news this week!

[karynnj]

7. All of these are alarming, but the WSJ is despicable

" And putting Mr. Dean in control of one of Mr. Obama's most cherished initiatives (health care) would've made John McCain's Sarah Palin pick look safe"

In addition to buying every Dean stereotype, they forget that Dean, then a moderate Governor from Vt and a doctor, was one of the people who worked with HRC in 1993. Unless that was a different Dr. Dean.

[JDPriestly]

344. Dean was incredibly effective. That is why the WSJ does not like him.

[tritsofme]

8. Welcome news!

It sure seems to me that PE Obama knows exactly what he is doing.

[polichick]

11. What's welcome news??

[tritsofme]

12. That PE Obama may tap this Steve Hildebrand fellow as DNC Chair.

From the OP, he looks like a guy who has his head on straight.

[polichick]

14. imo he looks like a guy with his head up his ass. :)

[tritsofme]

19. A welcome improvement from the current chairman nonetheless.

nt

[polichick]

20. We wouldn't be sitting on this win without Howard Dean - Obama ran using his model...

...and Dean's 50-state strategy is excellent.

[tritsofme]

23. Water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned.

Its all in the past, as is Governor Dean.

[polichick]

24. What could you possibly have against Dean??

[girl gone mad]

30. I see..

so use his strategy and his supporters to win the election, then throw them all under the bus after you've won and go back to the 90s style Republican-Lite politicking that LOST us election after election.

Genius.

:eyes:

[madfloridian]

33. You have it exactly right. Thanks for saying it.

.

[tritsofme]

37. There is a reason that Rahm Emanuel will be White House Chief of Staff, and Mr. Dean

will be on the outside looking in.

And judging from that, PE Obama may think differently than you do as to whose strategy it was that has brought in the recent Democratic success.

[madfloridian]

41. Yes, there is a reason.

If Mr. Dean is on the outside looking in, as you so smugly say...(by the way smugness is being quite common here.)then I will be on the outside as well.

Rahm is there because Obama sent a statement to the wing of the party that has fought so hard for him.

The statement is back off, you won't be needed for a while.

:eyes:

[polichick]

45. Or maybe he chose a bully like Rahm to help him ram a progressive agenda...

...through Congress ~ that's what I'm hoping.

[madfloridian]

47. Uh oh

You used Rahm and Progressive in the same sentence.

[polichick]

49. oops :)

[anaxarchos]

127. There is a lot...

...of very good company under that bus. All in all, it is not such a bad place to start.

[rhett o rick]

232. WTF. Do you agree that Dean was a huge help in getting Obama into the presidency?

Water under the bridge? What does that mean? You sound like a republican.

[Downtown Hound]

333. Wow. That's pretty ignorant.

I'm a radical lefty that for the most part hasn't been too outraged over Obama's picks. They're pretty much what I expected from him, and I also see the need to at least play the politics game a little bit. But what you just said about Dean, allow me to shake my head in disgust. And no, it's not because you insulted a hero of mine. It's because your ignorance is something that needs to be squashed right now.

To dismiss Dean or what he has done for the party is to invite a repeat of what happened to the Democrats in the 90's, when they eschewed ideas for play it safe politics. They basically didn't even make an effort to win any red states. They never took a principled stance on anything, or opposed things that needed opposing. For that, we got a Republican congress, an embarrassing impeachment scandal, and then Bush.

That is until, Dean came along and changed all of that. He said no way are we going to just let the Republicans have these states. No, we don't have to go along with illegal and immoral wars just to win elections. By doing so he changed American politics, and America.

You disagree with the OP? Fine, but don't let these lessons be lost on you or the Democratic Party as a whole, or we will not find ourselves in power for very long.

[JVS]

28. wrong

[madfloridian]

31. That's just ugly and divisive as hell.

And that's about all there ever is at DU right now.

[tritsofme]

240. But what you said about Mr. Hildebrand, the man who at the time

you believed to be under consideration by PE Obama to be DNC Chair was not divisive?

Hypocrisy much?

[madfloridian]

268. I criticized Hildebrand's words. You are criticizing a man

who in part brought us two great wins in the row.

Big huge difference.

[rvablue]

146. Really, "an improvement from the current chairman" you mean the one

who saved the party, created the 50 state strategy, won back the Congress and helped Obama win the White House....that guy?

[tritsofme]

242. The gentleman who I assign a greater degree of credit to those accomplishments

was chosen by PE Obama to be his Chief of Staff.

[dflprincess]

248. Is that you Rahm?

It's only the DLC Dinos who won't give Howard Dean any credit.

[I Have A Dream]

251. I thought the exact same thing... "Is that you, Rahm?"

:eyes:

[Name removed]

259. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rvablue]

277. I'm the poster above the one you responded to

yeah, it's BS that Dean has gotten little credit or kudos and while I am no defender of the DLC, I think it has more to do with jealousy than allegiance to any organization...it's not as if we've seen Kucinich out praising Dean...no one has and it is unfair and it sucks.

[madfloridian]

258. Hey, read this about the harm Rahm did in Florida. We lost a seat this time.

Because he interfered. And the ones he picks are afraid to speak out, afraid of their shadows.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2921

[dionysus]

174. are you smoking pcp?

you must be one of those DLc cheerleaders...

:rofl:

[brentspeak]

185. You got lost on your way to Free Republic

[tritsofme]

243. 5 years and counting.

Thanks.

[carnie_sf]

342. So why exactly

is Dr. Dean such a bad party chairman? I haven't seen you offer a single reason for this bizarre assertion.

[rhett o rick]

234. How can you improve on success? Dean, who I don't consider "the left" was a tremendous help

in the Obama win. Also us on the left gave a lot of blood, sweat and tears. Rahm Emanuel is a slap in our face. The DLC are as bad as republicans.

And by the way, putting your "nt" in the message is not very helpful. Put it in the SUBJECT so people don't have to look in your message.

[ClarkUSA]

143. No way. The OP neglected to add that Hildebrand unequivocably turned down the job weeks ago.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

159. I did not neglect, I did not know. There's a big difference.

I did a search before I posted it, a search on his name. His refusal to take the chair did not show up.

Could you link to it?

[madfloridian]

160. But he was considered. That is what my OP said.

.

[Raineyb]

171. Based on Mr. Hildebrand's attack on his part of the base of the party

it would seem he has no business heading the DNC.

Or are progressives supposed to be treated like the religious right are treated in the Republican party.

The difference is that the progressives haven't been consistently and unapologetically wrong about everything.

Progressives don't deserve the disdain they've been shown of late.

Regards

[brentspeak]

186. Well said

[Two Americas]

9. the Left IS "all the people"

Only the right wingers think otherwise.

Those of us on the Left are not trying to get something for ourselves. It is false and humiliating to be treated as though we were.

Being on the Left means advocating for what is best for all of the people.

There is no spinning this as kinda sorta liberal or progressive, and there is no justification for claiming that people thinking this way will ever do anything but move the party to the right. Portraying the Left as just another selfish special interest group, and one of no serious consequence, is the right wing point of view, period.

[madfloridian]

63. Very well said.

:hi:

[boppers]

10. We have our fringe, too.

The left is not monolithic.

For example, some of our further-out people would insist that we stop all airplane traffic (to eliminate "chem trails"), make gasoline illegal (to stop "peak oil"), and should hold kangaroo-court tribunals (everything from GTMO critics to 9/11-truthers).

The variance in the left is easy to see here, on DU, with the vigorous debates we have on everything from childhood immunizations to proper party conduct with cardboard cut-outs.

Yes, there is a portion of the left who should have voices at the table, but meeting their demands wouldn't always be sound governance.

[lostnotforgotten]

15. "kangaroo-court tribunals" - No We Want Honest Trials To Put Bush And Cheney Away For Life

Does that make me a leftist - then so be it.

I was taught that we are a nation of laws.

I guess that is a leftist position.

So you are implying that the Banana Republic style of government practiced under Bush will continue under Obama.

As a leftist you can go .... yourself.

[boppers]

51. Trials with pre-determined outcomes are not fair.

By definition.

Thank you for proving my point.

If there *was* evidence of crimes that *could* put the resident (and his VP) away, by all means, lets see whether or not he'd be found prosecutable, and possibly guilty.

However, assuming guilt *without* a trial is not a nation of laws. It's witch-hunting.

[lostnotforgotten]

54. What Part Of Honest Trials Did you Not Read - You Obviously Need Glasses!

We all know that an honest trial would convict these bastards without a problem~

[boppers]

57. If you *know*, then there you go.

Have you heard the defense arguments?

Mitigating circumstances?

Actual charges decided upon?

Heck, do we even have a venue/court system set of rules (if we don't know the charges are?)

If we could just "know" who was guilty without a trial, then we wouldn't need trials.

FWIW, last time I poked deeply into this (talking to actual prosecutors, not internet "prosecutors"), there wasn't much that could be done, because while there was plenty of evidence that they were stupid, callous, shifty, and prone to totally fucking things up, none of those things are actual crimes. The "crimes" often alleged to, while henious, need more than opinion behind them, they need evidence of actual law-breaking, with the resident and vice being directly involved or reasonably culpable.

So, under what court, and what laws, do you think they could be charged?

[lostnotforgotten]

58. Ah Well - You Are A Lost Cause!

eom

[Two Americas]

69. we are not on any jury

We have the right to suspect government officials of wrong doing.

Evidence of law breaking by Bush administration officials is abundant, and publicly available. Hell, they have bragged about some of it.

By your standards, no crime could ever be investigated and pursued, because we must know that a person is guilty before we can talk about it, and if no one talks about it there will be no proceedings (this is a representative democracy, after all, driven by the national political discussion) and proceedings are the only way to know with certainty who is guilty of what.

But you have not shared your opinion. Do you, or do you not think that officials in the Bush administration have been engaged in criminal activity? Just your best guess. Your hunch.

[boppers]

79. Maybe we're lookiing at different evidence?

We already have seen convictions for actual wrong-doing in *the administration*, but that's not the same as finding the *resident and VP being culpable of criminal activity themselves.

Let's take oh, for example, Plame. Somebody was already convicted for having an illegal *role* in how this was handled, but what legal theory would allow the top-two to be convicted of committing an actual crime? Even if * took the stand, and said that he himself personally called all the media, and all the foreign ministers, and mentioned to them that Plame worked for the CIA, he still has a reasonable defense that he didn't *know* he was outing an operative, or breaking up an operation. Thus, while he may have done something stupid, there's no mens rea. Of course, since this never got as far as his desk, we can't place the blame that high.

Do you know of some evidence that would reasonably lead to an actual indictment and conviction of */VP themselves, and know exactly what law(s) we are talking about violating? Certainly their aides and staff can (and have) been held culpable, but something the two of them can be charged with?

Yes, we can *talk* about actions of the organization pushing the boundaries of criminality, but assigning the blame to two specific people is a different matter.

[Two Americas]

126. the most secretive administration in history

We have the most secretive administration in history. That in itself is a "smoking gun."

I have not said that any investigation should be restricted to, or primarily focused on"two specific people." On the other hand, it would be foolish to ignore or deny the chronic pattern of low level scapegoats being thrown to the wolves while higher-ups walk.

[iconicgnom]

264. Just... give it a break. W and co. ignore subpoenas, "lose" e-mails, etc. etc.

So why don't you just fe fe fe fade away.

[Bette Noir]

269. 1. Torture is and always has been illegal.

2. Simulated drowning is and always has been torture.
3. The administration admits to having "waterboarded" prisoners.

Is the math too difficult for you?

[Two Americas]

68. don't be absurd

No one has the power here, nor are they advocating that I have seen, any sort of abrogation of due process rights for anyone accused of crimes.

We have every right to express our belief that someone is guilty of a crime, as citizens. There is a procedure in place to protect the accused from jurors who have already made up their minds about a case.

Witch hunts - no one is talking about witch hunts. The only witch hunts I have seen have been directed at dissenters and those calling for bringing the elected officials to justice. "Bring to justice" - calling for investigations and trials as appropriate and demanding justice - is not a "witch hunt" nor is it denying any rights to the accused.

The protections in place for the citizens are there to protect the people from their government, not to protect the government from the people.

This is what the Republicans have been trying to sell us for the last 30 years - that the Constitution and legal system exist solely for the protection of the wealthy and powerful FROM the people rather than the other way around. That is a perversion of the fundamental theories of government upon which the country was founded.

[tomp]

97. a prosecutor does NOT presume innocence.

and it's not a pre-determined outcome, it's a hope. it is perfectly acceptable for me to assume/hope for/expect a guilty verdict, if i believe the evidence will take us there . what the court does is another matter. the court must presume innocence.

[Danger Mouse]

257. "Innocent Until Proven Guilty by a jury of your peers"

[amborin]

25. childh'd immunizations? that shows a non-monolithic left? do folks even know what 'left' means?

i doubt it

otherwise....totally agree with the OP

[boppers]

52. The topic was Thimerosol.

Some folks were convinced it was linked to autism.

Interesting debate ensued, as to whether or not government should "protect" us from the threat, and indeed, whether or not it was even an actual threat.

[amborin]

90. but

issues of the nanny state are not really domain of the left

it's a smear of the left to try to attribute those stances toward them

[boppers]

96. Nanny state is a smear?

The "nanny state" which coddles good and bad unions, regardless of merit and corruption?

The "nanny state" which tries to heal ethnic, sexual, and class injustice by having the state step in to fix problems?

The "nanny state" that tries to take care of the sick, the weak, the unfortunate?

The "nanny state" that says it's totally irresponsible to leave a loaded .45 in a toddler's reach?

The "nanny state" that runs a massive military so they don't get personally hurt?

I think the slur "nanny state" is more reflective of people who hated their parents (and haven't gotten over it), and thus, are resentful of the state having power over them, and still telling them that society can still dictate reactions to their most offensive and annoying behaviors.

I suggest asking them if they suggest disbanding the military, so their mommy/nanny doesn't have to clean up after their messes anymore.

[amborin]

161. maybe

you should go read some scholarly journal articles concerning the nanny state

you seem not to know what the term means, or how it's used

[MessiahRp]

238. I seriously think you are on the wrong board.

:shakes head:

Rp

[RaleighNCDUer]

318. It is the domain of the left when the right claims that the left is intent

on establishing a 'nanny state' - which phrase is, you know, a RW meme.

The left believes the power of the state should be engaged in confronting dangers to the public at large - the right thinks it should be every man for himself, and may the top dog win. By adopting the phrase 'nanny state', you are doing the rights' work for them.

[madfloridian]

36. Then who gets to decide, my friend? Who says who is too far left?

I'm not, never have been.

But I am considered that because I think the right wing Democrats are yanking Obama hard right.

Do you get to decide? Who decides?

[boppers]

55. Well, we just elected a new "decider".

:evilgrin:

Seriously, that's how it works, the person who gets to "decide" what is "too far left" is Obama. He gets to determine who to listen to.

We, the public, don't, we just get to decide who *becomes* the "decider".

(I am gonna have so much fun yanking chains when I remind rethugs who the "decider" is now...)

[madfloridian]

56. I have now allied myself with "the left".

SO....if the sit down and shut up memos continue....then I know I need to be looking around.

Will be saving a lot on donations monthly.

[boppers]

62. Good for you!

This is how it's *supposed* to work.

We may all caucus together at times, but all the factions aren't supposed to agree.

A parliamentary system in the US could be nice...

[Two Americas]

70. oh really?

We elected a "decider" and beyond that we have no more say?

That is an odd view of representative democracy.

[boppers]

82. We do not get to pick his cabinet.

We also do not get to set his agenda, or his schedule.

We elect people to represent us, to make decisions on our behalf.

That's the "representative" part of "representative democracy", where we entrust people with power, without expecting that we will get to have a say in their every move, vote, and opinion.

Do we still have a "say" about such things? Sure, we can chat, we can advocate, we can press issues, but we don't get to do the "decision" making part, our representatives do.

[tomp]

98. you really are being absurd.

we don't elect people and then never speak to them or about them until the next election. get real.

[boppers]

101. We also don't get to whine at them, or micro-manage them.

That's why they're "representatives".

If you see my above post, we get to have a lot of input, but they are not sub-ordinates of us, we do not get to dictate their behavior.

[Two Americas]

129. yes we do, and yes they are

Oh yes we do "get" to say anything we choose to say. Would you support enforcing something other than that?

Yes, they are subordinate to us.

Yes, we do "get" to "dictate their behavior." That is fundamental to the theory of self=government upon which the entire system is based.

[f the letter]

366. i don't feel that this is micromanaging n/t

[Two Americas]

128. far from the truth

Politics is dynamic, changing continually, and is an ongoing discussion, a give and take between the people and their officials.

While we are coming off of an era when there was virtually no press scrutiny of the government, and an administration that ignored public opinion and threatened and discouraged dissent, and that restricted the flow of information, that is no excuse for presenting that as though it were the standard or desirable.

Who claims that any of us would be, or could be setting the agenda or the schedule for any officials? That is a red herring argument.

We elect people in the hope that they will represent us, in an ongoing and dynamic way. We do not select a product from the shelf for its supposed features advantages and benefits, and then live with it.

There is an inherent contradiction here - before the election, the Left is told that "the lesser of two evils" is a proper basis for voting. After the election, we are being told "you made your bed, now lie in it." Before the election we are told "he isn't perfect, but we can hold his feet to the fire once he is elected." After the election we are told the opposite - as though all of the burden is on us, as though we are committed to supporting whatever the administration does, while the administration has no commitment or obligation to us.

What you are advocating here is anti-democratic. You are asking us to support "our" prince the same way that Bush supporters did "their" prince.

[kenfrequed]

313. Hmm

Not a terribly populist view of Democracy. I think it is important that we keep talking about the issues and about movement on them. When DLC surrogates and spawn start flinging attacks at 'the left' and continue to castigate us after we helped provide the phones, the feet, and the feelings that helped bring about this victory, they shoot themselves in the foot.

Then again the DLC really doesn't have much power unless there is a strong, competative republican party. If the Democrats ever really took over then what the hell would we need with the triangulators?

[Two Americas]

67. that is not the Left

The opinions you are talking about have nothing to do with the Left.

"We have our fringe" could be said about every group, every social organization, every gathering of people. That does not reflect on the group.

The Left is the people. The people should be the voices at any table. Meeting the demands of the people is the only sound governance.

There is no such thing as a political Left that is at odds with what is best for the people. The "fringe" you are talking about represents right wing and libertarian ideas that have gained a following around here, not the Left.

[boppers]

87. One thing caught my eye:

"There is no such thing as a political Left that is at odds with what is best for the people."

I'm not sure if this is an 'a priori' argument, or... what. If a policy/idea that comes from "the left" no longer "from the left" if it has unintended consequences?

So, at the risk of making straw men (sorry), here's some arguably* anti-people ideas ascribed to the "left" (note: arguably):
1. Industry-specific subsidies. Whether it's "farmers" and Corn/Ethanol, or "steelworkers" and tariffs, targeted industry policy risks the needs/benefits for the people as a whole, in order to benefit sub-groups of the people.
2. Media censorship. From the Gore's PMRC to Hillary's anti-videogame policies, to (in other countries), outright censorship of entire ideas, the left often suggests that people's voices be silenced.
3. Military non-involvement. This argument hinges on whether or not "what is best for the people" includes the people of Ruwanda, Serbia, or Iraq (there are many interesting arguments on this issue).

Getting even more complicated, or as a micro-issue that helps expose macro issues, there's some interesting things to think about in terms of "card-check" vs. "secret ballot" in forming unions.

Put even more succinctly, is "the left" ever wrong about what is best for the people, and how would it self-correct if it was?

[Two Americas]

130. not about specific people or programs

The challenges to the Left from the conservatives among us are about intentions and motives and purpose, not about specific incidents or people or programs.

I am defending the purpose, the intentions and motives of the Left.

Strange that we are being asked to accept the decisions of the politicians in good faith and not expect them "to be perfect," yet a different standard is applied to the Left.

Why would correcting the Left be any more of a challenge or a worry than correcting the errors of the right? Again,why this double standard?

[kenfrequed]

314. Point by point

1) On Ethanol. In its infancy it was a decent idea that was supposed to use low impact crops to produce Ethanol fuel. It's current unworkable concoction is not the fault of 'the left' and was entirely the creation of an out of control agri-business lobby. The left would have been happier with actual electric cars such as the EV-1.

2) Media censorship. To my knowledge, neither Hillary or Gore were extreme leftists. As a matter of fact Tipper Gores involvement with the PMRC stems back from the Gores' engagement with the DLC. He was a rather active and early member in the 1980's. And among the candidates up on stage, Hillary was among the most conservative Democrats running in 2008.

3) Military non-involvement. Well you mention Iraq, I should think that merely mentioning it should be a ringing endorsement of 'the left.' As far as Rawanda goes, it was not the left that was dragging its feet in the effort to stop Genocide. Those rare media outlets that 'The Left' goes to inform itself such as Democracy Now were decrying what was occurring there and calling on those in power to do something.

[Hippo_Tron]

252. Who are "the people"?

[brentspeak]

187. So now Gitmo critics are "the left"???

Tell that to all the venerable retired military officers who have been demanding that Gitmo be shut down. I'm sure they'll be surprised to discover that their opinions now make them "the left".

:eyes:

[Lorien]

306. Show us some of those posts

that sounds more like the far right's veiw of the "fringe left"-something that doesn't exist in reality.

[MadHound]

13. Once again we're going to see the DLC, centerists, and corporatists take over

Much like the Clinton administration, and continue to drive this country and this world right into the ground. Gee, it will have a kinder, gentler face on the matter, but we the people will still be screwed.

Once again it's time for the left to disappear from the Democratic radar and Democratic consideration. We're great and fine when the party needs money, sweat and votes, but other than that, the Democratic party doesn't want to hear from us.

So why do we keep coming back for more?

[polichick]

16. Well, I hope not - let's see who Obama chooses for upcoming posts...

...the environment, etc.

[MadHound]

21. Not just who he chooses for upcoming posts,

But also how he governs. I'm willing to give the guy a break until he gets into office, but from the signals being sent out on taxes, the war, appointments, etc., I'm not liking the message being sent. This is all too reminiscent of the start of the Clinton years. Everybody was so relieved that we were finally emerging from the Reagan/Bush era that we didn't really scrutinize Clinton until it was too late and it turned out he was simply another corporatist in disguise.

I just get the sneaky suspicion that we're once again having good cop/bad cop played on us, and that all this talk of change is so much hot air. I'm willing to wait and see, but that's how this is starting to look from my vantage point.

[polichick]

22. I know what you mean - it does feel eerily similar. We'll see...

[girl gone mad]

42. The big difference is that the credit bubble has finally collapsed.

Clinton was able to mask the worst effects of the DLC's policies of economic terrorism behind the emerging internet bubble and the ongoing credit bubble. Now the wholesale destruction of the middle class has finally played itself out and there are no more bubbles on the horizon.

If Obama wants to continue taking the nation down the globalist, corporatist path, he can only make hopeful promises which will never come to pass. His personal charisma might be enough to carry him into a second term, but he would face a real challenge if Republicans ran a true populist.

[RaleighNCDUer]

320. Or someone they can pass off as a true populist -

Palin 1012?

WE all know she's a fraud, but the media shills love her.

[lostnotforgotten]

17. Good question - Anytime Third Parties Are Mentioned Here The Bushanistas - I Mean

Obamanistas come out in force!

[ShortnFiery]

18. "So why do we keep coming back for more?"

We don't. No more. :(

[MadHound]

26. You may not, I may not, but so many have bought into this good cop/bad cop game

For so long that they're completely brainwashed about this. The only good thing about this recession/depression is that if it gets bad enough, Great Depression bad, it could very well shake people out of their stupor and get some real change going. This is what happened with FDR, he was politically threatened by the Socialist and Communist, to the point where he adapted some of their issues as his own. That's how we got Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and other New Deal reforms.

Perhaps that's what it's going to take this time around. A hard way to go, but we might just come out a better country on the other end.

[polichick]

27. That's true - hitting rock bottom tends to jolt people back to their senses.

[L0oniX]

323. I 've been beaten like a red headed step child by them for the last time!

:evilfrown:

[Life Long Dem]

375. I'm not falling for it.

That is, if they are selling it.

[BeFree]

29. Well

...the good news is that they heard us. We are not being ignored.

The bad news is that what they heard wasn't really conducive to being heard. It was just complaints. Complaints to which they responded very well.

It is early, too early. Obama will pick who he wants, not who the 'netroots' wants. After he is seated and he lays out concrete plans is the time to begin making our voices heard... about substantive matters. Later, if we see a cabinet member not producing, Obama will too and they'll be gone.

In short, we are being heard, it's just that we really don't have any reason yet to complain. And you can wager that Obama hopes we never really have to complain, because he'll hear us loud and clear.

[MadHound]

35. HAH! Wait and see, right.

That's what the left has been told time and again all throughout my lifetime, and guess what that strategy has gotten us? Zip, zilch, zero, nada, nothing, worse than nothing, a Democratic party that has consistently drunk at the well of corporatism, that has moved from the center left of LBJ and Kennedy to the center right, pro corporate adventures of the Clinton administration.

It has become apparent that the only way to get anything even vaguely to the left enacted is to scream loud and long until, if nothing else, the Obama administration gets tired of hearing us and actually does something to appease the left, if for no other reason than to shut us up.

Unlike the corporatists, the centerists, the DLCer's, the left has virtually nobody who trods the corridors of power. Even those who are much closer than we are, Kucinich, Feingold, are ignored, marginalized, conveniently forgotten about. The only thing that the left in this country has anymore is our voice, and now is the time to use it. Shout it from the mountaintops, scream it from the rooftops, we are here and we will not be ignored!

[BeFree]

44. Zilch?

I beg to differ. Yes, we have been ignored, and frankly, we were right and shouldn't have been ignored. Reagan screwed us royally. Bush1 did us no favors. Clinton could have been a whole lot better, but he was a whole lot better than Reagan and Bush1. Then we had two elections stolen. TWO.

Now we've got the first non-lilly-white person ever in as president. We did it. No zilch there.

And hell yes, shout it from the mountain tops! Just make sure it is about something we can and really do need to effect. Cabinet posts, in my mind, and most certainly Obama's, are nothing to raise hell about.

Just remember, they did hear us. That's good. They're listening. They know we have power. Let's use it wisely.

[Two Americas]

132. "netroots" in quotes

This is not about what the netroots "wants," and I am baffled that you would derisively put the term in quotation marks. "Active, knowledgeable people effectively using the most widely available and democratic form of media and communication to influence public opinion, as a vigorous exercise in self-government, for the benefit of all of the people" - is that what you meant to say?

The Left represents a point of view (that I thought all Democrats shared) about what is best for the country and for all the people. It is a destructive and reactionary smear to characterize the Left as some narrow special interest group seeking benefits or advantages for a few, for a small and inconsequential group of people.

[jefferson_dem]

32. "There's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America."

Why do self-proclaimed "liberals" claim they own Obama and, therefore, the White House now that Obama was elected?

I hope Obama stays true to the post-partisan, post-ideological, unity-first approach he's always promoted.

...

Some of the people who are not as happy as others, I think much to their surprise, are some of the African American people who believe that now it's their turn.

Absolutely right, absolutely right. I think Barack took 10 times as much grief from those on the left on the Review as from those of us on the right. And the reason was, I think there was an expectation among those editors on the left that he would affirmatively use the modest powers of his position to advance the cause, whatever that was. They thought, you know, finally there's an African American president of the Harvard Law Review; it's our turn, and he should aggressively use this position, and his authority and his bully pulpit to advance the political or philosophical causes that we all believe in.

