The Usual Gang of Idiots
In Washington D.C. it is said that personnel is policy. Personnel are being selected by the Obama Administration as we speak. Policy is being made, right now. It is not too early to discuss Obama's policies. I'm getting daily emails from the new model Obama Democrats, asking for more old-fashioned money. I'd like to see some changes at the top, rather than a cavalcade of Ye Olde Tyme Democratic Hacks.
If President O wants to keep the base fired up, he needs to elevate some new people. The incoming crowd we've seen thus far is going to wilt enthusiasm faster than Harry Reems contemplating Ann Coulter.
The economic grandeés have been rolled out, and I use the term advisedly. As Willem Buiter points out, most of them are not economists. Of the economic managers, we have the sado-monetarist Carter retread Paul Volcker, Clinton holdovers Laura Tyson, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, former deregulatin' SEC chairman William Donaldson, and it's downhill from there.
On the meager plus side there is labor stalwart David Bonior and Clinton refugee Robert Reich. They are both good eggs, but they are heavily outnumbered. It is said that there is no bench to go to for appointees but the ghosts of Democratic administrations past. This is simply not true. To begin with, we could have seen some highly respected mainstream (mild) dissenters from neo-liberal orthodoxy like Joseph Stiglitz, Alan Blinder, Jeff Sachs, Brad DeLong and not-so-mild James K. Galbraith. I don't expect radicals. But we have a right to expect some strong liberals.
If we have to see a parade of corporate weasels, a couple of trade union presidents would have been nice. After all, there is not much point in avoiding corporate lobbyists like the plague if you just turn around and hop in bed with their bosses.
Obama was reputed to like the idea of a "team of rivals." Did he mean rivals in the sense of personal ambition? It's easy to put a group like that together. Or did he mean people ready to think anew, with philosophies reflecting the diversity of the people who vote Democrat? Otherwise, just what is the big fat change we are in for?
To start with, how about a few economists who weren't gigantically wrong about economic liberalization, deficit reduction, and free trade, as Summers, Rubin, Volcker, and Tyson were?
On the foreign policy side, the latest shoe to drop is the delegation of Mad Albright and Jim Leach. Apparently Warren Christopher was not up to the trip, and Cyrus Vance didn't feel like rising from the dead. Maddy along with President Poontang helped get us into Iraq, you ought to know by instituting a sanctions regime whose necessary victims included hundreds of thousands of children.
Should we be surprised that developments have begun to unfold as they have? Sure. Do we have to sit back and watch? No. Next time you get one of those emails, hit return and tell them the change you have been waiting for.
Just say no to the DLC!
November 12, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job,children health indeed.
January 19, 2011 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Me Worry????? you bettcha....
I did not vote for McCain nor Obama. McCain was too “old” and Obama too vague on his political philosophy of how he would govern the country and who would most have his attention/influence from his inner circle of advisors and cabinet members.
Let’s see if President Obama has enough spine to do what’s “right” for the country on the issues of housing, mortage, credit & monetary policies, bail-outs & corporate welfare, energy & oil, healthcare, trade, domestic and national security issues. Will it be the New Deal part two or a Reaganomics do-over.
The corporate world will be and has been lining up at the Treasure Department for their Welfare checks – first the financial industries, then banking, now the auto industry, and pretty soon, retail will be holding out their tin, I mean, gold plated cups to the next Secretary of the Treasure.
The losing party of the R’s are now trying to frame the debate and mind-set by expressing the views that the will of the people is REALLY Center-Right politics and policy and warn of the political consequences of a Left-Center leanings of Pelosi and Reid; please, it’s barely been over a week and a few days since the election.
But look to see these R’s to run in 2012 – Gov Jindal (if nothing else, to prove the Republican Party is not the party of all White males); Sara Palin (but she’ll get skewered again); Romney (second attempt on the platform of “I told you so”); some cult-like figure who has the charisma and b.s. to take on the equally opposing charmer and b.s’er of Pres Obama.
November 12, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having been monumentally wrong in the past doers not necessarily doom you to be wrong in the future since reasonable people are presumed to learn from their mistakes. That particular trio has the advantage of being "well-connected" and knowledgeable of the ways of Washington.
I would take a wait and see attitude. These guys are veterans; yes maybe veteran fuck-ups but hopefully they learned something in the process.
November 12, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only that, but as had been said before in similar threads, this is only a transition advisory team not the new Cabinet. And if Obama does like rivalry, why assume he's not using these people for sparring practice to better tune his different approach. I recommend Audacity of Hope for background.
November 13, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
One can profit from experience. Summers is the most interesting case here. As Sec of the Treasury, he could be great, or he could be a monumental pain in the arse. Clinton looked great in 1992, then kept the D's in the wilderness for a decade. It's a gamble I'm not sure I want to take.
I will admit I can't easily come up with superior alternatives. Geithner and Bair are ciphers. All we know is that they are good at their jobs.
November 13, 2008 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Timothy Geithner was a protege of Robert Rubin. He was involved in the bailout of Long Term Capital Management in 1998 and was promoted to Undersecretary of the Treasure for International Affairs under Secretaries Rubin and Summers in 1999.
He was closely involved in the sale of Bear Stearns to J.P. Morgan, taking $29B in bad assets onto the Federal balance sheet. He was also closely involved in the AIG bailout and the decision to let Lehman Brothers fail.
Given Hank Paulson's current thrashing about, I would guess that a Geithner nomination for Treasury Secretary would raise a lot of flack in Congress. The transition team has gone strangely quiet in the last few days about Cabinet appointments. Perhaps Obama is mulling things over.
November 13, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Political Washington is a conspiracy - in the original sense of the word: "to breathe the same air." In that sense, there is no air in Washington that isn't stale enough to choke a president. Send Obama there alone, give him that "breathing space", don't start demanding the quick ending of wars or anything else, and you're not doing him, or the American people, any favors. Quite the opposite, you're consigning him to suffocation.
Leave Obama to them and he'll break your heart. If you do, then blame yourself, not him; but better than blaming anyone, pitch your own tent on the public commons and make some noise. Let him know that Washington's isn't the only consensus around, that Americans really do want our troops to come home, that we actually are looking for "change we can believe in", which would include a less weaponized, less imperial American world, based on a reinvigorated idea of defense, not aggression, and on the Constitution, not leftover Rumsfeld rules or a bogus "war on terror".______Tom Engelhardt (ATO)
I stand corrected! There is no sin in changing your mind even in the same thread if you see the light. If someone shows you the light. Ego be dammed on with the truth!
November 14, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let our words be the tools we use to bring about the "change we can believe in" and not just some idle and misguided attempt at expressing "the hidden truth" about what is happening. That’s so PASSIVE!! Let us move mountains and not paint pretty pictures. Rove was right in this respect: oftentimes we waste our time describing reality while they are busy MAKING it. We need to contribute in MAKING reality. The facts we mostly agree on and, in any case, are of secondary importance.
November 14, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Having been monumentally wrong in the past doers not necessarily doom you to be wrong in the future since reasonable people are presumed to learn from their mistakes. That particular trio has the advantage of being "well-connected" and knowledgeable of the ways of Washington.
They remain well-connected because their past service was no mistake. When there is a consistent pattern to such "mistakes," it's no accident.
November 13, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is good stuff. However, I have to wonder who is doing the actual economic advising for Obama, and who is just for show on a public profile "advisory committee" designed to reassure certain powerful players in our economy that they have a seat at the table. It's hard to believe that Austan Goolsbee, for example, is not still advising Obama, even though he is not on the advisory panel. And as you suggest, there is an awfully odd message of "no academic eggheads need apply" seemingly being sent by this panel, although we have no reason to think Obama is egghead-averse. Could it be that academic economists just make Wall Street and corporate bosses nervous, so Obama keeps them under wraps?
Earlier this year Obama named a foreign policy advisory panel as well, and did it in a very high-profile way. Is the panel what it is presented as being? Or is it just a wax museum galleria designed to show off a lot of faces of establishment foreign policy gravitas, to keep the VSPs off his back? Only time will tell.
November 12, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rotwang, this is a classic. You have never been better (which means that usually you're worse). President Poontang? Mad Albright?
If you ask me, they ought to return your doctorate, or at least your C.A. initials. Will you finally be just "Rot?"
Anyhow, I kinda like Andrew Strat's approach. Go with losers -- they might get lucky! Let's wait and see!! Let's sacrifice a goat and burn some incense!!!
November 12, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, unlike you, believe in redemption and would never call anyone a "loser" unless they had a long enough track record of fuck ups to warrant such a nasty label.
November 13, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, a former tenured Con Law Professor from The University of Chicago turns out not to be the socialist that the left dreams about, and the right harps about.
November 13, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, oh, well, pseudocyants, you went on a hiatus from this site so you may have missed the program that played here. Pointing that whole thing out on this site before the election meant you were labeled a PUMA, or even a McCain operative, so only a few brave masochists pointed it out. If somehow, some way, announcements about Obama's heavily Clintonite teams of advisers got posted here, they quickly scrolled away unread and unrecommended.
I suspect I don't happen to look at many things from as left of a perspective as you do, so it really didn't bother me that much, although I must admit it got tiresome at times to read so much misinformation about the candidate in such massive quantity. Few got the meaning of the slogan, that "change" meant change from George Bush, and not "change of your wildest dreams," and many forgot that it was Clinton/Gore that used the same mantra.
Oh, there were times, like the FISA vote, where distress was expressed. But that was because there was this fervent belief that he was a liberal and not a centrist, and he was selling out and moving to the middle just for votes, not that he actually held centrist views on the matter. The latter would be the more logical interpretation for anyone who read his books or his speeches or writing previous to the start of his run for president.
November 13, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I missed out on an opportunity to be called a "puma"? What a shame... Obama's association with the University of Chicago was a big plus in my decision to support him.
I am greatly amused by those who claim his FISA vote was a cave-in. It was not. He heartily supported the FISA Amendments Act, although attempted to block or limit telecom immunity. He even stated his willingness to filibuster FISA on for just that reason, but the Democrats were unable to come up with even 39 other Senators who would side with him on the issue. I disagree with his vote on it, but he never flip-flopped on his stated position. On February 12, 2008, Obama spoke of being disappointed that telecom immunity was going to be enacted into the FISA Bill, but he did not state that he would oppose it for this reason alone. On July 9, 2008, Obama voted to limit or eliminate telecom immunity in the FISA Bill in Senate Roll Call Votes 154, 165, 166. All three amendments failed to pass. Feinstein voted against two of those amendments. Why doesn't anybody criticise her?
November 13, 2008 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Feinstein, like her odious colleague Chuck Schumer, and indeed Lieberman defender Chris Dodd (who discovered that Democrats will reward with their pocketbooks a posture of defending the Constitution) is beneath criticism.
November 13, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
the 'FISA cave-in' was meant to describe the compromise itself as a cave-in. and it was referred to as such well before it was clear that obama would support it. the aspersion was meant for the compromise itself and those who "negotiated"/engineered it. this is why when it became clear that obama would support it (as if that was ever in doubt), the grammatical construction was: 'obama supports FISA cave-in' and not 'dems support obama's FISA cave-in'.
there may have been a few who misunderstood and imagined that obama had been the one to cave, but for the most part i'd say that those of us who did the bulk of the grumbling already understood that obama's FISA vote was indicative of his policy positions and not an aberration. which is why we grumbled and why we were accused of being secret right-wing well poisoners.
November 13, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
i remember 'freeper' and 'well poisoner' also being thrown around...
November 13, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny. No one accused me of being a PUMA for complaining about Obama's FP re the ME.
Perhaps it's because I only used the label "obamabots" and the like in an ironically self-referential way rather than as a term to describe all of Obama's supporters.
;>}
November 13, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
'FP re the ME'??
or maybe it was because nobody knew what you were saying...
November 14, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
What everyone should now be reading...
http://books.google.com/books?id=dQD9o31F1N4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:ISBN0156347113
November 13, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
This one's good too.
http://books.google.com/books?id=9eSu2F4CKNkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=minsky#PPP6,M1
November 13, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
One week. It's been one week. One freaking damn week. As far as I know, he's announced one actual appointment to his cabinet. Everyone else that is being criticized is either part of the transition team or complete speculation on the part of the blogospehere and traditional media. It amazes me how quickly some of you are willing to write him off based on so little information. Really, nobody except those in his inner circle know what is really going on. Why are some people so ready to call the next four years based on one week? One week! When I read articles like these it leaves me wondering if Dems/Liberals are just looking forward to Obama failing so that they can write even more Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda articles.
November 13, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not looking forward to failure. I'm hoping he'll pick new people instead of Clinton/Bush/Reagan retreads.
But I can tell you that if I look at the cabinet in January and see Clinton/Bush/Reagan retreads, I'm not gonna expect a whole lotta changy changiness.
November 13, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not writing him off. I'm staying on the case. This isn't like ordering a pizza. You can't just dial up for the pepperoni w/green peppers and sit back.
Of course Austan Goolsbee will be in the mix, and he stands to make a fine contribution. But he's straight. We need to see some bohemians in there too. The people standing out there were symbols, but symbols have meaning. They are supposed to reassure the business community. Fine. But BHO doesn't need their money. He didn't win with their money. He won with my money, figuratively speaking.
November 13, 2008 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad BHO and the DC Democrats haven't caught up to their own reality isn't it? They continue to serve their business masters first and foremost. What a shock eh? Unless we see some of the sort of thing you're talking about, we will then know that what is important to them is not change, but being on the inside.
November 13, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rotwang,
I'm taking a wait and see attitude toward Obama, but so far I haven't seen anyone on the stage with him who's name is being considered for a cabinet post, or other important position, that doesn't appear to be SSDD, same shit different day.
If I heard that Nader or Joan Claybrook, or maybe Krugman were being considered my optimism for real change would increase exponentially.
November 13, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
anew08 wants to know why we're freaking after just one week.
Because, anew08, right now, as I write this and you read this, the real economy is collapsing faster than it did in 1929.
November 15, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Would you wish to try reading this again?
And while you're at it, try to comprehend what I said in those two simple paragraphs. And refrain from reading between the lines and adding your own thoughts into the my words.
~OGD~
April 19, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a treat for you: http://www.236.com/blog/w/jerome_halligan/americans_hoping_to_be_cynical_1_10215.php
November 13, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
And another for after dinner: http://www.236.com/blog/w/ross_hyzer/obama_was_elected_last_tuesday_10182.php
November 13, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
From Webster's Dictionary definaition of "Change":
transitive verb1 a: to make different in some particular : alter b: to make radically different : transform c: to give a different position, course, or direction to2 a: to replace with another b: to make a shift from one to another : switch c: to exchange for an equivalent sum of money (as in smaller denominations or in a foreign currency) d: to undergo a modification of e: to put fresh clothes or covering on intransitive verb1: to become different 2of the moon : to pass from one phase to another3: to shift one's means of conveyance : transfer 4of the voice : to shift to lower register : break5: to undergo transformation, transition, or substitution 6: to put on different clothes 7: exchange , switch
— chang·er noun
— change hands
: to pass from the possession of one owner to that of another If you believe in change, you believe in all of the above. I don't think Obama has ever given a more specific definition than Webster has.
November 13, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
How so? The reins of government are about to be passed from one set of hands to another. I believe the current government has been significantly corrupt, and that Obama as a leader will change government in the right direction if we help him do so.
Did you have some occult meaning in mind?
November 13, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish that Obama would just not pick any of these ex-Clinton hacks like Summers and Holbrooke. Obama needs to listen to those that voted for him and not ex-Hillary people.
November 13, 2008 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but the mighty BHO has never promised to do what his supporters expect of him. He has only promised to listen "even when we disagree". I think we're starting to see how much and how often that will be the case. I hope I'm wrong.
November 13, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama clearly indicated that he did not want to be surrounded by yes-people. He also made clear he would welcome people to challenge and question him. Rotwang is doing just that. So what is the problem?
Glen Greenwald over at Salon is also "staying on the case."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
November 13, 2008 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The single most difficult challenge Democrats face is that, at bottom, we are a party that has become, for all intents and purposes, a party significantly infested with dithering pussies.
Now, I am not one who thinks that the appointment of some experienced Democrats to the transition and to these beginning staff positions is a bad thing. Indeed, Obama seems to have learned from the mistakes of others and is doing things like appointing a strong Chief of Staff with a reputation for having the kind of strength necessary for the job, and the ties to the House necessary to help herd all those cats on the Hill, and not, say, your best friend from Kindergarten (Clinton) or your best buddy from Plains (Carter).
There is a phrase that you should all learn, and repeat, and live, at least for the next three months to a year, like it is your mantra.
and that is: Everyone chill the fuck out; he's got this.
November 13, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, but blind faith and devotion don't cut it.
if 'this' is delivering the policy outcomes that i and others on the left are advocating, then, no. he doesn't 'got this'.
anyone closer to the center than i might take comfort in your cruise control approach, but there are plenty of folks leftwards who KNOW that obama will need help getting to the left. he doesn't need any help drifting to the center, he can do that on his own.
November 13, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting analysis = "dithering pussies". Why? Because no sooner does the guy win the election they are ready to denounce him as a traitor to the cause? Phil Gramm's "whiners" charge comes to my mind in this case actually
The Weltanschaung of the whines is " it is all the fu****g Republican's fault, if we get the RIGHT guy into office--(The One)--we will all be singing Kumbaya in no time".
Life's a bitch, you have to admit.
November 13, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lars,
they ARE pussies, they're showing it in how they're handling Lieberman.
November 14, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem, Lars, is that Obama's personell decisions so far suggest that he himself is turning out to be a dithering pussy.
November 15, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
If your first statement is true, there's no reason at all to follow your final statement.
December 24, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"In Washington D.C. it is said that personnel is policy . . ."
Wrong. As is so much else that is said in Washington. I love your posts, Rotwang, but I feel you are jumping the gun here. There is zero chance that the Obama Administration will be Clinton2 simply because the historical circumstances are utterly different. I feel Obama has a clear vision of where he wants to go and that what we have seen so far is only the tip of the iceberg. We may agree or disagree with what ultimately emerges. But I can guarantee that, if it turns out we don't like his policies, it won't be because this brilliant, strong-willed but perhaps ultimately not-so-liberal man has been hijacked by the Clintonistas. And don't forget. Roosevelt ran as, and remained, a balanced-budget fiscal conservative. His genius was his willingness to enact policies that went against his own grain in the hopes that so-called "radical" measures would enable the country to leave the economic wildnerness.
November 13, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
On target as usual Rotwang!
But why are you sounding surprised? Obama has always been a corporate/centrist Democrat far ore in the mold of Harold Ford than Robert Kennedy. Obama is nothing if not supremely cautious (some would say timid) in his approach. Other than the audacity to run for President, we have seen nothing Obama's campaign that would indicate the man is willing to take any kind of risks. Had it not been for the economic catastrophe I strongly doubt that Obama would be President-elect at this time.
I completely agree with you that there needs to be far more of a left perspective though not necessarily radically so. But how do you propose getting that message to the man given that he is surrounded by people who are part and parcel of the Washington mess Obama so cleverly campaigned against? The contradiction has always been there but nobody wanted to pay any attention to that during the campaign. The reality is just starting to hit.
The real danger is that Obama's infatuation with DC and being an insider may cause him to utterly miss the opportunity he has to actually accomplish any of the stuff he talked about on the campaign trail. Surrounded by people who are part of the problem and being supremely cautious by nature and risk-averse, it is far more likely than not that Obama will fail to adopt policies that appropriately address the massive problems the nation faces. Listen to him talk sometime and see if you hear even a twinge of urgency about the fact that 10,000 foreclosures a day continues apace, or that the unemployment rate is galloping along in a way we haven't seen in many years, or that the last two auto-manufacturers in the USA are about to implode, etc... The only conclusion one can make by observing him and actually listening to what the man says is that he thinks we can tweak things on the margins and get back to normal. To those of us who live outside of the rarified atmostphere of the beltway it's quite clear that isn't going to work. I honestly don't think Obama or his people understand the nature or magnitude of the storm they are sailing into.
But, there's always hope, eh?
November 13, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some of you criticizing Obama's decisions so far can be very arrogant and narrow minded. Sometimes you are no different from those on the far right who think their way is the only right way to do things. When someone contradicts you, you accuse that person of blind faith....it's actually called having reasonable expectations and the patience to "wait and see." Seriously, you can write your objection until your fingers fall off, Obama is not breaking his neck to find your Posts to get advice. I see posts suggesting that Obama should listen to his voters...to some extent, yes...but as I recall, during the election and primaries, there was some really bad advice that I am so happy Obama didn't follow. And Obama will be the President of 300 million + people who have vastly different political views. Which voters should he listen to? Oh yeah....just the left, because we all know you guys have the "best" ideas. Some of you actually think that you know better than Obama does about what is going on. When are you going to stop treating him like some political/washington d.c. virgin? His "supporters" and opponents have understimated him too many times and have been proven wrong too many times for this meme to keep going.
November 13, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Being resentful of those who point out the clear contradictions and hypocrisy of Obama's decisions is something that apologists for him don't like to hear but it's that's just too bad. You mistake such criticisms as attacks.
Anyone who views the situation in DC clearly understands that the Democrats if they are anything at all, are not a party that has the courage of it's convictions. The DC Democrats in particular are the party of capitulation, compromise, and retreat even when they have majorities in both houses of Congress. Ever wonder why that is?
It's pretty obvious that the Democrats have been playing a shell game for years in order to gain votes from the public and curry favor with special interests whenever the people aren't paying attention. Their rhetoric speaks of "fighting" for the people, passing laws that will help the middle class, adopting policies that will make health care affordable for all, etc... They have been talking this talk now for decades without much result which they blame on the big, bad, mean old Republicans who obviously scare the pants off those wimps by saying "boo!". The truth is that they have failed to deliver on almost every issue because the Democrats are only slightly less beholden to the big business interests and the interests of predatory wealth that have fucked up this country time and again now for 40 years than are the Republicans.
The Clinton administration was certainly better than the Reagan/Bush years, but it was also a nearly complete sellout to the corporate powers that be who, it just so happens, oppose almost every significant initiative that BHO said during the campaign that he was for including heatlhcare for all, effectively addressing climate change, getting the rich to pay their fair share once again in taxes, expanding educational opportunities and so on. It is perfectly legitimate, necessary even, for those who wish to see BHO actually succeed in bringing real change to Washington to remind him that it was not those powers that got him elected, they didn't vote for him and they didn't provide the nearly endless cash flow of the campaign and thus he needs to appoint a significant number of people to his adminstration who are real, live liberals who actually believe the change he talked about daily for two years is a good idea and one that needs to be pursued. I would also hasten to point out that liberals who have had the courage of their convictions (and there precious few Democrats of this kind in Congress I might add) have been right on every major domestic and foreign policy issue in the past 8 years while those supporting the corporate wing of the Democratic Party have been disasterously wrong. Perhaps it is then a good thing for people on the left and otherwise to criticize BHO when they see him so easily and comfortably adopting a Washington business as usual approach to government. The difference between critics on the left from those on the right is that those on the left actually believe in what BHO promised and want to see those things come to pass. Putting the same people back in charge who helped to set up the disasterous foreign and domestic situation we find ourselves in isn't particularly smart if BHO believes in what he said throughout the campaign that he believes in.
November 13, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
not a party that has the courage of it's convictions.
That party nominated Kucinich/Gravel.
(I'm not sure that they won with K/G.)
I love me some Barack, but I don't love the waffling on marriage equality, I really don't love the death penalty position, and I know he'll never be mistaken for Huey P. Newton.
November 13, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having the courage of one's convictions doesn't mean one has to be unrealistically ideological. What I'm talking about is the sort of naked selling out the Democrats do on things such as FISA, The Patriot Act, the Iraq War resolution and that sort of thing. These are all issues the Democrats knew were wrong and not worthy of support but out of cowardice they cleared the way for these bad laws. These were all pieces of legislation the Democrats could easily have prevented from passing but they were too cowardly to stand up for what they said they believed in. There were a few Democrats who showed some backbone but precious few and almost none of them were of the ideological stripe of Kucinich. They just had the balls to recongize a bad bill and refuse to support it. But instead of displaying some courage and daring to stand for something, the DC Democrats rolled out some "cover" they manufactured for themselves on each of these measures and made excuses for their hypocrisy which was as transparent as Saran Wrap but that the typical American won't take the time to look into. Federal judgeships and particularly the Supreme Court are another example where Democrats clearly held the power to block the nomination of the freak Roberts who is now Chief Justice (and the most obvioysly sexually repressed man on the Federal bench today) as well as the horrendous Alito just to name two.
Obama is okay, but it will not be okay if it is the face at the top that changes but none of the faces below him are new and if none of the policies he puts forward are any different than the stuff DC Dems have been pushing but not passing for the past 30 years.
November 13, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
anew08,
You must be new here. One week is an eternity in the blogosphere.
You must really be new here. Let me give you some advice: Either contribute something substantive about the issues or leave. We don't need your infantile criticism and your fantasies about whet Obama doesn't do.
November 13, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
evidently you don't actually have any policies/outcomes you would like to advocate.
if you will be happy to take whatever obama and the rest of the government gives you, i'm not sure why you are even wasting your time being dismissive of those who care about policy.
November 13, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Always"
Was this corporate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAz0qzes8hI
November 13, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your assessment of "The One" but if you are in a boat that just sprang a leak the size of a basketball, no matter how risk averse your natural instincts might be you are going to get the hell off that boat any way you can even if you have to hitch a ride with a bunch of pirates.
November 13, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Message from the hinterlands (write this down):
(1)The idea that Bill Clinton and his economic advisory team was/is INCOMPETENT is NOT GOING TO SELL. Quit making fools of yourselves by trying to promote it. It may or may not be technically true that Clinton rescued a bad economy and left Bush a solid fiscal start (I personally believe it mostly IS true), but no matter: Where real people live and work out here in the world, it is an established article of faith. Real, everyday economic life was noticeably better under the Clinton Administration than at any time before or since.
(2)Most of us do not support REVOLUTIONARY change. We want things to be better for sure, but we don't really believe it's either necessary or constructive to turn the whole country upside-down overnight. President-elect Obama's aura of calm rationality was a SELLING-POINT to many of us [In contrast to the Queeg-like quirkiness of both his general opponent, and even sometimes (I hate to admit it), his primary opponent}.
(3)Finally (for now), the President drives the policy and the agenda. If that weren't true, we'd have Afghanistan under control, and Iraq would still be an annoying minor nuisance under the continuing control of Saddam Hussein.
Every President has his own style - If Obama WANTS to, and has the political skills and personal grit to do so, he can drive the bus in just about any direction he chooses for the next four years. Advisers, staff, cabinet officers, (even public opinion) are only secondary factors - they can (and SHOULD) shade a President's internal predilections, but they cannot CHANGE them by themselves. Obama will get every fair chance to do things the way HE wants to do them.
November 13, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
to whom do you imagine this is trying to be sold??
the audience for these arguments is readers of this blog who are fairly well informed about the actual policy record during the clinton administration (and how the current financial crisis reflects their shortcomings).
the only fools here are the folks who are stumbling around tpm imagining that they're at USA Today... (and possibly the person who actually suggested bill clinton should be obama's secretary of the treasury!)
November 13, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes you get revolutionary change whether you want it or not like say when the nation is mired in 2 wars and the Great Depression 2.0. Obama better have meant that change thing because he's going to get it whether he likes it or not.
November 13, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The financialization of America was revolutionary change. You just haven't figured that out yet. Even though the news every day practically hits you in the face with a bat.
November 13, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
For all this talk about Obama's base, it seems like an awful lot of moderates voted for him and at the same time a lot of the people who are suddenly upset only grudgingly came to support him. I'm not sure who his real base is.
November 13, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ohio,
maybe his real base, (though perhaps temporarily, time will tell) is the 90% of the public who lost 90% of their representation when the Democrats got too involved with Wall Street and the Corporate Boardroom types.
November 13, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
remaining critical is not the same thing as becoming 'suddenly upset'.
November 14, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you've been critical long enough to remain so, you probably weren't his base to begin with. Not saying you're wrong to be skeptical or even critical, but I hope you see my point.
November 14, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck his "base," if they've stopped thinking for themselves.
November 15, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
just want to see if my merely leaving a comment without ANY criticism or historical/political analysis will still be sufficient to get this article taken down before other people read it.
November 13, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
More Assinine Drivel.
November 13, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, who in the bloody hell has been pushing the latest notion that Hillary Clinton would make a dandy Secretary of State?
"There's talk, indeed, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) may now be under consideration for the post. Her office referred any questions to the Obama transition; Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment.
The pick of the former presidential contender and Senate Armed Services Committee member would go a long way toward healing any remaining divisions within the Democratic Party after the divisive primaries. Also, Clinton has long been known for her work on international women's issues and human rights. The former first lady could also enhance Obama's efforts to restore U.S. standing amongst allies worldwide."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/13/hillary_clinton_secretary_of_s.html?hpid=topnews
Steve Clemons posted something about this several days ago ( I didn't see it) and quickly disappeared his post according to one of his commenters, POA.
??????
No fucking way..................
What a disasterous choice this would be. Want more of the SOS in the ME? Put Israel's favorite Democrat in this position.
November 13, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I know. I hate to quote John Bolton approvingly -- never thought I would have to -- but he gave Obama a good piece of advice yesterday: "Never hire someone you can't fire."
November 15, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
this mandate was about competence.....this is the same man who was elected by running an efficient and boring campaign....the 65 million that voted for Barack Obama don't want excitement, they want solutions...for Obama to bring in new faces that need a 18 month learning curve before grasping the nuances of Washington, would be a disaster, mos def he needs fresh faces, but he also needs seasoned veterans with international and domestic connections.....both Clinton and Carter brought in too many outsiders and both suffered for it, Carter by being a one termer, and Clinton by losing the support of the Democrats in Congress
November 13, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hum, FWIW, I agree with your criticisms, as well as your determination to get us all to speak out about it.
That's really something we ought to do. Now.
Thanks.
November 13, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surprise surprise; wondered why he was only doing football posts here lately:
Reed Hundt, is a member of the Obama-Biden Transition Project's Agency Review Working Group responsible for the international trade and economics agencies
-Excerpt from The Nelson Report newsletter for November 13 @ agonist.org
November 14, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
p.s. For those who don't know the work history of Rotwang's fellow TPMCafe contributor Reed Hundt, he's one of them ex-Clinton administration 'idiots' (chairman of the F.C.C.) It's curious that his user page is out of date, with a Feb. post as the last one, while I found his Nov. 2 post here, Predictions and Questions via google.
November 14, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good catch and many thanks for the link to the Nelson Report(s), aa. It's a keeper for oh so many reasons....
"Second, informed sources make the point that some of the more prominent Hillary Clinton supporters who may be on these lists should be seen as evidence of Obama's gratitude for her, and their, support after the primaries."
Does this sound like the Obama camp?
and:
"Dick Holbrooke has been fighting for his life ever since Hillary Clinton's campaign went down in flames, but our information consistently maintains he went with her. Operative quote from a very very senior member of Obama's inner circle says he would personally throw his body into the path of a Holbrooke nomination."
er.......okay..........
BTW. I'll guess that the vvsm is Tony Lake.
Scrubbing the Cafe of Reed's contributions? I know he's sworn to silence but......
November 14, 2008 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton rookie year was a disaster. Let's try to avoid that, okay? Folks who have been there can help avoid rookie mistakes.
November 14, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The world has changed a good deal since the Clintons and their operatives were a factor in foreign affairs .
We don't need more of the people with allegiance to stale paradigms that no longer apply. This is a problem that goes beyond functionaries allied with political parties and/or administrations. The whole bureuacratic apparatus of think tanks, consultants and NGOs are filled with folks who cling to distorted policies and theories that have been proved to be badly out of step with reality.
November 14, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, maybe Barack thinks that listening to 'real' Liberals and ignoring the more complex and diverse group that elected him is, well, dangerous?
When 'real' Libs can deliver more than 22% of the vote, they can call the tune, until then, the more moderate Democratic party voices must be heard. (And that's still a hell of a lot farther left than anything the Repugnicants have to offer.)
November 14, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, actually. It isn't a helluva lot better. It's only slightly better because the policies are nearly identical with the exception of nominees to Federal judgeships. That is not change, let alone "change we can believe in."
November 15, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, absolutely Mr. McLame.
Perhaps you might want to look at the environmental record of the GOP before regurgitating that Bullhockey...
December 23, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have some more of that Kook Aid Bill. It'll make ya feel better.
December 24, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, I meant "Kool" Aid, not Kook Aid.
December 24, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
TPM is not [i]Metropolis[/i], so who is the real TPM "CA Rotwang" ?
November 16, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
religious sect may degenerate into a political faction,' wrote James Madison, but the new American nation would nevertheless be protected against the ungovernable combination of religious fervor and political power as long as the Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular creed as preeminent.
Egitim | Chat
March 2, 2011 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
This informayion is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v shared storage, iscsi authentication
April 4, 2011 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability disaster recovery
April 29, 2011 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink