On sitting down and shutting up,

[MadHound]

Yes, the left is upset, we have every right to be. After all, much like a bad Clinton rerun, we're sitting here and watching the structural support of a center-right, corporatist administration being constructed before our eyes. This doesn't bode well for anybody.

We let our guard down when the Clinton administration came in. After twelve years of Reagan/Bush, we sighed with relief and really didn't pay attention to what Clinton was doing during his transition, or even early on in his campaign. We were lulled to sleep by the sheer relief we felt from the changing of the guard. We don't want to get fooled again, so now we're more vigilant about what's happening at the Obama camp, and quicker to call them on it.

Yes, the left is upset, we have every right to be. We have watched as position after high profile position go to those in the center, on the right, and on the corporatist side of the fence(Lawrence Summers for Chris' sake). There's a basic sense of fairness at work here, since the left are the ones who get out and work their ass off in large numbers. We sweated, gave money, and gave our vote in this bid for change. We put our reservations aside(for yes, most of us did realize that Obama was a centrist) and thought, once again, with a show of hard work and good faith, we on the left would finally be rewarded. Let me get this clear, the left doesn't want everything or most things to go our way. What we want is what every other group under this big tent wants, our due reward, an acknowledgment of gratitude, our seat at the table after thirty years of being out in the wilderness. Is this wrong to expect, even demand this? No, it isn't. If those centrists and DLC types watched as Obama had appointed leftist after leftist, Kucinich, Feingold, etc. to his administration, if they had seen trial balloons being dropped hinting at going back on issues near and dear to them, would they not scream to high heaven? Of course they would, and rightfully so. So why is it when the left makes noise on a perceived injustice we're being told to "sit down and shut up"? Why are we being told that we're whiners and complainers and that we should wait and see what happens?

Sorry folks, but it is happening right now, before our eyes. A center right/corporatist/DLC administration is crystallizing before our very eyes, and the time to take action is now, before it's all set in stone. And while those in the center/corporatist/DLC section of the big tent have their representatives who tred the corridors of power, more than willing to pull strings and make deals to get their issues addressed, the left has no such representatives in high places. Even people such as Feingold and Kucinich are of no use with this because the very same Democratic party that they're members of have marginalized them because it is thought that they are too far to the left, even though they have been right on virtually every single issue over the past eight years, a far better track record than centrists and DLC types.

So the left uses its one and only option it has left to get heard, our voice. We scream long and loud in the hopes that somebody pays attention. Well, it looks like somebody is paying attention, so the question now is will somebody actually do something, if for no other reason than to shut us up. This is democracy in its most essential form, and for Obama's representatives, or any other Democrat to complain is a sin and a shame. This sort of push for the left to get in line smacks of Bush era discipline, and is that the kind of example that Obama wants to set? I should hope not.

If for no other reason than sheer political pragmatism, Obama needs to pay attention to the left. If he wants to keep his majorities in Congress, if he wants to get re-elected, if he wants his programs to roll out smoothly, then he needs the left. For while we have had little power inside any administration for decades, we have become quite adept at tearing down those that we disagree with. This isn't a threat, this is simply realpolitik, how our democracy works. Change and Hope are fine things to have, but it's only through pragmatism and hard work that things actually get done.

So no, the left isn't going to sit down or shut up. We're going to keep up the noise until we get what every other faction in this big tent has gotten, a place at the big table, a fair hearing for our issues and concerns. And for those who don't like this, too bad. Since when did being nice and polite ever get anybody anything in this society of ours?

[monmouth]

1. I'm on the left and a liberal. I'm not one bit upset. I love BO's cabinet choices...n/t

[babylonsister]

2. I'm okay with all choices so far. And, I'm holding my criticism

until the guy has the job and does things worthy of my criticism. Until then, I'll remain a happy camper, happy that an adult is finally in charge.

The alternative could have been so much worse.

[monmouth]

3. Amen...n/t

[BlancheSplanchnik]

164. I feel good about the choices so far.....

It's clear that Obama knows he has to work within the game, and can't really start constructing his vision until he takes office.

Choosing people with tons of experience and smarts, as well as people who can work from within the system is good strategy.

His track record has been excellent, which I take as a good indicator of future behavior.

Meanwhile, he's the one who will make the executive decisions---let's see what he does.

[bvar22]

188. Plenty of people are happy with Obama's choices.

You are in good company.

"The new administration is off to a good start."
-- Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell.


"Superb ... the best of the Washington insiders ..."
-- David Brooks, conservative New York Times columnist


"Virtually perfect ... "
-- Senator Joe Lieberman, former Democrat and John McCain's top surrogate in the 2008 campaign.


"Reassuring."
-- Karl Rove, "Bush's brain."



"I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain ... this all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign ... Clinton and Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for 'neo-liberalism' which is not so different in many respects from 'neo-conservativism.'"
-- Max Boot, neoconservative activist, former McCain staffer.



"I see them as being sort of center-right of the Democratic party."
-- James Baker, former Secretary of State and the man who led the theft of the 2000 election.



"Surprising continuity on foreign policy between President Bush's second term and the incoming administration ... certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush ... "
-- Michael Goldfarb of the neoconservative Weekly Standard.


"I certainly applaud many of the appointments ... "
-- Senator John McCain


"So far, so good."
-- Senator Lamar Alexander, senior Republican Congressional leader.


Hillary Clinton will be "outstanding" as Secretary of State
-- Henry Kissinger, war criminal


Rahm Emanuel is "a wise choice" in the role of Chief of Staff
-- Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, John McCain's best friend.



Obama's team shows "Our foreign policy is non-partisan."
-- Ed Rollins, top Republican strategist and Mike Huckabee's 2008 campaign manager



"The country will be in good hands."
-- Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush's Secretary of State


http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/109160/neocons%2C_republicans_and_war_criminals_rave_about_obama%27s_%27team_of_rivals%27/

[HopeFor2006]

228. Hey there friend!

It's been a long time. How are you? :hi:

[bvar22]

239. Hi, Hope!

Its been a little over 2 years.
I miss the urban/multicultural, enlightened, Liberal ambiance of Minneapolis sometimes, but dearly love my little hilltop in the backwoods of Arkansas.


How are you and the kids?
Say HI to everybody for me.

[HopeFor2006]

250. Gorgeous picture...

As always! The girls are both in high school this year. Can you believe it? We are going to have our DU holiday get together the Saturday after Christmas. Perhaps you can join us online.

[bvar22]

251. Cool!

I'll check in the Minnesota Forum,
or
You all can meet at my house for the Christmas get-together! :)

[HopeFor2006]

252. ALL of us?

That would be an adventure.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

236. bvarr22.......

oh.

eww, I don't much like that company.....

thanks for info I missed -- I don't watch TV, pretty much avoid media as much as possible, and get what I do by sifting around on the internets.


(geez OT, but why do I feel as if I have just done something rare on DU, by thanking you and admitting my perspective may be incomplete?)

[BlancheSplanchnik]

237. oops addendum--I got distracted and the edit period ended

on edit, guess I'll just say that maybe maybe maybe it's smart strategy in that if the bastards who largely created this giant fuckarow think their interests are protected.....

:shrug:

meanwhile, I have no political power, and no influence on public power, so I can only wait and see.....

[bvar22]

243. I don't doubt Obama's brilliance,...

...and cling to that what you suggest as a possibility.

[Skittles]

136. that would be part of the left's problem

[bonnieS]

154. MadHound, you are right

Not one liberal and so-called liberals are happy with that. Shows why we get nothing. Shows why our Party and everyone else has contempt for liberals.

[elocs]

161. I'm with you--I am not upset one bit at all either.

In the real world you don't get to have everything your own way. I think that there are many who have been in the critical attack mode for so many years that they don't know what else to do. "Impeach Obama" cannot be far off.

[liberation]

172. Are we talking "American Left" or "Metric Left"

Because I am growing more certain by the minute that a lot people in this country wouldn't know what the left stands for at all.

That is how much to the right this country has shifted, truly scary.

[defendandprotect]

173. Why not?

The DLC isn't liberal -- it's there to support corporate agendas

and move party to the right ---

Wouldn't you want to see people who represent YOUR opions on issues

in the Cabinet--?

They're not even calling it the "Cabinet" anymore--!!!

[Stuckinthebush]

240. Same here...I'm very happy

Obama won't be able to please everyone...

[anigbrowl]

253. Me too. Got myself a ticket to the re-education camp now, I suppose.

[LaurenG]

4. I'm on the left and not upset.

In my mind people are overreacting - maybe I'm missing something but I've said it before and I'll say it again. Obama needs smart, able, experienced people. He has his work cut out for him with JUST the economy. It's the economy for now and only the economy, until that's dealt with none of the rest of this matters.

However if it makes people feel better to worry and stew over this fine. Yell and stand, shake your fists and insist that if it's not done your way you'll continue. :shrug:

Maybe just run for office and win so you can pick all the cabinet members and set the agenda.

[MadHound]

7. So you have no worries about a pro war foreign policy and national security team?

A centerist/corporatist economic team? Lawrence Summers having the ear of the President?

This sounds like much of the complacency that greeted the Clinton transition, and how well did that turn out? Deregulation, bubbles and the rise of government for sale.

Well, if this doesn't bother you, fine. Just don't later claim that you weren't warned.

[LaurenG]

17. I don't believe that we willl have a pro war foreign policy

I don't believe that PE Obama has that stance himself and it's HIS policies they will have to follow. No one is being complacent (well maybe some are)and Barack Obama is not Clinton so whatever you think is going to happen probably won't.

What bothers me is that so many people are unwilling to let the man take office without losing it. We are headed to a place on a level that this country has never been before, that much I know.

[MadHound]

24. Obama has floated trial balloons about delaying the withdrawl from Iraq

And other balloons about leaving up to 70,000 "residual" troops in Iraq. Combine that with his plans to ratchet up the Afghan front, that's starting to sound pretty pro-war to me:shrug:

And while you may be willing to let the man take office, the fact of the matter is that the structure and nature of his administration is crystallizing before our very eyes. By the time he takes office, much of it will be set in stone, much the same happened with Clinton. Therefore it's imperative to make our voices heard now while we can still have a real affect. Otherwise we could very well be out in the cold again. Besides, this is how democracy works, we put pressure on our reps to make the change we want to see. The left simply has to be more vocal about it, since unlike the centrist or corporatist DLCer's, we've been shut out of the corridors of power.

I can appreciate your blind faith and optimism concerning an Obama administration, however I cannot share in it. After all, these are politicians that we're talking about here, and we've all been fooled by them on more than one occasion.

[LaurenG]

45. This is not blind faith anymore than your worries are all projections

I am positive that there will be things he does that I hate. Just as I'm sure there will be many things he'll do that you'll be grateful for. It's not going to work out exactly like either of us want but it isn't as if he just stepped out of who he is and had some DLC'er take over his body either.

As I stated above this is not going to turn out as you fear and when the issues arise, we can deal with it then. What you are trying to do is to criticize a behavior you think is forthcoming. Since you're concerned it is up to you to keep an eye out for things that are unacceptable but first you have to see and hear the plan, out of his mouth. Until then this is speculation and we all know how that turns out. Remain guarded and vigilant but don't try and tear him up for things that haven't even happened yet.

[MadHound]

46. Interesting disconncect, interesting projection

You claim that this isn't blind faith, yet a paragraph later state "this is not going to turn out as you fear" Certainly sounds like blind faith to me, much the same sort of blind faith many exhibited during the Clinton transition.

And what I am criticizing is Obama's picks for his administration, the trial balloons he has put up, not what I think is forthcoming. That will wait for the future. Mainly, the point that I'm trying to get across is that the left deserves a spot at the big table and a fair airing of our ideas. We haven't gotten either yet, just this memo to sit down and shut up.

[LaurenG]

51. Interesting disconnect on your part as well.

Are you claiming you are not disconnected and projecting? I am telling you that you are struggling with an imaginary demon. It's as if you are creating trouble because of what a past administration has done and laying the same things at the feet of Obama.

He may turn out as you say but I going to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am positive he will do things we both disagree with, what manager doesn't?

Take a deep breath and wait to see what happens, for crying out loud he's done nothing but choose employees so far. I'm willing to see if he's a big liar or he's a man of his word. I doubt he'd have gotten this far if he were a turncoat but we'll see.

[MadHound]

55. You can put your faith in a politician, however I never will

I've seen the effect of what that sort of blind faith does, and thus I don't extend that to any politician. Never have, never will.

The reason that this is so urgent is due to what I mentioned in my OP. Right now is when things are still crystallizing, before they're set in stone. Now is the time to speak out, to make a difference because once Obama takes office, his administration is pretty much set in stone, and getting any sort of change will be like cutting through a stone wall with a pin.

Of course he will do things that we both disagree with. What I'm looking for is balance, and so far I've seen none.

[LaurenG]

71. OK so you are very worried about this.

That would be normal, especially now.

Just don't panic yet.

[bvar22]

84. The track records of his cabinent appointments,

the promises to escalate the War in Afghanistan,
the embracing of "Free Trade",
supporting the No Strings "Bailout" of Wall St CEOs
The broken promise on FISA,
The backpedaling on Iraq withdrawal and rescinding the Bush taxcuts,

NONE of the above are "IMAGINARY", and are cause for serious concern among the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Jester Messiah]

168. Your "concern" is noted.

Crimony people, he hasn't even taken office yet. Could you maybe SEE what he actually does before you jump on the "traitor to The Cause" bandwagon?

[bvar22]

193. Your Lack of Concern is noted.

"Centrism"...a Dogmatic Ideology without the nuisance of a foundation in Ideals.

Whatever is In the Middle is good enough for me!

[Jester Messiah]

238. Enjoy your seat on The Fringe

Where nothing ever gets done and you can comfortably whine and moan about everything, secure in the knowledge that you'll never have to address real-world concerns.

[EFerrari]

105. What is imaginary about the deregulators, the free traders,

the heart of the DLC corporate centrists, torture supporters and intel twisters? Even I couldn't imagine all of that.

Maybe DC is by now so steamingly corrupt that those are the best choices. It's still a mistake to ignore what these people bring into the administration, imho.

[mkultra]

170. sorry but you not really paying attention

the discussion about a phased re-deployment was exactly his plan.

The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is that Afghanistan actually housed the people that currently want to kill us.

[Sex Pistol]

135. Under Clinton, the Dow went from 3,310.00 to 10,940.50, a total of 230.5%...!!!

Does that bother you?

[MadHound]

151. Under Clinton the financial sector was heavily deregulated,

Setting the stage for the mess we're in now. Under Clinton, the gap between the rich and the rest of us first opened to a record breaking chasm. Under Clinton, disaster capitalism was perfected in the laboratory of SE Asia(with Lawrence Summers helping lead the charge). Under Clinton, American manufacturing jobs started leaving this country at a record breaking pace. Under Clinton, the social safety net was ripped to shreds. Under Clinton the media was allowed to consolidate itself to the point where five corporations now own ninety five percent of the media in this country. Under Clinton.

I see that you're one of those suckers who was taken in by the bright shiny DOW numbers, and didn't pay attention to what else was going on. The DOW is a horrible indicator of what the real economy is like in this country, but it's trotted out there every single day as some sort of oracle of the economy. It isn't. All that the DOW figures you mention indicate is that the financial sector did real well in this country under Clinton. And that, in and of itself, is a very disturbing trend. Go read Kevin Phillips "American Theocracy" to find out why. Also read his "Wealth and Democracy" along with some Zinn. Educate yourself so that you're not taken in by those bright and shiny DOW numbers.

[defendandprotect]

175. Exactly ... much was lost with Clinton-DLC agenda --

[mkultra]

211. if you are refering to the Glass-Steagal repeal

this was not a Clinton thing.

[riverdale]

219. Glass Steagall -

After 12 attempts in 25 years, Congress finally repeals Glass-Steagall, rewarding financial companies for more than 20 years and $300 million worth of lobbying efforts.

There is certainly a lot of blame to go around. Check this link for information:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

[MadHound]

223. Glas-Steagal is just the tip of the iceberg

Go take a look at what he did to commodity markets and other parts of the financial sector, not to mention the '96 Telecom Act and oh so much more. Hell, Clinton did more deregulation than Reagan did.

[mkultra]

226. and that is pertinent to the financial meltdow in what way?

[MadHound]

233. Oh geez,

:banghead:

Are you really that ill informed, that uneducated?

All that fine deregulation that Clinton did, and yes, Clinton did do it, at the behest of the financial sector who were his top money donors in both election, all that fine deregulation set the bubble markets going in tech and housing, let the speculators in all areas of finance run wild(can you say hedge funds?) and basically set the stage for this crash. Really, go educate yourself please. It would make our conversations on this topic so much easier. Start with "The Shock Doctrine" or Kevin Phillips "Wealth and Democracy" or "American Theocracy".

Without that deregulation binge put on by the Clinton administration, we wouldn't be anywhere near the mess we're in now. Get it?

[mkultra]

227. glass-steagal was veto threatened by clinton

the dem congress passed this repeal.

[MadHound]

234. As I've said before, it's not just Glas-Steagal

It's the entire package of deregulation that the Clinton administration pushed through. And as I said earlier, Clinton did more deregulating than Reagan did, and we're paying the price for that now.

Again, go educate yourself. Perhaps some basic economics or finance courses:shrug:

[Sex Pistol]

217. Yes, I am one of those suckers who longs for the return to economic prosperity.

[MNBrewer]

153. spoken like a true anarchist?

Yes, that bothers me. Lots of cash went into a few pockets.

[Sex Pistol]

218. Lots of cash went into lots of pockets. I did very well, how about you?

[mkultra]

231. i heard the local anarchists tried to have a meeting

but they couldn't force themselves to get organized.

[bvar22]

186. That kind of "Paper Growth" should bother anyone.

When property values doubled and tripled ON PAPER without any real physical value added I got scared. While most were celebrating all the FREE MONEY and Refinancing and Stepping Up, my wife & I quietly sold what little we owned and got the fuck out of town before it was too late.

[Sex Pistol]

220. Good for you. You must share your market timing attributes with the rest of us.

[mkultra]

232. "real physical value?"

[Window]

123. I'm on the left and quite pleased with Obama and his choices thus far.

I'm sure I won't agree with everything he does and says, but I do trust him to do his level best.

[lamp_shade]

5. Such a shame... you're so unhappy... my goodness. n/t

[MadHound]

9. Unhappy, no. Concerned, yes. A big difference between the two n/t

[fasttense]

6. Obama is not in office yet.

I want to see how he uses these republicons and centrists he has on his team.

When I was a manager, I had a whole lot of different people who worked for me. Some did not like me. Some had totally opposite opinions from me. Yet we worked well as a team and got the job done.

You don't have to think just like your boss to work well for him/her. Most people take pride in their work and will put aside personal likes and dislikes to get the job done.

If some Obama policy or actions offend me, then I will scream.

Yes, I learned from Clinton not to give a Democratic leader a free pass. Keep an eye on him and take action if he goes the wrong way.

That said, I appreciate those supposed "far" left Democrats who are screaming now because of some of Obama's picks. They are a warning to the DLC not to turn their back on us. Keep up the good work.

[jefferson_dem]

8. Please.

Lighten up. Believe it or not...Obama's victory does not signal the end of American liberalism.

[MadHound]

10. I'm not saying that it does

What I am saying is that the left deserves what other factions can afford to take for granted, a spot at the big table and recognition and reward for our contributions. That's how a big tent supposedly works.

[jefferson_dem]

13. Point taken.

:thumbsup:

[mkultra]

171. The left is what owns the tent

There is no right agenda in this administration. If thats what you REALLY think, then you don't understand the enemy. It is fair to say that there are very few FAR left appointments. This would be representative of the party demographic.

[liberation]

177. Hum... no, not at all.

From a policy stand point, Obama is a centrist on the best day... and a moderate conservative on a bad hair day. His cabinet choices are either moderate (again in the best case) or right out hawkish in others. I.e. his cabinet choices range from centrist to moderate conservative.

The fact that, as you stated, there are not "far left" members in his cabinet does not make the other reality: the fact that there are no true liberals in his cabinet, any less true.

That being said, as a liberal, I never made any sort of denial about what Obama was bringing to the table. I am not dissapointed, that does not mean I am not happy with it, as no real liberal would be (I am dam tired of always have to be the one compromising his principles)... Alas, the small consolation comes from the fact that we have hit rock bottom with Bush, and Obama can't possibly be any worse. So there is some solace on that.

[mkultra]

191. well, if you think Obama is centrist to right

then it is safe to say that your vision of left will probably never be the majority choice and you better get adjusted to compromising.

[JuniperLea]

216. You nailed that... eom

[scarletwoman]

11. Hear, hear! I totally agree.

I don't have time to post more right now, but I wanted to at least let you know that you're not alone in your viewpoint.

Peace,
sw

[MadHound]

12. Thanks, I appreciate the support

I'm fully expecting to get flamed, but hey, we on the left are used to that around here.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

166. I fully agree with the OP as well

Like you I am concerned and I am not ready to throw Obama under the bus just yet, but his choices are alarming. Lawrence Summers!!!??? I couldn't believe it. Hillary Clinton??? Liberals need a seat at the table, we are the ones that got him elected, I got behind Obama's candidacy from the beginning. He is my state senator. I am holding out hope but like you I have a really hard time trusting any pol.

[Lorien]

59. Seconded. n/t

[WyoHiker]

145. Battle Plan

In my Company, I have a strict "No Whining" policy. When instituting this policy, I had to be very clear on what constitutes whining. Whining is pointing out a sub-optimal situation only for purposes feeling pitiful, or crying about it, or feeling angry about it, and for trying to get others to feel similarly. From a business perspective, this is a waste of time at best, and usually very counterproductive. "Man, this sucks. Don't you thinks it sucks? How sad it is that this sucks so badly. Boy, it pisses me off that this sucks. Why do we even bother? I'm thinking of quitting because it sucks." and so on.

Complaining, or constructively criticizing, on the other hand, is ESSENTIAL. You can't fix a problem until the problem is articulated and articulated with the intent and effect of inspiring others to join you on the search and implementation of the solution. "Hey, this sucks. Wouldn't it be great if we fixed it somehow? Here's what I think, but I'm pretty sure it's not a complete solution. What do you think? Really? OK. Let's try this."


So, in the spirit of complaining, but not whining...


We, on the Left, are to the Democratic Party what the Fundamentalist Christians are to the Republican Party. We are extremely important during the election cycles and a major liability the rest of the time.

When we fail to sit down and shut up and then go and vote for someone like Nader, we are blamed for the party's woes.

Government is about consensus building. On a day to day basis, well after the elections are over, a good leader manages to scrape together enough votes to do some kind of good for someone somewhere. Clinton was a master at this.

Very regrettably, the left currently repels, rather than encourages, consensus. The Republicans have masterfully branded us as Baby-Killers, Uber-Taxers, Enablers-of-the-free-loaders, cowards, dangerously naive when it comes to our enemies, economically unrealistically when it comes to energy or environmental policy, weak, oversexed, elitist (god, the irony of that one), arrogant, Antagonistic-towards-religion, Book-smart-and-world-stupid, and on, and on, and on.

Given that kind of baggage, even with a candidate like P.E. Obama, we owe a great deal to W for messing up so badly that many Americans held their noses and voted for the Democrat anyway.

The fact that P.E. Obama is now playing to the middle is not the least bit surprising. Whether or not he wants to, I don't know, and I don't really care. He HAS to! Otherwise, he'll be a very ineffectual one-term president.

So, the problem is not with P.E. Obama. It is with the middle of the electorate. They have moved way, way, way too far to the right.

And the fact that they have drifted has as much to do with us as it has to do with very bad publicity.

My solution: Engagement and Visibility. Greatly improve the image of the 'radical left' at the grass roots; get that middle moving back our way again. Get the message out there.

BUT BE HUMBLE. Ann Coulter's book was entitled something like, "How to talk to a Liberal, If you must." It's only in the last day or two that I've come to realize that this title could show how condescended-to the conservatives might feel when we talk policy and politics with them. We are usually academically correct, and, boy don't we know it! And when they don't get it, or when they reject it, the problem clearly lies with them, their upbringing, their education, their I.Q., their genetics, their religion, their part of the country, etc, etc, etc... It can't possibly have anything to do us 'cause, after all, we are academically correct. It's very easy to imagine an even more condescending book called, "How to talk to a Conservative, If you must."

So, getting back to engagement, tell the centrists and conservatives in your life what you believe and how it is better. Keep on it. If you can, and you think it would help, tell them why you think so. But above all, be respectful, non-judgmental, and (dare I say it?) loving.

Even Better still, live out your convictions. Since you care about global warming: park the car and then walk, bike, or bus. Since you care about the homeless: donate generously to the local food bank. Since you care about the military: volunteer at the VA. Since you care about gun control: learn a thing or two about the guns you're wanting to control. (Take up target shooting.) Since you care about gay rights: respect someone else's right to be completely freaked out by the whole idea. (Don't go taunting them for your own amusement.) Since you care about choice: help out at a pregnancy crisis center for young mothers who've decided to carry to term. Are ya gettin' this? Find a way to act positively and do it.

All the while, continue to work the elections and keep nudging your elected officials to do the right thing, but don't expect too much too soon. They have to answer to everyone.

None of this is sexy. There's no fame or money here. And it will take time -- lots of it. But do these things, and the middle will gradually move back to the left, where it belongs. After this, the politicians will naturally pass laws better suited towards our ideals.

So, there's my take. I'm pretty sure it's not the whole picture.

What do you think?

[cali]

14. oh yes, the entire left is upset and YOU are the great spokesman for the left

what a pile of delusional hubristic dogshit. Issue all the dogshit you wish. No one is stopping you. Use every stock slogan you can dig up. No one is stopping you. But do try to speak for yourself and not the entire left. YOU don't fucking own it, and your definition is not the word of god.

As usual the list of liberals Obama should have appointed is limited to two: Feingold and Kucinich. Pathetic.

You can whine on endlessly as far as I'm concerned with your false accusations. But you don't get a pass on it from me.

Criticism is fine. Mindless lying ass smearing is something else.

[lamp_shade]

18. ''

[MadHound]

19. You spew a lot of heat and vileness, but do you have anything to back your ass up with?

I've watched you on these threads, and all you can respond with is insults and flames. Why is it that you refuse to engage in an unheated exchange? Why are you treating those of us on the left like we're members of the Bush administration? But hey, keep it up, for you continue to prove my point with every insult you hurl.

Why is it that you find the left's demand for a spot on the big table to be such a big threat? Why do you think rewarding the left for our hard work on the campaign to be such a bad thing?

Also, a couple of points of clarification. First, I don't think that I'm the "great spokesman for the left". Never claimed to be, never will claim to be. I'm doing what you and everybody else around here does, offering their opinion, generating discussion. Why are you so insistent on trying to shut that down in certain quarters? All that I'm doing is reflecting what has been acknowledged by the media, the masses, and even the Obama camp itself(or did you not catch the Hildebrand article the other day).

On another point, the reason I offer up Kucinich and Feingold is twofold, they are the ones who are most well known, and they are the ones who are closest to the corridors of power. Sure, there's a long list of others, but what's the point of boring everybody with it. Geez, picky picky picky.

Oh, and if you can find an example of "lying ass smearing" in my OP, I'd be interested in seeing it. Until then, all you're doing is engaging in, well, "lying ass smearing" :shrug: Good show, I think.

[cali]

25. I'm sick of propaganda. I don't give a flying fuck what political

corner it comes from. I disagree that Obama is setting up a "corporatist" "right wing" "war mongering" administration. There is scant evidence for any such thing. And I'm damned sick of the lie that the left is being persecuted and told to shut up. For instance, the Hildebrand missive, was hardly a directive to shut up and sit down. It expressed a desire to see the left give Obama a chance to govern before drawing conclusions.

I'm against rewarding any faction for work on the campaign. Liberals/Progressives should be appointed and listened to by this administration because our voices are vital. Where we part company, is I see evidence that that is happening: Melody Barnes, Valerie Jarrett, David Bonior, David Axelrod, etc. \

As for lying ass smearing: Stating unequivocally as you so frequently do that Obama is catering to right wing corporatists is a smear.

[MadHound]

30. For one who is sick of propaganda, you sure to spew a lot of it.

You can disagree that Obama is setting up a "corporatist" "right wing" "war mongering" administration.", that's fine. But the evidence says otherwise. Look at his picks for his administration, I mean really now, Summers for Chris' sake. And his trial balloons for delaying Iraq withdrawl, ratcheting up the war in Afghanistan, hey, if the foo shits:shrug:

And if you're against rewarding any faction of the party for their campaign work, then you're horribly ignorant of how realpolitik works in this country. And I notice that all you can name are minor appointments, seats at the kiddies table, and really now, are they all really leftists? No, and the fact that you include Axelrod in that definition simply goes to show how far off the mark you are with the definition of the left(though given your invectives, that's really not surprising).

And frankly, given Obama's picks and balloons, no, I don't think I'm lying, neither do millions of others in this country.

[cali]

47. It's clear you don't have a clue what constitutes propaganda. And not the evidence is not strong.

I'm willing to bet you know no more than I do about economics. I certainly don't agree with some things that Summers has said, but I am hardly competent to judge the body of his work. Krugman is, however, and he doesn't view Summers in the simplistic, demonizing way you do. Reich is competent, and he doesn't either. Both have spoken of Obama's economic team with praise. I'm willing to wait and see what they do.

I disagree with Obama on Afghanistan. But he made perfectly clear that increasing troops there was going to be a priority. Does that make him a war monger? I'd argue that that's another simple minded take on the situation.

Minor appointments? Jim Jones is National Security advisor and judging from past statements he's made, we could actually have a more even handed approach to I/P. That's a big deal in my book. Hillary Clinton is a moderate, not some hard line right wingnut. And Gates may very well have kept us from attacking Iran. Also a big deal. This is not a pro-war national security team.

From what I've read about Axelrod he's an old school liberal. If you have any evidence to refute that, where is it? And Valerie Jarrett and Axelrod will be two of the highest level advisors in the WH.

Furthermore, if Obama is the pro-war, corporatist satan you believe him to be, what is he doing standing with the workers at Republic Windows and Doors? Where is the evidence that Obama favors corporations over workers?

And tough shit for you that you are in a very small and rather insignificant minority, dear. An overwhelming number of people approve of his actions since the election.

Obama's agenda of creating jobs through big gov't spending, of joining the rest of the world in tackling climate change, of appointing judges and justices in the vein of Ginsberg and Breyer, of increasing diplomacy, etc, are hardly right wing or corporatist.

[Maru Kitteh]

254. Thank you so much Cali, for taking the time to state so clearly what needed to be said here

I avoided this thread for days because I knew it was just going to piss me off...... all of the hand-wringing and woe-is-me Barack Obama OWES ME A PONY bullshit around here before the man has even raised his hand for office is so old.

Some people are clearly not happy unless they driving nails into their bodies on a cross of their own making while screaming to an audience about their persecution and pain.

Thanks for speaking up Cali.

[Two Americas]

112. no doubt

Propaganda - "information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause."

You oppose the causes you disagree with. Be honest about that and make your argument on the issue at hand, not about how you feel about those you disagree with.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

257. Cali's Posts Were Spot On. You Are No Spokesperson For The Left.

You speak with extremity and if anything you represent the irrational fringe left but in no way are in a position to dictate what is and isn't left or who is or isn't left. I'm on the left (despite what some of the closed minded morons think) and I'm embarrassed constantly by some of the extremist left irrationalities found here.

[MadHound]

258. Never said I was, but rather that I was using a rhetorical device

However for some reason some people are choosing to focus in on that rhetorical device rather than the issues I brought up. Hmm, wonder why:think:

As far as being on the "extremity"(what, I'm an appendage now:eyes:), I'm sure that to you it certainly appears that way. Then again, judging by your many, many previous posts, anything to the left of Reagan is extreme and fringe:shrug:

[Two Americas]

114. that is a lie

That is a lie - "the list of liberals Obama should have appointed is limited to two: Feingold and Kucinich. Pathetic."

Were you not on that thread last week where dozens and dozens of alternative suggestions were offered, and where very strong cases were made for them?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

167. Funny

All I ever see Cali do is spew shit since I have been on DU.

[liberation]

180. No kidding...

I am amazed he has so much free time, the penchant displayed for telling other people to either shut up or antagonize them almost made me think he is O'really undercover. LOL

[QueenOfCalifornia]

242. You are acting like an ass.

The op did not do any lying that I saw.

You have a mean streak and sometimes Cali, you should think before you type.

[ShortnFiery]

15. Bless you MH! You are "preaching to the choir."

:yourock: :thumbsup: :applause: :hi:

[bunnies]

16. On speaking for everybody else.

Dont.

Not all members of "the left" are upset. Some of us (pragmatists) are actually willing to give Obama a change to take office before we wig out.

[MadHound]

20. I'm not speaking for everybody else

I am expressing a generalized opinion that is held by a lot of people on the left, a fact which is recognized both in the media and in the Obama campaign itself. If you don't hold this opinion, then I'm not talking for you, am I. After all, you just stated that you're a "pragmatist", whatever that is, not a member of the left.

[bunnies]

32. "pragmatist, whatever that is"

:rofl: Sorry. It was silly of me to think that someone using the word "pragmatism" in their OP would know what a pragmatist is.

Here:

–noun
1. a person who is oriented toward the success or failure of a particular line of action, thought, etc.; a practical person.

Now to quote you: "After all, you just stated that you're a "pragmatist", whatever that is, not a member of the left."

Thanks for the morning laugh.

[MadHound]

44. No problem, after all, it was you who differentiated yourself from the left, not I

As you state, you're a pragmatist, as though that's somehow different from the left and the rest of the party. Context, it is everything.

[bunnies]

52. Try actually reading my post.

Of course I said I was a member of "the left". What point would I be making otherwise?!

The phrase: 'dont speak for everyone on the left, some of US..." makes it pretty obvious.

It was *you*, in your lack of understanding of the word "pragmatist", who asserted that one couldnt be both. And now you're trying to spin it as if it were the other way around.

A simple review of our conversation proves you wrong.

[MadHound]

57. Yet you differentiate yourself from the left by stating that you're a pragmatist

Generally in politics a pragmatist tends to be much more towards the center on issues. Basic Poli Sci 101.

[bunnies]

65. oh ok. One cant be a leftist and practical at the same time.

Got it. :rofl:

[MadHound]

90. Sorry I'm getting too technical for you

Sorry that I'm using standard political definitions. Really sorry that you haven't much formal or practical experience in political science.

I'm using standard definition of pragmatist, not your definition, not the definition that was made up in a post here a few days ago equating progressives and pragmatists. That may be a feel good definition, but it's not the standard definition.

[liberation]

184. The previous poster wants to have it both ways...

Being a pragmatist, even though by definition pragmatism implies lack of ideology bias, in order to gain the almighty "higher" moral ground.

And also being a "leftist" so his or her criticism of your views are more valid somehow, by coming from the same ideological background.


At this point, I am beginning to think that a lot of the posters in this forum who use the term "pragmatist" and "left" don't really know the correct contextual meaning of either term.

