Left Out: Would it kill Obama to have an actual progressive or two in his cabinet?

[Better Believe It]

Left Out
Would it kill Obama to have an actual progressive or two in his cabinet?
by Christopher Hayes
The Nation
November 21, 2008

I've been trying to avoid commenting on specific personnel for the Obama administration, because it's hard to know what's real and what's rumor, and because it's also difficult to get my head around what the proper evaluative criteria is. The federal bureaucracy is inordinately complicated and there may be reasons to put certain people in certain positions that has nothing to do with their ideological bona fides. That said, I pretty much agree with Chris Bowers:

I know everyone is obsessed with the "team of rivals" idea right now, but I feel incredibly frustrated. Even after two landslide elections in a row, are our only governing options as a nation either all right-wing Republicans, or a centrist mixture of Democrats and Republicans? Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration? Also, why isn't there a single member of Obama's cabinet who will be advising him from the left? It seems to me as though there is a team of rivals, except for the left, which is left off the team entirely.

Not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in the new administration. Not one. Remember this is the movement that was right about Iraq, right about wage stagnation and inequality, right about financial deregulation, right about global warming and right about health care.

And yet, no one who comes from the part of American political and intellectual life that has given birth to all of these ideas is anywhere to be found within miles of the Obama cabinet thus far. WTF?

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/jstreet/385427/left_out?rel=hpbox

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. I'm disappointed, but not surprised.

[Captain Hilts]

25. Folks here that thought he was a progressive were projecting on him what they wanted to see. nt

[iamthebandfanman]

44. got too wrapped up

trying to stop clinton i suppose.

ive been saying all along the man was a moderate. that may be a good thing.
but as ive stated before, there is never any goodies for liberals...
you have republicans who do nothing but things for their base..
then you have democrats who do nothing for either base.

the latter is better, for sure...
but i dont think any liberal/progressive was/is asking for their entire agenda to be filled...
we just want a few things for helping getting him into office...

i wont give up on the democratic party tho. im no ralph nader.

im excited that environmental change seems to be on track for swinging our way... but to me, like alot of things, it just seems like common sense...
heck even republicans should be jumping on board with the new report out about climate change helping Russias economy expand and new fuel resources open up... lol.


ultimately, we just want to be appreciated.
i think we are looked over after the election because hey, what are we gonna do about it ? what are our real options besides voting democratic? none as long as nader is around acting like the egotistical jackass that he is. always running for president but never trying to build a movement from the bottom.

[appal_jack]

66. NOT relevant

Look, Obama may not BE a progressive, but progressives were THE core group who helped get him elected. He owes progressives a place at his table. I'm not feeling particularly picky at the moment: it could be a 'drug czar' who favors marijuana decrim, plus a public health approach to the rest of the illegal drugs. Or a union organizer at the head of the NLRB. Or someone like Bill McKibben or Paul Hawken at the head of EPA. Dave Foreman for head of USFS. Jim Hightower for Ag Secretary.

Really, I want to see all these folks in Obama's administration, because they are some of the best minds America has to offer. But one or two or three of them would be a good start, as long as they are given the freedom to do their jobs well.

Today on NPR, one of the analysts noted that Latinos voted Obama over McCain more than 2 to 1, so it made good sense for Obama to nominate Richardson for Commerce. Well, progressives (of all races and ethnicities) voted Obama over McCain more than 250 to 1. So where are our nominees?

On the other hand, Obama COULD just take the progressives' votes for granted, and nominate all DLC'ers and corporatists. There is little to stop him from asking us, " Who you gonna vote for, Republicans?" But that is the path to a Republican comeback in the House in 2010, and gridlock thereafter. Then, come 2012, a Green candidate might capture the attention of progressives. No doubt, if this comes to pass, we will be excoriated here at DU if we express enthusiasm for this third party ticket. But the time to head-off this possibility is now.

Come on Obama: show us progressives who chanted "Yes We Can," that we can indeed. When you said it was about us, and not you, we hoped that some of our own could be part of shaping the future four years. The time is now.

-app

[L0oniX]

72. I recall Obama talking about the old business as usual Washington crowd during the primary when...

distinguishing himself from Clinton and calling for change. Anyone else remember that?

[Orsino]

81. Then there are the folks who know that progressivism is desperately needed...

...and that Obama had better be forthcoming, no matter what he ran as.

A massive public works effort would be a great start.

[Captain Hilts]

85. I agree. nt

[Zhade]

88. He just announced one, I heard.

So, that's good news.

[Orsino]

103. Yes. I have high hopes. n/t

[anonymous171]

2. Are there any actual progressives who are qualified for the positions?

And who would get confirmed easily?

[Better Believe It]

6. You want easy confirmations that are acceptable to right-wing Republicans?

Lots of fully qualified and competent progressives are available for EVERY cabinet position!

You think only non-progressives are qualified?

[anonymous171]

7. No,

I think that the only qualified people available right now probably aren't the most progressive individuals.

[Omnibus]

34. Progressives aren't qualified?

Progressives aren't qualified because they lack experience.

Progressives lack experience because they haven't served in prior administrations.

Progressives haven't served because neither Republicans nor Democrats will appoint them.

Progressives can't get appointed because they aren't qualified.



Nothing to see here, folks, the Circle of Exclusion is working as intended.

[thenam]

60. Yep :-/

Anyway, no surprises here. Just more of the same from the center-right Democratic Party.

[Seen the light]

10. LOL

I'm beginning to wonder about some of you people.

[anonymous171]

11. You want long and divisive confirmation hearings?

I have a feeling Obama is going to do what FDR did which is use the honeymoon period (first 3 months in office) to force through tons of legislation. If he has to deal with long heated argument over his nominees then nothing will get done.

[rhett o rick]

78. What I hear you saying is that once again the Dem's aren't going to do the right thing because they

are afraid the repukes will get mad and hold up the confirmation hearings. This sounds just like the counter to the argument that the Dem's used when they confirmed the terrible repuke appointments because they didn't want to argue and hold up the legislative process. Wow.

[Breeze54]

16. Welcome to the Website of the Congressional Progressive Caucus! - 72 reps available!

Welcome to the Website of the Congressional Progressive Caucus!

http://cpc.lee.house.gov/index.cfm?SectionID=1&ParentID=0&SectionTypeID=1&SectionTree=1

The Congressional Progressive Caucus was established in the U.S. House of Representatives in the early 1990s. It reflects the diversity and strength of the American people, and we seek to give voice to the needs and aspirations of all Americans and to build a more just and humane society. The Co-Chairwomen of the 72-Member Congressional Progressive Caucus, U.S. Representatives Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee, welcome your interest in the growing Progressive Caucus.

Caucus Member List

Co-Chairs
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-6)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-9)

Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Raul Grijalva (AZ-7)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5)
Hon. Hilda Solis (CA-32)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-2)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)

Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-1)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-2)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-1)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-3)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-8)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-1)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-9)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-7)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-7)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-4)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-3)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-5)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-2)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-4)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-4)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-2)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-4)
Hon. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-9)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-5)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-2)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-7)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-7)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-3)
Hon. George Miller (CA-7)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-4)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-8)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-1)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-4)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-1)
Hon. Linda Sanchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-9)
Hon. Jose Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-2)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-6)
Hon. Tom Udall (NM-3)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

[Seen the light]

19. Nope, nobody qualified there! Let's try out Sam Nunn and the Cheney guy for CIA instead!

*sigh*

[Breeze54]

22. Weren't Waxman and Wexler just appointed?

I haven't been keeping up on all the news.

[MessiahRp]

30. Not appointed...

Granted chairmanships through ballots and seniority. The WH has no say on who chairs what committees in Congress.

Rp

[Breeze54]

35. Yeah I know but I thought they'd been called on by Obama...

I understand the workings... to a point. Not an expert by any means.

[Berry Cool]

38. I'm afraid Stephanie Tubbs Jones won't be able to help.

I'm sure she'd love to, but it's not going to be possible.

[rvablue]

21. What about Howard Dean?? Although there are bruised egos

on the other side of the aisle b/c of his genius strategy to take back Congress in 2006 and onto 2008, I still think he could get past the confirmation process.

I'm just said to not see him intricately involved after this year............

[Orsino]

104. Heh.

Yeah, the government that's carefully kept progressives shut out for so many years will inevitably be used as the excuse to keep shutting them out.

[WI_DEM]

3. Maybe Bernie Sanders will be Secretary of Labor?

[Better Believe It]

37. That would be a good choice or better yet how about someone ....

who is actually a representative of the labor movement!

[Skwmom]

4. Amazing that the "stupid" progressives have been SO RIGHT about the critical issues of our day ,

yet they are continually ignored.

If being right and ethical were hiring criteria, the Obama Administration would be filled with progressives.

[L0oniX]

73. Thanks for saying that.

:hi:

[stray cat]

5. Who are the people and how are they better qualified than those chosen?

I sure don't want a liberal appointment like the conservative appointment of Harriet Miers for the supreme court. Now someone like Feingold would be great but then again I'm not sure what position he would be better in than those Obama has chosen.

[girl gone mad]

15. Harriet Miers was a centrist.

She was rejected by conservatives because she was not anti-choice enough for them.

[anonymous171]

17. I thought that everyone rejected her because she was a crony.

[girl gone mad]

31. Nope.

Harry Reid was the one who recommended her in the first place. She would have been confirmed, but the right wing flipped out and called in their favors.

ETA:

In a statement, the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition said: "These have been a difficult few weeks as the Senate and the public measured Harriet Miers and her fitness to serve on our nation's highest court. ...

"As the president considers a new nominee for the court vacancy, I trust that he will find someone who, like him, is a person of strong and identifiable principles -- one who has participated fully in the important public policy debates."

Some conservatives argued that Bush could have prevented this impasse over the nomination.

"It was avoidable had the president nominated someone who fit his own description of the kind of judicial philosophy he preferred. If he'd done that, this would not have happened," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. "I don't think that anyone knew where she stood and that was the problem."

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who said he had recommended that Bush nominate Miers, blamed "the radical right wing of the Republican Party" for killing her nomination. (Watch video: Democrats' statements -- 3:40)

"Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues," the Nevada Democrat said.

[dmallind]

8. Define Progressive

Grijalva is strongly rumored for Interior. He's 31swt most liberal voiting record in the house.

If I were asked to suggest those from the left I'd be perfectly happy with Linda Sanchez for Labor and Gwen Moore for HUD as well as the above, but for some reason Barack hasn't called and asked me yet.

If instead you want fringe activists who have not demonstrated an ability, or even a willingness, to work within the political system then on what basis other than ideology are they qualified? Only example of that I could think who could pass muster might be Nader for EPA.

[Thrill]

9. How about waiting until the cabinet is filled? Jumping the gun like the womens groups

only to see several being appointed to the highest spots in the cabinet

[mistertrickster]

12. Like who? Howard Dean? nt

[MessiahRp]

28. Way better choice for the HHS post than Daschle

Daschle just recently was a lobbyist for health care corporations. Dean was an actual doctor.

Dean would have been a MUCH better choice.

Rp

[stillcool]

58. Tom Daschle may not be a doctor..

but he knows his way around government bureaucracies better than any doctor. Is he not pure enough for you? Do you think Howard Dean is purer?

Senator Tom Daschle shift the healthcare burden away from business.(hfm Q & A)(Interview)

Source: Healthcare Financial Management
Publication Date: 01-JUN-07

Rising healthcare costs and the growing number of uninsured are not only proof that the nation's healthcare system is not working, but also a burden to U.S. businesses. If former Sen. Tom Daschle had his druthers, business would get relief from the responsibility of managing healthcare costs through a "private system within a federal framework."

Daschle has called for a new approach to reforming the healthcare system. He says a seamless system that covers and pays for what works would rein in costs. And, as one part of the nation's health system reform, he is calling for a Federal Health Reserve, which would be modeled after the Federal Reserve System, to make health policy decisions. Representing the Center for American Progress, he testified in April before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health in favor of universal health coverage for all Americans.

Under Daschle's direction, Meena Seshamani recently wrote and the center issued the report Opportunity Costs and Opportunities Lost: Businesses Speak Out About the U.S. Health Care System--Ten Case Studies of Company Health Care Programs. The report looks at the challenges U.S. businesses face in providing employer-based health insurance in the face of rising healthcare costs. Daschle recently spoke with hfm about how the government might go about achieving healthcare reform.

Q. The American healthcare system is complex and involves many stakeholders. The nation's leaders have debated healthcare reform for many years without achieving any substantive reform. Do you think the federal government can be an instrument for healthcare reform this year? How?

A. I believe that the federal government has to play a role, because if we change our healthcare system, in part it will be as a result of change in federal policy. We've already seen the beginning of this change at the state level. States have taken the initiative--and I would especially applaud Massachusetts and California in that regard--but it can't be done at the state level alone. It has to be done at the federal level.

And you ask if it can be done this year. I don't think that we will see a major change in health policy this year. I think we'll continue to do things incrementally for the foreseeable future. This year it will be the SCHIP program that will be reauthorized hopefully, and maybe we will pass mental health parity and the prohibition of genetic discrimination. Those are three major pieces of health legislation at the federal level. But at some point in the not-too-distant future, probably after the next presidential election, my expectation is that we will see a comprehensive proposal, and it will entail another debate like the one we had in the early 1990s with regard to what the role of the federal government should be.

Q. Can Congress consensus on healthcare reform?

A. I think it can achieve consensus. The urgency of reaching consensus has never been greater, and there's more and more involvement on the part of our national constituencies; that is, the business community, the different demographic groups, like the senior citizen organizations, labor unions, states, and municipalities--virtually everybody is concluding that something has to be done.

There are three primary motivations. The first is the tremendous increase in cost, second is the lack of access for 45 million Americans, and third is the increasing concern for quality in our healthcare system. We have a system that is really many systems, and I would describe it as islands of excellence in a sea of mediocrity. We've got to deal with quality in addition to cost and access.

Q. Please explain how your idea for a Federal Health Reserve could be more successful in fixing the healthcare system than previous attempts at healthcare reform, such as the Clinton administration's unsuccessful effort.

A. We can achieve success only if we recognize that there has to be a role for the private sector in health care, and it has to work in concert with the federal role. About 45 percent of the American people today are insured in some federal program. We have a lot of uninsured, but then we have the balance, of course, in the private sector. So it's about half and half federal--state government insured plus private insured. We have to recognize that we can't achieve a consensus unless we are prepared to accept the reality, which is that the private sector will always have an important role to play in healthcare delivery in our country.

What I envision is a private system within a federal framework. I believe that if we can build a private system that is an improvement over what we have today that deals with cost, quality, and access issues, but within a federal framework, we can begin to deal with those issues in a lot more effective way.

If one looks at the banking system today, that's exactly what we have. We have a private system in a federal framework. I believe that there are many success stories within our monetary system that are just as applicable in our health system, so I start with that premise. If we could replicate a Federal Reserve-like system for health care, then we've got the kind of infrastructure or architecture we need to accomplish what we are trying to do here.

Q. Reforming the healthcare system would be costly. The cost of providing health insurance to the uninsured alone would be significant. How should these costs be shared by the federal government, business, and healthcare providers?

A. We already spend 40 percent more than the second-most-expensive country, which is Switzerland. I don't see how we solve the problem of our healthcare crisis by adding even more costs. I think what we have to do is take the money that we currently spend, which is about $2 trillion, and spend it more wisely, and spend it more efficiently, and reallocate it more successfully.

Today, we already are paying, in many eases, for the uninsured in the most inefficient way. We pay $6,700 for every man, woman, and child in our country in taxes, premiums, and out-of-pocket expenses. Those three ways that we pay for health care are fungible; that is, we could pay less taxes and more out-of-pocket expenses, or more premiums and less taxes, or more out-of-pocket expenses and less taxes and less premiums, but it's one of those three ways. We have to understand that we're probably going to continue to use those three vehicles as we pay for our system, but we're not using those vehicles very efficiently. By having universal coverage, we are going to reduce, if not eliminate, the cost-shifting that's going on today, which some have estimated to be $900 per person. My primary hope is that we could reallocate these dollars in a way that doesn't spend more money, but actually ends up spending less over a period of time.

Q. The Center for American Progress report Opportunity Costs and Opportunities Lost: Businesses Speak Out About the U.S. Health Care System shows that employer-based health insurance is a growing burden to the nation's businesses. What alternatives should the government address in the face of rising healthcare costs and the growing number of uninsured?

A. I've come to the conclusion that this shouldn't be a business responsibility exclusively. I believe that it's going to be important for businesses to get out of the health management business. There's something wrong when a business like Starbucks spends more on health care than it does on coffee. There's something wrong when a business like General Motors spends more on health care than it does on steel. We have to recognize that we can't continue to tolerate the high level of costs involved in providing health care in the way we do it. I would like to take that responsibility away from businesses, unless they decide on their own that that is what they want to do for recruitment purposes or because they feel a commitment to their employees that goes beyond the economic issues involved, and that certainly is their prerogative. But it shouldn't be mandated from business.


Q. What was your greatest challenge in the area of healthcare reform when you were serving in the U.S. Congress?

A. The greatest challenge was overcoming the power of special interests who are determined to keep the status quo. There are powerful special interests that oftentimes thwart efforts for reform, and I think we're going to have to deal with that. I think they may be less powerful than they used to be, but they're still there. And we have to overcome the lethargy and the tremendous opposition that has occurred in the past as we have addressed health care. The way we do that is to create win-win-win situations; that is, where everybody wins and nobody feels that there's more of a loss than a gain. I think we can do that. Our goal ought to be not to have winners and losers, but for everybody to understand how, if we can work together, we can all win in this policy debate. That ought to be the goal of everybody involved.

To view the report online, visit www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/pdf/health_business_case study.pdf.

[MessiahRp]

70. I don't want anyone who was just lobbying FOR the health care industry in charge of HHS. Period.

And Obama is going pretty far back on his word about lobbyists by even offering this guy a job let alone a cabinet post.

No he's not pure enough.

Rp

[stillcool]

94. whatever...sounds like you are going to be pissed off...

for a very long time.

Today, Daschle is an adviser to the law firm of Alston & Bird, Washington, D.C., where he provides strategic advice on public policy issues such as energy, health care, financial services, trade, agriculture, tax policy, and telecommunications. He is a Distinguished Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C. Daschle serves on the boards of InterMedia Partners, the Freedom Forum, CB Richard Ellis, the Mayo Clinic, and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. He is also a visiting professor at Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute.

[doc03]

13. I hope he stays more centrist myself

that's all we need a bunch of far lefties dictating policy, we would get kicked out in 2010 for sure.

[MessiahRp]

29. Yeah don't want those far lefites who have been right about EVERYTHING to dictate policy.

Better to leave in the spineless centrists or right wingers who fucked everything up huh?

Oh and it was those far lefties that helped Obama beat the centrist Hillary Clinton.

We deserve some leadership that represents our views for once in this country.

Are you sure you're on the right board?

Rp

[doc03]

36. Only about 20% of the American people consider themselves

liberal and if Obama messes with the Second Amendment, doesn't have a sensible energy policy and a sensible environmental policy we will lose Congress in 2010. I don't think the American people want an extreme government right or left.

[MessiahRp]

47. Nice try with the liberals will take your gun away meme

And the environmental policy liberals have been pushing for since the 70s is the one we're on the path for anyway. It's just that you damn centrists and RWers were so resistant to change that it took a crisis to make you all wake up. Let's face it centrists are horrible at governance. The only time they do anything is once it gets to crisis mode. Progressives/Liberals are forward thinking (hence the name "progressive") and always try to solve the problems that will affect us in the future and stop them from ever getting to crisis mode.

Rp

[doc03]

49. Go ahead and 2010 will be a replay of 1994

Obama and Biden went all over the country telling people we aren't going to take your guns. Biden made a slip up saying that there would be no coal fired power plants built in this country and the campaign backed off of that statement immediately. Hillary ran as a centrist from the start, she didn't foresee she would have any real competition in the primaries. As soon as Obama had the nomination locked up he started moving to the center.

[MessiahRp]

51. Liberals don't want to take your guns either.

It's a bullshit comment and a right wing myth.

Oh and without the liberals/progressives, Obama loses to Hillary in the primaries. WE had as much to do with his election as anybody and he should be giving us some slots in the cabinet. I find this team of rivals where all he employs only right wingers and center-right DLCers to be bullshit. Everyone assumes he's getting all these people with different opinions than his own but since he himself is a centrist, everybody he has employed so far is pretty much of the same opinion as himself.

Rp

[doc03]

54. I have always heard in either party candidates

pander to the activists either the right or the left but to win the GE they move to the center. Show me a POTUS candidate in either party that ran far left or right that won an election. McCain was forced to pick Palin to energize the Fundy base I think if he would have picked Lieberman, Romney or Huckabee he would have done much better maybe even won. Ronald Reagan claimed to be a supporter of Unions, he was the only candidate that was the President of a Union. Bill Clinton ran as a centrist and was probably the best (Republican) President we ever had. George W. Bush was a Uniter not a Divider and a Compassionate Conservative.

[DireStrike]

108. So what you're saying is

Lie like a rug to win the election (as all the conservatives in your examples did) and then run off to the extreme end of government?

Seems to have worked for the conservatives, it took decades of continual rightward-march for people to realize there was any movement at all. I guess clinton in the middle slowed recognition, he only moved slightly rightward (compared to the others.)

[doc03]

55. Liberals don't want to take your guns! What are all these

posts about reviving that rediculous AWB from the liberals then?

[Chulanowa]

52. And yet 60% or so hold a majority of liberal positions

It's just that the word "liberal" has been turned into a dirty word in the last few dacades.

I have to wonder about someone who calls liberals extremists just by application of the term "liberal". like it or not, modern American politics is a binary equation - all that "center" has meant for the last fifteen is "whines while bending over for the right."

We've been living under an honest to goodness extrremist government for nearly a decade now. People have been kneaded and pressed into believing that this is "normal" and anything to the left is extremist - as you seem to have bought into. However, not only is that incorrect, but the damage here has been so severe that it might actually mean a turn towards actual extremity in the opposite direction to correct it. otherwise we're just putting a bandaid on a gaping chest wound.

[DireStrike]

106. So are you implying

liberal positions wouldn't provide a sensible energy and/or environmental policy?

I can understand the fear of gun-taking, it's not founded in rational thinking and so people can just "go crazy" where that is concerned. Can't really argue with it.

But I wonder why you brought up the other points in the sentence.

[snake in the grass]

63. I can't believe it's already starting to crystallize...

...but I suppose it was inevitable. For those hard-core lefties (to whom I count myself) who ferociously defended Obama on this board and elsewhere and who are already pissing and moaning about his choices, I have just one thing to say: Grow up, already! From the start there was only one candidate who represented true progressive change and that was Kucinich. Unfortunately, barely anyone takes him seriously and even some on our side ridicule him as a UFO-believing elf! Too bad this country still isn't evolved enough. After he dropped out I didn't care whether Hillary or Obama won the primaries; it was just important to get a (D) in the White House. I watched the flame wars on DU with total disgust and don't you believe for a second that it was only coming from Hillary supporters. If you really thought that Obama was going to be the super-liberal catalyst for change then you are simply naive. Now it's over with and we must work with what we have. There is no doubt in my mind that Obama will be a better POTUS than McCain by several orders of magnitude (and that was the only choice we had on Nov. 4th) but if you really want that liberal change in the U.S., I suggest you look in the mirror because the person you see there is where it is going to come from. Maybe next time you will be more inclined to fight for someone like Kucinich with the same ferocity you gave for Obama. Until then, suck it up and drive on.

[MessiahRp]

69. Actually had Kucinich not bowed out beforehand

I would have voted for him in the primaries. I was never 100% solid on Obama because I could see the facade he was putting on. It was liberals who got Obama past Hillary because they were tired of the Centrist, Right-Center bullshit that the last Clinton Administration pulled.

The problem is this guy is out there pushing all DLC and Republican options for every position in his cabinet and the Left has clearly been left out of the equation... AGAIN. It's sickening to think that we're so disregarded that we don't even get to be in any sort of advisory capacity but the Republicans who fucked EVERYTHING up the past 30 years, are given a place at the table.

That is why we are understandably, pissed.

Rp

[snake in the grass]

79. Perhaps we are the Democrat's version...

...of the Republican's evangelicals. They seek our votes at election time but regard us as the crazies in the basement otherwise. We'll have to wait and see what actually transpires when he takes office.

[Better Believe It]

40. Be todays standards Nixon and Haldeman would be considered centrists ....

or left of center on issues such as affirmative action.

[Forkboy]

76. Might want to rethink your choice of avatars then.

;)

[depakid]

84. The EXACT opposite is true

As the experience in 1994 aptly demonstrates.

Sadly, so called "centrists" are always more interested in parroting the conventional "wisdom" than looking to facts and evidence to formluate their beliefs.

Which is why 2010 may well mirror 1994- where progressives stayed home rather than helping with GOTV.

(this is particualrly true with respect to young voters, who are more easily disillusioned than folks who have been around the process for a bit longer).

[Zhade]

89. We're talking about liberals, not Stalinists and Maoists.

NT!

[Blue-Jay]

100. Define "far lefties", if you don't mind.

Maybe you can provide examples as well.

[ecstatic]

14. Progressive is in the eye of the beholder nt

[Breeze54]

24. No, it's a philosophy. .... 'Progressive's seek to give voice to the needs

'Progressive's seek to give voice to the needs and aspirations of all Americans

and to build a more just and humane society.'

[Sirveri]

18. The only really EXPERIENCED leftist staffers are Clinton era.

Unless you want folks from the Carter era who are likely all over 65 at this point.

Experience is what he needs at first, and if they lead him astray he can always fire and replace them. Not much of a big deal.

[Breeze54]

23. Experience isn't just people whom already served under Clinton.

It is the individuals over all experience. I don't think it's a criteria
that they have already served under a Democratic president in the White House.

[Zhade]

91. Uh, none of the appointees from the clinton era are even CLOSE to leftist.

In Europe, they'd rightly be called moderate - or rightwing.

[daninthemoon]

20. I'm hoping that the cabinet appointees will be the fascilitators for

a more progressive agenda. They will have the insider knowledge to help get President Obama's plans done. Directly under them should be people who know what changes are needed, especially in energy and the economy. I just hope that energy is the top priority. Nothing can be fixed while we're hooked to the oil.

[mzmolly]

26. I'm not sure who gets to define "actual progressive?"

Apparently it's Christopher Hayes?

[MessiahRp]

27. THANK YOU!

This is what I have been trying to say all fucking day. Not a single Progressive anywhere in his administration thusfar including Cabinet nominees. We deserve a voice as much or MORE than the center-right. They've had their voice for 30+ years and we have been ignored the entire way especially on the 99.9% of issues we've been correct about.

Rp

[latebloomer]

33. Only problem is

that Obama is not a progressive.

Sure it's amazing to have a black president, and one who's brilliant and charming.

But I'm not surprised to see him fill his staff with those who are totally aligned with the powers that be.

[riverwalker]

32. Samantha Power

is progressive AND qualified.

[gravity]

39. Obama doesn't want to appoint partisans

Most of the so called "progressives" in Congress focus too much on ideological wars instead of having pragmatic solutions to our problems. They might be able to get some legislation through, but it will divide this country up and give the Republicans tons of ammunition to use during the next election cycles.

If you want lasting progressive change, you have to rule from the center and offer pragmatic solutions. Getting constructive ideas from all sides of the aisle produces better legislation and will get the support from mainstream Americans. This will give us the political capital to win election years into the future, allowing us to make more progressive changes in the future.

[Better Believe It]

41. "ruling from the center" is an old nonsense cliche

"If you want lasting progressive change, you have to rule from the center and offer pragmatic solutions"

You mean like Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush?

Or do you mean like Lincoln and FDR during a crisis.

Funny .... never thought of old honest Abe as a centrist and I always thought that FDR was pretty partisan. Wonder if the southern slavocracy considered Lincoln him a centrist or radical Republican and if Wall Street thought FDR was non-partisan?

Define "center" and "non-partisan" please.

[gravity]

46. The middle 50% of Americans

You can have a liberal agenda, but you have to make your ideas appeal to the middle if you want to get the political support.

[Bjorn Against]

53. Well the majority of Americans do hold progressive values

Look at any poll on Universal Health Care and you will see that a strong majority supports a universal health care plan yet the "centrists" oppose it. The majority of Americans support stronger environmental regulations on business, the "centrists" oppose them. The majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq, the "centrists" helped Bush get us into Iraq. The majority of Americans oppose torture, yet the "centrists" voted for the Military Commisions act. The majority of Americans oppose shipping our jobs overseas, but the "centrists" support NAFTA. Progressives are much closer to the people on the issues than the so-called "centrists" are.

[Better Believe It]

75. You nailed it! Exactly!

[Skwmom]

97. Because centrists is code for Corporatists.

[Two Americas]

95. oh really?

That damned liberal agenda.

While the public is still moderate to conservative - in the sense of being cautious - about the cultural war issues, which were created by the right wing, and they are vulnerable to the propaganda of the right wingers, on all true political issues of power and economics 70% or more of the people are far to the Left of the moist dominant voices in the activist community and the party politicians.

I believe that the people would strongly support a left wing economic program, and that within that context we could also more easily win on the cultural war issues as well.

The reason that does not happen is because of the economic conservatives who dominate the party at all levels.

[Skwmom]

45. That is utter hogwash.

The Clintons ruled as "centrists" a.k.a. liberal-corporatists. They divided this country and demolished the Democratic Party.

You can be progressive and offer and carryout SMART SOLUTIONS. If the progressives had been listened to, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Newsflash: The majority of Americans agree w/a progressive agenda, not with the Corporatist, Neocon agenda which is destroying this country.

[gravity]

50. If the majority of Americans agree with a progressive agenda

Then you can accomplish it ruling from the center instead of playing partisan politics.

[Two Americas]

96. WTF?

"Playing partisan politics??" Who? Where?

How on earth could you stand for and advance left wing politics by "ruling from the center?" That makes absolutely no sense.

The public just overwhelmingly rejected the entire conservative economic program. Unfortunately, we have a domineering handful among our own ranks who are desperately trying to save the conservative economic program.

[Ken Burch]

64. Yeah. And JFK would've got us out of Vietnam in his SECOND term.

:eyes;

[Two Americas]

93. who would that be?

Whom are you accusing of "focusing too much on ideological wars instead of having pragmatic solutions to our problems?"

Who would have or does fit your stereotype?

Bernie Sanders? Paul Wellstone? Robert Kennedy? Hubert Humphrey? Stephanie Tubbs Jones? Marcy Kaptur? Rocky Anderson? Maxine Waters?

The reason why the left wing of the Democratic party does not succeed is because it is sabotaged by the conservatives within the party, not because they are "focused on ideology" nor because the people reject them nor their ideas.

Once the party is no longer dominated by those who hate the Left as much or more than they do the far right, things can change and the people's needs can be met. That is how traditional Democrats and pro-Labor people historically have seen this.

[burrowowl]

42. Obama is not a Progressive and

barely a Liberal, us the Voters will have to make him at least Liberal.
Kucinich, a Progressive, could very well fill any seat, he reads the BILLS and the CONSTITUTION!

[bunnies]

68. Are you daft?

progressive (n) - a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

Nope thats not Obama. Not at all. :eyes:

[Zhade]

92. FISA.

NT!

[stillcool]

43. How is it that people know..

who will be filling all the positions? And considering the fact that people are appointed to do the job they are appointed to do, who gets to judge the person's merit in that job? Do President's appoint jobs according to race, religion, gender, and degrees of liberal thinking? Is there a liberal horse-trainer that can be tapped to head FEMA? And what if someone is progressive on one issue and conservative on another? Are they persona non grata? All or nothing?

[mudesi]

48. My only hope is that HE will be the progressive

Maybe he's going to take all their input in the interests of hearing the "other side" because he is planning on moving far, far, to the left where he ought to be.

I can hope, right?

[political_Dem]

56. Thank goodness someone has said it.

I've been asked the same questions. If centrism, catering to the moderate Republicans and the "team of rivals" is change, what isn't?

[quakerboy]

57. It Could. Would you progressives want to be responsible for that?

[comrade snarky]

59. Yes, yes it would kill him

It would kill him to have anyone you consider a progressive on his team. He would actually die.
It would probably cost him a limb just being in the same room with Dennis Kucinich. Being in a building with Noam Chomsky would give him a nasty migraine.

Can we be done with these for a while? I mean for jeebus sake let's not extend any trust to the man, not when we could examine the minutia of every step he takes and bitch about everything anyone may not like.

Please, give it a rest. There will be plenty to complain about after he's been in office for a while. The more we whine in the blogosphere the more likely it is the media will cut any honeymoon short. We need a grace period this time. The country is in too bad a shape for us to begin cutting the legs out from under a Democratic president before he even takes office.

[Better Believe It]

61. Leave It Up To Hillary Clinton

"The country is in too bad a shape for us to begin cutting the legs out from under a Democratic president before he even takes office."

That's Hillary's job after Obama takes office.

Has Obama agreed to the conditions laid down by her negotiators?

[comrade snarky]

62. Lord you make me tired

Why don't you go complain about the sunshine or the new democratic majority in congress not acting quickly enough on your legislation of choice before they take office.
I'm no fan of Hillary but if Obama thinks she will be a good Sec of State I'm willing to give her a chance.

Way to avoid my point though, nicely done.

<edited for tpyo>

[davidpdx]

102. CS, people on DU are already tearing down Obama

and he hasn't even taken office yet. What a bunch of hypocrites!

"The people he's appointing aren't progressive enough."

"He's not appointing any openly gay people."

Jesus people get a grip! It makes me sick.

After 8 years of Bush we have a lot of work to do.

[Maru Kitteh]

67. Leave it to you

To find yourself fortunate enough to be bathed in the sun - bitching all the while that the rainbow gets the glory.

[Captain Hilts]

86. Fuck you and go read more history of the 90s. nt

[Doctor_J]

65. What do you mean? Clinton was once the Most Liberal Senator

so was Kerry (possible cabinet member), and so was Edwards (possible cabinet member)

[Honeycombe8]

71. Like who? Is there someone emminently qualified for something, who was passed over

in favor someone more centrist who is equally or less qualified?

It really is the President's vision that controls, if the President is strong-willed and uses his power. Unlike Bush, who was just a suit that Cheney used to push his neocon plans through. (Bush was more than happy to oblige.)

[Boudica the Lyoness]

74. The big post for me is Secretary of the Interior.

Has anyone heard who might be up for that?

[AtomicKitten]

77. I still think creating a Dept of Peace with Kucinich at the helm would be fabulous.

Impractical? Perhaps. But it would send a signal of good intentions to the rest of the planet.

[Liberal Progressive]

80. Reading one more whiny article about it might kill me.

If not Obama.

[leftofthedial]

82. apparently so

the gullible left, used again.

now we know what the religious right feels like.

[dpbrown]

83. DLC = Failure Why can't Obama see this?

As the OP points out, the 'left' "was right about Iraq, right about wage stagnation and inequality, right about financial deregulation, right about global warming and right about health care."

Keeping them out of the government is either a serious oversight, or a concerted effort to maintain the 'status quo.'

[Better Believe It]

98. Some Of The Main Proponents of Deregulation Will Have Top Gov't Posts

They may be highly educated and talented but have they completely rejected the failed economic policies they promoted in the past and what do they think needs to be done now?

[dpbrown]

99. Deregulation caused this mess

Healthy capitalism is good, unhealthy capitalism is piracy.

[harun]

107. He won't govern DLC'ish, but he will use them to get the job done.

[TexasObserver]

87. Why does Obama have his own opinion about who he should appoint?!

[Skwmom]

90. No, only incompetence is rewarded.

[happychatter]

101. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

I've decided that this is a good thread

Howard Dean was defined as radically left, for only ONE reason... he opposed a stupid fucking war

[Deep13]

105. Apparently, you're definition of a progressive is different than mine.

I don't think it means a knee-jerk radical.