"Surprised" Hildebrand Responds To Critics: "I Don't Regret Any Of It"
Former Obama adviser Steve Hildebrand, who touched off an explosion with his HuffPo piece arguing that "the left" should hold its fire and let Obama do his thing, says he doesn't regret a word of the piece, though he did make a key concession to critics.
"I don't regret any of it," Hildebrand told me when I asked him a few minutes ago by phone whether he regretted the tone of his piece, which many found condescending and finger-wagging.
"My intent was exactly what I wrote," Hildebrand said, adding that the criticism had "surprised" him.
Hildebrand also confirmed that the Obama team had had no hand in writing or approving the piece. "This was not collaborated with anybody in the Obama camp," he said, and a source close to the transition confirms this.
Hildebrand did appear to concede some turf to critics who are pointing out that his piece seemed to suggest that "the left wing of our party" is somehow at odds with Obama's desire to be "pragmatic" and holds priorities that are somehow at odds with Obama's big-ticket agenda items.
"The one thing I left out, which goes without saying, is that working on health care, getting out of the war in Iraq, fixing the economy ... those are very progressive ideals," Hildebrand clarified.
When I pointed out that he seemed to be exaggerating or oversimplifying the nature of the "left's" quarrel with Obama, without naming those lefty critics, Hildebrand responded: "There is a lot of sniping out there...it's constant."
Hildebrand also denied that his framing was meant to portray the "left's" views as more marginal than they actually are. "I wasn't attacking anybody or criticizing anybody in particular," he insisted, though it was hard to avoid the conclusion that he didn't care enough about the criticism to focus on its finer points.
Asked why, as his piece had suggested, critics should feel constrained from raising legitimate questions about what his cabinet picks could portend for the future direction of the administration, Hildebrand said: "You guys can do what you want. That was my opinion, not a directive."
He added that the criticism of the cabinet picks was substantively off base:
"I just don't see how you can generalize that the choices in his cabinet are not very far to the left," he said, citing Hillary and Tom Daschle.
Among those who have hit Hildebrand hardest: Jane Hamsher, Glenn Greenwald, John Aravosis, and Matt Stoller. Steve Benen points out that Hildebrand didn't bother naming his critics. But Atrios and Ezra Klein argued that the real ball game here is an effort to redefinine liberal priorities as "centrist."
Damn, Greg - y'all sure do good work. Interesting that he wants his cake and wants to eat it too - he won't name names or get specific about who said what.
But he still stands behind what he wrote.
Good work getting him to admit it.
December 8, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
thx much tena
December 8, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded, tena.
December 8, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a member of the seething left I am too outraged by the rape of the cardboard Hillary to
even care what a former Kool Aid staffer told the former Republican Huffington.
December 8, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Originally Hildebrand stated that we'd work on universal health care, global warming, withdrawal from Iraq, and so on, as centrist issues. But now Greg's successfully wrung an admission out of him that these priorities aren't really "centrist" after all, but in fact "liberal" enough to make us happy. Hoo...ray?
This is what I don't get. Why the hell would you congratulate Greg for helping to frame our own priorities as out of the mainstream? Are we on the left really so fucking stupid and tone-deaf as to not have heard the liberal dogwhistle in his initial comments? Do we need to be pampered and have our egos stroked at the expense of actually implementing progressive policies? Or is it just you TPM people who behave like that?
December 9, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, there is a lot of sniping out there. But then, there has been, from the beginning on. It's called having an opinion.
I initially thought after the election: "Geez, give it a rest, people, and let's just enjoy this for a little bit"...but it's easier to have an impact before a decision is made, or someone is confirmed, or a policy is enacted, rather than after, so why shouldn't prominent bloggers offer up their criticisms?
He thinks Clinton is really out there, lefty-wise? Really?
December 8, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
He thinks Hillary and Daschle are left? He should stop watching Fox News.
I never drank the Obama Kool-Aid but I did hope he might bring in people who could think outside the box. The far, and I mean far, right has so successfully put the box on the right, that it is virtually impossible for any ideas that are not right of Nixon to be heard in the Democratic Party. I'm not even going to say "center" any more. It's so far right now, it no longer describes what once were moderate views. I mean you are considered a far left lunatic these days if you think a guy working the assembly line ought to earn a living wage and get health benefits and some kind of pension.
December 8, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>I never drank the Obama Kool-Aid but I did hope he might bring in people who could think outside the box>>
You mean people who come up with such original terms as "drank the Obama Kook-Aid"?
December 8, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like how 'drinking the Kool-Aid' now refers to a lack of ideological purity.
December 8, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that is at all what drinking the kool aid means. I think it means abandoning independent thought and just following the leader without questioning or thinking for yourself.
December 8, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always thought it had more to do with Timothy Leary than Jim Jones...
December 8, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah - as in "electric kool-aid acid test."
The Grateful Dead actually started that.
December 8, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah...plus, Jones used Flavor-Aid, not Kool-Aid. A little trivia there for ya.
December 8, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ken Keasey wrote the book...
Trivia: At Lawrence University our frat almost got kicked off campus for having a (totally tasteless) Jim Jones Memorial Party in 1985 with purple Flavor-Aid spiked with Everclear.
December 8, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Tom Wolfe wrote that book.
Ken Kesey wrote One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, the proceeds from which funded the Electric Kool-aid Acid Tests, from which Wolfe took his title.
Kids today (grumblegrump).
December 8, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dang it! I was close though...
Thanks for the correction!
:-)
December 8, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still have my People's Temple membership card from High School, 1979. If you'd been in HS in Texas in the 70's you would know that we were only halfway kidding.
December 8, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, technically, it was the Merry Pranksters, but the Dead certainly played their part.
December 8, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And "think outside the box".
I really get a kick out of folks who use this cliché, as it is a clear indication that they are incapable of the original thought to which they encourage others. Actually, it irritates the hell out of me.
December 8, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed! The whole pragmatic v. ideologue dichotomy is also ridiculous. As if the Left knows things it wants are bad for the country but wants them nonetheless while centrists have no prior opinion on anything... (I wrote about this more this morning). The GOP never has similar obsessions with beating up the far right, quite the contrary.
December 8, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you - I haven't seen him respond to pressure yet.
I wonder if he is even concerned right now with whether the left is supposedly "angry" -
December 8, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he is probably more irritated than concerned.
December 8, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and that just worked out great for them and for the country.
December 8, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
In literal terms ideologue -- at least as I understand it -- does kinda conflict with being pragmatic. That doesn't infer that one 'knows one's position does harm' but that generally one DOESN'T know and isn't all that interested in knowing. Sorry if you're really tied to being called an ideologue...
Whether he intended to spark the debate or not, another interesting thing that surfaces in all this is that time is being spent (wasted?) debating who and what policy positions are truly "left" (or not). Similar to the pragmatism/ideologue question, I don't really care what category a person falls in or if some policy I think will improve average people's lives passes some popular blogger's subjective test on its 'leftness.' I just want to see that policy enacted...and I'll support whoever will pass it.
December 8, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the real problem of course. People like this fellow think that Hillary and Daschle are left when they are centrists just like Obama. So logically he also thinks Obama himself is left which he most certainly is not. The policies are likely to reflect the people at the top. There's no indication of any liberal bent in any of his anticipated appointments.
December 8, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that the biggest infrastructure project since Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway system could be considered a right-wing policy : http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=ao_8cZPMC0cE&refer=economy
December 8, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That makes Obama a far lefty, then.
December 8, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>"...but it's easier to have an impact before a decision is made, or someone is confirmed, or a policy is enacted, rather than after>>
Please name one example where carping from the left, right or center caused Obama to back away from a stated position. There may be some but, for the life of me, I can't recall any. He has modified his positions because circumstances have changed but Obama really seems to dig his heels in when he's pressured.
December 8, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If by pressure you mean a big public brawl with left wing bloggers proclaiming how profoundly disappointed they are with his choices, well, then, I guess you could say he digs his heels in, but since I'm not privvy to the discussions that go on, I'm not going to say so. He hasn't dug his heels in on anything, if you ask me, because he wasn't a liberal when he ran, and therefore, what he's doing now is consistent with his previous positions. So far.
He's modified his positions in the past (FISA, e.g). That may be because "circumstances changed", or, it may be due to political pressure we're not aware of. I don't know. But I'm not comfortable with the notion that he really digs his heels in when pressured by people. I don't know him that well, and, given how tight-lipped the campaign was, neither does anyone else, no matter how much we project our feelings.
December 8, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
He modified his position on FISA *away* from what the base wanted. And when the base got angry, he didn't budge.
Maybe "digging his heels in" was the wrong way to phrase it. It seems to me that Obama gives a lot of thought and takes a lot of counsel about a decision but once he's decided and announced, he's won't budge, at least because of discontent from supporters or critics.
They say Clinton had the opposite problem: he would be swayed by the last person he talked to. And I recall that he was going to appoint his good friend Peter Edelman to a post then heard there would be dissent, so he pulled back and just sent a letter to Edleman saying "sorry."
That story made me sick to my stomach. Personally, I'd much rather have a president who has the courage of his well-considered convictions than a wuss. (Mind you, Bush's convictions were not well-considered.)
December 8, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that Obama gives a lot of thought and takes a lot of counsel about a decision but once he's decided and announced, he's won't budge, at least because of discontent from supporters or critics.
I agree with this. That's why dissent and public discussion before the decision is made is important--and why I said that it would be easier to sway him before, rather than after.
But what the heck do I know? Does he even read blogs?
Or care?
December 8, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
FISA isn't much of an issue to bring up if highlighting the thought of one's strongly held convictions. If anything, the FISA vote proved Obama's convictions regarding an extraordinarily illegal government activity were weak indeed. His final position was diametrically opposed to the statements he had previously made about FISA and what his position would be on telecom immunity when he wanted the votes and support of the left. Once he didn't "need" them, he flip flopped because that's what the insiders club of Washington DC Democrats wanted (Pelosi, Reid, Howyer, Emmanuel). And all of them, including Obama were wrong to have done what they did on that issue. Plain and simple.
December 8, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who pressured Obama to switch on FISA? No one. The measure passed overwhelmingly with something like 76 votes. I don't know why he switched but I do know that all of the pissing and moaning from the Left had ZERO effect on him switching back.
December 8, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thus, it is even worse that he caved in on what he clearly stated as his "principled" position on FISA if he wasn't pressured. But, in fact, he was pressured.
He was pressured by the corrupt individuals (Democratic legislators all) who raked in money by the tens of thousands in exchange for their switcheroo on the immunity clause. It had absolutely nothing to dow ith national security or any of that other hogwash. It was about protecting the telecoms from liability from the word go. Democrats found it acceptable as long as they got a bit of payola out of it. Given the issue and it's seriousness, many people like me found this an egregious and pathetic cave in for the worst of reasons in order to benefit and protect the worst kind of criminals: those who would use our Constitution and our laws as toilet paper.
Obama's "go along, get along" approach and hiding with the herd of hypocritical Democratic congressional cowards on the issue was his least impressive moment in 2008. The "smart" people told him he "had" to go along. So, he did. He offered the pathetic boilerplate arguments they handed him and the inside the beltway scum were delighted at his performance. These are the same people who doomed folks like Hillary Clinton in 2002 by forcefully and successfully arguing that Democrats "had" to support the Iraq war authorization despite the fact that any ordinary citizen (let alone a Senator with access to the alleged intelligence) could easily deduce that the WMD argument was a fraud and an excuse for an illegal and immoral invasion of a nation that posed no threat whatever to the United States. Obama is lucky he wasn't serving in the Senate at that time. Had he been there, he may well have followed the same foolish and ill-advised course.
December 8, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stating that Obama caved on FISA due to outside influence is equivalent to saying that he is not responsible for his decisions and should not be held accountable for the outcome - good or bad.
December 8, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
FISA? How did anything change there?
December 8, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
STFU knee-jerk liberals
December 8, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you read the comments above, Greg's excellent journalistic work, yet still conclude we're a bunch of knee jerk liberals?
It seems some in the Obama camp have adopted a bunker mentality before even holing up in the White House. That criticism should necessarily equal antagonism to such a powerful official is not a good sign, imo.
December 8, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he's kidding.
December 8, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope so, but given the pervasiveness of that sentiment (even among "family," as Hildebrand himself exemplifies), it's by no means self-evident.
December 8, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did it cross your mind, may be Hildebrand wants you to stay where you are?
Angry.
December 8, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you talking about? The constant "criticism = anger" theme is as shallow as it is dull. Do keep trying, though.
December 8, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don’t forget that team Obama is the master of strategic jujitsu. Who benefits the most from the perception that he’s not leaning far enough left? Obama does. If he can keep the volume from the liberal wing of the party turned up loud enough the far right will have trouble chanting that he’s a socialist-commie-marxist (you pick) while he quietly moves the center to the left – and it’s brilliant as usual.
December 8, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually that's a very good point. A little too Machiavellian to really know whether it's happening or not, but I don't think Obama is just going to squander the first AA presidency on Cheney-lite (I hope).
December 8, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. While some tend to portray this as an act of political backbone ("he doesn't respond to pressure"), I think of it in purely practical terms. Obama's battling the mythical wild-eyed lefties: see? He's not one of them!
There's no downside to him doing this, even if they disavowed having anything to do with this whole thing.
December 8, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no downside if Obama is a stunning success at turning the economy around and ending the wars abroad.
December 8, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The downside is that his administration becomes just another mealy mouthed Washington DC Democratic pile of weak policies cowed by right wing interests into constantly demonstrating he isn't too liberal. But as bluebell points out if he ends the wars and gets the economy back on track there's no downside. It's pretty clear, however, that no centrist set of policies is going to accomplish those aims.
December 8, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right.
The key is to redefine the center and then govern from there. If keeping the far left spun up lets Barack gather more support for moving the center and further marginalizing the far right, then I say the tactic is worth the downside of pissing off the democratic party's base.
His methods may seem conservative to some critics on the left, but I think they will pay huge dividends in the long run.
The left staying on point keeps Obama honest while allowing him the distance to continue moving the center away from the far right detour its been on these last 40 years. His strategy allows him to also bring many moderates along for the ride, both liberal and conservative.
I suspect that liberals will continue to have criticism for Obama's methods, as is their First Amendment rights allow, but will be enjoying the progressive victories his presidency delivers for generations to come.
It's all a matter of semantics at this point, as your comment seems to suggest.
December 8, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
My question is whether it's OK to criticize this guy for being a dick. "You guys can do what you want," yeah whatever, guy. Wouldn't want to offer even the slightest nod toward democracy and the marketplace of ideas. Hope nobody spits in your latte.
This, I fear, portends the "I HAS A MANDATE" tripe that Cheney and Bush worked with.
December 8, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What happened to Obama wants open dialog and vigorous debate with viewpoints from all sides? Hildebrand's comments were dismissive and intended to marginalize the political perspective of the Left. I'd like to hear Obama come out and say something about the importance of the Liberal...yes, I said it...the Liberal perspective and its place in our history, present and future discourse.
Everyone should stop being so damned afraid of the L word.
December 8, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Debate what? You can't debate his policies because he hasn't put any on the table. This is all about throwing a fit about his cabinet appointees.
December 8, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Geez, FreeRider. Are you seriously arguing that there is nothing to debate? That there is no policy out there yet? Even if you pretend that Obama's cabinet appointments means nothing, you've got be in serious denial to claim that we know nothing of his policy positions. He did run on a platform. And his cabinet members do have a history serving in government. There's quite a bit to debate here, let's not pretend otherwise.
And for a bit of interesting reading, check out this link that explores the notion that Personnel is Policy: http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10199, looking at backgrounder written in January 2001 by the Heritage Foundation. It gives some very pointed advice as to how George W Bush ought to hit the ground running and use his appointees to get his agenda going. The irony of much of it that our hindsight now grants us will make your head spin.
December 8, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like Obama to cook me dinner and host a movie watching party for just he and I! That would be grand!
As others have pointed out, no bills are on the table yet. In fact, Obama doesn't even have a table. These demands for pointless gestures of fealty are exactly what's at issue and, frankly, they are silly.
December 8, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, from the get-go, the whole strategy of Obama's rhetoric has been to say, "These aren't liberal values, these are American values" and avoid phrasing things in terms of ideological binaries. In fact, that's why Obama appealed to many of us to begin with. Why would he fall back into the trap of framing policies in terms of ideological labels? It's contrary to his entire approach.
December 8, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen!
December 8, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on that. This is a firestorm built out of pure boredom,waiting for the governing to begin. Campaigning is not governing. You pick different people to run the government than you do to run a campaign. People don't seem to understand that here and there is an incredible amount of pointless and negative agitation about people rather than policies. Plus, Obama's in charge. We voted for him to be the Chief Executive, so one of the perks of that job is picking your management team based on their skills and THEIR ABILITY and WILLINGNESS to work with you. None of us knows what conversations are going on. Everyone needs to chill. Good Lord.
December 8, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would suggest that you not wait for a bill to be introduced to make your views known, Stro. I guarantee you that the lobbyists are not. All you need to know is who is making the decisions.
December 8, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, great, except that the whole ridiculous discussion is the result of stuff that people like Hamsher, Stoller and Greenwald have been hypothesizing (or, to be more precise, pulling out of their asses) that Obama might or might not do based upon their mystical divinations of the future based on his cabinet picks.
In other words, its typical liberal handwringing, umbrage-taking and chicken littling over nothing.
I mean, for crying out loud people, our top story tonight is "OBAMA STILL NOT YET PRESIDENT."
December 8, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the matter with Jane Hamsher? Why in the world did she choose to pitch a fit over the idea of Caroline Kennedy taking Hillary's senate seat? What the hell? What I read was so silly that I don't know what to say - Jane is all up in arms cause "where was she the last 8 years?"
Is there going to be a test for our politicians now, to determine if they are left enough and they did enough when Bush was in office? Cause that is going to be a tough test for anyone to pass.
December 8, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena: I've asked a bunch of people throwing fits at TPM about Obama's picks not being liberal enough to define "liberal." I suspect you and I (women in our 50s) might have a different definition than people from other age groups. For example, what is liberal enough for a Defense Secretary (a Quaker?) or for any other cabinet post. e.g., HHS Secretary? I have never been able to get an answer. Obama is liberal enough for me and he has a vision of how to achieve liberal goals. And that's good enough for me.
December 8, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was asking this morning when this all got started: what is it that people want? I think a huge jobs program on an FDR scale, universal health coverage, appointed liasons to the internet, a retooled and less militaristic foreign policy, ending the war, closing Gitmo, imposing new regulations on the markets, putting up a web site where every group who contacts the transition team is published - as in promised transparency of government - are all progressive programs.
I can't for the life of me think what they want.
December 8, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is a certain element that self-defines as the "liberal left" that wants to own these issues. They get pissy when someone comes along who actually wants to enact them because they lose their reason for being universally angry at that point. It's incredibly immature and I have little patience for it. They define themselves as being oppositional, not on what's good for society.
December 8, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on the money, KateO, right on the money.
December 9, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am so fucking sick of Jane Hamsher I could scream. Her piece on Caroline Kennedy was jumping the shark to the nth degree. HuffPo (or, Obama-hatred central, to be more accurate) links to her what seems like every goddamned day. She is the ultimate whiner; someone who is incapable of being pleased. The only one worse is Greenwald. I have begun to hate him. All he does is criticize without ever offering solutions. Much easier to sit on the sidelines and bitch, right? You can't sell books if everything is hunky dory.
That is why, for whatever other things I might have taken issue with in Hildebrand's piece, I was not offended by him not naming specific bloggers. I mean hello, we all know who he is talking about: Hamsher, Greenwald, Sirota, Brown, et. al.
And beyond the cadre of whiners named above, the commenters in the blogs at HuffPo, here (although to a lesser degree), firedoglake, etc have been absolutely vicious. No one is willing to wait and keep an open mind, it seems. There is a difference between constructive criticism and de-legitimizing a presidency before it even starts. HuffPo is an endless diatribe of "buyers remorse" from phony idiots who act as though there was a viable alternative. How lame.
The pushback against this permanent state of victimization by some "progressives" seems to have begun. Because after all, if all you ever do is bitch, and you are NEVER happy, how can you have any credibility?
December 9, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs to focus on January 21st and getting ready to hit the ground running. Not reassuring Liberals.
December 8, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice job, Greg!
What I find *most* irritating about the piece in question is that the author DOES NOT CITE ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE OF THE BEHAVIOR HE BITCHES AND MOANS ABOUT.
And saying that something is 'constant' should make such citation(s) a relatively simple task.
December 8, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word straight up.
That's what got me.
December 8, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
But journalists do this stuff ALL.THE.TIME. I'm not defending Hillebrand, but he's using the same stupid ploy that is endemic.
"Some people say". "Some" have criticized. "Many on the left" (all three of them!). And so on, and so forth.
December 8, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
We must have cross posted.
Your comment wasn't there yet when I wrote almost the same thing.
December 8, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there has been plenty of that behavior right here at good old TPM. Maybe he follows it.
December 8, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, but damn, let's not pretend it hasn't been happening. Some of the very people Greg cites as calling out Hildebrand for not naming his critics--Hamsher, Greenwald, Stoller--have been among the ones bitching about entirely hypothetical policy shifts they attribute to Not Yet President Obama based solely upon their supernatural ability to devine Obama's future actions from his cabinet picks.
December 8, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the same thing the MSM has been guilty of: all the unattributed statements, the "some people say" -
Seems to me this kind of piece would be far better if Hildebrand was specifically responding to a named person or persons bitching. It would sound a lot less like bitching from him.
December 8, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
See my comment above (obviously don't know how to spell Hildebrand's last name).
Judith Miller was the absolute poster child for this garbage during the lead-up to the invasion.
If Hildebrand had named names, wouldn't it have then turned into an Obama-(name of critic spat)? (Never mind that Obama had nothing to do with it...you and I both know how it would be described) Thereby increasing the significance of said critic?
You said it best. He gets his cake and eats it too, handling it this way. Word gets out that "some in the Obama camp" aren't particularly happy with the left, and voila! The mythical monolithic left is on notice, and the Obama campaign is "resisting" the urging of liberal critics.
December 8, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I meant by cross-posted. I did see your comment and we were channeling each other or something.
December 8, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy you got this right. The left is like herding cats.
December 8, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by the way, Greg - I love it that you put "surprise" in quotes because if he didn't expect a reaction, why did he write it?
December 8, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mommy, why are all of the WHITE bloggers and progressives throwing temper tantrums over the tall brown man?
December 8, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am absolutely sure that Obama knows that he isn't going to please 100% of the people all of the time and there will be a time when he will piss off the left, the middle, and the right sometime while he is in office.
Also, IMO, the liberals who are complaining the most right now are just the most vocal. I think the vast majority of liberals/progressives support Obama since Obama's policies really haven't changed.
December 8, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
In recent administrations, senior White House staffers typically have been more influential than most cabinet members. Left Democrats have paid insufficient attention to Obama's staff apppointments, some of whom have backgrounds more progressive than centrist. Key examples:
Political Director Patrick Gaspard (background is union--1199); Domestic Policy head Melody Barnes (Ted Kennedy's staff); White House Counsel Greg Craig (Ted Kennedy's staff and more a Kennedy person than a Clinton person). And most intriguing: Jared Bernstein as Biden's economic adviser (Economic Policy Institute and one of the preeminent liberal economists). In short, Obama has a more diverse set of people around him than the spat over his cabinet choices recognizes.
December 8, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The one thing I left out, which goes without saying, is that working on health care, getting out of the war in Iraq, fixing the economy ... those are very progressive ideals," Hildebrand clarified.
Sounds like a basic point to leave out for all the bitching.
December 8, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah!
December 8, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, so in spite of the myriad appointments of officials responsible for the messes we face in the areas to which you refer, we should just have faith and keep our mouths shut. In a public forum, of all places: how insipid.
December 8, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? When did I ask you to STFU?
I agree. It would be lot less interesting without different views.
December 8, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't say "F" and neither did I, but to describe people critical of Hildebrand as "bitching" doesn't strike me as far from that epithet.
December 8, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was saying Hildebrand was "bitching" for an entire article without talking much about the administration's position on progressive issues like health care, war in Iraq, and economy.
Chill out. Will ya?
I think this guy is an asshat, I think we can both agree on that.
December 8, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
My bad, we agree on Hildebrand, I misunderstood what you wrote.
December 8, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I take issue not with the idea of criticism, but the quality of it. I don't agree with Hildebrand, but saying that specific comments are stupid is not the same as stifling dissent.
December 8, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saying that people on the left should refrain from drawing conclusions represents a blanket statement that equates to stifling dissent, though.
December 8, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Hillebrand is just protecting his friend who is Obama. Plus he probably feels that all the shit he did to get Obama elected and all he hears is people sniping already.
December 8, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a very nice way of looking at it, Maritza. You could well be right.
December 8, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Hildebrand on all of it. I rarely read blogs any longer and I don't watch television. I'll care again when Obama takes office. Until then, I'm just completely fed up with the speculative whining.
December 8, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"speculative whining" - heh, exactly!
December 8, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
When was the last time you saw anything on the Huffpo that didn't have shockvalue or sensationalism?
These liberal blogs are no different from MSM in knowing what drives up the traffic. Nothing like the "angry left" or "Clinton problem" stories to keep the keyboards busy.
Only difference, at the blogs we get a chance to pummel Hidlebrand's ass and with MSM we end up with a broken television screen.
Can uproars get any more fake or shallow?
December 8, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Can uproars get any more fake or shallow?"
You continue to answer that silly question with each successive post.
December 8, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Always have to make some personal insult?
Not Classy. Sotty.
December 8, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean like fake, shallow and angry?
Look, your duplicity in argumentation and unwillingness to tolerate any dissent from the official positions of team Obama leave your credibility in debate as thin as your quickly receding hairline. Now that's a personal attack I can believe in.
December 8, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Receding hairline? I don't mind the day when I have to worry about a receding hairline. A farless of a personal insult than talking down.
December 8, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least you keep smiling through all this, that's certainly winning.
December 8, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Kash, the internet spawned these thousands of political junkies, though Commander CooCoo had a lot to do with the frustration that was looking for an outlet.
But it's kind of like an army of zombies: Once you've created it, what do you do with it? LOL!
just having fun - please no one take me seriously.
December 8, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I'm not against it. I wouldn't be here if I didn't enjoy it. I like fake uproar and anger much safer than real anger.
December 8, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if anyone has mentioned it before me, but if so, it hasn't been corrected yet, and dumb stuff like this makes me crazy -- in the final sentence of this post, there is mention of "an effort to redefinine liberal priorities as 'centrist.' "
Redefinine?
Come on. Spell check would pick that one up in a heartbeat. As Josh Lyman once noted, serious people are going to look at this. I don't think we're allowed to make up our own words.
December 8, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Former Obama adviser Steve Hildebrand, who touched off an explosion with his HuffPo piece... "
As a member of the Pyrotechnic left, I love explosions. Sorry I missed this one. Were their any casualties? Nothing like watching my fellow leftists explode. Too bad there were no examples
cited of the victims or descriptions of the type of explosives used.
December 8, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's kind of like suicide bombing, but with less courage (or cowardice depending on your perspective).
December 8, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And lots of granola residue.
December 8, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, that made me laugh. I am guessing you are younger than 30?
December 8, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's on his impressive resume aside from helping Daschle lose to the brilliant John Thune?
December 8, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there's this little bit about the 2008 presidential election....
December 8, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad Hildebrand spoke up. I respect most of the voices on the Left. But that doesn't mean the Left can do no wrong. For example, I don't care what John Aravosis thinks anymore. Stopped reading his blog midway throught the Dem primaries because he was so stridently pro-Obama, anti-Clinton. Nothing wrong with that. I just got tired of reading the same opinion every day. How ironic that he's criticizing Obama now.
December 8, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with him completely. All of the Monday Morning quarterbacks who are picking apart every decision Barack makes should plan to run for the Presidency in 2012. That or STFU.
December 8, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am glad that Hildebrand spoke up too. There was a lot of sniping going on from the same people who always snipe.
I don't see any of those people praising Obama for his gigantic stimulus package that he will be creating that will build infrastructure, change our economy into a green economy, address healthcare, etc.
I just see sniping about who Obama has put in his cabinet.
December 8, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's put together a cabinet in the fastest time of any president, I believe. I recall some people bitching at first about "what is he doing? Why isn't he leading?"
LOL!
It's going to always be like this.
December 8, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It is better to be both loved and feared, but if it only one is possible, it is better to be feared."
Unfortunately, the negative sticks in people's minds. Negative sights, speeches and beliefs have far more impact on the outcome than praise. It gets worse when people criticize far more than they really believe in order to have more of an impact.
This is the way it's always been, except for one time almost 200 years ago, after a political party was utterly defeated and the country united behind the other party. it was called the Era of Good Feelings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_of_Good_Feelings.
I hope we're in store for one of those.
December 8, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
O I think we are. But that is a function of the public reaction and while we're part of the public, we definitely ain't it in toto.
As I was saying to Kash - there are all these political junkies now, created mostly by the internet. We gotta do sumpin.
December 8, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know what you mean.
Chris Mathews was yelling at his guests past week- "why isn't he being the President?" You'd think he was talking about W. but was furious at Obama for not stepping up to be the president. LOL!!!
December 8, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since centrism in DC means you mock and spite hippies, I'd say the uproar is exactly what Hildebrand was after.
Nothing makes you one of the DC players like continuing to marginalize and ridicule the people who were right about everything, and bringing on board those who are hilariously, consistently wrong.
December 8, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are too funny!
December 8, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is pretty amusing to read some of the comments apparently praising Obama's opportunistic position on FISA (I am not such an ideologue that I don't think political concerns merit attention. Obama does plenty of that. Changing his position on FISA, on drilling, sucking up to Lieberman) some times it is necessary. Some people here though are praising his unwillingness to oppose wiretapping abuse as a "principled stand" facing down the angry Left. This is entirely unprincipled.
December 8, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. So far that's the one thing that really bothered me. Most other gripes seem pretty arbitary.
December 8, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more goddamned time. FISA was enacted in 1986. 1986. Every president since has used it. The problem was never with the statute. The problem was that Bush ignored the goddamn statute and the requirement to go to the FISA Court. He quit reporting to the FISA Court.
If anyone in the world would just understand what really happened, I'd faint. I cannot get y'all to see that it was never about the goddamned statute but the fact that Bush didn't follow it.
December 8, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just saying that past presidents used it and Bush abused it isn’t sufficient- you miss a few key things.
First, it was almost a 180 degrees reversal from primaries to the general (A clear shift for political convenience, one may argue is excusable).
More importantly, the provision in FISA bill provided upfront immunity for telecom companies- legally shielding them for illegally cooperating with the administration's warrantless surveillance program.
Here is the statement from Senator Feingold, who opposed the Bill and I happen to agree:
The FISA Bill effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power.
While I empathize with the political difficulty behind FISA, it’s very hard to see Obama;’s decision in favorable light.
December 8, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama the listener. Yes he has indicated in many ways (let's not for get his blackberry) how much he wanted to avoid the cocoon of Washington. Here is a President who will listen. So refreshing that he sends out this tool Hildebrand to tell the left to shut the fuck up. Too much "sniping". I guess Obama is so good he can listen after he has people shut up.
December 9, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that old ideologue Ronald Reagan was President in 1986 and Democrats have been pragmatically compromising with the far right ever since. That's why we got a worse bill enacted by the Democratic majority in 2008 than was enacted under Reagan.
December 8, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except FISA was enacted in 18978 under President Jimmy Carter as a result of the findings of the Church Commission as a response to Nixon’s usage of federal resources to spy on his political enemies and activist groups.
December 8, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh.. 1978 (not 18978)
December 8, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhhhhh except...
FISA was enacted in 1978. 1978.
December 8, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena,
in this context "FISA" refers to "FISA Amendments Act 2008".
the problem with the bush administration not using FISA was "fixed" with the Protect America Act 2007 which essentially made legal everything illegal and/or extra-legal that the administration had been doing (or not doing).
after the Protect America Act's sunset, the FISA Amendments Act was put in place to pretty much do the same thing that the Protect America Act had been doing. and it including telecomm immunity to boot.
please stop pretending everyone else is stupid and that you are the only one who knows anything about FISA. this has not been about the original statute. this has been and continues to be about the amendments to the statute which take a bad law and make it worse.
December 10, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody praised Obama for switching on FISA. Geez. I simply said that he refused to back down no matter how much we wanted him to vote against it.
And there has been a lot of sucking up between Obama and Lieberman but Lieberman is the one with his mouth permanently attached to Obama's naughty bits, not the other way around!
December 8, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine - I didn't address that.
But I've never been able to get FISA across to anyone because other people - like Glenn Greenwald - got in before me with their spin on it and it was all about standing to sue.
Those 40 lawsuits that were pending.
But I don't want to start this fight over again, so just pretend I didn't say anything.
December 8, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just doing my part to move Obama to the center by getting frothing mad to counterbalance any conservatives gripping there's not enough Republicans in the Cabinet.
Grrrrrr.....
December 8, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've read Hildebrand's post on Huffington's site.
It is completely reasonable. Hildebrand is right, unfortunately. I've not read the posts noted by Greg:
"Among those who have hit Hildebrand hardest: Jane Hamsher, Glenn Greenwald, John Aravosis, and Matt Stoller." They probably have a point also.
The brilliance of the Republican administration under Rove, Cheney, and ilk like Addington is handing the Democrats a variation of the pyrrhic victory.
Take The Onion headline, for instance:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/black_man_given_nations
Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job
"As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind. "
Fracking Onion nails it again.
It's what the Republicans DO: it's their nature to break everything in site. They've been doing it since Nixon, at least. Rob the banks, burn down the building; let Democrats put out the fire, clear away the rubble, and generally clean up the mess. It's not an apt metaphor, but look at it this way: if you were a murderer, and drowned someone in the tub, would you take the body with you when you fled the scene? Maybe toss it in your trunk as you flee? Not in this case. It's better to leave behind an unrecognizable corpse, and let the people who come after play Dr. Frankenstein because that's all they can do.
It seems to me that Hildebrand's point is that we, as a culture, don't have any institutions to replace the things destroyed by the Republicans.
All we have is the corpse. Or maybe a comatose patient we've rescued from captivity in a dungeon.
Without institutions, destroyed or intact, to which we
could apply progressive policies, Obama cannot put
forward policies that lurch in any direction. It seems
to me he perceives no choice but to largely move
to the center.
Re-animate the corpse, teach basic motor skills like walking, then see what happens.
The schadenfreude maven in me hopes it will turn on its murderers and we can pass the popcorn in 2012.
I don't like that it seems this way; it sucks warm sick through a short straw; but it may well not be a question of choice, here, at this time. Hair of the dog, so to speak.
On the other hand, Mr. Hildebrand, people who say we could build fresh on the foundation left behind after the Republicans torched the place...have a point. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
December 8, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, but it's so much harder to build that destroy, especially when the people who want the destruction are willing to pay for a wrecking ball.
There's been talk of a 'New New Deal' where Obama is going for a massive infrastructure project. There was the alphabet soup in the 1930's that developed pretty quickly, so there's hope with the two actionable branches of government being under one party.
I believe the Bush damages can be undone, given time. But how long? What will we see that reminds us of these unpleasant 8 years in 2016?
December 8, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say:
"There's been talk of a 'New New Deal' where Obama is going for a massive infrastructure project."
So the infrastructure of choice is related to...
Cars
Is it irony yet?
Paging The Normal. Or maybe Gary Numan.
December 9, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I remember the last time a Dem President tried to play ball with the Re-puke-lickans.....they impeached him.
So, good luck with the pragmatic advice from the centrist Democrats. They have been so effective at passing legislation over the last 28 years.
December 8, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
He wasn't impeached because he was playing ball with the republicans; he was impeached because he was letting some fat little intern play with his balls!
December 8, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah and the Progressives/Libs have been sooo effective. Half the country don't even know what you stand for. I've been combing the blogs since Feb of this year - constantly - and I STILL don't know. You have almost as much denominations as the Christian church. To be honest, I haven't even tried to find out the difference. I just don't care.
December 8, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I just don't see how you can generalize that the choices in his cabinet are not very far to the left," he said, citing Hillary and Tom Daschle."
Right; because everyone knows how far to the left Hillary Clinton and Tom Daschle are. Apparently Hildebrand's political perspective was formed sometime around 1995 and he's never seen fit to make any adjustments.
Clinton and Daschle star in one of the very best Tom Tomorrow strips ever:
http://dir.salon.com/story/comics/tomo/2002/10/21/tomo/index.html
December 8, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not particularly left-wing, but worked hard to get Obama elected, and find the appointments of Summers and Clinton nauseating.
Summers is a fringe free-market radical, a chauvinist, a man or endless arrogance and rage who allowed the army to apply discrimination against gays on campus in Harvard and thought apropos to describe women as less able than men for Science. He and all the Rubin filth started the process that led to this economic nightmare and should never again be anywhere near public office. This country has Nobel laureates in Economy such as Stiglitz, and many other first-class experts, but this disgusting individual who hurt every institution he took over is the one who gets the job.
As for clinton, that she is described as progressive I can only take as some joke. She should be sent to make volunteer work in Iraq to support the families of the millions she authorized to be killed. Instead, she is leading our foreign office. That is a horrid appointment, and a sort of treason to anybody who supported Obama's stance on Iraq.
When I read the Hildebrand thing this morning, I was a bit surprised that he addressed the issue just to be preachy and say nothing specific. Now that he clarifies things, I think that it is worse.
December 8, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lovey and I hate Bill Richardson and his beard. But we're over it. I hope everyone else does too.
December 8, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What surprises me is the uproar about this article. I visit HuffPo a lot and there have been many articles that addressed the criticism of Obama on the Left. I read that article and it wasn't much different than what has been written before. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he was an Obama advisor?
December 8, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keeping pressure on elected leaders to move the country forward and improve the lives of our citizens is something that all good politicians welcome, even if they can't always say so publicly. Politicians know how to balance the opinions of their base with those of the independents/swing voters who put them in office, and those who voted against them -- that's what politicians do. To give up on pressuring Obama from the Democratic party base would do him and the country a disservice.
December 8, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a lot of discussion about keeping Obama honest, but not a blip about how the Left is going to keep both sides of Congress in check. He can't do this by himself no matter how much we "pressure" Obama.
December 8, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hildebrand isn't trying to silence 'the left' in terms of policy proposals; he's just responding to the infantile criticism of people who think that a president must demonstrate ideological purity through his cabinet appointments.
These whining babies can't see the forest for a few trees. We're in the midst of a sea change, for goodness sakes. The president-elect today, true to his community organizing roots, just got 4-square behind a few hundred workers in Chicago who organized a sit-down strike in response to their being abruptly laid off.
"But, but, but he appointed that devil Larry Summers to be one of his key economic advisors!" "I'm nauseated!"
Grow up, babies. This is a big country and we just elected a president to represent all of us, not just one narrow point of view. And that, apparently, is exactly what he intends to do. I, for one, don't want a doctrinaire liberal mirror reflection of George Bush. If that's what you want, well, prepare to be very very disappointed. The rest of us are going to get about repairing America--universal health care, civil rights enforcement, respect for the rule of law, and smart government investments in a 21st-century economy.
December 9, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with is guy on this whole Hildebrand debacle.
http://daily44.wordpress.com/
December 9, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really hate that this great nation is in the shape it's in.It doesn't seem to matter who's right or wrong or left to do it,no matter about regrets on any ones part,it just seems to me there's no happy medium on any thing or any one or anywhere these days.no matter who you vote for to be president ,or any political jack ass or elephant,there's always an ass in every crowd, right ,or is it left,,???? and it seems to me if Hildebrand has no regrets,then it stands to reason,he's a smart ass. so i ask you folks this question,i wonder what a true,bonafide, smart ass cane really do??/ i have heard they can sit on a ice cream cone and tell you what flavor it is. right or is it leftttttttttttttttttttttttttttt??????/
December 9, 2008 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just came across a Talking Points Memo you will never top unless you become delusional): the LA Times has it at
Warning: this is the real thing out of the White House; not an Andy Borowitz send-up.
The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com
December 9, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although I do think there are some on the left that really needs to calm down, there was no reason Hildenbrand needed to write this.
First off if you look most of the progressive bloggers here, Daily Kos and elsewhere have been behind Barack from the start or are in a wait and see mode. What Hildenbrand fails to see that there's a difference between handwringing and people expressive a bit of criticism towards our President-elect on a issue or two but still staying behind. To Steve Hildenbrand, every liberal who expresses one little outrage towards a policy change or a cabinet pick is automatically an Obama for or a angry liberal and that's the furthest thing from the truth.
Democratic voters are not like GOP voters when it comes to supporting candidates. Meaning they do not follow their candidates with blind loyality. When a Democratic candidate says something they disagree with, they demand why they feel this way and they let their concern known. This dosen't mean they dislike their candidate, but they demand more from them.
What I really dislike about the piece he wrote is that he failed to mention the critics that have a ax to grind to Obama. Granted we already know who they are (Bowers, Stoller, Sirota and Greenwald) but to the average man or woman who dosen't go to every liberal blog known to man, they'll think Hildenbrand is making a big deal about nothing (even know in retrospect he is).
In my opinion the left was never really "angry" about Obama. Just because David Sirota or Chris Bowers is angry dosen't mean the whole entire progressive wing is either. Yes their are critics of Obama outside of those people I mentioned but in reality you can never please everybody.
If the left wasn't angry towards Obama, Hildenbrand kinda gave them a reason to be due to him stoking the fires with this piece he wrote. I don't know if that was his intention or if this was by accident but it happened. What's intrestring about this is what Greg said that Hildenbrand basically did this on his own free will and that Obama or his team had nothing to do with this.
December 9, 2008 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
after reading the comments here, i find it hard to believe that we have the audacity to take umbrage with hildenbrand's piece.....we are a nation of whiners and for the record, OBAMA hasn't governed yet so all this lefty, centrist, righty mess is in our heads....give it a rest already! we are our worst enemies....in that regards, we can learn from the republicans....we castigate our own more than the other side and we marginalize everything b/c we are so full of our lofty opinions.....
i guess being an intellectual has its own drawbacks and it's being manifested here and all of the blogosphere....whine whine and more whine....no one is happy...each man thinks obama should cater to his/her every whim....the problem is, we elected him to govern for all.....
the hillary thing was a little off for me, but all other appointments seem ok....besides, he kept reiterating tha he will be the one to set the agenda..furthermore, this man didn't run as an extremist who veers to the far left or far right...quite the contrary...so why all this heehawing already?????? universal health care, big initiatives for our infrastructure, tax policy overhaul etc...these things dont exactly sound like righty views to me...they ought to be american views period!!
December 9, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink