"Change We Can Believe In"

by: David Sirota

Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 19:37


I thought "change" meant, um, change. I guess not:

"Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said Sunday that if he's elected, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson would be "involved" in the new administration's transition - a very unusual move when the White House changes parties...Obama's announcement can be expected to reassure the business community, which initially had been worried about Obama's plans to raise the tax on capital gains. But he has now said he would raise it much less than some had feared. Obama has also indicated he might retain Defense Secretary Robert Gates as part of an effort to send a bipartisan signal at the start of his presidency."

I really have nothing to add, other than this is entirely plausible - even predictable - considering who he's already surrounding himself with and not surrounding himself with. Oh, also, make sure to read Krugman's take, noting that "John McCain is denouncing the Paulson plan, while Barack Obama - out of a sense of responsibility for the financial system - is only offering cautious criticism." Yes, more "change we can believe in."

UPDATE: OK, let me just add one thing - I agree with the commenters who say that this story alone isn't a big deal (though I actually do think the part about Gates, which we already knew, is a big deal). But the operative word is "alone." This story coupled with everything else we know is just another shred of troubling evidence that the more things "change" the more they stay the same. Sure, you can take this story out of context, isolate it, and claim its unimportant. But pretending its not part of a larger story - and averting your eyes from that larger story - is willful ignorance of reality.
David Sirota :: "Change We Can Believe In"

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
"Change We Can Believe In" | 93 comments
Not surprising in the least (0.00 / 0)
He'd said he might keep Gates before, and it is prudent to ensure that the guy managing the crisis helps transition in the new guy whomever that would be.  

Or is that a conservative way of thinking instead of a progressive way of thinking?

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



you guys have poor memories (4.00 / 9)
Remember in the primary, when Obama would be asked whether Hillary would be his VP? If he were being truthful, he'd say "hell no, not after her negative campaigning". But instead he was diplomatic, saying she'd be on anyone's short list, yada yada yada.

The same goes here. We're in a financial crisis, the markets are shaky, you expect Obama to say "Hank Paulson is a failure and he will have no role in the transition to my administration." I mean come, expressing zero confidence in the current Treasury secretary would be even worse than McCain's declaration that he would fire Chris Cox.

We all know that Obama isn't going to keep these guys on past Jan. 20th. Gates and Paulson aren't nearly as horribly radioactive as Rumsfeld or Brownie, there's no reason to toss them under the bus right now.

I'll keep an eye on Obama's actions, not his diplomatic nice-talk. It's more important that he's against Paulson's blank check scam than whether he'll consult with him next year.

[ Parent ]
yeah I'm not too worried about that (4.00 / 1)
More worried that Obama appoints someone from the Bob Rubin wing of the party rather than the Jared Bernstein wing. And of course, I know the answer to that one.

But Paulson will be out. Gates will be out. I'm sure Obama's already 90% promised Sec. Def. to Hagel. He wants someone in there that agrees with him on the Iraq war. Gates ain't that.  

[ Parent ]
Why worry? (4.00 / 1)
Of course he will appoint someone from the Rubin wing for treasury.

Do even the most fervent Obamaphiles have hopes (tm) for anything else?

The question for us is what do we do when this virtual certainty materializes.

This is not a question anyone seems interested in addressing.

[ Parent ]
Well I think we have to work through Congress (0.00 / 0)
I mainly see the Obama administration as putting some salve on the gaping wounds that have been opened in the executive branch over the last 8 years. So interior, EPA, FDA, etc. all get huge replacements in personnel and ideology in terms of putting people in there that actually believe in government and things like, you know, science. That in itself will be a huge help for the country.

For bigger macroeconomic things like tax policy, I think we have to work with the liberals in congress to try to get legislation through that Obama won't veto, even if he won't actively support it.

That's going to be the big thing. I do think some power shifts will occur because Pelosi's hand will be much stronger next year because she won't need to pass everything on the suspension calendar knowing that 90% of want she wants will face a veto.  

[ Parent ]
Depends on what you call (0.00 / 0)
the "Rubin" wing and the "Bernstein" wing.

I think the three most likely picks for Treasury are NY Fed Chief Timothy Geithner (if not he'll replace Bernanke in 2010), NJ Governor Jon Corzine and former Tres Sec Larry Summers. All could be loosely defined as Rubinites but I would put all of them to the left of Rubin and I'd be pretty much fine with any of them.

And if Hagel had been promised Sec of Def he would have had the guts to endorse him. I'd be hugely surprised if a Republican gets a top post in a Obama admin.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 1)
Hagel did go on the Iraq trip with Obama and has criticized both McCain and Palin while defending Obama.

I would like Corzine in there. Not sure if he wants the job though.

[ Parent ]
True (4.00 / 1)
but Hagel's one of the last honest politicians on the Republican side.

If he really wanted to be in Obama's cabinent I think he would have endorsed him already.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Credo: Larry Summers (4.00 / 1)
In addition to being the driving force behind repeal of Glass-Steagel, Summers is on record as believing that "the economic logic of dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that fact."

That's what's to the "left" of Bob Rubin.  

Incidentally, Summers is a notorious prick as well.

Swell.  Looking forward to Jan 9, 2009.

[ Parent ]
He also (4.00 / 1)
seems to favor a form of singe-payer healthcare, among other things.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
I'm guessing that he meant that (0.00 / 0)
in a purely economic, not moral sense.

Although, even in that sense, I'd have to disagree with him, in terms of long-term negative feedback. Economic shortcuts, whether merely stupid or also immoral, have a way of biting the source. E.g. US automakers, Enron, Arthur Andersen, etc. Not always, but sometimes. Economically, it's a stupid gamble, at best. Morally, it's obviously evil.

Summers is not the most gifted communicator.

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

[ Parent ]
"you guys have poor memories" (4.00 / 4)
You can say this on many levels and to many people around these parts, especially to this author, and certain other people who threaten to ban rude commenters who would be so rude as to point out that they are being fair imitations of the corporate media.  

In particular, David Sirota is the rather proud author of a diary entitled "The Danger and Ridiculousness of Obama 08". (The title quote is from memory, so I am not exactly certain of it -- however the key phrase "The Danger and Ridiculousness" is exact and in exactly the right position, "Obama" was also involved with that phrasing.)  It is not surprising to see him manufacture snide diaries about Obama.

If the current Secretary of the Treasury is not a part of your transition, just how good a job are you doing, incidentally?  What does he think transition entails?

And again incidentally, how many articles has David Sirota devoted to McLame's inexistent economic plans, transitional or not?  I guess the only way you can get your name known in the journamalistic community is to pick, however inartfully and pettily, on Democrats running in must-win, earth-shatteringly consequential elections.  Only then you are playing in the big boys' club.

Crazy.

[ Parent ]
Also incidentally, (0.00 / 0)
someone should tell David Sirota that "his side" candidate's slogan has been "Change we need" for some time now...
[ Parent ]
To finish that thought: (0.00 / 0)
and he should stop using McLame's old attacks against Obama
[ Parent ]
meh (4.00 / 2)
Well, first of all, the Gates rumors have very little basis on reality, if any.  Some random advisers saying they like him is not evidence.

And what does "involved" mean?  If Paulson really is spending 700 billion in the months before Obama takes charge, I sure would hope both sides of the transition will be talking to him.

The capital gains tax of 20% was settled in the primary during the long extended battle with Clinton, so I don't see why you're pretending it's news.  



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

You've convinced me (4.00 / 1)
I'm voting for Barr!
Oh well (4.00 / 2)

 I guess there's always the Supreme Court as a motivating factor to keep canvassing and phonebanking.

 For now, anyway.  

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

The point is that "we" need to be realistic and (0.00 / 0)
work to keep Obama's (and the Dems in Congress) feet to the fire.  Obama himself said, "hold me accountable", "make your voices heard", "force the change you want".  I think this is what Sirota is doing.  He wants Obama to win, but he wants Obama to be and act like a progressive.  I do to, and I am no fan of the varnished truth.   What's wrong with that?  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
Ian Welsh at FDL disagrees (4.00 / 3)
That is all definitely disturbing, but Ian Welsh over at Firedoglake made me more "hopeful" (snark) that change could actually be coming with his post entitled "obama draws a line in the sand". He writes that Obama has rejected the basic principles of the Paulson plan and he generally seemed really psyched about these developments.

Here's the link if you care to check it out: http://firedoglake.com/2008/09...


Beyond Iraq: A Time to Break Silence

No comments on Obama's actual statements (4.00 / 5)
Today, a member of this site posted what Obama actually said about the deal being proposed.  There is video of it on Daily Kos.  It seems like Obama's principles about the deal were pretty good.  I don't know why David didn't mention them at all.

Surely Obama is a bit more centrist than many would like, but those principles laid out were good, and I want to know why David disagrees with those.  Keep phone banking because Obama knows what he's talking about.

The plan is more important (4.00 / 3)
The plan is more important than what certain people Obama gathers info from or who he uses on his transition team. Obama will make the final decision, not any one advisor. For all we know, the one or two more progressive advisors' opinions will carry far more weight with Obama than all of the more moderate ones.

Thus far, Obama is not merely submitting to any one person on this. As you noted, the six principles he laid out today are good:

I think it's premature to freak out over exactly how Obama will proceed, before the bill even hits the floor.

[ Parent ]
ABC News (4.00 / 5)
Says that Obama has been consulting with top Democrats over this issue:
ABC's Sunlen Miller reports: Since yesterday, Sen. Barack Obama has spoken on the phone with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd, Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Chuck Schumer, Rep. Ralph Emmanuel, former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton about the economic situation and the plan for dealing with it.

Considering that Obama, Pelosi, Hillary, Dodd and Frank have already spoken out against a "blank check", there are clearly coordinating a pushback on the Bush-Paulson scam.

They can't go ballistic like McCain, they risk frightening the markets. But I'm very hopeful that they won't pass any sort of no-strings-attached bailout that screws taxpayers.

[ Parent ]
That's reassuring (4.00 / 3)

 If the Democrats are unified and coordinated, then there is real hope that we can put the brakes on this freight train and remodel a bailout on our OWN terms. Let us hope this is what's happening.

 Maybe we DO need a bailout. But we definitely don't need THIS bailout.

 My Republican brother, yesterday, admitted that he has more confidence in Obama than in McCain on the economy. (Sadly, the social issues keep him from committing to vote for Obama.) But if Wall Street decides that it prefers a sensible, reasoned pragmatist in the White House over an impulsive, irascible ideoologue, then we ARE going to get Obama as president.  

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

[ Parent ]
Agree (0.00 / 0)
I have far more confidence in our Democratic team than Mr. Deregulator McCain and his Bush cronies.

[ Parent ]
True, and the proof is in the pudding... (4.00 / 1)
We need to work like hell to support Obama and kill the Republican plan for bailout; but we need to remember that we've been burnt before.  I won't relax or trust until he is elected, and I see him deliver on his campaign promises.  We've been burnt before (Bill Clinton).

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
Don't confuse me with facts! (4.00 / 8)
I know Obama is insincere and is just waiting to deliver us into the hands of the hedge funds.

So what if he waited to talk to some experts and think about it, then came out with seven principles that must be in the bailout plan.  He can't possibly mean it because he is a centrist fraud.

Why should I have to read what Obama says when Obama doesn't read what I say?

