ITW—Do you really think HRC “put nation and party first”—or do you think she did it to save her own political ass? I really dont suppose an answer…I’m just asking. Maybe no one knows…

I rather feel neither way about HRC as SOS—it is a little unexpected, and, if Obama is good for the country, she should be , too. They are alot alike..

I don’t think HRC was hammered by the press any more than anyone else. (I always exclude Fox Noise—their bias is their stock in trade).  I voted for Hillary in the NJ primary—Obama had yet to show himself as the talent he is.

Hillary went on to mis-manage her campaign to the point where the news became: Who is HRC firing now? She launched a series of mean, nasty Rovian attacks on Obama, without offering anything other than “experience” in its place.

I became one of the millions who turned away from her over that.  Sure, it’s all politics, and, in the end she redeemed herself putting Nation and Party first (unlike Ted Kennedy in 1980, who helped elect Reagan).  But Hillary sank herself and that’s why Obama is our next President.  It was (as usual) a smart move on his part to put her as SoS.  Good for him, good for her, good for the USA.

All:

FYI

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/washington/27gates.html?sq=obama&st=cse&scp=9&pagewanted=print

Peace.

KDelphi:

“[Y]our support for ‘incremental’ change will let alot of people die.”

I’m not sure what you mean.  However, there are no perfect choices, so it is likely that some people will die no matter WHAT choices are made.

“I say that you defend all Dems because you defend Hillary, Obama, and all of his choices.”

I am not sure where you get that I support “all of his choices.”  I certainly do not.  But neither do I feel it appropriate to second-guess him, especially before he has even taken office.

“I am just far left of you.”

Maybe, maybe not.  I may just be more realistic and pragmatic than you.  But it doesn’t make my politics any less “left .”

“I think [Hillary] was treated poorly.”

She damn well was!  Sure, she has plenty of baggage, and reasons to accept blame.  But there is no question that she was VERY poorly treated by the media.

“I guess I just do not understand what it is you are trying to say.  You support Obama’s choices?  All of them, or just Hillary? You do support Obama? or you dont? You think that his hawkish stance is good? Or no?”

As noted, I do not support ALL of Obama’s choices, but, again, refuse to play “armchair general” in that regard.  I do support his choice of Hillary as SoS, and actually consider it both brilliant and appropriate.  I don’t know what you mean by his “hawkish” stance.  Again, I find his foreign policy more prgamatic than hawkish - certainly NOTHING like the “hawkishness” of the Bush/Cheney regime!  But again, what he actually DOES remains to be seen.

“I just dont understand what you are tring to say, unless it is that (i) Obama was always a moderate (I would say conservative), (ii) Hillary was a good choice (most Obama supporters do not seem to think so) and (iii) you see no value in not supporting one of the duopoly in any practical way, other than verbal support for Kucinich. Mostly, because you are a pragmatist.”

Re (i), I would agree that Obama has always been a moderate centrist, despite the perception that many of his supporters apparently have.  Re (ii) as noted, I agree.  Re (iii), without getting into a lengthy parsing, I will simply say “yes.”

“We seem to not disagree so much, as we seem to be “circling” each others points, whatever they might be.”

I agree.

“I am not trying to ‘bait.’  I just dont get it. Maybe I am dense.”

I apologize for accusing you of “baiting.”  But you are NOT dense; we just seem to pass like two ships in the night sometimes…LOL.

“Maybe you think I am being more confrontational than I intend. (There is no inflection in email, it is true).”

Yes, cyberspace is sort of cold and “clinical,” particularly without emoticons!  LOL.

Peace.

Maani—Yes, but your support for “incremental ” change, will let alot of people die. Thats all.

I had not seen that you were a Hillary supporter. That explains alot. I did vote for her in the Primary. By the time it got here, it was her or Obama. She seemed more liberal to me, actually. But, I am more a supporter,  of policies than people.

I say that you defend all Dems, because you defend Hillary, Obam a, and all of his choices. They are considered the “heads” of the Dem party now.That is DLC, to me. I am just far left of you. I voted Obama , too. It was both a strategic decision, as well, as a way to get friends and family to stop screaming how I , personally was going to “throw the election to teh GOP”. Whew!

I have tried to talk to some Hillary supporters. I actually rather liked her before, in some ways. I think she was treated poorly. But,in the end, I did not like either of my choices in the primary.I thought I was sortve a “Hillary supporter”, but, they just seemed too dogmatic to me..

I am not registered as a Dem anymore (except that, when you vote here, whichever ballot you vote on that is what you “are”)
I guess I just do not understand what it is you are trying to say. You support Obams’s choices? All of them, or, just Hillary? You do support Obama? or you dont? You think that his hawkish stance is good? or no? I realize that those do not have very quantifiable answers. But, I guess I just dont understand what you are tring to say, unless it is that 1)Obama was always a moderate (I would say conservative, but..) and 2)Hillary was a good choice—maybe, but most Obama supporters do not seem to think so and 3)you see no value in not supporting one of he duopoly , in any practical way, other than verbal support for Kucinihch.Mostly, because you are a pragmatist.

Would that seem to be about right?

We seem to not disagree so much, as we seem to be “circling” each others points, whatever they might be. I am not trying to “bait”.I just dont get it. Maybe I am dense. Maybe you think I am being more confrontatinal than I intend. (There is no inflection in email, it is true)

LOL! Still in all, I just dont see consistency, what you would like one to concede, or what you would like one to take away from your positions.

“You are very obviously a loyal Democrat, and will defend anything any one of them does.”

And once again, I must ask: where do you get this stuff?  I never said or implied anything of the sort.  I’m beginning to think you simply bait for baiting sake.

“Actually, I was saying he was a centrist, or, even a conservative, very early on.”

And as a Hillary supporter, I was also warning Obama supporters that he was not NEARLY as “left” (much less “progressive”) as they were making him out to be.

“Everytime I would mention how conservative…he seemed to be…I would be jumped on or outright banned from a sit.”

And again, ditto: During the primaries, when I supported Hillary, and I suggested that Obamabots were wearing “Barack-tinted spectacles,” I was roundly criticized and denigrated.

“So, if Obama and Hillary are ‘almost the same,’ and Hillary has more experience in DC, why go with Obama?  Or did you?  Or do you just go ‘democrat’ no matter how they stand on positions?  I just do not understand what your philosophy is.”

As noted, I supported Hillary in the primaries - not SOLELY because she had more experience, but that was a factor.  And I am certainly going to “go Democrat” as opposed to Republican.  (And I am a pragmatist so, despite my respect for Kucinich, Paul, McKinney et al, I was not going to “waste” my vote.  True, I will be accused of not taking a “principled” stand.  But I can live with that.)

As for my philosophy, I have now stated it at least three times in different threads.  If this country is going to “drift left,” it is not going to happen overnight - because a huge part of the country would never accept it.  Thus, it will have to be done in small (sometimes even imperceptible) increments over time.  I saw Hillary (and see Obama) as two centrists who would take “first steps” toward a leftward drift - again, however imperceptibly at first - re foreign policy, health care, environment, taxes, etc.  I still believe this to be the case despite all the negative, even cyncical, comments about both of them.

If the Dems make visible progress (however minimal) in Obama’s first term and are able to hold the White House and Congress, then the “first steps” they take now will be built upon, and we will drift even more slightly to the left.  And if Obama and the Dems are able to hold the White House and Congress for eight years and more, then that drift will continue.

That is my “philosophy,” such as it is.  I believe it to be realistic, not naive.  However, it will all depend on what Obama actually does (or is able to do, given the economic crisis) in his first couple of years in office.

Time will tell.  In the meantime, I am optimistic.

Peace.

AmiBlue—I am probably to the Left of most people in the US. I would ask people to please look at where being “center right” has gotten us, but…

I would love to find out Obama is a closet progresive, or, even moderate Dem. I dont mean to be a doomsayer. I just get terrified when I hear blind acceptance.

But, we will see, and , it will be better than Bush, or McCain would be. No doubt there..

kdelphi—I’m probably not quite as liberal as you.  I consider myself to be on the moderate left, but I, too, hate to think that Obama is going to follow in WJC’s center-right footsteps and I’m hoping he will trend further left.  As it stands now, though, he is faced with so many problems that if he is able to solve them in a way that gets the economy moving and creates jobs, he will have accomplished a lot.  All we can do at this point is wait and see how he goes about it.

AmiBlue—I was never trying to “GET” you—that serves no purpose. Yet, you still claim to trust him, almost 100%. What I would like to do, is to entreat people to NOT trust anyone in our govt, if your brain and gut , tells you that something is not right.

If we do not question our leaders, we wil not be effective citizens, and, they wil not be accountable leaders. I know alot of people just really think Obama is the greatest candidate the US has seen since JFK—we can diagree about JFK. That is good for the Dems. Just , please, do not be blind in your judgement—I am sure that we will all see what he will become. But, some of that can be up to us, if we care to try to influence it.I heard it all through the campaign—that we needed to try to influence Obama. I know that it is early.

As you may have noticed, I am NOT such a big fan of Obama’s—but, I did vote for him. I DO contact his campaign and my Dem representatives(actually, one city over)to suggest things. I am not naive enough to think that my calls or letters matter much. But, if we all insisted on accountability—things could REALLY change. Otherise, the pressure to comform to DC is just too great.

I am the first to admit that I have been highly critical of Obama. If he were more clear,—like, just now.(His speech is in the background) He was asked if he would reverse the Bush tax cuts. Now, I think that that is very important, because, for one, they are grossly unfair, And, second, it wil be impoassible to carry out the reforms that people want without revenue. He didnt “dodge it” as much as usual.(sorry…lol) He did say it would be up to his economic team. I guess it depends on whether you trust his economic team..

To many of his supporters, even the tiniest criticism is practically “treason”. Maybe this wil change as time passes. I hope so. But, my response to “blind faith”, is always to question. I was taught that that was the right thing to do.

Like I have said before, I wanted a real progressive,after eight years of Bush. If the Dems did not do it now, they never will. I guess everyone knew that but me. I stil think people voted for more progressive values. I could be wrong. But, yes, I am angry that Dems pretend that they cannot do more, especially when they have held majorities many times.

When people are dying, I guess I am just a stickler for details..

kdelphi “AmiBlue—So you “trust Obama’s judgement” , but not his judgement to pick a SoS? Hmmmm.. ” 

You got me there, kdelphi.  I think his Hillary choice was a political decision rather than a policy decision.  From a political point of view, it probably makes sense. I’m not a Clinton fan, especially of WJ so I’m probably biased.

There were many choices he made during the campaign, espcially the GE campaign, that I thought were going to be disasters, and it turned out he was right all along.  I have learned to trust him, but I still think his FISA vote for telecom immunity was wrong.  I don’t expect to agree 100% with his choices and it would probably be a disaster if he always went the way I would like.

maani—Yes. You , above all other people, were the only one who truly listened.

You are very obviously a loyal Democrat, and will defend anything any one of them does.

Actually, I was saying he was a centrist, or, even a conservative, very early on. I wanted Edwards or Kucinich. No one knew at the time, that Edwards would be unelectable. (Maybe he would not have been—I think people were pretty sick of GOP—that was why I thought that this was THE time for the Dems to FINALLY run a true progerssive—if they didnt this time—they never will)I am tired of having both parties represent the rich.

Everytime I woudl mention how conservative (now that is a very subjective term)he seemed to be, to me, I would be jumped on or , outright, banned from a site.(not this one)

So, if Obama and Hillary are “almost the same”, and, Hillary has more experience in DC, why go with Obama? Or did you? Or do you just go “democrat” no matter how they stand on positions? I just do not understand what your philosophy is.

Please dont state that Obama clearly stated something unless you can quote it in context. I submit that he very rarely speaks that specifically on anything.

KDelphi:

“You obviously trust him in all things. Must feel nice.”  I never said or implied anything of the sort.  Where do you come up with this stuff?!

“I guess he will have to defend Hillary Clinton’s vote now, too…”  He is not obligated to defend ANYTHING.  He is making apopintments based on the people he thinks would be best for the positions given what HE is seeking to do as president.  If he feels that Democratic political rivals - or even Republican rivals - are the best people for the job HE wants to do, who are you to second-guess?

If you say he didnt run as the anti-Hillary - you will just believe anything…”

He did NOT run as the “anti-Hillary” on anything except the Iraq war - and even HERE it was mostly his better judgment about the war itself than it was their almost identical plans for winding it down.  As for “You will just believe anything,” again: where do you come up with this stuff?!

“Alot of people actually voted for him because they hated Hillary.”

That may be true.  But that “hatred” was visceral - it was born NOT of Hillary’s positions on most issues (which were largely identical to Obama’s from the get-go), but (i) her vote for the Iraq War resolution, (ii) her perceived “amibition” (which is apparently okay in men…), and (iii) the realities - AND perceptions - of her triangulation and overall political history and approaches.

Peace.

AmiBlue:

“Obama said he would talk to Iran without preconditions.  In other words he would engage in diplomacy rather than mindlessly invading countries.  Hillary called him naive.”

Actually, although she has been fairly hard-line re Iran, it was SHE who first criticized the Bush administration for not undertaking diplomatic efforts, and relying solely on bullying.  Here is an article from 2006.  And note that her “strong” language re sanctions and not permitting a nuclear weapon were echoed by Obama during his campaign:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/international/middleeast/19cnd-iran.html?sq=hillary iran&st=cse&scp=5&pagewanted=print

As well, in October of 2007, Hillary made the following statement: “I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don’t really understand how Iran works.  We think we do, from the outside, but I think it is misleading.”

“Obama was against the invasion of Iraq, which shows better judgment than Hillary, who voted to give bush permission to invade.”

You obviously haven’t read Hillary’s speech to the Senate re that vote.  She was clearly torn about it, and did not simply vote as a “hawk.”

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

“Obama called for intrusion in to Pakistan on good intel if the Pakistani government could not control the Taliban and al Qaida.  I don’t remember what Hillary said to this, but I doubt she agreed with him.”

With the exception of believeing that U.S. forces should not enter tribal areas unaccompanied by Pakistani troops, Hillary’s position on Pakistan is identical to Obama’s.

“Hillary’s China advisor left the campaign because he did not approve of the way she was talking about China.  This is not presented as a difference with Obama, but as an example of why Hillary might not have the diplomatic skills required to finesse deals.”

Actually, Baum was an informal advisor, and only one of over a dozen - the rest of whom remained.  As well, Hillary had plenty of legitimate cause for concern: China’s currency manipulation, tainted goods, human rights violations (including the violent crackdowns on Tibet), etc.  One person’s “China-bashing” is another person’s “statement of facts.”

Peace.

maasni-I have posted many links here to much more articulate “progressive” thinkers than I, as to what Obama implied.I stand by that word, as do many far better journalists than I.One thing is certain—he WAS alot more propgressive in Chicago than he is now. You obviously trust him in all things. Must feel nice.

There are speeches and interviews from the Chicago Sun Times, from Miami, where Obama stated he “didnt know how he wouldve voted if he’d had the same intelligence”—he was defending Kerry and Biden’s votes—where he says one thing in one city (Miami) and another in SF.I gues he will have to defend Hillary Clinton’s vote now, too..I’m not going to link them again, because, even experienced journlists seem to think he “nuanced” the answer s.

As I said,—you were right. He picked HIlary Clinton and he is very much like her on foreign policy.(also health care, veterans,the economy, for better or for worse.) What is harder to understand is how he could run in the primary as the ‘anti-Hillary”, and then hire her. Perhaps you can understand it better than I. If you say he didnt run as the anti-Hillary—you wil just believe anything..alot of people actually voted for him because they hated aHilary. No, I do not have stats. Neither do you.

Is there something I said that you can provide a link or quote that disputes that he said it?(about not knowing how he would have voted on Iraq? Or that most progressives thought he was a run of the mill DLC?) I would be glad to take a look…if so, then maybe all those sites and newspapers lied..

AmiBlue—So you “trust Obama’s judgement” , but not his judgement to pick a SoS? Hmmmm..

HE picked her. I am not certain as to why he did, but, there it is.I think we have to assume that he agrees with her on alot of foreign policy. If that causes cognitive dissonance, well…welcome to a club I have belonged to for a long time. I just do not believe it was blackmail or that someone would pay off her debt. If he chose her for reasons other than policy, I woudl like to know what those reasons are.

Maani -
Obama said he would talk to Iran without preconditions.  In other words he would engage in diplomacy rather than mindlessly invading countries.  Hillary called him naive.

Obama was against the invasion of Iraq, which shows better judgment than Hillary, who voted to give bush permission to invade.

Obama called for intrusion in to Pakistan on good intel if the Pakistani government could not control the Taliban and al Qaida.  I don’t remember what Hillary said to this, but I doubt she agreed with him.

Hillary’s China advisor left the campaign because he did not approve of the way she was talking about China.  This is not presented as a difference with Obama, but as an example of why Hillary might not have the diplomatic skills required. to finesse deals.

The difference between Hillar and Obama is a difference of style, too.  And finally, I trust Obama’s judgment to make the right decisions.

KDelphi:

“I guess he says he was against the invasion of Iraq, but, is ‘being cautious” about withdrawal.”

Obama stated quite clearly very early on in the primaries that, while a 13- to 16-month withdrawal was his intention, he would not be “pinned down” on this since “the situation on the ground could change and we want to be as smart getting out as we were stupid going in.”

“He did say he was only against ‘stupid’ wars. So, he must think that Afghanistan is ‘smart.”

Again, he stated quite clearly very early on in the primaries that he supported the military action in Afghanistan - that “Iraq has sidetracked us from the real war, on Al Qaeda and the Taliban” - and intended to move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan as part of the overall process.

Why do you keep using the word “implied?”  These statements - and many others like them - were made quite clear, quite early.  There is nothing “implied” in them: they are clear position statements.

Am I the only one who actually LISTENED to what he was saying from the get-go?

Peace.

AmiBlue—I am beginning to see what maani is “saying” (maybe not trying to say—but it has made me think none the less). Obama never SAID anything that would be opposed to Clinton’s positions ..that is why you have to put *stated*.

It was always “implied”.

I guess he says he was against the invasion of Iraq, but, is “being cautious” about withdrawal.

He did say he was only against “stupid” wars. So, he must think that Afghanistan is “smart”.

This is what Black Agenda Report thinks.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=407&Itemid=44

Ther was a show on pbs about JFK—it wasnt much good. It is probably still online , if anyone is interested…

AmiBlue:

Please list at LEAST three things in Obama’s oreign policy as stated during the primaries that were different from Clinton’s.  The reason I ask for this is because, with VERY few exceptions, I heard their foreign policy as virtually identical the entire time.

troublesum:

Yes, it’s amazing how there was nary a word about the anniversary this year.  Maybe the MSM (and even much of the AM) simply felt things were already too morose and depressing right now, so bringing it up would be counter-productive (?).

The newest thing I’ve seen (though it is not so new) is the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8M9GAUUSss

Peace.

Ther is no reason I can see for surging in Afghanistan. I probably will de-stabilize Pakisatan. The Afghanis want us to leave. (I can give the article and site link if anyone is interested)

But, it has never been about the people , for either govt.

troublesum—There IS a site that DocReality gave that tells you how many people the Clintons have killed with voodoo. Otherwise, I just smell kool-aid.

I have no problem with Obama keeping Gates, who has been the one bright spot in the bush administration. Continuity will be important in accomplishing Obama’s stated war goals I imagine. 

I do object to Hillary as SoS.  One of the main reasons I voted for Obama rather than Hillary was because of his *stated* foreign policy.  If I had wanted a Clinton foreign policy I would have voted for her.  Between Obama’s renege on the FISA immunity vote and this, I’m not sure what I voted for.  That’s no way to keep an enthusiastic base,or even a moderate lefter like me.

Well Maani, yesterday was an important day for conspiracy theroists.  Anything new on the JFK assassination?  The msm hardly noticed it.

The argument that it is too early to criticize Obiden because he is not in power is highly legalistic.  Of course he is in power, selecting and minipulating power persons who are formulating power policies.  Now is precisely the time to criticize him, before right wing policies are entrenched by the time he is inaugurated.

The appoinment of Clinton retreads does not mean he is going to be a second Clinton, because the Elite political consensus has moved sharply to the right.  He is going to be a more intelligent, socially conscious, Bush.  He is trying to unite progressives to support Bushite policies, which have been installed by the Bushite counterrevoltuion.  A silence at this time gives consent to this endeavor, which pro-war and neolibs support.

I’ve said for two years that, far from being a progressive, Obama is center-right (at least).

Afghanistan is as unwinnable as Iraq, and we had as little right to invade it as Iraq.

We “Democrats” had some really left leaning candidates, but we ended up with this centrist.

troublesum:

I wasn’t insulting you.  Or don’t you know what “LOL” stands for?  (LOL)

Peace.

Maani
You need to go back and read the accounts of what happened when the bailout bill reached congress.  The bill was more a democratic than republican bill.  First of all republicans in the house balked.  They along with about 50 or 60 democrats voted the bill down.  Senate and House democratic leaders wanted very much to pass the bill in spite of overwhelming public opposition to it.  Republican leadership was sort of wishy-washy, but rank and file republicans in the house and senate were against it.  Obama returned to Washington to help get the bill passed in spite of public outcries against it.  Everyone in Washington agreed that Obama’s leadership was instrumental in getting the bill passed.  So please don’t call it Paulson’s or Bushes bill.  Obama’s name is all over it.  When some democrasts wanted to put something in the bill to help save homeowners from foreclosure Obama came out strongly against that amendment and persuaded other democrats to keep it out of the bill.  Furthermore Obama has said he “will spend whatever it takes to get wall street back on track.”  But when it comes to helping homeowners and the unemployed and the uninsured, well that’s another story.
I don’t know what you mean about my telling KDelphia not to blame Obama.  My point is that Obama had a mandate from the people to end the war, to restore civil liberties, to get health care taken care of, and to stop the class warfare from the top which has been going on unabated for thirty years.  Instead of that he has chosen to stay the course.  If republicans were in the position Obama is in now, with large majorities in both houses of congress, what would we be hearing from them - compromise, bipartisanship??
Are you taking over from cyrena, insulting people now?

I have now read numerous commentaries on the not-yet-asked Gates.

The principal argument of his supporters is that Gates is experienced.

I have no doubt that he is “experienced” but what counts is the political envelope of the “experience”.
A Secretary of Defense with less experience than Gates but with a superior political envelope has a much greater chance of helping Obama to resolve Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan/Pakistan.

A textbook example of this happened when Lenin asked Trotsky to become the “People’s Commissar” for the Red Army. Trotsky had absolutely zero military experience when he accepted. Within a short time military observers around the world considered him to be one of the world’s top military leaders. According to Trotsky himself the reason was that his political envelope fit the times and circumstances.

Our country does not need a Trotsky of course. The fundamental question is however: “what is Obama’s political-action envelope on war and peace”? If it is that of Gates he may ask Gates to stay on. If it is that of Obama 2002/2003 he must show Gates, a champion of “stupid” wars, the door.

The “experience/political envelope” is equally valid for other appointments such as the pending one of Hillary Clinton.

ITW—No, no…your implication was that I thought Obama should be “doing something now”. I did not say that. There is alot he cannot do. However, until recently, he was a Senator. He is also the “Head’ of the Dem Party. If he will not oppose Bush’s policies, will he ever? The country is entering a Great Depression and, Bush et al just signed a (possibly?) binding contract with Iraq that has people in the streets protesting in Baghdad. I dont believe that asking him to comment on those issues is too much to ask.

As you can see by the other comments here, maani—alot of peopel WERE under the impression that PE Obama was proggesive.Exactly why many interpreted his political record that way, is of no consequence. It remains that it is there. It will be to his peril to ignore them. But,if he is a DLC Dem, he will. The Dems always do. That is one reason I am not a Dem anymore, although I usually vote Dem, if it looks close…

Gosh, maani- When troubnlesum brings up the “bailout”, he/she is talkng about the fact that Obama called many wavering fellow senators and asked them to support it. Sen. Elijah Cumminmgs, even said in a hearing that, “the only reason I voted for the Bailout is because Pres.Obama—I mean, PE Obama—promised he could change it once he got in office”. No one is “pulling expectations out of their a**”.

The second statement/question , “so McCain wouldve been better “to troublesum, is just ridiculous, and I think you know that. (Like disputing whether you called someone silly vs foolish)

ITW—Besides me not denying that Bush can still do harm, did you go the website concerning the Bills and de-regulation Bush is trying to push through?Perhaps Obama can overturn some of it—some of it he probably cannot. Some of it he probably will not want to.

Everytime I brought up what Bush could still do, I was usually rebuffed by a Dem, saying “we just need to concentrate on the election”, or something like that.

For those that think that the Fairness Doctrine “shoudl not apply anymore”—maybe you havent lived when you coud turn on the radio and hear something besides NPR and Limbaugh—when all music station werent canned from elsewhere. We need it. But, it is probably a done deal—it will not be reconsidered, without even more public pressure. The FCC allowing more monopolies, like Murdoch, to buy up major portions of every type of media in large urban ares, met more resistance by “consumers”(owners of airwaves) than anything the FCC has done. Of course, Kevin Martin and former head Michael Powell (Colin must be so very proud) ignored the vast majorities and did what they wanted. ]

Before you say that “everythihng has changed” (it hasnt) , what about people who cannot afford the internet? I have used it in a library some—if you live in a city where libraries are underfunded, and there is a high poverty rate, it is just not an option , for a busy student, say.

I dont think that it is presumptuous to expect something better. Thats’ what people want—something better. And the “more better” the “better”!!

Less inspiration, more perspiration. Less talk, more action. I do not expect (want?) the Dems to just sit on their hands until January. As you say, ITW, Bush can do alot of damage—and he is.

Gates is bad enough but do not lose sight of the even worse Brennan, an enabler of “slam dunk” Tenet, who is already on the Obama team.

troublesum:

Two of your last three posts all completely contradict each other.

1. “So far about $3 trillion of public money has been given to wall street.  Now Obama wants a mere $175 billion for main street in the form of jobs programs, etc.  I think that says all you need to know about what his priorities are.”

OBAMA did not give $3 trillion to Wall Street: Bush and Paulson did.  OBAMA wants to give to Main Street: Bush and Paulson DO NOT.

2. “Republicans are ALWAYS willing to fight for what they want and democrats live in FEAR of a good fight.  Now what kind of government would we have if John MCain had won by more than 7,000,000 popular votes and almost 200 electoral votes?  Would there be any compromising.  Would anybody be talking about bipartisanship?”

So are you suggesting we would have been better off with McCain?  That a COMPLETE lack of bipartisanship is better than some degree thereof?

3. “Your series of posts have made it natural to infer that you think Obama is in power and able to do stuff. I’m telling you he is not.  That is TOTALLY relevant to these discussions shredding the guy even before he takes office.”

This is a 180 degree statement from #1.  In #1, you want to blame Obama even though he is NOT president yet.  In statement #3, you tell KDelphi not to blame Obama because he is not president yet.

I think you need to take your meds.  LOL.

Peace.

KDelphi, November 22 at 7:18 pm #

Dont you see the speciousness, of always falling back on how awful Bush is? STF what?? The whole world knows Bush is an a**hole!. As we speak, Bush is dismantling envitonemntal laws.
*********************************************

Take off your blinders! Try to do something about that tunnel vision!

Your series of posts have made it natural to infer that you think Obama is in power and able to do stuff. I’m telling you he is not.  That is TOTALLY relevant to these discussions shredding the guy even before he takes office.

As for the discussion of Krugman, just in the last day or two he is warning that the damage Bush CAN do and IS doing (particularly in the economy) means the situation in 2 months, when Obama can actually DO something, will be far, far worse.  This is TOTALLY in synch with my point—Obama’s influence is solely, now, “The Bully Pulpit” as his statement of what he’s gonna do.

Yeah, we all know Bush is a dangerous and destructive @$$hole who should be charged with criminal felonies starting on Jan 21, 2009 (give the chimp a break—don’t charge him the DAY Obama gets in—the next day is close enough). Obama’s toughest job is to try to manage and ameliorate that damage between now and then.  To that extent, building support among Republicans on the Hill is crucial, because they can act to slow Bush’s worst excesses, if they will.

That’s were bi-partisan efforts can really pay off—Preventing President National Suicide from sinking the Titanic in the last two months he’s in office.

KDelphi
To simplfy: Republicans are ALWAYS willing to fight for what they want and democrats live in FEAR of a good fight.  Now what kind of government would we have if John MCain had won by more than 7,000,000 popular votes and almost 200 electoral votes?  Would there be any compromising.  Would anybody be talking about bipartisanship?

So far about $3 trillion of public money has been given to wall street.  Now Obama wants a mere $175 billion for main street in the form of jobs programs, etc.  I think that says all you need to know about what his priorities are.

maani—I will give credit when it is due. None of this means anything until it is acted upon. His cabinet , so far, looks even more conservative than I had thought it would be. But, that is opinon so I cannot prove nor disprove it. Maybe you used the word “foolish”, instead of “silly”.

11.02.2008—is this recent enough? They fundamentally disagree. Whether that is good or bad, is a matter of opinion.

Why Is Paul Krugman So Hostile To Barack Obama?

Paul Krugman has written a number of pieces that are highly critical of Barack Obama. Krugman is a distinguished economist as well as an exceptional writer, and on issues of substance, he raises reasonable questions and offers plausible objections. But as many people have noticed, the tone and intensity of Krugman’s pieces are puzzling. It seems almost personal—a kind of campaign.
What accounts for this?
I don’t know the full answer, but here’s a significant part of it: Krugman and Obama have different approaches to political disagreement. Krugman likes partisanship, and Obama does not. In a revealing column in January 2007, Krugman cited Obama’s lament that “politics has become so bitter and partisan,” and rejected the Senator’s suggestion that we have to become less partisan in order to solve our problems. In Krugman’s view, we need an FDR, not a consensus-seeking Eisenhower. Politicians have “to tackle the big problems despite bitter partisan opposition.”
Rejecting Obama’s claim that we should begin with a new period of bipartisanship, Krugman quoted, with evident admiration, FDR’s famous statement, in 1936, “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”

I would agree with Krugman. To pretend that the Dem Party is incapable of doing better than the GOP, when they have this super majority, is perfect grounds for the dissullusion of tthe Dem Party..if I hear him compliment Reagan one more time, I will puke.

No, I dont think things such as general economic policy should be so drastically different from FebruaRY to November that they sound almost like a differnt person. Krugman ( and I agree with him) submits that, with the economy in a downturn, the last thing we need to do is cut social programs. In fact, those doing without wil need them even more. Like I have said, unless it costs more than $850 billion—there is no excuse.

What no one needs another $1000 “stimulus”. It did nothing before, it would do nothing now. It did not bring anyone out of poverty—that money spent on a jobs program, just might. Spent on health care—it could save someone’s life. Spent on unemployment—it might keep someone out of the street. Spent on food stamps or school lunches, it might save a kid from malnutrition.

$1000? WhaT are you going to do with that, that couldnt be better spent collectively?

In MY opinion the last thing we need are more tax cuts. I hope that he can do something to create more jobs.But cutting taxes, while, at the same time,spending more on the economy (ie tax cuts—borrowed or no), does not seem to be “killing two birds with one stone” , as much as—-how the hell will that work?? The “windfall profits tax” on teh oil companies, if it becomes enacted, at all, wil be much less than before unless it is retroactive.

Maybe he plans to do that. But, I stil say that the money would be better spent on a myriad of things the country has been sorely in need of, since “bush”.

KDelphi:

Please show me where I called anyone “silly.”

Re Obama being “same old, same old,” I never implied anything of the sort.  I simply said that those here (and elsewhere) who thought or think that Obama ran on even a mildly “progressive” platform were clearly not listening to what he was actually saying.  And I repeat: Obama talked about transferring troops from Iraq to Afghanistan very early on in the primary campaign, and never changed his position on this.

As for Krugman, what on God’s earth are you thinking by posting articles that are dated as far back as February?!  Even the Krugman piece was in June - three months before Lehman collapsed and the economic crisis began.  How is ANY of that relevant to NOW?

You seem to think both Obama and Krugman (and apparently everyone else in the world) holds to a stated position forever, despite factors that might arise that would require modification of those positions.  Is that how YOU are?  I hope not.

I am not suggesting that the economic crisis has (or should) changed EVERYTHING.  But since it was not widely predicted (though it could have been), no one (politicians, pundits, etc.) can be blamed for modifying their positions.  In fact, if they held to outdated positions, I would consider them useless!

In fact, Obama has just announced his “first-steps” economic stimulus plan, and it includes immediate tax relief for the middle class BEYOND what he campaigned on, and the immediate phasing in of 2.5 million new jobs in infrastructure rebuilding - thus killing two birds with one stone.  Clearly, this guy is smart, nimble and (at least in this regard) true to his word.  (He was also smart enough to keep Summers from Treasury, and hold him to an advisory position instead.)

Ultimately, as ITW notes, alot of people seem to forget that Obama will not be president until January 21, 2009.  In that regard, he is actually forming his Cabinet and appointments to major positions more quickly than most president-elects, and will thus be (as Hillary liked to say about herself) “ready on Day 1” to get to work on all manner of issues.

Give the guy some credit, for goodness’ sake.  He’s not president yet, and he is already ahead of the game and properly preparing to deal with the myriad issues he will face on January 21st.

Peace.

ITW—Your comment, addressed to me, apparently, has absolutely nothing to do with any other topic discussed here. Why not attempt to stay on topic.

Dont you see the speciousness, of always falling back on how awful Bush is? STF what?? The whole world knows Bush is an a**hole!. As we speak, Bush is dismantling envitonemntal laws.

The discuassion , as to whether PE Obama will do alot better (of course he will!) has nothing to do with Bush. Everyone knows he sucks…duh.

Here is Krugman on it:

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/byauthor/243700

Or since Obama doesnt seem to “like” Krugman’s views on the economy, or, more likely doesnt like being criticised at all:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/3/43521/21244

(I would like for someone to please, after reading Krugman’s news release, explain to me how Krugman is wrong—not to do any progressive change is to fall back on trickle down economics)

Anyhow—here is a list of the rollbacks Bush is proposing—some are “closed for comment” already..

http://www.propublica.org/special/midnight-regulations/

You can sign a petition there, though , to stop him…if you are so inclined. And I f***ing hope you are!

KDelphi:

You, and all the other attackers of Obama for not doing stuff seem to forget a key point—Chimpy McFlightsuit and his band of apes are STILL in control through the end of the year and for 3 weeks in 2009—nearly 2 months.  All Obama has between now and then is the “bully pulpit” but no more—and Bush will do whatever the F*** he wants between now and then…

Maani—2

http://www.news-http://www.news-record.com/content/2008/11/05/article/great_expectations_obama_now_under_pressure_to_deliver

Explains it better than I could.He works for The Progressive”

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Obama_Cra
ze_Count_Me_Out_5413.html

Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, Sharon Smith , Mike Davis and others, have all drawn back their support for PE Obama, before the elections , often asking people to only vote for him “in swing states”.

Here is Adolph Reed, of the Progressive—it seems he has known Obama for awhile.
.http://www.progressive.org/mag_reed0508

Here is Ted Glick of Black Agenda Report:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24

Shannon Joyce Prince , Alexander Cockburn

http://www.counterpunch.org/
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06162008.html

http://www.socialism.com/whatsnew/obama_2008.html

“The bottom line is that Barack Obama doesn’t cast votes or make a stance and fight on the hill of Democratic principles… He’s a deal maker…. However, most passionate progressives don’t go into a room after signaling first that all items are on the table. Obama is, while also being willing to do whatever he can to get elected, cannibalizing his own and our ideals as he goes; bringing as many people along as he can, including conservatives who will have no allegiance to what progressives have worked for over decades to achieve. That’s because Obama’s loyalties are not to Democratic or progressive causes…..
ME: I would argue that these “policies” have not been of teh Dem Party for a very long time, but…
That’s why Mr. Obama had no problem whatsoever taking out after Paul Krugman, the leading progressive writer we have fighting the fight for Democratic causes, economic and social, every day. Good thing Molly Ivins is no longer around, because she would likely be next….”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/barack-obamas-progressiv_b_75933.html

So, you defend this??

You know, you may be absolutely correct about one thing: Obama seems to be a very conservative member of the duopoly, who never pretended that “change” was anything but a word. Maybe youre right Progsersives did get suckered…you win…sortve.You win the exact same kind of govt you want. The same old crap..

1

ITW—Me?? I never thought he would get us “out of Iraq”—but alot of people did!
It is hardly “heavy lifting” to defend Obama’s record—he dosent have one.

I saw alot of what he said as “qualifiers”

This is how “qualifiers” work:( and, why they are impossible to defend or protests-because they say—and mean—absolutely mothing)

—“The war in Iraq should never have happened”. (crowd—Yah!! He is going to get us out of Iraq! He is anti-war”!!) “Everyone in the uS deserves heatlh care”(he should have followed with"But I dont intend to provide it”) (Yaah! He wil pass universal health care—nope) I dont buy this “eventual goal ” crap, because people are dying. EVERYONE ELSE in the “free” world has natl health insurance.There is simply no excuse for it—cant afford it??BS!! Woudl it cost more than $850 billion to implement?

Conyers has a plan right now, that he must think is “do-able”. Doctors and progressives back it. Obama has not committed to it, and said he woudl not. (Well, his campaign worker, on the phone)The health care issue, goes to the problems of the Auto Co woes, the stock mkt. (people must file bankruptcy). Who get to choose who gets it, Maani? You? Obama? Who?

Maani—I see..you said “silly”, not ignorant.

All I see are a bunch of excuses and rationalizations. He certainly was not that conservative in Chicago politics, or he would never have won there. Opportunism..

Alot of the things you say “Obama didnt do” (voting on this or that), is because he wasnt there.

You say he didnt say he wouldnt oppose the Fairness Doctrine, and then you admit that he would, but say he must know better—or something like that.

He did NOT win the primary by advocating increase in troops anywhere..but, as I said, he is hard to pin down.So, what was your interpretation of what he would do?

Most people THINK that they voted for a “different kind of person”. One that “transcends” race, politics, gender…Hayden even said that “protest has no meaning in the ‘Age of Obama’”. If you think that that means that people thought they just had another DLC politician, you will be in a defensive position for many years.

Yes, it does seem that only YOU (and maybe a few others) knew that Obama was same-old, same-old. Well, I guess I did too.

WASHINGTON — Over and over, Barack Obama told voters that if they stuck with him, “we will change this country and change the world.”

They did, and now their expectations for him to deliver are firmly planted on his shoulders.

Many supporters greeted his victory with euphoria. Impatient for a new American era and overcome by a black man’s historic ascension to the White House, they took his achievement for their own —

But campaign rhetoric soon collides with the gritty duties of governing, and hard realities stand in Obama’s way.

B-b-b-ut dont stop reading now! I admit you were right!

KDelphi:

Since Maani did all the “heavy lifting” I’ll just make a quick point about getting out of a stupid war.

(First, I opposed the Iraq War from the beginning and have had little reason to change that opinion).

It’s pretty simple: Getting out without thought and planning can be even worse than going IN without thought and planning.  We’ve already screwed going in, why do so getting out?

Here’s a metaphor: If some sticks a knife in you, sometimes the WORST thing you can do is just yank it out, doing more damage and setting off hemorrhaging.  Get out of Iraq? Definitely! Do it haphazardly and recklessly?  That wouldn’t be prudent. (Gee…didn’t someone named BUSH used to say that?????)

(To KDelphi, Part I)

First, at no point did I suggest, much less say, that anyone who disagrees with me is “ignorant” or just “pulling it out of nowhere.”  All I asked for was support for statements made.  You have provided that for some of your comments, and I appreciate that.  Now let me take your issues in order again.

“He said that Iraq was a ‘stupid war’ - so why take so long to get out?”

“So long?”  Do you know how long it takes to move over 100,000 people plus materiel?  The “13-month” timetable that both Obama and Hillary suggested is about as quickly as it can be done.  Plus, don’t forget that Obama stated that “we need to be smart getting out as we were stupid going in” (or something like that).  So he is aware that timetables may be changed by factors “on the ground.”  However, I have heard nothing that would contradict his stated goal re leaving Iraq.

“Obama seems to want to further aggressions in Afghanistan.  In four years, I am fairly certain, we shall still be ‘chasing Osama’….”

Re the first, Obama was ALWAYS about closing down the war in Iraq and stepping up the war against Al Qaeda et al.  He said this early on and never changed his position.  Why would anyone believe otherwise?  Re the second, if we are still “chasing Osama” in four years, it will be because we never had any intention of capturing him in the first place.  (This speaks to the 9/11 Truth issue, which is too long to go into here.)

“I did not praise Clinton’s plan…I want a non-market based plan…like they have in civilized countries…”

A “non-market based plan” is a euphemism for a single-payer system: what is usually called “socialized medicine.”  And both Obama and Hillary support this - though they both realize that it cannot be brought about by fiat; i.e., that the interim step that both of them support is the penultimate step toward a single-payer (non-market) system which, if Obama and the Dems are successful and remain in power, is likely to occur in his second term.

Re tax cuts: “Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush’s tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy…,” to which you add, “The economy is not his ‘fault’...but…”

There are no “buts.”  Yet despite the fact that he may not rescind the Bush tax cuts right away, he is still planning to provide the middle class tax relief that he campaigned on.  We have yet to see how he will accomplish it, but rescinding the Bush tax cuts is not the only way.

[Re closing Guantanamo], “Why are you so certain that McCain was ‘giving lip service’ and that Obama (and the Dems) was not?”

(See Part II)

(To KDelphi, Part II)

As noted, simply look at their histories.  McCain claimed to be against torture (which he himself was subject to), yet signed on to the bill allowing the CIA to use torture.  Obama did not.  As well, if you look at their respective votes on civil liberties-related legislation, Obama has been far more respectful of them than McCain.  As noted, it is true that Obama supported renewal of the Patriot Act (as did McCain) and cast that truly unforgivable vote for FISA (as did McCain). But that is not the sum total of EITHER of their history re civil liberties, etc.

Re the Fairness Doctrine: “Sen. Obama does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters.  He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible…”

Actually, Obama may be ahead of the curve here, since the Fairness Doctrine may not be the panacea that many believe it would be - or even as strong as alternatives might be.  We have yet to see what Obama has in mind here, but it may actually be more appropriate than the Fairness Doctrine.

On Blackwater: “‘I can’t rule it out, I won’t rule…out private security contractors’...”

And well he shouldn’t.  Because the problem is not private security contractors per se, the problem is what their “mission” is, how that mission is undertaken, their accountability while undertaking that mission, and their overall accountability to the president.

As an aside, this is NOT what I thought you meant by “restoring the rule of law,” which usually relates to DOMESTIC matters (i.e., freedoms, civil rights, civil liberties, etc,).  I thought you were referring to the contract that Blackwater has with the U.S. government vis-a-vis deployment IN THE U.S. during “national emergencies” - which is why I responded as I did.

I would very much like to see Obama cancel that contract, and forbid ANY private security contractor from deploying on U.S. soil in any way, at any time.  It is THIS for which Obama has not yet made a policy statement.

“How can so-called liberals pull a candidate to the Left, if they won’t admit he is not already ‘secretly Left?’ Maybe you never thought he was Maani, but a helluva lot of people did. That will be a problem.”

Yes it will.  And it will be their own fault for believing something that, had they been listening and not fantasizing, Obama himself NEVER suggested or even gave the perception of, either by his words or his actions, whether as a State Senator, U.S. Senator or presidential candidate.

Peace.

Maani:
On Blackwater: (from “Blackwater” by Jeremy Scahill. (In this, as well as many other quotations, there are many more sources for these conclusions…I cant print them all)_(p.462-3)

“..If the Democrats attempted to make diplomatic security a military option, that would pose serious challenges as well…the military does not have the trained personnel to take over the job…Realizing the practical challenges any traNSItion away from private security forces in Iraq would entail, during the 2008 campaign a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama said,{when asked if Obama would shut down private contracors} ‘I cant rule it out, I wont rule it out, private security contractors’...This must have been a difficult admission. While Obama..forefront of attempts to legislate accountability for contractors on the battlefield..his team clearly understood that their support for maintaining A SIZABLE US PRESENCE IN IRAQ (my caps)had painted them into a corner….Both CLINTON and OBAMA indicated they supported increasing funding of Diplomatic Security, as advocated by Sen. BIDEN in 2007..the State Dept admits , that {transverring security needs to regular military} would take years to implement…next president may have no choice {if determined to leave a sizable force in Iraq} but to continue the current contracting arrangements.”
I suppose one could interpret that differently. Doesnt sound like Blackwater (nor DynaCorp, nor Triple Canopy) will be shutting down any time soon…not to me.

Of PE Obama surprises me—-great. No one would be happier to admit that I was wrong than I.
How can so-called liberals pull a candidate to the Left, if they wont admit he is not already “secretly Left”? Maybe you never thought he was Maani, but a helluva lot of people did. That will be a problem.

He may “change” some of this..we shall see. But, everyone that disagrees with you is not “ignorant” or just pulling it out of nowhere..

Maani—I think that we have a problem of perceoption here. Some of it is just lacking in factual referrals—here you go:

One: He said that Iraq was a ‘stupid war”—so why take so long to get out? What good can come of a “stupid” war?

Many were “under the impression” (perception again? Obama seems to thrive on that), that Afghanistan would be considered, as well as dumping the ridiculous “war on terror”. Obama seems to want to further agressions in Afghanistan.In four years, I am fairly certain, we shall still be “chasing Osama”, who may or may not be alive.

Two: I did not praise Clinton’s plan—I think hers wouldve required everyone to be insured, at least. I want a non-mkt based plan , you know, like they have in civilized countries. 15 m. is no small nuimber.

I think that we already know who “doesnt get it” in capitalism—-the ones who need it the most.

Three:The tax cuts—“Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush’s tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy….” http://www.victoriousopposition.com/index.php/site/comments/obama-would-not-rescind-bush-tax-cuts/

The economy is not his “fault” (unless you consider everyone on Capital Hill to be—they shoudl be). But, if anything costs LESS than $850,000—talk to the hand, cause I aint listenin’!!!

“As ambitious as Obama’s proposals might be, they would still leave the gap between the rich and everyone else far wider than it was 15 or 30 years ago. It just wouldn’t be quite as wide as it is now…..”
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080820144146.aspx

Four: Why are you so certain that McCain was “giving lip service” and that Obama ( and the Dems) was not? (You are aware that he is a Democrat, right?)
“The detention center at Guantanamo Bay and the flawed justice system created to try terrorist suspects held there are among the most complicated legacies of the Bush administration. They’re Obama’s problem now. The president elect has said he will shutter Gitmo and put some of the detainees on trial in American criminal courts or military courts martial (his campaign did not return calls seeking comment.).... Here are four reasons the controversial facility will probably still be open for business a year from now….”

http://www.newsweek.com/id/168022

“Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible…..”

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-fairness-doctrine/

On Blackwater: (from “Blackwater” by Jeremy Scahill.

Please see next post…

troublesum:

That is a truly hysterical (and ironic) comment given that I was the one yelling about “rose-colored glasses” (actually, I called them “Barack-tinted spectacles”) during the primary campaign when I was supporting Hillary.

Still, when you make “pronouncements” as you do - especially without at least SOME sort of evidence in support - you simply make yourself look foolish (a word I would not normally use about you).

Peace.

Maani
If you can’t see what’s coming take off your rose colored glasses.

troublesum:

“Pragmatism ought to be called Kissingerism.”

Kissinger didn’t invent pragmatism, either in politics or elsewhere.  And since it is Brzezinski who is advising Obama, and not Kissinger (and the two do NOT agree on most things), I’m not sure where your comment is coming from.

“An assault on Iran is now certain.”

Really?  And you know this…how?  Did you install a tap on the Oval Office phone?  Can you turn invisible and show up at secret presidential meetings?  Opinions are one thing: statements of fact are quite another.

“Worse, it will be Obama’s job to undo the progress which has been made in Latin America on human rights and economic justice.”

And this statement is supported by…what?  Like the statement about Iran, it is pure speculation, based on…well, you haven’t offered any evidence, so I don’t know WHAT it is based on.

Peace.

Maani, November 21 at 9:22 pm #

I think both of us basically agree with and “feel for” those here who would like to see that leftward drift occur more rapidly.  But given the realities of politics, those people are simply frustrated (at best) or naive (at worst).
**********************************************

I give DK far more credit for his gadfly function than his legislative skills. His early take on the where to spend the money (fixing mortgages, espec ones where the borrower was virtually swindled) was far-sighted, as are many views.  But he is a Cassandra, unable to figure out how to get anybody to listen to him.

Nader?  Over the last 8 years I have lost every bit of the once massive respect I held for him.  Even if I had not lost it, I see in “St. Ralph” no ability whatsoever to be leader in governance.

I have no objection to “drifting Left” as long as that drift benefits our nation and the world.  It must be effective or then it’s just more party hacks and their pet programs—and we’ve had a disastrous 8 years of that.  As Paul Krugman sadly noted in yesterday’s NYTimes (or was it Thursday?) there’s still 2 months in which Bush and Paulsen can do INCREDIBLE damage to the nation at large and the economy in particular…and they are doing it.

Meanwhile, most foreign nations, while congratulating Barack Obama, are treading water, and holding their breath until he actually can take office….

Pragmitism ought to be called Kissingerism.  An assault on Iran is now certain.  Worse, it will be Obama’s job to undo the progress which has been made in Latin America on human rights and economic justice.  And isn’t it wonderful that we have a black man as president?

ITW:

Thanks for the kind words.  Actually, I have a great deal of respect for both Kucinich and (to a lesser degree) Nader.  I think the problem with alot of people here is that their idealism clouds their pragmatism and reality.  If this country is going to “drift left,” it will be in small increments over a fairly lengthy period of time.  Despite all the folderol, Obama seems like he will start that drift, even if it is only barely perceptible at first.  If he and the Dems do a good enough job over the next four years to maintain their hold on the White House and Congress (and the global economic crises is going to make that even more difficult than it might otherwise have been), then they will be able to continue that leftward drift (again, however incremental it might need to be) over another term - and, optimally, over two or three more terms.

I think both of us basically agree with and “feel for” those here who would like to see that leftward drift occur more rapidly.  But given the realities of politics, those people are simply frustrated (at best) or naive (at worst).

Peace.

Where’s the popcorn…and rum’n'coke?

I might as well be watching cartoons with my 3 1/2 year old…there’s more intelligent discussion there than here…Except I’ll skip the rum.

Here Rachel Madow quoted some right-wingers saying they had to “work to block Obama’s Left-wing agenda”

And here they are saying they have to work to block Obama’s Right-wing agenda.

They cannot both be true.

Maani, you and a couple of others are making the only rational and fact-based arguments here.  Meanwhile, the “usual suspects” are regurgitating their tired old arguments why those two paragons of government, Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader should given the titles of Viceroy and Attorney General….

Yeah, DK and Nader. At least DK got himself actually ELECTED to office…...........

As time goes on, it becomes painfully clear that there are no seats for true liberals at the Obama table. Just filthy neoliberal beasts leftover from the Clinton days. And now to even consider leaving Gates at his post? Jesus, why not just bring back Rumsfeld, or Cheney? How about giving Kissinger a job? Send somebody to Argentina. Hell, maybe Goebbels is alive and needs a job as press secretary.

Is it too late to dig up Meese or Mitchell for Attorney general?

Ah, change we can believe in!

KDelphi:

“One: He “implied”...[that] he wanted to get us out of the “war” in Iraq.  He did not mention the “war on terror” until he had gotten the nominatiaon.”

Wrong.  From the get-go, he said he is not opposed to “all “wars,” only “stupid” ones, and, also from the get-go he talked about increasing troops in Afghanistan as PART of the “war on terror.”

“Two: He said that everyone would “have health care”—not under Daschle or Baucus’ plans, but I picked that one up a long time ago. 15 million will not be covered.”

Wrong.  The “15 million” figure was picked up on very early.  But other than this, his overall health care platform was identical to Hillary’s - health care for all, moving toward a universal, single payer system.

“Three: He said that he would reverse the “Bush tax cuts”—he now says that the implementation could take a decade.  The $1000 per taxpayer will have to be cancelled—it was coming out of windfall profits taxes for oil cos.”

Wrong.  From the beginning, he said he would use the saving from cutting the Bush tax cuts (which he still intends to reverse) to put toward health care and the environment, including the creation of new “green” jobs.  And obviously, since he could not foresee the economic crisis, things may have to be done on a slower basis.  That is hardly his fault.

“Four: Closing GITMO is (almost) nothing—McCain was going to do that, and stop torture.”

My guess is, for McCain, closing Gitmo was “lip service” only.  After all, he voted to allow torture via the CIA despite his own experiences.  Obama still intends to close it - quickly.

“Five: He deliberately “separated” himself from the DLC, and now he employs them all. So many Hillary haters voted for him, almost solely for that.”

No, he doesn’t employ them “all”; he has a few.  And how the heck would you know that many HC voters voted for him “solely” for that?

“Six: He voted to allow ATT, etc, to get away with spying on people—now Verizon has done it to him.”

I asked for “progressive” tendencies, not the opposite.  His FISA vote was inexcusable, and proves my point: he was never a “progressive.”

“Seven: He will not implement the Fairness Doctrine.”

We do not know that.  You are making an assumption you cannot support.

“Eight: He cannot “restore the rule of law” as long as he approves of hiring mercenary corps. like Blackwater.”

He has not made a policy statement re Blackwater et al yet.  Again, you make a presumption for which you have no support.

As for “Why not pick a candidate from Bum Frick State?,” sure: let’s start with Sarah Palin, shall we?  LOL.

Peace.

My point was not that he should choose stupid people.  The idea that everybody in the Bush administration is dumb is just not credible. Alberto Gonzales and William Haynes are both Harvard Law graduates.  They drafted the legal memos for Bush and Rumsfeld which authorized the use of torture at Quantanimo and Abu Gharib.  The fact that Obama has chosen the brightest people does not guarantee that we will have good government.

troublesum—I have said for awhile, that, I think we have had enough Ivy League. Look where it has gotten us.

None of our well-educated persidents has been stupid. That does not seem to have helped them.

Why not pick a candidate from Bum Frick State?

I wrote , in the NYT blog, (as well as sending it to change/gov) the day after (?not positive?) the election, that I had read two columns on economics that day—Brooks and Krugman.

I wrote that Obama had a choice; he could stick with the policies of Brooks’ trickle down (he sure mentioned Reagan alot) or, he could become the next FDR and go with New New Deal policies.

He appears to have chosen. We shall see.

Maani,
The chief function of Harvard and Yale is to train servants of the power elite.  What’s new about it?
Kennedy surrounded himself with the best and the brightest.  They led us into Vietnam.

Great. David Brooks, who supports every imperialist war the US has ever fought—and even a few it has declined to fight—now loves Obama. You can practically hear Brooks sighing with relief: “This guy is one of us!”

And Maani is happy because O’s choices are “really smart people.” (Personally, knowing that people who are robbing me blind in order kill innocent people in foreign places are “really smart” is not reassuring.)

We can all feel good about ourselves. Liberals are happy because he is a brown person. Conservatives are happy because he is willing to kill other brown people.

Another perspective on Gates:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/111908a.html

Maani—I’ve repeatedly said that I thought Obama was a conservative, so I’m at a loss to understand why you call upon me to give examples of his running as a “progressive” candidate, unless by that you mean allowing people to believe he was moderately left-wing without ever giving anyone an explicit reason to think so—a pretty mild program for appealing to “progressives”.  His opposition to the invasion of Iraq was pragmatic and not at all based on anti-war principles; he thought the war was stupid, but other wars might be smart.

Folktruther—I think there are limits to how much people can be fooled.  You know what Lincoln said, and he was probably an expert.

Yes, but, as compared to , say , Clinton—where’s the “change”?

troublesum:

I see it as something more than “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.”  And your characterization of it as “center-right” is a tad overstated.  True, it is nowhere near as “center-left” as it might have been, but the reality was that it was never going to be.

Obama is choosing (overwhelmingly) smart people - which is already a HUGE plus over the dumb ones we’ve had.  And he is choosing from among those smart people the ones whom he thinks would “think” best in those positions, offer him feedback and advice that will be helpful and useful (though they are unlikely to be the kind of “yes-men” we’ve seen), and will carry out whatever policies HE ultimately decides on.

As I posted on anoher thread, here is how it is shaping up at the moment:

SoS: Clinton (unless she declines)
Treasury: Geithner
Defense: Gates (at least for an interim period)
HHS: Daschle
Commerce: Richardson
DHS: Napolitano
AG: Holder
OMB: Orszag

You might find the following article interesting - though my guess is that you will “spin it” exactly the opposite of what it is (LOL):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

Peace.

Maani—I can give you several.

One: He “implied” (see, that is the problem with Obama—he is extremely hard to pin down!)he wanted to get us out of the “war” in Iraq. He did not mention the “war on terror” until he had gotten the nominatiaon.

Two: He said that everyone would “have health care”—not under Daschle or Baucus’ plans, but I picked that one up a long time ago. 15 million will not be covered

Three: He said that he wuld reverse the “Bush tax cuts”—he now says that the implementation could take a decade.The $1000 per taxpayer will have to be cancelled—it was coming out of windfall profits taxes for oil cos.. But, it never should have happened anyway.

Four: Closing GITMO is (almost) nothing—McCain was going to do that, and stop torture

Five: He deliberately “separated” himself from the DLC, and , now , he employs them all. So msny Hillary haters voted for him, almost solely for that

Six: He voted to allow ATT, etc, to get away with spying on people—now Verizon has done it to him

Seven:He will not implement the Fairness Doctrine

Eoght: He cannot “restore the rule of law” as long as he approves of hiring mercenary corps. like Blackwater.

I should say that I voted for him. I did it as a promise to someone else. I am sure it did not sway the election here.

Maani
I certainly didn’t think that Obama would put together a republican, center right government.  Of course I wasn’t expecting a leftist government; I just didn’t think that it would be such a Washington insider, business as usual government.  Are you saying that when he talked about change everyday for a year and a half you understood that all he was talking about was rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic?

There must be thousands of people in this country with fresh ideas on how to stop this country’s downward spiral.  I was expecting to see a lot of new people in government, not the same old lawyers, ex-senators and business men who helped to get us where we are now.

“Having promised change, he now surrounds himself with experience.”  Gee!  Should he have surrounded himself with neophytes WITHOUT experience?  Give me a break!

And to Anarcissie, troublesum et al:

Please give me at least a few concrete examples of why you believe that Obama ran as a “progressive” candidate - or was in ANY way “progressive” other than his early stance against the Iraq War.  And then explain how those positions are different from his current ones on whichever issues you note.

Peace.

Folk and Anar—yes. I am beginning to understand this better…let the rationalizing begin..

I have to admit, as to appointments, it is looking worse than, even, I , had thought.

Geinthner looks awful (he’s not Summers, but not far off…). He worked for Kissinger..S. Clinton is another side of the same coin.( I have to laugh at the excuse, “he wanted to keep her away from health care reform”—Obama’s is the same mkt based plan, except it covers fewer people!) Keeping Gates on? And, let us not forget Biden…

Whew…I’m gonna take a muscle relaxer and lie down..shot of Jack…its so cold up here—or maybe its the Big Chill…

Anarcissie—that energy that Obama kicked up, drawing the young into the political arena, he plans to neutralize by maintaining a mock-progressive grouping OUTSIDE of the Dem party.  For the naive young new to the power process. This will divide the left opposition to him as he goes to the right to the Gops and joins the Dems baiting the left.  Whom he will sell out in a much more respectful, itelligent way.

This will lengthen the time it takes to mobilize the left, allowing him to run in the triangular center in the next election, or so it is hoped.  The Elite center is now to the right of the Clinton presidency.

Jeremy Keith: Yes, but…

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” JFK

Purple Girl—Obssessed with Clintons much? What about his other appointments? Obama agrees with the Clintons on so many things, that, if you do not see it now, you will…

So, the “Baker and Hamilton” Commission is supposed to be some guidepost for peace? Horse hockey!

The lengths that people will go to to keep defending any Dems is truly amazing…

Zionist Claim to Have Obama on a Tight Leash

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz has publicly claimed he pushed Barack Obama not to allow former President Jimmy Carter to speak at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Dershowitz told Shalom TV, “Barack Obama had to make a choice between his Jewish supporters and his anti-Israel supporters like Jimmy Carter, and he did not choose Jimmy Carter… It was a good decision, a wise decision, a moral decision.” Dershowitz has harshly criticized Carter for publishing the book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.”

Dershowitz likes to play the bigshot, but it is an interesting claim.

Obama dumped the “progressives” a long time ago—back in May, at the latest, when he didn’t need them any more.  The only thing that surprised me was the speed and decisiveness with which he moved; I had expected there would be a Decent Interval of a few weeks before the pwogs got definitively dropped off the bandwagon.

However, Obama, like Kennedy, did stir up a lot of feeling, a lot of social energy, which is now going to be untethered, floating around, looking for a direction.  There is probably quite an opportunity out there for leftist agitation.  If not now, then soon.

If Obama wasn’t such a nice black man, I’d say he was downright machiavellian in his lies and deception.

Oh, and omniadeo, you’ve hit it spot on.  The very little bit of change we’re going to see is only what the corporate and military industry will allow in order to placate the citizenry just enough so we don’t have a real revolution on our hands.  As an example of how the corporate royalty is compromising just enough to keep itself in power, witness how gasoline prices have considerably dropped since the outcome of the elections was determined.  Obama did make a deal with the Devil and the Devil is now collecting his due.

Obama is into triangulation.

I posted this under “Clinton nomination for SOS likely” but it applies here as well:

As Obama continues to appoint former Clintonites to his administration, its becoming painfully obvious that the same pattern of musical chairs will continue.  For everyone who foolishly believed the Democrats were going to really “change” their own dismal past performance as well as somehow be different than their Republican cohorts, here is the proof that this political duopoly will just continue business as usual in order to keep themselves and the corporate elite they work for in power.  In another four or eight years it will simply swing back to a newly reinvented Republican party who also will promise “change” and new direction.  Once elected back into the majority, they too will simply bring back former Bush administration officials and the revolving door pattern from public government to private corporate lobbyists that so many of these politicial/corporate elite enjoy will continue its sickly cycle.  When will the voters learn not to be suckered by the RepubliCrats and get on with demanding real competition and exposure (viable third, fourth and fifth party candidates) from the media conglomerates who fawn over both of these dysfunctional parties and continue to feed us the same old drivel that is just repackaged in slick new public relations campaigns every election cycle.

“When Gates was first nominated to serve as defense secretary, many unanswered questions lingered from his years at the CIA, and in particular regarding his role in the Iran-Contra affair. But the Democrats have already forfeited their opportunity to revive that scandal.”

Those in the Democratic base who supported Obama haven’t forfeited their opportunity to revive that scandal or anything else.

As a Liberal Dem I am far less concerned about Gates than I am about Hillary!
Frankly Gates could have done Worse…He could have been Rummy.
Theres been some statement from Gates (Quiet and infrequent) which indicate he realized the clusterF*ck he was handed. Perhaps he may actually get to do his Job once Cheney stops yanking his strings.
What scares me more is Hillary as Sec of State!And In the’90’s I was an AVID Clinton Supporter & Defender…Hindsight and Hillary’s Appeasing Votes, Inactions and Finally her Campaign ended that Blind Allegience- COLD!
Hillary NEVER gave up her Neo Con membership card, she just wesseled her way into the Dem party on Bills Rising Stardom…‘Reagan Democrat’ ..How Rovian of you Hillary!We used to call it ‘Double Speak’.
Joan Walsh claimed she was being ‘bashed’ because of her Amibitions….NO JOAN She is Being bashed because of her Means to accomplish her ambitions- Just as disgusting and vile as any male who uses these same tactics. RKF? THREE TIMES!!!!! Geraldine & Bills Blatantly Racist Comments: That Picture of Obama in African ceremonial garb portrayed as ‘Islamic’ Terrorist?Throwing a Preacher Under the bus just to solidify the ‘angry male’ fear from us ‘hard working White middle Class’.Christ she couldn’t even come up with a coverstory when proven a LIAR- regarding Sniper Fire OR Irish reconcilation!! Please She OWNS the Original Edition of Neo Con tactics handbook, autographed (by Cheney or Baker?)Frankly I’m pissed the Dems bothered with LIEberman but did Nothing to Hillary! She set UP and worked in tandum With McCains Puppet masters. Are We so sure ‘Hillary’ is not just Mac in drag? Frankly I think it’s more like Cheney…Have they ever been photographed together- is there proof it’s not just spliced together? Both make my skin Crawl.

Mockery is the only thing left.  He’s definitely saying f**k you to progressives.

Here’s my optimistic-reverse conspiracy theory:

Obama has demonstrated that he is a very intelligent man. His history with community organization/grass roots - combined with his knowledge that being a corporate pawn is the only way to be elected makes me wonder (actually dream) that maybe he’s pulling a Louis XIV / Versailles maneuver - effectively turning Washington into the “golden cage.”

He’s keeping many agents of the military-industrial complex in positions of the executive branch (within his reach) while engaging the people, especially those that voted for him, through technology and really nurturing civic responsibility. By muting lobbyists and establishing means of communication between his transition staff and the general public - he’s giving more power to the people.

At least it appears that way. It’s obvious that he has an agenda that he’s hiding. I personally have not yet determined what it is but I’m hoping it’s the progressive movement that he campaigned with. Just like it took a covert government to slither into power - maybe it will take an equally stealthy-strategic one to bring that power back to democracy - and I can dream that Obama is part of that movement.

Revolution doesn’t have to be violent.

Except omni, there is a lot more at stake now and what an opportunity would be squandered.
If Obama continues to prop up the wall while the very foundations are being shaken, when it all tumbles down, it will be him blamed—and it has always been so much easier to scapegoat a person of color.

Obiden is serving the third term of Bush.  It would therefore be natural to keep Gates.  And it is natural for imperialist Democrats to justify it.

Gag me with a spoon.

These defenses of Obama’s choices are wearing thin. I voted for him, but I am not “disappointed.” That would imply that I expected something else. I didn’t. I voted for him, in the same spirit in which I would choose to die of liver cancer rather than stomach cancer: I have been told it would be slightly less painful.

This is not an indictment of the man. I think he is a rare bird indeed. But get it straight: He is choosing the people he is choosing because he has to. He made the deal with the devil, so here the devil is, to get his due. I have no “sympathy for the devil” but I do have sympathy for those who work for him, because we all do. In hoc mundo Christus crucifixitur.

For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, the rules are very clear: You may tax the rich a little more, and the middle class a little less. You may wonk around with some policy and get a little more health coverage for a few more people. You can talk to some “enemies” (at least before you eventually bomb them). You may be a little kinder to the people on the street, but the one thing you may not do is challenge the Military and the Intelligence establishment.

Thus, Clinton kept Tenet and Obama may keep Gates. I will predict he will also keep McConnell as the Director of National Intelligence. Thus in the debates with McCain, neither candidate seriously challenged defense spending. (To be fair, McCain at least mentioned it. Obama did not.) God forbid ANYONE ever challenge the Intelligence Budgets.

Obama is no fool. He knows who he works for. He wanted the job, and no one who wants a job tries to fire the boss that hired him.

Kennedy tried. But the rules were less clear then. We all know how that worked out.

They are a lot clearer now.