To those who are "surprised" at Obama's cabinet picks and actions since the election...

[wyldwolf]

...don't say you weren't warned. Some of us applaud most of what he's done (the Warren thing is a bit icky), some us applaud very little. But the information was out there and, during the summer of 2007 specifically, was posted here quite often.

His thoughts on domestic and foreign policy try to hew to this consensus-building line... (echoing) Bill Clinton’s “third way,” methodically triangulating between traditionally conservative and traditionally liberal ideas.New York Times - October 17, 2006

It can be characterized as “radical middle.” His book fits easily into the recent lineage of radical middle books by U.S. policy analysts, stretching from Ted Halstead and Michael Lind’s The Radical Center to Matt Miller’s The Two Percent Solution to my own Radical Middle to John Avlon’s Independent Nation (see reviews HERE and HERE). Basically, “radical middle” means that you take ideas from everywhere, and use those ideas to construct public policies that are at once pragmatic and imaginative.Radical Miller - Nov. 1, 2006

There's a Clinton in the presidential race. The surprise: It may not be Hillary. The truly Clintonian figure running for the Democratic nomination is Barack Obama. The senator from Illinois, it's struck me lately, seems in many ways more like Bill Clinton than does the senator from New York.In fact, Obama fits himself explicitly into the Clinton mold. "In his platform -- if not always in his day-to-day politics -- Clinton's Third Way went beyond splitting the difference," Obama writes. "It tapped into the pragmatic, nonideological attitude of the majority of Americans." Washington Post - January 2007

The Audacity of Hope places Obama squarely in the DLC camp, even if he never applies for a membership card. Black Agenda Report - Feb. 2007

The similarities with Clinton do not stop there. He writes approvingly about Clinton's adoption of the "third way", with its hostility to the shibboleths of left and right and its mantra that "what matters is what works." David Lammy - May 2007

It is noticeable that the most aggressive and heartfelt (almost zestful) portions of The Audacity of Hope are those in which he solidarizes himself with attacks on traditional liberalism and the supposed sacred cows of the Democratic Party. Here one feels he is most sincere and most comfortable with himself... This is merely a further repackaging of the Clinton-Blair “Third Way,” a supposed alternative to liberal and conservative policies. World Socialist Website - Feb. 2007

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. I didn't research enough.

The head of our local Obama campaign group obviously didn't research enough either. He is gay.

If we had been able to look into the future and see this, I think our money and effort would've been placed elsewhere.

[Joe the Revelator]

12. For the record, your posts have proven that you still haven't researched enough

when it comes to a lot of things.

[LaydeeBug]

141. why? because she disagrees with you?

[FrenchieCat]

14. Well, in reference to Gay Issues and an Obama administration,

The future is not yet here (he has yet to start his 4 year term)....so when you say, "if we had been able to look into the future and see this", you might consider waiting a tinch longer in order to reassess your original decision, no matter how pissed you are right this moment, as you might end up coming to a different conclusion.

Elections do have consequences, one of which is that you really do have four years of working for those rights that are so very important to you and yours, and seeing what the future brings...as it becomes the present. Then as some reasonable point, before you have to really determined who was right and who wasn't, you'll have solid information that will help you make informed decisions. Sounds like you didn't do your research, as you are saying, and sounds like you are again willing to judge based on a slice of time now. Assessing Obama's presidency before he is sworn in is somewhat rash, no matter what you think of Rick Warren...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. But he hasn't even begun yet and already this!

What else does he believe that is going to be horrible like this? This is pretty horrible a reflection on the man! I don't take this at all lightly. It's ugly.

[FrenchieCat]

22. "Already" is still questionnable as to its significance to the long view......

which is what Skinner's post was all about: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4689492&mesg_id=4689492

You have the ability and the right to judge him, but it doesn't guarantee that you are right in that judgement....no matter how firmly you believe it right now in the moment.

Was Warren the right person to do this? Likely not.

Does that make Obama neccessarily a bad man, as you imply with your "this is a pretty horrible reflection on the man...it's ugly"....-- Likely not, even if you think so as of today.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

28. This is setting a fine precedent. nt

[FrenchieCat]

34. and the next thing he does might set another fine precedent in a different direction.

I think that being really quick to judge is no virtue.....however, patience is.
It ain't like you are going to be able to run him out of office without giving him his four years.

It's like hearing about a movie and deciding to go and see it, and being really quite jazzed about it based on the reviews. Then not liking the fonts used in the opening credits, and walking out before the movie actually starts while blaming the quality of the production.

[Two Americas]

86. he has moved faster

There is always a lot of discussion about any president's cabinet picks. The reason for the discussion happening so early is because he is naming people more quickly than previous presidents have.

Saying "this is a pretty horrible reflection on the man" is not saying that they are a bad man. No one ever said that about any of Bush's actions, for example. To say that something is a bad reflection on someone is to say they are, or we hope they are, better than that.

No politician is too good to be criticized. Many Obama supporters have been extraordinarily intolerant of any criticism, going back before the primaries even started. Their loyalty has been more to the person and the style than to any policies or principles, Given that, and the personnel choices he has made, what should not surprise us is a backlash, and I think that backlash has been relatively mild given the circumstances. In their zeal to promote and defend their hero, some Obama supporters have stepped on just about everyone's toes at one tome or another.

[No Elephants]

94. Where? To McCain Palin? Or to a third party, in which case, you also would

have helped elect McCain Palin?

As frustrating as it may be, in our current system, you have only to realistic choices, help them (directly or indirectly), or help us directly. Until a third party is truly viable, those are your only realistic alternatives. And both sides have done their best to make sure the system is extremely hard to change.

I prefer us.

[FrenchieCat]

2. I disagree with your labeling of Obama......

But then, you probably know that.

But the beauty about it all is that time will tell.

[avaistheone1]

3. Well most of Obama's speeches had much grander illusions and ideas.

I am beginning to think it was all show business.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Odd. I listened to those very same speeches,

and also read his books, and I'm glad that he won, and am waiting for him to take the oath of office so that he can really get to work making his vision a reality.

It wasn't show business, it was vision that he hasn't had a chance to get done yet (cause considering that he is -30 days from his 4 years--it makes sense that reasonable people would judge him as barely started).....but in terms of his message of inclusion, and working even with the enemy to get to common ground, that was no grand illusion, it was the truth.

Show business these days means what exactly? feeling that you've seen the movie because you watched a 1 minute movie trailer, and therefore qualify to write out a specific review? :shrug:

[avaistheone1]

25. Reasonable people would not place Warren in an honorary and historic position at this inauguration.

I am really not sure at all about who I voted for. This is not the first time Obama has disappointed either. Look at how he flip flopped on FISA, and then cast the worst possible vote that will take the crooks off the hook. Sorry, but I am filled with more doubt and worry about Obama by the day based on HIS actions and nothing else.

[FrenchieCat]

35. That is an ok assessment to date......

and the keyword is "to date".

In the final analysis as of now, It just means that you don't have any faith in who you voted for.

I'll be happy to tell you that his job, among many others, is to prove you wrong.

To be reasonable is to give him the time to do it in....otherwise, you are not reasonable, you are unfair and rushing to judgement.

[avaistheone1]

39. I truly will be delighted to be proven wrong.

I want my country to succeed and I want Obama to succeed.

[FrenchieCat]

42. I'm certain that you do, as do I.

I'm just asking for a more time,
because I simply believe that it is a reasonable request.

At the end of it all, you may have been perfectly correct today....

or not.

[No Elephants]

96. His message of inclusion has not been fulfilled, though. He has reached out

to Republicans, to the really hard core DLC-ers, and to the religious right bigots. Not much reaching out to moderates or those further left of center has occurred, though. So, Obama's interpretation of reaching out and being a centrist is a surprise in some respects, especially that his interpretation of reaching out includes honoring a far religious right wingnut bigot on Inauguration Day. Didn't see that one coming before I voted; and I am prepared to call anyone who says they did a fibber.

Does that mean I wish I had voted for McCain or Nader? Please!

[emilyg]

37. Politics is show business.

[Cleita]

128. I agree.

His speeches sounded like he took lessons from Ronald Reagan's speech book. Really, grand and inspirational words that really didn't say much.

[Beacool]

133. Do you remember who wrote several of them?

Yeah, the 27 year old boy genius photographed copping a feel of Hillary's cut out while his buddy held its head, plied it with beer and kissed it. To the great amusement of the guy laughing in the background. BTW, all those shown in the photo are Obama's speechwriters. Yes, we can..........

:eyes:

[liberalmuse]

4. I'm not surprised with the cabinet picks...

but the Warren thing kind of caught me off guard. Considering the only blight on election night was the passage of Prop H8, it is a bit weird that Obama would chose one of its most visible proponents to kick off his inauguration. That really did take me for a loop. I figured Obama would choose someone with a lot more substance. Soul (and no, not because he is black). Someone who wasn't so backwards and ignorant.

[NashVegas]

5. Perhaps

If 85% of the discussion hadn't boiled down to personae, and personal attacks on posters and candidates both, we wouldn't be here right now. But it did. Some people are bitter. And some are saying, "fucking told you so."

[FrenchieCat]

15. And some are saying, "fucking told you so."

Et tu some?

[NashVegas]

19. It May Seem That Way

To anyone who was selling a bill of goods.

[FrenchieCat]

24. I know that you are wise and didn't buy a bill of goods,

but yet still, with all of the work that you did then, the primaries happened already...and elections have consequences......and I would imagine that you still voted for him.

"I told you so" 30 days prior to the swearing in ceremony is kind of demonstrating the type of state of mind that takes us back to May of 2008....as though one never left there to begin with.

[babylonsister]

6. I didn't read the whole link, but

the Black Agenda Report has had a hard on for Obama as long as I can remember.

Here's an article that disputes your claim about the DLC.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

Barack Obama will not be carrying the Democratic Leadership Council’s baggage in his race to become the second Black person to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate. The state senator and professor of constitutional law has told The Black Commentator that he is acting to have his name stricken from the “New Democrats Directory,” a list of several hundred DLC-affiliated elected officials.

“I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC,” said Obama, in a statement that substantially reflects a telephone conversation with Associate Editor Bruce Dixon, this weekend. “It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC…listed me in their ‘New Democrat’ directory,” Obama continued. “Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention.”

more...

[wyldwolf]

8. On the contrary. I have made no claim about the DLC

But your link is right. Obama didn't carry the DLC's baggage into his race for the Senate. He effectively convinced a big portion of the left (or left wannabes) that he wasn't a third wayer.

[babylonsister]

13. I meant the claim in your post. nt

[wyldwolf]

21. I think the claim in the post is quite valid

Not every member of the DLC towed the DLC line on the few issues Obama specifically mentioned he disagreed with them on. Bob Graham comes to mind. In fact, I can't think of a single DLC Dem who has followed the DLC agenda 100%. It's been established Obama never became a dues paying card carrying member of the DLC - but his policy positions reveal he'd be at home there. If anyone disagrees with that, they haven't done a close enough examination of both the DLC's and Obama's positions.

Even in your link, he says, "I may even agree with DLC positions: their insistence on the value of national service, or the need to harden domestic targets like chemical plants from potential terrorist attack, to cite a few examples I just pulled from the DLC web-site, make sense to me."

[Odin2005]

70. IMO Obama has essentially disarmed and neutered the DLC.

The DLC just doesn't know it yet, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" and all that. He stole the DLC's talking points without compromising his Liberalism, that is Obama's political genius. And now he is going to drag the center back to the left kicking and screaming. I can't wait to see Al From having a hissy fit over it.

[No Elephants]

97. Sorry, but I think this very unlikely and implausible.

[avaistheone1]

7. Remember Clinton signed, sealed and delivered NAFTA. If Obama and his cabinet emulate that

administration there is untold damage they can do. I voted for Obama, I think him better than McCain, but Obama was not my first choice in the primaries.

[FrenchieCat]

60. "If" isn't the way to get to "there is untold damage that they can do" all in a single sentence.

and elections have consequences, including primaries.

[natrat]

9. agreed but i am surprised he is going along with the huge financial fraud,kind of a bummer

[liberalmuse]

20. Interesting that you would post that.

There have been a few things looming in the back of my mind that I've been hesitant to allow into the forefront, but you know how it is when you finally remove the blinders. It's like a marriage. It takes one seemingly little thing that isn't really so little to open the floodgates of all the things that have been bothering about that person since you met them. Only then does it all come rushing out, to everyone's horror.

I do believe Obama was the best candidate if given the choice between him and McCain. There is no doubt in my mind that McCain would have been an utterly heinous choice. However, the process of getting to where I 'fully' supported Obama has been somewhat a lie. I was not happy at all with Obama's last minute FISA vote switcheroo. He was my fifth choice for a reason. God, that FISA vote was devastating, but that one could be pushed back into the recesses of my brain, because overall there was no doubt in my mind that there could be no other outcome than Obama winning the election. Shit, we're talking about the choice between a Republican and Democrat, and if you've lived in the past half century, you know exactly which side you've been fucked by the most. I really convinced myself to buy into the Obama cult of personality thing that I even pushed my really strong feelings about the bailout into the back of my mind because he had come out in support of it. It felt so fucking good. Granted, I really do like Obama, and the pragmatic part of myself really does believe he will do a great job, but to be honest, not the job someone like Kucinich would do. He's only human for Christ sakes.

You can't have everything you want, and if there's anything I've learned in life, it's that someone like myself is definitely not going to ever see their dream candidate take power in this lifetime. It's not in the cards.

The bailout thing is another sad story. I don't know why Obama supported it, but I suspect it is because he thought it was a good thing. I am an adult and know better than to support something just because my feel-good candidate supports it. Shit, that is the hard lesson learned in all this. Will I be a staunch critic of Obama? No. Only when he does that shit he does 2% of the time (which is not a bad record). He's done so many good things that I likely won't be jumping his shit more than I have with the Warren fiasco. The part of me that is so wanting to be ecstatic with the cult of personality thing really wants Obama to come out with a 'Gay Speech' that rivals his awesome 'Race Speech'. How goddamn naive can one be?

[FrenchieCat]

31. As far as "Obama to come out with a 'Gay Speech' that rivals his awesome 'Race Speech'"

Could still happen you know...or something there close to.
After all, we are -30 days from the swearing-in ceremony of a 4 year term.

It will be nice to hear the inauguration speech at the very least,
as he might just have a message for all of us in that as well....
and after all it is the centerpiece to the inauguration,
regardless that we have been discussing the first 2 minutes only,
for the past 4 days.

I think time is on our side.
That's the good news...I'd say.


I was just watching Bush on C-Span doing an interview.....
and that only confirmed that 1/20/08 truly is wonderful news,
and can not be seen any other way from those who have suffered greatly
since November of 2000.

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. DU did not elect Obama. 60+ million Americans did. I see the point

you're trying to make, but I don't think the majority of us feel we were misled. If anyone blindly supported a candidate, it's their own fault. I see his same old primary detractors are back in full force with their anti Obama screed.

[wyldwolf]

11. if you're referring to me

I'm an avid supporter of the third way, so my OP is in no way an "anti-Obama screed."

[FrenchieCat]

40. No, your op is based on the premise that we elected a candidate

that believes as you do....which is the DLC way. I'm sure that you are delighted to think you could be right, and it is obvious that you take great pride at the thought of it..... but I don't think that you are as right as you wish to be......although twisted here and there, it could fit.

I don't think that Obama comes from any wing of the party.....I think he's made up his own based on a variety of views, some which are quite his own. How about that?

[avaistheone1]

17. I think it's beginning to look like Obama is going to let those 60+ million people down

just like Clinton did when he sold us out on NAFTA. Warren is just Obama's first step. Obama's own words and actions are responsible for any criticisms or so called screed he receives. If he can' take it he shouldn't be in office. Period. Obama is not some kind of sacred cow. His solemn duty is to serve the people and the Constitution of this country. imo

[babylonsister]

23. Funny thing about that: HE'S NOT IN OFFICE!

Cripes, you have no clue of what will transpire in the next month, 2, 6, or 4 years.

Give it a rest.

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. Thanks Babs. I have no idea what "Ignored" is griping about, but I can guess.

And you're right, he/she should give it a rest.

[Two Americas]

87. HE'S MAKING DECISIONS NOW!

People have a right, and a duty, to comment on those decisions.

You have no more reason to believe that your idea as to "what will transpire in the next month, 2, 6, or 4 years" is better than anyone else's.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Wow....you're a quick one at the draw. And that was 69 million.

It could be ridiculous, what you are saying,
if you weren't so unreasonably serious. :(

[Two Americas]

26. "surprise"

I don't see much surprise expressed. People can express criticism about the appointees without being therefore "surprised."

Another problem is that before the election many people denied that Obama was what you now say he is, in an effort to promote him to the Left. In fact, many of Obama's most zealous promoters claimed again and again that he was a departure from the Clinton politics, especially as the race heated up between him and Senator Clinton. Obama was presented as the anti-DLC candidate, a dramatic alternative to Clinton politics.

Since the defenses of Obama have always evolved and changed to suit the circumstances, we see people arguing "he IS a liberal" and then turning around and saying "he is a centrist, always has been, and I don't know how you could have failed to see that."

What difference does it make what he "is" in any case? I see this as yet another attempt to ridicule and marginalize the Left. This "surprise" argument is a way to make critics look stupid, naive or ill-informed.

[wyldwolf]

29. oh, golly gee, Dr. Frued! You figured me out! And all based on one word in "quotes"

:rofl:

I see this as yet another attempt to ridicule and marginalize the Left. This "surprise" argument is a way to make critics look stupid, naive or ill-informed.

oh, the irony!

[gristy]

33. I agree with Two Americas

The broad claim that those criticizing some of Obama's decisions are "surprised" is certainly false.

[wyldwolf]

44. ah, see, there was no "broad" claim as such

The post was to those who ARE surprised, not everyone who is criticizing. See? The OP title could not have been plainer. If you don't believe yourself to be one of "those," so be it.

But I suspect this is the point where you tell me what I actually meant.

[Two Americas]

64. silly me

This was a public service! Just in case there were any out there who were surprised, you thought you would help them out. Now, you didn't specify - would these people who are surprised be pleasantly surprised? Or unpleasantly surprised? You don't say.

Now, are we to believe that there were some who expected or hoped for a more centrist or right leaning Obama? And they would now be unpleasantly surprised, because Obama is much too far to the Left for them. Is that what you meant? That seems unlikely.

That can only mean that the "surprised" ones you are addressing would be unpleasantly surprised, and that would mean they were unhappy with the degree to which the administration is signaling a move to the right. Then your innocent public service announcement - just addressed to a limited few to help them out - is actually a jeering in-your=-face taunting, isn't it?

Now, can we think back to before the election? Any time anyone said there was a danger here of moving to the right, they were ruthlessly bashed down and told they were wrong. Of course they are not among the "surprised" ones you are addressing.

Dishonest, deceptive, divisive, inflammatory. Those words keep coming to mind, for some reason. Now, I don't mean you - I mean those who are being dishonest, deceptive, divisive, inflammatory. If you don't believe yourself to be one of "those," so be it.

[wyldwolf]

65. is gristy your sockpuppet? Because you're answering for him/her

:shrug:

Dishonest, deceptive, divisive, inflammatory.

ALERT ALERT ALERT!

[ProgressIn2008]

46. I have to agree strongly with Two Americas, too. Actually, the argument

that "you knew all along that Obama wasn't a progressive guy!!" is pretty funny. A lot of his supporters insisted vehemently that he was the anti-DLC, anti-Clinton, anti-corp interest, anti-war, anti-Iraq mess candidate. I say this as someone who's left of Obama and Clinton both and sees them as pretty much cut of the same cloth. (And I understand that from a different and more positive perspective, the OP sees them in a similarly similar light and I wouldn't accuse the OP of swaying with the wind.) So, it's interesting, at this stage of the game, to see people seemingly satisfied that he was this way all along. Maybe I've read them wrong and they're not satisfied, but it comes off as "I always knew so I'm not disappointed, what's the big deal?"

The other funny thing? Saying that this "reaching out" is new or exciting somehow. Pandering to religious bigots with large constituencies is the stalest biscuit in the box. Talk about your old, cynical politics of yesterday.

However, I'm of the school that thinks this is actually going to be a worthwhile development: Warren is such a monster that he's torn the lid off the party line and that's a good thing. We'll never get anything done by looking at the incoming president like he's a kewl dreamy celeb in Tiger Beat. He's a public servant and he works for the people and draws a hefty salary. The more people start shouting at the lords in the castle on the hill, the better. Accountability is all.

[emilyg]

38. If you're going to use the great one's name

it's Freud.

[No Elephants]

99. Frenchie is 100% right that the Opening Post. is unflattering and intended to be so. It does

not require the services of Dr. Freud, or Sherlock Holmes or a pysychic friend.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

41. As someone who gave her ALL to Obama to get him elected, I think you're right

Obama evolves his defenses to suit the circumstances. He's clever and a chameleon, and he's an excellent speaker. He motivates. However, he does shapeshift. Maybe it wasn't so much that I was ill-informed or didn't do my homework. Maybe many of us were fooled, and now we're beginning to find out the truth.

I was originally for John Edwards. I wanted someone TOTALLY without ties to the right wing and John was expressing the outrage of the socioeconomic stratification in this country. While John Edwards was speaking about the two Americas, the oligarchical system here, how he wanted to change that, when he was speaking to unions, Obama was not, and he never did. Instead, he high fived everyone.

I wish John Edwards had not gotten involved with that woman. I think that's why his campaign never really took off well, because he was distracted by that freakish woman and everyone knew. It was a matter of time. All my efforts would've gone to him. Instead, he stopped the campaign because he was going to be outed by the other Democrats, and at first I didn't know whom to side with, then sided with Obama.

:(

[wyldwolf]

47. "I was originally for John Edwards. I wanted someone TOTALLY without ties to the right wing"

hmm...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

49. Corporations were against John Edwards, but they sure were friendly with the Clintons and Obama nt

[FrenchieCat]

56. Tell that to the Hedge Funds who paid Edwards $400,000 for partime work in a few months!

Remember that the Fund paid Edwards to "learn" how Hedge Funds work...although apparently even after learning, he still didn't have a clue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277.html


But I keep forgetting, you don't "do" research, just a lot of opining after-the-facts. :rofl:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

67. Well, if I knew what I know now, I would not have done what I did for Obama nt

[FrenchieCat]

78. You brought up Edwards,

and yet you choose not to comment on your "first choice"?

I'll read what you have to say in about 100 days, or when the first positive piece of legislation comes out in reference to Gay Rights. We'll then see how sincere each of us truly were.

Like I always say....Time will tell all.

Till then. :hi:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

142. Excuse me? Are you saying I couldn't possibly have chosen to REFUSE Obama?

Oy vey. Interesting. I imagine that my liking Edwards' ideals will also affect me in 2012 when I probably will choose to back someone different than Obama?

[Two Americas]

52. it is pretty clear

We are probably too close to it right now to see it clearly.

The Obama campaign was always an assault on the political Left as much as it was an assault on the right. However, the general public rejected the political right, they did not reject the political Left. It is the spinning and misrepresentations by his followers that have caused most of the problems, in my view. You can't blame Obama much, because he is a politician doing what politicians do.

Rahm - so much for "anti-DLC"

Clinton - so much for anti-Clinton

Vilsack - take a hike, activists

Warren - we will be reaching out, but not to YOU

I don't think you should berate yourself for being fooled, because there was such a clever and aggressive campaign going on to fool us.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

53. Thanks. You're right it was a very clever, aggressive campaign...

One which I will not be a part of in 2012. By the time these 4 years are through, I'll probably be an expert in identifying deception. Looks like there's not a right winger born that Obama doesn't like.

I'm positive the selfless head of our local Obama campaign headquarters will not be a part of it either. He's gay.

[babylonsister]

59. Wow. And here I thought you supported Clinton.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8005920&mesg_id=8006266

Which is it, Sarah, because I'm confused. Who do you love? Edwards, Obama, or Clinton, or anyone but Obama? And shapeshift?! :spray:

[Maru Kitteh]

77. John Edwards is.... IS an oligarch. Mother of pearl, LOOK AT THAT MAN'S HOUSE.

Stop looking and what monkey says, and look at what monkey does.

[Two Americas]

88. amazing

The size of a person's house is not what makes them "an oligarch." Just about all of the Democratic party politicians are oligarchs, since they serve the oligarchy. Certainly there are only a handful in anything close to outright opposition to the oligarchy.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

144. And Obama of the sexist pig preacher is not? Oy vey, have you seen his house? nt

[FrenchieCat]

50. The fact that many feel compeled to label him one way or another

is the flaw in all of these arguments.

Fit him nicely in a nitch so that we can predetermine what he will do.

The thing is that many are spinning without a clue.

A great candidate breaks the mold, and ends up redefining the old notions and the labels that go with it.

A great President defines himself as he goes, not beforehand.

[Two Americas]

58. you can't have politics without politics

Politics, and political leadership are not about "niches" or "labels," they are about principles, about taking a stand. People have been perfectly willing to use labels for Obama in order to promote him. The fact that the labels and definitions of what he stands for endlessly evolve to suit the moment is not transcending partisanship, it is pandering and it is manipulating people. I don't know that Obama is doing that any more or less than any other politician, but his defenders certainly are.

You are trying to predetermine what he will do as much as anyone, and aggressively promote your view of what he will do. Others have different opinions. You have created a niche and labels for him as well, you just claim that it is some new and unknown and transformational niche category that has one occupant - Obama. You have expectations, predictions and desires just as anyone else. You think yours are better, is all. Rather than defend your ideas, you simply attack everyone else's ideas, or attack the people expressing the ideas. By portraying yourself as super=loyal, you can claim that this makes your ideas better. You are just cozying up to power, and claiming that this gives your ideas power.

It is not our job as responsible citizens in a representative democracy to be invested in or promote any politicians' greatness. This is odd, because we are told to "give him a chance" and not criticize him because he has not yet taken office, yet it is perfectly OK to talk about hos greatness at this early date.

[FrenchieCat]

63. I am not predetermining anything.......

to quote you,"You have expectations, predictions and desires just as anyone else. You think yours are better, is all.".....

I try not to attack folks...hell, I even make special efforts to communicate without offending.

Now You and I have had these conversations before, but I'm here to announce that the primaries are officially over, and Barack Obama was elected President. It is reasonable to allow him to actually enter office before being conclusive as to the type of President he will be. This post is not about how great Obama will be, or how right I am...it is simply to say that the rush to judge on the entire presidency of a man who has yet to be sworn in is not what "responsible citizens" do, but rather what partisans who don't like who won the election engage in.

In short; Obama won, and will be sworn in, and no conclusion that you come up with, in where you surmise his entire presidency, can be looked upon as being reasoned or rational considering he's yet to serve a day.

[Two Americas]

72. no problem

I don't want to give you a hard time, FrenchieCat. We disagree on this.

I haven't "surmised his entire presidency." You have ideas as to what the presidency is going to be like, you express those ideas often, and don't feel the need to wait until he is sworn in. Why can others not give their opinions? Why are the ideas of those who disagree with you to be seen as not reasoned or rational?

We are in another one of those "free speech zones" again - this one between "Obama won" and has "yet to serve a day." This follows on the heels of the one between "he is the presumed nominee" and the election.

[FrenchieCat]

74. Obama did win, and Obama has yet to serve a day.

and he was the presumed nominee based on the math way prior to June 3rd.

Frankly, those are just facts....
.
what you are talking about, not so much.

[Two Americas]

134. right

Who is disputing that Obama did win, and that Obama has yet to serve a day?

People are objecting to your call for a moratorium on commentary - other than cheer leading and adulation - between those two events.

If we can't comment on politicians until they take office, what is the point of elections? Or is it only between an election and the taking of office that we should be quiet?

[gravity]

30. He is doing exactly what he said he would do

He was always a pragmatic third way politician, talking about moving beyond the left vs right fighting in politics.

[elocs]

36. When, oh when will we ever have the perfect president who pleases everyone?

Well, let's face it, the left is rarely pleased with anything and seems the most happy when they are unhappy or pissed off about something. Six weeks after the election and before Obama even takes office they are having voter remorse. Incredible, and sad. This must give Republicans a good laugh, and hope.

[Brooklyns_Finest]

43. Birth Certificate

Remember when Duer's would go on freerepublic and mock the histeria about Obama's faux birth certificate. This is the same type of shit on this side. While there is cause for some unhappiness with the Warren pick, the level has become over the top. Freepers are laughing at the radicals on this site.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

48. Freepers were laughing when they found out a major homophobe, gay hater, woman hater, and

Republican was going to be Obama's preacher. They were slapping their knees and thinking, "They DESERVE IT, the dumbasses!"

[FrenchieCat]

55. That's not what I'm reading......

Though conservatives are excited that Barack Obama seems to have infuriated gay activists, I suspect they're privately a bit worried about the Warren pick.

Obama supporters fear that the invitation offers legitimacy to Warren and his anti-gay-marriage views -- but some conservatives wonder whether Warren's presence provides some legitimacy to the Obama presidency.

Nicole Russell of American Spectator complained, "Holding a forum forcing Obama to discuss his views is one thing. Supporting him publicly by praying/speaking at his inauguration is another. Frankly, this is a spineless move on Warren's part."

The Family Research Council opined, "Let's hope that Rick Warren will use his channel of communication to the new President to press him for more pro-family policies-rather than simply being used by Mr. Obama to make political inroads with evangelicals."

David Brody at Christian Broadcasting Network reports he's been inundated with email from angry conservative Christians.

And over at the very conservative online community Free Republic posters lashed out at Warren with as much anger as gays who critiized Obama:

Rick Warren should recuse himself from this ministerial assignment. Obama is a pro-abort extremist. That is hardly a position worth a blessing from a Christian pastor. -- by obamaisandrogynous
Pray for them, yes! try to convert them, yes! Recognize their authority over you, yes!
Support them and give them credence, no! Rick Warren is their to just cover up the smell. Front man and a shill for a corrupt presidency.
--by dirtymac

Methinks Mr. Warren's pride is getting the better of him. Giving the invocation at a presidential inauguration IS a big deal, but I'm sure that standing before Jesus on Judgement Day will make it seem less than trivial.
--by MrB

Rick Warren is one of those new age, book author, get rich thanks to Jesus like Joel Osteen - TV pastors. I thought Warren was decent but he is a phony.
--by Frantzie

Pop star preachers love fame and the company of other pop stars more than they love Christ. Avoid them and their churches.
--by pallis

Obama supports late term abortion and the killing of babies that survive abortions. That is infanticide. For Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration proves Warren is no true Christian. May he be shunned forever.
-- by jrooney

This is despicable.
--by trisham

Geez...the False Prophet swearing in the Anti-Christ...how nice.
--by ravingnutter

What Obama has in mind is to use religious socialists to move his socialist agenda.
--by stockpirate

Disgusting duplicity on Rick's part. Perhaps Pastor Warren didn't comprehend the signifigance of his own question he asked of the affirmative action fraud at Saddeleback forum. He certainly could not comprehend the depth of deceit in Obama's response ... surely. Seems Warren is more concerned with his own empowerment than the truth of LIFE. Satan has lots of help in that regard ...
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/12/conservative-angst-about-obama.html

[babylonsister]

62. Ha. Funny. I don't remember that. Hmmm. nt

[DutchLiberal]

120. How ignorant can you get?

'The left' (this is a dead give-away about you, by the way) only bitches about Warren for the sake of bitching, right? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that he campaigned for Prop8 and compares gays to pedophiles, right? :eyes:

And 'the left' only bitches for the sake of bitching about Obama's cabinet appointments, right? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that the exact same people who deregulated and privatized everything and made the lives of workers miserable are now back in power, right? :eyes:

Yeah, the left sure knows how to whine. I wish we could be as good as you are in marching in lockstep.

[Odin2005]

45. I disagree. IMO, unlike the triangulators, he is actually trying to pull the center leftwards.

The Clintonians' major flaw is that they blindly followed public opinion, letting the GOP pull the center to the Right. What Obama is doing is just the opposite, pulling the center back leftwards.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

54. Wow, I can clearly see that with his persistence to keep Warren right in there nt

[Odin2005]

68. There are lots of evangelicals that would be solidly Dem were it not for social issues.

I have a co-worker who is a perfect example. He is a socially conservative Baptist. He voted for a Democrat, Obama, for president for the first time this year. He works with disabled people and is a very good compassionate person, but his social conservatism, especially his opposition to abortion, made him vote for the Pukes. a combination of the economic downturn, me constantly prodding him about how liberal his economic views were, and Obama's charisma I think caused him to vote Dem. Yet some DUers would call him a monster simply because of his socially conservative views despite his compassion towards poor and disabled people.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

[saracat]

100. He would be a monster because his social views are what make him one.

If one is not for basic human rights for all, one is a monster. I don't really give a rats patoot what his economic concerns are. What about his complete disregard for my humanity and dignity as a woman? What about his disregard of the GBTL Community as equal citizens? All should be considered forgiven because he helps the "poor and disabled" At what price? Their souls?

[Odin2005]

101. You proved my point.

Everyone holds beliefs that offend somebody else, nobody is perfect.

This February he will be speaking at the Minnesota state capitol, raising support for more funding for non-profits that help disabled people. I, a high-functioning Autistic, will be there with him.

[saracat]

109. And you prove mine. As long as you get yours , the heck with everyone else ,eh?

It is fine he helps the disabled but that doesn't make up for the damage he does to the GBTL Community and women as well as others. I am sure the disabled members of the GBTL families he is ripping apart will be sooo comforted by that!:sarcasm:
What if those that fought racial discrimination thought this way? What is Rosa Parks just informed the bus driver and others that "everyone holds beliefs that offend someone" ? What about those who "believe society should do nothing for the disabled because their suffering is "God's will" ?

[Odin2005]

130. I interact with people all the time that think I'm "diseased" or "poisoned by mercury".

The "mercury causes Autism" BS offends me and attacks the very core of my own identity (just as BS about homosexuality being a choice, or an illness that can be "cured" does the same with folks in the GLBT community), but I don't shun people just because of that.

[babylonsister]

71. You are not alone, but not much agreement here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4697201&mesg_id=4697201

Obama’s Cabinet: A Diverse Center-Left Team, Picked Quickly

[Odin2005]

73. Also, I've read that Summers and Rubin have actually shifted to the left in recent years.

At least according to an Atlantic Monthly article called "The New Liberal Order" I posted here a while back.

[depakid]

51. Not suprised in the slightest- though it will be interesting to see what (if anything)

these folks have learned.

[ProSense]

57. Obama is nothing like Clinton, no matter how many times these bogus comparisons are made. n/t

[wyldwolf]

61. damn them facts! Damn them all to hell!

[ProSense]

66. What facts?

Opinion and speculation about what Obama will do are not facts.

The most significant thing he has done so far was something the Clintons (both Hillary and Bill) fought against for decades: transparency.

The consequences of that action is still to be determined.

[zulchzulu]

69. I always love the utopian whing from World Socialist Website....

As for Hillary, she spoke at Warren's AIDS Conference in 1997!

(insert cheesy Hitchcock soundtrack blast here)

[BeyondGeography]

75. There's the politics and, then, there's the person

and thank goodness for that.

[anaxarchos]

76. No need to gloat...

Yes, you are right on every point. So what?

You forgot a few things.

You forgot the essential New Age flakiness of where "Radical Middle" politics comes from... try Mark Satin (1976) for starters. That essential ignorance still prevails in people like Eric Schmidt who not only show the same ignorance but are also New Wave corporate CEOs, for chrissakes... The popularity of those kinds of occupations has slipped in the interim, no?

You forgot that any attempts to appropriate Clinton's triangulation must also appropriate Clinton's social circumstances. In his day, Reagan had shifted American politics significantly to the right in an era of declining global challenges for the United States and a booming economy - the exact opposite of what prevails today. The fantasy of creating a new political majority, or even a new political party, of the "middle" is a prosperity fantasy. In his time, Clinton could implement a very Republican monetary and fiscal policy and not pay the price because the economy kept growing. Try that now. In our circumstances, people don't just need "moderate measures", let alone "competence", or "new ideas", or post-partisan, post-industrial, post-racial rhetoric... they need relief.

You forgot that under stress, "Third Way" movements move inexorably to the right. In Europe, Third Way is now openly Fascist, articulating very different policies in exactly the same terms. The British Liberal Party once described itself that way. Today, it is the name of the inheritors of the British National Party, as it is also the that of the neo-Fascist resurgence in Italy under the umbrella of Berlusconi.

You forgot 8 years of Bush, doing damn well as he pleased. While you may have been "hiring" an enlightened "executive", most people thought they were returning, to one degree or another, to partisan representation - not to new ideas but to old ones, dearly lost.

You also forgot that Obama has no natural base (unlike Clinton), his victory coming not just from who voted for him but from the degree of their enthusiasm. Bush will fade into memory. The symbolic elements of the victory will pass into history. What remains has got to be a very partisan support for Obama himself and who he stands for. Warren is just the beginning of the drip, drip, drip of disillusionment, accelerated by the arrogance of "toughing it out" when called on it. Those who agree with Obama now, will only remember the fast trip under the bus for GLBT rights when their fundamental issues are similarly treated. Those once moved by Obama's rhetoric will be doubly angry if they perceive it to have been hypocrisy. And the lack of a base means that no "alternatives" are needed for Obama to lose electorally. A simple lack of enthusiasm will do.

Whether Obama really believes that crap or not is immaterial. He didn't sell it and people (most people) didn't buy it. If he is really not a "man of the people", then he had better take lessons... fast. If he is more conflicted than that, then the first thing he has to show is the ability to retreat in the face of "those that brung you". It is not for "the people" to understand what Obama "really" stands for... it is for Obama to understand why they voted for him.

[BeyondGeography]

79. Obama has no natural base?

That's funny.

[anaxarchos]

81. OK... what is it?

Spell it out, when you are done laughing.

[BeyondGeography]

82. Ask Bill's wife

:dunce:

[anaxarchos]

83. Winning a primary series - once - does not make a "base".

Really... please do try, if it seems so obvious to you. Is it Westerners, Southerners, Blue Collar Workers, Rural, Suburbans, Catholics, Money People (like "Mitt"), what?

[BeyondGeography]

84. Ummm, let's start with black people

do they exist in your world? Or, like the Clintons, do you just take them for granted?

Please answer. Really, do try.

[anaxarchos]

95. They certainly exist...

...but they are not Obama's base. Ask Obama. First, African-Americans represent the single most important voting block in the Democratic coalition, and have been for quite a while. But there are two aspects to that vote: 1) It is not a forgone conclusion. Clinton, indeed, thought she could split it. Policy absolutely matters and ethnic loyalty is not certain (ask Ken Blackwell; ask Karl Rove about his plan to add 5-10 percentage points to the Republican Black vote). 2) Turnout matters. In this election, Obama shaved a few more points in several of the traditional Democratic constituencies, shaved a few more in the suburbs and small towns, shaved a huge number among Hispanics and got a giant turnout in the African-American community (and a lessor but still significant one among "youth"). That was the reference to "enthusiasm" in what I wrote above. If you think that Black voter turnout will continue at those levels despite Obama's obvious adoption of the OPs viewpoints, more power to you. For me, the only two Democratic electoral campaigns that I ever really threw myself into were the primary campaigns of Reverend Jackson, and I ain't buyin' it. I fear it is you that is taking the black vote for granted.

I think it's about time for you to say more than one liners, unless you are channeling Henny Youngman.

[BeyondGeography]

103. The fact is, any Democrat has a natural base, Obama only more so

Your statement remains absurd, not that you'll admit it or anything.

[anaxarchos]

104. I've already explained...

...clearly... twice. The truth is that most Democrats have a "natural" base, if that is only a word that you wanted to quibble with. That base also includes union households, the Northeast major cities and many others. But a base that is shared by everyone is no base at all. It is not enough to "win", or hasn't been for decades. It is your "more so" that is at issue. Obama wins by pulling extraordinary support. That is not a given and depends on what he actually does, not on who he simply is. If you think Obama can govern as some ordinary pol, as the OP gleefully reports, and still pull extraordinary support... well, good luck with that. The truth is that no politician can do as they like... "Obama only more so".

[FrenchieCat]

80. Obama knows why people voted for him....it's because of what he promised

in ways of policies and tone.

His job in the next four years, is to do as he said he would in the tone that he said he would do it in.

If we as a people can't handle unity to get things done, then he will fail....in by extension so will we.

[anaxarchos]

91. The "people" never "fail".

They express a preference within the context that is offered to them, a priori. Or have you not seen the comments over the last year which end with, "OK... vote for McCain, then"? The same goes for "you didn't understand what he really said". What it comes down to is whether Obama represents and is seen to represent the people who voted for him. Those people are truly hurting at the moment. The idea of "great men", unappreciated by the "great unwashed", is an ideological fantasy. The position that the OP takes - that Obama is a closet conservative (because that is what the "radical middle" is) and it makes the OP extremely happy - that is totally irrelevant. There is no base for what the OP describes.

[Runcible Spoon]

112. I think your comments on this thread are very insightful and reasoned.

I thank you and hope to see more from you.

[Two Americas]

136. not an Old Testament prophet

You are talking about Obama as though he were an Old Testament prophet. Again and again, a prophet brought "policies and tone" to the people, but the people were disobedient - refused to accept unity and truth, failed to believe, and so were punished. The prophet then is not to blame - it was the people's fault. They were sinful, they would not comply, they rejected the true message of peace and unity.

I think you are projecting a religious model onto politics.

In a representative democracy the people are sovereign, they are not to be seen as little lost children looking for a spiritual leader to obey and worship and lead them out of the wilderness. You are saying that if we do not obey him in his call for this post partisan unity, if we are found lacking and deficient, then he will fail, and that if he fails we are all lost. That is religion, not politics.

[bvar22]

85. So, in other words, you are saying.....

THIS is the new "Post-Partisanship"

Same as the old "3rd Way DLC".
And you all thought Obama was going to "change" something!
Hahahahahaha......SUCKERS !

[babylonsister]

90. I hope you are awestruck when this doesn't happen . And admit it. nt

[bvar22]

92. I pray to Rick Warren's baby jesus that I'm wrong....

...but as far as the photo featured in my post, its too late. Obama has already publicly supported and voted FOR the above no strings attached Bailout for Wall St CEOs.

[Two Americas]

137. you must know that we would

Why do you think we speak out? If we do not, there is no hope that the administration will move to the Left. If the administration does move to the Left, of course almost all of us who are speaking out now will support that. Of course. You must know that.

There are many here who will never idolize or become hero-worshipers of any politician. So what? Must all do that, or else be seen as enemies?

When we start moving toward justice and equality, then I will cheer that. When the homeless are housed, when minorities are protected and have equal rights, when the poor are given relief, when workers are protected and can organize, when indigenous people around the world are safe from murderous predation by our government and businesses, when income is equitably distributed, when the public resources are protected - I will always cheer that. Isn't that the point? Otherwise, why be interested in politics at all? How does cheer leading for a celebrity help that?

I am going to continue to speak out. If that is annoying for those who place their own personal emotional state, their need to feel certain things and believe certain things, I would suggest that they manage that in theor own and not try to force others to operate for the purpose of buttressing their personal fantasies.

If people were truly confident in Obama, they would not be so intolerant of any and all discouraging words, they would not be so desperate to protect a happy emotional state about him, would not be so resistant to anything that might break the spell.

[No Elephants]

93. Did 3rd way DLC also have as many Republicans as the new Post Partisanship and no liberals, or is

is this change we can go deeper in the hole with?

[ShortnFiery]

107. No, us rubes in the non-investor classes continue to get financially raped ...

but we get TAKEN by those with soft-spoken voices and smiles on their faces, i.e., the DLC will ensure a kinder, gentler fascist nation. :nuke:

[ShadowLiberal]

89. Obama's rhetoric should have made it obvious he'd try to govern this way

Obama spoke a ton about postpartisanship, and bringing the nation together, so the fact that he's made quite a few more moderate people as his cabinet picks shouldn't surprise people that much, he's simply keeping that promise.

I think another reason for his cabinet is because Obama doesn't want to repeat the mistakes of past presidents who put too many yes men on their teams, so that their teams would simply agree with everything they say, and not actually offer them diverse view points and advice he wouldn't have thought of otherwise. Administrations where everyone is too scared to speak up and disagree with the boss on something and offer a different point of view usually end up making big mistakes that could have been avoided (like Iraq), and drag the president down with them.

[leftofthedial]

98. I don't understand why "surprise" keeps being inserted into the issue.

He's made a whole bunch of right wing, status quo picks and some that are downright insulting to anyone who has been remotely on teh left of any issue for the last eight years. He's behaving in a way that most on this board would criticize loudly if he had an (R) by his name. Surprised, not surprised--it makes no difference. He's acting like a repuke in many ways so far and he deserves criticism.

I, for one, am not surprised. Disappointed. Not surprised.

[LWolf]

106. Surprise because

when I pointed out the same things, loudly and regularly, during the primaries, I was shouted down by people who passionately claimed that Obama was "not dlc!!!!!" A "liberal!!!!!"

There were many people who, listening to the vague, ambiguous rhetoric of hope, didn't look at specifics, didn't hear policy positions, and chose to believe that he was somehow going to represent the left.

Some of those people are still telling us that he "has to work with them," and that he will "govern from the left" regardless of his policy positions or cabinet.

Some are expressing surprise and/or disappointment. Some are beginning to be angry.

And some, of course, still see him as the messiah of the Democratic Party.

I'm not surprised or disappointed. I'm angry. I'm angry at those who nominated him. I hold THEM accountable for sticking us with a center-right president who likes republicans better than left America, and even the left wing of his own party.

[S_E_Fudd]

102. I am surprised...and pleasantly so...

I was aware he wasn't the "progressive" white knight people here projected him to be, but I wasn't sure he would be able to stand up to the various factions in the party...

He has proven me wrong...he has picked what could potentially be the best cabinet in American history. I am very optimistic...much more so than I was on election day...

As for Warren, the guy sucks big time...but I think Obama is doing the correct thing inviting him to give the invocation...

[bvar22]

108. 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/

There is not a single, solid anti-war voice in the upper echelons of the Obama foreign policy apparatus. And this is the point: Obama is not going to fundamentally change US foreign policy. He is a status quo Democrat. And that is why the mono-partisan Washington insiders are gushing over Obama's new team. ----Scahill

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/01/barack-obama-foreign-policy


"Centrist"...a euphemism for "Half-Republican".

[S_E_Fudd]

110. Hopefully they are seeing the light...

I suspect however they are saying these things for political reasons...

[DutchLiberal]

126. I like how they put "Henry Kissinger, war criminal". I LOVE it.

:)

[Runcible Spoon]

113. stick up to the various factions in the party?

yeah it takes a lot of balls to throw the most vulnerable and powerless under the bus for political expediency :sarcasm:

[S_E_Fudd]

114. Sure...

Make a valid point and I will respond...

[Runcible Spoon]

115. I did make a valid point and you responded

:shrug:

[S_E_Fudd]

116. No...you didn't...

Since what you say in innacurate

[Runcible Spoon]

117. what part of what I said was inaccurate?

So it's difficult to throw vulnerable groups under the bus for political expediency? :shrug:

[S_E_Fudd]

119. This part...

yeah it takes a lot of balls to throw the most vulnerable and powerless under the bus for political expediency

Assuming you were talking PEBO

[Runcible Spoon]

122. ok, how is that wrong?

wheels on the bus go round and round...

[S_E_Fudd]

123. It's wrong because he hasn't...

Please list for me the promises he made relative to gay rights that he has backed off on?

[Runcible Spoon]

127. It's not that simple.

The easiest response is that Obama deliberately crafts a message of hope and change that is so vague that anyone can project their own agendas onto him. He has ADMITTED as much in his books. That was EXTREMELY intentional, and necessary for him to be elected. I don't necessarily blame him, as all politicians who reach that level in national politics must try to appeal to as many voters as possible. The real "meat" comes out when we look at his Cabinet appointments and actions. You might think Warren's appearance is merely an olive branch for solidarity, but if you take the entirety of Obama's campaign strategies, only the most indoctrinated will defend this as good will as opposed to a carefully calculated political move.

Obama is not president yet, it's impossible for me to give you concrete examples of him rescinding campaign promises, especially since it is hard to concretely disprove "hope" and "change". However, those who are paying attention note that he has defended marriage as one woman one man, and that is certainly a slap in the face to the those who value civil rights for all.

In any case, my whole point is he is NOT a champion of gay marriage, and for you to ask me for examples of how he rescinded on something he has never promised is disingenuous and besides the point. Part of the PROBLEM is that he never came out strongly for equal rights. That doesn't mean he hasn't thrown groups under the bus after aggressively campaigning for their votes. And it's NOT just gays, it's all sorts of people: those who wanted economic justice and fair trade, those who wanted to limit government surveillance of citizens, those who wanted to aid the failing public school system, etc.

[LWolf]

105. You are correct.

This is essentially the same thing I said throughout the primaries.

No one wanted to hear it.

[seaglass]

139. I wanted to hear it. You and a handful of others are they only reason I have stayed at DU.

Just wanted you to know that you, FarceofNature and Two Americas - to name a few, are appreciated.

[LWolf]

140. Thanks.

:fistbump:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

111. So why has Obama rebuffed joining the DLC? I don't see him as a Clintonite

on some issues. He is not as pro-corporate as they are. I also think he's more progressive on gay/lesbian issues and will undo some of the damage that the Clintons did by overturning DADT and DOMA.

[DutchLiberal]

118. I agree. I've said it time and again, but got flamed away. Because 'change' was coming...

and how can you be against change? :eyes:

If people wanted change, they should have voted for Kucinich. Now they're getting a third Clinton administration and they start whining there's no change. Well, that's their own fault. Had they paid attention and not just voted for him because he made great speeches, maybe they wouldn't be in this position right know.

[Runcible Spoon]

121. it may be "their fault" but it's our problem now.

I don't think the whole "told you so! neener neener neener" attitude will help anything. It's not going to persuade the diehard Obama cultists who spin him into the paragon of righteousness and unapproachability, and it's not going to help educate otherwise well-intentioned liberals who have a case of buyer's remorse. Yes, we are probably not going to get fundamental change we can "believe in", but we shouldn't blame anyone who was desperate to believe that line. Obama was an incredibly effective campaigner, and he doesn't deliver "change", the fault lies at his feet and not at the people who were so beaten down by the last administration that they were vulnerable to grasping that message.

Back to my original point, it's our problem now. Not "theirs". I think a lot of voters have some growing up to do and recognize that putting their faith and absolute trust into an elected politician is ineffective at best and ripe for more corruption at worst. I hope at least a few people are coming around to the realization that change comes from the bottom, and only when we DEMAND it and WORK for it.

[DutchLiberal]

125. I think 'blaming' the people who believed in it is an excellent way to start...

the 'growing up' of voters, as you call it. The only way to prevent something like this from happening again is making clear to people they are the ones responsible for what is happening in politics right now. It's not Obama's fault. He delivered a message. He said he would bring 'change', but anyone who listened any badly to what he was saying, had to know 'change' only meant: change FROM BUSH. Nothing more. Not change from politics as usual, or change from the status quo. Not fundamental change. If I could hear that, surely other people must have been able. But they chose not to hear it. They chose to vote for the candidate who had the most charisma. And now they're angry. And to prevent something like that happening again (also for the sake of those very people), is, indeed, to put blame where it belongs.

[Runcible Spoon]

129. Just to clarify...

I "blame" the voters for electing him, but I will NOT blame them for Obama's failure to deliver. However, I suspect we are more in agreement than not.

I know you are a foreigner so perhaps you had a better perspective and ability to consider things objectively than a typical American voter. I kept my mouth shut on DU, perhaps too long, during the election season when it came to Obama. I take some of the blame for not being more active, but seriously it was impossible to get a point across. The drum of "change" was deafening here. As much as I resent being shit on the few times I raised questions and concerns about Obama, especially coming as someone who has a lot of interest in the dangers of unchecked globalization and neoliberal economic policies, I really do genuinely feel sadness for those who thirsted for change and are now just beginning to experience the inevitable disappointment.

[DutchLiberal]

131. Yes, we are more in agreement than not.

I think I had a better perspective *despite* being a foreigner. The Dutch media really only reported on the 'big names': Clinton, Edwards, Obama and for the Republicans Guilliani, Romney and McCain. Had I not followed DU and other blogs obsessively, I would never even been aware of the existence of people like Kucinich, Gravel or Paul. (Just like the average American who only followed the MSM.)

However, a benefit was that the Dutch media did not participate in the meme that Obama was "the most liberal candidate to ever run for office", which was pushed time and again by the right-wing and the American MSM. (I believe they pushed the same talking point about Gore, though. Gore, of all people!) Besides, what's considered 'liberal' in the US is only slightly to the left of center in my country. I think Kucinich could win handily here.

Still, the Dutch are also very uninformed when it comes to the 'details' of the different past presidents. We always assume a Democrat is automatically a right and just person, and a Republican must always be a creepy evangelical. That explains why Bill Clinton and his wife are probably far more popular here than they are in their own country. Polls taken in the weeks before the general election showed over 90% of the Dutch would have voted for Obama, but I'm sure the number would have been the same had Hillary been the candidate.

I must admit in the weeks before the general election, I fell for Obama's message, too, despite knowing better. It was just the prospect of president McCain (or worse: president Palin!) that drove me into his arms. And after the filthy campaign of McCain against Obama, I really wanted Obama to win just to drive everybody in the "he's a muslim!!1!1"-crowd crazy.

I have no doubt Obama will govern a whole lot better than Bush. I'm confident that he's far more intelligent and he will clean up a lot of the mess that Bush left behind. But beyond that? Structural strange? I don't think so.

But who am I to come to this forum and discredit your president-elect? I'm not even an American.
(However, if you feel like joining a Dutch forum to bash our prime-minister: PLEASE! Be my guest!)

[Cleita]

124. And some of us didn't vote for the DLC candidates in the primaries for

this reason, yet we were left with two Republican Lite DLC type candidates to choose from, so no matter what, we would have been forced to vote for them if we didn't want McCain in office. I hope Obama realizes that he wouldn't have won had we not voted for him on the liberal left and voted for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney instead. If he doesn't give us, who really are the majority of Americans, a seat at the table, he might see that happening in 2012.

[DutchLiberal]

132. No, he won't. You'll vote for him again no matter what he does.

Simply because you could not bare the thought of president Jeb or president Palin in 2012.

[Cleita]

135. I'm not talking about me but about those who will. n/t

[davidpdx]

138. I think there are quite a few people on here rooting for him to fail

it's sad but true (and no I'm not talking about myself or the OP).

[Douglas Carpenter]

143. Sen. Obama has been very, very clear from the start. There is NO rational reason to be surprised

about anything he has done so far,

Even his debut on the national scene when he gave the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention - could have only been reasonably interpreted as a message that he would would support some liberal social policies but would actively reach out to social-conservatives.

What on earth did people think he meant when he talked about, "no red states, no blue states - only the United States."

Anyone who thought they were electing a left-wing candidate or a staunch social liberal were either not interested enough or they were being willfully delusional.

Now time will tell how he will actually govern. Bold changes tend to occur only during times of insurmountable problems, regardless who wins the elections. It might very well be that economic realities and foreign policy realities might force somewhat radical changes in policy. If this does happen, this will not be because President Obama is particularly left-wing. If this does happen, this would likely occur only because moderate changes in domestic and foreign policy would simply be inadequate.