Evidence Anyone?

by: David Sirota

Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 15:30


Just to follow up on my last post about whether we're seeing a "Team of Rivals" or a rival team from Obama I wanted to pass on this comment from DKos's Meteor Blades:

Where's the evidence for the opposite claim? Reaching across the aisle is not a bad thing. But so far what we have seen is a reach in one direction: a turncoat Dem, a DLC Dem and feelers toward Republicans. Center right. Where, as david asks, are the feelers to the leftists in the party?

Currently, what we're hearing is that none of these "low-level" transition team appointments really matter. Or even, ludicrously, that the Chief of Staff doesn't matter. It's only the Cabinet that will matter.

I disagree with that. But, for argument's sake, let's go along with it. We've had two for sure Cabinet appointments, sans the vetting that will come later, the moderate DLCer Tom Daschle (no surprise given his close association with the campaign) and Eric Holder. There is talk of Senator Clinton for SecState, another DLCer. And talk of Chuck Hagel, an ultra rightwinger except on Iraq and some other foreign policy issues.

Look, I, for instance, like the Daschle for HHS pick. He's a left-of-center guy on those issues, based on his book. But Daschle isn't what anyone would call a movement progressive.

And so Meteor Blades is exactly right. And the fact that so many people seem so utterly divorced from reality - so utterly consumed and blinded by their support for Obama - that they cannot see this (or simply refuse to admit it) is really a bad sign for what's to come. As Obama himself has essentially said, without an independent reality-based pressure system on him and his administration, no change will be forthcoming.
David Sirota :: Evidence Anyone?

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Evidence Anyone? | 61 comments
I agree I like Daschle (0.00 / 0)
I can see things unfolding to really getting healthcare done ASAP......I am still weary of other things.OT.... I got an email from John Kerry asking for money for Martin, UNBELIEVABLE chutsbah !
I told him after kissing LIEbermans ass yesterday, why didn't he ask him for the money from his PAC....they get nuttin from me for a long time. My money goes to better Dems, no one else.
Some names? (4.00 / 2)
Perhaps we should start listing names of people and where we would like to see them, so that we have something to push back with other than "Oh, that guy's kinda Clintony, can't we have somebody better?"

I'll start: I'd like to see a high profile post go to Lawrence Lessig.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

Me, too. (0.00 / 0)
I'd have to read up a bit more to give a firm answer, but what I've heard of Samantha Power has been good so far.  Possible national security adviser?
[ Parent ]
We did that - and I posted on it (4.00 / 1)
I did a big OL post on this In These Times cover story.
[ Parent ]
some of the people on this list (4.00 / 5)
are already involved in the Obama transition.

A few examples:

In These Times Defense: Sarah Sewall -- currently leading the National Security Team for the transition.

In These Times Urban Development: Valerie Jarrett -- currently co-chair of the transition, and appointed to a senior post in the administration already

In These Times FEC Chairman: Spencer Overton -- currently leading the transition for election oversight issues

In These Times Labor: David Bonior -- currently a member of Obama's economic advisory team (although no official position in the transition)

Maybe these don't count as "feelers to the leftist side of the party", but if they don't, I'd like to know what does.

[ Parent ]
Howard Dean - Homeland Security (4.00 / 1)
Darcy Bruner - ?
Robert Wexler - ?


John McCain won't insure children
[ Parent ]
Just shoot me (4.00 / 4)
I'm extremely tired of the whining and moaning that is going on all through the blogosphere. Atrios is about the only cool-headed blogger at the moment. I've stopped visiting a number of sites because of the ridiculous fact-free vitriol thrown at Obama.

Once the Obama administration starts making actual proposals, then I'll be more than happy to criticize what I don't like.

But DEAR GOD MAN, GET A GRIP!

Happy with nothing (4.00 / 4)
I'd like to see some discussion of specific things (statements, appointments, proposals) that would make people happy. Less "I don't like X" and more "I'd like X". Stick and carrot.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
[ Parent ]
I'd love to see (4.00 / 3)
someone at Treasury, the EPA, or Interior that gives corporate lobbyists heartburn.

It's not rocket science to come up with a name, someone who's aligned with labor and/or someone who has a track record of fighting corporate power.


[ Parent ]
right. so let's come up with a name for each one (maybe through a vote) (4.00 / 1)
and then advocate for them.  

let's start nominating people.

i'll start with sheila bair for treasury.  

[ Parent ]
I just read her c.v. on Wikipedia. (0.00 / 0)
Extremely impressive resume.  Given her recent performance on issues relating to the bailout, I would say she might be ready for the cabinet.  From WiPed, her term as FDIC Chair runs through July 2013.  The determining factor, I suppose, will be whether the new administration has yet conceived a plan to deal with the economy. I'm sure they have ideas.  It's obvious that Bair, as well, has very definite ideas.  Can the two sets of ideas mesh?  

I think it would be smart for the administration to consult closely with Bair, at the minimum.  If they have a plan which doesn't mesh with Bair's ideas, better not to move her from the FDIC than to move her and try to manage her.  If they have no detailed plan, and find Bair's view of the situation to be persuasive, better to make her Treasury Secretary and let her take the lead, closely counseled, of course, by the President's economic council, etc.  This is a very capable woman with very clear ideas about how to deal with the meltdown.  To use her effectively at Treasury, I think she must be allowed to shape the federal policy.

[ Parent ]
By the way, I think someone said on (0.00 / 0)
a recent thread that she is a Republican.  Is that true?
[ Parent ]
what about (4.00 / 3)
Ceilia Estolano, who is currently one of the three heads of the EPA review team for the transition?

Here is what I could find out about her with a bit of Googling:

From Dissent magazine, in an article about the LA mayor"

He installed Cecilia Estolano, an activist attorney involved in environmental and affordable housing efforts, to run the powerful Community Redevelopment Agency.

Green Techonology news describes her as an "urban environmentalist" here.

She also apparently endorsed (pdf) a policy of requiring union labor in redevelopment projects as director of the LA community redevelopment association.

I don't know anything about her except what I've been able to find out in the last 20 minutes on the internet, but that sure sounds like someone who would give corporate lobbyists heartburn, doesn't it? And she is one of the leads on the EPA transition team.

[ Parent ]
It does, but remember (0.00 / 0)
the EPA is underfunded, has been seriously reduced in size, and has a backlog of unfilled appointments.  I bet the President-Elect will look at how well she does at finding prospective appointees to fill the vacancies before handing her even larger authority.  She sounds like a good fit for the hiring function, so I would not be surprised to see her given a plum assignment in the EPA or a similar post on the presidential staff.  I think EPA's funding problems are going to be significantly ameliorated in the new administration, so the question of budget administration experience is relevant.

Another salient point is that EPA is one of the places Bush is attempting to sabotage and dismantle before he leaves office.  It may wind up taking serious legal expertise to unentangle the Federal environmental rules before any progress can be made.

Good suggestion.

[ Parent ]
"Whining and Moaning" (3.43 / 7)
That's the right-wing talking point - and always has been - against the progressive movement. Any requests, questions, urgings or demands the progressive movement makes is berated as "whining and moaning."

Frankly, you should stop whining and moaning about supposed whining and moaning. You are getting tiresome.

[ Parent ]
Who do you want to see? (0.00 / 0)
What would make you happy? Give some names you'd like to see, and where you'd like to see them.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
[ Parent ]
Doh! (0.00 / 0)
I posted this at the same time you posted the link up-thread.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
[ Parent ]
true, but the structure of your post is a bit 'whiny and moany' in one sense: (4.00 / 1)
it is solely retrospective.  you are saying obama has done bad things, but there is nothing in it that indicates what we want going forward, or what can/should be done now about what obama has done.  

i don't happen to agree with the conclusions you draw from what obama has done.  but regardless, i think that we can agree on actions that could have beneficial effects in the future -- for instance, pressuring obama around his choice for treasury sec.  

that isn't whiny, it's proactive.  

[ Parent ]
Almost always (0.00 / 0)
Atrios is almost always the cool-headed one.
[ Parent ]
while i think we need to form an independent advocacy/pressure movement (4.00 / 1)
i think that it is only reasonable that obama is spending more time reaching out to his right than to his left.  think about it: the contested votes for the plans he wants to pass are on his right, not his left.  

from what i can tell, he is thinking a lot, at least when it comes to domestic policy, about his relationship with congress (hence rahm, daschle, other advisors w/ history in congress, his reaching out to lieberman, etc).

he wants to get that 51st vote for healthcare reform.  that is what it's about.  

he's not going to help pass the agenda we support by sending us 'feelers.'  

now, there are other areas where we should be vigilant, and where obama's choices may reflect priorities that we need to try and change.  we should be vigilant, for instance, about actions he takes w/rt tech policy, or around wiretapping, or w/rt afghanistan.  and we should be putting pressure on him around his choice for treasury sec.  there is, no doubt, a lot of pressure on him to choose someone that 'the street' likes.  we should put pressure on him to choose someone that is serious about regulating the street.    

Change (4.00 / 6)
If we measure on the left-right axis, then so far you are correct.  On the other hand, I see Obama appointing people who clearly know how to get bills pushed though congress and continued talk of going "big".

It doesn't take blindness to see Obama is putting a team in place that can actually pass major change.

What you are looking for isn't more change, but more populism.  Some of us care more about health care reform, energy and global warming; major action on these items is looking quite good so far.

the newish "team that can get things done" meme (4.00 / 1)
Having a competent team that can get things done is super...I'd like to see a little more concern about what they actually intend to do with all that effectiveness.
[ Parent ]
They are going to do what Obama tells them to. (0.00 / 0)
I do not profess to know exactly what that is, but they work at his pleasure. What they want to push does not really matter as they will push what he wants or they will be gone. Now I am not really sure what exactly he wants, but that is what they will pursue if they want to keep their job.
[ Parent ]
Maybe (4.00 / 2)
There have been presidents who fully command their staffs, and there have been presidents who have been herded about by their staffs. I don't think I have enough info to judge which type Obama will be.

I think it was in Haynes Johnson's Sleepwalking Through History where I read about Reagan's Chief of Staff taking control of who got to talk to Reagan and who didn't -- having a huge impact on what information Reagan had to govern with. I'm sure there are other examples over the years, especially the last 8.

[ Parent ]
but reagan was senile and bush was a fool. nt. (4.00 / 1)
obama is neither.  

(not to dismiss the underlying criticism -- i actually think it does matter who obama has around him... i just don't think he can really be compared to reagan in this respect).  

[ Parent ]
you did watch this campaign, right? (0.00 / 0)
If you don't know who'll be in charge in the Obama administration, you weren't paying attention.
[ Parent ]
I did, I do, I was, and I don't like it (4.00 / 1)
no text
[ Parent ]
What does that even mean (0.00 / 0)
Obama spends 2 years campaigning on what he's oign to do. HE gets elected, and starts hiring people to implement it, and everone gets pissy cause he hasn't done anyhting yet.
[ Parent ]
not quite what I said (4.00 / 1)
1. He has done lots of stuff already, and that should be factored into any evaluation of his program and what we need to do to advance progressive causes.  So I've been disagreeing with those who say we must not judge him yet.

2. At the same time, I think it's pretty clear what he's campaigned on and what he's going to do (in terms of actual policies as opposed to lofty inspiring speeches) -- and that's straight DLC centrism.

I happen to be pretty much against DLC centrism, and so, as I said, I'd like to see a little more concern about what they actually intend to do with all that effectiveness.

I'm not complaining about him not having done anything yet, in terms of enacting polices. I'm complaining about what he is going to do once he does start enacting policies. It certainly doesn't look like progressivism I can believe in.

[ Parent ]
Where is your evidence that he'll impose (4.00 / 1)
DLC centrism? Emmanuel says Obama is going big. What evidence do you have that he's not?  
[ Parent ]
what does going big mean (4.00 / 1)
and how does it relate to DLC centrism?

My evidence is his campaign, his staffing picks, his reaching across the aisle to the losing party, his voting record...

[ Parent ]
That's your evidence of DLC centrism? (0.00 / 0)
DLC centrism is policy not staffing. Where's your evidence?

Going big doesn't relate to DLC centrism since they're incrementalists at best and regressive at worst.  

[ Parent ]
what exactly defines a "movement progressive"? (4.00 / 5)
I'm sorry, but I still don't really understand the criticism here.

Obama has posted a number of huge lists of people involved with the transition on change.gov. I don't recognize most of the names, but for some policy areas I've done some Googling and it looks like there are at least some people with very solid progressive backgrounds.

For instance, Susan Crawford (one of the people chosen to run the FCC transition) looks very solid on progressive priorities for the internet.

Spencer Overton was another one I noticed, as I had heard good things about his book "Stealing Democracy", and now he is the Election Assistance Commission Review Team Lead.

In the limited areas of the transition where I have investigated the people Obama has appointed to the best of my ability, I just don't see evidence that he is turning just to DLCers. Maybe that is because Obama is a lot more progressive on voting rights issues and internet policy issues than on other things, and so naturally the people in charge of those areas are more progressive. But if that is the case, it should be easy to go through Obama's list of transition appointees and show how they are all DLCers. And nobody is doing that. So forgive me if I am a bit skeptical.

tom perez nt (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Obama is going to set up as he sees fit.......... (4.00 / 1)
Period. I am not saying I agree, but you can push all you want, most of the candidates are already picked (each with a backup or two I assume). I don't see complaining changing anything. I agree with the poster above, lets put some names out there, not just bitch about others. Even if they do not get appointed to anything it will get them out there. Adminstrations change over time so some of them may make it later. And, by the way - if we returned the entire Clinton adminstration (inlcuding Clinton himself) it would be very much a change from the last eight years. Maybe not change from the last 3 decades, but very far from W and his crew.
ah... (4.00 / 3)
Now I have to push back the other way.  Even though I find myself siding with Obama's strategy more than what is suggested by front pagers at this site, I completely reject the notion that we shouldn't try to apply pressure to get people appointed that we like.

If that is what you really think, drop your account and go back to reading the MSM.  No reason to post here.

[ Parent ]
I have no problem pushing back (0.00 / 0)
but I am a realist. In the short term it will do nothing. Over the next two months the transition team is so busy they will not listen at all. Go ahead and push, but do so with names and ideas - not just bashing. And do so with an eye towards the future as the fist stage is already in motion. Thinking you will change it right away is like banging your head on the wall.  
[ Parent ]
Not true at all (4.00 / 3)
All this talk has a large impact, I believe.  Even though I don't really agree with David's complaint, I'm very glad he is making them.  This is exactly the kind of pushback that does make a difference during a time that we have the most influence.  Heck, we've even got Pat Buchanan backing us up on this.

Right now there is a lot of pressure to get people with real progressive street cred into the administration.  That is a good thing.

Personally, I think tier II is slightly more important on this front.  The top level guys are the heavyweights of today -- and for a reason! -- but the second tier establishes the heavyweights of tomorrow.  That is where long term progressive change will come from; by growing our own.

[ Parent ]
I think (0.00 / 0)
I made about the same type of point in my original post that you bashed - I said:

I agree with the poster above, lets put some names out there, not just bitch about others. Even if they do not get appointed to anything it will get them out there. Adminstrations change over time so some of them may make it later.

I clearly advocate pushing progressives, I just think it will take time to have an effect and needs to be done with constructive suggestions instead of just criticism.

[ Parent ]
Big of you to offer someone the option (0.00 / 0)
of leaving a website that doesn't belong to you, Mark.  I didn't realize you were this important.
[ Parent ]
Paul Krugman in a top economic position (4.00 / 4)
That's what I'd like to see.

This team of rivals doesn't have very many people I'd call friends.

Another thing -- every single one of Lincoln's "rivals" were Republicans, who were all fiercely against the secessionists, and were all basically anti-slavery. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I have nothing to give me a sense of what that huge progressive cause is that would unite Obama's cabinet, other than some kind of Broderist centricism that's actually to the right of public opinion, and generally ineffective.

Listen, if we all agree that we should have real progressives in the cabinet, we should work together to apply pressure. Whether you believe Obama is our good buddy, or you believe Obama is trying to throw us under the bus, we should be pushing for influence on the cabinet. We can agree on that much, no?

Doesn't want the job (4.00 / 1)
I seem to recall that Krugman has said that he doesn't want the job.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
[ Parent ]
Don't believe him (4.00 / 2)
Treas Sec now, with both of his specialties (currency crisis and international trade) in the limelight? From somebody who's a public pundit and politically highly active (he fought like a demon to get Hillary nominated)? Oh, he wants it. He'd be a good choice too - he's one of the few who predicted the real estate crash well before it happened. We need somebody who predicted the problems, not somebody like Summers who helped cause them.

Sadly his past over-the-top support of Hillary (he was very negative on Obama) probably puts him out of the running.

[ Parent ]
You're probably right. (0.00 / 0)
This would be a chance to prove that he's the man.  The chance of a lifetime.  But maybe career is not his first priority.
[ Parent ]
He might not want it (4.00 / 1)
but I sure would like someone like him in there. I won't hold my breath.
[ Parent ]
Feelers??? (4.00 / 3)
I don't want feelers!!!!

I want universal health care reform and an energy policy that will help steer this country out of depression!!

You guys need to get out of the micro-management mode and look at what's going on with the big picture.

It's a big change because for a long time we've heard people say one thing and then do another, and the only tactic that has been useful in fighting that has been to point to evidence like appointments or resolutions or caucus votes that are indirect evidence of true intentions. Right now, we only have mostly indirect evidence and no tangible actions to judge Obama on, and under the old paradigms he could be seen as questionable.

But what part of change didn't you all understand?

I'm not consumed or blinded by support for Obama. I've just become convinced that he's looking to make some significant progress, not everything or as far as I'd like to go but more than I would have expected with even a "true believer" in office, and that his different approach is worth a try.

Already I can see that it will be hard to attack him as being a wild-eyed liberal if he throws support behind HC reform after all the inclusive moves he's made.

You can disagree of course, but to call us divorced from reality is pretty out of line.

I agree (0.00 / 0)
We have been fed bread and water for eight years. I will accept some Hamburger Helper, even though I would prefer filet with a baked potato. Maybe we will get the later down the road?
[ Parent ]
but it isn't a different approach (4.00 / 1)
We're getting straight DLC "centrism".

I suppose it's a good thing that you're not saying Obama hasn't done anything yet, like the Obama enforcers in every blog thread; but this variation isn't much better. Obama HAS done stuff, he IS doing stuff now.

It seems to me that it's a lot easier to read Obama's intentions from his concrete actions vs. his rhetoric, which is designed to be vague, uplifting, unifying, and inspiring. After 8 years of having to turn off the radio every time I heard the president speak, I admit that Obama's oratory skills are a relief and a joy; but at the end of the day, I want more -- like the restoration of habeus corpus and posse comitatus, the end to illegal blanket wiretapping (or even legal blanket wiretapping), the restoration of free speech rights, progressive taxation, single-payer health care, a green infrastructure New Deal, effective use of anti-trust laws, and some proof that no mass-murdering preemptive-war-starting torture-condoning crony-paying man is above the law. You know, stuff like that.  Oh, and legalized gay marriage.

That's the real big picture -- what do you believe this country needs to get back on track?  If you don't evaluate where we are now based on some clear policy objectives, you can't measure progress. And if you evaluate what Obama has done and is doing based on such a roadmap, you realize that having a good driver is good only if you are heading in the right direction.  

Even if he is great at leading us all in some fun driving songs.

[ Parent ]
Wow, I like your list (0.00 / 0)
but I don't think we can get all of that right away. Some of it will be possible through executive orders and I hope he hits some of that right away. But with the economy teetering and two wars, some of that will just have to wait. I would venture some would have to wait for a second term if he gets one. Washington just does not move that fast. I know you are thinking "I want change" and part of that is changing how Washington functions. I grew up in Delaware where my mother was a state representative so I have an appreciation of politics the game. It just will not happen the way we wish, but lets try to get it going towards that and maybe my kid (10 years old) can get his generation to finish the job.
[ Parent ]
What evidence is there that we're (4.00 / 1)
getting DLC centrism?  
[ Parent ]
what evidence is there that we are not going to get most if not all (0.00 / 0)
of the things on your list?  
[ Parent ]
There was nothing intangible about his FISA vote. (0.00 / 0)
Or about his whipping support for the bailout.

You can watch his actions, or listen to his words, but I know which one I believe.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
They are reaching across the isle (4.00 / 3)
to lock the left out of government.

Which is sad because there are some areas where ONLY THE LEFT has a clue about what is going on.

Sagacity is to let a faction take the lead where it is strong.

Will Obama be sagacious?

How 'bout a link to the comment (0.00 / 0)
in it's original context.  
no change will be forthcoming. (4.00 / 1)
I'd like evidence of this. Rahm says they're going to push the agenda aggressively. I assume you believe he's lying. Based on what?  
reality-based (4.00 / 1)
is a rhetorical device with the singular intent of denigrating another viewpoint to such an extent that it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, and therefore you can get away without taking it seriously.

It's a strategy that may be useful for combating and destroying an enemy, and was used precisely for that purpose against the Bush-era Republicans.

There's a strong possibility that such rhetoric will lead to a rift in the progressive community. When you use rhetoric designed for an enemy you shouldn't be surprised to get similar rhetoric in return.

This is what I expected. At the moment I am mollified to see a sense of urgency to do big things (4.00 / 1)
I expected to have no influence on Barack Obama. It was clear from his first 2005 diary on Daily Kos that he felt he didn't need the left netroots nor did he agree with their view of the world. I had said on numerous occasions here and elsewhere that the affinity this world felt for Barack Obama was misdirected.  That Hilllary Clinton needed the netroots more to accomplish her goals and therefore would have heeded our concerns more.  

He doesn't need us.  The,  for the moment uncritical, agreement with what he does is going to continue for a while from many of his fans. They were so so adoring during th eprimary that it was a cult of personality on their part.   Many others, though,  are happy to give him free rein who have the ability to think critically of him.  

I will keep account.  Joe Lieberman keeping his chairmanship is totally to be laid at the feet of Barack Obama.  If there is no 50 State strategy, that will Barack Obama's responsibility.  You wonder why he's not campaigning for Jim Martin or why he hasn't transferred money from his campign to the DSCC to help Martin.  There are issues galore.

But I guess since, I expected so little, I am grateful for the signs that he does, at least for the moment, have a big vision.  That he may indeed tackle the economic problems with big ideas a la FDR.  I am willing to suspend disbelief...if only for a time.  

I have long been aware that influencing him in a way that clearly comes from us is futile.  He listens but that's all he does..listen. Then he goes his own way.  He is riding an large wave of popularity; he will be able to go his way for a long time.

I think the parlousness of the times has moved him more than anything to at least consider doing the right thing in terms of policy.  We'll see what happpens after Jan 20th

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

Obama sent (0.00 / 0)
staff to assist Martin. Clinton is going there to campaign. You think Obama should go there a rile up the good ol' boys? We'd like the turnout on the GOP side to go down.


[ Parent ]
Plus, if the primary had not been winner-take-all, (0.00 / 0)
Chambliss would be skipping orientation right now.  I believe Martin can win the runoff, if we flood the campaign with money.  And I believe Martin is a real progressive who will be a valuable asset to the progressive cause once elected.  But if Obama campaigns, and Martin loses, then Obama goes into office perceived as being an immediate loser.  Surrogates are adequate.
[ Parent ]
Money would be really good. (0.00 / 0)
John Kerry sent $500,000 to the Gregoire campaign.  John Kerry used his money to help the party after the election.

And African American turnout is very lagging...his prescence would matter at driving it up.  Not going is a cautious and careful move.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Ugh (0.00 / 0)
But Daschle isn't what anyone would call a movement progressive.

I didn't realize we were going to hold people to stupid arbitrary standards.  

Fer Fuck's sake, Dave.

Evidence Anyone? | 61 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox