I could be wrong, but Obama's goal seems to be to represent the Left himself

[bigtree]

. . . and use his cabinet as a counterbalance to that pull and push from him (and others in Congress) to transform policy to the progressive side of issues.

It's either that, or there won't really be a heartfelt representation of progressive views and attitudes on many issues from the moderate influences he's chosen so far to represent his White House.

That moderate form of representation may well work out to be fine, or that may turn out to be productively pragmatic when measured against the challenges he faces getting his proposals and initiatives through Congress and enacted into law or action. But, his approach to governing, so far, as reflected by his cabinet and advisory picks, does not resemble the way I'd expect a progressive challenge to the status quo to look like.

I expect a more confrontational, resistant approach from a progressive stance from the Executive which assumes that the opposition figures in Congress are mere obstructionists whose opportunistic views and positions carry no merit outside of their intention to block and stifle progressive change.

Right now, that's the fight I'm looking for Pres. Obama to wage behind the cajoling and accommodating of the decidedly pragmatic choices he's chosen as his point men and women in the battle to overturn and overcome Bush's autocratic legacy. He'll have to step up, well ahead of his Cabinet and advisers, to effectively represent and promote the progressive change he's promised to effect with his presidency.

[walldude]

1. That's what Lincoln did... Except Lincoln was the Republican

Obama is drawing on Lincoln's governing style. Good for him.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

12. Indeed.

And I find it preferable to surrounding himself with yes-men.

[w4rma]

38. Lincoln's Cabinet was far more dysfunctional than Doris Kearns Goodwin's book would have us believe.

Lincoln and the myth of 'Team of Rivals'
President Lincoln's Cabinet was far more dysfunctional than Doris Kearns Goodwin's book would have us believe.
…
Consider this inconvenient truth: Out of the four leading vote-getters for the 1860 Republican presidential nomination whom Lincoln placed on his original team, three left during his first term -- one in disgrace, one in defiance and one in disgust.
…
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-pinsker18-2008nov18,0,1360359.story

[Captain Hilts]

39. Thank you. True. nt

[Thothmes]

45. Remember, during the first year of the Lincoln administration

Abe's foot prints were all over the Constitution of the United States.

[gravity]

2. Obama isn't looking for a fight

He is looking to lead this nation forward

[bigtree]

5. he has said, himself

. . .that the forces of the status quo don't and won't concede willingly. He may not be looking for a fight, but he'll be naive to believe he won't have to wage one to achieve the progressive change (he's promoted and promised) from the damage of last administration and Congress' legacy under Bush.

[Greyhound]

10. As amply demonstrated for the last 3 decades, fighting is the only way forward.

The corporatists have made it clear they will not compromise.

[BlooInBloo]

3. That's what a lot of people are saying. That he's got enough "vision" for the whole team....

What he really needs are people with implementation skills.

"There can be only one", and all that, I guess.

[EFerrari]

4. If Obama positions himself outside of binary struggles

that's a smart move, whether it is true or not, because it will make the oncoming media war on him so much harder.

How's that for pragmatism? :P

[walldude]

6. As I watch him, and ignore the peanut gallery I see the man is

even more brilliant than I thought. The best strategist is the man who is 3 steps ahead of everyone else. Obama works from the big picture. The problem here is we are so used to looking at the small picture it's hard to shake that thought pattern. Republicans are all about the present, "I want it all and I want it now". Obama is about the future. "This may be uncomfortable but it will benefit us and future generations".

[EFerrari]

11. "Someday, I'm going to ask you for a favor . ."

lol

:)

[bigtree]

14. we're also used to getting short-sheeted on issues by 'pragmatic' Congresses

So, the 'peanut gallery' can be forgiven for their skepticism.

[walldude]

21. Well we'll see what happens with congress after Obama's in

Right now they are still pretty powerless.

[bigtree]

7. he's been so very smart in the way he's managed his election

I anticipate that same wisdom in how he ultimately governs.

[elocs]

13. Pragmatism is not a prominent Liberal characteristic.

In fact, it seems a Liberal characteristic is to equate pragmatism with compromise. Thankfully, I am sure that Obama is smarter than most Liberals.

[gravity]

16. I consider it a liberal characteristic

It is the whole shades of gray vs black and white arguments.

[EFerrari]

19. Pragmatism is not a Liberal characteristic in right wing cartoons. n/t

[JJ]

30. pragmatism is compromise

and we've been compromised into a f'ing depression.

One step forward, three steps back.

[sandnsea]

8. Obama knows what he doesn't know

He has repeatedly said he surrounds himself with people to fill in his missing gaps. He knows poverty, he doesn't need people to tell him about it. He needs people who can take his ideas and fit them into the mainstream dialogue.

[Vincardog]

9. What "progressive change he's promised"?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. He ran as a Centrist, he's behaving like a Centrist. Triangulation redux.

Same old politics-as-usual. The left will be ignored, as usual, their votes for the "lesser of two evils" will be taken for granted, as usual, his first priority will be the next election, as usual.

However, I think that the unfolding economic catastrophe and the endless, and useless, wars will spur progressive change despite politics-as-usual.

[leftchick]

20. only because we will be forced to

Much like Russia after the Afghan debacle. It is interesting to note NONE of the 'centrists' (I refer to them as neolibs) has even brought up a reduction in DoD spending. Same old empire, different neckties.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. NeoLibs: The softer, gentler, version of NeoCons because they apologize after the slaughter.

As Clinton did after torpedoing efforts to end the genocide in Rwanda.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

24. Well said.

[scarletwoman]

33. He ran to be a more efficient manager of the Empire, which he will do.

He did not run to challenge the very existence of Empire itself.

sw

[leftchick]

17. "moderate influences"?

surely you jest...

This Is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House
By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet
Posted on November 20, 2008, Printed on November 23, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/107666/


U.S. policy is not about one individual, and no matter how much faith people place in President-elect Barack Obama, the policies he enacts will be fruit of a tree with many roots. Among them: his personal politics and views, the disastrous realities his administration will inherit, and, of course, unpredictable future crises. But the best immediate indicator of what an Obama administration might look like can be found in the people he surrounds himself with and who he appoints to his Cabinet. And, frankly, when it comes to foreign policy, it is not looking good.

Obama has a momentous opportunity to do what he repeatedly promised over the course of his campaign: bring actual change. But the more we learn about who Obama is considering for top positions in his administration, the more his inner circle resembles a staff reunion of President Bill Clinton's White House. Although Obama brought some progressives on board early in his campaign, his foreign policy team is now dominated by the hawkish, old-guard Democrats of the 1990s. This has been particularly true since Hillary Clinton conceded defeat in the Democratic primary, freeing many of her top advisors to join Obama's team.

"What happened to all this talk about change?" a member of the Clinton foreign policy team recently asked the Washington Post. "This isn't lightly flavored with Clintons. This is all Clintons, all the time."

Amid the euphoria over Obama's election and the end of the Bush era, it is critical to recall what 1990s U.S. foreign policy actually looked like. Bill Clinton's boiled down to a one-two punch from the hidden hand of the free market, backed up by the iron fist of U.S. militarism. Clinton took office and almost immediately bombed Iraq (ostensibly in retaliation for an alleged plot by Saddam Hussein to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush). He presided over a ruthless regime of economic sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and under the guise of the so-called No-Fly Zones in northern and southern Iraq, authorized the longest sustained U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam.

Under Clinton, Yugoslavia was bombed and dismantled as part of what Noam Chomsky described as the "New Military Humanism." Sudan and Afghanistan were attacked, Haiti was destabilized and "free trade" deals like the North America Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade radically escalated the spread of corporate-dominated globalization that hurt U.S. workers and devastated developing countries. Clinton accelerated the militarization of the so-called War on Drugs in Central and Latin America and supported privatization of U.S. military operations, giving lucrative contracts to Halliburton and other war contractors. Meanwhile, U.S. weapons sales to countries like Turkey and Indonesia aided genocidal campaigns against the Kurds and the East Timorese.

[elocs]

18. Also, I would like to give you a Rec for even admitting that you could be wrong.

I see that so seldom here as so many pontificate as if what they say comes from the mouth of god, except that they likely do not believe in god.

[bigtree]

23. Mr. Obama was my fourth choice in the primary

I have already demonstrated my own fallibility in judging his political effectiveness.

[IndianaJones]

25. his gay marriage against religious traditions stance is certainly a leftist idea. lmao. nt.

[Posteritatis]

26. K&R 'cause I hadn't thought of it that way before (nt)

[scarletwoman]

27. I've honestly never understood why so many self-identified progressives got the idea that Obama was

a "progressive", or that he ever promised to "represent and promote... progressive change..."

No, he's not going to "represent the Left himself". There will be only the outsiders to represent the Left, as always.

sw

[bigtree]

28. he did promise a 'clear' change

. . . nothing short of progressive change is really a 'clear' one.

[scarletwoman]

31. " . . . nothing short of progressive change is really a 'clear' one." Only to a progressive.

"Clear change" can mean anything anyone wants to read into it. I watched from the sidelines through most of the primary, and I saw clearly that scores of Lefties were projecting all their own most cherished ideas on Obama.

And sometimes when he would come right out and say something decidedly centrist/moderate, it was amazing to watch how many self-identified progressives would declare that he "didn't really mean that, he just has to say that to get elected."

No, he DID mean those things, he's not a liar.

sw

[bigtree]

34. that will definitely be something I will watch for, scarletwoman

. . . to see what degree of change Pres. Obama actually intends. We all project our own hopes and dreams onto the folks we vote for, to some degree. I'm sure the 'Righties' will be looking for their own projection of interests in the exercise of his presidency, as well.

[scarletwoman]

35. The thing is, "change" is something that is ALWAYS happening. It's one of the immutable laws

of nature. Life is dynamic, never static. Promising "change" is like promising that spring follows winter.

Worked good as a campaign slogan, but it's not really a specific policy statement. One could generally read into it that he would do things differently than the administration he's succeding -- which, of course is a welcome relief.

Beyond that, I never saw any indication that he would govern from the left.

sw

[jgraz]

37. Not that I'd advocate it, but...

a competent conservative would also be clear change.

[Kokonoe]

29. I think Obama is seating his cabinet to be a step ahead of the latest bush disaster.

bush uses the shock doctrine to (smash and grab) dismantle America, and so enables Obama to rebuild the pieces.
Obama's job will be too big to fail.

[bigtree]

32. crisis government

. . . makes us believe a sandwich is a meal.

[Zodiak]

36. This explanation is the one I find myself clinging to

As a long-time critic of the DLC, I do not find his likely appointments all that comforting at face value.

But I have read his philosophy, and it seems to point to the OP's premise. He is looking to do two things....one, get perceived middle of the road people in order to mollify his outright opponents, and two, win converts to the cause by placing them INSIDE his projects so they can see the results up close and personal.

I do not "trust" any politician implicitly, but I have to admit the indicators are not ALL bad on Obama's appointments. He is being true to his past executive experience (outside of gov't), which by all indications was very successful.

I will be front and center with the sword of Damocles over his head should the indicators point in a direction outside of the OP's premise. This I promise. But so far, I am not yet convinced Obama has gone to the dark side.

BTW...off-topic. I do not think that the behavior of a lot of DUers lately reflects our best values. Too much gutter-sniping, bullying, and intimidation to be serving our "team" any good.

[bluesmail]

40. Yes that's what I've been thinking too.

We'll have to see IF/when he is inaugurated on Jan 20, which way he'll go. As for Clinton's pick for SOS, I have thought that was a way to make ex-pres reveal his 'dark' side. Jan 20 can't get here soon enough. And Sy Hersch has people lined up to speak after Jan 20. I personally can't imagine them giving up the power they've usurped. Hiding and shredding. And there's the Unitary Executive nonsense BS theory, I hope we have a 'move' to counteract their real October Surprise if they claim Unitary Executive also known as King of Everything. Just saying. Oh and I guess I may need this :tinfoilhat:

[ecstatic]

41. If most liberals are as hard to work with as the ones who are

already basically calling Obama a failure, then it's best for him to be the lone liberal voice in his administration--because at least he knows how to talk to the other side to get things done.

We are a passionate bunch. Take Samantha Powers for instance--very smart woman, who slips up and calls a democratic candidate a "monster." Many of us agreed, but that's simply not appropriate behavior. From what I'm seeing around the "liberal blogosphere," it's the liberals who would cause dissension in an Obama administration.

[LWolf]

42. Interesting,

except I can't figure out where you get the idea that Obama would represent the "Left."

He's a conservative. There's nothing about his stances on policies that support the goals, or the ideology, of the Left. He distanced himself from the left a long time ago. Praising Reagan for "changing the trajectory," while criticizing the "excesses" of the 60s and 70s.

As far as I can see, there will be no "Left" in the Obama administration, and the "Left" will not be represented.

Of course, I never thought we would be, which is why I bitterly opposed his nomination all the way to the convention.

For the record: I didn't support HRC, either.

[bigtree]

43. It's a hope, more than it's a certainty with me

. . . but, I expect that Pres. Obama will not find any comfortable refuge in the center for any significant ambition he may have for his presidency, no matter how optimistic he is that common ground can be found between the obstructionists and those in Congress who are pushing proposals for progressive, dramatic change. I counting on my hope that he's as hungry to seize the moment as any of us and set our republic in a firm direction of progress.

I tend to agree with a poster above who said that, 'the unfolding economic catastrophe and the endless, and useless, wars will spur progressive change' . . . and with another who said, 'Obama's job will be too big to fail.'

Those are my hopes, anyway.

[LWolf]

44. That's something to pay attention to.

If he is really hungry for change, why do you think he's appointing so many people to his administration that don't represent change?

[bigtree]

46. I think they represent incremental change

. . . maybe that's the way he feels he has to begin his term, given the present balance of power in Congress, and given the 'urgency' of managing or resolving some important issues like the economy and health care.

[byronius]

47. Interesting take -- I think you're right.