At the very least... (4.00 / 1)

The man in charge opposed the war from the start.

That's something, at least.

---

by: Kal @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 14:27:28 PM UTC

No, it isn't (0.00 / 0)

He wasn't in the Senate at the time.  When it came time to make the politically hard choices of sticking to timelines, he was no different than Biden, Clinton, etc.

"Politically hard" isn't something Obama has ever done.  "Opposing the war" in any meaningful sense isn't something Obama has ever done.  He is exactly the same as the most of the party - they either gave lip service to opposition or supported the AUMF with lip service reservations and nonexistent conditions - then, when the war turned out to be a disaster, talked about how horrible it all was, but pretended the troops were holding them hostage.  During the campaign, this entire "anti-war" facade became not a pitch about the morality of the war, but about relative "judgment."

These "anti-war activists" must be feigning surprise.  I don't really know what to make of the people on the left who kept pushing Obama as some sort of progressive choice or even the best choice on the war.  It was pretty obvious that he was exactly the same as politically safe, right-leaning centrists.  That was ok with me in the end, because I always thought that only the politically safe, right-leaning centrists would be competitive in the general.

He kept talking about change, and I and many others had not the faintest idea what he meant.  He was a carbon copy of Clinton, half a degree more liberal on foreign policy and half a degree more conservative on domestic policy.  He just paraded Reaganesque optimism, without any substance.  

The whole dynamic is a house of mirrors.  I wonder - are these activists REALLY so gullible that that are shocked he would appoint Clinton (especially after choosing Biden for gravitas)?  Or, were they just pretending to believe the Obama was promising something other than the facts in front of them, so they could raise a fuss about some sort of imagined betrayal and persuade him to tilt left?  Either way, I don't trust any of them.  

---

by: kanzeon @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:00:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right-leaning? (4.00 / 1)

Is anyone not to the left of Cindy Sheehan now considered "right-leaning"?

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:07:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Anyone who didn't (0.00 / 0)

take a firm stance on the timeline is right-leaning, IMO.  But that's probably a matter of opinion.

---

by: kanzeon @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 21:14:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't get it. (4.00 / 2)

He kept talking about change, and I and many others had not the faintest idea what he meant.

National health coverage isn't change?

An energy program to stop global warming isn't change?

Fiscal stimulus to improve the economic situation isn't change?

An end to Guantanamo isn't change?

An end to a national policy of torture isn't change?

Restoring habeas corpus isn't change?  

Or weren't you paying attention to what he said?  

---

by: David in NY @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:12:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A basic misunderstanding (4.00 / 3)

I've had this conversation many times.  We are talking about two different things.

Everybody who ran had a healthcare plan, a plan for the war, etc etc.  And everybody who ran could - and sometimes did - emphasize the differences in their viewpoint from Bush and say it was "change."  That's meaningless: every election insures this sort of change.

But Obama was claiming to offer something different.  Basically it was a claim that he was going to change how business is done in Washington.  When people say that his "change" mantra was nonspecific, that is what most of us mean - he was offering the same centrist Democratic policies that Kerry, Gore, and Clinton offered, the same bipartisanship, the same corporatism, and no realistic hope of reforming the system.  That certainly not change to "believe in."

And what do we see now, a couple of weeks into the presidency-elect?  Anti-war activists, bloggers at Kos, David Sirota complaining they've been deceived.  WHERE'S MY CHANGE?  

---

by: kanzeon @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:37:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, surprise is relative (0.00 / 0)

I'm not surprised that Obama is not offering fundamental change--it was clear from the outset that he sought to take over the establishment by pleasing and appeasing it.

Yet I am (somewhat) surprised as the audacity with which he's offering more of the same. It's one thing to basically offer a neoliberal package of reforms, still another to give important posts to corporate lobbyist agribusiness champion Tom Daschle, Hawk Hillary, corporate centrist Rahm Emmanuel, and Republican appointee Bob Gates.

Quite a thing to give us the same old shit in so blatant a fashion.

---

by: david mizner @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:54:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

May I call BS? (4.00 / 1)

And everybody who ran could - and sometimes did - emphasize the differences in their viewpoint from Bush and say it was "change."  That's meaningless: every election insures this sort of change.

No election in my lifetime, begining in 1946, has promised the kind of change the list I put forth above promises, except the election of 1980, which sought retrograde change.  Not one.  It is totally deceptive of you to say that national health care, something that people have been trying to get since Harry Truman was president, and have uniformly failed to get, won't be a change.  

Your only complaint seems to be that Hillary would have brought the same change.  Maybe so, but so what?  It's still incredibly important stuff, vastly more important that the nitpicking you are doing.  I frankly don't know what your change ("WHERE'S MY CHANGE?") is, and I don't really care, because it's totally insignificant next to the policies Obama has pledged to enact and that he is plainly moving toward.  Obama's policy changes, if enacted, will be the biggest legislative program since Roosevelt.  I think you're wrong to belittle it.

---

by: David in NY @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 17:28:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, you may not. (4.00 / 2)

It isn't a "complaint" to say that Hillary would have brought the same change.  It is a simple, mundane observation that every other Democrat who ran for President since Clinton offered the same platform.  

We are still talking past each other.

I'm not "belitting" anything.  I think it would be wonderful if we had universal health care, an energy policy, and a sound environmental policy.  But Al Gore campaigned on those same policies.

The entire "change" mantra was vapid packaging on the same old centrist Democratic policies.  I'm not too terribly concerned about it at this point, because it worked well enough.  It's a little sad, but it always seems to work.  GWB ran, incredibly, against the Washington establishment in 2000.  Sarah Palin ran against the Washington establishment.  So did Huckabee.  So, to a degree, did Clinton and Carter.  There is no more well-worn pile of BS than the strange notion that someone running for President is going to take out the establishment, break through gridlock, and unite the country, simply because he is an "outsider."  That is what Obama ran on, in huge truckloads.

If you want to say that the change is having the same old centrist Democratic policies instead of a rogue radical administration, then fine.  That wasn't what was said during the primaries, certainly.  Obama was "change we can belive in" and Hillary was the "same old Democratic establishment."  

---

by: kanzeon @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 17:51:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sirota does not claim to be deceived (0.00 / 0)

I've never seen such a thing, and you've never read his posts during the election if you don't think he was skeptical.

Basically, I call bullshit on your entire claim.  The people complaining now were skeptical.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 18:37:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Willful self-deception (0.00 / 0)

Sirota says:

"In fact, I'm willing to believe, even though ... some news organizations are already reporting that Obama is planning to staff his administration with some of the very same D.C. insiders who created many of these messes."

In other words, all available evidence said he would staff his office with DC insiders.  Nevertheless, he admittedly took a "leap of faith."  When he did, as we are all aware, he complained bitterly about it.  He says:

"I believe in Obama the person. And I'm willing to believe because this campaign is less about Obama than about us - and that in involving us, Obama mave have helped construct a pressure system that will force him to represent the progressive agenda in office."

In other words, despite all available evidence, he decided to believe that Obama would be forced be a progressive hero, not a mainstream corporate Democrat.  Source:

http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

Here, he says that his understanding of "change" is that he wouldn't staff his office with Clintonites:

"For all the talk of "change," I'm really curious whether Barack Obama thinks there are any worthy, smart, well-qualified people who aren't part of permanent Washington and who didn't serve in the Clinton administration?"

http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

That took me all of five minutes.

Why is this so hard to admit?  When Obama spoke of "change" he was just throwing out a meaningless platitude, and leading people like Sirota to either believe or pretend to believe that he was something different than the old Democratic establishment?  

---

by: kanzeon @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 19:29:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And Also (4.00 / 1)

He's been chatting a lot with Brent Scowcroft, for what it's worth. Obviously not a progressive, but he was against the war from the start.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:02:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Retired General James Jones (0.00 / 0)

is rumored to be in contention for Obama's National Security Advisor.

From what I can tell, he was a voice of caution, if not outright opposition, in the run-up to the Iraq War. See, for example, here, and here.

I don't know much about him, and it is hard to find unequivocal statements about the Iraq war from 2002 and early 2003. But I would at least tentatively classify him as at least not a war supporter, and possibly a war opponent.

---

by: Tim Sackton @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 14:50:58 PM UTC

It'll be hard to find unequivocal statements from him during the runup to the war (0.00 / 0)

Since he was still in the military at the time.  He was the Commandant of the Marine Corps until Jan. '03, and then he became the SACEUR/EUCOM commander.  

I don't know that much about Jones, though it'll be kind of disappointing for me that Wesley Clark isn't getting this job.  I guess Clark's best shot at it would have been if Hillary had become president, since he supported her campaign.  Jones didn't campaign for anyone, but apparently Obama liked what he heard from him when they spoke during the campaign.

---

by: Haggai @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:03:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm willing to bet (0.00 / 0)

that Susan Rice will be his NSA.

---

by: david mizner @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:22:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If she is, the leakers haven't been informed (0.00 / 0)

Everyone who's leaking on this is either mentioning Jones or Jim Steinberg.

---

by: Haggai @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 16:31:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

uright (0.00 / 0)

Jim Jones:

http://politicalticker.blogs.c...

Obama is serious about seeming "tough," as in conservative.

Jones, Clinton, Gates

---

by: david mizner @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 17:57:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My Aunt Myrtle opposed the war (4.00 / 2)

from the very beginning.. why isn't she being given a top spot in the foreign policy team?

Gen. Jones called the Iraq war a "debacle". He's touted to be Nat. Sec. Advisor.

---

by: Brigid @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:02:26 PM UTC

A poster here said that (0.00 / 0)

Susan Rice, one of Obama's closest foreign policy advisors, was against the war from the start.

---

by: pacersfan @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:07:52 PM UTC

Hillary Clinton said to be wavering (0.00 / 0)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11...

One friend said Mrs. Clinton decided late Wednesday to say no, reasoning that she would have more freedom in the Senate. By midday Thursday, the friend said, she was "back in the indecisive column again." By the end of the day, another associate said she could accept by Friday.

If true, the job is hers - if - she wants it. But nobody is sure if she wants it.

---

by: tietack @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:14:31 PM UTC

Staying in the Senate provides her an opportunity (4.00 / 1)

to make more substantive contributions to leading the nation for alonger period of time. IMHO

Which is more likely to be a successful effort? Attaining peace in the Middle East, or developing and implementing a National Health Care plan?

The former provides the chance to be a "rockstar", but the latter provides the chance to help every American citizen in a real and direct way.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 17:03:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If I were Obama (4.00 / 1)

Hillary's first job would be to try to reach a settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians.  I think she's the one who could do it.  Bill almost did, remember.

---

by: David in NY @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:14:38 PM UTC

First Hillary would have to (0.00 / 0)

recant her absurd support for an "undivided Jerusalem."

---

by: david mizner @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:24:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, (4.00 / 4)

that certainly wasn't Bill's position, and she's not a candidate for higher office anymore, so I bet that's negotiable.  (Nixon went to China, you know.)  Interesting that Olmert, I think, recently suggested that the Israelis would have to reach a compromise on Jerusalem.  

---

by: David in NY @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 17:33:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

True (0.00 / 0)

And it's possible that Clinton's cred with Israeli hawks will provide Obama cover to move, but I can't be too optimistic given that we're talking about, you know, the IP conflict.

---

by: david mizner @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 17:59:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

David (0.00 / 0)

just noticed from reports at Political Wire and elsewhere that Obama is close to Brent Scowcroft, and many of Obama's foreign relations people are as well, and that Scowcroft is intent on solving the Palestine-Israel problem.  I hope, and I think possible, that Obama is making Hillary Secretary of State because she's got the stature to do that kind of deal.  If we have to make the Israelis compromise, she'll have Obama's back with the Jewish community in this country.  I'm sure she must know the importance of such a task.  

---

by: David in NY @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 15:51:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Weird defense of Hillary (4.00 / 1)

if the only options the Obama transition team is giving us on foreign policy are people who originally supported the war, then I see no reason why Clinton is any worse than the other potential options.

Well, there are issues other than Iraq. Like Iran, which Hillary threatened to obliterate some time after she voted for Kyl-Lieberman.

And torture. Till recently Hillary thought the president should have the authority to torture.

And Israel-Palestinian: She's a prolific AIPAC panderer.

And cluster bombs: Hillary voted against banning their use in civilian areas.

And general foreign policy experience: For this I defer to the Obama campaign:

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

And management: let's look at the two great projects that she managed: her campaign and health care overhaul.

I could go on and on and on.

---

by: david mizner @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:29:54 PM UTC

I don't know, (0.00 / 0)

but I'm assuming her views and Bill's are not that far apart on the middle east, AIPAC buddy though she may be.  And he nearly produced an agreement there although he didn't have much foreign policy experience before he got to the White House either.  Maybe she's a bigger hawk than he is (it's possible), but as Obama's secretary of state, I think it highly unlikely that she will have the discretion to obliterate Iran.

---

by: David in NY @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 17:42:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Would make her Obama's highest-ranking Cabinet official"? (0.00 / 0)

This stumped me.  In case anyone else is as ignorant as I am, see Wikipedia: U.S. order of precedence.  The SOS is higher up than all the other Cabinet members (but still below the Mayor of Poughkeepsie if she should show up there).

---

by: tdub @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 16:42:05 PM UTC