You miss the point. Many of us are "concerned" about a potential lack of BALANCE

[Armstead]

I can only speak for myself. But I think this is an opinion shared by many who are raising concerns (legitimate concerns) about the direction of this transition.

I had no illusions about Obama. I supported him, and I am still very enthusiastic about him. But I also knew he is primarily a moderate pragmatist, and that he was not planning to install a completely left-of-center administration, nor would he totally repudiate the DLC/centrist/Clinton factions of the Democratic Party. I knew there would be a lot of compromising.

BUT, I did see him as also having liberal/progressives ideals. Also, his campaign was strongly supported by left progressives. He also seemed to "get it" in terms of recognizing that the Big Money Big Business orientation of the DLC was partially responsible for the mess we are in.

So, while I wasn't expecting a complete Reboot, my hope has been that he would be equally oriented both to the centrist AND progressive aspects of the Democratic Party and the nation. My hope has been (and still is) that he would be more BALANCED than the Democratic Partryt has been since the 1980's, and he would restore the progressive economic populism that has been an important part of Liberal Democratic ideals.


My "concern" now is NOT that he is playing ball with The Clintons, and all of the Democrtatic players that ran things in the 90's and 00's. What concerns me is that he MAY be shutting out the voices from the progressive left (including the moderate progressive left) that helped to bring him to power.

If Wall St. insiders and "free market" globalists are the only ones he places in position of power, or seriously listens to, then we will not be able to move beyond the stale "answers" that got us into this mess. Unless there is a progressive counterpoint, we will just repeat the same mistakes based on the same discredited assumptions that led to the current problems.

It is important to remember that those who are voicing concerns -- and criticisms -- are not just doing so out of habit or a perverse desire to stir the pot. Nor are we demanding that Obama rush in to create a Socialist Paradise. Nor do we have a mental illness characterized by irrational hatred of The Clintons.

We simply want a restoration of the TRUE center, which is to the left of where the Clinton/DLC/Wall St. crowd have been taking the Democratic Party for 20 years.....The GOP CONservatrive philosophy has been thoroughly discredited. We are in a position where Democratic Liberalism has an opportunity to move the nation in a more positive direction.

We just don't want to blow it by following the same moldy roadmap that got us into this mess.

[LostinVA]

1. Obama has never been a Left-leaning Democrat

Anyone surprised by his choices shouldn't be at all: his political career and voting record show him as a rock-solid, center/sometimes right-leaning Dem. And, that isn't a criticism of PE Obama at all. He's been admirably consistent in his political life. It's just nothing surprising. The only "odd" thing he's done so far is choose Daschle. That was a "WTF" moment for me.

[Armstead]

3. Depends on the definition of "center"

[LostinVA]

6. No, he's been very center/occasionally right-leaning Dem

[NorCalDem]

18. But, But, But....

I thought he was the most "liberal senator" in the senate?!?

Isn't it amazing how whomever Republicans are running against (Kerry, Obama, etc.) they are ALWAYS "the most liberal"...

[antigop]

2. Read Sirota: "Team of Rivals" or Rival Team?

http://action.credomobile.com/sirota/2008/11/team_of_rivals_as_the_new_brod.html

"Team of Rivals" is now being used to justify Obama administration appointments and congressional Democratic moves that appear - at least aesthetically - to be somewhat at odds with all "change we can believe in" rhetoric (and for those who don't think there have been many appointments already, there have been many through the transition and the transition's extremely powerful "advisory" committee - and if you think those are irrelevant, you must have forgotten the influence of George W. Bush's similar appointments in 2000). The real question is what are the boundaries of this Broderism in disguise? Is "Team of Rivals" really a veneer for creating a rival team against progressives?
..Look, I'm all for "inclusion" - but let's also remember, the most comprehensive post-election poll shows that a whopping 70 percent of Americans want conservatives to bend to Obama's agenda, not the other way around. And so what about the other side of the "team?" If "Team of Rivals" = "Bipartisanship," shouldn't there be some full-on progressives in some very powerful positions? Wouldn't that complete the "team" in "Team of Rivals" and the "bi" in "bipartisan?" Or are we really not going to see a "team" nor "bipartisanship" - but merely lockstep corporatism/conservatism disguised with the latest happy sounding terms from the Broder dictionary?

[Armstead]

7. He said it better than I

[antigop]

9. There's more....

http://action.credomobile.com/sirota/2008/11/evidence_anyone.html
References to a comment by DKos's Meteor Blades:

Where's the evidence for the opposite claim? Reaching across the aisle is not a bad thing. But so far what we have seen is a reach in one direction: a turncoat Dem, a DLC Dem and feelers toward Republicans. Center right. Where, as david asks, are the feelers to the leftists in the party?

Currently, what we're hearing is that none of these "low-level" transition team appointments really matter. Or even, ludicrously, that the Chief of Staff doesn't matter. It's only the Cabinet that will matter.

I disagree with that. But, for argument's sake, let's go along with it. We've had two for sure Cabinet appointments, sans the vetting that will come later, the moderate DLCer Tom Daschle (no surprise given his close association with the campaign) and Eric Holder. There is talk of Senator Clinton for SecState, another DLCer. And talk of Chuck Hagel, an ultra rightwinger except on Iraq and some other foreign policy issues.

[DJ13]

10. Excellent points!

[watrwefitinfor]

4. Kick it, then.

"Error: You've already recommended that thread."

[babylonsister]

5. He's trying...

I think there's hope that progressives will have a voice. I just wish for more patience from everyone.


http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/11/10/11300/634

Huffington Post reports that Barack Obama has added Mike Lux, a blogger at Open Left and advisor to the Clinton transition team (among other accomplishments) to his transition team.

Veteran Democratic official Mike Lux has been tapped by Barack Obama to serve as an adviser and progressive liaison during the transition period, the Huffington Post has learned.

Lux, who worked on the Clinton administration transition efforts in 1992, confirmed the hiring but, citing a need for clearance, declined to offer further information.

More Lux credentials below:

After working in the Clinton White House on issues ranging from health care and the budget to school lunch policy, he founded Progressive Strategies LLC and began writing for the site OpenLeft.com in July 2007. He also helped co-found a number of progressive institutions including: Americans United for Change, Center for Progressive Leadership, Grassroots Democrats, Progressive Majority, Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, and Women's Voices/Women Vote. He writes for the Huffington Post.

And from Eric Holder:


http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/11/quote-of...

Quote of the Day

| posted by Melissa McEwan | Tuesday, November 18, 2008



"At the beginning of the 21st century, this nation faces problems that are old and that are new: racial, sexual orientation, and gender inequality all remain. … The solutions are contained within a new, dynamic, progressive movement that has the ability to inspire and motivate the people of this nation in the way that progressives have in the past. That ability exists in this room, and in the law schools, and in the courtrooms, and in the law offices around this country. It is our task to unlock, to unleash the creative energy needed to give life to this renewed movement. It is not enough for us to gather at annual meetings, to participate in panels, and to return to our communities, and be content to observe, or to passively criticize, the now dominant governing philosophy.

Quite simply, it is time to act. It is time to organize. It is time to retake the levers of government and to use them for the common good. It is time, finally, to be true to our ideological heritage. And so my challenge to you tonight is to leave this convention renewed in your convictions, and committed to using your abundant talents for the good of the citizens of this country.

At the end of every week, I want you to ask yourselves, what have I done in the past seven days to advance the cause? How have I made more likely this liberal renaissance?

…Now we all lead busy lives, and we can all find reasons, excuses really, not to do that which we know is needed. The struggle is larger than any of these excuses, and is ultimately dependent on individual sacrifices large and small. I urge you to find your own way in this new effort. I implore you to create relationships with other members of the progressive community to bring to bear your combined talents.

This can be—this must be—our time. We must seize this opportunity. For the good of the nation we love, we must make this new century our own."

—Eric Holder, in a June 2004 speech (pdf; via) to American Constitution Society. Holder is a former deputy attorney general under Clinton, who has reportedly been tapped by President-Elect Obama to be the next Attorney General of the United States.

That's a man who believes in teaspoons, right there.

I'd just like to point out, because I can't quite yet believe it myself, that after an era of John "Let the Eagle Soar" Ashcroft and Alberto "Quaint" Gonzales, we may find ourselves with an Attorney General with both a brain and a social conscience.

ZOMG. Somebody pinch me. We're getting our country back.

[Armstead]

13. I'll continue to give him the benefit of the doubt

Personally I want my concerns to turn out to be totally unjustified.

[Barack_America]

8. Exactly. I understand the argument that the DLCers that worked with the Clinton administration...

...have "experience" and that Obama wants to hit the ground running.

I get that.

My "concern" has been that if he doesn't appoint at least a few progressives, how will progressives ever gain "experience" themselves?

Still it's early and very few appointments have been confirmed. So we'll see what happens.

[Armstead]

11. I still have a wait-and-see attitude

My feeling is that now, in the formative stages, is when we ought to be making our preferences be known.

[antigop]

12. Absolutely. We should be speaking up NOW! n/t

[Barack_America]

15. I agree with that.

Now's not the time to attack Obama, but absolutely the time to remind him, "hey, what about the progressives?"

I do view Obama as a progressive, but he's always been very clear on his desire to govern from the center. I just hope that he doesn't lose sight on where he personally wants to take this country in his efforts to be as effective as possible. You may accomplish more with nudges, but you still have to push from time-to-time.

[happychatter]

14. balance - link to Mother Jones - listen to the debate today on DemocracyNow

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/11/10948_obama_tranistion_team_members_change.html

from David Corn

he debates Jeremy Scahill today... it was great

I like them both

[KoKo]

16. Excellent Post...K&R

[yodermon]

17. There will not be one Liberal Democrat in his cabinet

or in a position of significant power in his administration.

[mzmolly]

19. I think we have to consider where people are being used?

Not to mention lessons learned. :shrug:

[PVnRT]

20. K&R

[Dragonfli]

21. I agree wholeheartedly.

I am concerned for the same reasons you are. I keep waiting for a bone or two to be thrown - even as it is beginning to look like the corporate hawks of our party are getting a feast of representation.

I will see how he governs, but all of the signs point to a right wing Democratic alternative to a right wing Republican opposition. I am working class, far from wealthy and I am beginning to feel there is no party left to support me or the largest portion of our population - other less than wealthy people that are losing the american dream for the enrichment of a small but extremely well represented minority.

If things don't at least take a turn towards the center from the far right of our party, I feel I will have no choice but to renounce the party grow an (I) for a spine and begin the many years of work that will be required to form a party that represents the bulk of the american people.

For the record, I have more faith in our PE than I do with the democratic leadership, as said leadership appears more concerned with moving towards the Corporate and Defence interests in this country than it is in representing me and my best interests. Lieberman is a prime example of this.
I have already decided to support any and all progressives running against my representation next election cycle. At this point the best the party can hope from me is a split ticket. If the party of FDR begins a return to representation of the people I will gladly re-register as a Democrat.

I know no one will care about my decision, I have already been told that. I am not doing it for anyone's approval -but rather to better reflect my views on governance.

[Armstead]

22. A bone or two would be appreciated

[ecstatic]

23. He is the balance. Wasn't he voted most liberal in the Senate?

So he himself will be at least one liberal voice to counter all the centrist Dems. :)

[Blue_In_AK]

24. I agree.

A couple of bones to the left wing would be nice, but I'm not surprised. This is playing out how I thought it would.

[Phx_Dem]

25. Your concern is duly noted but you might want to wait until

he actualy does something to warrant it.

[Armstead]

26. He's been appointing and floating names

I'd be a lot happier if a few names that weren't part of the same old same old were included

[depakid]

27. I share these concerns- and hope that Obama is wise enough to have learned the lessons from 1994

when, feeling betrayed, progressives stayed home, rather than put boots on the ground- and get out and vote.

Indeed, the danger may even be more acute in 2010, as young people are far more easily disillusioned than other constituencies.