Thanks to Open Left.."No, We Can't Wait". Kudos to Meteor Blades as well.

[madfloridian]

And they are right. Policy is being made right now, as we speak, as we tell each other here to shut up and not be critical. We can either try to be a part of it, try to make our voices heard, or we can just back away.

I love Barack Obama, hubby and I have supported him completely and actively. But he has chosen as his gatekeeper someone who despises the grassroots and netroots. He really does, I am not joking. He is in effect the one who will decide access.

No, We Can't Wait

Since the election, quite a few comments on Open Left have been some variation on the following:

"Can't we just be happy and enjoy this victory for a while?"

In another episode of simple answers to simple questions, let me field this one: No.

After eight long years of waiting, this is our chance to pass good legislation. And no, we can't wait a little while longer to ask for it. I have waited eight years to ask for it, and I don't want to wait any longer We have to ask now. I have no intention of just running oppositional campaigns during this administration, but I also have no intention of just supporting Obama's legislative priorities without pursuing others in which I am interested. Nothing you want will pass unless you first ask for it, and then try for it. And this, after eight years of waiting, is our first chance to do so. As our first chance presents itself, there are people seriously telling us to keep waiting? What the frak ever. I ain't waiting anymore.

Chris points out that policy is being made or has already been made. I agree that we must express our thoughts.

Discussions are currently already underway to shape the direction of the next administration. And, as David wrote, if you ain't at the table, you are on the menu. We can't be quiet and just let other people hold these talks while we sit back. We need to make sure we have supporters involved in these talks. We can't just sit back and assume that everything will turn out OK. That isn't how we took back our country, and it ain't gonna be how we run the country.

And he quotes Meteor Blades from Daily Kos.

Pfffffft.

As expected, the ferocious SYFPH stance of large numbers of Kossacks during the campaign has now spilled over into the post-election world. It was more than reasonable after the convention in Denver to keep the lid on internal dissent. We had a President and bunch of new Congresspeople to elect. It was not just sensible but crucial for us to keep both our petty and larger criticisms under wraps and stay focused on phone-banking, canvassing, emptying our own wallets, raising funds from others, keeping our compatriots morale up when the polls fluttered, and doing every other thing we could think of to turn out large numbers of registered Democrats and other citizens predisposed to vote for Democrats.

Now, with Obama chosen in an electoral vote landslide, and at least six new Senators and more than 20 new Representatives preparing to take their seats on Capitol Hill in just two months, we've entered a new era. Hurrah! Huzzah! Finally. Yet many people keep delivering the same old message: Shut up. Criticism is inappropriate now. Give it a rest. Wait until after he is in office.

Let me make a prediction. No, better yet, let me make a wager. I'll put up $500 that come January, we're going to continue to hear this theme. No criticizing, no giving of advice until after the first hundred days have passed. And then, no criticizing because we'll be approaching the kick-off for the 2010 congressional campaigns. And, after that, no criticizing, no second-guessing, no advising because we'll be at the beginning of campaigning for a second term in the White House.

It's more than troubling that "we can talk about this later" keeps becoming "we will talk about this never." We're not supposed to advise and critique? We're supposed to trust but not verify? We're supposed to shut our yaps because Obama is smarter than we are and knows what he is doing? That's utterly unacceptable, people. It's not going to work. And it goes against one of the key themes of our President-Elect: "Change doesn't come from the top down, it comes from the bottom up."

We worked very hard for Obama, we almost almost turned the I-4 Corridor blue

Well, 2/3 of it anyway.

We have given enough money to the the Dean campaign, the DNC, DFA, and the Obama campaign...spent enough hours working on the ground...that we have earned the right to speak up when we question a choice.

[KoKo]

1. Shh...,,,no one wants to hear the truth about this....

:sarcasm:

I'm always glad to see something from "Meteor Blades." He used to post here on DU but gave up.

[madfloridian]

3. I respect his posts very much.

:hi:

[madfloridian]

2. Chris is getting battered. Much worse than I did on my other post.

Someone was advocating the "wait" theme:

I like Howard Park's comment:

"Clinton waited... (4.00 / 6)
...16 years ago Bill Clinton was persuaded to wait and drop many of his progressive priorities -- most important he had to gain the confidence of the wizards of Wall Street -- and, mostly, he was never able to get back to a progressive agenda. Chris is right.

by: howardpark @ Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 21:05

And I agree with Digby at Hullaballoo:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/making-him-do-it-by-digby-i-was-reading.html

"If Obama wants to govern as liberally as the political circumstances allow, then we need to work to make sure that the political circumstances include a strong liberal base. Mindlessly cheerleading out of a misplaced sense of loyalty will not help him. As Roosevelt understood, politics are interlocking interests and constituencies that have to be brought to bear to achieve certain goals.

In the current political world, I believe that Obama and the Democrats need a strong left wing that is out there agitating in order that we can continue to build popular support and also give them a political excuse to do things that the political establishment finds too liberal. Being cheerleaders all the time, however enjoyable that is, is not going to help them. Leaving them out there with no left wing cripples them.

One of the problems for Democrats has been that there has not been an effective progressive voice pushing the edge of the envelope. Therefore, when they inevitably "go to the middle" as politicians often feel they must do, the middle become further and further right. It is my belief that one of the roles of the progressive movement is to keep pulling the politicians back to the left, which often means that we are not being publicly "supportive," in order that we really do end up in the middle instead of farther to the right than the country actually is.

I'm not an idiot and I know very well that Obama needs room to govern. A big historic victory, a village predisposed to at least give him a chance and a set of very serious crises to confront will give him that. My role is to make sure that the progressive agenda is pushed as well, and to make sure that the village knows that we are watching. I don't mind if they hate me, if they also have a healthy respect for the fact that I will stand up for what I believe in. I think this is necessary for successful politics. I don't expect to win all the time (or even most of the time) and I will be very, very supportive when the Democrats come through. But I believe that they need us to keep their feet to the fire."

[KoKo]

4. K&R...

I think Digby has incredible insight.

[aquart]

45. Stating the obvious may be necessary, but it's not "incredible.

[John Q. Citizen]

49. Organize! is the only imperitive.

However, reacting to Obama's appointments and organizing aren't exactly the same thing.

I won't waste my time organizing to influence Obama's appointments. They are his to make. And while i wouldn't have chosen Rahm, I can see why Obama did. I will spend my time organizing for A universally affordable, universally accessible, and free choice of provider health care insurance system that covers medical, dental, vision, and mental health services.

That's the minimum standard.

[charlie]

5. You're right. They're right

And boy, are you gonna get it.

Good post, madfloridian. As usual.

[Dr.Phool]

6. You'll probably get fried for this.

I happen to agree with you. In fact, I'll open myself up to a little fire.

In my opinion, Obama's choice of Emmanuel for Chief of Staff was his first bad decision. It's almost as bad as McCain's choice of Palin. He hates populists and progressives, he's DLC to the core, he's pro-war, and I think more inclined to push Israel's interests than our own. He's the guy who loves to recruit Republicans, like Tim Mahoney and Christine Jennings to counter progressive candidates. And now he has more power.

It's rumored that his top two choices for Sec. of Treasury are a former NY Fed Chairman, and a free-market Friedman disciple. We don't need Wall Street running Treasury again.

Robert Gates, who was neck-deep in Iran-Contra, sticking around at Defense? WTF?

But, I'm used to being disappointed. Ever since I cast my first vote for McGovern back in 1972.

I agree. Start demanding what we voted for now. Time is running out for me. I would like to see peace and universal health-care, preferably single-payer, in my lifetime.

Time to start putting ther feet to the fire now. The corporate lobbyists already are.

[madfloridian]

7. I've already been fried, burned to a crisp....bruised, battered.

After a while it doesn't hurt so bad.

[madfloridian]

8. Good response from Chris who is still getting battered.

I'm not wrong on Rahm (4.00 / 4)
No one disagreed with me about Rahm until he became chief of staff. Since I didn't change but others did, and since I don't think anything magical happened to Rahm when he became chief of staff, I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that others have changed their position on Rahm, but Rahm hasn't changed himself.

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by: Chris Bowers @ Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 21:29

[Dr.Phool]

9. Got a link for those?

I've been avoiding a lot of the board lately. Thanks.

[madfloridian]

12. Here you go, from the first link in the OP

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9793

The comments are getting heated.

[eridani]

10. Every goddam powerful elite interest group in this country--

--is tying a rope around Obama's waist and pulling him in their direction. Anybody who thinks that we ought to drop our ropes can just STFU and go straight to hell.

[Gregorian]

11. Recommending, because I need to learn from threads like this.

I have spent so much time fighting against what I don't want that I have lost focus on what I do want.

I know we aren't going to get it all.

I guess it's time to start thinking.





I've got a drug war that can go in the ash can.

[madfloridian]

13. We need to be on guard. The insiders are already on the inside...

and we don't have our gate crasher from before, cause Rahm the gate keeper doesn't like Howie Dean the gate crasher from 2005.

[Two Americas]

14. k and r

Good catch, thanks.

Glad to see that there are a few here who understand how a representative democracy works. As eridani says, every well-heeled and powerful group is trying to influence the direction of the new administration. Are we so naive to think that there are not those saying to Obama "forget the poor, they don't count" as just one example? Why would our fellow Democrats demand that we be silent now?

The people just voted overwhelmingly against the wealthy and powerful interests controlling the government. Who will remind the Obama administration of that if not us? The financial industry? The pharmaceutical industry?

The people voted against business as unusual, yet we have people here insisting that we have business as usual. The people voted against blind loyalty to the unitary executive of the Republican party. Yet people here are demanding that we remain silent and trust our leader's judgment without question.

The people rebelled against the right wing, but to listen to those here who are demanding blind loyalty, one would think that it were the Left that had been rejected by the people.

For years people here have criticized the people, lamented their complacency, and asked "when oh when will the stupid sheeple wake up?" The people woke up, and what I heard before the election was "we need another New Deal," and I did not hear "we need centrist pro-corporate DLC compromising Republican lite, with a thin veneer of 'green' and 'organic' to keep the upscale suburban liberals perfectly happy so they can go on holding us in contempt and blaming us."

The people are there. They have utterly repudiated the last 40 years of conservative economics. Were are we? Where will we stand?

[bread_and_roses]

52. Yes to all that, and to the OP (n/t)

[babylonsister]

15. I would love to know how your man Howard Dean feels about this.

He probably approves, but you don't.

[madfloridian]

17. Would you stop with the "my man" crap. It is beneath your usual good stuff here.

Of course he approves until February at least. But he and Rahm have no love lost.

Your posts are too good to say things like that.

[babylonsister]

19. And your whining on your thread last night was beneath you.

I never mentioned Dean, but I knew the genesis.

Your threads are so appreciated, but I hope you get that not everyone does, just like mine.

[madfloridian]

21. It doesn't matter.

Some things are more important than being silent.

You can keep putting Dean down because I think he deserves more credit that he is getting, or you can try to see my point.

I am not much of one to worry about who thinks what of me....but I never insult. I never have.

[babylonsister]

24. Show me one time I've put Dr. Dean down. That is NOT what I'm

talking about.

IIRC, you were putting Emanuel down because they disagreed. Time to move on imo.

[madfloridian]

25. No, I was giving my critique of Rahm's attitude that could hurt all of us.

That is the whole point. He disliked Dean because he was not doing what Ramn said to do. He did not want the decisions spread out to the state parties, it was to be done with his approval.

I am sorry you don't agree but I don't like Rahm, I don't trust him to be inclusive.

It is important to say so.

[babylonsister]

26. OK. But Rahm just took a job where his opinion won't count. He

is now going to be serving at the favor of the president, and move in that direction. That's where I think this works.
Rahm will be stifled, and there is no way Obama has any bad judgment about Dr. Dean.

I'm not worried.

And I love your smarts and dedication. I don't have to agree always.

[madfloridian]

27. Yes, I just read an article in the WSJ tonight....Rahm will influence policy.

We disagree that Rahm will be stifled. He never has been.

You are right, I don't always expect to agree.

[struggle4progress]

16. Left pressure!

[babylonsister]

18. Damn it. There you go again. We have a President, finally!

Why tear him down instead of ideas to float to him? He does have a website to do that.

And he does want to hear from you:

http://change.gov/

And Obama has already done this. I'm thinking we should be hopeful:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4410511&mesg_id=4410511

[madfloridian]

22. NO, I am NOT tearing Obama down. I am questioning his gatekeeper..

who does not like people who are party outsiders.

[madfloridian]

20. Ha Ha. Bowers is on fire tonight. I wish him well cause I'm being ridiculed also.

Thank God, My Boss Is An Asshole!

"Thank God, my boss is an asshole!" I have to say, this is a sentence that has never crossed my mind since I got my first job at Wegman's 18 years ago. (Yeah, Wegman's. I really am from Upstate New York.) It seems unlikely that many people have earnestly thought or spoken this sentence. And yet, many people seem to think that it is a good idea to have an asshole managing the White House.

Now, perhaps I am reading the situation wrong. For one thing, it is possible that Rahm Emanuel is not an asshole. I don't really know, as I have never met the man. Also, it is possible Rahm Emanuel is being praised for being "tough," and therefore a good choice for Chief of Staff. Maybe I am just confusing praise for being tough with gratitude for being an asshole. It is possible, since being tough and being an asshole are not the same thing, but there are occasional surface similarities.

However, it sure seems that a lot of people, both online and off, think that Rahm Emanuel is a good choice for White House Chief of Staff because he is some form of asshole. I don't bring this up to comment on Obama's choice of Emanuel, which I have done on numerous occasions so far. Also, as already noted, I have no idea if Rahm Emanuel is actually an asshole or not. Rather, I bring this up to comment on the commentary about Rahm Emanuel becoming Chief of Staff. Within that commentary, there seems to be a distinct strain of thought that argues it is a good idea to have an asshole for a boss. This strikes me as demented, since I doubt anyone has ever earnestly thought or spoken the words "thank god, my boss is an asshole!"

:evilgrin:

Very true.

Meanwhile non-asshole Howard Dean is not to be mentioned on TV....I mean really...something is so wrong with that.

[bertman]

23. I'd just like to point out that you have the right to speak up when you question a choice

Obama makes EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T CONTRIBUTE A DIME TO HIM OR THE DEMS. You are an American. That is your right.

[KoKo]

28. MF...Check out Charlie Rose interview with the Emmanuel Brothers...

and the discussion of Rahm's brothers Health Care Plan is at the end. Rahm doesn't agree with his brothers plan, btw and most DU'ers including myself wouldn't agree with it. But, the interview gives an insight into the family and a side of Rahm we don't get from the media writing.

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/6/16/1/a-discussion-about-healthcare-with-ezekiel-ari-and-rahm-emanuel

[BrklynLiberal]

38. Great interview. A lot of insights. Thanks very much for posting this.

[AuntPatsy]

29. Yes you have earned that right, we all have, and If I am not mistaken, president Obama himself

expressed that we continue to use that right...as always your fears are noted...I just hope that babylonsister is right and that he can be kept in check..I guess I was not aware that their was animosity between dean and President IBM's new gatekeeper...

And I have to agree with your one line...change comes from the bottom, if such were not true, President Obama would not have won, it was the grassroot wave that helped him in his climb to the top...

[LWolf]

30. Kick, recommend, and

a big thank you from me for telling it like it is in a much more diplomatic way than I'm able to myself.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[madfloridian]

31. From Fire Dog Lake and Open Left...50 state strategy organizers being let go.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/07/50-state-strategy-being-killed-by-letting-the-organizers-go/

"A rumor at this point (or rather, someone unwilling to go on record) but what I'm hearing is that the DNC organizers who implement the 50 state strategy are about to be let go. Apparently they will be laid off at the end of the month, and the new DNC chair will decide whether he or she wants to continue the 50 state policy.

Of course, there's no better way to kill the program than to let the organizers go. With them will go all the experience, a lot of the contacts and most of the trust. And many of them won't be available to be rehired.

I have no idea who made this decision, especially immediately after a year where the 50 state strategy seems to have payed off with wins in places Dems don't ordinarily win.

It is worth noting, however, that the 50 state strategy's biggest opponent, for years has been Rahm Emanuel. Rahm's new job? Chief of Staff. Wonder if Obama's ok with this?"

I posted about it last night, but no one got the significance.

From Open Left:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9800

Chris speaks about the sad outcome of Darcy Burner's campaign. And the staffers of the 50 state plan.

If the organizers get re-hired after Obama selects the new DNC chair, then he believes in the fifty state strategy. If they don't get re-hired, then the only fifty state strategy Obama believed in was the one for his own campaign. I'm strongly hoping it is the former, but Emanuel really was the strongest opponent of the fifty-state strategy.

[madfloridian]

33. Functioning staff in each was important.

From the comments at FDL

"Having functioning party apparatuses in each state is very beneficial — and not just during regular election years. It allows the party to take advantage of special situations and move quickly."

We won seats that way this time.

We quickly forget, don't we?

And the blog I posted last night. From SD

http://thunewatch.squarespace.com/sdwatch/2008/11/8/more-on-the-sddp-cuts-it-gets-worse.html

Looks like it's true for sure.

[BrklynLiberal]

36. One would think that a "community organizer" would appreciate all that

went into the 50-state-strategy, and want it to continue....

[ulysses]

32. thank you.

:thumbsup:

[madfloridian]

34. We have to question. The 50 state plan appears to be ending

now with the lay off off the staffers. It is happening quickly. Very quickly.

Now they can go back to the smoke-filled rooms.

[BrklynLiberal]

35. So THAT is why no one has bothered to thank Howard Dean for laying the foundation for this victory.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely....

[madfloridian]

37. You have noticed.

Few have noticed.

How quickly we forget those who work hard for us on the outside of DC.

[BrklynLiberal]

39. I was waiting for something to be said...even on Tues night at Grant Park..I thought for sure

that Howard Dean would be mentioned.
I would assume that Dr. Dean is not the kind of person to be bitter, but those of us who actually supported his candidacy in 2004 think that he deserves at least some recognition for the job he has done in the past 4 years. He is absolutely someone who puts country and party before his own personal ambitions....and I hope that the day will come when he gets the recognition and credit he so rightly deserves.

[madfloridian]

40. The sad part is that here at DU no one cares about it.

It is like a deadly silence when his name is mentioned, and the media will not say a word.

The power is back in the hands of the insiders and they will have message control.

[BrklynLiberal]

41. I hope we are being unduly pessimistic...

[madfloridian]

42. I hope so.

I did not think he would try to be chair again, or even want to.

I did think he would get credit due.

The silence is very telling.

He deserves better.

We stopped our donations last week when we first heard. Time will tell what we do in the future.

[truedelphi]

48. He really really does. n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

44. On a Democratic website, a certain percentage of posters will be paid by the campaign

They will help control the message just as Bush Trolls paid by Mehlman et al. used to.

[Pastiche423]

60. Not everyone

I :loveya: Howard Dean.

Too bad we don't have an emoticon for how I feel about rahm.

This comes the closest:

[Leopolds Ghost]

43. Don't forget that Dean is probably gone and anti-welfare, anti-new deal Rubinomics back in

Because of this decision.

Do DUers really believe the party structure waits till after the election to make all the policy decisions, decide which platform planks to put on ice, and lay out their agenda?

[magellan]

46. Again I'm left with the feeling from the Dem party

...that I'm being told, "Thanks for your vote, now sit down and STFU."

I'm sure things will be better under Obama than the extension of the Bush** maladministration McSame promised. But I'm very disquieted by the Dems' treatment of Dean and the progressive wing. They've hung a right-hander and they don't appear to be looking back.

There's a threshold to my willingness to continue supporting the Dems under these conditions. I'll see over the next two years how they use their majority.

[truedelphi]

47. I for one, do not want Obama to go the way of the Pelosi.

THe paragraphs that trouble me the most:
Let me make a prediction. No, better yet, let me make a wager. I'll put up $500 that come January, we're going to continue to hear this theme.

No criticizing, no giving of advice until after the first hundred days have passed.

And then, no criticizing because we'll be approaching the kick-off for the 2010 congressional campaigns. And, after that, no criticizing, no second-guessing, no advising because we'll be at the beginning of campaigning for a second term in the White House.

It's more than troubling that "we can talk about this later" keeps becoming "we will talk about this never." We're not supposed to advise and critique? We're supposed to trust but not verify? We're supposed to shut our yaps because Obama is smarter than we are and knows what he is doing? That's utterly unacceptable, people. It's not going to work. And it goes against one of the key themes of our President-Elect: "Change doesn't come from the top down, it comes from the bottom up."

[sabrina 1]

51. Well, I hope that doesn't happen

but if it does, we'll recognize it far more quickly than we did in, say 2004. By 2006, after the passage of the MCA with the assistance of 12 Democrats, I nearly walked away from Dems, but there was the specter of Bush back then, so it wasn't an option. People gave them the benefit of the doubt based on the promise of a Conyers Judiciary Committee eg. But not much has happened since then, the excuse as MB says, being 'we don't have enough votes' etc.

Now there are no more acceptable excuses like that.

I am very disappointed that Dean has not been given credit for the work he has done but would be thrilled if Obama gave him a position in his administration. Such a move would definitely allay some of the fears the Emmanuel appointment has raised.

[truedelphi]

59. I have my fingers crossed about that post for Howard Dean.

And welcome to DU.

[slipslidingaway]

50. Agree and worth repeating from your post...

"... Policy is being made right now, as we speak, as we tell each other here to shut up and not be critical. We can either try to be a part of it, try to make our voices heard, or we can just back away ..."

[breakingnewz]

53. Kudos

kicked and recommended.

[Peace Patriot]

54. My gut fell out when I heard Rahm Emmanuel would be WH chief of staff.

I couldn't think of a more demoralizing, deflating, disempowering, disgusting move that Obama could have made except maybe to appoint Joe Lieberman Sec of State. (And it would probably be wise to hold our breaths on what this Dem Party leadership is going to DO with him, until that danger is passed.)

But I want those here--whose dismay I fully shared at the outset, hearing of the Emmanuel appointment--to tell me what they think of my SECOND thoughts about this appointment. I expressed them on several other threads, with no response.

Basically, this: Clearly, Obama had to compromise with the Clinton/DLC camp, in order to get elected in these corpo/fascist circumstances (--corpo fascists controlling all the voting machines, with 'TRADE SECRET' code, for one thing--and all the media except the internet for another). (Think about this: Obama got his jumpstart in the caucus states which are not counted by Diebold & brethren; then he faced an all-Diebold & brethren general election). I finally figured out that Biden as VP was part of this compromise--the first piece of it. A big position for the DLC's boy, Rahm Emmanuel, is likely another part of that bargain. But for what position? As WH Chief of Staff, he will be on a leash, compelled to work for Obama's legislative agenda, not his own. Yeah, he could sabotage, but he won't last long if he does. And who better to put him in charge of--as to implementing Obama's agenda--than the very DINOs he helped put in Congress? If anybody knows what buttons to push, the skeletons in their closets, and how to pressure them, it is him!

Further, he will be in the White House, nearby, with the other end of the leash in Obama's hand. It may be the best place for the DLC's enforcer to be. Obama can benefit from his experience in the WH and the Beltway, and utilize his energy for Obama's purposes.

And he is NOT at the DNC, a more independent position, where he could and would damage the grass roots. And he is not in a leadership role in Congress, again, a more independent position, where he could hamper Obama's legislation. He will be in the very position where he is obliged to help Obama and implement his goals.

As I said in other threads, this may turn out to be a brilliant appointment. We don't know yet. It's sure scary--I agree with that. And I don't want ANYBODY to shut up about it. We should be yelling it from the rooftops that we don't trust this guy--for good reason--and pour on the pressure, to keep him in line, as to serving Obama, not the DLC. I think we really won't know what the upshot is, until Obama says who he wants as DNC chair (if Dean is leaving--is he?).

Among other things, I was flabbergasted that Obama didn't pick Pouffle or Axelrod for chief of staff--because I would think that this position requires great personal loyalty and long-standing friendship. Within the party, Emmanuel could well be described as an enemy of everything Obama stands for, and of the people who got Obama elected. (--although we may misunderstand just how bad this fascist coup that we have been suffering is; i.e., it may be that all our work on electing Obama could have been easily--EASILY!--overturned by the corpo/fascist voting machines, and, in that case, possibly Obama feels more loyalty to the corpos and fascists who agreed to let him win, and to the Clintonites/DLC who brought them around, than he does to us citizens, who didn't get rid of the corpo/fascist voting machines--although some of us did try).

But back to Emmanuel being the "enemy": It could be an indication of Obama's great self-confidence, that he would bring someone aboard, into such a close position, whom I imagine would have done almost anything to defeat Obama's nomination. In other words, he doesn't feel he needs a loyal friend in that position.

One final thought: The thing that worries me most is Rahm Emmanuel as "gate-keeper." It doesn't worry me much that he will be responsible for whipping the mostly DINO Congress into shape on Obama's behalf. I despise them anyway, and think they fully deserve their 10% approval rating (worse than Bush's! what an accomplishment!). The new Congress will be less of a total drag on the country. But still they will need an "enforcer" if Obama is to get anywhere.

No, what worries me is that Obama won't hear a full range of opinions. Best scenario would be that he knows this, and is taking other measures to insure diversity and full civil rights for the left, who born him. Worst scenario--he doesn't realize how out-of-step the DLCers are, and what control freaks they are, and how stifling they are. And he will get only their advice--because Emmanuel bars the door to everyone else. And somewhere in between is that Obama felt compelled to appoint Emmanuel to this spot (because of owing the DLC for not sabotaging his campaign), is aware of what it means to the left, but feels that he himself represents the left and doesn't need our advice.

It doesn't fit Obama's character that he isn't aware of the ways in which Emmanuel/the DLC is his enemy. He surely knows. It doesn't fit his character that he has just caved in to them, and abandoned the left. But what does fit his character is that he thinks he can handle it--either by arranging for diverse opinion in other ways, or by feeling confident that he doesn't need leftist opinion; he knows what we think; and he is more in need of insider muscle/know-how in dealing with the corpo/fascists who run the country and the western world.

To assume that he has "caved" to the DLC and closed the door to everyone else--on the basis of this appointment--is probably a mistake--or, at the least, it's much too early to tell. That's my feeling about it. If he has closed the door because he thinks he represents the left--well, that mistake will become evident--to Obama himself, I hope. That is hubris.

[madfloridian]

55. You make some good points. But I am in shock.

You really do. But I am sort of in shock still. It was so abrupt, the choice.

On top of letting the 50 state plan staffers go, it has been too much for me.

My problem right now is that there seems to be no place for activists or for grassroots. Rahm does not tolerate those of us outside of the inner circle. He dislikes everything we have worked for since 2003.

When we went to war with Iraq with the help of our Democrats, I knew change was needed. We have worked so hard, donated so much, and been so active.

I felt so good about Obama's election, but now I have a sort of shivery feeling. The friendlier face of the party is gone now for me, and we get to see Rahm as the face of the party. I find it almost incomprensible that Obama would do this, at least not right at the start.

It just took my breath away, and my spirits and enthusiasm.

[Dr.Phool]

56. I do know, that if Harold Ford gets the DNC Chair. And he wants it.

They can go fuck themselves completely. That's a DLC coup.

Especially after the shit Ford's cronies and the DLC pulled in the Tenn. Congressional primaries.

[madfloridian]

61. I have heard he might get it, but it is only rumor stage right now.

He might.

[Peace Patriot]

57. Christ almighty, the Obama camp has now floated Chiquita's death squad attorny for A.G.!

If this occurs, then I take back all of my 'benefit of the doubt' to Obama. It's over. The dream is over.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7832888

This is incredible. I am crying. I can't believe this.

This fuckwad, Eric Holder, is the guy who defended Chiquita international, and got them off with a hand slap, for paying $1.7 million to rightwing death squads in Colombia, to torture and murder an estimated 4,000 workers and union leaders!

For Attorney General! For fucking Attorney General!

Let us hope this is only a rumor--or maybe is being floated as cover for some less than desirable (but not this bad) appointment to this post.

This is very, very, very, very, VERY bad.

And this is definitely the Clintons and the DLC. You will remember that she had a paid agent of the Colombian government--Mark Penn--as her chief campaign advisor. And she lied through her teeth that she now doesn't support the horrid Colombia "free trade" deal. That's what this is about--white-washing the horrendous mass murder of union leaders, workers and peasant farmers in Colombia, to get that deal through Congress.

If this guy becomes A.G., they ARE in charge. And Obama has sold his soul to the Devil, on day 4 of being president-elect.

I hope to God this isn't true.

[Dr.Phool]

58. You and me both.

I'll peel the Obama stickers off my car tomorrow.