Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I can deal with the former Clinton staffers being part of Obama's team. I can sort of take the Lieberman thing in that I can see how this will eventually play out to Obama's benefit (although I have to wonder how much AIPAC pressure there was to keep LIEberman on the HS committee). I think Hillary as Secretary of State will prove to be a mistake. But to go back on a specific campaign pledge to get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? Sorry, that is making me feel like I've been had. After being enraged over and over by Reid and Pelosi, I don't think I can take going through that with Obama. I know he hasn't started yet, officially, but I am getting that sinking sensation in my stomach.
He isn't just a centrist, Salon. Do you also take us for dummies? How insulting. He had 6 CFR advisors on his staff, more than any other candidate in the history of this nation. It was clear who was the designated winner and why.
Then if you factually take a look at his major campaign contributions you see the hand of AIPAC and the Wall Street bankers heavily in there along with the traditional energy pigs at the trough... IN FACT HE RECEIVED MORE FROM WALL STREET THAN MCCAIN DID. Now why would the bankers put money into a campaign that is traditionally "democratic in rhetoric" while it ended up "republican" in actuality?
Its because his votes told them what he was about and that he was "handled" by the CFR who has all those bankers on their corporate membership. (FISA,bailout, etc) Hey do a little digging why don't you. His appointments were no surprise to me at all as my previous posts on here before the election will tell you.
Obama was always a centrist, except on the Iraq War. He leans left, but he's hardly a wild-eyed lefty radical. He always presented himself as the candidate of pragmatic unity and compromise.
In recent time, the word "liberal" has been given a negative meaning by the ultraconservatives. Let us go back a bit, Liberal means one who values liberty and freedom. Liberal arts colleges don't advocate McCain. They work for freedom of thought. Want to send The Statue of Liberty back? Now we say, progressive, when before Gingrich if was liberalism. Let us go back and value our freedoms, our liberty. Good for Obama, who speaks clearly and openly in the political arena.
Barack Obama won the election even though we knew little about him except what was contained in the two books he wrote and the fawning of the media.
He may become an outstanding President, but at this time he is a blank slate so don't be disappointed in what he ends up being.
People were so desperate for change that they did not look beneath the surface of the candidate, and what he really stood for.
It appears that some Democrats and all Republicans are shocked that a portrait of Karl Marx is not hanging from the Washington Monument.
Barak Obama is turning out to be exactly what he promised to be: A smart, serious President (elect) who will appoint smart, serious people to positions of responsibility in the US Government, without making a personal family loyalty litmus test the sole appointment criterion.
Or do you miss the horse show judges?
Anyone who is surprised by Obama's centrism hasn't been paying attention.
The real surprise here is that anyone thought that Obama was the most progressive of the Demacratic presidential candidates. Kucinich, Gravel and Edwards are much more progressive (and also unelectable in a general election).
I'm just happy that we elected someone to the left of Torquemada.
"Open Left's Chris Bowers wrote on Friday that he felt "incredibly frustrated ... [W]hy isn't there a single member of Obama's cabinet who will be advising him from the left?" Even Pat Buchanan -- not exactly the world's most liberal guy -- apparently thinks Obama needs to throw a bone to progressives after the start the transition is off to."
Thankfully, Chris Bowers isn't one of Obama's strategic advisors. Does he seriously think Pat Buchanan has the left's interests at heart when he recommends that Obama "throw a bone" to progressives? No! Buchanan wants a repeat of 1993-94, when Bill Clinton brought in a band of partisan outsiders; tried to push through gays in the military, Hillary-care, and midnight basketball; and ultimately helped to cede control of congress back to the Republicans. Obama's picks thus far have made him look much more like the Bill Clinton of 1995-96-- the one who picked his fights wisely and governed from the center. That's bad news for Buchanan and co., which is why we're seeing these e-mail blasts from the RNC.
On a slightly different topic, can I ask why this is even news? You can pretty much create any story you want by mining the blogosphere (see: the PUMA movement), but that doesn't mean you're accurately reflecting the mood of the country, or even the left-leaning corners of it. For every scattered criticism, there has been a litany of praise for Obama's handling of the transition. I realize you don't win a Pulitzer for being sanguine, but why not direct your energy at something that is actually worth investigating.
I am a person who supported Barack Obama early and eagerly. During the just finished campaign, the Republicans branded Obama as "the most liberal person in the Senate". I felt at the time this was campaign retoric, not fact.
He was, and is, a community organizer. I see the influence of Saul Alinski in every thing he does. As I remember it, Alinski had sympathy for the protester of the war but was also critical of them because nothing changed. Compromise was king for Alinski. At the time and still, Alinski was seen by the right as a wild eyed liberal; but with compromise being king he was mostly and primarily pragmatic.
So the left-right difference that has framed our politics, Obama is not best summed up as either. People that try to do that--on the right or left are doomed to be upset because he is not that (whatever they think that is).
Take Lieberman (please take him). What I have not seen in alaysis is what this response opens you too. Yes, perhaps Lieberman's vote but also moderate Republicans. You don't think that John McCain and Susan Collins noticed this? If COMPROMISE was king, wouldn't you do what Obama did about Lieberman?
And while everyone looks at Hillary we have Teddy in the Senate, Bacchus at the House and Tom Daschle ready to pass a version of universal health care. Is this a big liberal issue?
Obama, like Alinsky, is ready to get something done about an issue that has avoided previous administrations--he is going to get something done and others have only talked about it. And perhaps Lieberman is going to help with this and if that turns out so, is this a good deal?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
