This means a lot more to me than (4.00 / 5)

Hildebrand's sillinesss:

"When it comes to the situation here in Chicago with the workers who are asking for their benefits and payments they have earned, I think they are absolutely right," Obama said Sunday at a news conference announcing his new Veterans Affairs director. "What's happening to them is reflective of what's happening across this economy.

"When you have a financial system that is shaky, credit contracts. Businesses large and small start cutting back on their plants and equipment and their workforces. That's why it's so important for us to maintain a strong financial system. But it's also important for us to make sure that the plans and programs that we design aren't just targeted at maintaining the solvency of banks, but they are designed to get money out the doors and to help people on Main Street. So, number one, I think that these workers, if they have earned their benefits and their pay, then these companies need to follow through on those commitments."

Frankly, I think Hidebrand cannot handle the mild critcism from the Left.  Obama can.

More important is that Obama has sent a message almost as big in possible effect as Reagan's firing of striking air traffic controllers in the early 80s.  Unions and workers are favored by our President.

That is so much more important for the long term development of the Left in the Democratic Party than any cabinet choice done to date.

---

by: Tom Wells @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 20:09:05 PM UTC

But, he's still buying the banks are king meme (4.00 / 2)

When you have a financial system that is shaky, credit contracts. Businesses large and small start cutting back on their plants and equipment and their workforces. That's why it's so important for us to maintain a strong financial system

The banks share a very large portion of the blame for this current economic crisis and they are compounding the issue by refusing to lend -- despite the fact that approximately 1/2 of GDP has been been funneled into the system to "rescue" them since the second quarter of this year.  Don't beat up on just the company.

Perhaps the owners, the workers, and the state and federal government should sit down together and demand accountability from the banks.

Or perhaps we should just nationalize the banking sector and ensure that lines of credit remain open to meet operating needs.  

---

by: northcountry @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 20:38:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That "if" weighs a ton (4.00 / 1)

Personally, I can't remember the last time a politician governed by listening to a large segment of the population while simultaneously demonizing them.

Seems to me like Atrios has joined the Very Serious liberal blogging community in handing out as many "get out of jail free" cards as the Obama camp need.

I predict a digby post in the next day or two piling on, followed by everyone hating Sirota and Jane Hamsher for refusing to fall in line.

Everything old is new again.

---

by: TravisDisaster @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 20:19:55 PM UTC

Aw, come on, is there evidence Atrios wants 2 letters to "weigh a ton"? (4.00 / 1)

Jumping to conclusions that Duncan has become just another beltway pundit, based on Matt's interpretation of one word, two letters, really goes a bit too far, imho.  

---

by: Gray @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 20:48:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't call him "another beltway pundit"... (4.00 / 1)

...but there definitely seems to be a forming layer of "conventional wisdom" in the blogosphere.  The 2 letters weren't what struck me, it was Duncan's willingness to believe that somehow, someway, Obama's boot in the collective face of the progressive movement contains a hidden code that details his plan to push policy to the left.

A "secret plan", if you will.

---

by: TravisDisaster @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 20:59:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tenure (4.00 / 2)

The problem is, the left will be around long after Obama is gone.  Even if he pursues progressive policies in the name of centrism, if it is at the expense of the left, rather than in honor of the left, it will hurt the progressive brand, which in many ways is unavoidably based on left-right ideological positioning, in the long term.  He would shift the center SLIGHTLY left, while trashing the possibility of it actually ever moving SUBSTANTIALLY left.

---

by: md @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 20:23:49 PM UTC

What the commotion means, (4.00 / 1)

I hope, is that at long last the pathetic invalid called the American Left is doing what it's supposed to do. If jerks like Hildebrand push us to get over becoming a servant class for the Democratic Party every couple years, it's about damn time. Our job is to propose and market the kind of progressive ideas that elected pols can't or won't initiate on their own.

I hope a miracle happens and we actually start rebuilding a Left worthy of the name in this country. Our place is as part of a coalition, not as automatic fodder for the Dems. FDR told progressive agitators that he agreed with what they wanted, and now it was up to them to go out and make him do it. I think we're there again.

We are living in the most promising time since the '60s, or maybe even the '30s, to move the "center" by establishing a credible Left alternative. The economic/political environment is right and we are about to have a president who isn't afraid of change. We may not have another opportunity  to go out and make a president do the right thing for generations to come. Let's not blow it on  hand-wringing and presidential gossip and preemptive sniping. We have much more important things to accomplish.

---

by: DaveW @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 20:42:19 PM UTC

This post is a tautology (4.00 / 2)

I mean, if he's governs by kicking the left, he won't be governing as a progressive.

I suppose you could mean rhetorically isolating the left while pushing progressive policies, but in the past O's "kicking the left" was largely substantive--opposing defunding the war, FISA, etc--and when it symbolic it was nonetheless real--McClerkin, the Move On vote, etc.

If he governs by kicking the left, it will mean reversing his pledges on taxes (as he seems to be doing), not getting out of Iraq, giving the CIA wriggle-room on torture, etc.

If he kicks Stoller in the head, he'll be kicking the country as well.

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 21:09:25 PM UTC

upon further review (4.00 / 1)

i don't think it's tautological, i think it doesn't make sense.

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 21:15:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Left and a left agenda are two different things. (0.00 / 0)

The punditocracy and the average voter aren't ideological. They just know they don't like extremes, but on policy they can be for anything that sounds reasonable.  Obama can push a progressive agenda packaged as pragmatic centrism.  He just might have to work in a few Sister Souljah moments to do so.

---

by: marcbrazeau @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 05:16:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Look, (4.00 / 1)

there is no way to get around a basic fact: the only way to effect the change you want is to insist on it, and to do everything you can to hold a politician's feet to the fire on that issue each and every time it comes up, both after and before any primary or election.

What that means is, no Get Out Jail Free passes every time a favored politician fails to do what is necessary to achieve the ends you seek.

At no time can there can be unconditional love of a politician if your real interest is specific, progressive change. Such support as a politician receives should be predicated clearly on their embrace of the principles you really want.

The Obama co-option of the "progressive" movement is testament to what happens when those basic rules are relaxed in favor of some undefinable quality of personality. (What it also shows is that many in the "progressive" movement really possess no basic set of principles to which they adhere.)

---

by: frankly0 @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 21:09:31 PM UTC

Agreed (4.00 / 2)

The fundamental question is, do you consider yourself a part of Obama's governing coalition, or do you consider yourself a part of a progressive opposition? That question should frame the way that objections are levied at Obama's policy and personnel choices.

Obama has made it clear for years that he doesn't want to use the strategies that the left wing want him to use. He's also made it pretty clear that his priorities for government include a lot of the things that progressives want. He's the one in control, so he's going to do things his way. As long as he uses his strategy to pursue progressive policies, then he gets a pass. As soon as his strategy is clearly getting in the way of progressive policies, progressives should leave the coalition.

---

by: Cramer @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 21:35:00 PM UTC

A further point (4.00 / 2)

What is absurd about the idea that Obama might do all these liberal things while simultaneously railing against the liberal left is that it would require the complicity of the right wing machine not to point out the awkward fact that these very policies are, in fact, liberal policies.

If the Obama camp succeeds in demonizing liberals and liberalism, by what magic does liberal policy and principle escape unscathed? How do they avoid the attacks from Republicans and talk radio and the right wing machine, pointing out how "radically left" these policies really are, and how liberals so clearly embrace them as constituitive of their ideology?

The notion that all this clever maneuvering might take place in a context in which the wool is going to be pulled over the eyes of the right wing, and without any criticism from them, is laughable.

If you demonize the left, you demonize leftist policies, because then all the right has to do is to use your own words against what you are pushing for. I somehow don't think that they are going to fail to call Obama a complete hypocrite on his claim to being a centrist and bipartisan out of a sense of decorum.

Remember please: there are still two sides to the American political spectrum. Every strategy must be prepared with that fact in mind.  

---

by: frankly0 @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 21:39:20 PM UTC

Hey Matt I just registered with Open Left (4.00 / 2)

So this is the first time I have posted a comment.

I approve of you. You are my favorite blogger.

This spoken as someone who was relieved but not excited that Obama was elected.

---

by: werner @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 21:44:22 PM UTC

This is getting absurd (4.00 / 3)

 So far since Obama has been elected President he has:

1.) Reaffirmed his stance on ending the Iraq war
2.) Voiced strong support for striking workers
3.) Stated that the only question re:Bush tax cuts are whether to repeal them or let them lapse (i.e. they are gone)
4.) Introduced a huge economic plan that will devote a lot of money to green technology
5.) Given every indication he is gearing up for a huge drive on health care reform.

So basically we have a President who is committed to: ending the Iraq war, promoting green technology, supporting workers, expanding health care, and making us energy independant.

What in the name of God is every one complaining about?
If this is too "centrist" for you, the reality is I dont think any Democrat will every make you happy, period.  

---

by: Bradley @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 22:09:50 PM UTC

um (4.00 / 3)

What in the name of God is every one complaining about?

Did you not read the post?  

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 22:17:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It was a rhetorical question (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Bradley @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 22:26:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My point (0.00 / 0)

 Was that I cant imagine a President acting MORE progressive than Obama has so far.  

 

---

by: Bradley @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 22:30:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I posted about Don't Ask, Don't Tell today (4.00 / 5)

at MyDD, and a bunch of commenters said I should STFU because Obama knows what he's doing.

I think it's legitimate to ask Obama to affirm his commitment to repealing DADT, in light of his decision to keep Gates on at Defense.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 22:23:48 PM UTC