Obama isn't just retreading old Clinton appointees - he's retreading the strategy of triangulation.

[ddeclue]

Triangulation is the strategy of being in the middle between the left and right and "above it all"...

It is usually sold in the Rodney King flavor of "can't we all just get along" but what it really means is playing both sides off against the middle as a way to improve poll numbers and protect one's own power.

Whatever it is, it is certainly not change and not why we supported the campaign and we need to make that clear to P-E Obama that we aren't going to let him have his cake and eat it too.. He's going to have to choose between the people who got him elected and the DLC'ers who are more concerned about power than progressive principles.

Doug D.

[QC]

1. Yes. The point of the Warren fiasco is to make the usual "liberal special interests" go ballistic

so that Obama can then show the fundamentalists whose favor he has been so eagerly currying for so long that he's one Democrat who is not beholden to those crazy libruls.

You are exactly right. This is triangulation so rankly cynical that not even Bill Clinton himself could do it better.

[Clovis Sangrail]

2. the people who got him elected?

gay people didn't get Obama elected - nor did anti war people, left leaning republicans, or any other particular group.
He won because he consciously tried to speak to everybody.

I'm not thrilled with all of Obama's choices but they are consistent with his ideology .. which is inclusion and compromise in order to move things forward.

If you thought something different then you need to do some more research about him.
:shrug:

[ddeclue]

3. YES the people who got him elected...

Don't put this off on being "gay"... I'm straight but I'm a PROGRESSIVE dammit and I'm upset about it too. I was an Edwards backer and when he withdrew I had a choice: Obama or Hillary. I chose Obama as the more progressive candidate. Apparently that was just a front???

Had Progressives (not just gays or anti war people) backed Hillary instead of him then SHE would be President now. The question I have (like George Carlin once said) is what is the real difference between Hillary and Barack? It seems now like the choice was a false one.. I'm STILL getting a Hillary-esque administration even though it is NOT what I ever wanted.

:argh:

Doug D.

[Clio the Leo]

4. Unfortunately, I think you may be one of the many.....

.... who missed his major point. HE IS a progressive. But he fully recognizes that partisanship gets us nowhere. He never promised he'd lead from far left. Never. Said the exact opposite.

But we thank you for your vote anyway and hope you will consider choosing Barack next time over whatever right wing nutjobs the Republicas offer up next time. ;)

[ddeclue]

7. NO - YOU miss the point...

What gets us nowhere is compromising for NO REASON. Triangulation is a sellout of his base. By DEFINITION you can NOT triangulate and simultaneously be progressive. You are either progressive or you are NOT. Obama is NOT so stop calling him one.

Next you are creating a straw man argument. I didn't say he had to lead from "the far left" that is NOT the definition of "progressive". Yet he's not really even leading from the center left but rather from the center-right same as Clinton.

As for my time and money, don't patronize ME with your snarky attitude. I don't have to do anything next time and Obama can win Florida without my help. I'll go work for a Congressional candidate instead.

Doug D.

[Clovis Sangrail]

11. I think Clio is right

if you'd read Obama's books it should have been really clear that this is exactly his style of politics.
...maybe you should have done that before voting for him.
:shrug:

[mmonk]

5. We have always been the change we seek.

Politicians aren't because they have developed their strategic strategies that do not calculate in change. To them, the world is static.

[Thrill]

6. You're full of shit. The guy hasn't even started governing yet

[ddeclue]

8. Ahh the intellectual argument... give it a rest.. the guy is making decisions

and those decisions have consequences.

[kevinds13]

9. What consequences does a stupid

fucking prayer at an inaguaration have?

If you mean Cabinet choices, a bipartisan Cabinet that happens to be the most diverse in history kind of is change. All this buyers remorse is coming from people who were blind to Obama...he's been the exact same all through the Primary and GE.

[Bucky]

10. Triangulation is a certainly change from the last 8 years

Just like there's hard diplomacy and soft diplomacy and there's hard interrogation and soft interrogation, you can have hard and soft versions of political triangulating. The spin really matters when it comes to public perceptions.

Clinton, following Dick Morris's leash advice, played it a little hard and this only added to his isolation from the DC beltway community. I expect something smoother out of Obama, but obviously this strategy has its dangers.

[Maven]

12. Yup. Yet many will claim it's a "new" politics.

It isn't.

[ProSense]

13. A lot of people here don't care.

If the last few weeks of the election provided any signs, a lot of people were jumping for joy that the "Big Dawg" was back, labeling Obama "Clinton 2.0."