well now I'm getting confused (4.00 / 3)

Is the "Team of Rivals-ism" we're talking about Obama's own approach to stocking his cabinet? Or is it the mangled interpretation by some commentators (and which ones, specifically?) of "team of rivals" to mean "a bunch of Republicans"?

Because if we're talking about Obama, he said in his 60 Minutes interview that he'd have at least one Republican in his cabinet (and it'll probably be Gates), and was very cagey about whether he'd have more than that. Meanwhile, the big spots are starting to fill up - AG, HHS, SoS - and if there are any more Republicans, they're gonna be like Secretary of Transportation or something. So in practice, I don't think Obama's musing about a Team of Rivals really amounts to much of anything of significance.

So what are we talking about here - what Obama is going to do? Or what insiders want him to do? Or what they expect him to do? Or their mistaken beliefs about what he'll do?

---

by: Chachy @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:42:22 PM CST

Three appointments (4.00 / 1)

Rahm, Holder and Daschle.  Criticisms on Rahm are perfectly fair, since he's such a little shit, but the other two seem perfectly fine.  And even Rahm made the right noises in front of the WSJ crowd on health care and green energy infrastructure.

So what the hell are you whining about, David?  And what in Christ's name does David Broder have to do with it?

---

by: Drew J Jones @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:55:46 PM CST

David Broder (4.00 / 2)

He's opposed to Hillary Clinton as SOS. I'm now convinced there isn't a better person for the job.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:59:49 PM CST

There might be something to (0.00 / 0)

the lightning rod theory. Because Versailles hates no one like it hates the Clintons.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 13:58:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Re: Update. (2.00 / 2)

On your update: Yes, I can name one.  OpenLeft's own Mike Lux.

Now stop whining, David.

---

by: Drew J Jones @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 13:10:48 PM CST

Thanks for this (2.67 / 3)

Your comment really perfectly epitomizes the problem with supposed "movement" progressivism. To ask or - dare I say - demand real progressive inclusion is berated as "whining."

What a fucking joke you - and this supposed "movement" - really is.

---

by: David Sirota @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 13:23:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama never was the candidate (4.00 / 1)

of movement progressivism.  That was clear for a long time.  Indeed, your diaries on Daily Kos showed that as early as December 2006, if not earlier.

What Obama's doing is consistent with his campaign.  I wish he were mroe left, but I don't think he is.  

---

by: Tom Wells @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 13:30:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, But... (4.00 / 2)

Despite all of David's reality-based writing, millions of progressives still worked their asses off for Obama, a significant majority of them under the illusion that Obama indeed was a progressive, and Obama did quite a bit to encourage this view.

Furthermore, as I've written myself quite some time ago, there is a specific sense in which Obama certainly is a progressive, just not a populist progressive, which is the position that David and I write from.

Finally, an additional level of confusio derives from the fact that "movement progressive" is nowhere near as clear-cut a category as "movement conservative".  In part this is due to our very nature, in part it's due to the past 40 years of history.  Both serve to make "movement progressive" a very blurry term, indeed.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 13:54:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You asked. (4.00 / 1)

You asked if anyone could name one, and I did.  Now you're getting pissy about it.  What a little fucking demagogue you are.

And the appointments Obama has made so far -- again, the potential exception of Rahm Emanuel -- have been fine from a progressive perspective.  You've got Daschle, who signals seriousness about health care reform.  You've got Holder, who's with us on torture, the death penalty, executive power, etc.

You gripe about Rubin, et al, while ignoring Reich, Bernstein, Stiglitz, and others.

What you really seem to want are symbols running these projects and agencies rather than people who can actually get things done.  That might earn you nods from the flannel-shirts-and-cargo-pants wing of faux-populism, but that doesn't make it any less idiotic.

Basically, you're complaining out of a need to complain rather than because of some great failure staring us all in the face.  That's the real fucking joke.

---

by: Drew J Jones @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 14:35:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Progressive Liasion (4.00 / 1)

or Outreach, is such a ghettoized, tokenized title, anyway.

---

by: md @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 13:35:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Precisely. (0.00 / 0)

You don't "outreach" to people who are on the inside now, do you?

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 14:01:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Progressives (4.00 / 1)

Does John Podesta count? I think he does, but I don't know how others feel about him. As a former Chief of Staff, he is still a Washington insider. But, in his case, I don't see that as an automatic negative.

I like what I've read about the following people, but I don't know if they're considered movement progressives. They seem to have the right ideas:

Melody Barnes, formerly of the Center for American Progress
Susan Crawford
Linda Darling-Hammond

---

by: pacersfan @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 13:25:22 PM CST

What will it take? (0.00 / 0)

Obama is working towards passing universal health care and significant energy reform. All these appointments so far are consistant with him working towards that (and net neutrality, btw), and using an approach that brings all sides to the table to get it done.

Howard Dean gets this approach and he supports it, he's not just echoing party rhetoric.

What is it going to take to convince you David, and other net-progressives that this approach will actually yield a more progressive outcome than appointing devisive partisans and kicking people out of your caucus who's votes you will need?

It's not a rhetorical question, nor is it meant to imply that the evidence to convince you is already out there. My point actually is that Obama still has everything to prove, but because of that has not disproven anything yet either.

So let me ask you David (and others), if Obama can get UHC passed in his first year or two, would that convince you? If he's making progress towards it come Feb or March, will you buy into his approach?

I say this as someone who started the primary season as an Edwards supporter for the very same reasons that some are attacking Obama now - he's not pushing hard enough for change. I've come to both accept Obama because he was the eventual candidate, but also because he has shown me that his approach has merit, so far.

The proof will be in the pudding of legislation, but I like how he's going about things to this point.

---

by: GreenVTster @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 14:59:24 PM CST

Here here (0.00 / 0)

I agree completely. I would add that I don't believe Obama cares about filling ideological quotas at all. I think all he cares about is who can he appoint that gives him the best chance to make his agenda a reality. I think he has a pretty clear idea about what he wants to do and while he can be persuaded to change by sound arguments, I don't think pointing out that he's not hiring enough progressives is that persuasive.

---

by: PaulC37943 @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 15:17:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Howard Dean (0.00 / 0)

I'm convinced that this is the sort of stuff that would have been leveled at Howard Dean had he progressed toward the nomination and presidency in 2004.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 17:39:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mike Lux (0.00 / 0)

The bio:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

---

by: ravi @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 16:56:28 PM CST

"Can someone name a single movement progressive (0.00 / 0)

(other than Mike Lux) that has been appointed to Obama's transition team, his transition advisory boards or his incoming administration? Can someone even name a single movement progressive that is being floated by Obama people in the press for a major appointment?"

Well, I don't really know what one has to do to be a "movement progressive" but why don't we take a look at some names that appear in In These Times Magazine under the description

the most progressive, aggressive and practical Cabinet in contemporary history.

David Bonior, recommended for Secretary of Labor, is a member of the President's-Elect economic advisory board.

Valerie Jarrett, recommended for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, is currently serving as a co-chairperson of the Obama-Biden Transition Project and was named White House Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Relations and Public Liaison.

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

---

by: DFLer @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 17:45:05 PM CST