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Mmm...good :-) (0.00 / 0)
This is much better...
[ Parent ]
Meaningless (4.00 / 3)

Of course Paulson will be "involved in the transition." He is being transitioned from.

Here's hoping this is some sugar coating for bitter medicine that Obama will lead the congressional dems to make the administration swallow.

Bubble gum, walking etc. (4.00 / 4)
It is possible to both support Obama and begin to prepare the groundwork for the opposition that will be necessary once he takes office.

For example if, as seems to be the case, he caves on the bailout, we should be organizing tax resistance culminating with a Mayday general strike to pressure the Obama administration to revisit the terms of the negotiation.

If, God forbid, he reappoints Paulson or a similar Wall Street stooge, we should be blocking intersections until someone with minimal credibility is appointed.

We need to get going on this now-on this blog.

While I enjoy venting just as much as anyone, it is time for action.

As seems to be the case? (0.00 / 0)
That he's supporting Paulson lock, stock and barrel? Not exactly.
[ Parent ]
Misreading (4.00 / 1)
The posting says nothing about "supporting Paulson" rather it refers to "caving on the bailout" which means accepting a bailout under terms highly favorable to Wall Street. There are plenty of reasons to believe that this is in the cards-most notable among them the key advisors who will be included in the process-Summers, Rubin, Biden (aka Senator Plastic) -and those who will be excluded Galbraith, Bernstein, Sweeney.

You and others may have "hopes" for something else to emerge.  Obviously, I "hope" you're right.

But Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that he is invested in, at most, minimalist nudges to business as usual.

The reality he is confronting requires out-of-the-box thinking which he appears to be constitutionally incapable of.  

The corporatists who financed his campaign recognized this early on, to their great benefit.

Alas, we did not.

[ Parent ]
I didn't misread (4.00 / 2)
You seem to suggest that he's for accepting a bailout highly favorable to the banks, when it he's already outlined numerous initial objections to Paulson's plan.  His objections may not be as severely expressed as your own, nor fit your exact definition of "objection," but to portray him as supportive of this plan is not correct.  He has said nothing to that effect.  Characterize his opposition as mild, even tepid...but it is still opposition.  Considering what we got on FISA, it's a pretty good start, and with popular opinion, academic opinion, even media opinion that is equally skeptical, his opposition will be amplified.
[ Parent ]
The White House is on the other side of the barricades (0.00 / 0)
no matter who its occupant happens to be.

That shouldn't be news to anyone.

In Debs's words:

"I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I lead you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition."

Let's do this in the Key of C (to tune of Barbara-Ann) Sirota can handle that! (2.00 / 4)
Go up a third for every verse.

Bash_Bash_Bash_Bash-Bash_Obama

Bash_Bash_BAsh_Bash-Bash_Obama

Bash_Bash_Bash_Bash-Bash_Obama

BAsh Obama_Yes Bash O_BAH=HA_MA

Bash Obama
When your bored  there's nutti else, when your bored there's nuttin else, just bash!

please (4.00 / 3)
David, please. I am not criticizing you as a person, but most of your diaries are focused on magnifying Obama's shortcomings and problems. This is not the time for that. Obama is our candidate and we have 6 weeks until this election. Criticizing our nominee at this point will do nobody any good. Save it for when he's president.  
Republicans have a sublime grasp of their personal weaknesses (0.00 / 0)
and deal with them cynically as they must while Democrats like Obama compensate as if they had no clue.  Sure Obama is idealistic, but mostly he's conflict averse, phlegmatic to the max, very sweet, and afraid of getting his clothes wrinkled and sweaty.  When the going gets tough, he's sullen and withdrawn.  When has he thrown the first dirty punch and licked the blood on his knuckles?  Instead, he takes a punch -- every time McCain decides it's time to deal pre-emptively with one of his own vulnerabilities by accusing Obama of the same thing.  

I really  wish the media had exposed Obama's personality last Winter.  Obama is going to end this campaign with a permanent case of submissive urination.

[ Parent ]
Who would have thought (4.00 / 1)
Who would have thought someone who was a professor at the University of Chicago would surround himself with economic advisers who aren't protectionists? I mean, come on. Most of these advisers that you have mentioned in the past are centrists, not neoliberals (in the economic sense). I don't have my PhD, so I can't claim to be an economist, but I've studied enough economics to know that most of Obama's advisers are pretty main stream and well respected in the intellectual community. I thought we were all about getting the best and the brightest together. Conservatives are supposed to be anti-intellectual. (By the way, I'm not saying you're anti-intellectual in anyway--far from it! :) I'm just saying that these advisers are not hacks--they are very credible people that are well respected people on both sides of the aisle.)

This Paulson thing is odd, but who knows.  

Demockracy.com

agreed (4.00 / 5)
One of Obama's top economic advisors, Austen Goolsbee (I think that's how it is spelled) said that Paulson's plan has less specifics than a box of Fruit Loops.

If that's how they are thinking behind closed doors, I just don't see the bailout plan being passed as-is.

[ Parent ]
Good point (4.00 / 2)
Those who would have Goolsbee hung in effigy seem to forget his openly stated skepticism of the plan (not to mention Obama's skepticism).  It's important to recognize when reality diverges from your preconceived notions of what candidates actually are - it helps separate us from the traditional media and the Republicans. It's that kind of ignorance on the other side that makes for "Democrats divided" and "Democrats are weak on national security." You have to separate actual reality from your preconceived notions thereof.
[ Parent ]
Goolsbee the skeptic (0.00 / 0)
For a good indication of Goolsbee's magnificent critical faculties and powers of prediction with respect to  banking deregulation, have a look here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03...

[ Parent ]
I'm not saying that he's a genius in general (4.00 / 1)
I'm saying that he's skeptical now, on this issue, which is better than never on any issue.  Even if it is a low standard, it's important to recognize that sometimes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  Otherwise, attacks on someone's views become reflexive rather than reasoned.
[ Parent ]
Austen Goolsbee, misquoted again. (4.00 / 3)
He criticized McCain's plan, not Paulson's plan, as having the detail of a box of Fruit Loops.

Goolsbee did well on CNN this morning, making McCain's economic advisor giggle foolishly with obvious embarrassment.

[ Parent ]
this is not hard to understand (0.00 / 0)
There's nothing anti-intellectual about rejecting the ideas and ideologies of American economists or a subset of them.  I did that on a set of issues (like industrialization) and it helped me find economists and especially political economy people who make much more sense theoretically and empirically.  I'm not saying they can't change over time like Stiglitz and Sachs, but at the end of the day, they're still technocrats ranging from centre to extreme right, no?  It's not exactly a diversity of opinion considered globally or across disciplines.  Which leads to the next point - which is that being AGAINST this bailout (easy) does not mean you're going to be FOR a bailout (hard) that's weighted the people who are suffering most.

What is the short-term economic solution to this problem?  You have the market terrified that there will be no credit which creates a self-perpetuating process of ever reduced amounts of credit available - which then hits people's bottom lines and make the debt-driven economy unsustainable.  This then has led to such enormous losses by some financial companies that they've gone bust.  So the government is moving to protect financial companies and the overall stability of the financial system.  

Great.  But what about the more fundamental problem, which is that the entire economy is debt driven to provide demand.  The whole thing is probably an enormous bubble.  Sure you can stabilize things, but unless people in China or in the EU can actually start functioning as the consumers what exactly is going to drive the global economy?  What is going to provide the global demand that American consumers were providing by refinancing their hoomes and taking on credit card debt?  they've tried mailing people checks and that doesn't work.  The reason is that wages and other means of gaining access to money have stagnated in the U.S. for people who are not rich.  So you need a long term solution - which is unionization, higher wages, a fairer system of distribution of income, and a more balanced economy.  Some people say this is as far as "progressive" goes.  I don't.

For me it can't just be about maintaining the stability of capitalism but about people and disempowerment.  Supposing you do all that I wrote about above - well then you still have a ton of people who are screwed - the most screwed.  Who is going to help them?  And when will they be helped?  The Americans that Natasha wrote about in her post and many more around the world - people who are getting screwed left and right and have been for decades by exactly the same class of people that are running the government and that are advising Obama.

They won't be helped right now in any conceivable bailout that I can think of because it takes time.  But while it takes time, we should see what we're dealing with- Obama as a public figure as he presents himself now, is so centrist and so conflict-avoidant.  I'm not saying he could be otherwise necessarily - I'm just saying I don't like it and if I can realistically imagine him being slightly more populist, slightly more outspoken, then maybe it is possible.  Maybe Joe Working Class in Flint Michigan might vote for a Black guy who actually understands that there's been a class war against the poor and then the middle class and now pretty much everyone excpet Dick Cheney's friends and the people they need to get into power.  

But I don't expect him to take a particularly progressive and strong stand against the bailout - something like -
"you can have 700 billion dollars to save finance capital, but you made this mess, so you figure out how you want to pay for it by eliminating your favourite policies - like tax cuts for the rich and corporations, private contracting, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the estate tax, etc.  And figure out in that, how you're going to pay for a fund for people whose houses are being foreclosed upon or who are in massive credit card debt or other kinds of debt bondage.  Finally reinstate the Glass Steagall Act, repeal the punitive bankruptcy law, and agree to what should be normal - Congressional oversight.  AND you're going to agree to some laws that make unionization easier.  That's the price of your $700 billion."  

In essence, they need to undo as much as possible of what's been done over the past 20 years to damage the poor and the working class in the United States and get as much money to those people as possible (to say nothing of people overseas) or they're going to lose all the leverage they have right now.  And of course Bush won't agree to all that - but if he can't agree to at least half, then let him take the fall for this problem.  But Obama's probably going to start out by asking for half a loaf, and that's why it's not progressive.

[ Parent ]
you have convinced me to write-in (0.00 / 0)
Ron Paul for Pres. here in NY.  I mean why vote for the younger of two evils?
Please identify (4.00 / 4)
the problem.

Considering Obama's statements today, which certainly cannot be considered friendly, or even open, to Paulson's plan, what is the problem? He's saying that the Secretary may be involved in the transition - and? Much as we may enjoy partisan glory in any way accessible to us, I would hope that in this time of crisis that the Obama administration and Paulson would act in good faith to secure an orderly and informed transition.  Obama's statement here, as quoted, is simply his expression of that good faith, towards securing that sort of transition.  This is not remotely close whatsoever to any policy indications, and attempts to show that it is, by linking to other spurious claims, is dishonest.

Moreover, we are already on the high ground here, and Obama (it looks like) may be standing with us.  Why cede that high ground by opening fire on Paulson, over an issue (the transition?) where there is nothing to be gained by doing so.  We stand on high ground here by letting the Paulson proposal rise and fall on its policy implications, not by getting involved in categorical statements on Paulson, re: transitions and the future.  That can only be ammunition for Republicans and administration allies, when they currently none.

I'd also strongly caution those (especially those who purport to be members of the alternative progressive press) who take this particular interpretation of Obama's statements by Mike Allen of the freaking Politico as canon.  

The bottom line: this is not the be-all and end-all of  Obama's policy for this crisis, or for the economy. Not even close.

I have the answer to your question: (0.00 / 0)
...what is the problem? He's saying that the Secretary may be involved in the transition - and?

I think it is as simple as: David Sirota cannot get over Obama supporting Lieberman in the primary in 2006.  Ergo, he will carp at every perceived and imagined "shift to the right" or "inner right showing".

As if there are not enough people (even of course on the Dem side) doing this on TeeVee, he appears on Rachel and carps at Obama.  This is our side, I guess.  Where is Bob Somerby when you need him?  If he cruised and policed the left-wing blogosphere front pages, he would have more material than he ever got on Gore from the corporate media...

[ Parent ]
I share the indifference to talking to Paulson during a transition (4.00 / 3)
C'mon, this seems totally standard.  And even if it's not standard, where is the downside in talking to the guy?  It's a freakin' transition, not the equivalent of keeping Paulson on in the new administration.
Thanks for the update (4.00 / 5)
I'll reserve my opinions on the update and its wording, so as not to get banned.

Can I make a constructive suggestion?  Can you start articulating solutions to implement on January 20, or better, November 5th, to begin influencing the presidency, instead of rattling off a list of shortcomings with scholarly precision, of the only alternative to McDisaster we have?

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



Krugman's post (4.00 / 2)
David, you refer to Krugman's most recent blog post, where he states "John McCain is denouncing the Paulson plan, while Barack Obama - out of a sense of responsibility for the financial system - is only offering cautious criticism." Can someone point me towards a primary source where McCain actually denounces the plan?  The most recent AP story which I could find at Google doesn't quote McCain saying anything like that, nor have I found any other source corroborating Krugman's claim. http://ap.google.com/article/A...
[ Parent ]
geoff I just heard McSame on CNBC (4.00 / 1)
He did NOT say he was against the Paulson plan!
[ Parent ]
Right. McCain has not denounced Paulson's plan (4.00 / 1)

http://www.reuters.com/article...

McCain somewhat echoed what Obama has said but in more vague terms and did not demand the inclusion of an economic stimulus plan as Obama did.

So, McCain's response is more compliant than is Obama's. Oh, big surprise!  

[ Parent ]
Well said QueenTiye (4.00 / 2)
BY the way David....John Harward was PUSHING  Obama on Paulson...you completely took Obama's quote out of context, and didn't include the tone of his response, which was obviously political and NOT ideological...

I think Matt Stoller should make you issue an apology for completely misstating how and why Obama responded the way he did?

I know I won't hold my breath.
But to the readers..... you owe it to yourself to hear and see the interview...I just watched it, and you will get a TOTALLY different point of view from what has been expressed here.....I find this really disturbing.

[ Parent ]
About your update (4.00 / 1)
The way the diary was written initially, I honestly paid no attention to the Gates information.  Certainly, I deserve some blame for not reading carefully, but even on rereading, it's clear that the emphasis was all about Paulson.  So I don't think it's fair to suggest that many of us were taking the story out of context or burying our head in the sand.  
Change "I" Can Believe In (4.00 / 4)
I was not an original Obama supporter.  I was holding out for Gore.  Then held out for Clark then finally went with Edwards.  I'm a Johnny come lately supporter for Obama and right now I'm very happy with what he's saying and how he is handling himself.  Am I in total agreement with his entire campaign?  No.  Not by a long shot.  As a liberal looking for the most progressive candidate I can find I am with Obama.  I am sending him money and I am enthusiastic about his candidacy.  But, if he manages to win and takes the oath of office, I have my own blog at Truman's Conscience where I will air my grivences and disagreements with him as long and loud as possible.  

I feel the main difference between the right and left blogosphere is a conscious effort to hold our elected officials accountable, no matter the party.  In the right blogosphere you only find mindless blather supporting the right no matter what the circumstances.  I want my elected officials, especially Democrats, held accountable no matter the price.  Otherwise your beliefs and principles are worthless.

As for Mr. Sirota's post, I agree that the time to go after Obama is after the election.  If our nominee were a vegatable with roots it would be a far more desirable choice than McCain.  Supreme court nominations alone make Obama more desirable under any circumstances imaginable.

TrumanDem

Truman's Conscience
"The Buck Stopped Here"

Millions of us... (4.00 / 9)
were not original Obama supporters, thus we don't have unrealistic expectations of him now.

Many of us, since coming on board after our candidates dropped out, have no interest in tearing down our Democratic ticket at this late stage of the game because the alternative to Obama winning, is unpalatable. We chose not to contribute to a potential Obama loss.

Moreover, simply because we are refraining at this time from trashing Obama, certainly does not  mean we are "willfully ignorant."

[ Parent ]
This is the point that the left never grasps: (0.00 / 0)
If our nominee were a vegatable with roots it would be a far more desirable choice than McCain.

They have to get all of the inanity aired right before the crucial election, they cannot wait, you see.  I wish I could get a reason why.

If they were at all constructive and not still as destructive as the then powerful left (greenies) was against Gore, they would have done far more to hold the current Congress' feet to the fire.  Instead, all they do is non-stop inanity fests against Obama.  What can one expect from people who championed a disaster of a candidate who fizzled so spectacularly and was exposed so brutally for his own poor judgment?

Obama is winning and is winning without their help.  They cannot stand the first because the left seems to have a strong streak of not wanting to really win.  They cannot stand the second for obvious reasons.

Before the banning spree begins, site owners need to ask themselves this question:  if this little snidery masquerading as a diary had appeared in print or on TeeVee with a byline other than that of Sirota, how much would they have been scorning it?

[ Parent ]
i am on the left (4.00 / 2)
can you please back up anything that you have said, starting from your gross generalization about what "the left" is and how you understand it?
[ Parent ]
David, this is my problem (4.00 / 4)
with your posts on this issue.  After each post, several commenters have responded with specific and detailed rebuttals--offering as evidence (1) Obama's own statements on the issue; (2) the statements of his advisors; (3) the names of a wide range of people advising him who are progressives in every sense of the word.  It seems abundantly clear from all of this that Obama is himself skeptical of Paulson's plan at best.  

Yet you have now posted several times on this and completely failed to respond to the very compelling rebuttals to your posts.  You are cherry-picking evidence to support your argument and totally refusing to respond to contrary facts.  

Let's try it this way:  what about Obama's actual, expressed, announced principles, the ones he must now stand behind, do you reject?  And if he accepts Paulson's plan if it is altered to include the things Obama insists must occur for him to back the plan, would you support it?

I think your being (4.00 / 6)
suckered by the traditional media again, David. Obama said that Paulson would be "involved" in his presidential transition, the media goes ZOMGZ! OBAMA IS GOING TO KEEP PAULSON!. Cabinet members are almost always "involved" in transitions. Obama opposes Paulson's current proposal, shouldn't that matter more?

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
Even if you're right, words still matter (4.00 / 1)
What you intend to do is obviously important, but so is how you talk about it. And Obama's tendency to speak in soothing, bipartisan and non-combative tones is undermining his change and judgement message. He needs to be stressing why he's better than McCain and the GOP, and speaking praisingly of them undermines that. Yes, he's been more on the attack lately, but keeps reverting to his "post-partisanship" mode when new developments ensue. It's almost like second nature to him at this point, and it seems sometimes like he actually believes it. He is, by nature, a collaborative, not combative person. Which is fine, except we're in a clearly combative scenario, and he needs to 86 the silly bipartisanship nonsense and take the lead on this. Praising the likes of Paulson, Bernanke, and other Repubs, who may have done better than other Repubs, but who are still in line with the core ideology that led to this mess, is bad politics. He needs to make it look like HE'S setting direction here, and they're following, rather than the other way around. He has to talk and act presidential, and let the rest catch up. I don't blame people for excusing his response here, since the urge to be always cooperative is unfortunately ingrained into the Democratic brain by now. But it's an urge that we have to combat, because at this time it's the wrong approach. The other side is welcome to work with US, not vice-versa. And Obama has to start talking that way.

He needs to lead--by LEADING, not merely cooperating.

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

[ Parent ]
Why Is This News? (4.00 / 1)
What is Obama going to say - If elected, I don't plan to talk with anyone currently there and will come in blind in all depts.  

Of course Paulson is going to be involved in the transition.  He has to work with the incoming Treasury Secy, whoever that may be, so they actually know what is going on.  

There are legal requirements on President transition about meetings, briefing books, etc.  My guess is considering the turmoil in the economy, he will talk pretty frequently with his successor and that is good.  I want whoever takes over to at least know what the outgoing admin is doing, promising, etc.  They don't have to follow these policies but they need to be in the loop to understand what they are inheriting.

[ Parent ]
i don't know (4.00 / 1)
if i'm more concerned about losing the election or will be more disappointed because obama is looking more like more of the same by the minute, oh to have a real liberal running for pres, i have a dream!
My biggest problem with Obama (4.00 / 2)
is not over this or that position, advisor or even vote (although I have issues with more than a few of each), but rather with his tone, in the sense that he still feels the need to concede the other side's premises and frames, even if he disagrees with or even attacks their specific positions. He's gotten better at this, but on some level, I think that, being by nature a cooperative rather than combative person, and after years of both preaching and practicing what he calls "post-partisanship", he still doesn't fully grasp just how fundamental, essential and brutal a war we're fighting here against the other side, in which not an inch should be ceded that doesn't need to be ceded. He boasts about "Chicago Rules", but still seems inclined to bring a knife to a gun fight. Or, more recently, a revolver to an Uzi fight. He REALLY needs to abandon this "Mr. Nice Guy let's try and work with the other side" nonsense and deal with what's ACTUALLY going on here.

Today on Washington Journal they had on McCain's top economic advisor, Kevin Hassett, and one of Obama's top economic advisors, Gene Sperling. Hassett liedthrough his teeth about both candidates' economic records and policies, while adopting a nice guy veneer. Sperling kept going on about the need to work with the other side, not engage in partisan politics, focus on common goals, etc., i.e. stuff that sounds and might even be good when the other side is a good faith player with strong political capital, but which has absolutely no bearing on the current situation because they're human scum that the public despises. And yet we still get this "Let's all hold hands and see what we can come up with together" bullshit.

It's fucking unfuriating, like handing the other guy a gun and saying "let's make this a fair fight". NO, let's NOT! Let's crush the other side into a bloody pulp IN THE PROCESS OF DOING WHAT'S ALSO BEST FOR THE COUNTRY. It's literally as simple as that. We have a unique opportunity to shift the center of power our way AND do the right thing, and we're still acting like he need to make nice with the other side, who are not only massively incompetent, but fucking evil. This is one of those situations where doing the right thing for the country is also doing the smart thing politically, and every inch that we concede to the other side goes against BOTH goals. And who the hell does that?!?

I understand the need to maintain the semblence of bipartisanship, to shut up all the High Broderites and make those low-information voters feel all warm inside, but beneath that, this needs to be a coup de grace for the GOP and its "conservative" free market ideology. And I just don't see all this helping make that happen. Which tells me that either Obama is politically still not getting it, or else just doesn't care (or cares, but doesn't have the balls to do it). I sincerely hope that it's the former, and that we're not looking at another Clinton, at best. We need to do better this time, or we'll get another Bush 4-8 years from now--and a LOT less than we'd hoped for in the interim. We need to TRANSFORM, not tweak.

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

No its not really for that reason (4.00 / 4)
I think the reason why you, Sirota, et all don't get what Obama is doing is because you have never been a vulnerable minority in a conservative state.

You say "Lets rachet up the bitterness, the partisanship, and the hatred".  What you don't realize is that that has real and problematic consequences for such people.  

Bringing people together is a liberal goal and it helps liberals.  Dividing people is a conservative one and it helps conservatives while hurting many liberals.

You personally may not suffer, but there are plenty of people who will.  And they voted for Obama and against such a philosophy.  You may have a problem with that, but you frankly should just get over it.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

[ Parent ]
Quotation (4.00 / 2)
"Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation...want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.... Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."  
[ Parent ]
Feel free to disagree (0.00 / 0)
But the democratic party voted for Obama because it disagrees with you.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com
[ Parent ]
Yeah, that's why (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for enlightening the rest of us.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
I'll venture a guess as to who said that--Frederick Douglass? (0.00 / 0)
If not, then certainly someone who shared his political philosophy AND life experiences.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Wow, what presumptive arrogance, not to mention dishonesty (4.00 / 2)
First, I never said ""Lets rachet up the bitterness, the partisanship, and the hatred". So fuck off with putting words in my mouth, you borderline troll. I said that Obama needs to be more aggressive and, yes, partisan. Are you recommending the opposite? Or bipartisanship? Please explain how either has in any way, shape or form worked for our side since Reagan took over, or how it's worked for Obama against McCain.

Second, I'm Jewish, and while I grew up in NYC, hardly a hotbed of anti-semitism (although it's certainly there and I came across it growing up), my family isn't exactly unfamiliar with being "a vulnerable minority in a conservative state", as in the Soviet Union under Stalin. And prior to that, my father's family was barely spared the gas chambers. So spare me the sanctimony.

And third, I have no idea what this means:

Bringing people together is a liberal goal and it helps liberals.  Dividing people is a conservative one and it helps conservatives while hurting many liberals.

How is Obama not "Bringing people together" when he does whatever he has to do to defeat and hopefully destroy a movement that has been dividing the country for decades--which you yourself agree that it's been doing? How is that "Dividing people" or "hurting many liberals"? WTF are you talking about? What Kumbaya fantasy world are you living in?

And finally, don't tell me what to get over. There is a subspecies of Obama "followers" who are effectively cultists who think that they're helping him but are actually doing the exact opposite, by slavishly rubber-stamping whatever he says and does and attacking anyone who dares to criticize someone who in their mind is "The One".

Got any more reasons for me to not take you seriously or respect your opinion?

You need to get over yourself, and your utter cluelessness.

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

[ Parent ]
Creeps (2.00 / 2)
This fool plays the oldest straw man game in the book, actually putting quotations around a position you don't even hint of having taken and two readers recommend the posting!

This whole thread reminds me of the ten minutes of hate episode from 1984 with Sirota playing the part of Emanuel Goldstein.

It really is a cult.  It is impossible to be a just a supporter, one must give one's heart and soul to the dear leader or be subjected to vicious accusations and slanders.

I was thinking of putting in some time on the campaign.

No way.  I'm staying miles away from these creeps.
 

[ Parent ]
Well, I wouldn't go quite that far (4.00 / 1)
Just because some of Obama's "supporters" are off the deep end doesn't mean that most are, and just because many of us aren't 100% happy with Obama's positions and actions doesn't mean that we don't, can't and won't support him. And I tend to doubt that the campaign is actively encouraging this sort of self-styled "running interference" idiocy. These people are, I suspect, self-appointed "527's", running their own little fantasy campaign.

Let's not let the cultists spoil it for actual Democrats. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were actually Rovian astroturfers trying to sow division here (perhaps trained by Mr. Penn?).

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

[ Parent ]
Ok, you've posted the same thing like 6 times now (4.00 / 5)
We get it.  Since Obama had the Clinton people in the room as his advisers and has said that he will talk to the people currently in charge in order to make a successful transition, he's going to sell us all out to Wall Street.

Never mind that he is coordinating strategy with the Democratic leadership.  Never mind that he has come out against the bailout as it is currently structured.  Never mind that he has laid out a framework with the key pieces that any bailout should include in order to make sure it helps average Americans and that its not a give away to wall street.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...

Lets all resign ourselves to the idea that Obama will not do anything different than the current administration and wring our hands.

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

Buy high and sell low (0.00 / 0)
Obama needs your vote now.  After the election, he doesn't need your vote. Now you have power over him.  After the election, you don't have power over him.

If progressives like Sirota can convince enough people now that pressure needs to be applied, then maybe Obama and the Democratic Party can be nudged in a more progressive direction. So maybe he's not trying to get you to give up, maybe he's trying to get you to act for what you believe in while you still have a chance.

Once the election is over, they don't need you, and they still need corporate money and talking head approval.

Progressives will only ever be able to exert pressure on the Democratic Party if they can credibly convince the Dems that they can't serve the people and their corporate masters at the same time.

Saying that we must not only promise to vote for Obama no matter what; but also suppress all criticism, is a clear signal to Obama that he can take you for granted and focus his attention on pleasing big money and the MSM. So he can, for example, fold on the FISA legislation.

I understand the logic of the lesser of two evils: what I have not heard explained (except by people like David Sirota!!!) is some strategies for getting out of the trap. How do you propose to move this country in a more progressive direction while promising the Democratic Party that you will vote for their candidates no matter what?

[ Parent ]
If we don't trust Obama, how do we force him? (4.00 / 2)
Obama's adviser list and his record convince me he's more centrist than progressive. I agree with your post, David. So, if Obama isn't a loyal progressive, what do we do about it?

Obama is obviously much better than McCain, so "help the other guy win" is a bad idea. What can we do instead? How can we pressure an Obama-led government to the left?

"Wake up, he's not a progressive" is all well and good, but it doesn't get us anywhere without a plan of action. What are our best tools to push an Obama Administration toward progressivism?

All Bow to Great Populist Leader Sirota! (1.71 / 7)
There... does that make you feel better David?

This post is really asinine.  I would hope Obama would involve Paulson in the transition.  The statement on capital gains is not a qualification, it's an explanation that Obama's increase is not as great as has been rumored (or should I say smeared).  As for Gates, one things for certain is that he is an excellent administrator and does not bring any overriding agenda to the job.  If he's willing to fall in line with an Obama administration, I think retaining him might be a good thing.

Back to the Great Populist Leader, we are in the middle of our fight to elect the most progressive President in the history of this nation and all David can do is come up with non-substantive, truly pathetic, canard posts like this to undermine our efforts.  

David, instead of looking for issues where there are none, get out in the field like the rest of us and work your ass off to save to elect a true progressive (not pure... but true) of a President in Barack Obama.    

Ad hominem (4.00 / 3)
Whereas most of the above postings are intellectually less than honest-- constantly attributing to Sirota positions he does not hold or specifically repudiates--this posting crosses the line into outright disrespect and should be rejected on this basis, as discussed in Matt's earlier posting.
[ Parent ]
Idiotic on multiple levels, and dishonest (4.00 / 2)
I.e. trollish. Nuff said there.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Are you sure Rubin is still advising Obama? (0.00 / 0)
It was my understanding he had left and was replaced by Reich.  
Burden of substance (4.00 / 2)
David,

When you use Obama's campaign slogan against him critically with sarcastic "yeah right" quotes, you give the impression that you think his entire platform and message is BS. When you do this in a post on a democratic blog with a largely pro-Obama audience you're going to have to do a lot to establish the substance of your point in order for it to be taken seriously, because this is a very broad and nasty implication indeed.

In fact your post does very little to establish the validity or importance of the criticism you are trying to make. You provide the quote and, apparently assuming your readers share your presuppositions, give no additional argument besides the snide remark that this is supposedly "predictable" (in the pejorative sense.)

When your readers call you out on this you concede that your point may not be that important, but insist that it both corroborates and is corroborated by your apparently very critical view of Obama, and particular what you perceive as a disparity between his message and his actions.

The problem, David, is that most of your readers don't share the larger picture you presuppose, and so will not see your present criticism in this light. You are, of course, free to maintain that we are just "pretending" and to appeal to what "we all know" (do we?) but this doesn't change the fact that your post (taken by itself, as viewed by people who don't share all of your presuppositions) is little more than a snide and substanceless dismissal of the candidate most of us support very strongly.

This isn't to say we aren't open to criticism of Obama -- I certainly hope that we are, and will continue to be once he is elected -- but I hope you can see that you need to do much better than this.  

What is 'Change'? (0.00 / 0)
For some women I know, 'change' meant swapping women-bashing for men-bashing. Sirota seems to fit in that mold. If by 'change', he thought that Obama meant replacing the Right (currently in charge) with the Left, then I'm afraid that he's not as seasoned a politico as I thought. That would be rather naïve. I don't think he is. So what's going on here?
What an outrage! (0.00 / 0)
make sure to read Krugman's take, noting that "John McCain is denouncing the Paulson plan, while Barack Obama - out of a sense of responsibility for the financial system - is only offering cautious criticism."

I'll be sure to cast my vote for McCain come November. He's such a genuine man of the people, fighting Wall Street insiders and DC lobbyists and looking out for the interests of you and me. Yeah, I'm uber impressed by McCain's denunciation of the greed and excess of the former financial wizards of the world. I'm sure we can count on him to clean up the mess in our financial and banking system if we can all become cynical enough about Obama's intentions and embrace the strong, steady hands of the Greatest Former POW of Our Time.

I'm sorry David, but read Obama's words, not Allen's "analysis"... (4.00 / 1)
or that stupid headline.

Barack Obama said this.

"I would certainly want to make sure that Paulson was involved in the transition," Obama said. "That doesn't necessarily mean that he'd end up being the secretary Treasury, but I think it's important for us to make sure that those who are currently in charge when it comes to the financial crisis and defense and intelligence, that they are deeply involved in the transition process."

Which is a smart idea for anyone who has read this.

So the guy that gave the worst and stupidest interview of a sitting President ever.  Heard that and decided that what Obama really meant was this: "Obama might keep Paulson".

And in response, David Sirota, who is a guy that I respect a lot as rather intelligent reads only Allen's "analysis" and not what Obama said and goes apoplectic.

And that is how the stupid gets spread on the internets.

Hillary Clinton Has a good plan ready to go (0.00 / 0)
I'm not kidding.

There are a lot of economists independently recommending it.

The Selling of a Crisis - So Horrible They Cannot Describe It has the details at the bottom.

Forget whatever that stuff is from the primary and just look at policy here.   The fact is she was really on this and because she had all of those economic advisers around, they vetted and crafted a plan...hence it's all typed up, all it needs is a vote.

They must do something, there is no doubt about it and this one really does put the money to the people plus will unload some toxic debt yet stick the institutions that need to be stuck.

Regardless we're looking at stock market and economic pain but this is a much better way to relieve the toxic paper yet more importantly relieve the major victims of toxic derivatives.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

What I Don't Like (4.00 / 1)
about Paulsen and Gates is the suggestion that Democrats need to start out with training wheels.  Talented bankers we have already, and there is not a chance that Gates would even consider such a thing.  It is all silly talk.
Knee-jerk Attacks on Dem. Candidates (0.00 / 0)
This is getting to be a characteristic of Open Left. The next time Open Left wants our money, I say "no bail-out". Why should we give a dime to these knee jerk attacks that are such a gift to the Republicans?
Here we go again... (0.00 / 0)
David, for every five NObama diaries you write, could you at least write one anti-McCain diary.  Because if you keep up this "Barry's sold his progressive soul to the devil" meme, I just may vote for McCain.
"Change We Can Believe In" | 93 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