Baffled and Perplexed by the arguments going on right now.

[Engineer4Obama]

Recently it seems as every cabinet pick comes out someone comes along with a No Change, Clinton III, or evil DLC (Still not exactly sure what DLC stands for) corporate scum way of discrediting them. And I understand the need for scrutiny, but the way the logic used in these arguments confuses me.

Guilt by association - how ironic that merely two weeks after the Bill Ayers attacks finally ceased we would decide that anyone who was every deemed talented enough to serve in the Clinton administration must have all the same views as Bill, regardless of whether they endorsed his wife or not in the primaries.

An all or nothing mentality seems to have sunk into many of the posters here. The democratic party has long argued that issues are not Black and White, most are various shades of gray. A good example of an administration that sees the world as Black and White, as evil vs good, as with us or against us is the Bush Administration.

The final thing that seems to be confusing me is the "Obama isn't a progressive" idea because his agenda seems rather progressive to me...

Anti-Iraq War from the beginning, Pro-Union, environmentalist, Pro-Choice, Pro-Civil Rights, Pro-Public Education, Pro-Economic Regulation, Pro-Health Care Reform. On these views (and I have read his stance on them) he appears quite progressive. Is the new requirement on being recognized as a progressive "Will prosecute Bush & Cheney?" I believe Obama is a progressive who will GOVERN from the center. That he will allow compromises in order to get things done.

Look I'm sorry if this has offended anyone. This post is in no way suggesting that all of Obama's choices should be given a rubber stamp of approval, nor is it attempting to somehow silence dissent.

"Look I've been in this business long enough to know, if you're dumb surround yourself with smart people, if you're smart surround yourself with smart people who disagree with your" -Issac Jaffe Sports Night

[liberalmuse]

1. Yeah, yeah. I love you.

:hug:

You don't know how wonderful it is for someone like myself to see a post like yours. Thank you!

A lot of DUers feel like we do. I'm sick to DEATH of this shit, and I am starting to become less than cordial towards anyone who posts the, 'This isn't the change we need' BS after each and every goddamned rumored appointment. IMHO, PE Obama is doing a smash up job so far in his transition if rumor is to be believed. He is going to be one of this nation's greatest Presidents. I've been doing a lot of reading about Kennedy and Obama is impressing me even more when I make the comparisons.


This is coming from someone who knew Bush would be a colossal fuck up before he was appointed, and that gives me the right to judge any prospective Presidents from here on out. (Okay, I'm kidding.)

[Coexist]

7. I agree - I've gotten shorter

and possibly rude as my patience has run out. My first thought was to just take my time elsewhere, but I like it here, so I began pushing back.

[cliffordu]

2. I completely agree with your post!

K&R.

:hi:

[DJ13]

3. I think (rightfully so) that liberals who invested 2 years in getting Obama elected

...have every right to keep pressure on him not to moderate his positions too far from the promises he made in his campaign.

You have to admit theres a real lack of actual big L liberals so far chosen to serve in Obama's Cabinet.

Even though they trust Obama, and they understand that no matter who is working for him ultimately he has the final say, that lack of liberal representation working for him is a worrisome sign to many people.

Sure Obama doesnt want (or need) to scare moderates and independents by loading his Cabinet down with left wing think tank types at the start of his administration, but some representation of those who formed his original base would be a nice gesture by our new President dont you think?

[Engineer4Obama]

4. I agree

I think that there are still a lot of positions to be filled and I'm sure there will be some big L types in there.

Who would you like to see appointed?

[Sebastian Doyle]

5. The Liberal appointments should be in the two areas that the right wing and DLC

both got completely WRONG.

And that would be anything to do with economics or foreign policy.

Those are the two areas that both republicans and republicans posing as democrats (DLC) have proven they cannot handle. The last 28 years being evidence.

[Engineer4Obama]

8. Who would you like to see in those spots?

[stillcool]

9. Who would you like to see...

in these positions? I mean, who has the level of knowledge needed about global financial business interests, and the intricacies with mediating among all the nations of the world? I'm sure there are some highly qualified liberals, but I don't know their names, nor do I know if they would pass the confirmation process.

[Sebastian Doyle]

12. Richardson as Secretary of State would be the most obvious

He's hardly a bleeding heart liberal, but he definitely would represent a break from the PNAC/Likud insanity currently driving the foreign policy. Hillary has been an enthusiastic supporter of these policies, even going as far as to vote for the Kyl-LIEberman ammendment, which provided Chimpy with an excuse to (as Hillary herself put it) "Obliterate Iran". Consequently, I don't see how she represents a change in foreign policy. I don't see it that way, and I doubt the rest of the world will either. So I sincerely hope that the rumors of her being Secretary of State (and that is all they are right now) prove false in the end.

On economics there are definitely people out there who are not supply side, trickle down, reverse-Robin Hood, let's keep on raping the middle class like we have for the last 28 years types. Robert Reich being one that I've mentioned in many threads. Again, whether he's considered a "liberal" or not, I don't know. But his views on economics are certainly far more in that direction than the Wall Street sympathizers in the DLC. There's a guy named Ravi Batra who's on Thom Hartmann's show all the time. He's had a pretty good track record of forecasting the economy, unfortunately not enough people are paying attention to him. I believe he's an economics professor, though I don't remember which school.

The Attorney General thing - I was hoping for someone like John Edwards (before the tabloid scandal) who would bring down the Bush Crime Family once and for all, and attack the corporations by enforcing existing laws that other administrations have ignored, restoring needed regulations that other administrations have eliminated, and any new regulations that may be neccessary. You hear a lot of talk about the "Fairness Doctrine", but the bigger problem is who OWNS the media. And the media didn't get so horribly right wing until it was consolidated into the hands of people like Murdoch, GE, and AOLTimeCNNWarner. Can Eric Holder be that guy? His involvement in the pardon of Marc Rich and the defense of the Chiquita death squads certainly aren't promising indicators. :evilfrown:

[stillcool]

15. Well Bill Richardson and Robert Reich...

are from the Clinton administration so they obviously will not pass muster. Of course Robert Reich is an Obama advisor, and who knows if he will yet be tapped for a position, and Bill Richardson will have a role in the Obama Administration. I doubt John Edwards could pass any liberal test, and at this point is probably as likely as Eliot Spitzer to have a place in the Administration. As far as Eric Holder being a defense attorney, and again working in the Clinton Administration, he is obviously persona non grata.

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. It doesn't matter to me whether or not they grow their hair long, wear tie dye

.....smoke dope at their desk, wear Birkenstocks, or own as many Grateful Dead albums as I do. What DOES matter is that they realize that the policies of the last 28 (not just 8) years have been WRONG for this country. That's what I want. That's what I thought "CHANGE" meant, because Obama said as much himself. "Bottom up, not top down". "Main Street not Wall Street" etc.

So whether you want to label such people "Liberals" or not, let's go with what's really important and do what's fucking RIGHT for the American people.

Why is that too much to ask for?

[stillcool]

19. As far as 'change'..

is concerned, I think the part about 'competent' government might be key here. The list of his advisors over the last 2 years might have given some people a clue of what that 'change' meant. Especially the part about a wide variety of opinions, from a diverse background, the only thing constant being intelligence and expertise in their fields. Where is the list of qualified 'liberals' who would make it through the confirmation hearings, and 'should' be given specific positions? Who's cabinet is this, and to what purpose are these positions given?

[Engineer4Obama]

25. I truly believe some people would not be happy with any of his picks regardless

Your post seems to indicate you think this entire cabinet won't be taking any orders or direction from the man at the top. I personally have a hard time believe this most of these people endorsed Obama a long time ago meaning they agree with the direction he wants to take this country. People are capable of changing their minds.

[Sebastian Doyle]

27. DLC'ers by nature are opposed to most actual Democratic principles

So yes, I'd be very skeptical if any of them were enthusiastic about moving this country in the proper direction.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. I like that.. "republicans posing as democrats (DLC)" nt

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. hiccup

**server burp**

[stillcool]

10. Who determines "Liberal"?

Is it a blanket report card issued by a group, where a person is given a pass/fail as it relates to every position they've ever taken on any issue, or are they rated according to the job they are appointed to do?
What would say the Secretary of Defense need to have said/done in order to pass muster? What about Congress? Should full fledged liberals keep going through the process until one can be found that can make it through the congressional confirmation process?

[Clio the Leo]

11. Are you kidding me! The man hasn't selected any Vulcans!!!

How can we NOT be upset!!

I'm going down to that voter place tomorrow and see if I can get a refund or something!

[Sebastian Doyle]

13. Spock for Secretary of Logic!!!

[laugle]

28. LOL..........levity is good............

[eshfemme]

17. Color me confused by all this too.

I kinda wish that DU would stop this because it's creating a "Boy who cried wolf" situation. All this concern trolling is making me tune out and what if a legitimate concern is brought up but people who have grown inured to all the endless BS automatically tune it out because "Oh look there they go again with their the sky is falling!" So yeah, I'm kinda exhausted already following all this in-fighting and it doesn't bode well because I want to be there for important fights. Not waste stamina enduring all this petty shit.

[ShadowLiberal]

18. I agree, people not every cabinet pick will perform as you expect, calm down

The fact is not everyone chosen for the cabinet will do what you think they will.

Some of them will surprise you and do a great job, and push through more things you agree with then you thought.

And some of them will disappoint some.

And just because Hillary made some bad decisions in the past people here don't agree with, or is too moderate for some, doesn't mean that she'll do a horrible job.

One good comparison of someone in Hillary's situation as secretary of state is William H. Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state, and one of his biggest rivals for the party's nomination.

The first few weeks in his presidentcy Seward wasn't so great, he still wanted to be president, and acted like president. But soon after that he got over it, and he ended up becoming one of Linconln's closest and most valuable allies in the white house.

Then there was Lincoln's first secretary of war, sure he seemed like a good pick at the time, but the guy proved to a totally corrupt bastard, who made a profit while getting the government to buy very shoddy and low quality supplies for the war.

[PM7nj]

20. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I've been going crazy.

[Vektor]

21. I'm really just so incredibly happy to see this wonderful, positive historic win...

for Barack Obama and the Democratic party that I'm not ready to cherry pick and split hairs over cabinet assignments.

I'm still rejoicing.

This far, I trust Obama's judgment and leadership, and while I do believe that we should always hold our leaders accountable, and have a checks and balances system firmly in place at all times, I am thrilled to see Dems at the helm, and I'll reserve criticism until I see how this administration and this cabinet performs their job duties.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

22. Your post is spot-on.

There is a lot of pent up frustration after watching this country be usurped over the last 1, 2, 3 decades. Nerves are frazzled from battling the propaganda that has inundated the electorate. Weariness and depression evince themselves in some of the vitriolic posts.

Many of us are impatient... and intolerant of witnessing so much abuse. We NEED to get it right this time. We are VERY heavily invested.

Obama has promised us much, and as he says, it is the people that must create the change, in concert with the ideas and ideals he has espoused. We have worked hard to get to this point, and will continue to strive to achieve our goals... but that can only be attained with elected representatives that are mindful of our voices. Reps that seem to be too heavily entrenched in 'old culture' of greed and abuse are a potential threat.

Your OP is beneficial in pointing out the need to stay focused and realistic. 'Progress' will necessitate finding a balance of experience, action, and shared ideals. I am confident that our new national leader will implement a team that is more than capable of attaining that balance. Obama is very shrewd manager.

[Uzybone]

23. Hear hear

"Guilt by association - how ironic that merely two weeks after the Bill Ayers attacks finally ceased we would decide that anyone who was every deemed talented enough to serve in the Clinton administration must have all the same views as Bill, regardless of whether they endorsed his wife or not in the primaries. "


Excellent point.

[KakistocracyHater]

24. It's not guilt-by-association

it's guilt by behaviour. It's a big picture thing that looks simplistic b&w to you; laws have been broken, subpoenas ignored, incrementally destroying democracy itself. They are hoping you won't notice, & Red-Teaming is a sign of health, inspite of what everyone may feel/say.

[bunnies]

26. If I could rec this post 1000 times I would.

And welcome to DU. :hi:

[Egnever]

29. Well said

its been quite a spectacle here lately.

[AtomicKitten]

30. K&R

[TexasObserver]

31. Posters bring their personal bundle of emotional issues to every discussion.

There are a healthy number of people (and posters here) who are not happy unless they are miserable.

That accounts for most of the nail biting and nastiness.