We do Obama no favors with our silence...

[Junkdrawer]

There are some here who are proffering a childish notion of Presidential politics. They liken Obama to the weary parent who's children keep asking "Are we there yet? Are we there yet?".

Not how it works.

Presidents, at least non-figurehead Presidents, resolve conflicts with competing pressure groups. And I guarantee you that the Right wing of our party, the Corporate wing, is exerting HEAVY and CONSISTENT pressure right now. And from what I'm seeing, the Left wing of the party is either non-existent or remarkably silent.

The result will be this: even if Obama wants to move to the Left (and that's up to question) he won't be able to unless there's credible pressure from the Left.

Our problem is this: we were caught flat-footed by the election. We had no list of names, and no credible threat of the loss of support if our candidates were ignored.

We're seeing the result: Obama is moving to the Right. And that will continue as long as we remain silent. And if we stay silent, it won't be Obama's fault.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Dear god. Are we there yet? I dont' think I can stand any more of this.

[NoPasaran]

73. Don't make me turn this car around!

[populistdriven]

111. No! We Can't Stop Here!!!! Here's WHY:

[rosesaylavee]

114. Ha!

I have to tell you, I have been laughing at your pic for about 15 minutes now. Thank you for the great laugh to start the day!

[populistdriven]

119. thats awesome! glad to help cheer up your day :)

[Midlodemocrat]

2. Oh, this is going to go well.

:popcorn:

[LostinVA]

3. Give me some, Pookie

:popcorn:

[Midlodemocrat]

4. Sure. Would you like a drink to go with it?

:beer:

[LostinVA]

5. Yummie!

[sufrommich]

6. "Obama is moving to the Right".

He's not the freakin' president yet!! In what way is he moving to the right? What has he said or done that has moved him to the right? What has he even said or done that is any different then what he said he would do when he was campaigning?

[Shiver]

11. And now we wait....

...for someone to mention the Bush tax cuts, either forgetting or having never known that the plan always was to let them expire...

[Two Americas]

56. so what?

He was "not president yet" during the primaries, either. I don't understand these complex formulas for when people may and may not express dissent. They seem to be continually evolving.

The OP is trying to make the point that dissent is NOT disloyal or destructive to the administration, rather it will strengthen it.

Just because people raise questions about statements or actions by Obama, that does not mean they are denying that he is saying or doing anything that is any different then what he said he would do when he was campaigning.

I don't get this "you made your bed now lie in it" logic. Elections are not shopping trips, where we male our personal choice from the merchandise offered and then must live with our purchase and not complain about it. Even in that context, I think that consumers have rights, including the right to complain. But citizens are not consumers, and politicians are not products, despite the efforts by the right wing propagandists to get us all to look at things that way. Besides, we heard the "lesser of two evils" arguments continually during the campaign, in its various guises including "at least they are a lot better than the Republicans!" If we selected the lesser of two evils, does that mean we must cease seeing it that way after the election? We also heard that we should not criticize anyone during the campaign, because we needed to win, but that after the election we would all be "holding his feet to the fire." I question the honesty and sincerity of those making those arguments now.

We have a moral responsibility and a civic duty to express dissent, at all times, no matter how wonderful any particular politician may or may not be, and regardless of whether or not the opinions we express make others uncomfortable.

In a representative democracy, the definition of a good politician is one who listens to and responds to the needs of the people. That cannot very well happen if we are all trusting and obedient and silent.

[sufrommich]

Except that Obama hasn't taken any actions yet. What is there

to hold his feet to the fire about,exactly?What action are you dissenting against?

[Two Americas]

67. I am not dissenting

I am defending the right of others to dissent.

The one thing I spoke out about was Emmanuel saying "we welcome the ideas and concepts" of the Republicans remarks.

But it doesn't matter what you say, whether you criticize Obama or not, or if you merely defend freedom of speech for those who are criticizing. You get attacked either way.

Obama may be a great president. That can only happen, though, in a climate of free and open discussion and tolerance for dissent. In a representative democracy, the politicians represent us, it is not our job to represent them.

[sufrommich]

75. No one is being kept from dissenting here on DU.

You aren't "defending" freedom of speech because an absence of the freedom would have to occur first.You are free to post your criticisms,others are free to disagree and say so. The solution to others disagreeing with a post would be to limit threads to posters who agree with you,giving you a real reason to "defend" freedom of speech.

[Two Americas]

85. yes they are

We should all be familiar with the way this is being done, since the right wing has used the same tactics against all of us with such effectiveness.

Ad hominem attacks are suppressive of freedom of speech and dissent. By discrediting the speaker, the listeners are encouraged to dismiss out of hand the things the speaker is saying.

Judging the group by the individual and the individual by the group is suppressive of freedom of speech and dissent. How often do we hear hate radio people say "well you are a liberal, so of course you would say that." In other words, what the person "is" should cause us to discount what the person says. And what defines a person as a "liberal?" Anyone who disagrees with the far right wing. "Oh you never believed in Obama" - with the implication that therefore nothing you say is credible or sincere - is something I have seen more than once just in the last 24 hours.