The scary part is how much to the right this country has shifted. Which means that what passes for "leftist" in this country, is really centrist to moderate conservative else where in the world. Which sort of explains why so many "leftist" in this thread think Obama's center-right cabinet choices are A-OK.

What I don't care for a bit, is the perennial "shut up, and compromise" that us liberals have to endure every time we dare open our mouths to express our opinion. I am of the opinion that dissent and critical opinions are vital for a healthy democracy. Others seem to be incredibly dismissive of criticism, and perceive a critical opinion as threatening. Which I find quite enlightening to tell you the truth...

[mkultra]

197. pragamtist has nothing to do with an ideological void.

A pragmatist is someone who includes the actual and real affects that actions may have on the decision making process. In essence, hes calling both of you fantasy land retards.

[mkultra]

196. i think you'er getting too stupid

your obviously left, but also ridiculous. while others on the left are simultaneously pragmatic. Are those words to big for you?

[MadHound]

200. Another who has neither the practical background in politics, nor an academic one

Get back to me when you've taken Poli Sci 101 or Poli Theory 101. Then perhaps we can have a conversation. Until then what you're talking about, which is a dictionary definition of pragmatist, and what I'm talking about, which is the political definition of a pragmatist, simply aren't going to meet.

Oh, and the definition of irony: Somebody who tries to insult me by calling me stupid, yet that person apparently can't spell "you're" Whoops.

[mkultra]

202. no one likes a wordsmith

At least you acknowledge that there are various uses for the term pragmatism and thus are just Acting like a dipshit when you pretend someone cannot be both liberal and pragmatic.


Thanks for proving my point stupid.

[MadHound]

203. Umm, if you look upthread, I did acknowledge that there are various uses,

And even mentioned which definition that I was specifically using. And gee, I did this over twenty four hours ago. Why are you so far behind the curve on this one. Oh, that's right, you're reading for the quick insult, the fast ad hominem, because it's obvious that you can't debate this matter on the merits, since that would strain your poor brain waaaay too much, so you resort to the insult.

I'm sorry that I'm talking above your head, but it seems that the rest of the people around here got it. I'm sorry that I'm talking above your head, but I assume that people who post here are at least half way intelligent, and half way educated. Shows what I get for making such assumptions, you:eyes:

So hey, get back to me when you figure out what's going on. Get back to me when the only weapon you have is the quick insult. Until then, all you're doing is wasting people's time. Of course it always could be the point of why you're here.

[mkultra]

204. okie dokie fruity

[Marrah_G]

160. Oyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Bunnie- I thought DU had gotten bad during the primaries. Now it's bordering on the absurd. Actually no, it has become absurd. He hasn't even taken office yet.

Since I am talking to a Bunny, could it be that I drank a bottle labeled "Drink me" and fell down a hole?

Some days it feels like it.

[defendandprotect]

182. Right ...wait til he appoints a Cabinet and advisors ...!!!

[mkultra]

198. we are going need John lennon zombie for the Cabinet

maybe we can appoint Naom Chomsky as ALL advisors.

[ShortnFiery]

21. Oh come on?!? If you are truly LIBERAL (preferred term to "the left") then you haven't ...

been paying attention. There's NOT one moderate to liberal voice on Obama's National Security Team.

Obama should consider placing Scott Ritter in a position that could be a contributing voice to foreign policy. THAT brave former Marine "warned us" that there was not ample evidence of WMD in Iraq. As an Army vet, I'm so proud of Scott Ritter for having the courage to speak truth to power. Still, as low level as I was: Former 1LT, US Army Intelligence who hasn't had a whiff of a security clearance since the mid 1980s. EVEN I KNEW there were indicators that the Bush Administration was not being OBJECTIVE when it came to vetting the intelligence that they were provided.

If nothing else, didn't anyone WONDER WHY Darth Cheney kept taking those "almost daily" field trips to Foggy Bottom? Further, didn't anyone wonder why all efforts to refute the Bush Administration's claims of WMD were viciously countered? Why would Scott Ritter speak out other than his patriotism and desire for his Country to do the right thing? After all, Ritter's as wildly popular and appreciated as Howard Dean and Code Pink, right? :eyes:


Further, where's HRC's apology for the HORRID way she dismissed the ladies of "Code Pink" who all but BEGGED her not to vote for this immoral invasion?

HELLO? CORPORATE CENTRISTS? IT'S US POPULISTS AND LIBERALS WHO'VE BEEN CORRECT ON ALMOST ALL ISSUES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

You know that, deep down, don't you?

But like the piss poor LEADERSHIP they've repeatedly demonstrated in the past, the DLCers take ALL the credit and toss away the "unwashed peons" who actually had the insight to eventually SHOVE the right wing of the Democratic Party in the CORRECT direction.

No, WE WILL NOT LIE DOWN FOR CORPORATE RULERS - whatever their stripes.

[cali]

28. Oh, bullshit.

Clinton is not some right wing nut. She's a centrist. Jim Jones is someone who actually has a different view on I/P- one that isn't the usual support Israel in everything mindset. Of course, your prior hate comments on Hillary are well known. Remember?

Scott Ritter would never survive a confirmation hearing. Sorry, pragmatic considerations count.

And Hillary sure as hell doesn't owe Code Pink anything.

Yes, we've been correct on many issues particularly regarding Iraq, and Obama was right on Iraq as well. He will be the President. Not Gates or Clinton or anyone else.

And I'm so fucking sick of the sloganeering.

[ShortnFiery]

37. Whoa! You're in rare form today.

Easy does it. :hi:

[MadHound]

39. Perhaps I struck a nerve

But frankly I see people get this bent out of shape when ever the left speaks out around here or elsewhere. What's funny is that they are simply proving my point all the more with every invective and insult they spew.

[ShortnFiery]

41. Yes, I see your point.

But I would also choose to "skip the exorcism" portion of this debate. ;)

[cali]

48. I am every bit as much a part of the left as you. You may not like it

but that's just too fucking bad. YOU don't own the left, dearie. You don't get to define it. I've spent too many years working on liberal/progressive causes to let someone like YOU decide that you own the left.

[Two Americas]

111. what does that mean?

You are arguing that by self-labeling as a leftist, that somehow gives credibility to you arguments.

You consistently argue the conservative positions on issues here. Anyone can say "I am part of the Left." But how would your arguments be any different if you happened to call yourself a "Republican?"

People disagree with your arguments. No one is talking about what you call yourself. What you call yourself has nothing to do with your arguments.

[Two Americas]

115. define it

All we can go on is your arguments. What difference does it make how you label yourself?

Define this "Left" you are part if and what it means. I have no doubt that you vote Democratic, and support various causes that are associated with liberalism. Is that what you mean by "the Left?" If so, you have a different definition of the Left than many do here, and have no right to enforce your definition on others, and to then use that to claim some imagined enhanced credibility to your arguments.

No one is claiming to "own" the Left here.

Why do you have a right to define the Left and others do not? You are just as aggressively - more so actually - insisting that your definition of the Left is the correct one as anyone else is.

[mkultra]

199. the point is that the OP is trying to do just that

and he doesn't get too. Cali's arguments are not republican or conservative. The simple fact is the liberalism includes an element of free market. Liberalism means individual freedom and equality.

[Two Americas]

221. the difference

The OP does not rely on the word "Left" or any particular definition of it. A specific group having specific ideas is what is being discussed there, and we can call that group anything and the OP's point stands. The thing is what is being discussed, not the label.

There is a difference between saying "rocks roll down hill" - that statement would be just as accurate no matter what we called the rocks - on the one hand, and then on the other saying that anything I call a rock is therefore a rock, and the rocks I have are soft and green and grow in the ground, so therefore your theory that rocks roll down hill is wrong.

One poster is saying "we on the Left (or whatever you want to call us, my point is the same) think this."

The other poster is saying "I call myself Left, so therefore everything I say is Left, so what you say is wrong."

The first poster is using the label to describe something that actually exists, and would exist without the label.

The second poster uses the label as though that were the reality, as if that invalidates what the ohter person is saying.

The thing, and the label for the thing, are not the same. If I decide to call plants rocks, that does not make rocks disappear nor make anything you say about rocks invalid.

What we are seeing here is people saying "I am a leftist, so therefore, I can advance right wing positions and they are to be seen as left wing, and you can't counter them because you don't get to call yourself a leftist any more than I do." That is completely illogical. It is the arguments that are important, not the label we place on them nor on the person.

Funny how "Left" is used as a smear, until someone on the Left tries to speak. Then we are all supposedly on the Left, no matter what opinions we are expressing. Now we are to believe that "free market" ideas and libertarianism and anti-Labor positions are actually left wing ideas, because people who choose to claim to be leftists are spouting them. This is how right wing philosophies and talking points are permeating and influencing the Democratic party and why they are so difficult to counter or challenge.

If a point of view is expressed by someone describing themselves as a Republican, we discount it because they "are a Republican." Yet the same point can be expressed by someone calling themselves a Democrat, and we are supposed to think "well that must be a left wing idea, and we should grant it serious consideration, because the person speaking 'is' a Democrat."

[earth mom]

248. You do not have a CLUE what being on the left really means. And you prove it every time you post.

But then that is probably your objective-to confuse people about what it REALLY means to be on the left.

Yep, you are ALL about despicable and disgusting disinformation. :puke:

[bunnies]

34. So remind me again who the President will be.

Since its the Presidents policies that his appointees will follow.

If you think for a second that Obama will not be in full control of his cabinet, then its *you* who hasnt been paying attention.

[ShortnFiery]

38. Always vigilant, if not - we'll get the Government we deserve.

:hi:

[bunnies]

42. On that, we can agree.

:hi:

[MadHound]

43. And what did Obama run as? Oh, yeah, a center, center right candidate

And he's continuing to confirm this tilt throughout his transition. Even though the left turned out a massive base of support for him. But nah, the left doesn't deserve to be rewarded, doesn't deserve a place at the table. Just keep appointing those centrist, corporatists:eyes:

Never ever trust a politician or their ability. Cabinet members and advisers have a huge amount of influence in any administration.

[cali]

50. bzzzzt. lol. no he certainly did not run as a center right candidate.

grab a clue. He ran as a "post partisan". Now I can find a lot to criticize about that, but it's a flat lie to claim he ran as a center-right candidate.

I may not trust Obama at this time. He hasn't proven himself yet, AFAIC, but it's just mindless to state one should never trust any politician. I trust Bernie. He's a pol. I trust Leahy. As in so many cases, a blanket statement is just stupid.

[bunnies]

54. So youre pissed that Obama isnt fulfilling a promise that he never made.

Is that the gist? You're pissed that he isnt doing what you *think* he should be doing to reward you for your vote. Its absurd. Obama never said he was the liberals savior. He never promised anything re: his appointments. Never.

That would be like me getting pissed off at Mr. bunnies for not buying me a new car for christmas despite the fact that I have no reason to expect one.

[MadHound]

58. No, what I'm concerned about is that the left went to the mat for Obama

Despite ideological, political and perhaps even moral misgivings. When a group does this they are generally rewarded for their effort, yet the left, once again, isn't getting that reward. Any other group in this Big Tent of the Democratic party would be blowing the doors off and windows out with their howls if they didn't get their reward, yet somehow the left is supposed to sit down and shut up?
Sorry, but that's not the way it works. We all do the hard work together, we all get a piece of the pie.

[cali]

63. yeah, because McPalin would have been so much better.

You and your ilk are of the same caliber as the Gore=Bush crew. In fact, you likely are the same crew. Oh, and you sound just like the wingnuttiest freepers whinging about how the right wing is always shit on by the repukes. And stop making shit up about the left being screwed. Wait until if and when it happens.

[MadHound]

87. Wow, you have let your irrational hatred and anger take you over the edge haven't you

Listen to yourself. . ."your ilk", "wingnuttiest freepers". What is it about somebody expressing their opinion so pisses you off? You can express your opinion(and that's all we're discussing here are opinions) without having to resort to such hatred. But hey, thanks for continuing to illustrate my point so very well, people do need concrete examples.

