"Obama's picks suggest a deep desire for acceptance by the existing power structure"

[Better Believe It]

December 22, 2008

Base Alienation
Obama's Team of Rivals
By GARY LEUPP

With surprising haste and insensitivity, Barack Obama’s alienating the most serious, activist component of his political base. The blogosphere’s been seething in indignation for weeks. Chris Bowers, of the OpenLeft.com blog, calls Obama’s cabinet “a center-right foreign policy team” and pronounces himself “incredibly frustrated. Progressives are being entirely left out of Obama’s major appointments so far. . . Even after two landslide elections in a row, are our only governing options as a nation either all right-wing Republicans, or a centrist mixture of Democrats and Republicans? Isn’t there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?” Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos site, calls the Obama team “tone deaf” to the views of “the American electorate that voted in overwhelming numbers for change from the discredited Bush policies.”

The Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel, protesting the retention of Robert Gates as Obama’s Secretary of Defense, writes, “Maybe being right about the greatest foreign policy disaster in US history doesn’t mean much inside the Beltway? How else to explain that not a single top member of Obama’s foreign policy/national security team opposed the war---or the dubious claims leading up to it?” “I don’t know what he’s doing,” says Tom Hayden. “This is not governing from the center. This is governing from the past.” Historian Paul Street observes: “It bothers a growing number of Obama’s liberal backers to learn that, as Wall Street Journal editorial board member Matthew Kaminski notes, ‘the Obama camp says the future president, who won running from the left, intends to govern from the center’ (WSJ, December 6/7, 2008, A8).”

Obama’s staff and cabinet picks suggest a deep desire for acceptance by the existing power structure. It’s as though he’s bending over backwards to disabuse anyone of those nasty campaign rumors that he’s a cypto-Muslim, Arabophiliac, quasi-socialist or closet Marxist. It’s as though he’s actively soliciting the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval from Joe Lieberman, Karl Rove, Henry Kissinger, Lindsay Graham, Michael Goldfarb, Richard Perle and the other extreme reactionaries expressing their delight at his cabinet choices, and viewing such support as recognition of his own special gift as a healer and uniter. But how can he possibly expect to unite his antiwar base with his rightwing foreign policy team?

The bottom line: Millions took Obama seriously when he promoted himself as the candidate of change. Two days after his election, he made his first appointment: Rahm Emanuel---Washington insider, extreme Zionist, supporter of both the first and second Iraq Wars---as his chief of staff. Then a slough of center-right appointments, not a one “progressive Democrat” that would be recognized as such by any so self-defined. Meanwhile Obama’s magnanimous approval of the rehabilitation of Joe Lieberman, who was allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Then the statement from Obama’s staff that the Justice Department under the new administration would not likely launch new criminal probes into Bush-era torture. All this in the interest of national reconciliation, pointedly excluding the “ideological” antiwar liberal-progressive Democrats, to say nothing of genuine anti-imperialists.

For many gay men and lesbians, Nov. 4 was a bittersweet day: they overwhelming favored Obama for president, and yet the setback to the cause of gay marriage was a bitter, unexpected blow. Obama’s choice of Warren for the national spotlight at his inauguration had to have been the product of considerable deliberation; it is a gesture to the religious right, a bid for (further) acceptance from the center-right.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12222008.html

[GarbagemanLB]

1. Counterpunch?

:rofl:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GarbagemanLB]

9. I support marriage equality and I am open to Obama's choice of Warren.

Did I just blow your mind?

[MadBadger]

2. You can say please, but I wont read it.

[jonnyblitz]

3. uh oh, they don't like Counterpunch here. the actual piece will

never even get discussed no matter how RIGHT ON it is. Counterpunch "bashes DEMS" *gasp*

IT'S ATTACK THE MESSENGER TIME!!

[GarbagemanLB]

7. They use Obama not being vindictive in regards to Lieberman as a SLAM?

He campaigned on a new way of politics, which means not holding pointless grudges and being pragmatic. I'd say that is change.

Yet another bunch who expect Obama to be a liberal version of George W.

[T Wolf]

36. MOre of us are afraid that Obama will be another GWB, just slightly less right-wing but

more competent at the destruction.

When his every action thus far is to disregard the views of "the left" and give in to the warhawks and bigots and economic fascists, how exactly are we supposed to feel optimistic about this "change" that supposedly is coming?

[Uzybone]

4. Counterpunch again

idiots. They talk as if Obama met Rahm just after the election. Or as if not wanting to punish LIEberman was not exactly the kind of politics he had been speaking about on the campaign trail. These left wing and right wing rags are all in the same business, to gin up outrage.

[Better Believe It]

8. Oh you're a centrist! That explains your hatred of liberals and progressives

[Uzybone]

14. Thats an extremely dumbass conclusion

all I said is that I dislike extreme left wing and extreme right wing rags (i.e media). They are both in the same business. I'm a liberal.

[MadBadger]

17. Its not a dumbass conclusion

If you're a dumbass (such as the OP)

[Better Believe It]

20. You're a "liberal" who calls the Nation magazine "a rag" !!!???

What kind of liberal do you think you are .... a Leiberman kind perhaps?

Calling yourself a "liberal" doesn't necessarily make you one.

[Uzybone]

35. Quit lying, I never even mentioned the Nation

stop making shit up. The article in question is from counterpunch, and they are a rag.

[firedupdem]

6. The writers of these articles are full of shit. n/t

[Better Believe It]

13. Ahhhh .... you must be the intellectual. Thanks for your golden nugget of wisdom!

You sure know how to discredite those who disagree with using well reasoned irrefutable arguments!

If you can spell it correctly, will you be using the "F" word in your follow-up?

[firedupdem]

16. nice try....LOL!!! You must be the writer of the article. n/t

[MadBadger]

19. Are you a bigot?

[GarbagemanLB]

10. Some people naively expected Obama to be a liberal version of W. Sorry to disappoint.

[firedupdem]

11. You are exactly right. They never listened to his speeches about

separation, division, vindictiveness. It's amazing.

[kenny blankenship]

15. Not at all. Just didn't expect him to be a Democratic version of W.

[polichick]

38. Me either - time will tell, but it ain't looking good - except for the green stuff!

[AtomicKitten]

12. Nonsense.

[NJmaverick]

18. "Barack Obama’s alienating the most serious, activist component of his political base. "

another delusional self appointed spokesperson

:rofl:

I am part of that "serious activist political base" and I have not been alianated in the least. Frankly there are many others in the base that also appreciate his Obama's more noble asperations, than more petty partisan politics.

[Better Believe It]

25. So opposing right-wingnuts is "petty partisan politics" ?

What's "petty" about being opposed to the right-wing reactionary policies of the Republican party and George W. Bush?

Your line "petty partisan politics" is an old cliche used by those who are opposed to all of the divisions and conflicts between

the Democratic party and Republican party in Washington, D.C.

Only one problem with that.

This bitter deep conflict is a myth.

The Democrats never filibustered against any Bush sponsored legislation that was voted on. Not once. In fact, not a single Bush presidential appointment or legislation in the Senate was stopped. Many Democratic Senators voted for the appointments and legislation like the so-called Bankruptcy reform bill. And you call that partisanship?

It seems like you just don't follow what has happened in Congress over the past 8 years or you just want to serve as an apologist for those Democrats who have functioned as Bush and Republican party enablers to promote "bi-partisanship unity".

If you wish to unite with reactionary Republicans in order to end political conflicts with the enemies of the American people, feel free too, but don't expect me and most other progressive to join in!

[NJmaverick]

26. No refusing to reach out and try talking instead of fighting

that would be the petty partisan part. Concentrating on what divides us, instead of what unites us, that would be petty partisan politics.

[cascadiance]

33. How about "reaching out" to US who put him into office?

He hasn't done much for US yet has he? Who are the "progressive" appointments that will start tearing down the lobbyist crowd that's messed up so much over the last decade or so? Huh? What we are getting is more of the same of corporatist party officials (masquerading as a different party but still governing from the "center" which is a code word for governing for the corporate sector).

He needs to reach out to US to be truly bipartisan not just be a center right politician ONLY "reaching out" to the right.

[NJmaverick]

41. I am pretty sure he isn't President yet

so I am not sure what you expected to do for you. I guess you believe in the anti-JFK phrase of:

Ask not what you can do for your Country. Ask what the Country can do for you.

[cascadiance]

43. So he hasn't chosen ANYONE for his team of who works for him?

If we wait until "he's president" to make comments about this, how can we affect who's being chosen?

I think you have it confused as to what "Country" is. I always thought country referred to "the people". I'm saying that many of us feel that we as "the people" aren't being represented. We are asking him to do for "his country", not for us singularily. How is appointing people from the right and "the center" and not from the progressives who put him into office "serving the country"?

[NJmaverick]

45. In my opinion Obama has chosen an experienced, intelligent group of men and women

with a great diversity of opinions and backgrounds. It's like he created an allstar team to help him save the Country.

[cascadiance]

48. Still doesn't answer my question on whether they are progressive or not. Answer? They aren't!

They are mostly DLC!

[Better Believe It]

50. And tell me why we should set aside our differences with Bush and Cheney?

"Concentrating on what divides us, instead of what unites us, that would be petty partisan politics."

And that of course is why we should not oppose the policies of the right-wingnuts.

[natrat]

21. everybody got their grievances, when added up to create a rightist spectrum it's called conservative

personally-cabinet appointments for epa,agriculture and interior with standard right wing crooks and the lack of objection to the 8trillion dollar give away=fail

[LWolf]

22. He must harbor that deep desire,

because he sure as hell doesn't seem to care about acceptance from the liberal left.

Thanks for posting.

And here; it looks like you'll need it:

[mzmolly]

23. Oh no! Not the "power structure!?"

:eyes:

[Better Believe It]

30. Right .... what power structure?

Oh!

Perhaps this one!

WALL STREET!



Well, everyone knows the corporations and rich don't have any real political and economic power. In the United States, we have a government that represents all of the people equally no matter what class you belong too.

Now, let's tell another fairytale.

[mzmolly]

46. Considering they just came to the people of the US

to stay afloat, I'd say their power is much less structured.

I suppose Obama could have appointed homeless people to his cabinet in order to shake things up and prove he's not an elitist member of the "status quo"?

C'mon, this is getting ridiculous. Obama hired people with experience to carry out his vision for the country. Let's give the guy ONE day in office before we polish the violins.

[Better Believe It]

51. What kind of experience .... experience at doing what?

Experience at deregulating the financial industry a decade ago.

We don't need that kind of experience!

[mzmolly]

52. Ahhhh

we're back to the "blame Clinton" mentality. And here I thought that was a Republican thing to do.

[Eric J in MN]

24. Kos was referring to the Senate vote to support Joe Lieberman.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/24/12115/097/329/665816

[polichick]

27. Oh-oh, he's saying things people don't want to hear...

[GarbagemanLB]

29. He's another one of those privileged white males, right?

Who cares what they have to say? They've been heard enough!

[polichick]

31. Don't know if he's a "privileged white male," but I'd guess you're a defensive white male. :)

[cascadiance]

34. I guess he's a little more liberal than Ken Blackwell or Clarence Thomas...

Those "privileged white males"... Right?

[FrenchieCat]

28. In otherwords, Counterpunch sees Obama as a good ol'

shoe shuffling negro...bending at the masters' feet. :eyes:

What they don't see is that Obama is walking the walk that he talked throughout his campaign.
If he continues to stick to upholding his campaign pledges, then things will work out of him, and by extension for us.

It is very easy to point to things perceived as incorrect tactics when the ultimate outcome of the tactics being criticized is not yet known.

The question becomes if Obama succeeds, which we should all want, will these sitting on the sidelines with their pens in hand admit that they were wrong, or will they simply move on to another topic to criticize? Will they actively work to undermind his every moves, in order for them to be proven right? Will they ever acknowledge when something works, or will they rationalize it as it working for another reason, or not working well enough fast enough?

It is good thing that it is time that will tell. Till then, I'll be hoping for Obama's success fully understanding that there's more than one way to skin a cat....even as the attacks dogs growl on from the counterpunch left wing of the pound.

If Counterpunch and its writers were so insightful and knew exactly how to get to where they wanted to go, their support of a Kucinich candidacy should have had them winning! Perhaps they will one day examine themselves for their own failures, and realize that it takes more than simply following their instructions for one to end up in a position of winning actual power to make changes.

[Better Believe It]

32. No .... you're trying to put words into the mouths of liberals.

That's an old and not very clever debating trick that won't work here.

Exactly what sections of the article did you disagree with and why?

[FrenchieCat]

39. I think my post explained what I disagree with and why.....

and the problem may be that you simply missed it.

The essense of it was when I wrote, "It is very easy to point to things perceived as incorrect tactics when the ultimate outcome of the tactics being criticized is not yet known."

My point is that they can't point to goals set by Obama that have failed yet, so instead, they argue that his tactics in getting to his goals are all wrong, in their opinion. So my question to them is how do they know already that it is all wrong?....considering that Obama is doing to date exactly what he'd say he'd do.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president. And we know the government can't solve every problem.

But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And, above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation, the only way it's been done in America for 221 years -- block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began 21 months ago in the depths of winter cannot end on this autumn night.

This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.

It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.

Let us remember that, if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers.

In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.

Let's remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House, a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity.

Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.

As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.

And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.

To those -- to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.

That's the true genius of America: that America can change. Our union can be perfected. What we've already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight's about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons -- because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America -- the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs, a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome." Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination.

And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change.

Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves -- if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment.

This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.
--Barack Obama's Victory Speech, November 4, 2008
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/obama.transcript/index.html

[Uzybone]

37. Thats right, he is sucking up to the Jews too

notice how Rahm (who has had Obamas back since he entered national politics) and LIEberman are highlighted as examples of how Obama is kowtowing to the powers that be.

There are other avenues for legit criticism of Obama, but attacking him for doing what he has always done is weak. Nothing he has done so far has been different from what he called for on the campaign trail.

[T Wolf]

40. "attacking him for doing what he has always done is weak"?!? Many of us were skeptical from the

beginning because Obama seemed like he was willing to compromise (sell-out) to the cons on issues after issue.

His actions after the election have only reinforced that.

By your logic, if someone has always been a bigot, we should never criticize them for that because he is "doing what he has always done."

Now that is weak.

[FrenchieCat]

42. There were not enough of you skeptics obvioulsy considering that Obama won the election.

and so in spite of you not voting for him, he still won. And since he won, and elections have consequences, his willing to compromise is part of the deal. It is exactly what he proposed, and what most people voted for. And yes, his actions since the election have reinforced exactly that he is doing what he ran saying he would do.

And your "Bigot" example was lousy....

Those like you, who didn't vote for him, can talk all you want as to what you knew....but that just means you are doing now exactly what you have always done; just like Obama!

[T Wolf]

44. Where did I say I didn't vote for him? I did, "holding my nose" because it WAS OBVIOUS that

he was not the crazy liberal the corporate media made him out to be. He was just going to be better than McInsane.

Hell, he is not even a borderline liberal - just another center-right politician who will do some things better than a rethug would have done.

Are you saying that all the liberals in America actually threw aside our values, voted for Obama, and have been converted to the center-right bipartisan way of thinking?

Or did we, faced with one bad alternative and one terrible one, decide that, once again - as always, we could not afford to vote our conscience and beliefs by going "Green" or not voting?

There are still many libs out here who still hold out hope that this country can become much better than it has been. That the values that we "thought" were important to Democrats could win out.

Now, we have no recourse but to sit down, shut up, and "hope" that the Obama administration does not give the entire store away to the rethugs and the corps in his strive to "bring us all together."

[alwysdrunk]

47. Bullshit. In 28 days he IS the existing power structure

None of this shit is about the leaders, it is about the followers.

[depakid]

49. His US Senate career reflects the same thing

as some of us have noted over the past several years.

It'll be interesting to see how that changes after he gets a fiar taste of "the buck stops here."