are you getting freaked out that so many war (0.00 / 0)

boosters in the press seemed to swing so dramatically in Obama's favor in the final week of the campaign.  I wonder if a deal was made?  So many of these appointments have histories of direct involvement with Bush's crimes.  Let's face it, if a non corrupt person had been able to take Joe Lieberman's job, these guys might end up in jail.

My blog  

---

by: Dameocrat @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 22:17:11 PM UTC

Did you really expect different? (0.00 / 0)

Honestly. Did you really expect progressives in Obama's cabinet?

If so, why?

---

by: wanderindiana @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 22:20:51 PM UTC

I did expect some progressives in his cabinet yes. (4.00 / 2)

"Team of Rivals" would suggest diversity.    He also said the problem with Nafta was that its critics weren't let in on the debate which would be a defense of progressives.  At least that is the way it sounded.

DLCers and Republicans do not represent diversity on the war or the economy.

They agree completely on those two issues.

My blog  

---

by: Dameocrat @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 22:23:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

sounds like you need to calm down a little... (4.00 / 1)

Actually, most of these appointments seem pretty good to me.  In foreign policy, it really looks like Obama is trying to get everyone that is reasonable on his team.  keeping Gates at defense for a period of time gets the center-right realists on board.  That's good; the first Bush Administration's foreign policy was decent - better than that of Clinton in some ways.  Getting the Clinton on board is really important, and Obama's done that by offering Hillary Sec. of State.  It even looks like Richardon will be on board at Commerce and Napolitano will be a good head of Homeland Security.

Geither at Treasury seems good because all the players know, like, and respect him.  He's not corrupt, which is a big deal (Summers kind of was corrupt).  I wouldn't worry about his involvement in the bailout - he id head of the NY Fed, he has to be involved whether he wants to or not.  Plus, everything the Bush Administration touches goes to hell - I wouldn't blame Geithner for that.

I am concerned about Brennan at CIA, though. Should we organize to try and stop that pick?  Obama seems like he'd be responsive.

---

by: econlibVA @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 22:24:52 PM UTC

Yes, let's try to stop Brennan (4.00 / 4)

he is a terrible pick, IMO far, far worse than the other rumored picks mentioned by Chris (I'm actually reasonably happy about Geither at Treasury).  

---

by: Tim Sackton @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 23:33:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

here's the plan (0.00 / 0)

Let's criticize Obama a lot. That will make us his "rivals." Then he'll have to give us a seat at the table!

I'll start: appointing John Brennan would be a sellout of Obama's principles and a sign that his critics were right all along - that all his talk of change was just empty sloganeering.

Okay, who's next?

---

by: Chachy @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 22:25:12 PM UTC

Not yet Colin Peterson? (4.00 / 1)

That article to which you link says Peterson and Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin are finalists, not that Peterson's been tagged. Do you have additional info?

---

by: johnduvi @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 22:25:31 PM UTC

yeah, this one seems way more speculative (0.00 / 0)

than other rumors. More along the lines of "here are some names that seem plausible" than "there is an actual rumor". Googling "Colin Peterson" + Agriculture doesn't turn up much, which is not what you'd expect if there was really a leak about this.

But yes, from what I've read he seems like a pretty bad choice.

---

by: Tim Sackton @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 23:32:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

why all the leaks? (4.00 / 4)

After running such a tight campaign, there sure have been a lot of leaks about cabinet positions and appointments. Maybe they're intentionally floating these names out early to see how much pushback they get, and from whom? Maybe that's why Clinton seems to be moving ahead as SoS - not many strongly criticized it. And by the same token, maybe that's why Summers didn't get named to Treasuty.

If that's what's going on, then we should be very serious about criticizing bad appointments. I say we go after Brennan, in particular - I really don't know what Obama's thinking with that one.

---

by: Chachy @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 22:33:21 PM UTC

I hear ya (0.00 / 0)

I can't make up my mind if I'm really upset about these picks or if I should just go with this picture:

http://punditkitchen.files.wor...

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 22:35:16 PM UTC

another freaky fact (4.00 / 2)

does Obama's internet hostile application seem designed to keep the netroots out of government.  According to the NYTimes.

They must include any e-mail that might embarrass the president-elect, along with any blog posts and links to their Facebook pages.

The application also asks applicants to "please list all aliases or 'handles' you have used to communicate on the Internet."


My blog  

---

by: Dameocrat @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 22:37:05 PM UTC

wouldn't you do the same? (0.00 / 0)

What do you expect, really? You mean you wouldn't do the same?

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 00:31:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't. (4.00 / 1)

Here's why:

http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2...

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 03:30:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

wow. read that link. it's terrifying. (4.00 / 1)

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

---

by: avenged savant @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 06:49:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

you don't "want" to be pessimistic (0.00 / 0)

but I think that is your bent, Chris.  I say this with a wink.

I think that the President will largely set policy.  Maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but I think Obama is intelligent enough to discriminate among those seeking his ear.  He'll listen to a lot of voices and make his calls.  

We heard recently that he's talking to Scowcroft as an informal advisor.....that's fine. It's another voice.  That doesn't mean we will have Reagan's foreign policy....but I'm sure some worrywarts will flip out.  

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 22:57:18 PM UTC

Actually (4.00 / 1)

On foreign policy issues, Scowcroft sounds a lot more progressive than most of the people Obama's been appointing.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 23:02:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Scow is skeptical, but he's not "progressive" (0.00 / 0)

Old Brent is a massive cold warrior.  That is not progressive in the slightest, so I don't agree with your formulation.  

To Scow's credit, he is suspicious of adventurism, and that is why he was against Iraq.

I am not remotely concerned about the lack of progressivism.  Obama prizes White House experience.  But blog hand wringers I think want to rerun the campaign..."He's not progressive enough!!!!"

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 23:08:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're right (4.00 / 1)

He's been anti-neo-con, which isn't the same as progressive. Still, at this point anybody who was against the Iraq adventure is better news in the foreign policy department than most of the appointments so far.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 23:12:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

what the hell is "progressive" foreign policy? (0.00 / 0)

not blowing things up for no good reason?  diplomacy?  helping those in need?

that's not progressive or conservative, that's just smart.  conservatives can also be smart.

---

by: burndtdan @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 22:48:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And therein lies the rub (4.00 / 1)

 If a Reagan administration official is the guy we're hanging our "progressive voice" hopes upon, then...we'll, let's just say it's not the best of signs.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 23:09:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

we're doomed! (0.00 / 0)

we're doomed! you're right! this is a sure indicator!  

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 23:16:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you are too optimistic (4.00 / 4)

The voices he surrounds himself with are going to influence his thinking. That's just common sense. Like you say: "he'll listen to a lot of voices and make his calls." That's exactly the issue at hand: which voices will he be listening to?

---

by: Chachy @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 23:25:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are imagining things (0.00 / 0)

Have you ever listened to someone you disagreed with, and then not done what they said?  Have you ever hired an employee, and not agreed with them?  You seem to be saying that by hiring an advisor, one is sealed into that advisor's worldview.  

This is about Obama. He will make decisions. (and of course, there are always unofficial advisors...)..this is amazing that you and others are so stuck on this...I really think that this line of thinking is pessimistic and simplistic.  

Unless, of course, you were hoping for a Full Lineup of Progressives, and that Obama would tack left of FDR in every move....

There is a level of expectation of perfection and purity that is isolated from the real world.

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 23:38:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

straw men (4.00 / 1)

You seem to be saying that by hiring an advisor, one is sealed into that advisor's worldview.  

Well, no. What I said was:

The voices he surrounds himself with are going to influence his thinking.

Do you really not appreciate the distinction there?

As for expecting "perfection and purity" - who said that? What I would like is for there to be some progressives in important positions, especially on defense and national security. I would also like for there to be no supporters of torture and law-breaking in the Obama administration. Is that too much to ask for?

---

by: Chachy @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 00:02:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

you're right, i just don't understand expectations (0.00 / 0)

I keep tripping over people's expectations that I do not understand.

For me it is a given that anyone who could get elected President would be at best predominantly Center-Left, with some Left-Left positions on some issues.  I think that is Obama.  

I don't understand expectations that are very contrary to that.

I agree on defense and NSA, but I think it's much less important than domestic policy.  In comparison to domestic and economy, any moderation in FP is fine with me.

I work with people in government and politics on a state level in CA, and everyone in my world is a pragmatist.  They are "let's wait and see what happens with policy."  Nobody's judging Obama yet.   Whereas in the blogosphere, everybody thinks they can have everything now....or believes they should agitate for everything now.   To me, that's unrealistic activism, but then again I'm not a movement leader.  

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 00:26:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes and no... (0.00 / 0)

I buy that line of reasoning more as plausible reassurance that we shouldn't be quick to judge up-and-coming talent by their past associations.  These are people eager to serve Obama, and Obama is deciding to make use of them.

That said, the idea that you pick a CIA head with as much baggage as Brennan because you think it will lead to a stimulating policy synthesis...I'm not buying it.  Open-minded, fearless advisors come in all shades of ideologies and creeds, and Obama is picking them accordingly, for good or ill.

---

by: tdub @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 00:10:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Brennan is not OK (4.00 / 3)

That's what I get for being optimistic for once in my life.

Brennan is completely unacceptable.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 23:00:39 PM UTC

Geithner and Gates (4.00 / 2)

Firstly, on Gates, I really think you're freaking out, Chris. By every account, Gates' role is going to be transitional -- 1 year to 18 months, after which he'll be replaced, probably by Richard Danzig.

Moreover, what you continually ignore is the convergence between traditional realists and "progressives" on foreign policy. Gates is trusted and well-liked by the Pentagon. Although he has publicly opposed a timetable in Iraq, that doesn't square with the fact that he was the primary author of the Baker-Hamilton report, which advocated a timetable. He supports diplomacy with Iran and Syria and redeployment to Syria. He was reassuringly non-hysterical about the Russia-Georgia War last July.

Gates is bipartisan cover for allowing Obama to do exactly what he promised to do on the campaign trail -- an agenda for which there is now broad consensus: withdraw from Iraq, redeploy to Afghanistan, engage in diplomacy with Iran.

As for Geithner, given the state of the economy, we cannot afford a market panic -- whether you like it or not, that constrains Obama's options. Although Robert Kuttner (a firm progressive) has argued for Sheila Bair, he has written positively about Geithner.

Their experiences in the financial crisis have led Geithner and Bair, both non-radical officials with impeccable establishment credentials, to embrace increasingly far-reaching remedies. Both top any list of potential appointees for the next secretary of the treasury--the official who will be responsible for the most drastic financial restructuring since the Great Depression. The treasury secretary is the government's senior economic official--charged with raising revenues, managing the government's finances, overseeing the banking system, and interacting with the Federal Reserve. In calm times, it can be a quiet job. In an economic crisis, treasury secretary becomes a key power position. The list of plausible candidates is short, for the number of people who fully grasp the dimensions of the current crisis, have the competence to deal with it, and enjoy the confidence of both Wall Street and its critics could fit in a phone booth.

...

No matter who is appointed, the critical issue going forward is whether the next administration will just keep lurching from bailout to bailout--or whether they will get serious about a New Deal-scale overhaul of the financial system and its standards so that the cycle of speculative bubble and government bailout ceases.

Speaking to the Economic Club of New York last June, Geithner called for a far-tougher regulatory policy to alter "the level and concentration of risk-taking across the financial system." He got quite specific, saying regulators "need to make it much more difficult for institutions with little capital and little supervision to underwrite mortgages." The speech is a blueprint for fundamental overhaul. He has delivered the same message in congressional testimony.  

> http://www.prospect.org/cs/art...

Now, as to the third name on your list, John Brennan, I have little good to say. The best that CAN be said is that policy is going to be directed the Attorney General, the NSA, and the White House Counsel; Eric Holder, Jim Jones, and Greg Craig are all ARDENT opponents of torture. Holder's likely deputy, Elena Kagan, is too. Obama himself has repeatedly citing shutting Gitmo and ending torture as his priorities, and those other selections are encouraging.

Still, I see little good in a Brennan selection. At best, he's simply there to be an administrator and bureacrat with more humane policies directed from above. But even that situation allows somehow who cavorted with "the dark side" to be rewarded with a plum position. This is one we should try to stop.

As for Colin Peterson, I don't much about her, but as somehow would love to see agriculture policy reform, I highly doubt we're going to get it in this administration. Obama has his hands full and he's not going to prioritize major fights with big agriculture in the midst of a major economic crisis, two wars, and big political battles over health care and energy.  

---

by: liberalpragmatist @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 23:11:41 PM UTC

OK, altogether now ... (0.00 / 0)

President-elect Obama is a moderate. He is not progressive, never has been. He has a strong populist streak, to be sure, and can always be counted on to empathize with and work on behalf of the downtrodden. But on other issues, particularly security, he is one of those ACTUAL moderates (meaning he ACTUALLY believes in moderate positions on issues, as opposed to being weak) that people on both ideological sides don't like to believe exist.

I suspect his domestic appointments -- HHS, which he has already made, HUD, which I suspect he will actually make into an important job, Education, EPA, Interior, Energy -- will be much more progressive.

---

by: ColoDem @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 23:17:26 PM UTC

Where do you get that moderate = not weak? (4.00 / 1)

Clinton's foreign policy was both. He continued bombing Iraq and maintaining sanctions without a clear endgame. He mostly ignored Israel/Palestine.

Strong does not mean running around and kicking ass, then complaining when some of that comes home to bite you. That is often what "moderate" foreign policy has been.

Not torturing people is not weak. Not supporting dictators like Musharraf and trying to push a corporate agenda overseas is not weak. This has nothing to do with weak or strong, this has to do with whether he wants to appoint cabinet secretaries who will run around forking with people because corporate or other domestic lobbies want them to, or whether he will appoint sensible, responsible people who will crack down on terrorism, piracy, human trafficking, &c.

If Obama actually intends to control the policies implemented by Clinton, Brennan, &c., then I think he can do that. What worries me is that he is appointing these people mainly to appease constituencies, and that his "change" ambitions pretty much end at the border; that means closing Gitmo and maybe even some of the "CIA black sites" but keeping the School of the Americas open and shipping people they want to torture to countries that don't mind doing it at home.

And I think the key is, it's not just a matter of what Obama personally wants or doesn't want, it's what we as the netroots, as Americans, are going to raise our voices about. The press does pay attention to the blogosphere, we can make an issue out of an appointment or a policy if we want to, and if we do that, we give Obama a pretext to take a more progressive path. If we keep our mouths shut expecting Obama to fix everything for us, then we shouldn't expect much to improve.

---

by: bicycle Hussein paladin @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 23:57:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Brennan is horrible (4.00 / 3)

If, as seems possible, the outrage against Summers sank him as a Treasury Secretary candidate, maybe outrage against Brennan can do it again. That is where I would vote to put our efforts.

I actually think you are being way too hard on Geithner. If he becomes the Treasury secretary, he will be the first treasury secretary since (I think) Lloyd Bentsen who is not from a business/investment banking background. The fact that Geithner is a career civil servant, not a Wall Street insider, is a massive plus in my opinion.

Geithner isn't Elisabeth Warren, but he is way better than most of the alternatives, as far as I am concerned.

---

by: Tim Sackton @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 23:29:15 PM UTC

Something Positive (0.00 / 0)

If you had to describe the Bush administration in one word, few would be more apt than the word incompetent.  From the historic foreign policies blunders of Iraq and Afghanistan to the tragic do-nothing domestic policies of Katrina, 9/11, and managing the economy.  

Not only have the policies been incompetent, but those with positions of responsibility in this administration have been incompetent.  Bush, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Chertoff, Miers, "Brownie", Cheney, Libby, Rice, Bolton, Goodling and many more.  These individuals were not the best and brightest of what this country has to offer, rather they are party loyalists who share a similar disdain and disrespect for the positive role that government can have in people's lives.

A familiar theme from Barack Obama on the campaign trail was that government can't solve every problem, but at the very least, it should do no harm.  With all of the serious challenges that we face as a nation, Obama seems convinced that surrounding himself with very smart people is more important than where a person leans politically.  

Instead of selecting partisans and rewarding political hacks with cushy positions where they have no business being, Obama is selecting open-minded and qualified individuals who are well-respected throughout Washington and abroad.  

Are Obama's selections the progressive all-star team that some of us might have preferred?  No, obviously not.  Still, few can say that his appointments are incompetents or partisan hacks or ideological die-hards.  Many in this country have lost confidence in our government, in our economy, and in our institutions.  It seems to me that Obama is attempting to provide a sense of confidence in the team that he is assembling, to give assurances to all that he intends to provide responsible government.    

 

---

by: Kane @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 00:06:09 AM UTC

Why are you surprised? (0.00 / 0)

Obama has never been a true ideologue which is what I liked about him.  Being a pragmatic politician is a good thing and will make him effective at governing.

I still think that you guys are jumping all over Obama far too quickly for one who isn't even in office. I personally believe that his administration will be far more progressive than you expect.

---

by: cupcake @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 00:10:03 AM UTC

Anyone who's shocked and surprised at his picks so far (4.00 / 2)

just hasn't been paying attention. Obama is NOT, never has been, and likely never will be, a true progressive (let alone the most liberal member of the senate, which I continue to believe was deliberately manufactured by the center-right National Journal to help the GOP beat him should he become the nominee, and which obviously failed).

He is, at BEST, a slightly left-leaning establishmentarian centrist incrementalist in the Clintonian mold, but more disciplined and systematic (which is good--ideology is important but so is competence). If he moves things leftward, it will be slowly and under the radar. He will not buck the establishment. Instead, he will seek to become the establishment (as Clinton showed, being president does not in itself make one the establishment), and inch it slightly leftward as he feels is safe and confrontation-free.

Tempermentally, Obama strikes me as the sort of person who decided early on in life, whether due to personal experience, or observation of others' experience, that proceeding cautiously, deliberately and incrementally is the surest path to success. He is, essentially, a diehard conservative when it comes to process (as opposed to ideologically, where I think he's more of a slightly left-leaning centrist, as I stated). And that's how we can expect him to proceed, perhaps pushing the envelope, but in a cautious, deliberate manner.

Then again, we're in a situation, domestically, in terms of the economy, health insurance, the environment, that requires massive and immediate change or things will just keep getting worse. So who knows, maybe he's open to big change. Is there a way of being cautiously radical? Or, as some have joked, a radical centrist?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 00:38:00 AM UTC

Does "slightly left leaning establishmentarian centrist incrementalist" mean... (4.00 / 1)

that he's a proponent of anti-disestablishmentarianism?

Sorry, couldn't resist.  You have to be a fan of R.A. Wilson (The Illuminatus Triogy).

---

by: greenlabormike @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 00:42:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

Lucid, accurate. People did not pay attention.  In their zeal to demonize the Clintons and boost Obama, they created their own reality.  How pathetic.

---

by: damitajo1 @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 00:54:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, I don't know about demons (0.00 / 0)

But I'd argue that as centrist and cautious as he is, Obama is still somewhat more left-leaning than the Clintons--or at least less rigid in his embrace of the establishment center and open to new ideas and change--and, perhaps even more importantly, more disciplined, systematic and, yes, effective. So he would have been better than Hillary, I believe, on both counts.

Many of us wanted a true progressive, and we didn't get that. But we also avoided someone who's wedded to (as opposed to being aligned with) the establishment, who still clings to outdated and discredited center-right views (especially on foreign policy, which is why I don't get her as SoS AT ALL).

Instead, we got someone who appears to be somewhere in-between the two, and very smart and methodical to boot. On the whole, in today's political climate, we probably couldn't have done any better, and could have done worse (Clinton), or much, much worse (McPalin).

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 01:34:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You have to look at this issue by issue. (0.00 / 0)

The way I see it, Obama is going to be "progressive" on only a few issues issues - Health Care, Global Warming/Energy Independence, and Labor, primarily.  And these are not insignificant things.  Although Daschle is not Progressive, I buy the argument that he already supports universal health care, and his appointment was about both his support/knowledge of the issue and his ability to navigate Congressional waters to get it passed.

The jury is still out on Global Warming/energy independence.  I haven't heard anything about EPA, DOE, Interior, or Senior Advisers on environment or energy, but I suspect these will be on the more progressive side of the spectrum.  If not, then we've been snookered quite a bit.

Labor also looks bright.  Obama's moves appear to be pretty committed to a pro-union position.  Again, no names yet, except Gaspard at Senior Political Director, which is a good sign.  His appointments to NLRB and DoL should be quite revealing, and I suspect they will be for the good.

Overall, those are big areas, but that leaves huge areas of policy not covered.  Obama was never going to be a full-bore progressive on all issues.  Some areas - like Defense, Foreign Policy, National Security, Economy, etc. - are turning out to be awful picks.  But others - Education, FCC, HHS, Interior, are still unknown.  And these will be what tip the scales for me.

While I wish he hadn't caved on National Security, the jury must still be considered "out" so far on his record of appointments as a whole.  If these "second tier" appointments turn out to be fairly progressive, then I'll take it as a win.

---

by: greenlabormike @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 00:39:12 AM UTC

Again, where is the evidence he's "caved" on national security? (0.00 / 0)

He has said he's for withdrawal from Iraq. He's for redeployment to Afghanistan. He's for diplomacy with Iran. He's for vigorous diplomacy between the Israelis and Palestinians.

How do any of these choices violate those principles?

I would argue Gates and Jones both represent co-opting traditional realists to achieve goals that foreign policy "progressives" and "realists" have come to share.

Jones, esp., is someone I'm fairly encouraged by. He's got very solid establishment credentials, which is important for PR and for diplomacy, but he's also been sharply critical of the war in Iraq and he's an ardent opponent of torture.  

---

by: liberalpragmatist @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 01:00:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

John Brennan for CIA, for one. (0.00 / 0)

The guy is awful, as Glenn Greenwald points out (linking Andrew Sullivan who thinks the same thing).

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...

But even beyond that, Gates is a betrayal on a number of level.  In the abstract, it's a betrayal to reinforce the meme that Republicans are natural leaders of Defense.  It's not like there aren't any number of qualified Democratic candidates (much less progressive) to handle the job.

Specifically with reference to Gates, he may be competent, but as above, so are lots of others.  What we need is a Secretary with some vision to oversee the military as it goes through some tremendous adjustments into the 21st century.  Different priorities, different needs, different problems than what it's ever faced before.  Not because I'm wishful, but because that's the reality of a military that has been mismanaged and abused over the last 8 years by Iraq and Afghanistan (oh, and the idea that we need to add troops to Afghanistan is part of that failure of realistic vision - our troops are the problem, not the solution there).

---

by: greenlabormike @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 15:12:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Awakening from an Obama-Vegetative State (0.00 / 0)

Sounds like you were in an Obama-Vegetative State ( http://dissentingjustice.blogs... ). Why on Earth did you simply buy the hype? Was it because Huffington, MoveOn, National Journal, Daily Kos and Politico said he was a leftist that duped you? If so, then shame on you. I'm actually having a good laugh over here.  I know some diehard Obamaniacs who told me they would not vote if Clinton won the nomination because she a warmongering hawk.  I cannot wait to here the slippery way they reconcile their ongoing worship of Obama with the Clinton pick.

PS: I actually like Clinton.  

---

by: damitajo1 @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 00:53:03 AM UTC

Poor Child (4.00 / 1)

You obviously were not of political age in 1993. While covering Clinton's "Forest Summit" in Portland, I remember seeing Vic Sher (then head of the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund) and former Indiana Congressmen Jim Jontz (then an environmental lobbyist) embrace each other and, beaming, congratulate each other because "we won".  That was followed fairly shortly by Clinton demanding that Sher undermine a Spotted Owl lawsuit SCLDF had won so as to "release" hundreds of millions of board feet of old growth for logging.  The threat was that if SCLDF and its clients didn't go along, Clinton would sponsor a rider that exempted logging in the National Forests from coverage of the Endangered Species Act.

Larry Tuttle, then director of Sher's client, the Oregon Natural Resources Council, refused to go along, so Sher had Tuttle's directors fire him.  Under ONRC's more pliable new executive director, Andy Kerr, ONRC stipulated to modify the judge's injunction and the old growth trees came crashing down.  

For what?  To satisfy a bunch of Republican companies, the executives and workers for which would never in a million years vote for Clinton.

And this scenario repeated itself over and over and over, for eight fucking years.  You name it -- sell out the ozone by exempting Florida tomato farmers from the UN protocol phasing out methyl bromide?  If it helps pass NAFTA, you betcha.  Ram through approval of an Ohio River Valley toxic waste incinerator over Al Gore's objections?  Of course.  Approve Monsanto's application to inject dairy cows with rBGH?  Monsanto has money you know.  Come up with a plan for Yosemite that turns the Valley into a Disneyesque theme park?  Do you need to ask?

And after suffering the political equivalent of being anally raped by Clinton for four years, the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters enthusiastically endorsed him for re-election in 1996.

So get ready to have your heart broken and be depressed.  It ain't going to be pretty.  Obama will take our votes, our money and our volunteer labor for granted because he knows we'll let him.

He won't be as bad as Bush.  At least we'll be able to comfort ourselves with that.

---

by: kaleidescope @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 03:20:25 AM UTC

no offense, but... (0.00 / 0)

if you think "change" meant going from one ideological extreme to the other, you weren't listening... ever.

"change" means a government that doesn't worry about ideology, but worries about results.  obama's cabinet candidates are positive because they will be ready to work on day 1, and we won't have an administration that spends at least it's first 100 days or more being completely ineffectual on a learning curve (see: carter, clinton).

obama never promised a progressive government (though he is a progressive minded person and has many progressive minded advisers).  obama promised a FUNCTIONING government.

and really, that's what we've been lacking.

also, think about it. geithner is only executing the bailout by virtue of the job he held when it happened.  he didn't write it, and he isn't calling the shots.

---

by: burndtdan @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 22:41:32 PM UTC