Three reasons the "Wellstone Left" deserves a seat at the White House Policy Table.

[John Q. Citizen]

We earned it at least as much as anybody else.
The democratic wing of the Democratic Party backed Obama in state after state, providing significant foot-power and money. Without our support, there is absolutely no doubt that Obama wouldn't have triumphed in a number of states that he did. We delivered our vote deep and wide.

2.Obama is claiming to invite everyone who cares about the country to participate in changing what's wrong and working to make things better. How can he truly claim this if he denies the left a seat at the table? In the short term, he may get away with this, but in the long run people will question the exclusion. And how can one rule from the center without both a left and a right? Excluding the left will make ruling from the center impossible. It will undercut his message of inclusion and moderation.

3. The left has some very practical and well thought out solutions to many of the problems facing this country. By excluding the left from a seat at the table, we will be practicing non- pragmatic ideologically based government. The government needs the left's energy and ideas. It's the patriotic and American thing to do.

[EFerrari]

1. It's a little strange to hear Rahm and others welcome Republics while they snub us.

:shrug:

[John Q. Citizen]

5. I actually like Rahm out of the house and working for Obama. But we still need a seat at the table.

I think on balance Rahm out of the house moves the house farther left. and it put's Rahm under Obama's policy instead of visa versa.

But we need seat too.

[EFerrari]

8. I agreed with that to a degree for about a week.

But, have come to think, his power can be measured by his access. :shrug:

/oops

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Access is power. Which is why we need a seat at the table.

We can beat Ralm on ideas if push comes to shove. There will be some over lap as well on some things.

[polichick]

54. Pretty disgusting really - but we'll see what things look like in a couple more weeks...

...Obama has been forced by circumstances to deal with economic posts first.

[LWolf]

2. You're right.

While the left wing of the party deserves a place at the table, what are the odds that we get one?

What do you think?

[John Q. Citizen]

20. If he does it he will be brilliant. The RW will grouse, the more moderate Dems

will praise the choice as will our progressive caucus types in the house and senate.
and then we will move forward.

And most everyone will be able to claim some sort of affinity with their government maybe.

I think most of us progressives would be happy since what we really want is a seat at the table. A chance to make our case ands have it live or die based on the merits.

So maybe. If we cut the issue like this. It might resonate.

[LWolf]

63. Give us a place at the table, and it's up to us to use that place productively.

I, for one, would be happy with a place, and an opportunity to move forward.

[wyldwolf]

3. the attitude negates your post

"The democratic wing of the Democratic Party" is such a divisive phrase, not to mention naive.

[EFerrari]

6. But trumpeting Republicans' role in the administration is not divisive.

Okay.

[wyldwolf]

7. Are you referring to Obama trumpeting Republican roles?

That is what he ran on. Did you not take him at his word?

And I feel quite confident he's filling roles with competent and qualified people.

[EFerrari]

9. Not especially. Mostly Rahm and some other guy made a point to tell the press

that there would be Republicans in the administration.

[wyldwolf]

11. Obama has made a point to do that as well

as has John Podesta. Do you think Emanuel and Podesta are speaking contrary to what Obama wants expressed?

[EFerrari]

12. Is this by way of avoiding the question?

Is trumpeting Republican appointments not also divisive?

I can do this all night, wyldwolf.

[wyldwolf]

14. no, it's a reassertion of Obama's campaign. Did you not notice that over the last 18 months?

And let's be honest - the use of the "democratic wing of the Democratic party" is an terms meant to designate a certain subset of the Democrat party who are supposedly the "real" Democrats which is one of the more humorous things the left spouts.

[EFerrari]

17. Obama did not run on giving power to Republicans. n/t

[wyldwolf]

28. I didn't say he did.

:shrug:

But he did run as a post-partisan and said at times during the campaign he'd include Republicans. Do you deny this?

[EFerrari]

66. But he never said he would distance his base in favor of Republicans

did he? Which amounts to the same thing.

I voted for Obama knowing full well he'd go right. That doesn't mean I like it or that I think it's a good idea for the country.

[wyldwolf]

79. his "base?"

What? Black and independent voters?

[PassingFair]

65. It is an apt term to describe those who do not vote WITH the republicans...

on important issues like war authorization,
bankruptcy bills and banking regulation.

[Radical Activist]

4. Seems pretty unlikely that the left will be excluded.

And progressive appointments have already been made.

Obama presents progressive values in terms that appeal to moderates and conservatives. I suspect he'll continue doing that as President and having moderates in the administration will make that approach more credible, thus making it easier to pass progressive policies.

[John Q. Citizen]

18. i agree somewhat, , especially Obama has made some very good lower profile

profile appointments who definitely qualify by most peoples standards as very progressive.

i hope we get one capable and clearly progressive lefty in the cabinet, who can provide some cover for Obama on some issues, as well as help push an agenda on other issues.

I contend it would be smart for Obama to have at least one fairly well known and trusted person to his left on the cabinet.

[Radical Activist]

39. My hope

which I have no more basis for other than hope, is that Obama is naming his moderates first, so that there will be less backlash when he names some real liberals. Coming out with a bunch of high profile liberals up front would have been met with more resistance and the economic appointments were important for investor attitudes. We'll see.

[John Q. Citizen]

44. Again, I generally concur with your reasoning. .

[HopeFor2006]

47. Yes, that reasoning is sound.

I have faith in president elect Obama.

[martymar64]

69. Hopefully he name liberals to SCOTUS

That would certainly make up for naming RWer's like Holder.

[RollWithIt]

10. You do realize that you have a seat at the table already?

At the head of the table.

[EFerrari]

13. That's debateable and the OP was referring, I believe, to the staffing of the incoming admin.

[jrockford]

21. He's not Wellstone-left, who are you trying to kid? nt

[John Q. Citizen]

26. Obama needs somebody who has endorsed single payer or who has long advocated for

more money for housing, or done something that will noticeably put them to the left of the President. That will provide Obama some cover on some issues and will also fulfill the premise of the Obama Presidency.

for instance, it's a shame Gore has said he isn't interested in the EPA. not that I blame AL, but he would suit Obama's purposes well, especially if he acted as advocate for those policies that made Gore close to the "Wellstone left."

Obama is beautifully and maddeningly and probably pragmatically opaque. He needs someone to his left who can and will speak out. And then work.

[RollWithIt]

48. Daschle has long been an advocate of universal healthcare....

That's why he's HHS chair.

[John Q. Citizen]

50. When you say "universal" what do you mean?

[wyldwolf]

16. Who could all "progressives" possibly ever agree on?

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

19. Other progressives. The idea that somehow we are a disorganized rabble

who can't agree even with each other is simply nonsense. :shrug:

[Breeze54]

23. I AGREE with YOU, sfexpat2000 !!!!

:P

:hi:

[EFerrari]

24. Uh oh! Now, you're REALLY in trouble.

:)

[wyldwolf]

29. yeah? here's a sample from a current thread at DU

w4rma: There are still no economic progressives in the Obama administration.
BrentTaylor: Did you miss the Melody Barnes and Austan Goolsbee picks?
rockymountaindem: Goolsbee is our progressive yardstick? Oy.
w4rma: Austan Goolsbee is Senior Economist to the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI): That's the DLC policy group

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7934015&mesg_id=7934015


So, like who?

[Breeze54]

31. 3 people on DU represents a whole group?!?

:wtf:

:crazy:

[wyldwolf]

32. of course not, but there sure seems to be an avoidance by someone in this thread to name names

I'd like to see someone throw some names out and see how much debate there is on their "leftness."

[EFerrari]

64. Red herring, aka, waste of time. Everyone seldom or never agrees

on anything and if we did, Skinner would have to shut down. Someone is completely uninterested in getting into a meaningless pie fight over a name.

[wyldwolf]

80. well, since the thread is about "progressives," surely someone can throw some names out?

[Kalyke]

86. Wesley K. Clark

He is universally loved by both progressives and moderate Democrats on this board. He *IS* the smartest motherf'er in the room and he testified against the Iraqi War in front of God, Congress and everybody.

Put him in at State or, in two years, at Defense. He will be adored by DU. By everyone from the Clinton moderates to the Kucinich liberals.

Trust me.

[PVnRT]

77. The plural of anecdote is not data

Try again.

[wyldwolf]

81. ha ha. Right. Since no one here has any data forthcoming...

..we'll have to stick with the anecdotal on display at DU daily.

[Dragonfli]

37. We can agree certainly on what Progressive Ideas would be welcome in each post

That of course is already being done.

With lack of a voice that will be listened to by those making decisions, many progressives are already putting forth the criteria and voting on potential choices for a "dream team".

http://backbonecampaign.org/cabinet/index.cfm

It is unfortunate that the closest thing we may have to a seat at the table would be in the form of the political version of "fantasy football" but ideas are a hard thing to suppress.

I like the way they have described the criteria for each post.

It is popular for the far right of our party (some that are inordinately hairy, animalistic, fang bearing posters) to pretend that no one has any ideas on the left.

Although popular, it is simply not true.

[leftstreet]

22. He should go far left and bring on a Socialist

It'd take that to even begin to balance some of the appts.

[Breeze54]

25. K & R

:dem:

[rhett o rick]

27. I agree with you. Do you have any specific recommendations? nm

[John Q. Citizen]

30. I know Gore has said he doesn't want it, but he would fit the requirement very well.

(Especially if Hill is SOS which I'll believe when i see, and I may see it, but i hope not.)

Gore could argue for single payer, accountability under law for the Federal Gov, and re=establish public trust and confidence in the EPA.

Besides Gore who is apparently unavailable, I have no great candidate. For one thing I want to leave progressives in congress right where they are. We are going to need them there.

[wyldwolf]

33. Gore is "progressive?" How so?

[John Q. Citizen]

35. Endorsed single payer in 2002. Opposed the stupid War. Called for accountability.

[wyldwolf]

36. so, those are the three criteria? Are you sure all of you can agree on that and...

..overlook Gore's (still) support of NAFTA, his call for faith-based initiatives, and his strong backing of welfare reform in the 90s?

[John Q. Citizen]

40. Why not run a poll and find out? you sound like you don't want people on the left of you to

have a seat at the table.

Why the fear? Why the need to exclude?

[wyldwolf]

41. on the contrary..

... my point is no matter who "gets a seat at the table," major parts of the left will still grumble about it.

[John Q. Citizen]

I disagree that they will complain about it anymore than you, the right, or the

so called middle complain about stuff.

I've noticed no one has a lock on complaining. Certainly not the left.

In fact we are happily organizing to be giving a big push to some good outcomes on some legislation.

[wyldwolf]

43. who have I, the right, or the center complained about?

[John Q. Citizen]

45. The left. Look back a post or two.

[wyldwolf]

46. No, we're discussing Obama's cabinet appointments and such

... I don't recall complaining about any so far.

[martymar64]

70. He hates progressives and liberals with a passion

He brings that hatred of liberals to the level of self-parody.
It's become quite amusing over the years. Notice the quotes around the word progressives. His hatred and disdain for anything on the left is amazing.
I'm frankly surprised that he even identifies as a democrat at all. He's in the "if i was any more right i'd be a republican" wing of the party.

Keep up the good fight, JQC!

[wyldwolf]

76. I hate illogical and factually challenged people - you two are doing an admirable job..

.. in re-enforcing my feelings.

It's amazing you pretend to be a Democrat. You're in the "If I was any more to the left I'd be a communist" wing of the party.

[Forkboy]

82. Self parody nails it.

:thumbsup:

[wyldwolf]

83. typical hit and run post - irrelevant as always

perhaps you can do what most in this thread are desperately trying to avoid - name "progressives" Obama should be appointing.

[Forkboy]

84. I'm not saying Obama "should" appoint anyone. I'm not bothered by his picks so far.

And I'm sure we wouldn't agree on what a progressive even is anyways.

3 off the top of my head though, in a hopeful effort to get you to quit your whining about it.

Barbara Boxer
Sherrod Brown
Russ Feingold

[wyldwolf]

85. That's my point!!

And I'm sure we wouldn't agree on what a progressive even is anyways.

Exactly!! WHO would?

Good list, by the way. Although Feingold was ripped apart recently for being nice to McCain.

[TankLV]

34. What - no "Hillary is the Devil" threads here?

will wonders never cease...

prosense must be out eating dinner...

[Dinger]

38. Hmmmmm, I Was Wondering That Too

Just wait a bit. Won't be long . .

[mvd]

42. I'm looking at it this way

His picks have been based on experience and the crisis the country faces. I think he'll give the left some seats (Power was selected, and that's a step.) Obama is smart enough not to ignore the progressive voices that backed him.

[bvar22]

49. 4th reason why The Left deserves a seat at the table:

The Left has been right about every major issue over the last 25 years.

The "Centrists" (Conservative Democrats, DLC) have been wrong.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[John Q. Citizen]

52. True, but I would see that as part of #3. The left has pragmatic solutions to problems.

Great photo you got there.

[ShortnFiery]

61. AMEN !

:applause: :-)

[OwnedByFerrets]

51. K and R

[polichick]

53. Absolutely!

[Waiting For Everyman]

55. 4. Because they're the only ones who have been right in the past?

Wellstone was the only one to object to Phil Gramm's Commodities Futures Modernization Act... he not only was the only one around (besides Gramm of course) during that pre-Christmas "lull" to be paying attention to it and notice it when Gramm was sneaking it through Congress, but managed to put his objection on the record. Nobody else did. Nobody. Nobody else sounded an alarm on it, at that critical time, as it was passing into law. Wellstone's and Gramm's (lauding it of course) were the only comments on it.

In the same remarks he most strongly objected, for the purpose of putting it on the record so that we in the future would be able to know it now, to the fact that there was no vote on it.

Of course that's only one example. A big one though.

Why would every other group have "a seat at the table", but not those who have been right all along? That doesn't make much sense to me.

* Sorry bvar22 (post #49) you posted while I was typing. Obviously I agree with you. :)

[bvar22]

56. That's why Wellstone had to die.

He was disrupting Business as Usual for BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats.

:cry:

[Waiting For Everyman]

57. I agree.

I think he was the "man who knew too much", and took it on too much (for their liking). Reminds me of the Begich plane crash years ago. Well heck, quite a few of them really.

[carpe diem]

67. I think you may have answered the questions a lot on the left

have about why Obama is taking this very moderate, centrist approach with his appointees...I watched JFK on Thanksgiving and there was a line in the scene with Kevin Costner and Donald Sutherland, Costner's character says to Sutherland's "...he was killed because he wanted to change things?1?!" and it stopped me in my tracks.

I believe Obama wants to do what he said he wanted to do, but, I also think he knows he has to be careful and cautious in how he proceeds. He can't just rear up on his hind legs and tell the established, entrenched forces in government to kiss his ass, there's a new sheriff in town. The record of success by those who have attempted to spit in the face of the status quo is pretty grim. 'They' can get to anybody.

[ShortnFiery]

58. The Late George Carlin was spot on!

Sadly, I wanted to believe otherwise. This country is run by "a few" elite from the Investor Class. We have elections to give "the illusion" that us peons have some sort of choice.

We have NO control. The Corporations are MORE EQUAL than The American People. :(

I will not ever squander away my vote again ... it won't mean squat except to me, but the next Presidential Election I'm writing in Dennis Kucinich.

I'm burned-out of being "played" by Centrist Democrats who CHIDE "liberals" as "the left" the moment after they win elections. :thumbsdown:

[rhett o rick]

59. I wish it were true. But the fact is, regardless how much effort the progressives gave to get Obama

elected, they (we) are a minority of the Democratic Party let alone of the country. We will have to be happy with what we get. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep the pressure on, just don't get to disappointed. We need to get progressives in the local and state party organizations and work from there.

[ShortnFiery]

60. "We will have to be happy with what we get."

No WE won't. :grr: :thumbsdown:

[bvar22]

62. Liberals are a MAJORITY in America.

We are only a minority in representation.
Every 4 years we are given a choice between two BIG BUSINESS conservatives.


Here is what the MAJORITY of Americans (Democrats AND Republicans) want from OUR government!

In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

8. Over 63% oppose the War on the Iraqi People.

9. 92% of ALL Americans support TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE elections!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x446445

[rhett o rick]

68. People may poll as progressives but apparently don't vote progressive.

Over 60 million people that bothered to vote, voted for the least progressive candidate in McCain.

I am assuming that most of the people that didn’t vote aren’t progressive.

Even the Democratic Party didn’t choose one of the progressives for their candidate.

And apparently Obama doesn’t think it necessary to put progressives in his cabinet.

[bvar22]

72. Low Information Voters

American Idol Mentality

TV Automatons

Battered Wife Syndrome

Take your pick.

[Dragonfli]

71. Yes They Are! Unfortunately - The PR campaign has them thinking those Ideas are "Centrist"

Very few people know that the ideas they believe in most are largely only supported by "kooks" like Dennis Kucinich. The corporate money has been spent well to misinform the general public.

My personal experience when canvassing was an eye opener for me. I learned that people believed in liberal/progressive ideas but they had no idea that those ideas were liberal.

I know how to combat ignorance, it is done with education. How does one combat deliberate misinformation put forth by corporate interests with the best advertising propagandists money can buy?

[rhett o rick]

75. Watch "Larry the Cableguy Christmas Special" and then tell me that. nm

[Cleita]

73. I'm disappointed that we have been snubbed so far.

However, Noam Chomsky put it rather well. Quote:

In a functioning democracy like say Bolivia or the United States in earlier stages, they did something about it. That’s why we have the New Deal measures, the Great Society measures. In fact just about any step, you know, women’s rights, end of slavery, go back as far as you like, it doesn’t happen as a gift. And it’s not going to happen in the future. The commentators are pretty well aware of this. They don’t put it the way I’m going to, but if you read the press, it does come out. So take our local newspaper at the liberal end of the spectrum, “Boston Globe,” you probably saw right after the election, a front page story, the lead front page story was on how Obama developed this wonderful grassroots army but he doesn’t have any debts. Which supposed to be a good thing. So he’s free to do what he likes. Because he has no debts, the normal democratic constituency, labor, women, minorities and so on, they didn’t bring him into office. So he owes them nothing.

So apparently our five dollar donations, campaign work and votes don't indebt him as much as the people who donated lots more and the publicists and advertisers who ran his campaign or made his brand the one people wanted to buy. He is indebted to them.

Read everything he has to say here: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/24/noam_chomsky_what_next_the_elections

[truedelphi]

74. Thank you for posting this.

Why did we work so hard??

I cannot be the only one asking that. There are two concerns taht I have:

1) that Obama doesn't know better yet, when he does things liek appoint Geithner and Rubin.

2) that he does know better and it's all a sham

I am keeping fingers croossed that it is number one, but even if that is the case, the fact is that the Financial Disaster that is the Bailout could well be his Bay of Pigs, except this will be one Bay of Pigs taht will keep the USA in a such sinkhole of stagnation that he won't be able to get us on the Road to Recovery.

[Jennicut]

78. The Dem party is only going to get bigger so it will become a bigger tent

We might be taking in some permanent Dems who used to be independent voting Rethugs so we are growing and expanding. There are a lot of different groups in the Dem party, ultra libs, libs, moderates, conservatives. Technically, looking at Hillary's votes, she is moderate to conservative I guess. Obama is more moderate to liberal. I am not sure what some people are looking for. Obama never ran as a Wellstone Dem to begin with. He ran as a moderate, slightly to the left of Bill Clinton. He also wants experienced people in his cabinet and the last two Dem administrations were moderate centrists. Funny how the right lambasts him as being a crazy socialist and yet the far left here see him as awful. He has not even taken office yet and has not even fully picked his cabinet yet.