Loyalty tests are suppressive of freedom of speech and dissent. "Why do you hate America" is not much different than "why do you hate Obama."

"Now is not the time" is suppressive of freedom of speech and dissent. The right wingers say "while we are at war." Many here say "until we get them elected" and now "until they take office." There are endless excuses for telling people that it is not the right time, or the right place, or the right issue to express dissent.

"I am toired of hearing that" is suppressive of freedom of speech and dissent.

In each of these cases, rather than debating the merits of the message, the messenger is undermined, ridiculed, dismissed or otherwise placed under suspicion or hostility.

[Two Americas]

87. a couple of good examples

Just today, I saw quotes from George Carlin and Michael Moore attacked these suppressive tactics.

"Michael Moore is a phony and we should ignored him when he criticizes capitalism, because he makes a lot of money."

"George Carlin was just nut case, so we should ignore his comments about capitalism."

No one is directly retraining wither of them from speaking, of course. Instead, the tactic is to poison the well, disrupt people's ability to fairly consider the opinions that the disrupter objects to. It could be argued that this is the greatest threat to dissent and freedom of speech, because it is so covert and dishonest and difficult to combat, and because it is so effective.

[No Elephants]

93. Remarks like that do not disrupt any thinking person's ability to consider any opinion fairly, nor

are remarks like that difficult to combat. To the contrary, they are very easy to combat.

[Two Americas]

96. of course they do

Not merely in theory, but in practical realty as well. That is what they are intended to do - prejudice people and inflame passions.

[No Elephants]

84. Once again, free speech is defnined as agreement. People who are "attacking" you are disagreeing

with you. That is THEIR right of free speech. It is people who start threads trying to make sure they don;t criticized for what they say--threads like this-- who are the ones really seeking to interfere with freedom of speech. It is not enough that they get tp express their opinion. They want those who disagree with them to shut up and so they start threads like this.

[Two Americas]

89. not quite

Disagreeing with a person's argument is one thing. I would like to see more of that, and have no objection to it.

I welcome attacks on my opinions. It is rare. I am not complaining about people disagreeing with me, nor with them disagreeing with anyone else. I am objecting to smears and personal attacks - "whiner, purist, disloyal" - and stereotypes - "all those criticizing Obama are...(fill in the blank, often more ad hominem attacks.)"

It is not "freedom of speech" to attack others (not their opinions, but their person or character or guilt-by-association alleged membership in some group) nor it is free speech to shout down others, literally or figuratively, nor to unfairly and maliciously prejudice the audience against the speaker.

I would be surprised if anyone here did not know exactly what I am talking about, since everyone objects to these tactics when they are the target of them. Freedom of speech means seeing it when you are on the other side, and defending the right to freedom of speech for those we don't like or don't want to hear.

There is no need for this much confusion and controversy about this. Simply compare the two statements below -

"I think you are expressing a liberal point of view there, and I disagree with it in this specific way."

"I think you are a liberal, and since liberals hate America and are just trying to tear it down, no one should ever pay any attention to what you and your kind are saying."

[FlaGranny]

77. Express dissent about what?

He hasn't DONE anything yet. Are you expressing dissent about what you think he is thinking he might do? When he takes is first action and you don't like it - then express dissent. This is just getting crazy.

[Two Americas]

97. when

There is no right or wrong time for dissent.

If someone said "I hate it the way he vetoed those bills" before he had taken office, that would be crazy, yes. No one is doing that.

What is it specifically that someone has said that you think people should not say?

Why can people not give their opinions about cabinet selections? About things he says?

[FlaGranny]

116. I guess you can

"dissent" all you want, but I'll wait until Obama actually does something he said he would not do or vice versa. He, so far, is doing exactly as he promised, and for that I am very pleased. What did he promise? He promised to gather the most knowledgeable and experienced people in the country of all persuasions, liberal, conservative, and in between. He said his first consideration was their expertise in their fields. He said he would listen to everyone. Then he said it was his responsibility to MAKE THE DECISION. Since he has not completed assembling all those he wants to listen to, he has not made any decisions. He HAS told us what outcome he wants to achieve. He, as yet, HAS NOT explained OR decided which route he might take to do this. When he finishes assembling his advisers, listens to advice from all sides, and starts to make decisions about how to implement his agenda, we might have a complaint, or we might not. We don't know yet and we may not know until January 20, 2009.

[riqster]

7. I must confess, I haven't noticed a whole lot of reticence

...from the Left, Right, or Center. Quite the opposite.

Me, I figure we hired the guy for this temp job of 'President', let's see what he does when he punches in. We can always fire him when his contract's up if we don't like the way he works.

[blm]

8. The squeaky wheel gets oiled. The right CAN squeak loudly - corpmedia has their mics in front of 'em

almost 90% of the time.

[Occam Bandage]

13. The difference is that when the right gets a bone thrown at them, they howl in delight

instead of complaining twice as loud.

[blm]

The right is practiced at getting what they want AND get 90% of the mic time from corpmedia.

If you never noticed that difference......

[Occam Bandage]

9. I think that means we need to whine a lot about everything, without even

stopping to wonder whether we've actually been affronted or wronged. It's best to give the perception that we are a shrieking, unappeased and unappeasable mob that responds to a gift-wrapped treat and a slap in the face with equal howls of outrage. Only by convincing the Democratic party that we will always screech as loudly as we can, full of empty anger regardless of their actions, will we truly manage to marginalize ourselves.

[Junkdrawer]

21. Whining is not what we need. We need organized, coordinated action...

At this time, that action should have been a list of strong candidates for every cabinet position and a way to get those names in front of Obama.

But I'm afraid that that boat has sailed.

[Occam Bandage]

23. If uncoordinated, diffuse whining is not what we need,

then the "we gotta hold his feet to the fire" DUers might want to rethink their strategies.

[Shiver]

28. Show me this list

I'm curious. Can they all be confirmed by the Senate? Do they all want a Cabinet position? Do they have a track record of getting things done?

[Junkdrawer]

32. I'm point out that the list is missing. Individuals with families and jobs...

have zero chance of compiling such a list.

There are literally thousands on the Right whose full-time jobs are pressuring Obama for what they want. We need folks on the Left who can do the same. Kinda like CommonCause on steroids.

[Shiver]

94. While not disputing what you say...

... you are assuming he'll listen to them. Obama has shown he can think for himself.

The non-cabinet advisers (which have more access to the President than the Cabinet) he has selected include some very intelligent and active progressives, which I believe is his strategy - easily confirmed Cabinet that can get stuff done and attract media attention ("Oh, he's appointing such a centrist Cabinet!") while the White House staff/advisers, which do not need to be confirmed, slip under the radar. Thus he avoids the "He's moving to far to the left!" battlecry.

That's how I see it, at least :)

[QueenOfCalifornia]

59. The reason that

the Iraq fiasco has gone on for ever is our PEACE movement has not been heard - the media ignores us (I am speaking for me and my peace movement peers) We are organized way more than people realize but when we get a hundred thousand people to march on a given day and the media is not there to capitulate we are unheard and unseen. We have a big, fat media problem.

I am seeing Obama move to the right more and more - I am not just writing here about his appointments but now he is saying that the tax cuts for the wealthy will be left in place. :wtf:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/us/politics/24transition.html?bl&ex=1227762000&en=ab700f6adb9c70e5&ei=5087%0A

Oh - and for those who believe that speaking up is wrong... I beg you to remember how you may have been called "unpatriotic" for not supporting the last 8 years of dumbass.

[No Elephants]

80. Obama has several websites, so getting things to his peeps is not a problem. Why would your

recommendations be better than the people he and his transition team have been choosing, though? They may be different, but why would they be more worthy than the people the pros are choosing?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Moving To The Right? ROFLMAO!!!!!! What Malarkey.

Such melodramatic nonsense.

[FrenchieCat]

12. What did he do now?

[Occam Bandage]

15. Announced his plans to follow through on a campaign promise.

The bastard.

[FrenchieCat]

18. how controversial!

seems like we'd be happy that he actually meant what he said.

[JuniperLea]

52. Why I never! He keeps doing that!

There oughta be a law!

Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

[No Elephants]

95. As President? Absolutely nothing. Apparently, that means he's moved to the right.

[Skidmore]

14. Maybe you should just get arch supports to deal with that

flat foot problem.

I have no idea what your problemis.

[Junkdrawer]

16. PS: Those that represent the Right will, of course, want our silence...

No one wants competition.

[Shiver]

22. Are you accusing people who disagree with you...

...of being secret agents of the right?

[Junkdrawer]

24. On an anonymous Internet discussion board? Never. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

26. The GOP has nothing better to do than troll DU, apparently.

[Shiver]

27. Darn, he's figured us out

Central Command will not be happy, Agent 77... :eyes:

[bunnies]

17. What silence?!

Is this you being silent? Poor thing. :eyes:

[Peacetrain]

98. That is what I was just wondering.. what silence.. it has been non stop

[gcomeau]

19. We do him no favors with hysterics either.

He appointed people who worked for Clinton... he's betrayed us!

He didn't stomp on Lieberman... he's spineless! Oh god no that's not change we can believe in! Woe is us!

He put someone in charge of administering a program who once said something I didn't like! Obama is abandoning our principles!!!!

Credible pressure on policy issues is one thing. If you want to lobby for single payer by all means get out and DO it. If you want to turn the screws on legislation to repair the damage to civil rights done over the last 8 years then hell yes speak up. But anyone who comes in here spouting things like I opened this message with is an idiot. And they're going to get called an idiot for it.

If Obama tried building an administration with people who never worked for the Clinton administration it would be a year or two before all the people he appointed figured out how things even worked let alone got anything done. If he stepped on Lieberman it would have been personally satisfying but it would have been at the cost of REDUCING the likelyhood of passing the legislation on the policies the people here are supposed to be primarily concerned with enacting. That takes Senate votes, of which there are a somewhat limited amount to go around. Deliberately alienating one of them for no material gain is stupid, we can oust Lieberman next election and until then we get him to vote how we want him to vote as much as possible. And for the love of all that is holy the people Obama appoints to administer different departments are administering them. Obama sets the policy direction, they execute it. If he's smart (and anyone here who doesn't know the answer to that should consider sterilizing themselves for the good of the species) then he's picking people based on their ability to get things done. Not on whether or not they're going to agree with every word that comes out of his mouth, but whether they will make it happen when so instructed.

Now, if once he's inaugurated those words coming out of his mouth are instruction to actually DO things we don't like then sure, take a deep breath then start screaming. But most of what I've seen so far is people going into tantrum mode over nothing substantial.

[Occam Bandage]

25. This should be an OP. nt

[PassingFair]

29. You think this OP is "hysterics"?

You are the one who is sounding unhinged.

"For the love of all that is holy..."

[gcomeau]

34. I think most...

... of the whining and bitching I've seen here for the last week or two has been hysterics. I was addressing the same SUBJECT as the OP was rather obviously addressing. He was pretty clearly taking exception to the people getting smacked down for it lately, I was pointing out most people getting smacked down for it deserved it in the first place since they weren't engaged in the kind of constructive criticism he appeared to be defending.

I have no particular problem with the OPs general point, I just don't think it applies to the majority of what has been focused on as the subject of complaint here recently.

[PassingFair]

55. ...and I think people have every right to be alarmed by

the DLC roster he is surrounding himself with.

Just because you like the situation doesn't make
anyone who disagrees with you "hysterical".

I, too, hope he is getting input from progressive
sources as well.

[gcomeau]

65. Who exactly said I "liked" the situation?

It wasn't me. Whether I "like" the situation has nothing to do with the substance of what I posted, or my evaluation of the hysterical quality of many of the objections to Obama's actions so far. People not liking something I like doesn't make them hysterical and I never even attempted to argue that it did. Basing those objections on idiotic criteria and getting all shrill and hysterical about it makes it hysterical.

[PassingFair]

66. I haven't seen any "shrill" posts.

What I have seen is "get over it" and
"STFU" responses to any one who doesn't
like the way his cabinet is shaping up.

[gcomeau]

69. Then read more, you're missing a lot. -nt

[H2O Man]

39. Valid point.

It is interesting to see the curious response to a good, rational OP.

[Junkdrawer]

40. Thanks.

:hi:

[davidpdx]

57. I agree with OB, this should be an OP

Temper tantrum is a good description of what some people have been doing on DU for the last week. People need to wait and see what he does once he gets in office.

The truth is that the right wing may not end up being our worst enemy....it may be Democrats themselves.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

72. The OP

does not sound "hysterical" to me.

I wonder why any kind of questioning of Obama is bad. Did you question anything that Clinton did? How about Bush or Raygun?

yes, I know Obama is not in office yet but he is doing some pretty high profile press conferences.

There is nothing wrong with questioning a leader. It is when there is no questioning that things turn pretty damned bad.

and so I don't have to say this again - I am very pleased that Obama is the next president. I don't find his appointments to be a problem really - I do think he may want to think about capitulating to the left and not play center field through the whole game.

edit to fix grammar or typo - I think it was both :P

[gcomeau]

78. Sigh...

The OP does not sound "hysterical" to me.

Read reply #34. Then...

I wonder why any kind of questioning of Obama is bad. Did you question anything that Clinton did? How about Bush or Raygun?

...re-read my post. You clearly didn't finish the first time since I said nothing remotely resembling "any kind of questioning of Obama is bad", and in fact said the opposite in my closing statement.

[H2O Man]

20. Agree & disagree.

I think that it is important for people to lobby the Obama administration-in-the-making. And Certainly, the right-wing of the democratic party has had a greater opportunity to do so already, for Barack Obama is in Washington, DC and inhabits a world where the conservative democrats have far more power to make their voices heard.

However, I do not think that progressive/liberal democrats are being shut out. I think that things are going about as well as could be expected.

[EFerrari]

61. That's a fair assessment and one I agree with. n/t

[Two Americas]

109. agreed

Well said.

[midnight]

30. If you were to compile a list of those great candidates from the

left what names would you like to see?

[Junkdrawer]

35. Howard Dean, RFK Jr., and Ray McGovern have been mentioned...

but, as I said in Post #32 above, I'm not in a position to compile such a list.

Besides, that boat has sailed. We're going to get a Right-leaning cabinet. That hurts, but the game for direction is far from over.

[Occam Bandage]

36. RFK Jr is a convicted criminal and a believer in woo-woo pseudoscience.

The movement to push him as EPA chief was dumb. If the left wants to push candidates, it should probably see if they're qualified first.

Also, who so far is "right-leaning?" Everyone he's picked so far is either liberal or center-left.

[H2O Man]

42. Good choices.

I believe that Robert is likely to get the EPA position. There are, of course, always going to be a few people who attack Robert, just as there are a few attacking you here, rather than making rational contributions to the discussion that you started.

[Two Americas]

110. a great representative is what is important

Office holders represent the people.

The best ones, in terms of performance, have been those who were also under the most pressure and who responded to that pressure. It is not a matter of names for me, not is it about the politicians at all. It is about our role and what we are going to do.

We don't work to get Democratic party politicians so we can "give them a chance to do the job" and not interfere with them in any way, we do so in the hope that our voices will be heard, that we will have the opportunity to express our views and have them get a fair hearing from the officials, and more importantly from the public.

Had the Abolitionists or the Labor leaders, or people in the Civil Rights movement said "OK we have elected the better of the two parties, the best we can hope for. Let's give them a chance and be quiet now and not criticize them" no progress would have ever been accomplished.

The people play a critical role in this, and we all play a critical role in influencing the people and in pressuring our elected representatives. That is how a representative democratic works.

[amborin]

31. Obama was ALWAYS on the right, smears from rethugs notwithstanding: good article from The Nation:

"One year ago, when Barack Obama said it was time to turn the page, his campaign declaration seemed to promise a fresh start for Washington. I, for one, failed to foresee Obama would turn the page backward. The president-elect's lineup for key governing positions has opted for continuity, not change.

Virtually all of his leading appointments are restoring the Clinton presidency, only without Mr. Bill. In some important ways, Obama's selections seem designed to sustain the failing policies of George W. Bush.

Barack Obama is too smart to allow the ideas of the past to define his presidency. But treasury secretary-designee Timothy Geithner was an architect, and is now an enabler, of the unfolding crisis.

This election will transform American life in ways we cannot yet fully imagine. Let us congratulate ourselves on being alive at such a promising moment.
This is not the last word and things are changing rapidly. But Obama's choices have begun to define him. His victory, it appears, was a triumph for the cautious center-right politics that has described the Democratic party for several decades. Those of us who expected more were duped, not so much by Obama but by our own wishful thinking...."

<snip>

<http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081208/greider_web>

[gcomeau]

37. This is exactly what I was talking about...

...in reply #19. The person writing that article has nothing of real substance to criticize Obama on since he hasn't taken office yet or taken action on a single actual policy decision, so he's going to bitch about the policy decisions he THINKS he's going to make based on who he's appointing as department administrators. Which is stupid. You select those people for their ability to execute the job, not for their ability to agree with your opinions.

[amborin]

46. Obama's aleady started to make decisions....this is the beginning of his

term in that sense

it's nonsense to say we keep mute until after he's sworn in;

you select people based on their past record and their philosophy as ways to assess what they will do in a job

[gcomeau]

48. Yes, he has.

And people are criticizing them stupidly.

If you think he appointed an incompetent, then sure, say so.

if you think he appointed someone who has an opinion you don't like I don't give a shit as long as they do the job Obama tells them to do, and are capable of doing it well. Period. They aren't setting the policy direction of the government, they are carrying it out. It's a fairly simple concept that a lot of people seem to be having great difficulty with... due in large part no doubt to the fact that for the last eight years the chimp in chief has been a complete ineffective and we're not used to people actually directing the government in a coherent and effective manner, but that's something we should probably be trying to get over now.

[amborin]

63. you have a very naive understanding of politics; tigers can't change their stripes easily

[gcomeau]

68. And you appear to have no understanding of basic management principles.

The boss sets policy. The employees execute policy. It isn't complicated.

I have a co-worker. This co-worker has spent the last month pursuing an engineering problem that is, frankly, a total waste of time and energy. I COULD call them an incompetent and brand them as useless for the rest of their career for spending their time that way if that was the only thing I wanted to base my evaluation on.

OR... I could realize he's been doing it because the boss told him to. And if we got a NEW boss who told him to do something more useful he'd actually be one hell of a productive employee.

Get it? We have a new boss in the White House. The employees are being given new instructions. What jobs they did before because the old boss told them to is nowhere near as important as how well they can do the job the new boss tells them to. And THAT is what Obama is almost certainly basing his decision making process on. And since he's in a hell of a lot better position to make that evaluation than anyone here is people who insist on launching into screaming whinging tantrums over decisions they have NO IDEA of the reasoning behind and have ZERO basis to evaluate since they haven't taken effect and produced any results to whine about yet... are IDIOTS.

[amborin]

71. my point remains

[gcomeau]

74. Enjoy your solid understanding of the lack of chameleon-like properties of big cats. -nt

[Two Americas]

112. corporate representatives do not agree

Many powerful insiders see this period of time as extremely important, and are not sitting back "giving him a chance."

We elect - not "select" - those people are representatives, in the hope that they will listen to us and work for us. That is what most people are seeking, not "their ability to execute the job." Before we worry about how well anyone is going to execute the job, we need to ask what the job is and whom will benefit.

The political Left is not merely a matter if one person's opinions or desires - "not for their ability to agree with your opinions" - rather it is a set of principles and ideals, held and promoted in the belief that they represent what is best for all the people, what is morally right and what will promote justice and equality. We trivialize that by portraying it as someone's personal opinion, or wish list or ideology.

We have every right - we have a moral obligation and civic responsibility - to comment on everything people in the new administration say or do, now and at all times.

[political_Dem]

41. That's a very provocative piece.

It does make one wonder if Mr. Obama is playing this entire scenario too cautiously. The other thing is that Greider already hints that he is listening to corporate influences more than anyone else.

That's why I hope that we don't stay silent and remind Mr. Obama that there are progressives who supported him too. Not centrists, corporatists and moderate Republicans. This matter goes beyond the "team of rivals" scenario.

[jenmito]

33. Can you list the ways Obama is "moving to the right"? TIA.

[zipplewrath]

38. Difference between criticism and confrontation

It is the duty of all to be critical of the President, even if it is merely to express concern or a sense of caution about direction. You can be "supportive" of his decisions even while expressing a sense of reservation about the direction or risks of a particular action or policy. You can give this criticism in a historical context, or an ideological one. Where it becomes unsupportive and potentially destructive is when it turns from criticism to confrontation. Confrontation should be reserved for the results of past actions predominately, or when he is advocating that which violates the law or historical precidents. Bush was ill served by his supporters who refused to either express a sense of concern or caution prior to actions, or to confront him after the fact when it became plain his actions were either failing, or illegal.

I feel free to express caution about office appointments, or policy pronouncements. I'll express that caution in the form of concern about potential or possible outcomes. That advice alone can guide a president to ensure those outcomes do not develop. I will confront him when he advocates extra-constitutional actions or policies, or when they represent severe and dangerous departures from past traditions of governing. I don't expect to have to do much confrontation. I do expect to provide a fair amount of criticism

[No Elephants]

43. I think you are vastly overestimating the influence posts here have on

Obama (or anything or anyone else in the real world). Besides, posts here are always conficting anyway.

If Obama (or anyone important) were spending time reading here or trying to figure out what to do based on posts here, I would be very disappointed in him. Not to mention terrified.

[bunnies]

44. + 1000

well said. :applause:

[No Elephants]

81. Thank you, Bunnies!

[amborin]

50. plus, DU is not considered particularly progressive, at all n/t

[Occam Bandage]

60. [citation needed]

[cali]

70. lol. by you? by counterpunch?

no citation, of course. you are funny.

:rofl:

[LWolf]

45. I'm not silent. Have never been silent.

Doesn't pay on DU, of course; just today I've been called "delusional; absurd; futile; infantile; whacko; irrelevant; loony left; fringe;" and been told that I'm not the left wing of the party, that I'm "too extreme" for that. That the left wing of the party loves Obama and his policies.

All for bringing up policy and appointment disagreements.

Sounds like a pretty determined effort to marginalize the left to me; co-opting the label "left" for centrist positions, and viciously attacking those left of center.

[leftstreet]

47. Obama Needs a Protest Movement - The Nation

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081201/piven

Obama Needs a Protest Movement

By Frances Fox Piven
November 13, 2008


...some snips...

Naturally, people are making lists of what the new administration should do to begin to reverse the decades-long trends toward rising inequality, unrestrained corporate plunder, ecological disaster, military adventurism and constricted democracy. But if naming our favored policies is the main thing we do, we are headed for a terrible letdown. Let's face it: Barack Obama is not a visionary or even a movement leader. He became the nominee of the Democratic Party, and then went on to win the general election, because he is a skillful politician. That means he will calculate whom he has to conciliate and whom he can ignore in realms dominated by big-money contributors from Wall Street, powerful business lobbyists and a Congress that includes conservative Blue Dog and Wall Street-oriented Democrats. I don't say this to disparage Obama. It is simply the way it is, and if Obama was not the centrist and conciliator he is, he would not have come this far this fast, and he would not be the president-elect.

Sometimes, encouraged by electoral shifts and campaign promises, the ordinary people who are typically given short shrift in political calculation become volatile and unruly, impatient with the same old promises and ruses, and they refuse to cooperate in the institutional routines that depend on their cooperation. When that happens, their issues acquire a white-hot urgency, and politicians have to respond, because they are politicians. In other words, the disorder, stoppages and institutional breakdowns generated by this sort of collective action threaten politicians. These periods of mass defiance are unnerving, and many authoritative voices are even now pointing to the dangers of pushing the Obama administration too hard and too far. Yet these are also the moments when ordinary people enter into the political life of the country and authentic bottom-up reform becomes possible.

The parallels between the election of 2008 and the election of 1932 are often invoked, with good reason. It is not just that Obama's oratory is reminiscent of FDR's oratory, or that both men were brought into office as a result of big electoral shifts, or that both took power at a moment of economic catastrophe. All this is true, of course. But I want to make a different point: FDR became a great president because the mass protests among the unemployed, the aged, farmers and workers forced him to make choices he would otherwise have avoided. He did not set out to initiate big new policies. The Democratic platform of 1932 was not much different from that of 1924 or 1928. But the rise of protest movements forced the new president and the Democratic Congress to become bold reformers.

The movements of the 1930s were often set in motion by radical agitators--Communists, Socialists, Musteites--but they were fueled by desperation and economic calamity. Unemployment demonstrations, usually (and often not without reason) labeled riots by the press, began in 1929 and 1930, as crowds assembled, raised demands for "bread or wages," and then marched on City Hall or local relief offices. In some places, "bread riots" broke out as crowds of the unemployed marched on storekeepers to demand food, or simply to take it.

[amborin]

51. agree, in fact,

i posted that very article last week or so and it was largely shot down

folks here disparaged her, despite her being an award winning social theorist

[leftstreet]

53. Yep, that's where I first saw it

Thanks for posting it by the way. Very interesting!

:thumbsup:

[Junkdrawer]

58. Thanks...Bookmarking....

:hi:

[Captain Hilts]

79. Actually, he tried out CCC etc. things as Gov. of NYS. So, he was thinking about it.

Rex Tugwell
Eleanor
Harry Hopkins
Frances Perkins

insisted.

[JuniperLea]

49. Thanks, but I think I'll wait until he is actually president...

And he or one or more of his appointees actually do something wrong before I critique him.

A new boss will bring new work from old employees every time. I'm not all that CONCERNED.

[cali]

54. knock yourself out

I'm going to give Obama a chance to govern before I start criticizing him. I never expected I'd agree with every appointment or every decision he makes.

Right now I do believe that the best thing I can do is to support him.

[AtomicKitten]

62. I'll judge Obama on how governs when he actually starts to govern.

[EFerrari]

91. Did you see that torture supporter Brennan has dropped out

of the running for CIA head?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7921616&mesg_id=7925565

[AtomicKitten]

99. good news

thanks for the link

[autorank]

100. "when he actually starts to govern." Good point

I don't care who is in the galley rowing as long as the boat is headed in the right direction.

I will say that Geithner at Treasury is horrid (protege of Rubin & Summers). Having Lieberman call the cabinet 'nearly perfect' is not exactly an endorsement (in fact, his statement is exactly why the guy should have been shut down -- he speaks to ruin and ridicule).

Nevertheless, there are two big initiatives, infrastructure and the energy, that need to be detailed.

It's all about the economy and the larger issue of saving the planet (all nations doing that) and if that's the serious direction, yee haa!

I'll wait.

But I have no problem at all, in fact, I encourage people to speak up with their concerns.
The 'lock step' types are mysteries to me. Your position is very reasonable;)

[AtomicKitten]

104. I calm my inner anxiety with the Zen wait and see approach.

Admittedly, I'm grinding my teeth, but since I'm in the peanut gallery I will defer my head exploding for a substantive reason. I keep telling myself that Obama's appointments will be the conduit for his vision, not theirs. Fingers crossed on that.

:hi:

[autorank]

105. An alternative thought to calm your mind

:)

[AtomicKitten]

106. yep, that'll do it ... consider me scared straight

oy!

[S_E_Fudd]

64. He hasn't moved anywhere...

He is doing exactly what he said he'd do. If those who projected a doctrinaire pregressivism on him that didn't exist now view it that way it simply means they were engaging in wishful thinking. Obama is a pragmatic politician, who takes ideas from different places...including straight out of the DLC playbook...

[Mark E. Smith]

76. Ummm, I'm sorry but ...

... I'm having some difficulty imagining Barack Obama
and those who work for him poring through the posts
here on DU looking for advice on who to hire.

We need to keep some perspective here ...

[leftofthedial]

82. when the left speaks on DU, it is shouted down, called names,

derided as extremist, told to just shut up ("for heaven's sake! he's not even PRESIDENT yet!"), demeaned and called un-Democratic or disloyal.

Obama is indeed, moving to the right. Considering he started right of center, it's troubling.

The left needs to split from the Democratic Party I fear. Otherwise, we'll continue to be taken for granted at election time and abused the rest of the time.

[H2O Man]

86. Though I disagree

about Obama moving to the right, I fully agree that there are increasingly ugly attacks aimed at people asking sincere questions and raising valid points.

[EFerrari]

90. Yes, that happens on DU and the movement was to be expected from Obama.

But there are still ways to continue to weigh in without overreacting and talking about splitting the party, imho.

I continue to try to give Obama feedback on the structure he's building. Brennan, btw, has withdrawn himself from consideration as CIA chief because of his support for torture. That's an instance of the Obama team responding to measured feedback.

Let's see how we do.

[cali]

92. it's not a fact that he's moving to the right. he's doing precisely what

he said he'd do for the last 18 months. If you didn't pay attention, than that's a shame, but it doesn't make it true that he's moved to the right.

And I hope that no one feels the need to leave the democratic party, but if they do, they do. One thing I refuse to do is to cede the designation of the left to any given group. I've worked for liberal and progressive causes for decades. I'm as much a part of the left as you are.

I find it troubling that some folks think that the left is this narrow little niche that excludes anyone who doesn't adhere to a Counterpunch style political philosophy and prefers Bernie Sanders, say, to Dennis Kucinich.

[autorank]

102. I'm waiting

to see what official plans are when the details come out. I don't see what the problem is with
people questioning people considered for appointment. That's why names are "floated" and to stay
quiet is giving up the chance to have a tiny say in whatever feedback that they consider.

The notion that soto voce he said he's a moderate etc. is not going to fly with the citizens who
resoundingly endorsed what they thought he'd do based on the rhetoric of the campaign. When he
took McCain apart on Iraq, it was a sign that we just needed to get the hell out When he spoke
eloquently on the need for every citizen to have health care, there was a clear message.

Citizens are not expected to read at the detail we do. What he wrote or said about his style, etc.
is not relevant when citizens consider the messages of the campaign. His platform isn't that
relevant because most people don't read that. It's the messages and they were clear - CHENGE plus
solid action on the key problems. Citizens are frustrated. It won't mean one single thing to say
"gotcha" - see paragraph 3, page 24 of ... The support will just vanish.

I'm not predicting any of this. In fact, I think, of necessity, we're headed for some FDR like
programs just in time. But the argument that 'he is what he said' discounts the flavor and
rhetoric of the campaign and the need to maintain the solid support that's out there.

Ultimately, the politics of our national governance have become revolting as of the past few
decades. The choices are too narrow, the campaigns are devoid of issues or, when not, the issues are
ignored by the press. Citizens had two choices and they knew one was both bizarre and dangerous.
As a party, it's a clean shot for the Democrats. But we know that Congress is spineless so
there's a lot of pressure on Obama.

We'll see.

[leftofthedial]

108. what he said for the last 18 months was a carefully crafted political message

one ambiguous enough that right wingers like you could read what they want into it and that sensible folk on the left could interpret in their way. (That's a good-natured ribbing, not an attack. Winkie winkie, nudge nudge.)

Now, he's acting like the "free-market," pro-corporate republican lite that he always was. He's appointed the IMF, AIG, Bear Stearns garage sale boy as Treasury Sec'y nominee and other good corporatist supply-siders in the other key roles. This will be a *great* 4 years for corporations. After all, they will have *all* the money by the time the bushturd leaves office, and they'll have a champion in the White House. For the rest of us, it will be somewhat more hopeful and perhaps slightly better than it was during the bush regime.

But we disagree. In the area of his Iraq draw down, the rollback of bush's tax gifts to the wealthy and in the demand-side FDR-ish aspects of his economic proposals, he's already backed off campaign promises and moved to the right--and he's not even President yet! It will undoubtedly get worse once he's official. I never ascribed "liberal" to Obama. I did expect him to honor the contribution that liberal idealists made to his election, but I guess I'm not surprised that he has chosen to insult us with his picks so far.

I'm not surprised by his shift, but surprised or not, it doesn't change the fact that he moved. His picks so far are well to the right of his campaign rhetoric, which was itself mostly quite moderate.

[hopechange2008]

83. Let's give him a chance

I just think we should give him a chance to become the president before
we hammer him.

Otherwise we are as bad as the GOP!

[Richardo]

88. I'll bet the entire transition team logs on to DU the first thing every morning.

so have at it!

And don't ever think you're posting almost exclusively to an echo chamber of like-minded individuals and a few rabid RW lurkers.

[cooolandrew]

101. OK, it's a fair point but what pressure do we bring to someone in transition?

I just don't see him becoming a George Bush overnight and I've got no indicators of that so far.

[anonymous171]

103. OBAMA IS NOT EVEN PRESIDENT YET

[fadedrose]

107. Guidance needed . . .

Progressives need somebody/bodies to email them when they should let the White House know, as well as the Congress, when they're getting too centrist (code for Republican Lite)...

[Zhade]

113. Kick for truth

KICK

[salonghorn70]

115. I Agree - We Must Not Be Silent

Therefore, I loudly proclaim that Obama is doing a 100% excellent job in setting up his administration.


45-35!!!! Its been settled on the field.

[LanternWaste]

117. As for myself...

As for myself, I will wait until I can observe the actual consequences from his decisions before I pass any judgments on direction, effectiveness, etc.

Everything else is simply hand-me-down, biased prognostications that I can more easily watch on the Sunday morning news programs...

[11 Bravo]

118. I must have dozed off during the 30 seconds of alleged "silence".

[AZBlue]

120. Bullshit.

Sorry, but there's really no other word that best works as a response to your OP.