And Barack was reluctant to do that. It's not that he was out of sympathy with their views, but his first and foremost goal, it always seemed to me, was to put out a first-rate publication. And he was not going to let politics or ideology get in the way of doing that. ...

He had some discretion as president to exercise an element of choice for certain of the positions on the masthead; it wasn't wide discretion, but he had some. And I think a lot of the minority editors on the Review expected him to use that discretion to the maximum extent possible to empower them. To put them in leadership positions, to burnish their resumes, and to give them a chance to help him and help guide the Review. He didn't do that. He declined to exercise that discretion to disrupt the results of votes or of tests that were taken by various people to assess their fitness for leadership positions.

He was unwilling to undermine, based on the way I viewed it, meritocratic outcomes or democratic outcomes in order to advance a racial agenda. That earned him a lot of recrimination and criticism from some on the left, particularly some of the minority editors of the Review. ...

It confirmed the hope that I and others had had at the time of the election that he would basically be an honest broker, that he would not let ideology or politics blind him to the enduring institutional interests of the Review. It told me that he valued the success of his own presidency of the Review above scoring political points of currying favor with his political supporters.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html

[madfloridian]

34. You don't get it at all.

If it goes this way....back to the same old same old shut up the left wing of the party...then Obama will be a one term president. There won't be all the folks there to fight for him.

[jefferson_dem]

39. If one doesn't subscribe to the left-is-being-victimized meme, they don't "get it at all"?

Quaint.

Point is...Obama is not the leader of any party. He is the man to be president...and I trust he will do what's right (that is, what's in the best interest of the nation as a whole). His rhetoric and actions since November 4 have been very reassuring in that respect. Were you displeased with the "New New Deal" plan he rolled out yesterday?

For the record, I have always been a major supporter of Chairman Dean, especially his 50 state strategy, and am not promoting Hilderbrand for Chair. Actually, I'm hoping Plouffe gets the gig. :)

[madfloridian]

46. The whole party apparatus is his now. All of it.

It belongs to Obama. It is his.

So if he says for Steve to tell us to watch it....then he means it.

I am angry.

[Two Americas]

135. false dichotomy

Portraying the political Left and "the best interest of the nation" - I notice that you did not say "the best interest of the people" - as separate and potentially contradictory is the point of view of the conservatives and right wingers. Why would we promote that idea? They have an army of well paid people to do that job, and need no help from us.

[truedelphi]

140. As usual, very well expressed.

Why are Democrats afraid to represent the majority of Americans who KNOW we need a re-adjusted income tax and Universal Health Care, Single Payer Style? And we also KNOW that Daschle will be likely to swing that Health Care reform back into the arms of his Corporate Buddies.

Other things that the majority of Americans want, er, that we leftists want is for the Ending both wars, as we really do not have the funds to do war any more.

And right now, above all, being smart about the economy. Geithner, Rubin et al helped create this economic problem - and for that reason alone should not be allowed a position in the Obama administration

Those of us to the left are really not to the left - but we are demonized by the Oil and Big Money beholding media. And by the "centrists" that have controlled the Democratic party for far too long.

Yet if it was not for the majority of Americans, er us lefties, the 2006 election would not have offered the huge victory for the Democrats, who ran on a "leftist" platform o0f ending Iraq war and impeaching Bush.

[MadHound]

38. We don't claim we own Obama, nor the White House.

All we are wanting is a seat at the table, our voices to be heard, just the same as virtually every other political stripe, including 'Pugs and conservatives are getting. We haven't seen that yet, and yes we're pissed. We've seen this film before during the Clinton administration, help, in a big way, to get a Democrat elected and then watch as he completely ignores the left. Worse yet, he takes the country further to the right and further down the corporatist rabbit hole. And all of these center right, right, corporatist, DLC types that he's appointing, gee, makes those of us on the left think that this is just another rerun.

We don't own the president, however we do deserve a seat at the table and our voice to be heard.

[jefferson_dem]

43. Rest assured.

"Liberals" will have a seat at the table in the Obama administration.

Sorry, you lost me with the talk of corporatists and DLC types and so on. Those labels don't mean shit to me...not my world.

[MadHound]

53. It may not be "your world" but rest assured, it is indeed our world

And it effects all of us, intimately, every single day. What, you think that this financial mess is solely of Bushboy's creation? Go back and look at Clinton's record on deregulation, especially in the financial sector. Go back and look at his participation in disaster capitalism in SE Asia. If you honestly don't see the government/corporate partnership known as corporatism, then you're either blind, a fool, or have some abiding stake in the status quo. Take your choice.

And as far as liberals having a seat at the table, well, we'll have to wait and see. But judging by the administration appointments, judging by the trial balloons being released, judging by this "sit down and shut up" memo, it's looking increasingly like the left is going to get shut out in the cold again. And frankly the only way to prevent that is to keep the heat on Obama. After all, isn't this a democracy, isn't that what a democracy is all about, making your desires about government heard by your elected representatives? Well, that's what the left is going to do, whether you, the Obama administration or anybody else likes it or not.

[jefferson_dem]

60. Have at it.

If you honestly fathom that an Obama administration will extend the "corporatism" (or whatever label you want to affix to it) scourge that we have suffered under during Boosh's reign, there's not much I can offer to calm your concerns.

Like you, I'm all about people-powered democracy and holding the governing regime accountable. It's just that whole "fer us or agin us" tribalist tripe is so yesterday...

[madfloridian]

61. Then tell "them" to stop putting down "the left" as though we were something nasty.

.

[MadHound]

64. Funny, since the left was just issued this "sit down and shut up" memo

So much for change, big tent, and your favorite, abandoning "that whole "fer us or agin us" tribalist tripe"

And given Obama's current appointments(Lawrence Summers for Chris' sake!) so much for Obama not pursuing the corporatist path. Really now, you should read Shock Doctrine and see just who Obama is putting in place. Yes, Obama might very well put a friendly face on corporatism, much like Clinton did. But one can smile and smile, backslap and gladhand, and still be picking your pocket all the while. In fact that's how the best pickpockets operate, with a smile and a backslap. Think about it.

[jefferson_dem]

81. Shock Doctrine.

Thanks for the recommendation. I'm stocking up on reading materials to get me through the next few weeks and been impressed with Naomi Klein when I see her interviewed. Perhaps i'll pick that one up and put it in the stack right under "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail", which I promised myself I would re-read after watching Gonzo the other night... :)

[amborin]

91. anyone who truly advocates this

non partisan stuff just doesn't understand class politics, or what being a leftist means

and 'liberal' and 'leftist' are two different things

in any case, those were just words....talk is cheap, don't be so naive

[jefferson_dem]

109. Shoot Barack an email...

and let him know he's naive...since he's been promoting post-partisanship since he's been on the national stage.

Nobody is saying that there aren't principles worth fighting for, many of which you may want to designate as "leftist" or "liberal". Hopefully, however, we can finally kick the slice and dice Rovian approach to American politics to the curb where it belongs.

[amborin]

157. anyone

who thinks it's possible to cozy up to one's opponents fails to understand us class structure or classy dynamics

these ceos and pols are laughing behind the backs of anyone naive enough to actually believe that

as for sending an email.....

the fact that ANY politician promotes something, regardless of who the pol is, or what they are promoting, is NOT the proof that that 'something' is a worthwhile cause or even plausible

hero worship is fine

i fought hard for O's win

but he's a politician and you need to remember that

[Two Americas]

134. I can promise you this

The wealthy and powerful few, and their agents in the right wing propaganda mills and among the elected officials, do not and will never agree to anything suggested by these pleasant platitudes about "unity."

They keep the power and the money, while we are asked to "keep the peace" and be responsible for creating "unity" by rolling over and submitting.

[Raineyb]

177. How is attacking the preemptively attacking the left post partisan?

Because the Republicans do it as well it must be post partisan?

Regards

[RaleighNCDUer]

322. There is no such thing as 'post-partisan' -

When side A chooses to be post-partisan and side B chooses to remain partisan, side B will kick side A's ass every time.

Clinton tried to be post-partisan, compromising with the right. The right compromised by taking control of congress for the next 12 fucking years.

ISSUES MATTER. On the issues, the right is wrong 99% of the time. If we compromise with them, splitting the difference, that will make us wrong 49.5% of the time.

There is no such thing as 'post-partisan' unless BOTH sides agree to be post partisan. Post partisan = Palin 2012.

[Radical Activist]

40. That's right mad, it's all about Dean and they're all out to get you.

I find the difference between Hildebrand's blog and your characterization of it are two very, very different things.

Once again, you fail at credibility.

[jefferson_dem]

48. I too had a difficult time reconciling Hildebrand's blog post with the OP's characterization of it.

Hildebrand's post struck me as quite reasonable. :shrug:

[madfloridian]

50. Parts of it are quite reasonable. The part about "the left" is very pointed.

And should not have been put in there like that.

We already got the message.

[creeksneakers2]

85. What do you like to be called?

I've had the same problem here. If I refer to the "far left" I get responses from people who are offended. So I've asked them what they like to be called. They never answer.

I don't see anything negative about the term "far left." Its a contrast to "moderates" or "far right." I do think "corporatist" is used as an insult. DLCer is too.

I've seen far lefties call themselves "progressives" but that term, if used in the wider public, would be interpreted to refer to lots of people who are not far left.

Whoever you are or what you want to call yourselves, its not that you don't deserve a seat at the table. Its that you, like everybody else, shouldn't try to get things your way by screaming, being offended about nothing or reading sinister motives into innocent actions.

[madfloridian]

103. It's not what I want. It's the game the party has played for years.

They have since the 80s moved so far right that they think those of us who are pretty much in the center are the far left....and they keep lecturing us.

I do think corporate Dem is insulting, as well it should be. That is why we are in such a mess.

[Sebastian Doyle]

116. "Once again, you fail at credibility. "

Oh the irony of that, coming from someone calling themselves a "Radical Activist" and sounding like neither.

[Radical Activist]

138. Being radical does not equal being gullible, naive, and conspiracy minded.

A lot of liberals on this board are awfully quick to believe any exaggeration about Obama is moving right.

[madfloridian]

156. So THAT"S who that was.

Couldn't tell

[madfloridian]

59. No one ever lectures "the right" of the party.

Dean's mistake was to allow himself, a centrist, to be associated with and be treated as a part of the liberal left wing of the party.

Now the insiders don't want him around because of the activists with whom he was associated. I say associated..the DLC and the media did it calling us fringe.

[boppers]

65. Hasn't "the right" of the party gotten consistenly lectured here?

"DLC", "coporatists" etc.?

And for that matter, weren't they "lectured" in the primaries, where Hillary was too "right" to become president? Where Gore was too "right" for a the Naderites? Kerry was too "right" for the greens and peace folks?

Moore characterizing the Clintons as republicans, Kucinich and Sanders constantly trying to correct the ship, etc. etc?

The (D-)right's been under fire for a while, and they've been losing.

[madfloridian]

66. No, they have not lost at all.

They are in the driver's seat on policy and power. Go and read the policies at the DLC website. You will see what I mean.

In the long run, money is power. Being right means very little.

Caring and working one's butt off means very little.

In the long run the right wing of the party is still in control...or we would not be hearing stuff like this.

[Two Americas]

73. of course not

You are arguing on the side of power, and asking us to believe that the powerless and the powerful are equal.

The Left is in no position to be lecturing anyone, because we have no power -= the people have no power. We do try to reach those who have been co-opted into speaking for the powerful and against their own allies here, yes. That is not lecturing, and is not the same as the powerful telling us what to do. The only power we have is persuasion, and the only motive is to plead with people to stop speaking and acting against their own interests by kissing up to the powerful and attacking their working class brothers and sisters.

This is a chronic problem in the party. By pretending that power imbalances do not exist, the status quo is more easily maintained and people are shut out of the discussion.

[boppers]

88. I don't believe that the people have no power.

750 million dollars agree that money talks...
...from the people.

I refuse to keep playing a victim.

[Two Americas]

169. if money is the source of power...

If money is the appropriate source of power in a democracy, as you say here, then the people with the most money will have the most power.

No one would argue that people with money have more power. Somebody is going to be the victim in that scenario.

[tomp]

100. our power is not to vote for the powerful.

if they want to ignore us when we help them win, let them do it without us.

[Lorien]

307. Exactly. n/t

[zulchzulu]

71. Being called someone "from the left" is like being called someone from "the white community"

What is the "Left" anyway? I mean really... sure we're for jobs, the middle class, the environment, ending the war, gay rights, getting away from the neocon agenda... yeah, yeah, yeah....

To me, saying someone is on or from "the Left" these days is so utterly vague. There is a new, more progressive "middle" now that are composed of moderates from both major parties and some that have played with third-party campaigns only to decide to want to join with those to try to get things done incrementally and for the better regarding so-called "left" issues.

As for Sirota, he was pimping for Edwards. Enough said...

[Two Americas]

74. Labor

The Left thinks Labor should be getting more consideration, the right sees Capital as more important.

[madfloridian]

77. Steve used the words "the left". He was warning "the left". I wrote about it,

Hubby and I supported Edwards also at the beginning. Were we "pimping" him?

I don't always agree with Sirota or anyone....but I admire he's not afraid to speak out.

If there is no left, and we are not a problem....then why do they keep warning us?

[zulchzulu]

120. Despite it all... we certainly need to thank Howard Dean a bit more

My semi-diatribe about "what's left anymore" is more about political labels mostly. We try to form a "team" where in fact we can't figure what field we should be playing on.

But anyway... nothing wrong with supporting Edwards initially... I actually have had some discussions at a local cafe with John Nichols on this very subject (he was a big supporter) and how it would have been disastrous if he had been the nominee based on the affair and all that crap...

You did mention Dr. Dean not getting enough credit for the 2008 50-state focus and you are correct. It's also funny how so many thought he was more "left" than he really was in 2004... again, I think the political labels need an upgrade or a more supplemental subset implied.

[jefferson_dem]

83. Ah...yes. The New Pragmatic Progressivism.

I like.

[mwei924]

72. I personally don't think all lefty ideas are good for the country.

If the far left wants to be mad about Obama picking moderates, fine. But don't act like he promised you otherwise. His whole campaign was about bringing people together and picking the smartest and most qualified people. If you start picking and choosing based on who represents the most extreme of the party, then you're left with the Bush administration.

[madfloridian]

75. Am I extreme? Do you get to decide?

When did it become okay for our party leaders to treat people who call themselves liberals as pariahs?

Am I extreme? Am I far left? Or am I only playing left/moderate words games showing the utter stupidity of warning the very people who worked their butts off to shut up and sit down.

[mwei924]

76. Then who are you to decide that the cabinet isn't "left" enough?

If you can't even define yourself in that context? The truth is-- there's always going to be some who think no one is liberal enough for them.

[madfloridian]

78. I did not say anything about the cabinet at all.

I don't have much opinion yet except for a couple who do NOT like activists.

Do you think I am extreme left? Who gets to decide?

Why are they sending out so many memos to us?

[mwei924]

80. Probably cause of the endless bitching.

If they didn't respond, they'd be accused of "ignoring the people".

[madfloridian]

84. Oh, dear God I just love superior attitudes.

I really do.

I love the way that they and you are just assuming that expressing concerns means we are "the left".

This is the pattern that started in the 80s when they decided they could get more money by ignoring the traditional Democrats like unions and minorities.

They are defining a whole group of people who are really the heart of the party as "the left" and doing it contemptuously.

[amborin]

92. moderates?

if he had only picked moderates, the left might not be quite so upset

the crew he picked for economic stuff are far from moderates

where have you been?

you need to read some history

Summers, as just one example, is no moderate

[tomp]

102. 1) define the "far left"...

...2) just because obama promised to pick the best and the brightest doesn't mean he did. he picked who he wanted whether they are the smartest and most qualified remains to be seen and is currently a matter of opinion.

[mwei924]

107. Far Left: "Why aren't there any progressives appointed?"

If Hillary Clinton is not progressive (or anyone else people complain about), then what is progressive enough?

[Lorien]

308. Kucinich is a Progressive

Hillary is DLC; a conservative right wing Democrat who serves corporate interests before serving human interests.

[mwei924]

108. I mean, if some of these cabinet people aren't "left" enough... then I dunno..

The U.S. is not France when it comes to the political spectrum. These people are considered progressive here.

[Sebastian Doyle]

115. Name one "righty" idea that's been good for the country.

Or even a so-called "centrist" idea that's been good for the country.

Just one.

It's gonna be a short list. Because everything good in this country came from "lefty ideas".

[mwei924]

176. Merit pay for teachers.

[madfloridian]

182. Oh, good Lord, no.

Merit pay for teachers is pretending that the children we teach are like little machines, all fitting a pattern.

They are not at all.

[mwei924]

183. I had more than few crappy teachers in high school who couldn't care less about teaching..

.. but they were ancient and had tenure so they couldn't get ousted. Everyone I knew in my high school thought they should've been fired long ago. And then we had a few really exceptional teachers who really cared about teaching, and I think they deserve a little more than the crappy ones who don't do shit.

I'm not a big fan of the teacher's union. I was glad when Obama brought up merit pay and drew some boos from the union audience. It showed that he was more interested in problem solving than catering to a strong Democratic interest.

[JetCityLiberal]

192. So you hate liberals and unions

what are you doing here?

I have read your spew about liberals all over these forums today.

Pathetically transparent.

Why are you hiding your profile?

[mwei924]

195. Just because I'm not a fan of ONE union...

..does NOT mean I hate all unions or that I'm not liberal on the issues. United Auto Workers, Teamsters, etc are all cool in my book. I just feel that teacher's unions are not being productive in their efforts and are hindering students in the process. The purpose of public schools is to give kids a good education and allow them to get good jobs in life, not to cuddle teachers.

And I don't care for liberal PC-worship. I consider myself liberal on most issues, but I'll be the first admit that our side has problems too. And we shouldn't just complain all day long when the Republicans do it (fake outrage at something stupid), but then go on to do it ourselves.

If that makes me not a real liberal, then the state of liberal politics in America is not pretty.

[JetCityLiberal]

196. Oh bullshit

Hating teacher unions is such a right wing talking point.

As I said, you have been spewing against liberals all over these forums.

Transparent.

Paul

[mwei924]

197. Believe that in your delusional mind if you want, but if you look at my history..

...I've only complained about the liberal PC obsession, which a lot of rational people (not just the right-wing) aren't crazy about. I happen to agree with them on that one.

So sue me, I'm not a big fan of teacher's unions. They prop up a lot of bad teachers who aren't doing the students any favors in life. I'm all for paying teachers more, but ONLY the good ones. Fire the bad ones.

Left-wing talking points aren't much better than right-wing talking points. I'd prefer to actually have insightful discussions without any talking points.

[madfloridian]

198. I am rational, I am a retired teacher, I am intelligent, I am well educated...and a liberal.

And I am very tired of people who are more pious than the rest of us spouting senseless rhetoric.

[mwei924]

208. Right because teachers can do no wrong.

I appreciate teachers for choosing a noble line of work, but I don't appreciate teachers who sit on their tenures without making an effort to actually teach (and I've encountered more than a few of those). If you were a good teacher, then why would you tolerate bad teachers who get paid the same and can never be fired?

[madfloridian]

219. You are spouting nonsense. Poor teachers on tenure...

are no longer remaining long. Most never get to tenure in the first place anymore. That is pretty long gone.

[mwei924]

225. I was in high school not long ago...

..and they never checked up on teachers who had been there 10-15+ years. And many of them were the ones who needed it. On the other hand, I had a brand new French teacher who was practically being interrogated every class by an evaluator. The problem is-- the new French teacher was still 100000x better than my tenured AP Lit teacher who gets to do whatever. She never got fired or lost her AP class, I believe she stayed until retirement, even though no one was getting anything out of her class. The pass rate for her classes were much lower than the other AP Lit teacher, and there were even some great regular English teachers who would've done a better job. She definitely wasn't the only one who wasn't getting disciplined for sucking.

That's the problem with tenure-- they get tenured, and think they don't have to actually teach anymore. If some of the older teachers were being watched as closely as the first year teachers, they'd get their act together.

[madfloridian]

226. Since you have no profile, I don't know your location.

But I know that in our state teachers are observed until they nearly scream. I was tenured, and I wsa watched just as closely as new teachers.

You seem to be trying to make some point, but you don't have the facts.

[mwei924]

228. Aren't you just going on your personal experience also?

I have no idea who you are either. It's the internet, who knows, people bullshit all the time. Well, whatever school you worked for was good at holding people accountable, which is what all schools should adopt (but clearly don't). Obviously, the idea of increasing standards on teachers doesn't sit well with some.

[RaleighNCDUer]

332. "The pass rate for her classes were much lower than the other AP Lit

teacher..."

What does that mean? That she graded harder?

One thing I do believe - "I was in high school not long ago..."

That is obvious.

[mwei924]

358. The fucking AP Test.

Which is the point of AP classes. A 3 on an AP test = pass.

[JetCityLiberal]

199. pick up a hand mirror and you will see delusional

Paul

[mwei924]

206. If opposing the efforts of teacher's unions gets you kicked out of the liberal circles..

..then no wonder it takes a big crisis and near destruction of the world to get Democrats elected anything.

Honestly, if you think I'm a poser just because we disagree on one issue, then you are just as bad as the conservatives. They think private schools will solve everything, you think teacher's unions can do no wrong. Both are equally stupid assumptions.

[kath]

337. "PC obsession" BEEP, BEEP, BEEP

There goes my RightWingerDetector, screaming loudly...

[kenfrequed]

363. Alert

"PC" is a perfect signal to noise PR right wing screed. The absolute smallness of the legitimage concerns dealing with PC was grossly exagerrated and made huge deal by right winger politicos and commentators, and then finally by comedians. 'Politically Correct' as was touted in the nineties did not really exist. Instead it was used as a counter argument any time a group was legitimately discriminated against and anytime a person or group demanded the wild and crazy right and liberty to define themselves.

[RaleighNCDUer]

330. So how, exactly, does paying new teachers more make the bad

teachers better?

Teaching is not accounting. Either a teacher has his heart in it, or he does not. Better pay will not make a bad teacher better. And the exceptional teachers you refer to were exceptional without merit pay - an extra $50/wk won't make them any more exceptional.

[Mithreal]

294. You are sadly confused about merit pay

When I taught high school chemistry, before the school year even started I was told to fail or discourage 50% of my students from taking the second semester in the course. Students placed in my classes had been identified as having poorer math skills. I was told plainly that if I did that, those students would not have to take the state mandated Chemistry test and our principals and superintendent would receive their merit pay which was tied to raising these scores. I was not the only teacher told this, there were four science teachers in the room. Another teacher and I agreed to ignore the command, what could they do. I was asked more than once to update my progress in failing these students. At the end of the year, I and the other teacher found ourselves without contracts. The teacher who most vocally agreed and responded positively when asked for updates about our progress in failing these students was promoted to head of the science department at the end of year. Lest you think he was gifted as a teacher, he was well-liked and a lecturer, that was it. Lecturing to me was a tool not my entire toolbox. He did not deserve the position but whatever.

Like a lot of things that sound good, the devil is in the details.

My wife is a teacher in an economically depressed area. Within a building there are "gifted" teachers that are identified as being capable of teaching the students that are "gifted" and the way they are chosen often has more to do with the quality of the relationship with the principal that any objective determination like education or training. Different schools in the district even segregate students by the economic accomplishments of their families. Richer families live in richer neighborhoods with "better" schools. Teachers may work harder and sacrifice more, working in economically depressed areas and then have to worry that if their students do not do as well as students on the other side of town, the will not be fairly rewarded with "merit pay". Merit pay can be more about who your students are and who your principal is then who the teacher is or the job the teacher does.

I read some of your other posts here. We have all had bad teachers. The folks who seem to blame the unions first have their heads up their arses. PE Obama is wrong about merit pay. I read you were gleeful or something similar about PE Obama coming out against the teacher unions. Well, let me tell you, PE Obama does not understand what teachers face every day and over their careers in this country. If he did, he would support their unions. PE Obama has nearly zero control over local school districts, their school boards, principals and superintendents, or even the economic situation of the families.

Merit pay will be used destructively.

PE Obama should never have "bragged" about challenging the unions on merit pay. I saw it, I know what he said. PE Obama used it as a talking point to brag about how he takes on his party in this country, good for him. I think it scored him some points, but not with me. We will see how PE Obama governs. I think he is going to be the best President in our lifetimes but I will still call him out when he is wrong.

If you want high quality education for every child that wants to learn, merit pay IS NOT THE ANSWER. IT IS A DISTRACTION FROM THE REASON many SCHOOL SYSTEMS ARE ALREADY BROKEN and are being systematically BROKEN.

EDIT TO ADD: My teaching career did not start in WA state lest anyone suspect from my avatar image that I am talking about WA state. I am not. We can't even adequately fund schools here though, it is a damn shame.

[kath]

340. All the emphasis on standardized testing, and rewarding schools for high scores, has been SOOOO

toxic - very damaging to students and to good teachers. Sadly, there is way too much "gaming of the system" to manipulate scores, such as the heinous practice that you discussed. Utterly despicable.

It's very clear in our well-off "Blue Ribbon" high school that all the principal really cares about are the students' standardized test scores, and how those scores can help her GET MORE MONEY. She doesn't give one single shit about the students as PEOPLE, they are just a set of numbers to her.

PM me as to what state this was in. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it was Oklahoma, although, sadly, I think this kind of crap is going on in very many places around the country. All the emphasis on testing is a horrible toxic influence.

[Mithreal]

349. You are 100% right on. It wasn't OK state.

The testing industry is doing really well though and that is what counts to business types.

[kath]

352. oh, yes - everyone complains that schools are short on money, yet millions and millions of dollars

go for testing - not just payment for the tests themselves, but for hiring by the schools of special "testing coordinators" and "vice principals in charge of curriculum and instruction" (our hs has both), the committees/commissions to develop the tests, then field-test the tests, then a state commission to study the results of the tests and issue expensive reports saying that they need NEW tests because the old ones weren't good enough, so back to point A - design the next round of test questions, field-test them, commission a study, issue a lengthy & expensive report of the study, have conferences to talk about the study results, decide you need ANOTHER batch of tests, and on and on. MEGA-BUCKS DOWN THE DRAIN. Texas is on at least their 3rd or 4th round of state-mandated tests. It boggles the mind to think how much all of that has cost. ***And there is NO scientific evidence that any of this has actually improved education.**

In our district, there was a newspaper article earlier this year where, out of one side of his mouth, the superintendent was lamenting the high costs of the state-mandated (NCLB-related) tests, but next thing you know he was lauding the fact that our district was so special that they had their OWN district-specific standardized "benchmark" tests (which of course are an ADDITIONAL cost to the district) to make extra-sure that the students were learning or sume such bullshit, phrased in eloquent educationese. Unreal. The irony/hypocrisy seemed to totally escape both the superintendent and the author of the article. My kids have already spent TWO instructional days of each of their core courses on the district testing, 3 days in English class. By the end of the year it will be 4 days for most classes, 5 or 6 for English. PLUS the end-of-the-year STATE testing, which will take, I think, another 2 days per class, 3 or 4 days for English. So many "instructional days" frickin' wasted.

But, yeppers, the test companies are making a fortune - from TAXPAYERS' POCKETS, and the school districts and state departments of "education" spend brazillions of bucks on administrators and all the above-mentioned bullshit. A total fucking waste.

Lovely, eh??

[Mithreal]

354. Teachers fear losing their jobs, being harassed out of them

or are just too busy and worn down to speak out against everything that is going wrong. There are exceptions, of course, like the unions.

I don't see the Democratic Party putting money where their mouth is when it comes to supporting public education and teachers, adequately funding education, or identifying and correcting the root causes of our problems. Some Democrats even blame Unions.

The new WA legislature is not in session yet and we are facing economic collapse atm. The rumor in my wife's very small school district is that 10 teachers will lose their jobs at the end of the year. It is already a tragically depressed area and those teachers are needed. The current number of staff hasn't been adequate, how can they lose more. PE Obama will ask us all to sacrifice, right. Sacrifice, my arse, the money will be there for the things that really matter to those folks in DC like Wall Street and international bank and international insurer bailouts.

Progressives need to wake up now.

_________________________________

Teachers that keep their heads down and are even tempered and focus on the children in their classroom do not get the recognition, respect and reward they deserve. What do you think happens to teachers that speak out? - I don't mean that for you, just venting.

[RaleighNCDUer]

328. Here's a lefty idea -

Pay for all the teachers is pooled, and distributed according to the dropout rate of the school.

If a teacher's class is getting all 'A's, is that because it's a good teacher, or a bad teacher? Merit pay is a short cut to rewarding the scores on standardized testing. Standardized testing does not teach kids how to think - it only teaches them how to take tests.

There is NO way to award merit pay that reflects how a teacher engages with students, keeps them in school. It is a simplistic solution for a very complex problem.

Know what actually works better? Merit pay for STUDENTS.

[kenfrequed]

362. Bah

Merit pay isn't really good anywhere.

Besides, how the hell would it be calculated?

Number of kids that pass a stupid standardized test?
Grades?
Student/Parent performance evaluations?

Merit pay really isn't good anywhere either because:
The person weighing your "merit" is vulnerable to personal prejudice, or
Most jobs are too complex for proper objective criteria.

[creeksneakers2]

86. Hildebrand isn't attacking you

He's just responding to criticism. There's nothing there that orders you to shut up or anything like that.

[kid a]

89. thanks for summing up my problem with this OP

playing victim of self-defense

and the hyperbolic, paranoid warning at the end is WAY over the top.

[madfloridian]

94. Yes, the "paranoid" again. Very convenient term.

Oh, added "hyperbolic".

Kind of sad. First the 3 hit pieces on Dean that included "the left". Then a couple of others and now this.

It is a warning to those who speak out.

I have supported Obama's campaign all the way, to the point of being attacked by Hillary's folks.

Now I don't belong because the party has moved so far right they think the center is the far left and a danger to them.

[kid a]

133. where on earth are you seeing a warning? can't the man speak?

you are so predictable

I'll be working my ass off the next four years while you whine, gripe, and cut and paste.

[madfloridian]

136. Who started that "cut and paste" thingy? Is that a new meme from the right?

Or something.

[paulk]

355. but it gets the OP attention

and that's the main goal...

[cali]

93. I don't think you're too left. I think you're too endlessly whiny.

And massively self-centered and intent on making yourself out as a martyr. Ugh.

[Radical Activist]

95. lol

She'll probably see your post just as well as she saw mine. It took me a while to figure out what "updating my list" meant.

[gravity]

99. You can offer criticism of Obama

but be constructive about it instead of just complaining and playing the victim.

The reason why he isn't taking the far "left" seriously is because the way they approach the issues.

Obama is someone who wants to bring all sides to together and building consensus on the issues and his agenda. The change he was referring to was ending the partisan battles and actually solving the country's problems. If you don't respect this way of politics, then you will be on the sidelines for the next 8 years.

[madfloridian]

104. Be specific about which issues and the approach.

Frankly I am pretty pleased about how Obama is handling things so far.

So why are there so many warnings to "the left". No one warns Carville or Begala when they cross the line. Rendell and Hillary crossed the line over and over in the primary, but no one lectures them.

Rendell went way off the other day, no problems.

I am very glad Obama wants to bring all sides together. He should include "the left" as well.

Anyone who expresses an opinion is deemed to be "the left."

It has become a joke in our party...they talk to us in GOP terms.

[gravity]

105. Denouncing his picks as centrists is for starters

It really doesn't have to do with the issues, it is just the approach.

You have to be respectful of other people's ideas even when you disagree with them. Instead of demeaning your opponents, understand where they are coming from first, then you can offer criticism. When they criticize your ideas, don't always take it personally either.

All of Obama's team members have the intention of doing what is in the best interest of this nation, and they will take your ideas seriously, if you can take theirs seriously.

[madfloridian]

106. So you are saying I am disrespectful? No, I am not.

I just said that I am not against his picks except the two which indicate that the grassroots will be held at arms length...Rahm and Gibbs.

I think it is disrespectful to think of those of us who speak out as some foreign alien group with the name "the left."

It reeks of elitism.

[RaleighNCDUer]

335. Are you suggesting he picks are NOT centrists?

My hope is that these center-right picks of his are intentional in that by picking them he keeps them under his close eye - they will be effecting his agenda, not off stirring up a center-right DLC insurgency that will undermine his administration. We've all seen how the DLC tends to promote their own power, even to the detriment of the party - look at how they abandoned Gore (after he walked away from them), worked against Dean in 04, and how Clinton -the preeminent DLCer - went on a book instead to campaigning for Kerry.

I'll wait to see if this is a "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" scenario. I am cautiously optimistic that it is.

[jefferson_dem]

110. Amen.

Nicely put.

[seaglass]

111. Make that 4 years not 8 years, that's how long he has to make a

positive difference. I wouldn't assume if I were you that anyone sitting on the sidelines for 4 years is going to be signing up for another 4. Obama has a tough job ahead of him, not only resolving Iraq/Afghanistan/Economy but getting people to believe that watered-down consensus policies are the best we can do.

In addition, while Obama did blow off "the left" on FISA, he didn't on Brennan so don't be so sure that he's not taking "the left" seriously.

[merh]

117. LOL

Yeah, if he isn't nicer to the left they will vote for Jeb/Sarah.

Christ on a crutch, give the man a chance to get sworn in before you condemn him.

[seaglass]

121. haha. I think you are overly sensitive, there was no condemnation

in that post, just reality.

[merh]

154. No, the reality is that Obama has not taken office yet so complaining

about his administration, worrying that he is not progressive enough or is ignoring the left's needs is very premature.

[Laelth]

112. I have only one comment to make.

I note that Republicans don't attack their base when they win control of the government (and their lunatic fringe is undoubtedly worthy of attacking).

k&r

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--sloppy proofreading.

[polichick]

113. Good point.

[noiretextatique]

380. that's an excellent point

things that make you go hmmm....

[brianna69]

114. The progressive left will become the enemy of Obama

Mark my words. I expected it to happen eventually but I really didn't expect them to start trying to cut his feet from under him before he even took office. Look at all the bitching that has taken place and the man hasn't even reached office and attempted to pass any legislation yet. Whatever he does, it will never be good enough. Alot of whining and complaining. Not one good word about the bold proposal of much needed spending that will be coming as soon as January 20 with his proposed economic recovery plan that will deal with critical areas of infrastructure, making us more energy efficient, improving our healthcare system by computerising our medical records, repair and upgrade to schools and putting many people back to work. Instead of posts celebrating what is to come and discussing ideas to make things better we instead have 24/7 bitching because some don't feel cabinet posts choices are "progressive enough". Between now and the end of december, grassroots meetings will be taking place at the invitation of the campaign all over the country to offer their suggetions for health care reform. Daschle will even be stopping by at one of them. Valerie Jarrett recently met with grassroots supporters to encourage their ongoing interaction. Instead of seeing many posts discussing these avenues opened up to us to effect policy by our upcoming administration(an invitation for grassroots participation in policy that has never been offered by another administration), we get whining and complaining that Obama didn't choose who they wanted for a particular cabinet posts.

[madfloridian]

137. When he takes office, we will still be told not to express our thoughts

because it might get in the way of passing legislation.

You will see posts because "the left" is overall well-informed and intelligent. The far right is really not that informed and well-researched. Some of them still believe the earth is only 4 thousand years old, and demand women stay in their proper place.

Yet we are the ones being warned.

[Jennicut]

118. Aren't the people who endlessly complain remind anyone of the complaints against Al Gore in 2000?

He sure was too much of a centrist and such a fake Dem, wasn't he? I would give 8 years of life for Gore to have been prez instead of Shrub. I understand criticism but the endless whining when he has not take office yet is annoying. Let the man do his job first and then you can decide if you like what he is doing.

[NashVegas]

119. These Democrats Strike Me As Republicans Who Are Running From the Fundie Nuts

and trying to take over our party, to cling to power.

[Lorien]

309. That describes the entire DLC. n/t

[L0oniX]

325. I totally agee n/t

[bbgrunt]

122. you said it all mad; it boggles the mind. k and r

[mirrera]

123. K & R

[Mass]

124. Hildebrand is an idiot and I would dread that he becomes DNC chair.

"After all, he was elected to be the President of all the people - not just those on the left."

True, but he was also elected to be president of those on the left as well. How is he going to hear their view if he does not include them in the cabinet and hears only filtered opinions by centrists and RWers.

Obama can be as good as he is. He will make his opinion from the information he gets, and, busy as he is, will be too busy to spend a lot of time searching for opinions outside his cabinet. This is why it is worrying that his cabinet is so centrist RW with so few people on the other side.

[Neshanic]

125. "The Left" is anyone that does not march lock step with President Obama. See? Simple.

[madfloridian]

131. Howie in Seattle summarizes a few other bloggers on Steve's remarks.

Fun with Steve and Jane

Interesting.

[Teaser]

139. *yawns*

*scratches*

[madfloridian]

141. The St. Pete Times was right back in 2003

The "Yes, but" standard -- "Yes, I believe in free speech, but now's not a good time."

[L0oniX]

326. Certainly a rare instance for the St Pete Times ...which I quit reading many years ago.

[DCBob]

142. Totally agree with Hildebrand -- "progressives" should stop whining about Obama's cabinet choices.

In case you did not notice, Obama did not ask for our input on who should be in his cabinet. That's because only he knows who he can best work with to get the job done.

[madfloridian]

144. There you are.

The "Yes, but" standard -- "Yes, I believe in free speech, but now's not a good time."

Was expecting you.

[DCBob]

145. Expecting me?? What are you so hung up about? We should still be celebrating.

This election was the probably the most important "progressive" thing to happen in this country in decades.

[madfloridian]

148. I agree. I respect and appreciate Obama. BUT WHY...

is he letting spokespeople out to admonish "the left" so soon?

It's a little obvious.

[DCBob]

150. Because these early criticisms serve no purpose other than create anger and division...

among some of Obama's best supporters. Obama needs all of us to be working together now as peacefully as possible to focus on how to begin fixing this f'ked up country. There will be plenty of time to cuss and discuss the details later on.

[madfloridian]

152. That is just what I said....free speech only later. This stuff about "the left" is a joke.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/3146

And when he takes office we will be expected to not speak out, and will get the same old warnings we have gotten for years.

I was raised in this fundamentalist culture here in our area of Florida, Southern Baptist, Republican family....

I have seen my country in the last few years turn itself over to a bumbling fool of a president, vote for his agenda, and then chastise those who questioned those votes.

I was not "the left" when I came to DU, when I started being part of the online community. Ask some others here who mocked me. I left one forum because I mercilessly teased for not being left enough.

It's all a big joke now....referring to "the left" or progressives or partisans.

[DCBob]

153. You and the other disgruntled progressives can do what you want but if want this guy to succeed...

then you should lighten up a bit until he has had at least a couple of months to govern. He said he wants to hear our opinions on his position on issues, pro and con, but he has not asked for our input on his cabinet choices.

[madfloridian]

155. "Disgruntled progressives" ....that's a new one.

This is the same thing that happened in 2003 when we opposed the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Our Democrats went along and then they called the rest of us fringe activists.

Sad.

Where have I criticized Obama's cabinet? That is not what my post is about. I have two gripes, Rahm and Gibbs....because they indicate that Dean and those who supported him will be shut out.

[DCBob]

162. You appear to be disgruntled. BTW, I was in a protest march in 2003 just days before the invasion.

And in case you forgot, Obama was also against the Iraq war from the beginning. You and your bunch aren't the only ones with "progressive" beliefs.

[madfloridian]

165. "You and your bunch".....I don't have a "bunch"

[MessiahRp]

244. I do!

And they're tasty! MMMMmmmm!

Actually I fully agree with you and your OP. I think the blindly pro-Obama people here, sadly enough, resemble the Democratic version of Bush Supporters. He can do no wrong in their eyes and the idea of dissent or holding him or his Administration accountable for decisions they make on either policy or staffing appointments is tantamount to us somehow stabbing him in the back.

The irony is it's the other way around. Obama won the primaries mostly because he represented a viable alternative to the well known centrist Hillary Clinton and liberals had long had enough of the Clintons/DLC.

The Pro-Obama/Pro-DLC lines of attack are simplistic and proof that they have zero idea what a representative democracy is all about.

They cry that liberals want a fully progressive/liberal cabinet and without it we'll just whine and complain.

The reality is we're the ONLY group without a single seat at the table. Centrists have overrun every position thusfar and Republicans have been mentioned for key positions as well (with Gates actually retaining his job they have one of these seats already).

We have zilch to show for our hard work, our overwhelming donation base and our efforts to bring real change to the White House.

I would be fine with Hillary as SOS, some Clintonites in main positions and even a few Republicans like Hagel or even Colin Powell in Cabinet seats. But I want progressives in key positions as well. No way should Summers or Geithner who were WAY too close to the current economic meltdown should be anywhere near the treasury. I would have tabbed Krugman and Reich for the key economic positions.

Eric Holder's messy connection to Marc Rich and his aggressive anti-Marijuana policy should have been held out of the AG job. A strong Constitutional Lawyer like Jonathan Turley who can help pour through and restore Constitutional Authority should have been chosen. A progressive Secretary of Labor with actual Labor ties, an environmentalist heading the EPA and some anti-war advisers within the key circle in the Secretary of Defense would make sense. In every other position you can load up on centrists all you want but in key positions there should be liberals.

When it comes down to it really it's this simple.

Liberals have been right about everything the past 8 years. Right about the Iraq War. Right about where the Patriot Act would lead and how illegal wiretapping was going on. Right to believe the Bush Administration was using torture. Right about where the economy was headed. Right about everything.

But the centrists who went along with Republicans at nearly every turn have been consistently wrong. And putting people who are consistently wrong in positions of power to continue to make the same mistakes when there are options out there that are consistently right is not the change we need. It's more of the same.

Rp

[madfloridian]

327. Ha Ha.

Yes, liberals have been right about most everything.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

170. I don't recall helping to elect Obama so his flunkies could tell me

when to think or speak, do you? That's flat out authoritarian bs.

If the new administration can't take my critique, how the hell will they deal with the Taliban?

[Freddie Stubbs]

172. This reminds me of the song "I'm only happy when it rains":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdodc1Eu1nA

Im only happy when it rains
Im only happy when its complicated
And though I know you cant appreciate it
Im only happy when it rains

You know I love it when the news is bad
And why it feels so good to feel so sad
Im only happy when it rains

Pour your misery down, pour your misery down on me
Pour your misery down, pour your misery down on me

Im only happy when it rains
I feel good when things are going wrong
I only listen to the sad, sad songs
Im only happy when it rains

I only smile in the dark
My only comfort is the night gone black
I didnt accidentally tell you that
Im only happy when it rains

Youll get the message by the time Im through
When I complain about me and you
Im only happy when it rains

Pour your misery down, pour your misery down
Pour your misery down on me pour your misery down
Pour your misery down pour your misery down
Pour your misery down on me pour your misery down
Pour your misery down pour your misery down
Pour your misery down on me pour your misery down
Pour your misery down

You can keep me company
As long as you dont care

Im only happy when it rains
You wanna hear about my new obsession?
Im riding high upon a deep depression
Im only happy when it rains
Pour some misery down on me

Im only happy when it rains
Pour some misery down on me
Im only happy when it rains
Pour some misery down on me
Im only happy when it rains
Pour some misery down on me
Im only happy when it rains
Pour some misery down on me ...

[EFerrari]

181. I can see how it would if you equate thinking with misery. lol

[brentspeak]

188. Actually he DID ask for our input, genius:

What do you call this? http://www.change.gov/

[DCBob]

207. Obama did not ask for our input about cabinet choices.

He wants input on issues and suggestions to solve problems.

[rvablue]

147. Besides the Leiberman thing, the fact that Dr. Dean is being kicked the curb

and marginalized by the party at large pisses me off.

With that said, maybe I'm wrong and there will be a place for him.

But right now, it's not looking that way and it is the ONE HUGE issue I have with the Dems right now.

[DCBob]

151. Dean started this movement -- Obama fulfilled it.

Howard will not be left out.

[madfloridian]

163. It's pretty obvious.

And tells a lot about where we are going. Dean's problem was to allow himself to be associated with "the left".

He was a good centrist Democrat who spoke out against Iraq which he knew was wrongheaded. The inner circle blasted him and those of us who supported him for that.

Sounds like you are trying hopelessly to keep us all in line. Good luck.

We started back into politics because of him in 2003. We stayed on and supported Kerry in spite of the support of the Iraq invasion and occupation.

We stayed on and donated monthly to DFA and DNC because we badly wanted change in our party from the corporate side.

We have stopped our monthly donations since Rahm was chosen, and since Dean stepped down.

Those who want my money now...(doubt they will need it)...will have to allow me a voice.

[DCBob]

211. Sounds like you are hopelessly trying to derail the Obama train.

Good luck with that.

[madfloridian]

217. Damn it, that is a personal attack on me. We donated time and money to him.

Hubby and I donated freely to his campaign. We worked locally and statewide for him.

That is the most judgemental piece of crap I have seen her at DU.

How dare you put yourself above the rest of us here.

[DCBob]

235. Ok. sorry. Seemed like you were attacking me too.

I worked hard for this guy for two years and I am totally incredibly ecstatic about winning. It just pains me and confuses me to see so many Democrats question him now even before he has taken office.

[PassingFair]

297. We were the ones laying the TRACK.

We don't want to "derail" him, we
want to assure that coal continues
to be shoveled.

We are the coal, the DLC is the steam.

Big, billowing clouds of vapor.

[MaineDem]

164. Dean chose not to seek re-election as Chair

I think there are many on the DNC who would love to vote for him again. He's stepping down. The DNC is not kicking him to the curb.

[madfloridian]

166. The party leaders are not mentioning his name in public.

Yes, we know he chose to step down.

But he deserves better than being ignored.

[Freddie Stubbs]

173. How exactly is Dean "being kicked the curb?"

:shrug:

[rvablue]

175. Maybe I should have used different language

and the word choice I did use is just a sign of my frustration.

I hope the party finds some use for his amazing talents and right now I don't see him being appointed to anything.....

I really don't know if we would be where we are today as a party were it not for his leadership and I rarely hear anyone talk about that.

With that said, I just hope to see him involved.

[DCBob]

149. The disgruntled progressives should not assume Obama will ignore progressive issues...

because of his cabinet picks. Many of you are way too quick to judge this guy. Give him a few months in office and see how he does. I suspect most of you will be satisfied.

[madfloridian]

158. "Disgruntled progressives" ....new talking point?

[Forkboy]

189. Anyone not disgruntled after the last 8 years is a brain dead reject.

I wear my disgruntlement proudly. ;)

[EFerrari]

201. Disgruntled is the new bitter.

:rofl:

[Forkboy]

203. LOL

Well, I'm that, too. It's all good. :)

:hi:

[EFerrari]

204. It is all good.

:toast:

[DCBob]

212. Any progressive who is disgruntled after winning the most important election in decades..

is confused.

[EFerrari]

214. Interesting. You conflate winning an election with achieving progressive values.

Maybe you are confused. Even Obama said on Election night that this win was only an opportunity, not the end of the road.

[DCBob]

215. Clearly some of you will never be happy with Obama. I suggest you find a suitable candidate and

start campaigning to oust him in 2012.

[EFerrari]

218. Clearly, you are more comfortable smearing feedback than listening to it.

:)

[DCBob]

223. Not smearing -- just concerned many of you are focused on the negative and missing the positive.

There is alot to be happy about now -- even if you are a "hard core" progressive.

[Forkboy]

216. I didn't realize that things were suddenly fixed on Nov. 5th and no more effort is required.

I never get the memos.

[DCBob]

221. Not "fixed" but how about at least moving from disgruntled to hopeful.

Is that possible?

[EFerrari]

222. Hope is what helpless people do when they have no input or recourse.

And since you've already trashed "the left" on this thread, isn't it a wee bit callow for you to be offering "hope"?

[DCBob]

224. I have not trashed the left. I love the left. I am part of the left.

It's you and your buds who are trashing me and Obama.

[EFerrari]

227. Bob, it's very healthy for people to weigh in on our ongoing process.

They'll be all shades of the rainbow, and it will be all right.

The more people like Hildebrand tell them to shut up, the more negative it will get.

[DCBob]

231. I agree with that. I just hope folks keep things in perspective.

I do believe Obama is going to do good things for this country. It may not be perfect but it will be good.

[Forkboy]

229. Sure. Personally, that's where I am.

But I also know that things rarely move themselves without a push, even well intentioned things like an Obama presidency.

Do some of the criticisms go too far right now? Sure.

Do some of the calls to not criticize Obama go to far right now? Sure.

In other words, things are where they always are in life. A give a take between different ideas and thoughts on how to get where most of us want to go. Calls to stifle one side or the other in any form defeat that purpose to me.

[DCBob]

233. That's cool Forkboy. I am with ya on that.

:fistbump:

[Raineyb]

179. Like during the 90's?

I'm not falling for that crap again.

I'll remain vigilant thank you very much and I will start with his cabinet picks until I have more to scrutinize.

Regards

[EFerrari]

167. What a condescending @sshole this guy is.

And he may replace Howard? That's awful.

[joanski0]

168. I'm with you Mad.

These centrist Democrats are the ones who didn't do anything about Bush* stealing the election. They voted for the Iraq War Resolution. They voted for the tax cuts for the rich. They voted for the Attorney General and those Supreme Court Justices, etc. etc. They just want us to shut up and sit down and donate money. Phooey on them!!!!!

[madfloridian]

178. It is about defining a portion of our party as "the left", and using them as scapegoats...

if things go wrong.

TPM has some interesting stuff on it.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/former_top_obama_staffer_hits.php

"The available polling data has shown widespread approval for Obama's cabinet choices, but there has nevertheless been a definite strain of liberal who resents some of Obama's picks, most notably the continuation of Robert Gates as Sec. of Defense. Hildebrand's tone here -- simultaneously defending the need to come together and castigating critics -- might not do much to calm things down.

Really, one has to ask if Hildebrand is really trying to reassure "the left wing of our party," or whether he's trying to stir them up further out of some unknown political calculation or other. After all, many on "the left" have also made Hildebrand's point: They've noted that Obama should be allowed to let his actual policies do the talking, while simultaneously asking completely legit questions about what his choices portend about the future direction of his administration. If merely asking such questions is enough to incite an attack on "the left" from someone in Obama's inner circle, it seems reasonable to conclude that the motive here isn't to mend fences at all."

That's a good point. Please note that I did not even mention his cabinet in my OP except briefly in passing. I have no opinion on most and approve of some greatly. Yet many in this thread chose to make my post about critizing Obama....and it s not about that.

It is about defining a portion of our party as "the left", and using them as scapegoats if anything goes wrong.

TPM also quotes Ben Smith at Politico:

Late Late Update: As Ben Smith notes, the criticism of Obama from the left has actually been pretty mild, and the notion of a left "angry" about Obama's "centrism" and "pragmatism" is largely a media creation. The key point here is that Hildebrand seemed willing to feed that creation by perpetuating the false idea that the "left wing of our party" doesn't want Obama to be "pragmatic" and harbors a set of wild-eyed priorities that are somehow at odds with what Obama views as our major challenges.

It's about that group that is being targeted since election day, just like what occurred in 2004. Same when we won as when we lost. It's the center right, left go away theme....not accidental at all

[EFerrari]

180. Before 2004. This is what they did to Howard's campaign, too.

Remember? Too angry, too engaged, too left. "No you can't!", in other words. lol

[ljm2002]

184. What really pisses me off...

...is the assumption that "bipartisanship" and "inclusiveness" means including every kind of voice EXCEPT from the left.

See, I never expected Obama to govern strongly from "the left". He's a moderate, leans a little left in some ways, but certainly not a leftist by any stretch.

But neither is he a Republic. And yet he is expected to, and does, manage to accommodate Republics by appointing some of them.

Yet he can't seem to find room in his heart, or his Cabinet, or any of his staff for just one bona fide leftist to join the roster of "strong minds" and "strong opinions" that he is putting together.

He's either afraid of a strong leftist voice on his team, or else he knows that any strong leftist that he does propose will be met by howls of outrage by the right, by the Beltway crowd and by the DLC crowd, all in unison. Probably both.

So basically we are considered fringe, and not worthy of a place at the table.

[Generator]

190. Yep some spokesman from the "Democrats"

was on MSNBC today. They shows hosts brought up that some on the left aren't happy with Obama's cabinet and his promises-the "Democratic" talking head response: The FAR LEFT (MEANING anyone that dares to criticize the great Obama, is FAR LEFT-and ANY AND ALL CRITICISM) is just whining. That's what he said.


Which reminds me, many of those on here-aren't Democrats either. They are moderate Republicans that think that's what being a Democrat is. The party was split into something else a long time ago. When I have to read shit like "the people on DU aren't being and I fucking quote-GOOD DEMOCRATS because they criticize then I know half that post on this site wouldn't know a real Democrat if it bit them in the ass.

[madfloridian]

193. Daily Kos covering it now.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/12/8/22946/2517/660/670562

[EFerrari]

200. What does that acronym mean?

lol

Never mind. Got it.

I'm agreeing with Kos. You all better go buy a lottery ticket. :(

[JetCityLiberal]

194. k&r madrfloridian

Stellar info as usual. I am not happy about all these lectures to liberals either.

You are a DU treasure. The ones calling you whiny are some of the most hypocritical posters anywhere, they are not worth the time or response, screw them, their bullshit anger and name calling are all they have. Never read any progressive, liberal, or Democratic posts from any of them ever. They never have facts behind them like you do.

Paul

[rainman99]

202. After 8 years of hard, hard right, we need to go to the left to

center things out.

[DrPresident]

205. DAILY KOS: Steve Hildebrand is speaking for STEVE HILDEBRAND

and NOT FOR OBAMA. Just thought I'd point that out. Here's what it says:

"First off, let us note that this is almost certainly Steve Hildebrand speaking for Steve Hildebrand, and not for the Obama transition team. For one thing, there's no way the Obama press shop would have let this get past proofreading, so full it is of grammatical errors and typos. Second, as you will see, the message of the piece is so far from the message of the Obama campaign that the two are virtually impossible to reconcile."

[EFerrari]

209. Speak for yourself, Barack Obama.

lol

[madfloridian]

210. That is one person's opinion.

Steve is in Obama's confidence and inner circle, so we must assume he speaks for him. Steve is apparently totally unconcerned at the outrage.

Which tells me he does not understand what he really did...he gravely insulted a whole wing of the party that just got Obama elected.

[anonymous171]

261. lol the "progressives" in this thread are having none of that.

[Blue_In_AK]

213. I couldn't agree with you more, MadFloridian.

I don't know why it is that the Progressives get shut out year after year after year. It gets tiresome being taken for granted by the Democratic party.

[diane in sf]

220. Time to replace the DLC Dems from the bottom up, they're almost as bad as repugs

[debbierlus]

230. Obama never tried to hide it. He is a corporatist. His support of the bail-out was the last straw

He had a national platform to lead the people and demand accountability. The right didn't want it nor did the left. He didn't face any political threat from standing up and raging against this thievery of the American people, but he most likely did from the corporate powers that be.

I am not saying there should not have been any intervention, but basically he just went along and advocated for a national bank heist of the American taxpayer (with window dressing).

BILLIONS stolen. Obama did not stand up.

Obama's health plan doesn't address the need to remove the profit from the system. We tried it in MA, and the new health insurance for all system will be finacially insolvent in less then two years.

They have some nerve to lecture us. We are the ones that are RIGHT. We are the ones that advocate not the side of left or right, but the side of logic and sanity.

And, Obama ignores the true strength of the democratic party at his peril. We are not sheep and he is not our idol. If he doesn't do his job and advocate for the Constitution & People instead of the corporations, he will fall out of favor fast with the people who made his election possible in the first place. Because, I think we can all agree, if Obama doesn't advocate for us, then the democrats are no longer are party and it will be time to finally form a viable third alternative.

I am not there yet. But, frankly, this pre-inauguration period has been more of a confirmation of my fears then a rebuttal.

[jefferson_dem]

237. So Obama's a died-in-the-wool certified ..."corporatist"...

Oooga fucking booga.

Guess somebody has to serve as a counter-balance to the hyperbolic "Obama's a socialist" freepers.

This not good enough? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-stimulus_5sdec07,0,3049287.story

[anonymous171]

256. True strength? lol If only the progressive left could stay united for more than 1 week.

[Dystopian]

236. Excellent piece. KandR. n/t

peace~

[KakistocracyHater]

239. I side with Chumsky & his active grassroots

those in power now kick us in the face? wtf? Why should you presume then to represent us, or lie to us & say you will fight for us then, drunk with power, tell the Left to sit down & shut up. http://www.alternet.org/workplace/108964/chomsky:_is_there_truth_in_obama's_advertising/

"...He said that in a democracy, the population has a function. Its function is to be spectators, not participants. He didn't call it the population. He called it the ignorant and meddlesome outsiders. The ignorant and meddlesome outsiders have a function and namely to watch what's going on. And to push a lever every once in a while and then go home...."

"...What he had was an army that he organized of people who got out the vote for Obama. For what the press calls, Brand Obama. They essentially agree with the advertisers, it's brand Obama. That his army was mobilized to bring him to office. They regard that as a good thing, accepting the Lippman conception of democracy, the ignorant and meddlesome outsiders are supposed to do what they're told and then go home...."

"...What they don't seem to realize is what they're describing, the ideal of what they're describing, is dictatorship,..."

[amborin]

265. C. Wright Mills had good insights, too

[antimatter98]

241. If Obama wants war with 'the left' then let's give him one. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

246. LOL.

War? Right.

Chillax, bro.

[Alcibiades]

245. And apparently no liberals are qualified

This is a major disappointment. It was one thing when Obama appointed only people from the right wing of our party, and another when he kept Gates on. Now he's having surrogates lecture us on how we need to accept his march toward the right.

Back when he needed us, Hildebrand wrote about building a "progressive majority." Now he's talking about how the left needs to stop crying and eat their lukewarm centrism. I guess the real Steve Hildebrand has stood up.

[polichick]

253. Just wait for the environmental appointments - you'll see some liberals. :)

[madfloridian]

287. Look what I found at Open Left. Blue Dog Mike Thompson most likely

pick for interior.

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10345

Now this concerns me.

"As Grist notes, Mike Thompson voted FOR Bush's disastrous "Healthy Forests" initiative.

Just think about this for a moment. Obama is possibly about to appoint someone to Interior who voted FOR this crap.

But that's not all!

Mike Thompson voted AGAINST limiting road construction in Alaska's Tongass National Forest. (He was the ONLY California Democrat to oppose!)


And, true to his Legislator of the Year award from Safari Club International (folks who hunt lions, rhinos, elephants), he voted against closing a loophole that allows American hunters to import heads of polar bears."

Seems like he's the frontrunner.

[polichick]

296. A choice like that would be unacceptable imo - hard to imagine Obama being that stupid.

[Alcibiades]

300. The only plus side is that anyone else who would fill that seat

would have to be better than Thompson.

[WyoHiker]

247. I hope this helps

[readmoreoften]

249. And next time they want my vote, they can kiss my lefty ass.

[Skittles]

254. "this is not the time"

where have we heard that before?

[IndianaGreen]

260. If you guys want to bend over to the DLC's alien probe, go ahead!

But we were the ones raising the alarm on Bush's unconstitutional and criminal acts, and we are the only ones demanding that Bush regime officials stand trial for their crimes either here or at The Hague. The Democratic establishment has ZERO credibility!

[kenfrequed]

316. A fine point.

The progressive left has been opposed to Bush since the begining and has stood up to him at times where the DLC triangulators were joining in the republican choir in denouncing people for being unsupportive of the troops (well unsupportive of Bush's war of choice actually).

On every issue we have studied and spoken out and educated the public until some of it started seeping out and by any rational standard we were proven correct. At the same time where was teh party leadership? "Keeping their powder dry."

[MasonJar]

262. Dean was great in the DNC chair position.. He deserves appreciation

for Obama's win. Obama owes him respect.

[MNBrewer]

263. Guess the Democrats are a "center-right" party.

[amborin]

266. they're been so for some time actually

[OhioBlue]

267. I think we should give Steve Hildebrand a break

He's been working ridiculous hours seven days a week for over a year on Obama's campaign. His HuffPo piece is being spun far worse than how I read it.

He said it is not time to draw conclusions - he didn't say it wasn't time to ask questions.

He states that HE is from the Liberal wing of our party.

I think he is just asking in not so eloquent terms that those of us on the left have some patience while the cabinet is assembled. He also stated that Barack Obama is trying to put together a team that he sees as the most competent.

He's probably tired. Tired of the primary fight, tired of the general fight...

I know I am. I work full time, have a 1 year old and put in many vol hours for the campaign. Man was I stressed.... I couldn't even sleep the last week before election day. I just don't have the energy to pick apart the cabinet picks. The economy sucks, Bush is pushing through bad policy before he skips town and I am just looking forward to a sane and decent President.

[madfloridian]

270. I am not criticizing the cabinet.

I am no longer going to tolerate the efforts to make "the left" the scapegoat for all things.

No more.

He should know better than to warn.

We have been donating for 5 years and working our butts off as well. We started supporting Dean in March 2003....donating a lot and often. We continued supporting progressive causes through DFA when he formed that. We donated monthly to the DNC when he was there.

We also worked hard for and supported Kerry and Obama. We were the official go to for the signs and such. We did so much.

I will not let them try to make "the left" sound as if they are to blame for everything.

They did the same thing in 2004.

[OhioBlue]

271. I honestly don't think he's trying to scapegoat the left.

he is the left.

He's human. he's tired. He wishes we had their back as they look at all the shit they have to fix after the destruction Bush caused in every aspect of governing.

That's my guess.

I was at a lunch that he spoke right after McCain "suspended" his campaign to go to D.C. for the mortgage meltdown crisis.

He looked sick. He told us that he talked to Barack right after the meeting - (with McCain, Bush, Pelosi, Reid, et al) He said Senator Obama told him, "Steve, we've got to win this and fast." Implying that things were really, really bad and they didn't trust the Republicans to fix anything.

I understand your points - about the left being scapegoated in the past - hell, hasn't every constituency on the liberal side been scapegoated at some point in recent history? But honestly - I don't think that is what Hildebrand was doing.

[madfloridian]

338. I partly agree....the language is so ingrained into Demspeak that it is natural

for those inside DC to use it.

The putting down of the left of the party began in the late 80s, came to the forefront when Dean was running. But we began to speak out on it then.

I don't think Steve intended to slam anyone, but it does need to stop.

It is discouraging enough to see the way Dean has been treated after 4 years of working his butt off....and it is worse to have someone who was Obama's deputy say that.

Well intended it may have been....but the language needs to change.

[Tutonic]

272. I can wait until January, or February or March, I'm gonna assume

that Obama has not forgotten his mandate that was driven by the left. But I gotta say Madflorian called this one correctly.

[TygrBright]

273. I don't see Hildebrand's name as "spokesperson" anywhere on the Obama website...

...so I take leave to doubt he's speaking "for Obama."

Sounds to me like exactly the kind of shit-stirring that Obama has demonstrated he deplores.

puzzledly,
Bright

[madfloridian]

278. He was the deputy national campaign director of Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

Yes, he is close to Obama.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

304. Hildebrand has said that he was only speaking for himself.

[TygrBright]

312. "Close to" Obama and "speaking for" Obama are not the same thing.

Obama appears to have many people "close to" him whose notions differ from his, sometimes rather largely on some issues.

He seems to be comfortable with letting them say their say on their own behalves, but when he wants the official line given, HE gives it. Or someone clearly and officially designated by him gives it. Through official channels.

Which doesn't appear to be the case with this dipshit running his mouth. Or keyboard, as it were.

reasonably,
Bright

[madfloridian]

357. As I said above, I think calling out "the left" is ingrained in Dem culture now.

And it truly needs to stop. It is habit with them. It started with the DLC's Al From, continued with the DLC's Harold Ford, and in between was fed by varied right wingers like Will Marshall.

It's a habit with them, and it needs to stop.

[Riverman]

274. DNC's McCarthyistic tactics will assure that the Progressives,

who along with the Black community won Obama the nomination by resisting the initially perceived inevitability of the Hilary being crowned the nominee, will surely make live very difficult for the democratic controlled Congress and define Obama as just another do-nothing middle of the road politician and failure as President. If the Demoncrats make this punk Hildebrand the Chairman of the Democratic Party, time to bolt the Party and deny Obama a second term and cut into the Democratic numbers in Congress in 2010. We have fought too hard and come too far to backtract and allow the likes of the DNC to dominate our Progressive movement.

[kenfrequed]

317. There is another good point.

I don't think Obama would have won the nomination without 'the left.'

[caseymoz]

275. My bet is: Obama is not going to abandon the progressive liberals.

IMHO, he's a progressive liberal, but he's also a pragmatist who knows his limits. He needs the expertise of people who have done this before, so I absolutely expected him to make most appointments to the center and even to the right. However, I expect him to be hands-on and keep his staff and cabinet on tight reigns; he will definitely make the decisions.

I think Obama has read a book or two about managing power, but I think he's clearly on our side.

As for Howard Dean: It's pretty standard for an incoming president with a party change to have the Party Chairman replaced. The President becomes leader of the party, and the role of a Party Chairman under a President is different than the role played without a President above him. The job goes from being a leader to being the President's gofer. Dean didn't fit into that role.

I don't think Dean and his works are going to be forgotten by this administration, nor by other Democrats. All I could say is, that last anonymous source really said that tactlessly.

[madfloridian]

280. Obama is not the one I am worried about.

Remember this started during the 2003 primaries. The DLC called a press conference to announce that Dean would not be president.

Al From said that they did not have to "bend knee to noisy activists."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1227

"There's a perception in some media and political circles that Democratic White House wannabes, like their Republican counterparts, must systematically bend the knee to ideologically inflexible and noisy party activists to have any prayer of nomination or election. They should pay attention to what happened in Connecticut on Nov. 7, where even in a strongly anti-war blue state, voters rejected a high-profile effort to exclude Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party. The reality is that, unlike the Republicans who are a much more homogenous party, Democrats can only win with a broad coalition. An expanded party base depends on a spirit of inclusiveness; certainly the House Democratic caucus is more ideologically diverse than it was before Election Day. To remain in the majority, it will need to stay that way."

In 2003 they called Dean and his supporters "fringe"...it was awful.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/62

I trust Obama, but I am tired of the ones who lecture "the left".

[anonymous171]

286. Ahh, so you're concerned that the DLC is trying to slither into Obama's good graces

Valid concern, imo.

[madfloridian]

288. Yes, very much so.

:hi:

[kaygore]

281. Perhaps we need to do what the far right did: Stay home next election

if Obama and his minions actually not only ignore us but make "left" a bad word--worse than it already is.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

305. Obama had nothing to do with this. It was Hildebrand and Hildebrand alone.

[balantz]

283. Kick (too late to rec.)

A whole fucking lot of us are left out in the cold, once again.

[JHB]

289. My simple belief is that FDR wrote the playbook on this when he said...

..."I like it. I want to do it. Now go out there and MAKE me do it."

I also think that a lot of these consultants and apparatchiks are like generals fighting the last war, but for them the "last war" was the '70s, with the McGovern defeat and the rise of Reagan. And their view of who "the left" is is stuck in the same period, except with the pushed-far-right looking glass everything is viewed from these days.

[bridgit]

291. Can "the left" even *be* lectured? Unless & until lectured from a quarter already agreed with?

[brianna69]

292. While people on the left are whining, 79% of the

american public think Obama is doing a fantastic job in transition so far.

[DCBob]

293. Of the 21% disapproval, I suspect about 20% are the wacko righties who will never accept Obama.

So that leaves about 1% for the wacko lefties who are pissed at Obama.

[jefferson_dem]

295. "Obama is a Socialist" and "Obama is a Corporatist" forces UNITE!

[TomClash]

298. Dumb political move

Stoking the fires on the Left is daft. Hildebrand should STFU. Most people I know who are liberal and left are willing to give Barack a chance, waiting to see what he DOES once actually in office - still six weeks from now!

This guy should not become DNC chair.

[EFerrari]

345. This morning I heard that in Sweden, the Worker's Party is making common cause

with the Left Party and the Greens to get the right wing out of office. In exchange, ministers will be appointed from the two smaller parties as well as from the Worker's Party. That's how grown ups do this. :)

[acmavm]

299. You're surprised???? Too bad you missed my posts just before

I was suspended for a while. Because I'M NOT SURPRISED.

I just don't think the guy's done anything yet, so I'll just wait to get my laughs then.

NOTE: I canvassed and phone banked for Obama, so don't even think I'll take an ounce of shit from anyone.

[BlueJac]

302. I am not surprised.....

The beat goes on, sounds like the same old shit going down.

[Dinger]

303. Kick

Wish I could give it a rec, and wish we had longer than 24 hours to rec threads.

[defendandprotect]

311. Agree --

[slipslidingaway]

315. Greenwald - "the claimed irrelevance of presidential appointments

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/08/hayden/index.html

"...(2) Until five weeks ago, I literally never heard anyone claim -- in either party -- that it was irrelevant who the President appointed to his Cabinet and other high-level positions. I never heard anyone depict people like the Defense Secretary and CIA Director as nothing more than impotent little functionaries -- the equivalent of entry-level clerical workers -- who exert no power and do nothing other than obediently carry out the President's orders.

...But what I want to focus on is this justifying claim Hildebrand offers as to why liberal concerns about Obama's appointments are misplaced:

Some believe the appointments generally aren't progressive enough. . . . The problems I mentioned above and the many I didn't, suggest that our president surround himself with the most qualified people to address these challenges.

Since when did "qualifications" become the all-powerful trump card when it comes to political leaders -- even more than one's political beliefs, principles and ideology? As I wrote before, it's a complete myth, a manipulative trick, to claim that "competence" and "ideology" have nothing to do with one another ....But this broader point that pragmatism and "competence" are being valued above ideology is incoherent and manipulative. When it comes to political power, this claim is devoid of meaning. Ideology, by definition, always matters when it comes to what political leaders do. And yet -- just like the brand new claim that high-level appointments don't matter -- many, many people have been easily persuaded to recite this "competence-over-ideology" mantra over and over..."

[madfloridian]

324. Great post from Greenwald: this part.

"When and why did everyone suddenly decide to change their minds about this and start repeating the mantra of some Obama supporters that high-level appointments are irrelevant because only the President counts? For the people who now make this claim to justify Obama's appointments, were any of them objecting during any of the above-listed confirmation fights that those fights were wasteful and unjustified because presidential appointments are irrelevant?

Other than Brennan (and Hayden, if that happens), I haven't felt very strongly about any of Obama's appointments, mostly because they're roughly what I expected. And it is true that a President's actions matter more than his appointments (which isn't saying that the latter is irrelevant). But I nonetheless find it striking how quickly people are willing to spout a position that they never previously believed and even is at radical odds with what they've said and done in the past -- Cabinet appointments are irrelevant! -- simply because the new position justifies what someone they like is doing."

Great post by Greenwald...thanks for calling that to my attention.

[slipslidingaway]

329. Yes and I wish there had been more whining from the Republicans

YW, I also posted it to you in your GD thread in case you missed it here.

"Selling the Wars...two articles from 2002. CNN admits to it. Bob Simon article also."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4614880

[madfloridian]

331. Checking it out now. Thanks.

[Gman]

319. More Whining and complaining

it wasn't 48 hours after the election that the whining and complaining from the far left started. I think there are a great many of them that are not happy unless they are whining and complaining. They don't have any answers... just more whining and complaining. And don't ask for any answers either, because they don't have them.

And that's one helluva hat trick for Sirota to talk about the waaaaahmbulance when he's riding shotgun in his own waaaahmbulance. That one blows me away and that's where I quit reading.

[ShortnFiery]

339. Sirota has made valid points & LIBERALS will not STOP complaining until "the corporate" control over

our Democratic Representatives CONSISTENTLY places 2nd to the needs of "The Hard Working Average American" in their LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES for this Country.

Now, you can take the foregoing declaration to the bank. :evilgrin:

[petwlkr]

343. At least the Repub's are honest about their disdain for liberals

The DNC has a long, well documented history of ignoring the left wing of the party after the elections are over. They love to pander to us and talk about "big tents" beforehand. Then once they have counted our votes and cashed our checks we are treated as silly, idealogical children who need to be sent to our rooms so the adults can govern.

I AM giving Obama the benefit of the doubt so far. Still I must admit that watching him surround himself with DLCers and Clinton administration retreads is causing me concern. Even so I am content to wait and see how he chooses to manage that bunch. However should the time come that I feel that he, like his Democratic predecessors has turned his back on us Progressives then I'll be damned if I simply STFU and tote the party line. If I wanted to be bullied into being a lemming for my party I'd have been a Republican.

[antimatter98]

346. It's Obama's move to brand the left, to marginalize the left.

"Oh, what do you expect, its coming from 'The Left'" is the meme that Obama's team is trying to establish, and this is similar to how establishment Democrats have tried to to it, not just the
Republican right wing and their various spokesmen, Limbaugh, O'Reilly.

The left cannot just sit by idly while this happens, but has to fight back.

Obama got plenty of 'The Left's' cash during the campaign, and should not be surprised
that he's being criticized for the establishment Democrats he's been appointing to his
team.

If anything, 'The Left' let down its guard during the campaign, when Obama did a climb down
over FISA, and made statements like 'can't we get beyond the 60's?' regarding 'The Left.'

We had signals from Obama and should not be surprised that he and his team is trying
to silence 'The Left' through attacks and marginalization.

If the Obama team succeeds in 'branding' the Left as marginalized kooks, the movement
will be in trouble.

[Robb]

347. I would think quite the opposite, actually.

If the Obama team succeeds in branding the left as marginalized kooks, and successfully makes the case to the right that he is distancing himself and his policies from said kooks, he will have created substantial political capital.

How he spends it is another question; however, given his background and how he's handled himself so far, I would give him the benefit of the doubt that it will be spent well.

I think Obama's playing a longer game here, I guess. :shrug:

[madfloridian]

348. Just like the party did in 2004 and previously....distance from your own

is that what you are saying?

Yes, it would give capital in the eyes of the right wing for sure.

[Robb]

351. Not quite

Creating the picture that he's distancing himself from the far left is not the same.

I think, like most things Obama has done, this serves two purposes. First, surrounding yourself with people who disagree with you is good management. Second, by putting them there, he draws fire from (some) on the left. He puts them there anyhow, "showing" he's not beholden to, well, anyone. Which a lot of people, including on the right, admire. Which increases his support, which increases his political capital, which allows him to get a lot more potentially marginal ("just barely passing") stuff done. And that's the kind of stuff we (we leftist kooks) all want him to get done.

There's a lot of theater here, but the great part -- the typically Obama part -- is that it's not just good theater, it's good governing style. He sank a lot of long putts during the campaign, I don't believe he's gone all potty now. :)

[madfloridian]

367. They never "distance" from the right, or even the far right.

They meaning the party. The last four years they have been bringing the Religious Right into the Democratic fold. They never work on bringing in their own..."the left."

It's a learned phrase, and the Religious Right has the power to get them to notice.

Meanwhile at DU we are warned against speaking out lest we upset the applecart.

[Mithreal]

350. Stirred up some discussion on this one, Good Work, MF. nt

[Moonwalk]

359. I don't question your right to question. I DO question....

your hypocritical position that anyone who questions you or your questioning is trying to keep you from questioning. Every other post I see from you is one where you act like like a martyr being nailed to some liberal cross by Obama-worshiping censors. Which is a tactic used to get people to stop questioning you and blindly accept what you're telling them (the Mormons are now doing the same thing, saying that gays are persecuting them, and therefore everyone should agree that Prop. 8 was right, or, better yet, focus on the persecution rather than the arguments for or against Prop. 8).

Everyone and anyone here has as much right to NOT blindly accept what you're telling us as you do to NOT blindly accept and question what you see. If you raise questions then you should be prepared to be questioned. And if they disagree with you questioning, so what? That's their opinion and they're welcome to it. Disagree with it and argue why they're wrong.

And it would help, by the way, if you really examined the arguments you quoted. So far, it seems like most of them aren't saying, "don't question" but rather "you don't have enough information to question." Which is a whole different kettle of fish. Again, if you disagree, present your arguments. Those are far more likely to convince me than your constant assertions that if they question your questions, they're trying to censor you.

[madfloridian]

360. You sound really pissed at me.

Perhaps you should back off and relax a bit.

I think the Democrats are so used to using "the left" as the punching bag that they can't help themselves.

It seems natural to blame the Left of everything.

You are very new here to have read a lot of my posts. Please feel welcome to read them with an open mind.

You totally figured my post wrong, and I think you need to read it again.

Yes, though, the party itself has contempt for "the left". It is a learned response from the last two decades.

[madfloridian]

361. Oh, Mr. Moonwalk...there's a option to hide a thread. Please use it.

I looked for your profile, most of us have one with just enough info to figure someone's posts out and where they are coming from. You don't have one.

[wyldwolf]

364. Moonwalk, you'll get used to it. And she often bumps her own threads over and over.

[paulk]

372. LOL

3 times for just one post!

[madfloridian]

374. 3 way tag team. All is fair in love and tag teams. Now hand it off...

to the next one.

[Name removed]

376. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

365. I just realized you did not get my position at all.

I don't like the Democrats using "the left" as a punching bag after every election to keep drawing the party to the right.

That is exactly what is happening.

Let's see, if I did not want discussion, I would not post controversial stuff. I am amazed you came here, singled me out in such anger. I must have touched a nerve. Discussion is fine, writing 3 paragraphs ripping my views apart is not fine.

I am not hypocritical, the martyr thing is what the incoming centrists use against me, and have since 2003.

I do not expect everyone to agree, but your post is a little obvious.

[bridgit]

383. Wow, dude, thanks...for making me feel like a DUer!!

:toast: :kick:

[mmonk]

368. The term "left" is an imaginary one at this point.

Requesting accountability is not left or right. Those that keep the lies and protections for politicians that break the law will continue to hear from us unreasonable "lefties" and "liberals" and "purists" and "extremists" and anything else corrupt politicians and their mouthpieces across the political and media spectrum love to call reality based concerned Americans. We're not against real bipartisanship to help America, we're against bipartisan lies and corruption. The term "the left" used to describe us is to continue to dismiss our real concerns. It is the speech of political persons.

[madfloridian]

369. Good words...using "the left" as a term of "dismissal."

That's a good way to word it.

[mmonk]

371. Thanks.

I agree with the sentiments you have expressed and also the frustration.

[leftofthedial]

370. it's hard to tell which party hates the left more,

isn't it?

[antimatter98]

377. Well, look at what good having Emanuel is doing, and Citibank bailout..

Robert Rubin, Obama's key economic guy, Mr. Nafta and Citigroup CEO works with Paulson
to hand over billions to Citigroup.

Ms. Hillary and Obama have said 'nuke Iran.'

Emanuel had discussions with Blagojevich about who to appoint to Obama's Senate
seat---which was initially denied by Obama, but now, proves SO TRUE that Emanuel has
had to barricade himself in his home.

And Obama pushed for the $700bn bailout---that handed over gifts to the banks with
no oversight (Bloomberg's FOIA got Treasury's response that they would not reveal
who got 2 trillion of it).

Meanwhile, America's workers are unemployed, about to be on the street, and while
Rubin and Paulson gave billions to Citigroup, nothing for Main Street!

So: is all this giving you confidence that Obama's team is legit and honest and
focused on America, or on their private deals and paybacks?

"The Left" was, and still is not happy with all this, and Obama's guy gives the
left a lecture?

Obama's team is already flunking out of college and the semester has yet to
start. Meanwhile Americans suffer, while Rubin turns his heat up and has a brandy.

[MasonJar]

Thank u for coming to the left's defense. I am appalled that Howard Dean

is not considered a dem hero. Obama would not be pres without Dean. And Hillary is far left of Obama and Bill. Obama has a fine mind, but if he and the dems discount the progressives too much, we will eventually desert. They think we have nowhere to go, but the GOPers are dying in their own stench

[MasonJar]

378. Thank u for coming to the left's defense. I am appalled that Howard Dean

is not considered a dem hero. Obama would not be pres without Dean. And Hillary is far left of Obama and Bill. Obama has a fine mind, but if he and the dems discount the progressives too much, we will eventually desert. They think we have nowhere to go, but the GOPers are dying in their own stench

[MasonJar]

379. Thank u for coming to the left's defense. I am appalled that Howard Dean

is not considered a dem hero. Obama would not be pres without Dean. And Hillary has always been far left of Obama and Bill...despite the attitude of dismissal of her on DU. Obama has a fine mind, but if he and the dems discount the progressives too much, we will eventually desert. They think we have nowhere to go, but the GOPers are dying in their own stench and so progressives can rise to the left out of the GOPer ashes like a Phoenix if the dems continue to be the replication of the Pugs.

[madfloridian]

381. You are right. Dean should be considered a hero instead of being silenced basically.

.

[madfloridian]

382. On MSNBC yesterday Hildebrand mentioned a "new group" formed from..

Obama's mailing list. Will that be separate from the DNC? Will it be only that mailing list?

He said he would not be head of that "new group", but did not say he would not be head of the DNC. Did I read that right?

I am glad that they are having house parties and keeping the mailing list together.

It shows they are following the pattern started by Howard Dean whose name is not mentioned anymore.

He started house parties and community get togethers through DFA and then at the DNC. He even attended some of them himself.

It is good they are using these tactics of community, but some credit should be given...and the one who first used them should not be disappeared so completely from national Democratic stage.