[bunnies]

67. Nobody is telling anyone to sit down and shut up.

And certainly, no one is doing it anyway.

Myself, I'd rather have the "reward" come in the manner of policies - not simply putting x person in x position. Truth is, we have no way of knowing what any of his appointments are actually going to DO. And you know... Obama made it very clear that he didnt want to surround himself with yes-people, that he wants people who hold a different view than he does. So, from that perspective - I'm ok with the picks he's chosen (although I'm not at all 'thrilled' with some of them) - as we are led to believe that Obama himself must (in some cases) hold the opposing view.

[MadHound]

89. Well one has to look no further than cali's post # 63 above

To see a great example of somebody telling the left to sit down and shut up. Hildebrand's post on Huffington is another good example.

And if you had any practical experience in politics, you would know that the general consensus is that appointments foreshadow policy, but hey, what do I know. It's not like I haven't had years and decades of political involvement and in depth knowledge of political theory:shrug:

[JuniperLea]

213. You might consider stepping away from the RW Kool Aid

I'm shocked at how many of their talking points hit DU.

Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do. It's no one's fault but your own that you weren't paying attention.

He's picked a team he knows can get things done by virtue of their history doing just that. And he is the boss. I just don't get all the arm flailing and running around like the sky is falling when this is going exactly as Obama said it would.

[MadHound]

224. So stating the obvious fact that Obama ran as center, center-right is a RW talking point

OOOOK, even though his campaign ran this as their platform, you know, bipartisan, reach across the aisle, use ideas from both sides, etc. etc.

I realize that Obama is doing what he said he would do, at least up to a point. The thing is, though he said that he would work with all sides, so far the left is being left out in the cold.

Oh, and as far as Obama being "the boss" perhaps you forgot that this is a democracy, where, ultimately, we the people are the boss.

[JuniperLea]

244. It's not an obvious fact, not in any way, shape or form...

Yes, it is a RW talking point.

Seems to me the far right and the far left are not represented in Obama's cabinet choices, but to say they are "being left out in the cold" is a bit of a stretch.

Obama is "the boss" over his cabinet... my GAWD but you can meander, avoid, and parse! You might consider a job in politics... but not on the Dem side, please.

[Maru Kitteh]

255. Holy Shit. You think Obama ran for the presidency as a CENTER-RIGHT candidate?

This, more than anything anyone else could say here, stands as the best evidence that the OP is utter and complete bullshit.

Enjoy your cross. Don't forget to leave one hand free so you can keep nailing yourself to it.

[defendandprotect]

183. Agree ...

Scott Ritter would be brilliant --

National Security Team.

This title suggests the world believes we are chasing terrorists --

rather than we ARE the terrorists. The world knows -- most of us know.

Some liberals/progressives are also raising concerns for what the new

Supreme Court appointments night be given these corporate center-right advisors....

[polichick]

22. I'm hoping the meeting with Gore today will help Obama make...

...good decisions about environmental posts. It must be hard to fill so many spots so quickly ~ but corporate hacks in these spots would be unacceptable. I can't imagine Obama being so stupid, but so far his cabinet picks are less than inspiring imo so I guess anything could happen.

[Lorien]

62. That's my hope too. Obama is far from stupid, but that doesn't

mean that he can't be a little bit corrupt. I don't think the mainstream media-owned by the big corporations who choose who runs for us- would ever allow a true populist to run. He's had to make promises to powerful corporate interests to be allowed into office, so those corporate interests will always be served over the needs of the people and the planet we inhabit. Corporations ARE stupid because they're so badly blinded by greed; they'll kill us and themselves tomorrow for a big buck today. So let's just wait to see weather Obama's intelligence and survival instinct outweigh his corporate loyalties.

[HopeFor2006]

229. Rachel Maddow had an interesting supposition:

Perhaps Obama is naming the centrist to right cabinet choices first in an attempt to diffuse the right wing claptrap about his being an elitist liberal socialist. After the majority of the country becomes comfortable with the choices he has made then he will begin naming more liberal members. I am hopeful.

[Sanity Claws]

23. Corporatist administration?

Honey, haven't you heard how Obama stood up for the workers at the Republic window company?
Obama is also talking about huge infrastructure spending. He is not doling out the money to corporations, but to the states who must spend the money immediately and get people back to work.
I am a leftist and hopeful of the changes Obama is bringing about.

[ShortnFiery]

26. Always vigilant. His cabinet picks, so far, lean toward "corporations first."

[cali]

29. Really? Richardson at Commerce? Napolitano at Homeland Security?

Jim Jones? Show me that they lean toward corporations first. I'm sick of broad based smears. And I'm sick of the mindless meme that all corporations are evil soul sucking entities.

[MadHound]

31. DLC members, definetly right of center

But hey, keep throwing those names out there, you're making yourself look more foolish, and more irrelevant with each posting.

You obviously don't want to engage in a calm, reasoned discussion, so I'll probably won't be responding to you further on this thread, it's pointless and aggravating. So if you want to continue to spew your shit, feel free. Just don't expect to get a rise out of me. Peace:hi:

[cali]

33. The meme that belonging to the DLC is de facto proof that

someone is an evil corporatist is silly. Tom Udall is a progressive. He is a member of the DLC. John Kerry was a member. I don't agree with DLC policies or the overblown third way crap, but I recognize that the DLC is hardly the generic boogeyman that so many make it out to be.

I'll continue pointing out the obvious errors in logic you wallow in. I could care less if you respond to me.

Keep up the sloganeering. It's just sooo impressive.

:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

36. This is going to blow you away, but I wasn't THRILLED with Kerry but he sure ...

beat the hell out of another four years of Bush in 2004. Gee, anyone who isn't bat shit crazy about corporate democrats are *consistently ridiculed* and dismissed. Way to build on understanding ... one of these days it will come back to bite ya in the political ass. ;) :hi:

[ShortnFiery]

35. Oh stop Cali. You're just contentious right now. But yes, I have my doubts.

I'm I can submit an opinion and in no way are the people you mentioned MODERATE and/or LIBERAL ... wait for it ---> IMO. :hi:

[MadHound]

27. Hopefulness is fine and great, but never, ever put your trust in any politician

Yes, Obama made a fine statement over the weekend. He's also appointed Lawrence Summers, among others, to his economic team. You really should go check out Summers history in the Clinton administration. He didn't single handedly take down the economies of SE Asia, but he certainly had a large hand in the matter.

[ShortnFiery]

40. Summers troubles me. But we shall see once Obama takes charge. Hope my fears are unwarranted.

Have a good morning MH. :hi:

[Laura PourMeADrink]

49. MH - Obama said it himself - over and over - "it's not about me,

it's about what we want to accomplish." Get out of Iraq, restore economic fairness, stop raping the constitution, make
health care available, stop torturing. So having doubts because of what has happened so far with what Obama has said and scrutinizing the reputations of who he has appointed so far is perfectly valid. I agree with your post 100%.

It feels like for years we are always saying, wait, everything's ok. Our leaders are saying X, but trust them, they really mean Y. Now, we can only hope that he is masterminding an approach to accomplish these things. An inclusive, coalition building approach. Getting more people to buy in. For me though, it's a realization that we won't get what we really want - but more likely a watered-down version. I mistakenly thought - ok - we are now in charge - let's ram everything we want through - like the repukes did
for so long. That won't happen. He said himself he only got 53% of the vote - and realizes he does not have the mandate from all
the people. This is all very disappointing to me - but I have to start thinking more on the line of is luke warm better than
nothing.

[LibDemAlways]

81. "Never, ever put your trust in any politician."

Could not agree more.

[blindpig]

53. You are doomed to disappointment.

There is no turning the Democratic Party from it's rightward course. The deal has long past gone down, the party is like an old time western movie set, a liberal facade with emptiness behind it. Already you are being lectured by members of team Obama, is not the writing on the wall?

To be sure, the new administration will not be like the outgoing. Yes there will be green power initiatives, but big oil, coal & nuke will continue to trod the halls of Congress like giants.Our foreign policy will become more nuanced, but the goal will still be global domination. Some troops will be withdrawn from Iraq, but the occupation will continue. The Pentagon budget will be 'smarter', but it will continue to grow. Some small wrongs will be righted to great fanfare, but the big wrongs, questions of wealth and power, will be denied to exist.

Let it go, o hydrophobic canid, let it go. You've been beating your head against the wall for too long. You're trying to talk the rich out of their money and that only works for flimflam artists on the micro level, mostly in the movies. As a class they ain't budging, so entrenched are they in the system of their own devising that your entreaties are naught but the yapping of a puppy at their feet, kind of cute but irrelevant to the action of the 'adults'.

[MadHound]

60. Sorry, but I don't roll over, and neither do many on the left

If Obama continues as you think he will, 2012 is going to make the 2000 Green defections look more like a monolithic consensus.

Everybody has a voice, it's just a matter of how you choose to use it.

"hydrophobic canid" :rofl: I like it, even though my name is based more on that of Cuchulain.

[blindpig]

69. Who said anything about rolling over?

I'm talking about pursuing our goals by means outside of, or parallel to the electoral system. Mass mobilization, the general strike are alternatives to the current futility. The folks at Republic Window show us the way. We better be ready.

[Lerkfish]

56. I'm extreme left and am not upset.

which is not to say I would have made the same choices as Obama, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, AND I also realize that he's going to give left causes a hell of lot more attention than Mclame would have, even if I'd prefer they be given more attention overall.

Honestly, I"m proud of Obama and the masterful way he has campaigned and is handling the transition and support him at the moment. I think sniping at him now is counterproductive.

If, at some future time he really sucks at one of my issues, I reserve the right to object, but otherwise I'm very very happy he's the PE.

[acmavm]

64. I say wait. Wait until he's in office. Wait until he actually does

something. Or until his admin develops some really crappy policy, like not following through on the roll back of the tax cuts for the wealthy. Then we'll see.

But give him a chance. Let him get in office. Let him try to make things right. Let's see what he'll do, not try reading the future.

[Lerkfish]

68. um...that's what I AM doing. maybe you responded to the wrong post?

I was expressly saying I was giving him a chance.

[acmavm]

83. I agree, wait. And I did respond to the wrong post. Happens all

the time with a lot of people.

You'll live.

[Lerkfish]

96. sure, I wasn't upset about it, just thought you might have mistargeted. Its all good.

[EFerrari]

106. There's a large space between questioning these nominations

and wishing he wasn't PE.

[nichomachus]

61. Best post on DU in the last three weeks n/t

[LibDemAlways]

66. Interesting that your post seems to be red meat for some

with the "sit down and shut up" mindset.

One of the most frequently repeated themes on DU has been disdain for how the repukes march in lockstep behind their leadership.

Apparently when Dems on the left fail to have a similarly pre-programmed positive response toward every Obama action and appointment, it's perfectly acceptable for them to be criticized and shouted down.

I agree with you. It is imperative that the left scrutinize, speak out, and fight like hell to keep a place at the table.

[Danger Mouse]

76. Bullshit. The whiny "I want to crticize Obama all I want and you can't stop me!' crowd...

are just as bad about trying to shut up people that disagree with them.
Try to say something favorable about Obama, and you're told to 'wake up' or asked if you're blind, told you're not a true liberal, etc.

[LibDemAlways]

80. I think it's important that diverse points of view be

represented here. If you support every Obama action 100%, that's your right and fine by me. I've never told any poster to 'wake up.' It's not bullshit, however, for me or anyone else to evaluate his actions and appointments with a critical eye and sometimes render a different judgment. No doubt he's smart, confident, and will bring change. My generally favorable view of him, however, doesn't mean that I think he's infallible or can do no wrong.

[DevonRex]

70. You are NOT our spokesperson. We on the left are actually pretty happy.

This isn't a matter of the left wing of our party being unhappy. This is a matter of a very few people, who would apparently be unhappy with anybody, trying to speak for US. And I say enough.

[ShortnFiery]

MH didn't say that. Besides, this liberal, et. al. = NOT happy. eom

[MadHound]

91. "And I say enough" Yeah, right whatever

I never claimed to be the spokesperson for the left. However it's apparent just looking around here, not to mention the real world, that I'm expressing a viewpoint that many people hold. We are all expressing our opinion on the matter, why do you find that so threatening?
We on the left are actually pretty happy.
But hey, speaking of speaking for everybody, how can you say with certainty that "We on the left are actually pretty happy." Hmm, aren't you, didn't you just speak for everybody. . .:shrug: Hypocrisy much?

But hey, thanks for your help in proving my point about "sit down and shut up" I think that your little footstomp "And I say enough" proves my point succinctly. Good job:thumbsup:

[DevonRex]

101. You're upset that I am speaking out. You do not speak for me. And I said it loudly.

You speak for YOURSELF. That's it.

[MadHound]

122. No, I'm not upset at all that you are speaking up

However I do find it funny that in your previous post you scold me for using a common rhetorical device, what you call speaking for the entire left, yet in the very same post you say "We on the left are actually pretty happy." Again, I have to ask, hypocrisy much?

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you refuse to give me in your footstomping anger. You are using a rhetorical device, right? Cool, just recognize that same device when others like myself use it. Peace:hi:

[DevonRex]

142. That's why I countered using your rhetorical device. Peace to you, too.

I understand what you're saying, and I actually agree with most of it. I just wanted to point out that many of us leftists are kinda happy, too.

:hi:

[bbgrunt]

72. I agree with your OP and thank you for expressing it

so well.

[Balderdash]

73. I've actually been happily surprised by Obama so far

but I can see where someone on the far left might not be too happy. But Obama always ran on the "Change" meme and that change was being able to reach across the aisle. You can't reach across the aisle from the far left just like you can't reach it from the far right. What surprises me is that the far left didn't hear that part of Obama's rhetoric. I think we're getting exactly what was promised.

[MadHound]

92. Actually you can reach across the aisle from the far left,

And generally the easiest place to reach for the far left sometimes is the far right. It's called populism, and we saw a good example of that a few weeks ago the first time the bailout bill went down. You had people as diverse as Hulshoff and Kucinich both in agreement on the matter. Just an aside, carry on.

[Balderdash]

93. I agree that it can happen, it depends on the issue

[snooper2]

74. Some people just need to be "upset" all the time...

on the right or the left of the spectrum....

[Balderdash]

75. That's just crappy and dismissive,

we're all Democrats, right, left and center. This is a forum for Democrats to discuss, learn to live with it.

[mkultra]

212. ok, some democrats are just dismissive.

[Danger Mouse]

77. You don't speak for me. You don't speak for the left. Speak for yourself.

I'm 100% of Obama at this time. That may change, depending on his actions, but so far I am impressed with what he is doing.
Your post is full of so much drama and hyperbole that I don't even know where to start.
So I won't.
I'll just shake my head sadly and move on.

[Lerkfish]

78. off topic: finally rented WALL-E

cute movie... I see you have it in your sig.

[Danger Mouse]

79. Haha, I'm glad. I bought it this weekend.

My whole family loves it. :hi:

[bahrbearian]

82. I agree.

Look at all the sit down or we'll shout you down posters .

[AtomicKitten]

85. I think some appointments like Shinseki are inspired and outside the left/right paradigm

and other appointments give cause for concern.

I am of a mind to wait until 1-20-09 to see how Obama governs.

Count me in among those that want to restore government to of the people, by the people, and for the people.

K&R

[bvar22]

86. K&R

You have given voice to my concerns.

:patriot:

[Uzybone]

88. Im on the left, and Im not upset

so speak for yourself.

[FrenchieCat]

94. So you have appointed yourself as "the Left"?

Good to know.....but to be sure; you do not represent me....and I'm also the Left.

Better if you simply spoke for yourself.

[MadHound]

95. I haven't appointed myself anything

I'm expressing my POV and the viewpoints of others. If you peruse this thread you will see that there are people that agree with me. If you peruse what's going on in the real world, you'll see that there are others that agree with me. Sorry for the confusion, sorry for using rhetorical license(like that doesn't go on all the time around here:eyes:)

It amazes me how people choose to focus on wording rather than substance.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

99. you might not have appointed yourself anything

but the way you wrote this stuff comes across as you trying to speak for the whole left.

As a sidenote i haven't seen anybody really try to shut 'the left' up, I've seen many people ask nicely(Hildebrand) and not so nicely(Cali) to please not judge Obama before he has been elected and actually made a decision(which in my eyes is just common sense). Judging somebody by what you fear rather then facts does nobody any favors.

[MadHound]

100. Sorry for the use of the rhetorical license

I've seen the same license used countless times before around here, but apparently some people think that I can't. Oh well.

And frankly if you don't think that either Hildebrand or others around here aren't telling the left to shut up, then frankly I don't think that you're really reading what they're saying.

And as I stated in my post, the time to for the left to speak up is now, before things are set in stone. We made that mistake once before with Clinton, I really recommend that we don't repeat that mistake with Obama. Besides, isn't that how a democracy works? You don't like what is going on, you speak up and make yourself heard? Why should the left not follow this basic democratic maxim?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

103. Oh, the left should speak up, but it tends to help if they actually have something

concrete to speak up about(as a sidenote, the reason i don't refer to myself as the left is that I'm from Norway and as such not a part of the US left even if i greatly support it)

And as i said, I've mostly seen others ask you and others who complain to atleast give the coming Obama administration a chance before condemning it(I mean I've read post here on DU equalizing his (not yet formed) administration to the bush administration).

Have there been a few who have asked you to shut up, sure but then I've also seen a lot of critical people tell those who support Obama's choices to wake up and stop being blind supporters(and similar) so that goes both ways.

I do think a number of people on the left are so used to being distrustful against the administration they are second guessing and seeing secret messages where there are none tho(Like in Hildebrand's post)when it comes to Obama.

[EFerrari]

107. There is no reason to wait until the Cabinet is assembled

to object to the individual nominations. None.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

108. Considering you have no idea how they will act

under Obama's administration there is also no reason at all to object to his choices. That some of them might be worrisome is understood but a lot of posts here on DU and elsewhere goes way beyond that.

Obama seems like he plans to be a very 'hands on' president and I personally strongly believe that if some of them try to run their own agenda counter to his then they will be looking for a new job

[EFerrari]

113. They all have a resume. And there is every reason to take those at face value.

Democracy is not about sitting on your hands and hoping Some Strong Leader does the right thing.

[JuniperLea]

214. "they will be looking for a new job"

Precisely. I cannot for the life of me imagine why so many here think that Obama is going to allow others to run roughshod over him! Where the hell is that coming from?

[grantcart]

97. I can't find an application anywhere. Do I get a membership card?

[mtnsnake]

98. Awesome post. I dont agree with all of it, but thank goodness for people like you

who aren't afraid to speak up. I don't think you needed to use the Clintons as much as you did to make your point, though, since they're not really responsible for running the show right now, but that's just me.

Truth is, historically the base of the party usually gets left out, unfortunately. The candidates always suck up to the base to get themselves nominated, but once they're elected the base is usually the first faction of the Party to get blown off. Someday, someone will either figure out a way to get a person like Kucinich nominated or figure out a way to insure that the President will more accurately reflect the faction of the Party that was most responsible for getting him nominated to begin with, which is the base. I don't blame the Left at all for being a little concerned.

Gutsy post. Glad to K&R

[Shiver]

102. The left has a spot at the BETTER table.

While Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano would be considered liberal Democrats by most people, they aren't who I'm referring to. The Cabinet merely implements the policies set forth by the president. The important posts are the ones who help him develop that policy, the posts that don't require the Senate to confirm. White House staff and advisory positions, such as:

- http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/24/melody-announcement/">Melody Barnes, from the Center for American Progress, has been appointed head of the Domestic Policy Council.

- Patrick Gaspard, of SEIU, has been appointed Director of the Office of Political Affairs. This is the same position Karl Rove held.

- Ellen Moran, from EMILY's List, has been appointed Director of Communications.

- Phil Schiliro, former Chief of Staff for Rep. Henry Waxman, has been made Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs (Congressional Liason)

- Mona Sutphen, Deputy White House Chief of Staff.


Those are the first names that come to mind, all progressives, all with greater access to the President than members of the Cabinet. I'm sure if I put some effort in, I could find more. These are the people who help develop the policy that the Cabinet enacts. And since these aren't the high-profile Cabinet posts, most of them are ignored or overlooked by the media.

Personally, I think it's the beginnings of a brilliant strategy - moving the center to the left. The Cabinet is made up of those who seem to be moderate, centrist, center-right people (although I personally think there will be an even balance by the time it's complete). More importantly, however, the people he's appointing for every position have a reputation for getting things done, regardless of personal ideology. By having progressive and liberal policies enacted by a 'centrist' Cabinet, it will make the very ideas "centrist" - thus moving the center to the left, and making it far easier to enact even stronger progressive legislation later on.

We have not been left out.


(Note: This is copied from a post I made several days ago on another thread, with a few alterations.)

[Uzybone]

127. Good post, expect it to be ignored by the handwringers

[zulchzulu]

128. La-la-la-la-la.... La-la-la-la-la.... La-la-la-la-la....

How dare you prove that Obama has chosen some people many might consider "from the left"! Shame on you!

:sarcasm:

[Shiver]

130. I know, I'm a horrible, horrible realist.

How dare I look at facts! Bad Shiver!

[MadHound]

132. Like I said, a seat at the big table

First of all, some of those who you are calling leftists, well, that's debatable. But that aside, it isn't a spot at the kid's table, which is what you've listed. No, no, how about something that is actually prestigious, you know, like SoS, SoL, cabinet positions.

Nor do you address these trial balloons that I spoke of either.

Sorry, but it's not a crumbs the left is looking for, but a nice juicy bone, the kind that every other person under this big tent(and some on the outside) have already gotten.

[EFerrari]

104. I really like this OP. It's reasonable, measured and civil and true, imo.

Thank you.

K&R

[changemonger]

109. Great OP, expected reactions ...n/t

n/t

[Runcible Spoon]

110. thank you for this! I'm sorry the usual suspects slammed you

but I'm not surprised

[JNelson6563]

116. Here, let me help you with that.

Dragging that heavy cross around has got to be exhausting!

Julie--always ready to help

[JuniperLea]

215. SNORT!

:rofl:

That's like my mom's version... get down off that cross; someone needs the wood.

[SeattleGirl]

117. I'm not upset. Apparently I didn't get the memo that said I should be.

I don't expect to like or approve of every cabinet choice Obama makes, but that's fine. I'm not the Grand Poobah of anything, and I'm not the only person with a stake in this country.

IMHO, this country has been in separate corners, finger pointing and screaming and yelling and whining and complaining about "the other side" for too long. Not saying some of the complaints aren't valid; of course they are. But I'm frankly tired of living in the Divided States of America.

I do believe Obama wants to change that, and as such, he WILL have to reach out to the other side. Reaching out doesn't mean doing so blindly, as some posters on DU seem to think. I think Obama is a pretty savvy guy, and I really doubt that reaching out for him means it's okay to kick him to the curb again and again.

Nope, I'm not upset.

And I'm more than willing to see what happens with these picks, and to hope with all I've got that things DO start turning around.

God knows, we can't take much more of what's going on now.

[EFerrari]

119. It's interesting. All you have to do nowadays to invalidate someone

is to call them a partisan leftist.

That's a good shortcut around what they're actually saying.

I don't like that.

[mkultra]

205. much like dismissing others as centrists

[county worker]

118. Shouldn't we wait a few months to see how this is turning out first?

Just asking.

[mkultra]

206. that wouldnt be hardcore enough to be called "left"

<smug retarded voice> If you had any experience in politics you would know exactly how this is going to end from the color of his suits</smug retarded voice>

[gravity]

120. The center is making the deals because that is where the action is

You can scream all you want, but if you really want to be productive, learn how to make the center accept your ideas. This is how shit gets done in Washington and is the political strategy Obama is pursuing.

[anonymous171]

121. I agree. An angry left helps the party in two ways:

1. It encourages our politicians to lean more leftward
2. If they don't lean leftward, they look moderate.

[MoonRiver]

124. Obama could have never been elected if he was as left as you want him to be.

He got Independents and Repubs to vote for him. I totally disagree with your premise. He will not listen to the far left. He's got the support he needs from the rest of the population. What happens to him in 4 years will depend on how well he straightens out our horrible * manufactured national disasters.

[MadHound]

134. That's not what I'm talking about

The left was fully aware how much of center, center right candidate Obama was. However the left still went to the mat for him because the alternative was so much worse. Having gone to the mat for him, having given him consistent support in so many ways, don't you think that the left deserves some sort of reward, an acknowledgment of all our hard work. Let me ask you this, would any other group under this big tent of a party stay silent if they had turned out so well for a candidate, only to have that candidate snub them? I think not.

And he damn well better listen to the left, otherwise the left will make his life hell and his re-election impossible. Who the hell do you think does the most volunteering, most of the grunt work of virtually any Democratic campaign? The left. Sorry, but despite the abuse heaped upon us, the Democratic party frankly can't survive without the left. Don't listen to the left, well then, don't expect to get elected.

[gravity]

174. Obama is for the left

The difference is instead of waging war over every issue, he is going to pursue his agenda from the center.

[MadHound]

187. We'll see,

I'm not ready to open fire on him, but so far the indications that he's given via administration appointments and trial balloons, along with what he said in his campaign give the impression that he's going to govern along the lines of Clinton, center, center right, and once again the left will be out in the cold.

[mkultra]

208. and the DNC better choose HRC or well vote for.....

we dont negotiate with terrorists. vote green if you want, we dont care.

[MadHound]

222. So the left is now "terrorists" in your opinion eh?

Just shows how far out there you've gone when you consider dissent and debate to be "terrorism". Hmm, who else imposed that sort of definition? Oh, yeah, Bush and his neo con minions. My my, aren't you in good company now:eyes:

[mkultra]

225. vote threatening to get your way is a fear tactic.

its right wing demagoguary in action. you are the flip side of Bush's coin.

[MadHound]

235. Wow, you really don't get how democracy in this country works do you?

A group of people, any group of people, have the right to vote for whom ever they want. If one candidate isn't doing what they want, they have the right to vote for somebody else. They also have the right to threaten to vote for somebody unless their demands are met. Basic Civics 101, another subject that you apparently haven't studied.

[martymar64]

125. I agree 100%

:thumbsup:

[zulchzulu]

126. Join the Utopia Party! It's all shiny, happy people living in pure pacifist non-pressure

First of all, Obama hasn't served a second as President yet. Perhaps you might wait a week or so before you trash him.

Secondly, what has Kucinich done? Nothing... he's a political trapeze artist who can't get jackshit done. Name one thing he's done that actually got passed. It takes more than political theater to get things passed in our imperfect government. Not everyone is as perfect as some think they are. There are moderates as well as the other flavors out there. What do they do? Sit down and shut up?

Thirdly, Feingold is great right where he is in the Senate. He's one of my senators and I certainly welcome whatever he says as the administration goes on. He does also happen to hang out with and do legislation with moderates and even harder right Republicans. That's a fact, Jack.

Fourthly, throwing about the "center right/corporatist/DLC" label like it's hot sauce in a Cajun restaurant is careless, foolish and laden with utopian sophistry. Many will argue that the new "center" is a lot more left than it was just four years ago. "Corporatist" suggests a myopic view that corporations are bad. Ferchrissakes, I own a corporation. You can too. It's not a bad thing. As for the "DLC" label, you are assuming that all the people who belong to the Democratic Leadership Council are bad people. That's again foolish and sophmoric gibberish.

I'm about as left as you get (within reason) and you don't speak for me with your quibbles. If you understand "how our democracy works", you'd know that there are a lot of people that make up the whole package. As does Feingold and as does Obama, working with yet not giving up your principles with those around you gets things done, however incrementally.

But hey, don't sit down and shut up. Sit up and pay attention.

[Marrah_G]

162. I wish I could Recommend this post.

[question everything]

129. Oh, so a rerun of the Clintons years is bad?

Do you have a job? Savings? Hope for retirement?

The economy under Clinton expanded across all economic levels. Most of us held decent jobs that paid well, that provided benefits, that allowed us to save for our retirement. And it was Clinton, after all, who took the abuse after an honest attempt for a universal health care.

We will be lucky if Obama will end up as successful as Clinton, without the various scandals, though, no doubt, his administration will have its own.

I've got news for you. Obama was elected because many voters got tired of a Republican administration. For more than two years, poll after poll showed that voters wanted a Democrat in the White House. It was just a question of who.

Most voters are centrist. They just want to have decent jobs, access to good education and health care and a decent retirement.

[GreenPartyVoter]

131. I hear all that. I'm waiting to see how the first hundred days go before I

really start worrying, though.

[leftofthedial]

133. if people claim to be "on the left," but support Friedmanesque, supply-side

monetarist economic practitioners being put in charge of the economy (amid the Friedmanesque, supply-side, monetarist biggest meltdown in world economic history) and support republican pro-war hawks being put in charge of the country's war apparatus, then either the people are liars or the people are stupid.


Apparently to some "on the left" means to be slightly further left than the 28% on the extreme right.

[cali]

140. you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the economy

and not one person here has uttered so much as a word in support for supply side economics.

dog, I hate stupid.

[leftofthedial]

141. you have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about not knowing what you're talking about

how would you describe the Wall Street bailout, economically?

[Shiver]

150. An attempt to stop a Depression.

All that money vanishing into thin air would have sent the economy straight to hell. You think things are bad now? Well they'd be ten times worse if the bailout hadn't been done. I may hate it and you may hate it, an it's definitely not the solution to the problem, but it's stopped the hemorrhaging long enough for a real solution to be found.

[bvar22]

195. Nonsense.

I've heard Republicans use the exact same rationalization for the Bush Taxcuts for the Extremely Rich....."Things would ave been really bad if he hadn't".

The FACT that Paulson couldn't even find a place to put the whole $700Billion dollars added to the FACT that he didn't use it as he stated he NEEDED to use it....well, it puts the word LIE to his claim that Wall St was in an EMERGENCY need of our children's money.

The Wall St Bailout was a last minute Smash & Grab robbery of the US Treasury....nothing more.



Now we got Your Children's Money too !!!
And there is not a fucking thing you can do about it!
Now THAT is "Bi-Partisanship"!
Get Used To It!!!
Hahahahahaha......SUCKERS !

[leftofthedial]

201. it's justification may have been to stop a Depression,

but the bailout itself was purely, 100%, unfiltered, unsanitized, unapologetically supply side.

What about Fed policy and the policies of the IMF for the past, oh, twenty years? What school of economic theory has guided their every move?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

137. I'm peeved, but not really surprised

Under the current system, only candidates who kiss the proper military and corporate asses can get close to the White House, and even more important, stay in the White House without being hindered in any way.

I couldn't help noticing that Obama's speeches were stirring but vague in content, so I considered him a cipher and voted for him only because the McCain/Palin team gave me the creeps.

People on the left are courted during the election season and despised when it comes to actual governing.

[scarletwoman]

138. I'm not surprised either. I set my expectations quite low, in fact.

And at the same time, I also vowed to be a constant thorn in the side of the status quo and a sworn enemy of liberal complacency.

The real power struggle between the plutocracy and the rest of us is just getting warmed up. No quarter will be given.

sw

[guruoo]

139. Whatever.

[RollWithIt]

143. Our country, the United States of America, is in dire trouble, and needs to come together...

I'm tired of the "I didn't get mine" viewpoint before he has even taken office. I would actually be more upset if he had picked all far left viewpoints for his office. I don't want Obama surrounded with nothing but yes men. I want him surrounded with hundreds of different viewpoints. I trust his ability to vet out people who are to far to the right to be feasible.

I'm NOT saying anyone should sit down and shut up. But come on, some of these viewpoints are parallel to the Republican viewpoints in 2000. "I want it all and fuck them." We are better than that.

[scarletwoman]

144. I "want it" for the People, and "fuck" the corporatists and the lobbyists for the Plutocracy.

No peace for anyone who puts the welfare of the wealthy ahead of the welfare of the worker. That means no tolerance for DLC/corporatist/neo-liberal policies and those who promulgate those policies.

No war but the Class War.

sw

[Two Americas]

247. "I didn't get mine"

Framing people's political positions as though they were merely personal or selfish desires is a disingenuous and deceptive way to undermine and discredit their positions.

Trying to get people to embrace or accept this framing can only be for the purpose of having them discount and dismiss certain opinions without giving them any serious consideration. That is a tactic - the most common tactic used - to silence dissent.

The attempt at connecting critics to the Republicans is unsupported here. That, too, is an attempt to get people to dismiss out of hand certain viewpoints, and this is another way to undermine the ability of dissidents and critics to be fairly heard.

So while it is true that you are "NOT saying anyone should sit down and shut up" - that wouldn't work, would it? - you say "but" and then go on to give specious reasons as to why no one should pay attention to critics - which very much does work to achieve the effect of braking down and obstructing the possibility of critics getting a fair and honest hearing for their opinions. "come on folks, we should pay no attention to 'them,' and are fully justified in attacking them, because we all 'know' what 'they' are up to" is the message. That is highly suppressive.

How exactly are "some of these view points parallel to the Republican viewpoints in 2000?" What do you mean by "some" viewpoints? Which view points would you have people ignore?

The fact that "our country, the United States of America, is in dire trouble, and needs to come together" is no justification for calls to dismiss and discount and ignore certain view points.

However, you have inadvertently admitted here that in your mind at least, the "come together" and "unity" ideas are not what they appear to be. They actually mean that we should exclude certain voices.

"Our country is in dire trouble, therefore certain opinions are of no value and should not be entertained, and we will call that 'coming together' to make it sound like a good thing, rather than have it be clearly seen as the assault of freedom of speech and suppression of dissent that it actually is."

[HughMoran]

146. googoo googoobadubagubba

hole in head yeah!

[MadHound]

152. Given your dismissive response, yeah, it's apparent, you do have a hole in your head

Because it's obvious that you're entirely lacking in critical thinking skills, and rather than debate an issue on its merits all you can do is hurl insults and invectives.

[mkultra]

209. ZING! what a come back!

nice one McFly!

[Tigress DEM]

147. I'm a Liberal Hawk, left on some issues centrist on others, but I want to hear what you have to say.

However, I think you would do better to demand certain priorities be maintained for the positions regardless of who is appointed. I believe you will find more support for holding any DEMs feet to the flames who isn't putting the country's best interests' first.

Obama spoke a lot about having a bi-partisan approach and what I hear you saying is don't leave the "left" out of the DEM side of Democratic contingent of that bi-partisan deal. While I understand the desire to make sure the people who worked so hard to put his ass in the Oval office get a seat at the table, there is still the issue of getting corporations to reform or face the music and the diplomatic approach here is to start with people in the know, hopefully not on the take.

Obama voted in our best interests about 94% of the time. He's working on ethics reform and hitting the ground running with a team in place that has the experience from the Clinton administration to turn the economy around.

I think if some of the left aren't invited it's because going in he can't have his own people back talking him and the far left are more strident and more vocal. Still, the issues MUST be addressed and if those he appoints are bad eggs, let's have the list of replacements ready.

Well behaved girls never make history to be sure, but if we keep it to the issues, more people can agree on pushing the agenda, demanding a fair hearing and keeping up the noise until we get real assurances that the people he is appointing recognize THEY work for us through him and if they don't get it right we will ALL scream until they are removed.

Even with *ush's cronies, Brownie et al.. it wasn't the person, but the incompetence that we focused on to get the outrage going.

[DerekG]

148. The real question: How do we get the Emperor's attention?

Prayer circles? Petitions? "Dear Mr. Hope, would you pretty please stop bombing Afghani children? Fire isn't good for their little feetsies." Won't work. They think we're jokes.

We're gonna have to find a way to make Obama and his corporatist, war-mongering cadre very, very uncomfortable. Any suggestions?

[blindpig]

155. like this:

[cali]

157. Did you vote for him? Were you aware that he clearly enunciated his plans

to increase troops in Afghanistan? I disagree with that decision, but I didn't vote for him unclear of his plans re Afghanistan.

And your post is nonsense re characterizing Obama and his cabinet as a corporatist, war-mongering cadre.

You are an insignifcant little minority. Most of us on the left support Obama. He's certainly not perfect, and he isn't immune from criticism by any means but these premature Naderesque, moran accusations are pathetic.

[DerekG]

190. No, I voted for Nader.

I knew what Obama represented. And I don't vote for politicos who wish to continue the War of Terror...oops, silly me...ON Terror.

I do agree with you on one thing: mine is an insignificant minority. Most "leftists" (or whatever passes for the Left in this empire of ours) will turn a blind eye to all of Mr. Hope's transgressions. No matter how many brown children he kills.

[vssmith]

149. Nothing but war and deregulation enablers

[cali]

156. bullshit and mindless bullshit at that.

[vssmith]

158. I can name more deregulation and war enablers picked by

Obama than you can that are not

Mindless in Michigan

[amandabeech]

230. I'm mindless, too. Count me in!

Michigan ex-pat, here.

Do Michiganders have extra-sensitive bulshitometers or is it something in Great Lakes water and snowflakes?

[vssmith]

159. One other thing, Cali

The way you respond to people says more about you than your target

[democrank]

163. "Speak your mind, even if your voice shakes." Maggie Kuhn

Glad to hear from you, MadHound. I understand your frustration. Compromise is necessary at times, but not always. I can`t imagine myself compromising on torture or capital punishment or on charging rape victims for their rape kits. I can`t imagine voting to spend money on a bridge to nowhere or allowing the Pentagon to send unarmored vehicles to our troops. I`d put up a real fuss and wouldn`t give a damn who heard it. I encourage you to speak your mind...always...no matter what.

I`m a "senior citizen" and an old-time liberal who remembers what it was like when we took to the streets by the thousands...or hundred thousands...to stop a war. No internet, no instructive emails, just pure principle and determination. Lots of people told us to sit down and shut up. We didn`t. It`s a bit different today as is evidenced by the years (and the deaths) it took before a majority of Americans had their fill of Bush`s war lies. Some blame this on the public`s short attention span. I also blame it on a tendancy to not make waves, but waves helped get us out of Vietnam and waves made a fool out of Heckuva Job Brownie. Don`t worry about the name-calling, just keep speaking your mind. "The Left" was the agent for America`s most significant social changes. It is that standard we should strive for, not Gumby Doll capitulation.

[Milo_Bloom]

165. Very well stated! I am VERY concerned about Obama right now.

I didn't support Edwards, Clinton, Biden or Dodd in the primaries for a very important reason... all of them had shown the same tendency... to go with what is popular over what is right. A slew of horrible votes all passed under the concept of "it was popular at the time". That is, at its core, what the DLC is to me... not just corporatist, but a group who do what they do by the power of polls... war is popular... let's have some war... people hate the poor... let's get a bankrupcy bill going. The list goes on.


As Obama surrounds himself with these types, I wonder whether he will be someone who does the right thing, or the popular thing. Will he be someone who sticks to beliefs or will be an equivocator who tries to find the center by splitting the difference between good and bad.

We can only hope and continue to speak out.

[Tab]

169. Oh, cork it. Sit down and shut up.

When Clinton was in office (and I didn't vote for him the first time around), we had a diligent president, someone smart (Rhodes scholar), capable, and ended up with a surplus. No, he was't morally perfect, but I wasn't electing a Pope, I was electing a President - an adminstrator for this country.

Who is Obama going to hire?? Republicans? People with no Washingtono experience? Of course not - he's doing what a good administrator should do, and that's gathering around him the best people with experience and outlooks that he can find that will help him achieve his goals.

He's not even in office, ferChrissakes. So shut up. And sit down.

[liberation]

179. Niiiiiiiiice

So basically, since Obama is hiring people who he thinks can do the job at hand, and since there are no liberals in his cabinet, that means that Obama thinks liberals are not competent?

Awesome, as a liberal... I love being insulted by the president. In fact I must love it so much, that your ilk feels A-OK with telling us to basically "shut the f*ck up."

But I guess we must be the angry ones...

[Milo_Bloom]

207. Yeah, and Clinton's constant appeasement of the right didn't hurt us at all...

... It's not like he was involved in the media consolodation or the banking deregulation or continued nonsense action against Iraq, even going so far as to call for regime change.

For someone smart and diligent, he sure screwed up a TON.

[defendandprotect]

176. Let's stop pretending this is just ....

criticism coming from DU liberals and progressives ...

It's everywhere out there -

And for DU to try to suppress these discussions is foolish.

Truly terrific comments --!!!

[truthspout]

178. Thankyou

So right.

[defendandprotect]

181. One of the first questions is: "How can this nation afford running any war" ....????

Leave along not a war on a nation -- tho we've destroyed two of them --

but chasing "individual terrorists" by bombing innocent people?

We're broke -- Bechtel. KBR, Blackwater and ALL of those who profit from

perpetual war are walking off with our money.

ALL the de-regulated corporations are walking off with our money --$8.8 TRILLION

so far--!!

Where is the cry for REFORM and RE-REGULATION ...??

You won't hear it from DLC'ers ..!!

How much more are you willing to spend on this corruption ...???

[TheKentuckian]

185. I'm with you guys on the anti-corporatism but military action is more muddy for me

If 9/11 was a fraud then obviously we have no business in Afghanistan/Pakistan but if we really do have nests of terrorist training to do harm to the US and our allies then yeah, I strongly support para-military action, air strikes, or whatever is required to remove/reduce the threat.

I don't relate to much of a middle ground here. Its foolish to let a threat like that fester and folks like the Taliban are serious fuckbags that literally hate freedom and are up to heinous acts as part of their standard mode of operation.

I don't like war but my opposition to war is based on national security and how actions will impact larger goals. Iraq was stupid on every level and in direct contradiction to what? Seventy years of policy and effort. Afghanistan is a horse of a different color. At worst action there does not disrupt our overall foreign policy and at best we remove or seriously hamper real threats to our country.

[MadHound]

189. The trouble is we're trying to use a sledgehammer when what we need is a scalpel

Not only that, but the use of such a heavy handed military in many ways makes things worse. We're trying to win hearts and minds over there, yet we pass up opportunity after opportunity to do so. For instance, a couple of weeks ago there was a quake on the Afghan/Pakistan border. A perfect chance for us to show the people of that region(whose help we desperately need) what good guys we are. However instead of the US being the first on the scene with aid and comfort, it was a terrorist group who got in there, and consequently reaped the PR victory.

This is as much a war of ideas as it is of armies, perhaps even more so. Yet we continue to fight it with bullets and bombs rather than ideas and compassion.

[mkultra]

210. well, this is very agreable

to bad that BUSH IS STILL THE PRESIDENT.

[Political Heretic]

192. I don't want you to shut up. However, I would like the tone to be open and not dogmatic

I've got no problem with skepticism toward Obama, scrutiny toward his decisions, criticism of decisions disliked, etc.

In fact, I can't tell you the number of times I've copied some "crazy liberal's" link to a strongly critical article about Obama's transition and sent it to my friends, along with articles that disagree and interpret his choices in a positive light.

The best thing we can possibly do is hold Obama's feet to the fire, and criticism and skepticism are critical to this. However, what I have personally experienced is that a great number of so called "leftist" that I have personally read (note that I am not generalizing) start their comments by insulting those who they think don't agree with them. And/or if someone, after reading their concerns, voices disagreement or an alternative viewpoint, they are then insulted.

The insults typically take the form of calling us ignorant, blind and stupid - "sheeple" and other such things. Voting for Obama or support for him during the campaign is mocked, calling us fans, gushing, obamatrons, mindless, or suggesting that we are blind and only care about hype or celebrity. All of these things are known as attacking the person rather than the argument.

I don't have any patience for "Left" commentary that starts like this:


Hey stupid people,

You're all too blind and ignorant to understand this on your own, and if you disagree with anything I say you will only confirm this to be true - and I'm not interested in acknowledging that reasonable, intelligent, informed people CAN and do disagree, and that there are no simply or absolute answers to anything - but now I expect you to read this cut and paste article that I am linking as proof-text, and sit down and shut up and like it. If you question anything that I am posting, you are stupid. If you suggest an alternative perspective, you are stupid. If you disagree with me at all, you are stupid.

Enjoy!
Bob the "Leftist"


Posts that carry the above tone, style, theme and/or content are what I object too. Those people have every right to post whatever they want, and I have every right to tell them to fuck off. In contrast, I love those radicals, that frankly I consider brothers and sisters, even when I disagree with some things, who truly welcome discussion, and don't assume anyone who questions at all is automatically stupid or evil. That's where I've learned the most, and had some of the best discussions.

So no, please don't sit down and shut up. Just try to act like a grown up. :)

[Sunnyshine]

194. People fall in love with politicians and their attention is diverted away from correcting problems.

It happens every time a new vessel hits the stage. Eventually, the vernacular of a fresh face wears off to reveal the same old repackaged internal parts that keep us from achieving change we need. The plutocratic structure is bigger than PE Obama. It sucks, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Sen. Obama is going in with all the hope to be a great agent of progress, only to arrive on scene that is preset to falter no matter who is at the helm of D.C. fiefdom. Standing up to them is a Beltway death wish.

Even if PE Obama succeeds for 4 or 8 years, there are those waiting for the chance to foil every bit of progress he makes.

Never give up and never shut up. The American people are vulnerable and people really do not have knowledge or understanding of the political oligarchs and agents of greed and economic chaos that are purposely affixed in place and quietly in charge of ruining the new front man of the people. They love a shining new leader to rally people- so we can blindly dismiss inaction later on.

We didn't take back our country- we just inherited the role of the new guy that gets blamed for this never changing mess.
No taxation without representation! Someday...maybe. America; Oh beautiful for corporate schemes and busted dreams.:patriot:

*edited out a statement/wording that I wanted to take back the moment I hit post, because I truly want to be proven wrong.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

241. Very good post.

I am so happy I saw it - I am late and need to run out the door.

I hope it's not too late to Recommend this thread. :)

[Armstead]

245. Great Post --But the shame is this should not even be an issue

I totally concur.

What pisses me off is this screwed-up notion that it would not be "pragmatic" or "realistic" to have people like a Feingold or a Sherrod Brown or many of the others who represent populist progressive liberalism having at least as much input as corporate fuckups like Bob Rubin.

[Shiver]

249. Do they want jobs in the administration?

I haven't heard anything.

And, while this may be selfish, Feingold is my senator and I wanna keep him. :P

[BooScout]

246. Oh for pitys sakes,.... get over yourself......

Get a grip on reality and get your head out of your ass......and welcome to the real world. ......honestly......Do you do this much drama all the time or what? :eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

256. Thank God Those Who Share Your Opinion Are In No Real Position Of Power.

Lord help us if those like you got their way. It would be a clusterfuck beyond measure.

So far, Obama's choices have been spot on and show how capable and competent he would be.

[MadHound]

259. Yeah, gotta keep that two party/same corporate master system of government in the saddle n/t