The mood of the Obama transition has been decidedly centrist

[bigtree]

There's Clinton's John Podesta, Ramn Emanuel, and Pete Rouse, the former chief of staff for Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle organizing his appointments.

Are we seeing any signs yet (in the way of staff or personnel) that progressives will be included or accentuated in the forefront of the change Obama is orchestrating?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. I Think All The People And Decisions Made So Far Have Been Perfect.

Sounds like he's already assembling a quite effective team and I'm totally encouraged about the future administration!

[bigtree]

3. that doesn't answer my question at all

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Runcible Spoon]

28. wow gee big surprise there.

it's not like your infatuation with the center right isn't well documented here. Your comment just underscores the OP's question.

[Tallison]

119. Me, too

Shrewd people get that you achieve big change with baby steps, ensuring you're still around in the long run to keep taking them.

[IndianaJones]

2. excellent transition. nt.

[bigtree]

5. where are the progressives?

[IndianaJones]

6. he's not done yet. I think we will see a nice balance. nt.

[babylonsister]

4. Would this work?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4429475&mesg_id=4429475

[bigtree]

8. hey, that's intriguing

and encouraging. He's great.

Any sign of his imprint on the Obama team yet?

(I'm looking at some of his old articles and posts)

[babylonsister]

9. Just announced today, so probably not much yet. But give it time.

It's good that Obama is acknowledging a need for someone to represent progressives. It's all good!

[bigtree]

12. Lux is a dynamic thinker

. . . and not afraid to speak his mind. I'll watch that one.

[sandnsea]

7. Pete Rouse has managed his senate office

Rahm is an old friend. Podesta has been working feverishly to counter the worst of conservatism. These are not Bill Nelson type picks, they're forward thinking Democrats who are not socialists. Some of the left wing of the party truly would prefer socialism and shouldn't be surprised that Obama isn't a socialist.

[bigtree]

11. I don't equate our Democratic left with 'socialism'

I think that's just a term borrowed and misappropriated in an attempt to marginalize the left and make them seem out of the mainstream of public opinion. In fact, the center has shifted so far right that many of Democratic principles that are meaningful and productive have been labeled as extremist and 'socialist.'

[sandnsea]

15. There are DUers who are proud that they're socialists

I have no idea why they pretend they're the heart of the Democratic Party, or even the left of the party. People think Bernie Sanders should be Obama's chief of staff or white house advisor. He's a socialist. Obama is highly unlikely to have any socialists in the White House, or even any Greens or those close to it. I really don't know why that is so difficult to understand.

[bigtree]

17. maybe you need to have that debate with folks who declare themselves socialists

I think most folks can tell the difference between those who support 'centrist' positions and those who advocate for the 'left' of our party, as in the Iraq debate and on issues like abortion rights. Socialism, while certainly a leftist concept, is, in many ways, a separate philosophy from that of the Democratic left.

[sandnsea]

23. Iraq? Abortion? WTF are you talking about?

When did he appoint someone who doesn't support choice? What Democrat, besides Lieberman, doesn't support ending the war? That's the entire point. Most of the people here are just pulling attacks out of their ass, spouting the latest crap from wsws, whether they know it's coming from there or not.

[bigtree]

25. you can't convince me that there aren't important differences

. . . in the way we approach these issues; from how and when we exit Iraq, to the nuances of the abortion debate, like notification for minors.

What may be 'crap' to you (as you spill over the top to defend against this criticism of Obama's transition) often represents the point at which we agree or disagree to move forward with the changes we seek - especially on Congress.

[sandnsea]

27. None of that is an issue right now

You are just looking for things to piss about. I guarantee you there will be plenty of very real things that you will not be happy about next year. Why don't you give yourself a break and either enjoy the victory until Jan 20, or go do something about Prop 8 if you want to be useful.

[bigtree]

29. Is this a discussion board or a cheerleading session?

And, YOU presume to tell me what to discuss? What a crock. You're the one pissing here . . . on this thread. Why don't you start your own repetitive thread on Prop 8? I'll decide what the fuck interests me enough to post here. Idiot.

[sandnsea]

40. You're not discussing anything

You're pulling shit out of your ass to have a piss-fest over. You're certainly welcome to do that, and I'm welcome to discuss what you're doing. You are not, however, allowed to call people names, so you might want to delete that "idiot" remark.

[bigtree]

41. back again?

What a joke to tear me down for asking these benign questions. Again, you're the only one 'pissing' here.

[Leopolds Ghost]

77. Funny how some posters will take a stand on Prop 8 but CELEBRATE other outrages.

They are DLC. Socially liberal and economically conservative.

They are a tiny, tiny minority confined to the professional class that runs this country at all levels, and wanna-be professional class (poor engineering grads and the like who resent people in their own income group and are upset about no longer being able to pay their baloon mortgage, only care about social issues that affect them, and think its a crime to send kids to an underperforming school.) Overrepresented on the internet.

I predicted this in August when I said Dems would tolerate evisceration
of the 4th Amendment in the name of security (think of the children) so
long as Roe was left intact. They are Democrats on a few issues only.

[Skittles]

115. hey bigtree

learn how to put fucking idiots on IGNORE, OK?

[Horse with no Name]

127. I was actually trying to figure out who he was talking to

All I see is him talking to himself and a bunch of ignored answers,lol--guess I called THAT one right.:rofl:

[Leopolds Ghost]

74. "I guarantee you there will be plenty of very real things that you will not be happy about"

I.e. you support center-right policies and are both anti-liberal and anti-populist.

Like much of the professional class who is the new base of the party, you are center-right.

There can be nothing west of Reagan's agenda until you get to socialism.

Funny how Obama and Bush have adopted a Socialist agenda of nationalizing industries to prevent the business cycle from correcting itself.

[Leopolds Ghost]

75. "I guarantee you there will be plenty of very real things that you will not be happy about"

I.e. you support center-right policies and are both anti-liberal and anti-populist.

Like much of the professional class who is the new base of the party, you are center-right.

There can be nothing west of Reagan's agenda until you get to socialism.

Funny how Obama and Bush have adopted a Socialist agenda of nationalizing industries to prevent the business cycle from correcting itself.

[mirror wall]

60. Emanuel is extremely pro-war.

He stacked the '06 congress with candidates that he hand picked who also favored war, often pitting them in the primaries against more traditonal, anti-war Dems. Remember Tammy Duckworth vs. Cegelis? Cegelis was the clear favorite to win, but Rahm backed Duckworth over her in large part because Duckworth was stridently pro-war. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/150504/a_democrat_who_thinks_like_a_democrat

Most of the picks are pro-abortion rights, pro-gay rights, etc., etc. In short, they score very well on traditional Democratic social issues, while they lean alarmingly to the right on issues such as economics and war. Sound familiar? Politicians who toe the party line on social issues and then go against its traditional policy issues in a pro-corporate way? This is disgusting, frankly. It's not change I can believe in. Not so far, anyway.

[bread_and_roses]

55. I don't even pretend I'm a Democrat, much less "the heart of the Democratic Party"

nonetheless, according to the site guidelines, I can post here, no? That I support the scraps-and-bones Party is a matter of pragmatism, not philosophy, but nonetheless I support them - though not unquestioningly, not un-reservedly, not blindly, and not without intense criticism. Which does not mean I am naive enough to expect to see Bernie Sanders as Chief of Staff. Or would want to - he's far more valuable where he is. I don't understand your bile?

[Leopolds Ghost]

72. Obama is a socialist.

He supported the Wall Street bailout. That is socialist.

You clearly have some deep seated fear of socialism, but only when it is
directed to help groups you distaste. You haven't connected the dots
between American "hatred of socialism" and cultivated American hatred for
certain outsider groups. You encourage socialism when it is for, or
designed to protect, income groups and professions you admire.
Upstanding citizens dontcha know.

I am not a socialist, I just hate the hypocrisy of the center-right
posters on this blog. You guys would have no objection to Reagan's agenda.
You supported it when Clinton did it.

[readmoreoften]

95. The bailout was the complete opposite of socialism. It was capitalism under plutocracy.

A combination of elected and selected plutocrats take collective money and give it to corporations to with what they will. That is neither a dictatorship of the proletariat equalizing society or a movement towards progressive income/ownership equalization. It was purely the rich forcing the working class to "nationalize" the losses of corporations while the profits would be pocketed by CEOs.

Plutocratic? Yes. Economic totalitarianism? Yes. Socialism? No way.

[tavalon]

122. I'm well aware that we socialists are fringe and in fact, I don't know that socialism

will work on a national scale. It never has before but then neither has capitalism. Socialism has become the new boogieman when in fact, it means you are your brother's keeper, something Obama has actually mentioned. We're all in this thing called life together and socialism at its core says one for all and all for one- I personally like that. I don't think for a minute that this country is even ready for a reasoned discussion of socialism, much less a socialist anywhere near the oval office.

[GregD]

13. Podesta

In 2003 when Verified Voting was taking form, David Dill was invited to a high-level meeting with folks concerned about the BBV issue, and who were prepared to offer funding to help do our work. Podesta hosted that meeting, and was directly responsible for some of the gains that resulted from it. I don't know much about the guy, but that fact alone scored big points as far as I was concerned.

[bigtree]

14. He's a hard worker and dedicated to Democratic principles and action

. . . but he hardly represents a clear, progressive change from the past that many folks are anticipating.

[Leopolds Ghost]

68. You trot out socialism the minute someone talks about anything left of Clinton / Reagan / Bush 1

Gee.

I am becoming sick of all the conservative chat on DU.

At least on a nonpartisan site, voices that don't toe the party line don't get shut down by a loud chorus of insiders. Of course, while the agenda was to turn out warm bodies and rile up the base, you guys tolerated and encouraged the left.

[leftofthedial]

70. so all liberal democrats are socialists?

thanks, Sarah.

[John Q. Citizen]

110. Obama sought out and got The New Party endorsement in his '96 state senate run.

Public parks are socialism. Libraries are socialism.

Are you saying Obama opposes public parks and libraries? Because I think you are wrong. Obama embraces socialism. So do I. But i also
embrace free enterprise. So does Obama.

Sorry, Obama doesn't meet your purity requirements. I think his getting Rahm out of the house leadership and working for him at his pleasure was a stroke of genius. It completely neutralizes Rahm as competition or as roadblock to Obama's agenda. Now Obama's agenda is Rahm's agenda. Not the other way around.

[TexasObserver]

10. Mike Lux, too. He's a bona fide progressive.

[shadowknows69]

16. When he makes Richardson SOS I'll be happier

[babylonsister]

18. You think? I'd peg him more in a diplomatic post. Maybe not. So

many good people to choose from, so little time!

[bigtree]

19. he was initially bullish on invading Iraq

He fleshed out some pretty progressive stances during the campaign, but he still seems determined to tack to the center.

[earth mom]

20. Yep. Check out Obama's economic advisors here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4429954

Many of Obamas advisors are bankers involved in the 700 BILLION mega rip off of U.S. taxpayers. :puke:

[babylonsister]

24. Why do you bother hanging out here? You have always despised Obama.

Do tell. Is it to annoy others?

[Runcible Spoon]

30. Some of us enjoy GR's posts and appreciate his/her candor.

Some of us can be happy about McCain's defeat while still not being enamored of DLC politicians or their corporate masters. Just like gay, agnostic/atheist, vegetarian, etc. DUers some of us don't see our values represented in the Democratic party. But we still vote and keep hoping for the occasional bone. My "pet issue", if I need to pick just one, is global economic justice, and I don't see an Obama presidency doing anything fundamentally progressive in that arena. It is our civic duty to ask questions of our elected officials.

[babylonsister]

34. For starters, Obama has never been DLC-look it up.

Corporate masters? Check out McSame's contributions before you disparage Obama. And fwiw, money wins elections. Obama won based on individual contributions.

Global economic justice. No one knows yet, but we will find out soon enough. And I'll just bet Obama is at least willing to listen.

What is your gripe? Why are you so damned angry?

[Two Americas]

83. all true

So what?

Of course Democrats are "better than Republicans." I should hope so. Fire fighters are better than arsonists, too. Different goals.

"Money wins elections" - yes, that is the truth. Do you support that? Why may we not speak against it? If money won this election, should we not suspect that money will be looking for a payback? Can we not resist that?

All contributions - bribes - are "individual contributions" ultimately. Those with more give more and expect more. That is antithetical to democracy. If you are saying that poor people contributed, that is even more of a tragedy. People should not have to pay to have a voice.

[Individualist]

85. One needn't be a card carrying member to support DLC

Pelosi is a perfect example.

[earth mom]

46. Thank you, I appreciate that!

:hi:

And great post! :thumbsup:

[bread_and_roses]

56. Well said (n/t)

[QC]

58. Good post! n/t

[Two Americas]

82. we need all voices

I for one appreciate the contributions from TGR.

The only contributions I don't appreciate are those assailing and belittling the contributions of others.

Why don't the centrists argue their philosophy? Instead we get attacks on everyone else, and the old tired "don't get me wrong I agree with you BUT..." arguments. That always struck me as odd - arguing for a point of view that one claims to not agree with, but rather takes as a matter of being superior to others.

I suspect that the people constantly attacking the Left actually do believe in a conservative philosophy, but are unwilling to argue that straightforwardly. Instead, leftists are ridiculed and attacked.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[earth mom]

45. No, I don't despise Obama. I want him to support the left and I want his promises kept.

How that translates into hate is a bunch of B.S. and quite a broad brush you're painting with.


All I have been saying for months around here is to not put any of these politicians on a pedestal and worship them like freepers do *.

What I'm saying is nothing but common sense.

[jonnyblitz]

33. "change we can believe in!!1"

:o

[Celeborn Skywalker]

43. He is a big change.

You surely aren't saying that Obama's team compared to Bush's isn't a huge, positive, change?

[leftofthedial]

71. he's a "free trade" corporatist

always has been.

just because john mcsame and sarah the moose girl called him a socialist, it doesn't make him one.

[earth mom]

80. You are absolutely correct.

But I had hoped he wouldn't show it or prove it so damn quickly. :(

[leftofthedial]

98. even if he stays right of center, where he is so far

and where his health care plan and most of his economic ideas have been all along,

it's still 1000X better than the wacko right wingers of the bush cabal.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. Obama ran as a centrist. Why is anyone surprised that he governing as one?

:shrug:

[bigtree]

26. I question whether a centrist stance can produce the clear change promised

I'm looking for the progressive influences that he'll choose to include at the forefront of his decision-making process.

[TexasObserver]

36. Obama will be centrist in style.

Obama is going to try to avoid the pitfalls that made Bill Clinton's first two years a mess. Bill was too caught up in paying off due bills and splitting up the Cabinet booty, and that created problems for him.

Obama is going to choose and listen to a variety of influences, but he's definitely a centrist in his style. His personal beliefs are very liberal, but he's constrained not by what he wants to do, but by what he feels he can get done.

[bigtree]

39. he'll be pragmatic

I get that. I wonder how that will affect the outcome of issues. I don't fault incremental moves towards resolution of some of these issues, but we often get these dead ends when interest wanes or commitments for follow-up action aren't met. Temporary compromises become permanent without follow up . . . we need fire at the administration's feet.

[tavalon]

123. He'll be pragmatic unless history intervenes

It's possible that the global economic meltdown will require a hero of a President, like Lincoln or FDR. I'm confident that if we require such a hero, President Obama will step up to the plate and will be a great leader. But if nothing earth shattering comes up, he will govern from the center and he will be good enough, not great but after the horror we've just gone through, he doesn't have to do much to come out smelling like a rose.

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. I'm sure that he will appoint a few token 'progressives'

[TheDoorbellRang]

117. He said something back in the campaign that stuck in my mind

He said something about changing the mindset of how we look at things, and it reminded me on how he had managed to pass a law here in Illinois with 100% of Republicans and Democrats supporting it, and it's one of the most progressive laws in any of the states:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303_pf.html

I think Obama will convince legislators to support progressive measures by redefining them as practical or commonsensical, all the while claiming a centrist position.

That's what I'm hoping, anyway. :-)

[closeupready]

32. Because voters are trending left.

If he doesn't govern left of center, he risks losing support.

[Freddie Stubbs]

53. They are trending from the right to the center

[closeupready]

61. Says who? They just elected the most liberal member of the Senate as President.

Democrats expanded their majority.

That's left.

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. Obama did not run as a liberal, and many of the new members of Congrss are centrists

[closeupready]

66. Everyone knows Obama's Senate voting record is one of the most liberal, if not THE most liberal.

The trend is clear. He needs to implement liberal policies, and appoint liberal and progressive voices in order to retain support from the American people. That's what they want; if they had wanted triangulation, they would have elected Hillary.

[Two Americas]

84. yes and no

It depends upon whether or not we judge right versus left by cultural war issues, or economic issues. Historically politics was always about power and economics. Opposing the right wing on those issues is not really opposing their program, which is about advancing the interests of the wealthy and powerful few, not promoting conservative culture war causes. Those are just tricks for deceiving people and gaining their support.

[paulk]

112. Obama's voting record is not even close to being the

most liberal.

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?chamber=Senate

http://www.votesmart.org/

[tavalon]

124. Despite the rights constant drumroll to that effect, it isn't true

Most liberal member of the Senate? Um, no.

[Two Americas]

81. absolutely

People in the activist community tend to be more upscale, and move in upscale professional circles. I know from decades of working in rural areas and poor urban neighborhoods that it is extremely rare to see liberal activists there.

For the Democrats to win as we have, that means millions of people who were previously voting Republican switched. What I heard again and again every day from those people was "we need another New Deal" not "we need a moderate centrist administration."

Reaganomics and conservative economics have been utterly rejected by the people. Time will tell whether or not the party officials and activists have gotten that message.

[pinto]

35. I think the early "shots across the bow" of Bushco policies have been great.

I think Obama's gonna surprise a lot of folks.

[bigtree]

37. yeah, on Gitmo, mining, stem cells

I'm still waiting for an updated concrete agenda, but I guess I'm expecting to be surprised too.

[pinto]

38. Me too. The message from the transition team that all fed agency policies will be reviewed,

"on day one" - as they say - puts some meat on the change agenda.

There a some big things that need to be done, but many are not the sole role of the President, they're legislative, Congressional items. The gutting of some Federal agencies *are* an Executive matter, though. Obama may well make some bold moves from the get go in that area.

[TexasObserver]

42. I agree. He's going to reverse hundreds of policies the first day.

Obama will be methodical.

His first really hot potato will be GITMO. He will catch hell for the plan he adopts, at least from the right. Some on the left may feel he moves too slowly on GITMO.

I look for Obama to really clean up Justice, and clean up the mess made by all Bush's executive orders and signing statements. Those will soon be GONE.

Obama's goal his first two years will be to succeed in getting the economy back on track and to succeed in undoing the worst of the Bush policies. He will strive to gain consensus his first year.

[pinto]

44. Agree. He'll have some good support in Congress, as well.

:kick:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. According To Some Morons That Makes You A Freeper Who Wants All Far Right People Appointed.

You've outed yourself Pinto! You've outed yourself! Freeeeeeeperrrrrrrr!!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[cali]

47. No it hasn't. The first things he's planning on doing-

are not particularly centrist. And positions- such as CoS and head of the transisition team, tell us little about how centrist or left or whatever the admin will be.

More ridiculous DU speculation.

[bigtree]

50. another arrogant slam by cali, as if your opinion was the ONLY one that mattered

typical

[Lumpsum]

48. It'd be nice to see him hire real progressive liberals like Kucinich.

Instead of all these Clintonites and DLC-cronies.

[Freddie Stubbs]

65. Perhaps if Kucinich had supported Obama instead of running another Quixotic campaign

he would have more influence in the new administration.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

51. .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. Politics as usual from a centrist.

[gollygee]

57. The first job of a president after an ugly campaign is to try to bring the country back together

That doesn't mean he won't appoint liberal judges or give progressives any positions or anything like that. I'm going to be patient and see where things go.

[gorbal]

59. What exactly is the "center"

Hopefully they remember to be in the center of American opinion, and not what you might think the center is by the loudness of the far right. American's are suprisingly left wing when they actually think about the issues.

I think right now they really want to work on figuring out this financial crises and dealing with the two wars we "got going on". They can't do that properly working in a confrontational manner.

[closeupready]

62. Unclear what "center" means, but we do know that Americans elected as President the most liberal

member of the Senate, and expanded their majority even further, so that's an indicator that Americans are now left-leaning.

[Freddie Stubbs]

64. It's where both liberals and conservatives criticize you

If liberals say you are too far to the right, and conservatives say you are too far to the left, you are a centrist.

[leftofthedial]

67. If, as the corporate media does, you define the right as centrist, you are right.

no, there is no sign of any progressive influence, either in Obama's campaign or in his prospective administration.

[lonestarnot]

69. Jeebus the honeymoon was short.

:(

[bigtree]

73. c'mon. For starters, I don't see how why we're supposed to sit back

. . . and stifle ourselves while these decisions are being made. I don't know where you believe we should begin our advocacy or our debate about the direction of the next term, but I believe that discussion should begin now.

And, I have to ask how such benign questions on a discussion board represent an interruption of the 'honeymoon?'

[lonestarnot]

76. Guess I'm a little more than worried about this

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aNCFKvAMUQ6w&refer=home

[bigtree]

78. that screed by Weil is sure getting play

That's not his cabinet, and it was a pretty good representation of a standard group of Democratic and Democratic-leaning economists that are listed.

I dunno. It's their game, the money-moving. I don't know how we manage the economic fallout without having folks like these tasked with finding solutions. But, I'd like to see Krugman, and others like him, represented at these sessions, as well.

[lonestarnot]

79. Yes where the hell is Krugman anyway?

[AtomicKitten]

86. I think you are confusing mood with individual appointments.

I don't see Obama as moving left or right. I see him as moving forward.

I will wait to judge Obama on his policies.

[bigtree]

87. I don't think I'm confusing anything. Of course, we'll see what his policies are

But, if you have watched the political process closely, especially in Congress, you will see clearly that it matters a great deal how issues are structured and cobbled together to form legislation and initiatives. In an atmosphere where Obama has already signaled a willingness to compromise, it is an obvious question as to where he intends to stand when he begins his negotiations and how much ground he's willing to concede. Those questions can be reasonably predicted by understanding where his principal advisers and advocates he employs have stood in the past.

If the Obama WH is going to engage in negotiation and compromise with the disingenuous right-wing, they'd be better served if their principals and negotiators were committed to firm Democratic principles which represent more than window-dressing on the same old tired policies and prescriptions which have led us into this economic morass.

[AtomicKitten]

88. Until he takes office 1-20-09, we're all just guessing.

We can mull over and try to weave together individual appointments as a parlor game, but I'll hold off making assumptions until we actually see his policies unfold starting 1-20-09.

[bigtree]

90. well, the query in the op is reasonable enough.

I think who he chooses to represent and advise him is important and relevant. Our democracy is not (just) a spectator sport. We need to speak up often and loudly where it interests us.

[AtomicKitten]

91. did you see this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/obama-hires-progressive-l_n_142648.html

[bigtree]

92. yep, answered to it upthread

[Lucian]

89. I hope there are progressives coming...

these people don't sound like change at all.

But I remain hopeful.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

93. I think what you will find is that many Primary Clinton supporters will love Obama more each day.

That's just my prediction. We'll see.


He's really impressed me with every step he's made so far.

As a matter of fact, he has impressed me more than I think even Hillary would have. We'll see.


I began supporting him late in the Primary, because I knew that our party would be hurt more if he lost and Hillary won.


With each passing day, I believe he might be the smartest politician we've ever seen (I know it's early to say that.. but I'm just impressed).

I think he just might be the "change" he claimed to be... and that goes for Repukes, Moderates, Liberals, AND Progressives.

He will bring us all together in a way the entire world needs. He's not going to make just one group happy, he's going to make all of us happy (except for the 20% who still thinks Bush is doing a good job).

[bigtree]

94. trust-em politics

I dabble in it sometimes

[readmoreoften]

96. I always assumed Obama would govern even to the right of Clinton.

But with language more appealing to the tone of the center-slight-left.

[H2O Man]

97. Yikes!

The OP looked interesting, and raised -- in my humble opinion -- a valid question. It's sad to see how the thread has played out from there. Some good comments, some angry finger-pointing, some utter nonsense.

I consider it to be a reflection of the strange mood people are in, rather than on one of the better contributors to this forum's OP.

[bigtree]

99. well,

I think that it's a perfectly good time to put our cards on the table. It's a valid and complicated conflict, though, between the calculations we make in choosing to support a candidate in an election and deciding what form and direction our advocacy will take in the wake of our victory.

The most perplexing responses, though, are the ones which advocate waiting to see what emerges from the new president and his administration before criticizing or asking questions (some suspicions of disloyalty?) and the responders who insist that seasoned actors will willingly and capably assume unfamiliar roles and produce a brilliant new performance.

But, as has been said, we will see . . . and we will do, too.

[H2O Man]

100. What struck me the most

was that there were some fairly harsh disagreements between people who I suspect have more in common than not. I'll give just one tiny example, fully aware that I risk having several people say, "No! You're WRONG!"

Different people take different views on what "socialism" is, and isn't. In the past four months, I've had some curious debates with an old friend, who I've known for decades through employment in human services. A good man, who has his heart in the right place, but who has allowed fear to cloud his vision. And so I've listened to quite a bit of "Obama's a socialist" and "you're a socialist." And so I said, among other things, that any person who has been employed in social work, funded by tax-payers, to benefit the larger community is employed, in a very real sense, in a socialist program. For over a week, he denied that was true, and continued calling me names. I finally reminded him of a lunch-time conversation, from the mid-1980s, where another coworker was ranting about public assistance being "socialism," and the damage it was doing to our country. My friend responded by saying that we, too, were employed in a form of a socialist program.

My friend indeed remembered that conversation, from over 20 years back. Knowing that I had put his argument in check, he did the only thing possible: he noted that we are both retired now, thus "changing everything."

We all have different points of view. The topic raised in your OP is certainly a valid topic of discussion. I'm hoping in a few more days, people will be more relaxed about disccusing things like this.

[bigtree]

102. 'We all have different points of view.'

Ideologies are opportunistically molded and manipulated to fit agendas and ambitions . . . like the politics enabled and justified by religion.


from Bernard Shaw's, 'Man and Superman' :

MENDOZA. Now, we tolerate all opinions here. But after all, comrades, the vast majority of us are neither Anarchists nor Socialists, but gentlemen and Christians.

THE MAJORITY (shouting assent) Hear, hear! So we are. Right.

THE ROWDY SOCIAL-DEMOCRAT (smarting under suppression) You aint no Christian. You're a Sheeny, you are.

MENDOZA (with crushing magnanimity) My friend: I am an exception to all rules . . . I am not a slave to any superstition. I have swallowed all the formulas, even that of Socialism; though, in a sense, once a Socialist, always a Socialist.

THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS. Hear, hear!

[AtomicKitten]

105. re: being perplexed about wait and see

I am apparently viewing this in a way that has you perplexed; allow me to explain.

I've stepped back a bit and am not getting into the weeds on each individual appointment and especially the whispers of appointments. In other words, I'm not assuming Obama will reflect the ideology of his appointments but rather the other way around. I feel pretty confident that Obama knows exactly what he wants to do and is choosing people to execute it for him. That's why I want to see what he does. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Emanuel was an interesting choice. I don't like him for a number of reasons not the least of which is he's DLC, but I do like that he'll be Joe Pesci for Obama and execute his agenda plus he has some GOP howling. I can see the pros and cons of the appointment. I view things from a different perspective than most I guess, but to me it makes sense.

[H2O Man]

116. Interesting.

I suspect that President Obama's administration will contain a wide range of people. Some will be progressive, others liberal, some moderate, and some conservative. In theory, that makes sense .... especially for a real leader.

In practice, it has the potential to be very good, or very bad .... depending upon the placements. I have a feeling that Obama has the insight and ability that will lead to positive appointments.

[AtomicKitten]

120. I look forward to seeing what a community organizer can do with this mess.

I saw Al Gore's name on a leaked appointment flow chart. Don't know if it's 4real but that would be a clear signal from Obama that he intends to get serious about global warming. Fingers crossed on that particular appointment.

-----------------> http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2008/11/11/al-gore-colin-powell-caroline-kennedy-in-obamas-administration.html

[cobalt1999]

101. He was the Democratic Party candidate not the Progressive Party candidate

The "change" is away from the republicans hard right, which means slightly left of center.

[bigtree]

103. that center shifted to the right in every bill Democrats voted with republicans on

. . . to the point where established Democratic principles were labeled 'extreme' or out of the mainstream; like universal health care has been cast as 'socialism' by it's opponents.

The 'center' will be determined by how much progress we make on a progressive agenda as the right-wing is little more than an obstruction of progressive initiatives in favor of more defense commitments of manpower and money and more shifting of tax dollars to enable and protect the wealth of those who have disproportionately benefited in the past 8 years while the rest of our incomes, savings, and fortunes declined.

It doesn't ring true that there needs to be more leeway and leverage given to the obstructionists and misers. There is no reasonable solution that leaves us halfway in Iraq. There is no reasonable solution which leaves millions of Americans without health care. There is no reasonable solution which intends to give the bulk of the benefit from a reduction in taxes to a minority of the wealthy at the expense of the vast majority who are middle class to poor. Progressive politics intends to see these concerns through to a total solution.

Centrist politics may well be a valid approach in its pursuit of incremental change and progress, but, I think we're better served if the Executive practices something more than the politics of the moment and challenges legislators to act boldly and decisively.

The 'Democratic party' hasn't been bold or decisive for some time now, in my view.

[readmoreoften]

104. Slightly left of center????

You mean, slightly towards the center but still on the right. Obama is still in the upper right quadrant of the political compass. Kucinich is an example of a center left candidate.

[Lerkfish]

106. god, I hope so.

but I'm biased, being a liberal tree-hugging peacenik.

[LWolf]

107. I'm not seeing any signs of it.

He is a centrist, he ran as a centrist, and even during the primary wars, when people flocked to him because he "isn't DLC," his positions fit the DLC like a glove, official membership or not.

It's why he was in last place on my primary list, along with HRC, why I didn't celebrate his nomination, and why, while I celebrate the end of the Bush administration, the defeat of McCain/Palin, and the breaking of the color barrier, I haven't celebrated the election of Obama to the presidency.

I don't expect any movement left from the Obama administration. I think we'll have to elect left-leaning congress people to see the a leftward shift.

Which is where I'll put my focus. There, and in persistently communicating with my reps in Congress about issues.

[bigtree]

108. I think you've got it just right about where to focus your political energy

Understanding the intention of the President-elect to negotiate his way to progress, it is imperative that the actual operators behind the legislation they hope to produce have a clear understanding of what those who voted for them expect them to represent. That's the most effective way that we can hold the administration close to our own agenda in any bargaining with the republican opposition.

[Turn CO Blue]

109. The "mood" is centrist. What does that mean?

This is a decidedly premature post. I can't even imagine what your motivations are, but they're suspect in my book.

If anyone on DU posting these Eeyore and/or Purity posts had even 1/1000th of the acumen (political, economic, academic, diplomatic) that Obama and his staff has, then I'd eat my coffee cup.

Instead of testing the purity of ideology of every name that comes up, how about we let the transition team do their job. Perhaps they can concentrate on getting qualified people in place, especially in civil service roles? After all, I'm sure that "heck of a job Brownie" met the Bush Admin's litmus test of being a conservative in his ideology and you can see where that got us.

I AM SICK OF IDEOLOGUES.

Read some excerpts from "Team of Rivals", then you might, possibly, might get it.

[bigtree]

111. first of all you can take your 'suspicions' about my 'motivations' and shove them

If you bother to read through the myriad of responses I was more than willing to make on this thread, it should be perfectly clear what my 'motivations' are, unless you're content with substituting your own bias for those.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to judge these transition figures and those they help appoint to the Obama administration on their past conduct. That's what we do. That's really the only way we have available to judge them which is relevant to their potential performance.

And, I imagine Obama, himself, is making similar judgments according to his own ideology and agenda.

[tavalon]

126. The transition team isn't going to fold because we don't like this appointment or that

We are in the place of flux between being the underdogs (a place of odd comfort to Democrats) and in the position of creators of change. That's what this weird mood is about, IMO. I'm of the lets gather it together, let them pick their people unmolested and begin the process of forcing our voices to be heard after President Obama is in. But I don't fault anyone who wants to flex their muscles early nor do I blame any who see everything as a portent of how Obama will govern. It's hard being in the unknowing place and it's natural to fill in the unknowing with something.

[Truth Teller]

113. Obama is somewhat centrist himself

He's certainly not a progressive in the Kucinich mold, but probably wouldn't be where he is if he were.

Above all, he's a manager and a pragmatist. He's as smart and capable as they come, and worlds better than his predecessor.

[liberalpragmatist]

114. Given that he's barely appointed anyone yet, I think we ought to wait

He will likely assemble a broad cabinet that includes some progressives, but lots of centrists and some Republicans too.

A lot of policy will be driven from the treasury and from Congress.

Truth be told, at least at the moment, a lot of the centrist/progressive battles are dormant. There's major disagreement on key parts of the progressive agenda. Even Larry Summers, who's not popular around these parts, has spent much of the last two years writing about inequality and arguing for a much more activist and regulatory government that he advocated in the '90s -- Summers, for example, has promoted greater spending, universal health care, and changes in the tax code.

[Nye Bevan]

118. Seems like Obama will govern like Bill Clinton, minus the scandals

And as I am still a huge fan of Bill this is just fine with me.

[tavalon]

121. He's a centrist

Why wouldn't he use centrists to help pick his centrists. He's not a populist, never was. I know in the heat of the moment, it was easy to forget that, but we forget at our own peril. If we view what he's doing from the point of view that he's a centrist, it will be far less painful in the long run. We progressives will get a seat at the table if we fight for it, as always.

[kid a]

125. The weather this winter has been decidedly warmer. Better not buy new skis.

WAY too soon and too small a sample to make any judgments.

You can take your shots at a small sampling, but I like to wait for better numbers to predict how to plan my February trip to the slopes.