« An absurd idea by a "progressive" | truthseeker77's Blog | Fitz seen as overstepping his functions »
Select responses from top progressive bloggers to leftophobic Obama adviser
By now, you have probably read or seen reports about today's op-ed piece in the Huffington Post, in which Obama adviser Scott Hildebrand scolds the "left wing" as follows: "This is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions
about the Cabinet and White House appointments that President-Elect
Obama is making," the reason being that
The following is Glen Greenwald's comeback:
Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld of TPM do not seem happy that "completely legit questions" from many on the left prompted this attack:
.
"our president surround[s] himself with the most qualified people to address these challenges. After all, he was elected to be the president of all the people - not just those on the left."In short, it's all about qualifications, regardless of ideology.
The following is Glen Greenwald's comeback:
If "qualifications" were all that mattered, Barack Obama wouldn't be President. People voted for him despite his lack of qualifications, not because of his abundance of them. Does anyone dispute that Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney, and David Addington, and John Aschroft and Hank Paulson were supremely "qualified" in every sense that this term is normally meant? What made them atrocious wasn't their lack of qualifications but their ideology and belief system, and what made Obama attactive to many people wasn't that he was "most qualified" but was his ideology and belief system.Here is the riposte by Jane Hamsher, founder of firedoglake.com:
"People on the left are not looking at Obama's appointments with a jaundiced eye because they think he needs to apply some liberal orthodoxy litmus test. They have legitimate concerns that people like Geitner, Summers and other Rubin acolytes created this mess, and it's reasonable to ask why they're being appointed to get us out of it. While some of us want to give Obama a chance to fulfill the promises he campaigned on and work with the staff of his choice in order to do so, we'd have to be a bunch of intellectually dishonest kool-aid swilling freaks to pretend his economics team didn't have some troublesome baggage."
Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld of TPM do not seem happy that "completely legit questions" from many on the left prompted this attack:
After all, many on "the left" have also made Hildebrand's point: They've noted that Obama should be allowed to let his actual policies do the talking, while simultaneously asking completely legit questions about what his choices portend about the future direction of his administration. If merely asking such questions is enough to incite an attack on "the left" from someone in Obama's inner circle, it seems reasonable to conclude that the motive here isn't to mend fences at all. (my emphasis)Digby is gobsmacked:
I am gobsmacked by this HuffPo piece by Steve Hildebrand, punching the hippies on the left for... having opinions.
[...]
In other words, you should just STFU and enjoy the new dawn with your dear leader.
That's not really how America works. And this lashing out from a senior Obama aide at a really small group of critics, who aren't really displaying much more than concern, and who for the most part have offered support for the policy pronouncements coming out of the transition, is extremely depressing. I don't think he's serving his former boss very well by seeking to silence dissent and building straw men on "the left," lying about their interests and concerns.
.
Advertisement
There's so much idiotic dreck in this post that it's hard to know where to start. But let's begin with Greenwald:
"If 'qualifications' were all that mattered, Barack Obama wouldn't be President."
I'd hate to guess what Glenn Greenwald considers a "qualification" but I suspect it has nothing to do with leadership, judgment, intelligence, etc. No matter. If Greenwald had his way, we'd probably have elected Donald Byrd.
Next, let's tackle this one:
"In short, it's all about qualification, regardless of ideology."
Do you believe that's wrong? How so? I mean, who really gives a flying fuck about ideology? Is ideology going to solve the financial crisis? Will it put people back to work? Will ideology be our salvation from the next depression? Will ideology bump the Dow back over 10,000? Will ideology save Social Security? Something tells me no. And something tells me that Steve Hildebrand, like many of us, has just about had it to the brim with idiot ideologues whining about what MIGHT come to pass under an Obama administration that has yet to be sworn in.
Seriously. Who gives a shit what "progressive bloggers" think about anything? Seriously. If you want to change the way things are done, I have a suggestion: run for president and win. Then appoint your own people.
December 8, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greenwald explained to you that Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. were seen as qualified, but their ultra-conservative ideology got in the way, and look at where we are now.
Look at this friendly profile in the New York Times kissing Cheney's selection as VP in 2000. Even Leon Panetta praised him back then. You know how that one turned out.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E5DE1E3AF935A15754C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
December 8, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You heard it, bloggers. Pack your bags and run for president, says a blog commenter named hrebendorf.
Oh, and all those blogger rants about Bush screwing the nation? Shame on you! You should have run for president.
December 9, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
All those blogger rants did us a hell of a lot of good, didn't they? I mean, they prevented a third Bush term, I guess. No, wait. That was the law.
December 9, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll tell you who cares about ideology. Hidenbrand himself, who is now being quoted by Greg Sargent (after the shit hit the fan) as saying:
Say what! But our friend the pragmatic non-ideologue Hrebendorf just said that ideology is irrelevant! qualifications regardless of ideology (progressive, conservative, etc) is what matters, says the blog commenter.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/post_7.php
December 9, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
May I suggest you purchase a dictionary so that you can look up the words "ideal" and "ideology" and compare their meanings?
December 9, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
hrebendorf are you a parody rabbit? If you are you’re pitch perfect. There are quite a few people who rant in this particular --highly opinionated but making no sense-- style and with a supreme sense of oppressed self righteousness like they’re speaking for some sort of silent majority that is terribly oppressed by the all powerful fringe left.
December 9, 2008 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"hrebendorf are you a parody rabbit?"
No, I'm a wascally wabbit and a cwazy wabbit, but I'm not a parody wabbit.
December 9, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign. This is the kind of comment I wish I could recommend. Absolutely brilliant, hrebendorf.
December 9, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hildebrand's piece was shit on a stick.
A nation that's been driven further and further to the Right, for 28 years, and he loses it because some people don't think Larry" Let's Crash & Burn An Entire Global Economy" Summers is the cat's ass? Or who aren't 100% convinced that sanity comes wrapped up in Robert "Let's Bomb Nicaragua & Hang Out With the Iran-Contra Genius Brigade" Gates"?
There's no way to discuss that kinda piece rationally. Hildebrand just threw a rod, and should be sent to the shop 'til he's fixed.
Oh yeah. And screw him.
December 9, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Hildebrand was just fed up with all the carping from the "We Didn't Get A Gay Defense Secretary Who Advocates Legalizing Marijuana" Left. You know, the "We'll Be Whining About Anyone Obama Chooses Because Although We've Never Done A Thing In Our Lives To Prove It, We Sincerely Believe We're Better Than Nearly Everyone" Liberals.
December 9, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're buying into a game, Rabbit, and after a good dozen posts from others here playing into the same caricature, I just thought I'd finally comment on it. It works like this. Somebody did a good job of wrapping a whole lot of language around the Left, Progressives and Liberals, and in the absence of arguments or facts, they just keep repeating the language. These people are effete, Brie-eaters, intellectuals, their hands unstained by hard work. In recent weeks, it's phrases like "hand-wringing" and "whiner." It's usually then pasted onto the label "Liberal." In your example, you've taken "gay" and "marijuana" and pasted it over top of the main issues Hildebrand raised (health care, Iraq, climate change, economy) and then hit the tried and true "never done a thing in our lives" button. In short, the response is to a caricature, and that needs to be confronted with a little reality.
Let's start by using the term Left or Progressive, because the Brie seems to have become so smeared all over Liberal I can't be bothered trying to save that one. First off, there's a macho emotional thing fuzz to the caricature I wanna personally smudge off. That's quite easy in real life for me. Nobody gives me that shit because I'm from a farm, and am more than happy than most Centrists or Rightists to step outside and leave 'em on a curb. Instead of academic, Brie-eating Left, remember that FDR's beloved workers didn't all disappear, ok?
Second, let's try some facts. On Iraq 80% of the country lined up behind WhackJob Bush. And all the little hand-wringers here caricaturing the Left need to suck long and hard on this candy. The LEFT had the highest concentration of people who didn't. It irks a lot of people, but too fucking bad. I didn't support this shit, did you? This site is full of people happily writing posts talking about how they've just come to the Dems or turned against the war in the last few years, and then they think they have some high ground to tell me how it should be done, and call me whiner? Thanks but no thanks. If you're that dim, that clouded by the media machine, then I'll stick to my own crowd, dig? And by the way, how many prayers you said for the dead kids?
Take Climate Change. I've been on the ground on that one for 20 years. And juuuuust about everybody leading that movement did it on no fucking cash, at great cost to their careers, ran into massive support for the status quo from those apparently too dull to even read a scientific report. Get our hands dirty? don't piss around, Rabbit, I was side by side with those people. Sorting through filthy garbage figuring out what could be diverted; planting trees; cleaning rivers; hammering and sawing and changing their homes, walking through the weather. Sure, lots of it was moralistic, but you know what? It wasn't Brie-eating, bud. And now that 80% of the public wants to move on this? Yeah, some of the Green kids are still moralistic, but the oldsters, who walked through those years? They're still hammering along their course, mouths shut, looking for the greater good. But anyone that wants to paint me, or us, as a bit soft? Like I say, step outside, son.
Same on universal health care. Same on becoming so drunk on debt we can't function as a society anymore, and same on the enormous inequality that grew up between the average person and the rich. So tell me... simple straight up question... WHO WAS RIGHT, RABBIT?
I, and most of my friends, want to see Gays hired the same as anyone else. You either think so, or you don't. What is it? Marijuana, I don't personally care one way or another, other than to say drunk drivers bug me more, and you seem to have no problem with that. Or is it wrong of me to personalize this, and make you out to be someone who hates kids, wants 'em sent to war, wants 'em to go without health care, wants 'em repressed and in the closet, wants 'em killed by drunk drivers? You hate that much, Rabbit?
See, it begins to grate, eh? The caricature shit. So
I apologize for doing it, because I don't know jack about your real life. But that's why turning and looking at this game of Cabinet picks needs to maybe find some reality beneath its feet. Yes, I have a lot of faith and trust in Obama. Yes, I'm aware we're not at January 20th. And yes, I get that he's responding to political pressures and appearances. But you see... you and I and everyone here creates those appearances. And it's used to silence certain political opinions, ones which MAY be a whole lot clearer than that of Summers or Geithner. They just HAVE been at the helm as this thing went down. They just DID sidle up to the (largely Republican) Masters of the Universe. And I suspect they've seen some Brie in their time. You wanna defend their record, then defend it. But don't bother with the "whining" thing. and as for Gates, if he hung with Ollie North and co., and was the HOT-HEAED one that wanted to bomb Nicaragua, then respond to that evidence, and why he was still hanging with Bush and co. 20 years later, and if you can make a case that his vision and skills is unique, then make it.
But - as a last example of how the personal/political insult works - DO try and find your clarity of vision, your moral courage, at least in the next few months. Because after they're in, I don't wanna hear any whining from you. I've found the gutlessness of the Centrist and the Moderate a bit tiring these past, ohhhh, 20 years. Find yer spine. Dig?
December 9, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are a damn fine writer, and a nimble mind.
But you commit the same sin as Hreb by righteously placing your politics ahead of the poor "gutless", spineless Moderates and Centrists".
There would be no future Obama Administration to argue over without those folks too.
December 9, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Dorn. Here's the thing (beyond my attempting to throw equivalent insults back, just to show how easy it is - and which I hope Hreb doesn't take personally.) I agree that some on the Liberal-Progressive-Left do the whole self-righteous schtick. But as someone who's worked in politics and activism and all that for 20 years now, if there's one thing I WOULDN'T accuse those people of - on the whole - it's that they placed their politics ahead of the moderates and the centrists.
The environmental movement is a good example. Yup, there's always some ferociously self-righteous 21 year old bike riders and a few mumbling granolas that fit the caricature. But on the whole? These were people who were willing to sort garbage, plant trees in the freezing cold, do river clean-up's, walk, all that stuff I listed, in every single community across America.
And every damned night they went to bed feeling that the science, and the real world negative impacts that were gonna bash their children, was outrunning their actions. Nonetheless, those same people would get up the next day, and patiently, often door to door, work to explain how the new recycling system worked, or show up at Council, or talk to kids, or climb up on roofs, or whatever. And again and again, the same conclusion would find its way out of their mouths - that this was a door to door, person by person, percent at a time effort.
And slowly, incredibly slowly, over 20 years plus, they made ground. And the ones that made it this far were the ones who could walk and talk and work with the everyday, moderate, suburban people. And today, 90%+ of the scientists agree with these folks; and 80% plus of the general population; and the business world? Well, take wind. The major turbine manufacturers include GE, Siemens, Mitsubishi. The major windfarm owners include Buffett and T-Boone and the oilcos.
Those people understand, in the core of their lives, the value of working patiently, of being humble, of getting that next slice rather than howling about the whole loaf. And it's the same amongst many other movements, and yet these people would usually call themselves Liberal-Left-Progressive-Green etc.
So why should they be mocked? With all this 'hand-wringing' and 'whining' nonsense? There has genuinely been a stream of posts here using those terms, right in the titles, and I - like many others I suspect - just had to say to myself, "It's not worth responding." Til I just kinda got tired of it.
I understand quite precisely why Obama can't go to 100% wind-power, or aim for more than 1 million plug-in hybrids over the next few years. These things take time, physically, to do. But do I want someone who PUSHES, as hard as they can? Ummmm, yes. I do. I've just lived through decades of hatchet-men. Do I want someone who - with all those scientists and the general public lined up - starts making deals with the 20% who don't want to move? Not really. Not anymore. Nor do I want to bash or hurt the average/moderate people, at all. Even though THEIR actions factually, actually, hurt others. I just want the thing to move forward.
I don't think this is being overly self-righteous. Nor do I think it's placing my politics over people. It IS to say that Gates and Summers got their positions NOT because they have objectively proven themselves to be able to do a better job than anyone else. The facts argue otherwise. They got them because many other (more powerful & well-known) people voiced their opinion that those individuals SHOULD be in charge. They're well-known, and they got that way somehow. Sooooo.... I want to raise a voice to disagree. Does this mean I want Obama thrown out? Nope. Nor does it mean I hope these guys will fail. Nor that I won't admit it when I think they've done good things.
But the whole hand-wringing meme has rather gotten under my skin, Dorn. Anyhoo..... that's far too much from me. (As always.) Cheers.
December 9, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for adding depth to what I admit was a quickly composed response (you suffer from verbosity, me from drive-by commenting). I basically agree, and really the point I wanted to make was about finding common ground. It will take every stripe of the Democratic rainbow to undo Bush's mistakes.
But, if you decide to embrace this spirit of unity and call Hreb to go out for beers, please call me, I'll sit in the middle, and enjoy the show!
December 9, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are also the same people who abandoned Jimmy Carter for not being enough of of a "progressive" while the country went to hell. Even Nixon signed the EPA and OSHA into being and ended the Vietnam War.
You really do make the point by going on and on about what stand-up folks the left is, more dedicated than the do-nothing "centrists" even when it is the moderates and centrists who will ensure that all those progressive ideas actually get off the ground.
Pragmatists get something done while idealists rant and rave. It is no less idiotic on the left than it is on the right. Just because one caricature doesn't fit doesn't make the other caricatures any less valid.
December 9, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really do make the point by going on and on about what stand-up folks the left is, more dedicated than the do-nothing "centrists"
No one is saying you Republicans aren't dedicated, Jason. You do plenty. Unfortunately.
December 9, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, you keep confusing the party I joined in August with the party I hope to create as a logical counter-balance to the left side of the country.
You are stuck in the culture war mindset that has been killing this country for decades. Step away from the ideological divide for a minute and start talking about solutions and process instead of using labels as a substitute for reason.
I have seen comments from you that are much more erudite than "You republicans are such and such...."
December 10, 2008 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you a Republican and a conservative? Fine. Then there's no confusion. So where do you come off accusing anyone of being a culture warrior? The very phrase, by the way, is a label invented by and used to excellent effect by your right-wing compadre, Billo.
As to labels and such, the comment I replied to begins with the words "These are also the same people..." Perhaps you might employ a mirror to glimpse someone who needs to step away from the label-wielding ideological divide.
And erudition? Well, let's just say I'm hardly flattered by your left-handed compliment suggesting that you might recognize it when you see it.
Your party -- and please man up and admit that your political philosophy is well suited to your party -- has ripped this country to shreds for the last three decades in every conceivable way. And you mouth the same ridiculous, transparent cant as your fellow wingers: It doesn't matter that there hasn't been a liberal with an ounce of power in Washington since the Johnson administration, it's still the left that causes all our problems.
You know, at least Clever Bulldog and Shooter don't try to obfuscate. They are anti-progressive and open about it. They don't attempt to push the Limbaugh agenda surreptitiously. You do yourself no honor by eschewing their misguided honesty.
December 10, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously can't maintain a simple narrative for anyone but yourself over any extended period of time.
Let me slow it down for you:
I joined the republican party in August of 2008 as an effort to add more moderate voices to the conversation coming from the right. I mouth no cants, from the right or the left wing, I leave that up to ideologues such as yourself who can't remember who they are talking to from moment to moment.
I am not anti-progressive I am anti-polemic, a tactic that the far left and the far right have used to keep our country's progress completely retarded. The Raging Left and the Rapture Right are equally responsible for ensuring we get nothing done in this country, no matter what their proposed solutions might be.
Is that easier to understand or do you want to continue making a fool out of yourself by mouthing insults and innuendo and invective in lieu of rational and reasonable thought. Perhaps you could start yet another username that would give you room to back away from the ideological divide that has kept your party from making any substantial progress on any of our many problems since Johnson, as you ably note.
Again, I am much more "progressive" than most of the liberals on this site, yourself included. I am so freaking progressive I joined a party I hate to try and help them reform from the inside out. I'm so progressive I donated money to Dennis Kucinich and supported him until he dropped out because I think he had an important message.
That he has been mostly ineffectual in attaining his goals wasn't lost on me, though that fact hasn't seemed to affect your rhetoric any.
December 11, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for slowing it down for me, Jason. Now I understand what I didn't understand before.
December 12, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the snark. I probably should have simply offered my explanation without it.
December 13, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, that was an explanation? Thanks for slowing that one down for me too.
December 13, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever. You are just waiting to be offended by something, OGD.
December 14, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your research regarding my personna is even less meritorious than your political analysis. OldenGoldenDecoy is a homophobic bigot. I wish I could think of an insult to label you the way you have labelled me. Oh wait. I can: Right-wing Republican.
December 14, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, funny how you knew exactly who I was referring to. Just as funny as him taking the name "tankard" and somehow pulling a quote to me that backed up what he was saying.
Proof? Not really. But curious just the same.
I have never seen anything that would make the guy a homophobic bigot, but your writing style lends itself to the comparison and you show up on various threads with various takes on the same lame theme.
December 14, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the choice, I suppose I'm happy to have people think of me as a person who only hates one class of people. I'm sure you'll be pleased to have us think of you as a universal hater.
It would be more fun, though, if you were better at expressing your hatred. Could you try raising the level of your game a bit? Say to the level of your Vice-Presidential candidate?
December 14, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Whaaattt . . .
Hello Tankard2 . . .
You said OldenGoldenDecoy is a homophobic bigot?
Well -- I believe you have me confused with someone else? How did you come to that conclusion? I've been around the Cafe since mid 2005. I have a long history of being a pain in the asteroid-orifice of a select few, but dealing in homophobic, racist, or misogynistic slurs are assuredly not my MO . . .
And while speaking of confusion, ol' Miller boy here somehow has me confused with you. See his comment here. He must think I am using an additional screen-name just to get under his thin skin.
I assured ol' blustery Miller that you and I were different individuals although it's apparent that both you and I see him in the same light as a "labeling" fool.
~OGD~
December 15, 2008 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pick this up out here.
December 15, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which "us" think of me as a hater. Are those voices in your head getting out of control again?
December 15, 2008 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am insufficiently narrow-minded to continue this conversation here. Feel free to do so yourself...or continue to be battered out here.
December 15, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto.
December 15, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm jumping for joy. Don't back down, your analysis of this dispute is right on the mark. It isn't really a tempest in a teapot. It is the opening salvo in the battle for public opinion. With the corporate media monopoly and the right-wing propaganda apparatus and the Beltway elitist ruling class on one side, and ordinary Americans like Quinn the Eskimo on the other side.
Two truisms: 1. The election was only the beginning of the hard work that needs to be done. 2. The duty of a good citizen is NOT to keep his or her mouth shut.
December 9, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have zero interest in the framing, quinn. I know how it works, I use it myself, and I'm aware that it can be a very effective tool (although I'm also aware that it's an old Jedi mind trick that only works on some). But my attitudes weren't formed as a result of being fooled by the Frank Luntzes of the world. As a musician, I spend much of my life surrounded by liberal geniuses, that's all. My attitude comes from personal experience. Usually when the brilliance comes out, I just crawl off somewhere and read a book. I know better, believe me. But every once in awhile I can't resist morbid urge to lift the lid a little and see what's going on. I nearly always regret it.
December 9, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Liberal musicians? TALKING? Well, y'see, that's a mistake right there. I'd advise keeping an old ax handle nearby (ash, preferably), and beating them back into a proper dreamstate next time they start pontificating on politics.
Rule #1. No Talking in the Music Room.
December 9, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Rule #1. No Talking in the Music Room."
See, you think you're making a joke, but that IS the rule. I'm a totally work nazi in the rehearsal studio. Not that this guy's any hero of mine, but I do admire the sentiment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shut_Up_%27n_Play_Yer_Guitar
When you're hungry, eat. When you're sleepy, drink coffee. And when you don't like what's going on in the world, write a carefully composed Open Letter to President-Elect Obama on some blog he'll never read.
December 9, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. You advocate stimulant drug coffee and deprecate healing herb marijuana. Maybe neither or both might be preferable.
Does it even matter to you what the PEOPLE want? And who speaks for them? In elections, they try to speak for themselves. In California in 1996, medical marijuana got more votes than Bill Clinton. In Montana in 2004, medical marijuana got more votes than Junior Bush. In Michigan this year, medical marijuana got a higher percentage of votes than Barack Obama (I haven't checked the numerical returns yet.)
Is it appropriate to sit silently as the will of the people is short-circuited by Eric "Nip it in the bud" Holder and prospective "drug czar" Jim "No medical pot" Ramstad? Bill Clinton broke his promise to help patients who were screwed by the senior Bush's embargo on government-provided medical cannabis; Barack Obama refused even to pledge a stop to DEA raids on state-approved programs.
Is Pres.-elect Obama so vulnerable somehow that his pledge to listen to all points of view has to be amended to EXCLUDE his most articulate and best-informed constituency?
December 9, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Second, let's try some facts. On Iraq 80% of the country lined up behind WhackJob Bush. And all the little hand-wringers here caricaturing the Left need to suck long and hard on this candy. The LEFT had the highest concentration of people who didn't. It irks a lot of people, but too fucking bad. I didn't support this shit, did you?"
I was fiercely opposed to the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. And, just to be accurate, before the Iraq invasion, most Americans supported an invasion ONLY if we had international cooperation. There was little support for the unilateralist action that Bush launched until AFTER the invasion actually occurred. At that point, an easily cowed public did their fucking "patriotic" duty. As usual. The point is, it made no difference. Because Bush made the choice. Bloggers couldn't stop it, because the only value of blogging comes through the dissemination of information. The real work comes when people get out in the streets and ACT. Talk is cheap. Getting cheaper every day.
Tell me where to sign up, quinn. Give me the address and I'll go there. Tell me where the rally is happening and I'll be there with a bullhorn. But don't expect me to get excited about the feckless rantings of every armchair quarterback on every blog in the world. Because opinions only matter when they're turned into action.
December 9, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Opinions only matter when they're turned into action."
Suitable for framing.
All I'd add is that the feckless rantings of the Liberal-Left have a counterpart... in the armchair moderates who show up a few years after the war's started, to dispense their "hard-earned" opinions on the need for blah blah blah. I think I'll call 'em Camembert moderates. ;-)
December 9, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The left and the right drove us into the ditch while the vast majority of us in the center stood idly by. We woke up and elected Barack this year to do away with ideology and the yank the center back from the far right detour it's taken over the last four decades.
To think that health care and the environment and our war machine have been damaged or derailed or pumped-up only by right-wing demagogues is trying to absolve the left of the part they played in our little melodrama as well as the complete lack of forward movement during 8 years of a democratic presidency.
The far left is doing the same thing the far right has done for so long - demonize or denigrate anyone who doesn't line up one-hundred percent behind their definition of progress. Being progressive was a conservative ideal first, so I find it amusing the liberals try to lay sole claim to the word. About as silly as the far right claiming to speak for all religious folks.
I thought you were a little more even-handed than this comment suggests.
December 9, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Jason. What I'm NOT saying is that the Left somehow entirely consists of hard-working salt of the Earth. I've spent 25 years with my guns trained at what I felt was idiocy on the academic left, in entrenched "Left" organizations (NGO's, unions, etc.), knocking holes in a batch of outmoded ideas which I have no time for (e.g. the "state" automatically does things well, all "public servants" jobs are great, etc.) So I get that part of what you're saying.
What I DON'T think we can do is make a false equivalency. It's just simply not the case that the Left has had any serious control over the official levers of power these past 3 decades. Sure, they had their bastions, but basically, insofaras Reagan and Bush and Newt and co. had power, it's hard to say the Left had anything equivalent. It may make for tough swallowing (and I had my share of it being raised Conservative and having to move out of that in the early 80's) but it just strikes me that this is a simple historic fact. Call it 80/20, and I'm fine - but it's not "equal."
Would the Left have put us in a much better place? On some things, sure. But not in terms of being well-positioned to tackle the real agendas of the next 20 years. And nor would they win power, the way they were coming at it. Which is why I felt I had to put so much time into helping shake that world up.
What set of ideas are going to lead us forward? Funny enough, I'm quite happy with "pragmatism." I don't like terms like Centrist or moderate, because they say, "I line up between two sets of people/ideas." And for me, I don't think EITHER of those two sets of ideas has much juice in them. Whereas pragmatism feels to me like it has more room to run on ahead and create new things; not brain-locked into ANY old camp; with a focus on making sure new things WORK, which - coming from a farm - i just genuinely value. ("Progressive" is ok too. And yes, I grew up in a place where the party of the Right was the Progressive Conservatives, so I know it's a word that crosses Right & Left.)
So I guess I'd say... the Right drove us off the cliff. The Left couldn't stop them - they didn't have enough political power, but also, their ideas and their political approaches just weren't GOOD enough. I just got tired of hearing the hang-wringing and whining thing. And no, I really don't like it - personally - when it comes from people who DIDN'T act these past years, and who just "woke up." I'm fine to hear their ideas, but if someone was - in your image - so "asleep" that they only recently woke up to the danger, I'm not inclined to accept their analysis on who the entire Left is, and what they think the Progressives have been doing, too deeply to heart, right?
It's a bit like a marriage where a Father pays no attention to the kids, is utterly absorbed in work, and then suddenly bolts in with a whole new set of activities and judgments on friends and teachers and career paths and clothes and music and the whole shebang. I'm slightly inclined to discount those initial views. I'm aware that what they can add may be useful, maybe see things I'd never seen - a new set of eyes often does - and even be critical to lifting the family to a new level, right?
But when they start in with a view of what the Left is and has been doing that pretty much sounds like it came off TV, complete with "effete" references, and terms like hand-wringing... I'm inclined to suggest that maybe the former sleepyhead should step back a bit, spend some time getting to know the world on the Left that they slept through, just as they did the one on the Right. Because the millions of people out there being slapped with these labels... don't quite fit anymore.
December 9, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree with your take on where we find ourselves.
We have been trapped into a Left-Right paradigm that has done little to move the country or the world forward, despite years of effort and acres of blood-soaked ground. It's not a battle of ideas or ideals but rather one of methodology. The right process combined with the right policy will yield huge dividends, but it isn't a Right versus Left thing but rather a Right versus Wrong thing.
The thing I like about Barack is a willingness to use whatever solution leads to the right policy implementation rather than dismissing it out of hand because it started on the "right" side of the political spectrum before gaining progressive credentials. The Faith-based Initiatives program is a perfect example of pragmatism delivering solid results based on ideas rather than ideology.
In the meantime, I am going to take the cries of foul from the far left and the far right as being evidence that Barack is finally governing from a true center. Not a new stance for me.
December 9, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
hrebendorf, i co-sign your comment!!!! some are pissed that he didnt appoint enough hispanics or enough blacks or enough non-clinton people...or enough gays or enough cotton-pickers or enough palin bashers or enough kkk memebers....it is a never-ending story.....i, like hildenbrand is a little fed up myself.....
i do believe that critique is necessary...we didn't ask the right questions when we should have and we got 8 terrible bush years in return...in the same token, why is it so hard to understand that your elected president set the mission and tone and everyone he appoints to a post is supposed to dance to the tune PERIOD!!!! give the man a chance to govern before crying sour grapes....and stop acting like your wants are totally oppposite to obama's wants...in addition, just because you want 2 sugars in your coffee and he opts for one doesn't make him a flip flopper or republican-lite...jeesh!
December 9, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
"i do believe that critique is necessary."
Absolutely. But whining about the people Obama has already chosen for his Cabinet--after the fact--is just idiotic. It accomplishes nothing. Last night, a neighbor of mine said that when it was time to replace Gates, she would "not tolerate" Chuck Hagel. Really. I assume she has an in with Obama's Secret Service detail and she'll be able to march right in to Obama's office and give him what for if he picks Hagel.
There will be plenty of time for real activism come January 20. But crabbing about cabinet appointments is not activism. It's just crabbing. I firmly believe the Obama team leaked the names of every important appointee for a reason. It was sort of an unofficial RFC. And when the majority approved, he went with his choice. And in the case of Larry Summers, he chose someone else. The critics on the Left actually got their way. That's an extraordinary, possibly unprecedented, event in American politics. The public weighed in and the president-elect actually listened. Amazing. But that's not good enough for the whiners on the Left. They want to micromanage every single decision Obama makes. Among them, they can't agree which side of the toast gets the butter, but they sure as hell know wrong when they see it.
I once went on vacation in New York with a friend of mine. We spent weeks planning the trip and getting ready to go. When we arrived, I could tell something was bugging her. I finally said, "What's wrong?" She said, "Well, now that we're here, I sorta wish we had gone to Mexico instead." Free speech, baby!
December 9, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what is it Rabbit. You say "real activism" can start up after January 20th. Then you say whining (again) after people have been appointed is idiotic. Then you say it made a difference. This is incoherent.
As is the earlier schtick about "ideology," and your repeated references to "if you don't like it, run yourself." Don't tell people to go looking for a dictionary when you use words in nonsensical ways. People on the Left who use "ideology" tend to believe everyone has an ideology. Just because someone is dull enough to say they're a "moderate" or "Centrist" or "pragmatic" doesn't actually mean they don't have a set of beliefs, about how the world works, and what matters, an where they'd like to go, and how. All it means is that their views tend to be in-between two other groups.
Now, I believe you'd agree that Bush and co. - and before him, Bush I and Reagan I and II, and Newt sandwiched in-between - had certain political and social and economic and international views. I suspect you'd agree those views not only came to dominate, but slowly pulled the entire national debate over to their wing of things. It's pretty clear that elected Democrats, circa 2008, are actually significantly to the Right of FDR, and - many have argued - are to the Right of Nixon in, say 1972.
The people disclaiming "ideology" and just using the "ideologue" variant frankly don't have a clue how to use the word. If I walked down through the economy and asked them questions like who should own this or that.... where should the market work... what do you think a market does... how important is eliminating child poverty.... who should decide what products get made in sphere xyz... and so on, through social policy, foreign policy, etc., I suspect you'd find they held views.
And by the way, give up the blogging thing. It accomplishes nothing I hear. And no matter who the President is, or what he/she does, you should probably shut up, unless you're willing to run yourself.
Stop saying nonsense things like these, Rabbit. You don't believe this shit.
December 9, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is Barack to the Right of Nixon '72?
I'm serious, that's interesting.
December 9, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't buy all the argument, Dorn (or rather, I'd argue that it was public pressure - as opinion shifted and Nixon followed) but just go over to Wikipedia, and under Nixon, read from the Section "Presidency (1969–1974)" onward. It pretty much outlines the "progressive" environmental, social, racial, international and economic policies he adopted or initiated.
Personally, I think ANY President would have been moving this way at that time, and I would have preferred a good Democrat, but objectively, he started so many things during that time that it's hard not to see how far to the Right we've shifted - all of us, and thus, Obama included.
December 9, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see the argument, and have heard of this thing you call "Weekypeedeea". In my opinion, you sacrifice all your Progressive Cred when you use the White House as your own private criminal enterprise. That and Vietnam seem to block out any sun that might shine on his NEPA accomplishments, opening China, and a few social programs.
December 9, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on Nixon, Dorn. My teeth grind as people have worked to rehabilitate this monster these past decades, with his wars and his enemies lists and his hit squads. All I'd say is that whole political cultures shift ground over time, and that the ground Nixon stood on from 1968 on, was pretty far to what we'd call the "Left" than that we find ourselves on in 2008.
However... the times they are a changin'.... And I'll be interested to see where we are come January. In fact, the reason I think it's worthwhile for people to pile in with their thoughts & opinions, is precisely because it helps CHANGE the ground. And the faster it shifts, the more easily Obama can shift the debate, and make progress.
December 9, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mostly have given up the blogging thing, quinn. I just stopped by yesterday to see what was going on. And the election is clearly over. And there's clearly nothing going on.
Carry on, quinn. Accomplish great things.
December 9, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
Yer a bastard, bunny.
I can barely accomplish coffee.
December 9, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, nothing to see here. Just a sitting Governor trying to sell a US Senate Seat to the President Elect of the United States.
Yup, nothing.
December 9, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Senate seat was minor compared to what he was willing to give the Trib in return for one measely editorial writer. And I sort of like the Cubs.
December 9, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a message and a question for you, Jane Hamsher:
You can claim that all you want, Jane, but I don't buy it because you decided Caroline Kennedy didn't meet the "sufficiently liberal and sufficiently credentialed in Bush Fighting" to be Hillary's Senate replacement. If that isn't a damn liberal litmus test, then explain to me, Jane, what it is.
December 9, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Breathe.
Seems to me that the only thing less constructive than Hildebrand's sermon has been the over the top response here.
Obama's selecting people whom he thinks make sense for these problems at this time. The complaint from the left is that those people aren't the ideal choices, per se. Possibly true, but irrelevant. Obama's not selecting the best possible advisors per se , he's selecting the best possible advisors for right now .
And given that criterion I think he's choosing admirably.
When, god willing, team Obama have dealt with the disasterous econonomic mess maybe it will be time for some of that team to march victoriously into the sunset with all flags flying whiile we hurry them along. Until then while I can see why Hildebrand might wish we'd hold our fire,I can't see why he thinks that shouting at us is apt to bring that about.
Nor do I see how our shouting back at him contributes to the joy of nations.
Silence is golden. And we can use a little gold right now.
December 9, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe this is all about filling dead space.
December 9, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Hilderbrand's comment was "this is not a time...to draw conclusions." Obviously many on the left felt it was outrageous for anyone to suggest they are not entitled to draw conclusions any good goddamn time they want to draw conclusions, and the fact that they are being refered to as "the left" in and of itself means they are being attacked.
Being a member of the "chill left" I am bemused by the "shrill left." But this is not a time to draw conclusions.
December 9, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not the time for criticism. This is the time for stage directions: APPLAUSE, CLAP LOUDER, KEEP CLAPPING. Obama will surely tell us when we may criticize. And if not he himself then his self-appointed or appointed lieutenants. It is not surprising that so many take this direction so well. If you're a liberal like Obama, you don't know why the left is bothered at being excluded, why they whine, why they complain at the shitty politics carried out by even a Democratic-run congress. That's because many of the applauding and adoring audience agree with the politics of the center and hate the left. So we should expect that. As leftists I think most of us knew what we were getting into when we supported the coalition that elected Obama; now Obama doesn't want us to have an officially sanctioned voice in his administration so we are thrown overboard. OK. His administration is likely to be better than McCain's would have been. So our efforts were not for naught. But those of us who see the need for a vibrant left, progressive movement have a need now to stop holding back our criticisms of Obama. Building a left progressive movement is more important than propping up a cynical politician like Obama.
December 9, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
::goes to unsubscribe from glen greenwalds e-mail list::
December 9, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The existence of Hildebrand's rebuttal over on HuffPo would seem to indicate that on some level Obama's team is reading these things and well aware of the criticism, despite our favorite bunny-cat's assertion otherwise.
But on a larger level, blogs exist as sounding boards where we exchange ideas about what we think should be happening. Even if Obama's team never bothered to listen even once, there is value in debating ideas and changing people's minds (or becoming more grounded in our own conceptualizations).
IMO if you disagree with a criticism respond to the criticism - don't attack the person for having the audacity to actually say what's on their mind. This ad-hominem stuff from normally thoughtful folks is a bit unnerving.
December 9, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
5 points for not saying "hand-wringing."
I'd throw in some more ad hom, but the jar's empty. I smeared it on the bunny, and what'd he do? Licked it off.
Gotta go to the store. See if they've got some new, stickier, stuff. BRB.
December 9, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no reason to think otherwise.
We know Obama himself was reading the blogosphere back as a Senator in 2005, and even getting aggravated enough to craft a response where he said I don't get a chance to follow blog traffic and admitted awarness of a common blogosphere narrative: According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog... and says that I think this perspective misreads the American people
But this time, Obama team members didn't need to be following the blogosphere to get the complaint message. It was placed in the traditional media.
Mr. Proud Leftist, David Corn, published this op-ed in The Washington Post on December 7, and it was placed on page B1 of the print edition:
This Wasn't Quite the Change We Pictured.
A WaPo message is a message sent to the breakfast tables and office desks of everyone working in politics in Washington D.C.
December 9, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops part of the Obama quotes I used got cut off by my bad code, the first one should read:
I don't get a chance to follow blog traffic as regularly as I would like, and rarely get the time to participate in the discussions
December 9, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also Kevin Drum wrote this piece for the November/December issue of leftist magazine Mother Jones where in the last paragraphs he really hits Obama hard, suggesting that he is starting to fear Obama doesn't "get it."
(Left out of my initial comment because of the two-link limit for comments.)
Both are publications that carry to markets beyond blogosphere fans. A savvy operation might find it important to start some responding for that reason alone.
December 9, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also it is suggested, though not explicitly, in today's New York Times piece by Peter Baker from Chicago, that the Congressional Progressive Caucus is pressuring Obama on this topic:
Lynne Woolsey is the current co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, and as stated earlier in the article, Grijalva is the incoming co-chair.
I think it's pretty naive to think he isn't getting pressure to make some more liberal appointments from more than just the usual liberal "netroots" suspects, even though he has a record of not being the friendliest to self-identified liberal "netroots." That's probably why Hildebrand's piece wasn't very specific.
December 9, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like brie. You microwave it and ten or twenty seconds later you layer it on apple slices.
I never liked Clinton. But I knew that every day that he was in that White House, evil people suffered real pain. Newt and Delay were so angry and could do nothing about it until the BJ.
I want to think in terms of goals.
I think we can get universal health care.
I think we are going to have governmental ownership interests in the biggest industries in this country. I think we can use that to provide real government oversight.
I think we can narrow the gap between rich and poor.
I think we can have a real negative income tax that can help narrow that gap with higher taxes for the for the idle who reap rewards they do not earn.
I think government can steer industry in a greener direction and we can all benefit.
I think the abortion issue is dead and choice won out.
I think the gun issue may appear dead and the NRA won, but I think we can still curb surface to air missiles in urban areas, at least.
I do not care if we chime "under God", my generation had to and it had no affect on me whatsoever.
I think we can have better enforcement of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights.
I think we can have a ten or fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage using negative income taxes, putting in force health care for all and curbing corporate excess.
The A-Team is hopefully considering all these issues.
With w and Cheney none of these aims could ever be achieved.
The left argues as to how to best achieve these goals.
The right does not look to these goals at all.
December 9, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheers, dickday. Your post warms the heart and cheers the soul.
I think Obama really intends to try and accomplish what he said he would. That in itself would be something, wouldn't it?
Now realistically, pushing even half his agenda through is going to take compromise. Most likely painful compromise on some things that really matter (at least to me), like energy and the environment. Plus some good breaks economy-wise. And a few measures of plain dumb luck.
But odds are good we'll wake up on Nov. 3, 2012 and say "man, we got some shit done."
The proof's in the pudding. Whether it's made by liberals, leftists center-rightists, Brie-lovers or name your label doesn't matter scratch. Obama's not trying to squash dissent. He's just saying wait till there's something to argue about before you have an argument.
December 9, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Obama needs to strain himself or overreach trying to put a token liberal or liberals on his cabinet. Putting the most effective team is what matters.
At the end, what matters is the policies that are enacted. Obama's approval rating is 79%.
Some folks aren't happy unless they're complaining.
December 9, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of the criticisms I have read from people on the left are not from people objecting that Obama has appointed a large number of centrist Democrats, or even Republicans. Anyone who paid attention understands Obama's big tent, red-blue, coalition-building approach to governing. The main complaint is that progressives don't appear to be getting many seats at the table at all, certainly nothing like what would be warranted by the amount of work they put into electing Obama, and the numbers that turned out for him. The worry then is that more left-wing outlooks are being excluded from the creative interchange and dynamism in which policy will be formed.
But personally, I am fairly happy with what I am hearing so far about Obama's domestic economic plans. It strikes me they are shaping up to be even bolder and more progressive than the plans he ran on, despite the fact that the economic team is very middle of the road. I am satisfied that they are thinking big, and preparing to seize a moment of historic opportunity.
I am much less satisfied with what is happening in the foreign policy area. It appears to me that Obama is backing off of bold changes in US foreign policy, and is preparing to serve up warmed-over Clintonism and the old elite neoliberal consensus, which, while certainly an improvement over Bush and neoconservativism, doesn't appear to me to be a nearly adequate response to the epochal, dynamic times in which we live. I hope I am wrong.
Whatever Hildebrand was attempting to do, his op-ed was an extremely confusing, and confusedly-written piece of work. It is hard to extract any coherent argument from it. The message is bungled. He probably only made things worse.
December 9, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I might have confused you with someone else with a 3-part name, OGD. My very humblest apologies. I fucked up.
Meanwhile don't be too hard on Jason, who joined the SS in order to redeem it from within.
December 15, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's those ad hominem attacks at which you excel. Bravo! Sorry if I confused the two of you. The scolding tone makes it hard to distinguish between you two.
December 15, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am deeply grateful for your recognition, Jason, but I really can't accept that sort of compliment from one whose sole contribution to the blog lies in elevating the level of ad hominem.
Now one might argue that you also contribute mightily as a humorist. Your devastating response, "Ditto," reminiscent of the evergreen rejoinder "So's your old lady" and the innovative "Oh yeah?" certainly bring a smile to every face that reads you. And your implication that you confused OGD and me about whether or not we were the same person...well, it simply applies a whole new layer of hillarity to the entire concept of confusion.
Still, personal attacks are your particular skill and the closest you come to having an effective debating weapon -- unless one includes your charming and consistent absence of sophistication -- so again, let me bow to the master and decline your generous but unwarranted condescension.
December 17, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have yet to use personal attacks except when responding to such from you and OGD.
I confine myself to the issue at hand rather than objectionable framing of said issue. Unless, of course, the issue at hand is about the framing of issues.
"Ditto" was meant as a joke because the space was getting so narrow. It was meant as a comic rejoinder to the actual comment you made.
December 17, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have yet to use personal attacks except when responding to such from you and OGD.
Oh, and I forgot to mention your profound and trenchant sense of irony. I can't wait to see the really penetrating prose you create when you get out of your teens.
December 18, 2008 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, generational "humor" that is anything but. Your inability to see your own hubris past that enormous ego is what is truly ironic.
December 18, 2008 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are quite correct about my ego. It is enormous. Yours will be, as well, when you're old enough to understand the meaning of the word.
(If you actually are out of your teens, I apologize. I hate it when people pick on folks with abnomally low intellectual tools.)
December 18, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Ah Hah . . .
No problem Tankard. As I thought, it was just a simply honest mistake in identity on your part.
Oh and uh ... to you...
Rating: Five stars ... *****
And many kudos for bringing to light the bluster of the blustery one.
Again. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
~OGD~
December 16, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why, no. Those voices are always in complete control, Jason. No matter which of my heads they're in. You must be jealous inasmuch as two heads are better than one.
December 15, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am insufficiently narrow-minded to continue this conversation here. Feel free to do so yourself...or continue to be battered out here.
December 15, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink