Top Obama Adviser Hits "The Left Wing Of Our Party" For Criticizing Cabinet Picks
Steve Hildebrand, the former deputy national campaign director for Barack Obama, has a new piece up at the Huffington Post, rebutting left-wing critics who say that Obama's cabinet choices have been too centrist or even conservative:
The point I'm making here is that our new president, the Congress and all Americans must come together to solve these problems. This is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions about the Cabinet and White House appointments that President-Elect Obama is making. Some believe the appointments generally aren't progressive enough. Having worked with former Senator Obama for the last two years, I can tell you, that isn't the way he thinks and it's not likely the way he will lead. The problems I mentioned above and the many I didn't, suggest that our president surround himself with the most qualified people to address these challenges. After all, he was elected to be the president of all the people -- not just those on the left.
The available polling data has shown widespread approval for Obama's cabinet choices, but there has nevertheless been a definite strain of liberal who resents some of Obama's picks, most notably the continuation of Robert Gates as Sec. of Defense. Hildebrand's tone here -- simultaneously defending the need to come together and castigating critics -- might not do much to calm things down.
Really, one has to ask if Hildebrand is really trying to reassure "the left wing of our party," or whether he's trying to stir them up further out of some unknown political calculation or other. After all, many on "the left" have also made Hildebrand's point: They've noted that Obama should be allowed to let his actual policies do the talking, while simultaneously asking completely legit questions about what his choices portend about the future direction of his administration. If merely asking such questions is enough to incite an attack on "the left" from someone in Obama's inner circle, it seems reasonable to conclude that the motive here isn't to mend fences at all.
Late Update: David Sirota offers an extensive critique of Hildebrand's piece.
Late Late Update: As Ben Smith notes, the criticism of Obama from the left has actually been pretty mild, and the notion of a left "angry" about Obama's "centrism" and "pragmatism" is largely a media creation. The key point here is that Hildebrand seemed willing to feed that creation by perpetuating the false idea that the "left wing of our party" doesn't want Obama to be "pragmatic" and harbors a set of wild-eyed priorities that are somehow at odds with what Obama views as our major challenges.
I read the editorial, and I didn't see any kind of "attack." I saw a vague block of poli-speak, but I didn't sense any sort of hostility. Regardless, the superminority of internet commenters who are prematurely condemning the PE are irrelevant and there's really no story here.
December 8, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would add that the great majority of "critics" aren't "condemning" him at all...it seems odd that perfectly legit questions are met with what is basically, "shut up and stop complaining"
December 8, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? I don't hear "shut up and stop complaining". I hear (and say) "can we at least wait until the guy is sworn in before we start claiming that we've been betrayed?"
December 8, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty much.
I do hear, "stop complaining." I don't hear, "shut up," which would be redundant but express a dismissive and perhaps contemptuous attitude. I don't detect that at all.
Characterizing Hildebrand's comments as an "attack" makes Greg sound like he is piling-on with the media's creation and propagation of this controversy.
December 8, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps it's just posturing: Obama can now lead the mostly compliant traditional media into proclaiming that "Obama is standing up to the left!". That is a theme that would serve to rebut the Republican claims sure to arise that he's a flaming liberal, beholden to those wild-eyed lefties.
Who mostly exist in the imaginations of traditional media.
December 8, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that this was a first, inartful attempt, to reach out to the liberals. I think there is blame on both sides, although I put more on the liberals and liberal bloggers in particular. But both sides could do with an improved dialogue. Overall take here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/8/92210/7759
December 8, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't use the term "critics," so you shouldn't throw quote marks around it. I was referring to the sort of puritanical, angry internet commenters who are making the most acrid stink. As far as visible figures go, I guess Greenwald falls into that category, but innuendo-laden strawmen are his bread & butter so I won't fault him for it.
Obviously, there are some liberal critics, but from what I've seen, most of them are fairly measured and still cautiously optimistic. Hence, they're not the subject of the various "angry left" media stories, and though they may have been the target of Hildebrand's meaningless press release, I would again point out that this thing reads like an effort at reassuring that set, not "hitting" the grandstanding ideologues.
December 8, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, I have read Steve Hildebrand's piece twice, and still I can't find where there's even the suggestion of him saying "shut up and stop complaining".
I suppose that I should be thankful that you're not David Sirota, who argues that "Hildebrand demands the Dirty F@%king Hippies of the left STFU".
Certainly there are valid questions and concerns from thoughtful people on the left, but it's unfortunate that a small minority can't express those concerns without resorting to wild exaggerations, name-calling, swearing, and sounding completely insane in the process. It makes all of us on the left look bad and feeds the "angry left" meme.
December 8, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should be interesting....
December 8, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter Hildebrand - "Progressives STFU, the pragmatic adults are at work". Which I think is what Bush told us back in 2001 as well. The difference being we didn't vote for Bush so we didn't expect him to listen to us.
December 8, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
He does seem to be saying that the interests of "the left wing of our party" aren't necessarily in line with the, "policies that benefit the vast majority of Americans first and foremost".
That's slightly irritating.
December 8, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
As Sirota takes many paragraphs to point out....
December 8, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
As usual.
December 8, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's also slightly accurate.
December 8, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I know, the "left wing of the party" is pretty much mainstream on the Iraq War, the Economy, the Environment, closing Guantanamo, and most of the other major issues of the day, including universal health coverage, I might add. I'm just not sure the "lunatic fringe" meme really fits anymore.
December 8, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the left wing pushed for real solutions to the war, to the economy, to energy, to global warming.
The right wing pushed for a continuation of cronyism and failing policies in the middle of a huge meltdown.
So why is it that the left wing loses by winning, and the right wing is supposedly the holder of responsible positions even though its "responsible solutions" and poor decisions are what got us here?
And where does Hildebrand get off telling the folks who voted for the winner to step back in rather unfriendly terms?
December 8, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, who, exactly, is it who's saying the right are the holders of responsible positions? You're boxing with strawmen.
December 8, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all - it's those supposedly pragmatic right-of-center solutions the adults in charge are tacking towards, no?
Listen to the meme out there - it's a bit like, "well, in good times we could splurge on some leftist ideals, but now things are tight, so we have to focus on hitting right-of-center". Being left is irresponsible, being right is well, right.
December 8, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're just making shit up. No one is saying "forget the leftist ideas." They're saying that the very issues you mentioned are no longer considered leftist; they are now mainstream because the country has shifted.
You keep talking about things Rubin, et al advocated for 12-15 years ago. Tell me something they're proposing NOW with which you disagree. Point out some policies that Obama is pushing that is a slap in your face.
December 8, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
My issue with most of the "left" is that they don't really grasp the idea that things happen in stages rather than instantaneously, and tend to get very whiny even as progress is being made, because it isn't fast enough or "pure" enough for them.
Reality dictates that taking half a loaf is always the preferred option to getting none, and recognizes that incremental progress* is still progress because every step forward that goes out from a consolidated gain means we're that much closer to the goal. And frankly, if people like Sirota represent the "left", you can have it. He's a whiny PITA - as well as a bad writer.
* Newtonian physics, specifically the concepts of mass and inertia, can be a good model here. It takes a while to slow, stop, and turn a system this large. Get it going in the right direction at a good clip, though, and that will continue for some time. All that is required then is occasional energy input and some careful steering.
December 8, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except that they understand very well that they lose power in slow progression, disenfranchised a piece at a time if they don't fight back. For months they've been told, "now's not the time to complain". Back in June with FISA, with posturing against Iran for Israel, for the bailout, and now for the post-election pick of cabinet and key administration positions.
When is the right time for consituents of a candidate to voice what they want from him? January 30 will be too early, May he'll just be completing his first 100 days - what can you expect? July it's the doldrums of summer and in any case first priority is to get the budget passed, October, well, Congress is preparing to adjourn, more important to get key pieces of legislation through.
December 8, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
An example of things I learn from Stoller and Bowers every day:
December 8, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I missing this widespread disillusionment and revolt coming from the left? I certainly don't see it here on TPM. I don't dig into the comments section at DailyKos that often but most of the front page bloggers there are in a wait and see mode, with several defending and even applauding Obama's cabinet picks. Keeping Obama honest is one thing, and I'm sure everybody on the left will do that. But I'm just not seeing the distraught and disappointed left that the traditional media is seeing. And Hildebrand - and I'm not sure he's doing this - would be wise to not jump to the conclusion that a few loud voices on the blogosphere in the media speak for "the left" as a whole.
December 8, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I can tell, it's mostly coming from Bower and the others at OpenLeft.com, all of whom have been bitching about how Obama unbellyfeels the principles of Demsoc since about ten minutes after he announced his candidacy.
December 8, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen, is it really, really too much to ask, that the Democratic Party show a little goddamned fucking RESPECT for its "left wing"?
Or, is it de rigeur, now, in order to be admitted to the Beltway club, for the party in power to bitchslap a Leftie regularly, to prove to which tribe you really belong?
And I'm still waiting for someone to crunch some numbers, and show us where Obama could have pulled this off, with no rabid, grassroots liberal support. Even moderate liberal grassroots support doesn't seem to have been enough for the last guy who ran in 2004 (what was his name, again? The one who keeps sending me fundraising letters..? :-)
December 8, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, we should respect and tolerate Lieberman and Blue Dogs, but there's no reciprocal requirement - they can call the left weak on terror & defense, irresponsible spenders, and whatever standard labels that have burdened the party for years.
December 8, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and John McCain apparently don't get it. Kerry had rabid liberal support but he lost because he didn't get enough independents.
McCain kept trying to excite the base. Guess what? A vote from an excited supporter and a vote from someone holding their nose still counts for one vote.
There aren't enough "base" democrats to elect a president so although we turned out for Obama, he would be another also ran if it were not for the moderates and indepdents who added to those numbers.
December 8, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude.
Rabidly liberal grassroots Dems are the ones who dragged their beer guts off the couch, manned telephone banks to the red states, held bake sales and went door-to-door to GET those independents to drag THEIR beer guts off the goddamned couch!
Sheesh. Get a clue.
December 8, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a moron. I dragged my ass across two states for Obama and there were a ton of moderates and independents right there with me! I personally know of three lifelong Republicans in my neighborhood who changed their affiliation to vote for Obama in the primary and worked their asses off for him all year long. Winning was achieved because people from all parts of the spectrum.
December 8, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more stink the progressives raise about Obama abandoning them, the easier it will be for Obama to pretend to being centrist. If the progressives are quiet and happy the MSM story would be that Obama is too left.
December 8, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is an interesting, and possibly very astute, read on the situation. Are you a PR guy in real life?
December 8, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Atrios with a similar take (and pointing to the post we're commenting on):
December 8, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Jonze 100%. That's exactly what this is about.
December 8, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see an "attack" on the left and I don't see a need to "mend fences."
And, in case you haven't been paying attention for the past year, Obama seems uninclined to give a shit about noises from the left. He didn't care when the netroots got all riled up about FISA and he didn't care when Kos went after him several times during the primary.
Obama says to the hard left what McCain should have said to the hard right--"where you gonna go?"
December 8, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
actually, didn't obama write an extensive and genuinely conciliatory response on FISA? the substance of the disagreement aside, I'd argue that his response on FISA contrasts sharply with the one we're seeing here
December 8, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait. You're telling me that you didn't really want him to change his vote on FISA but just write you a long, conciliatory response telling you why he's not going to change his vote? OK!
The end result is the same. He didn't change his stance on FISA despite the outcry from the left. He has and probably will continue to respond to concerns from constituents but I seriously doubt that once Obama makes a public pronouncement, no amount of screaming from the left or the right will make him back down. Events will convince him to change his mind but not whining.
December 8, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh, of course I didn't like his FISA position. But the tone of his response was dramatically different than the one we're seeing today. that's all...
December 8, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
What response are we seeing from Obama today? He answered a question from Ed Henry about "this doesn't look like change." Other than that, he's pretty much ignored the whining. Just like he should continue to ignore it AND the nutjobs who demand he prove (repeatedly) he's a natural born citizen.
I, for one, don't want to be placated by hand-holding responses and letters--as long as he ends this war, reforms healthcare, addresses climate change, appoints progressive justices, tackles the economy and gives us a sane environmental policy.
December 8, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I left you a reply about the "creepy" response.
December 8, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I responded.
December 8, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah! I can agree with that! The far left is nothing more than a footnote to this past election... just like Palin was for the repugs.
December 8, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, my first thought would be that where the Dems could have gone, was back to bed on Election Day.
December 8, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and they could have eaten a bbq glass sandwich, too. Both are equally palatable.
December 8, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're too modest, Greg. You've been saying this all along.
December 8, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Liberals, conservatives, independents and moderates all overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama. He was elected to govern for the people not by a specific ideology. My fellow liberal friends are beginning to repeat the same mistakes the religious-conservative right made with GWB. Cut the guy some slack, he hasn't even been sworn into office and there's already spats of frustration and its doesn't help when Steve Hilderbrand is going on a tirade against the people who propelled Obama to prominence.
December 8, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's asking legitimate questions, and there's hand-wringing. The trouble is, Hildebrand didn't distinguish between the two, guaranteeing himself a godo thrashing from "the left wing of our party".
December 8, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
"good" thrashing. Sorry.
And well deserved, IMO.
December 8, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I haven't been paying attention but I haven't heard any "legitimate" questions. Obama never promised to appoint lefties to his cabinet; in fact, he never made any promises about his appointees. He promised certain policies and if he renegs on those promises, then we have legitimate reasons to be angry.
Whining about his appointees is just stupid, IMO. Obama could appoint Kucinich as Defense Secretary but if Obama doesn't want to bring the troops home, Kucinich can't make him do it, just like Gates can't make him continue the war if he doesn't want to.
December 8, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
David Sirota gets cited in TPM? What a sad day for this blog.
No one is more laughably ignorant, uninformed, and continually, factually, demonstrably wrong than David Sirota.
Not to mention, he's a pretty bad writer.
Greg - please, no more Sirota.
December 8, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're kidding,right? I don't agree with him about this, but I'd hardly call Sirota stupid or uninformed.
December 8, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not kidding in the least.
Stupid and uninformed is exactly what I'd call Sirota - and not because I disagree with him. But because he continually bases his arguments on ridiculously wrong contentions.
He actually wrote (in one of his incessant attacks on Obama's cabinet appointments) that the reason Obama's picks are so bad is because THERE IS NO PRECEDENT for cabinet secs who disagree with the president on ideology implementing their vision.
As it happens there are examples in every administration in history. My favorite, of course, is Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury Sec who opposed Keynesian economics and the New Deal, but implemented them.
But still, not only was it a false statement, but it was the essence of his whole argument. And there are countless examples like that.
Read Sirota more carefully, you'll find them too I'm sure.
December 8, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
[Reposted from below:]
You may recall (or not!) that it was precisely the "purists", who insisted on all those radical, Far Left [tm] positions on everything in the first place.
You know. Like ending involvement in Iraq, stopping torture, putting the brakes on deregulation...
Yeah, maybe we should have just STFU after all, and let the "adults" force the opposition candidate to take those positions and win the election with them.
Again, class: Sirota, Bad. Matthews, Good.
December 8, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what Hildebrand is saying is there are no competent progressives. However, I'm sure they will pay attention to progressives again when the next election swings around.
December 8, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
No more Sirota, no more Stoller. They are the peanut gallery trying to stir things up. If they really wanted to impact the staffing of the Obama administration, rather than make a big splash, they would go about it quietly. Right now they are just making themselves a convenient foil with their political ineptness. Sirota and Stoller are making themselves the Sister Souljahs of the Obama campaign and validating enhancing his popularity.
December 8, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can not imagine how made this makes me. Literally F--- Obama and Hildebrand.
December 8, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you that fickle?
December 8, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess S of S just wasn't enough for some of these people. They still can't stand the idea that their candidate lost. These so-called "progressive" sour grapes are more bitter than the rethugs.
December 8, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you that nasty?
December 8, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is key:
Hildebrand is willing to feed that creation because he's banking on traditional media to not actually examine the, you know, actual "cricisms". Look at the front page of Politico: lefties getting worried about Obama choices. Add to that the NPR story that it was somehow leftwing bloggers who forced Brennan to withdraw his nomination for director of CIA, and you have a theme: the left is going to try and control Obama.
This statement by Hildebrand is just posturing.
I would also add that Ben Smith makes a point that you don't see outside the pages of TPM or DailyKos: Obama didn't run as a liberal, and anyone who thinks he did wasn't paying attention.
December 8, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, what you said!
December 8, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, co-sign.
December 8, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
He only seemed liberal compared to Bush/Satan. He always ran as a pragmatist who would cast aside ideology and partisanship to solve problems. That was the "Change" message, in case people didn't quite get it.
December 8, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
They didn't, and many still don't.
December 8, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting isn't it? There's change and then there's change. I thought from day one I understood what Obama's meaning of change was, which is why I am so happy that he is doing in his appointments EXACTLY what he meant by change. Total consistency. But I guess others thought change meant a violent lurch from the far right to the far left. That isn't change, that's a revolution. If that's what they wanted, they sure didn't have a candidate in Clinton or Obama.
December 8, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Change" was a word that "tested" very well. And believe me, they tested it.
Someone once said to me that the election of Bill Clinton in 1992... which, you may have forgotten, was met with elation and joy by millions; "Our long, national nightmare is over", quipped Michael Kinsley... was being taken as whatever the individual wanted it to mean. Bill Clinton was, in his explanation, "a clean slate", upon which WE imposed whatever we wanted him to be (his take, however, was that in the end it was all good).
Obama IMHO is that, but more cynically and premeditatedly so.
December 8, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't forget the Clinton election, sweetie. I worked for the Clinton Administration. I'm not sure what your point is. Clinton won because of Ross Perot. Regardless, I'm glad he won and he was a good President. We now know he was not a clean slate, no one is. So the Democrats are not supposed to learn from the past? I mean, Clinton won 16 years ago. A lot has changed. And Clinton was a centrist, to the chagrin of many, including me on some issues.
December 8, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>I would also add that Ben Smith makes a point that you don't see outside the pages of TPM or DailyKos: Obama didn't run as a liberal, and anyone who thinks he did wasn't paying attention.>>
Exactly! All of these people who are whining about no liberals in the cabinet seem blind to the fact that Obama never pretended or claimed to be a liberal. That's what they get for taking their talking points from Flush Limpbaugh!
December 8, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sirota is absolutely right. I'm also very unhappy about the branding of the "left wing" of the Democratic Party as some kind of radical fringe element in politics. It pisses me off when the Republicans and the media do it, and it pisses me off even more when Democrats do it.
As far as I'm concerned, any Democrat who wants to sling mud at progressive/liberal Democrats is just telling us they want a strong primary challenge in their next election. Why else would they be talking like Republicans if they didn't want to be sent to an early retirement like the Republicans?
December 8, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting (not in a good way) to watch Obama's people use the exact same device that Bush has for the last 8 years: lump your critics into a nice easy to dismiss group and then paint the entire group as an extreme wing.
When people like me are being painted as a members of the extreme left, someone somewhere lost their grip on reality.
December 8, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's people use the exact same device that Bush has for the last 8 years: lump your critics into a nice easy to dismiss group and then paint the entire group as an extreme wing.
If journalists and pundits paid closer attention to actual data, neither Bush nor Obama would be successful at this.
December 8, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is the odd thing about this. It even makes me feel defensive, and I have practically been hooked up to a Kool-Aid I.V. since the Iowa Primary.
December 8, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
And to see Obama's critics use Rovian devices by pretending to represent a much larger portion of the electorate than you actually do.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/more_polling_deflates_notion_o.php
December 8, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you calling KGB and his ilk, "Obama's critics"?
As I mentioned, this is really odd.
December 8, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
From kgb999 11:01:
"Obama's people", "your critics", "people like me"
It's called reading.
December 8, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wiseass comments are the best way to find common ground, I agree.
December 8, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I've been critical ... more on HuffPo(where Hildebrand actually chastised us) then here.
Hildebrand is one of Obama's people.
People "like me" have voted for democrats on a national ticket only two times in their lives(Kerry & Obama). Hardly the "extreme left".
I stand by my statement. It's a crappy way to avoid answering the criticism on it's merit(or lack thereof - I've been wrong more than once).
December 8, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
From reading your profile, I gather you are no "left winger", so I thought the criticism lumped you unfairly into that group. Amazingly, some of us ardent Obama people (and I am one) like a good debate about O's plans for the future.
December 8, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It took an entire page for Hildebrand to basically say "Shut the hell up"
December 8, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
And it took Sirota three times as much to basically say, "Can't make me!".
December 8, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Part of the Left's problem is they keep supporting people who ignore them once they get into office. They take the Left for granted, assuming the Left has no choice but to support them. If the Left were to demonstrate that their vote has to be earned, things might change.
December 8, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Part of the problem is people saying the left is being "ignored" what the hell does that mean. THE MAN HASN'T EVEN GONE INTO OFFICE YET. Who has he appointed? CENTRISTS. As in people who are either center-LEFT or center. People act like he is bringing back Scooter Libby.
December 8, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Woah woah woah, just to let people know, Obama isn't ignoring anything. He knows no matter who he chooses not everyone will like but the choices have to be made none the less.
December 8, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a critical leftie, I have been properly chastised & now I know my place, thanks to Steve-O. In fact, I have (actually) written to him to find out where I could get a nice lemming suit with color-coordinated muzzle. My bad.
The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com
December 8, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
As for the natural-born citizen fiasco, the less said about that, the better ... I'll just add that Clarence Thomas ought to be impeached for even bringing that garbage up at conference.
December 8, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, I think that Sirota's reply only exemplifies' Hilderbrand's message: CALM DOWN!!
Obama was elected a little over 1 month ago, has NO legal authority and is NOT the president yet.
The left is definitely hyperventillating over every little detail, leak or story.
This is NOT a completely media-created story. Just read some of the posts and comments here or at HuffPo and you will see it.
Relax, enjoy the holidays, enjoy the sweet success from this election and we'll get to work holding the Congress and Prez's feet to the fire beginning in 09.
Give Obama his space. That is the message. It is a good message for now.
December 8, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Give Obama his space."
I don't agree with this. I also don't agree that Obama has somehow lurched to the center or the right from where he ran as a candidate, because with the exception of his position on Iraq, he was always more "centrist" than Clinton.
It would be a bad idea for everyone, and this country, were people to just sit back and wait for the confirmations and the policy enactions before writing, commenting, calling, or otherwise voicing one's opinions. Once someone is confirmed, or a policy enacted, it will be significantly more difficult to influence the process.
We don't need to be like the little boy who cried wolf. Nor do we need to be complacent voters who accept everything our PE is planning to do. Some sort of balance should be possible between those two extremes.
December 8, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but if you thought you were electing a far-left ubber-liberal, then you were falling for the hyperbole of the RIGHT wing GOP who tried to paint Obama as a lefty Marxist.
That was all bogus and Obama was never as far left as portrayed in the media or by the right.
December 8, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding. I've been arguing that point all morning long.
My point was that there's a balance between nitpicking over every thing Obama does and lying down and letting him do whatever he wants. And now is the time to make those arguments: before policies are enacted, not after.
December 8, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forget, no one in the MSM will pick it up. It goes contrary to an exciting storyline that they are pushing that his breaking promises.
December 10, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm reading John Dean's book, Broken Government and ran across an interesting tidbit.
Seems just before SCOTUS entered the vote count fray, Bu$h's chief pollster, Matt Dowd, discovered the political center of the electorate had collapsed. Armed with that info, once Bu$h was in office, he unilaterally abandoned his campaign themes - namely uniter not a divider - for more centrist strategies and polarized policies to appeal to the base and totally disregard the Democrats. (page 61-2,paperback)
So I can see a need for the left wing of the Party to be stirring up a hornet's nest if just to keep the rest of us focused.
December 8, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
i've said before, one of the major differences between the republicans and the democrats is that the republicans will go out of their way, to their political detriment at times, to not anger their base.
Democrats on the other hand, love to piss of their base because they think its good politics and plays well with the "middle".
Hildebrand, i think, is trying to stir the pot for that specific purpose. Especially when I've actually been somewhat surprised that Obama's picks haven't created much of a liberal backlash at all.
December 8, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really can't say it any better than Atrios did- what I care about is what the guy actually does in office, and he's not even there yet. Obama's picks are what I expected (having realized all along that he's not a liberal), and I'm going to hold my fire till I see what he actually does. My wild-ass guess is that I won't be too unhappy about what he does on the economy and on labor, but that I will be less than thrilled (again, completely expectedly- which is why I was amused by all the gnashing of teeth over Hillary as SOS and keeping Gates at DOD) by his foreign and military policy which will be standard-issue Democratic imperialism.
But the idea that liberals should just shut up and know their place is really dumb.
December 8, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Count me very unhappy with Obama's exclusion of the left; Hildebrand is a dishonest tool. He says Obama needs to be President of all the people...presumably since the left is excluded...that means of all the people save the left. I can accept some of his appointments but to say he is simply choosing the best people is patent bullshit. Krugman for example seems infinitely brighter than the vaunted Obama team; Wesley Clark would be heads and shoulders better than Gates; and I do not think much of Mark Rich's patron, Holder. Hildebrand is a liar and he thinks we are fools.
December 8, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure Krugman would be the first to admit that, no matter how smart he may be, he does not have the administrative skills necessary to actually run the Treasury.
Clark is a former Republican who "saw the light" for a presidential run. I don't see how he's any better/worse than Gates.
Also, there are several liberals on Obama's team, but it appears the term's definition has now changed to accommodate the howling of an extreme minority.
December 8, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clark's politics are infinitely better than Gates. He opposed the war very early and would be much better at ending it. Not all of Obama's economic advisers are administrators; some are well advisers. Obama's team of rivals, unlike Lincoln's does not reach out to the activist progressive base. I understand many are content with Obama; I am not. I think throwing the left under the bus as he and his shill Hildebrand are doing weakens him and weakens the left and deprives the country and his administration of a viewpoint that has been singularly prescient about terrorism, Iraq, regulation of financial organs, fair trade,environment, torture. I really hate the hypocrisy of the Obama bullshit on a team of rivals when its most important application seems to be placating Joe Lieberman.
December 8, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your post shows your ignorance. Krugman has said he does not want to be in the administration.
Wes Clark is not eligible to be Sec of Defense because he hasn't been out of uniform long enough.
Holder was never a Rich patron.
Obama never claimed to be a liberal and if you thought he was, that proves again you weren't paying attention. So now that you know the truth, the door is that way ----->. But, hey, where you gonna go? I know. Nader will probably run again.
December 8, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey you are right Gates is the unique best person for the job.. You knew it all along.
December 8, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said Gates was the "unique best person" for the job. In fact, I didn't mention Gates only your total ignorance about the fact that Krugman doesn't want to be in the administration and Clark is not eligible to be Sec of Defense.
But why let facts bother you when you've got foaming-at-the-mouth to do?
Again, the door is that way -------->>
December 8, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like a lot of yapping about a whole lot of nothing. There are going to be people that have their bullshit detectors set on 11 for the rest of their lives because of George W. Bush and challenge even the most minor deviations from orthodoxy from their clear friends and allies. Nothing Obama has ever said or done merits that kind of scrutiny from the left. That's part of the tragedy of the Bush presidency -- the destruction of trust to the point that there isn't even goodwill among clear allies.
The election is over. I hope TPM takes a look at the signal-to-noise ratio of some of these "it's out there" posts and stops catapulting the bullshit forward. I don't think even among political junkies there are 5 people on the earth who give a rat's ass if Steve Hildebrand and David Sirota get along. Ted Kennedy challenging Jimmmy Carter in a primary is a party conflict. Donna Edwards beating Albert Wynn is a party conflict. This is a mousefart.
December 8, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I work with mice every day and have NEVER seen/heard/smelled a mousefart. Good post!
December 8, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
speaking just for myself, I am adopting a 'forest not the trees' approach.
Might I disagree with this appointment or that appointment? Sure.
But what's the big picture? Are we in for another 4 to 8 years of Clintonian triangulation, or is Obama really going to pursue 'change'? Is he going to move us towards a green energy policy and national health care and a sensible foreign and military policy? Is he going to nominate progressives to the Supreme Court, not conservatives?
THAT is what I care about most. That's what we all should be pushing for.
December 8, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like Silly Season to me.
December 8, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The last time I looked, the Republican party was controlled by right wing capitalists and right wing Christians.
So what kind of movement must Obama make in order to be bi-paritsan?
What issue will the right move to the center on?
This idea of bi-partisanship and movement to the center will be interesting to watch, if it ever occurs.
December 8, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but I never took Hildebrand's piece as a smackdown. I took it as "Left, it's not just about you..."
Hence the "Obama has to be a President for all the people" part of the piece.
December 8, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm sorry, but I never took Hildebrand's piece as a smackdown. I took it as "Left, it's not just about you...""
.
If Obama had appointed at least one liberal Hildebrand might have a point. However, so far the appointments are all about the centrist cult, and the Right, therefore the Left has every right to complain. They are not demanding that it be all about them, they just want their piece.
December 8, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you'll get your "piece" in Obama's policies. Or do token appointments you can label "liberals" mean more to you than say healthcare or closing Gitmo?
This reminds me of 1991 when Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to fill Thurgood Marshall's seat on the Supreme Court. It was such a pandering, gross move that seemed correct on its face because Marshall was black, he had to be replaced by a black person.
Many black organizations refused to come out against Thomas and many African Americans said "well, at least he's black so we shouldn't complain." They got caught up in the labels and didn't bother to realize that Thomas was the complete opposite of everything Marshall and they stood for.
17 years later, I bet every one of them would have taken a white transvestite over Thomas as long as he was with them on the issues. LESSON: Fuck the labels and look at the policies!
December 8, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you opposed to the idea that a liberal ought to be part of the cabinet? Are liberals not welcome in the Democratic party? They worked hard to elect Obama, while centrists were supporting Clinton, or voting for McCain. Why does your wing of the party feel they ought to have an exclusive? If you look at the state of the nation, the Right, and centrists, have led it to the edge of ruin. I fail to see what qualifies them to get it out of the mess it is in.
December 8, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not opposed to liberals being in the cabinet, just like I'm not opposed to moderates or centrists being in the cabinet. In fact, I don't give a fuck about ideologies.
I want the policies Obama campaigned on enacted and if he appoints Snoopy and the Red Barron and that happens, I'm a happy camper.
Question to you: why do labels mean more to you than policies?
December 8, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing, you don't know shit about my "wing of the party." I have never been called a moderate or a centrist in my life. I am a proud liberal, pinko commie.
But I'm also a grown-up who has watched for decades as liberals have squandered the opportunity to make real meaningful change in policies that impact our lives because they couldn't stop the fucking bean-counting: we need W number of women; X number of minorities, Y number of gays, and Z number of vegans in the administration.
Clinton had many more traditional liberals in his cabinet but he governed like a centrist. Robert Reich, an avowed liberal, was labor secretary yet labor felt they got screwed under Clinton. There are several examples of "liberals" failing to enact liberal policies.
So excuse me if I put the quality of the policies over the quotas while you continue tallying up people like beans.
December 8, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I'm upsetting you, I certainly don't want you to explode, so perhaps we should just leave it. Unlike you, I have no idea what policies Obama will pursue. However, I assume that if a liberal is in charge of a department, there is a greater possibility they will be open to liberal policies. I don't think that is a big reach to assume that, even for someone like you, who has transcended ideology.
December 8, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just said you have no idea what policies Obama will puruse yet you admit you're not happy. You have made my case better than I ever could: you care about liberals, not liberal policies.
As I mentioned, Reich was a liberal in the Clinton administration at labor yet Clinton's labor policies were decidedly "un-liberal." Remember NAFTA? That's because the president sets the vision and the cabinet officials carry it out.
I like the policies Obama said he will implement and since he never once made campaign promises about his cabinet appointees, I see no reason to be concerned or feel cheated. If he suddenly decides to chuck healthcare, closing Gitmo, ending the war and addressing climate change, then I'll get angry.
December 8, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said I have no idea what policies he will pursue, once in power, but if all his advice is coming from the Right, I doubt it will be the policies he said he would pursue when he asked the Left for their vote. I would feel more comfortable if he was getting some advice from the Left as well. I really don't understand why you or Hildebrand feel I need to apologize for that, or why you are so threatened by the idea.
December 8, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: He asked the left, right and center for their votes. To describelany of his advisers as "on the right" is flat wrong. Many, many of the people he's appointed were longtime campaign advisers, like Rubin, Summers and Geithner--the same people who advised him when he made his campaign promises.
And if see what Gates and Jones have and written over the past two years, I bet you would find yourself nodding in agreement with them. I don't know if Gates supported to invasion of Iraq but I do know that he has vehemently disagreed with the conduct of the war and thinks we should get out of there. He has repeatedly said we should close Gitmo. He agrees with Obama about what to do in Afghanistan. Both he and Jones have been strong advocates for soft power (diplomacy) over military action. Now, tell me: what do you find so objectionable about that?
December 8, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have a problem with centrists being in the administration. I have a problem with there being no liberals.
December 8, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone tell this adviser that 84% of those who identify themselves as liberals approve of Obama's appointments so far.
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/sfho-y9eoko-kacbbdfmqa.gif
December 8, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions about the Cabinet and White House appointments that President-Elect Obama is making."
Of course it is the time. We are his base, and we'll express our feelings about his appointments when he makes them, before they are final and afterward, whether we approve or disapprove.
I think Steve Hildebrand needs to calm down.
Besides, the "most qualified" trope is a disturbing Bushism. How about selecting people who are well-qualified and also non-"conservative"?
December 8, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Steve a lot; I used to work for him. But I think he paints a false dichotomy here. One can be both progressive AND competent, right? Bush, e.g., picked John Ashcroft for AG. We all hated him, but not because he was incompetent or couldn't carry out what the president wanted. There's no reason why Obama couldn't have picked someone like Jared Bernstein to be his top economics advisor (who eventually ended up with Biden, presumably never to be heard from again). Or any number of wonderful other people. It can't be just a coincidence that EVERY SINGLE competent person Obama just so happens to be a centrist.
December 8, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, today we have another obligatory Party bitchslap to the loathed DFH's... just as another "new poll" happens to be released, showing widespread acceptance among Democrats (who voted for "change"!), for making their Party half Republican.
Anyone else around here, feel like they're being "worked"? Or am I just paranoid?
December 8, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your paranoid.
December 8, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't fool me. You don't "think" :-P
December 8, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay here's my take on this. In my opinion there are no angry liberal when it comes to what Obama is doing. The only people that are stirring the pot on this is Chris Bowers, Matt Stoller, David Sirota and the rest of the purists at OpenLeft.
Outside of there there are not too many complaining about Obama's picks and policies. There are two camps really right now among Liberals: The ones who do approve of Obama's decsions and the ones who are on a wait and see attitude and I see this on here (although mostly everyone here approves of Obama's decsions) and on Daily Kos.
Obama is never going to win the support of all liberals because there are purists on the left (the right has them too) that put ideology over competence. Also if you look at the polls coming out (there is a article about it in TPM's election central page) that Obama is getting high marks regarding his picks and decsions.
Also what Hilldenbrand fails to get is there's a difference between people handwringing and bed wetting and people who still support their president-elect but voice their opinions approve or dissent. There are people that voice their opinions about Obama when they think there wrong but still support, Steve dosen't get that.
If anything that will make Liberals "Angry" is this post Hilldenbrand wrote on Huff Post about this, this will just start shit in an instant. So like I said before the left isn't angry as a whole, the problem is the minority that are angry (Sirota, Bowers etc.)are the ones getting all the press so the MSM is hyping up the theme "Liberals are angry" because to them Bowers and Sirota are the unoffical spokespeople of the left when in fact there not, nobody really is (well maybe Kos).
But at the end of the day their still behind Obama, but even when where supportive we will voice our opinions when we think the man is in the wrong. I know that there will be people here that will disagree with my view on this and there entitled to that, but i'm just writing my two cents on the matter in a calm rational way.
Also I apologize for my grammar.
December 8, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may recall (or not!) that it was precisely the "purists", who insisted on all those radical, Far Left [tm] positions on everything in the first place.
You know. Like ending involvement in Iraq, stopping torture, putting the brakes on deregulation...
Yeah, maybe we should have just STFU after all, and let the "adults" force the opposition candidate to take those positions and win the election with them.
Again, class: Sirota, Bad. Matthews, Good.
December 8, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it was precisely those purists who pushed the Netroots that helped bring back the Democratic Party to relevance in many places, raised money for these people when the Rahms of the Party said "fuck 'em" and in other ways worked their asses off to make an anti-Iraq War position feasible and politically viable.
December 8, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was just too broad a brush. As I said earlier, if the plan is to set up the "Left" as the bad guy as a way to make Obama appear more Centrist and independent from "liberals", good idea.
But if Hildebrand is really serious, I don't think this sort of generalization about the "left" is helpful at all, as it just sets us up in opposition to each other.
Either way, I am not prejudging the Cabinet picks at all, and have great faith in Obama to get things done. In fact, I am thrilled we have in my opinion the 3 next best candidates, Biden, Clinton and Richardson all in positions of power.
.
December 8, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, actually it's NOT "a good idea".
As I posted earlier, the Left is long overdue some RESPECT.
For what? Well, besides being responsible for giving the guy the positions to get elected on, in the first place, and for actually being the activists who got him elected, the Left were the only ones who were... um, right.
(Do we at least get some points for not being like everyone else, who got it all WRONG?)
Beating up on the Left may or may not have some realpolitik advantages... but it's inappropriate, and should not be permitted out of common decency, considering the massive job they did in salvaging what's left of America. And the Left is Owed Bigtime for that. Insulting them regularly should be off the table.
The Democratic Party is obligated to start trearting its base with the same respect as the R's have always treated theirs. This is not too much to ask, at all. And if cold pragamatism is your only criterion, then great! Because it works just fine for the R's.
December 8, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, I'm so all about the cold pragmatism, I may as well be a Republican.
Come on.
I was put off by the Hildebrand piece as well, which you would know if you read my comments today. It just seems divisive, forcing us to pick the "left" or Obama, which is just ridiculous.
But, if the immediate reaction is to claim full credit for Obama's victory and then start complaining about a lack of respect, I can almost see where Hildebrand is coming from.
December 8, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>As I posted earlier, the Left is long overdue some RESPECT.
For what? Well, besides being responsible for giving the guy the positions to get elected on, in the first place, and for actually being the activists who got him elected, the Left were the only ones who were... um, right.>>
You're kidding right? The Left gave Obama his positions? The Left is responsible for his opposition to the War? The Left, most notably Krugman, who bashed him relentlessly over his refusal to mandate healthcare? The Left who insisted he not vote for FISA? The Left gave him his positions on cafe standards, which he's been advocating for years? The Left which was furious when he embraced faith-based inititives (which he has always supported)?
Get over yourself. You act as if Obama is some kind of idiotic Bush/Palin-puppet who has never considered these issues before he started running for president, as if he had no opinions until he met with the Great & Powerful Kos who told him what to think. Give me a fucking break!
Your childish ranting and insisting on getting respect and having your ass kissed is exactly why you'll never get either. Grow the fuck up!
December 8, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>As I posted earlier, the Left is long overdue some RESPECT.
For what? Well, besides being responsible for giving the guy the positions to get elected on, in the first place, and for actually being the activists who got him elected, the Left were the only ones who were... um, right.>>
You're kidding right? The Left gave Obama his positions? The Left is responsible for his opposition to the War? The Left, most notably Krugman, who bashed him relentlessly over his refusal to mandate healthcare? The Left who insisted he not vote for FISA? The Left gave him his positions on cafe standards, which he's been advocating for years? The Left which was furious when he embraced faith-based inititives (which he has always supported)?
Get over yourself. You act as if Obama is some kind of idiotic Bush/Palin-puppet who has never considered these issues before he started running for president, as if he had no opinions until he met with the Great & Powerful Kos who told him what to think. Give me a fucking break!
Your childish ranting and insisting on getting respect and having your ass kissed is exactly why you'll never get either. Grow the fuck up!
December 8, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I always considered Obama's position was "It's all about me, baby", and that he would not respect or listen, but instead would focus on groups that would extend his power, not the ones who got him to this rung.
Being entirely "pragmatic", I don't expect Obama to fight hard for any principle, and it's the luck of the draw that he's a Democrat.
I'm also amazed that people think it peculiar that citizens would want their elected politicians to pay attention to their wishes, described by you as "childish ranting, insisting on getting respect, having your ass kissed". But I knew this, because as soon as the primaries were over, it became important that we not disturb Obama while he was choosing his VP - certainly not try to influence it - and make sure not to criticize anything or disturb until after the a) general election, b) selection of his cabinet/upper administration, c) inauguration, d) first 100 days, e) 2nd term, f) ascension.
December 8, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think that about Obama and voted for him anyway? Well, what the hell are you pissed off about? You got what you expected!
December 8, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Freerider, Explosion/Koolaid face will never get over HRC not getting the nomination. Picture this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s
That's how I visualize some of the reactions here. There is no reasoning with this person and other people here. They don't want to be positive or constructive. They only want to whine and be negative. They have NOTHING constructive or positive to say. I have really appreciated your comments. I sense you have some DC experience under your belt. I've been in DC for a long time and I really like what Obama's doing.
December 8, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No DC experience. Just a long time in the liberal trenches. Long enough to recognize my younger self in some of these folks. We were convinced that we should take the in-your-face, my way or the highway approach. And we ended up with nothing.
I watched us squander opportunities to get many of the things we wanted because we insisted on bragging and strutting and mocking those who disagreed with us instead of finding a way to co-opt them.
I want certain things-- healthcare, an end to this war, an environmentally friendly energy policy, no more torture, closing Gitmo, a more humble foreign policy--way more than I want someone of a particular ideology.
December 8, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I am a soulmate, then. And I really hate being in the position of the "oldster", my God. But I fought lots of "liberal" battles early on with quite a vengeance, and got nothing or little in return. My great calibration system is my three sons, ages 18-23. They are all what I would call true progressives. When I forget myself and start on a liberal tirade, they look at me and say, "Mom, what the hell are you talking about?" It's a great reality check. Plus, I've worked in the legislative and exec branch since 1982 and that's the fastest lesson for understanding that compromise is essential, but the smarter side gets more. I know that Obama is on the smarter side right now....It's beautiful in its purity. Anyway, I find much truth in your posts.
December 8, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
could have just been Hildebrand's tin ear and clumsiness . . .
or the first salvo in setting "the left" up as their 'bad cop' . . . should prove handy in the next 4 years
December 8, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
or it could be just what it seems like, Obama trying to curry favor in the center-right by throwing the left under the bus. You know when Obama was busy propping up Lieberman we heard all sorts of "explanations" which didn't deal with the simple fact that Obama is fine with Holy Joe. I think he is just dumping the left, doing it in a fairly public way (although staying a little aboe the fray). I do not think in Obama's tightly controlled organization a loose cannon is tolerated. My reading on the Hildebrand attack is that it is deliberate and purposefuland coming from Obama. Why Obama is doing it, I do not know.
December 8, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You guys need to stop saying that people "get thrown under the bus." It's really unoriginal and it's code. Smart people don't use the same code over and over.
December 8, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Thrown under the bus" belongs with "drink the kool aid" and "think outside the box" -- in the trash bin never to be used again!
December 8, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's cool to say "you guys" in this contest. Who are the other guys? A million other people with poor vocabularies? I don't disagree with you about the phrase. I don't like it, but do you have a good alternative? BTW, what is it "code" for? What do the smart guys use?
December 8, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's for us to know and for you to find out.
December 8, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
is there a handshake involved?
Ralph Cramden and Ed Norton would wag the tails on their raccoon hats. I've always wanted one of those.
December 9, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink