Obama betrays conservative liars, disappoints progressives?

[Tiassa]

It's not actually much of a story, except, of course, that this is Sciforums. Glenn Greenwald explains:

I've been genuinely mystified by the disappointment and surprise being expressed by many liberals over the fact that Obama's most significant appointments thus far are composed of pure Beltway establishment figures drawn from the center-right of the Democratic Party and, probably once he names his Defense Secretary and CIA Director, even from the Bush administration -- but not from the Left ....

.... So many progressives were misled about what Obama is and what he believes. But it wasn't Obama who misled them. It was their own desires, their eagerness to see what they wanted to see rather than what reality offered.

(Greenwald)

What's that? Obama has managed to annoy some of the people on his progressive bandwagon? Imagine that! After all, we've been hearing for weeks how the former Illinois Senator is an extremist, a Communist, the face of our demise in liberal decadence. How could this have happened?

Well, if conservatives stopped with their ego-stroke fantasies, that would be obvious:

Early on in the primary cycle, Markos Moultisas ... wisely urged that progressives refrain from endorsing or supporting any of the Democratic candidates unless they work for that support, make promises and concessions important to the progressive agenda, etc., lest progressives' support end up being taken for granted. But that advice was largely ignored. For whatever reasons, highly influential progressive factions committed themselves early, loyally and enthusiastically to Obama even though he never even courted that support, let alone made commitments to secure it.

That may have been perfectly justified -- by pragmatic calculations regarding electability, by excitement over his personality and charisma, by the belief that he was comparatively superior to the alternatives. Still, the fact remains that progressives, throughout the year, largely lent Obama their loyal support in exchange for very little. He never pretended that he wanted to implement or advance a progressive agenda. And he certainly never did anything to suggest he would oppose or undermine the Democratic establishment that has exerted power in the party over the last two decades.

It's difficult to understand what basis progressives think they have for demanding greater inclusion in his cabinet and other high-level appointments, and it's even more difficult to understand the basis for the disappointment and surprise being expressed over the fact that center-right Democrats and Republicans are welcomed in his inner circle, but -- as The Nation's Chris Hayes put it -- "not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in the new administration."

(ibid)

But why should the Kos have been so skeptical? After all, the progressive left disagreed, and hopped right on the Obama bandwagon. And, of course, Obama dished out the leftist promises, didn't he?

Well, only if you're one of those talk-show half-wit types that thinks Hillary Clinton is liberal.

But Barack Obama is a centrist, establishment politician. That is what he has been since he's been in the Senate, and more importantly, it's what he made clear -- both explicitly and through his actions -- that he intended to be as President. Even in the primary, he paid no price whatsoever for that in terms of progressive support. As is true for the national Democratic Party generally, he has no good reason to believe he needs to accommodate liberal objections to what he is doing. The Joe Lieberman fiasco should have made that as conclusively clear as it gets.

(ibid)

So maybe before a bunch of hand-wringing conservative liars run around saying stupid things like, "I just hope that after four years of Obama I've got at least one of my four offices still open!" it might be worth their time to stop and think about what they're actually dealing with. Holy shit, Barack Obama is a politician. You know what? Maybe, if you have to close some of your offices, just maybe the problem isn't the president? Maybe it's the way you run your goddamn business. ("Hell, as long as the numbers keep going up, and nothing ever goes wrong, everything's fine and dandy. I have no reason to do any other administration or planning. If things go tits up, I'll just blame the Democrats!" So much for personal responsibility, eh?)

Of course we have our idealists who really believed Barack Obama was a leftist savior. There are, after all, the one in four people surveyed who still think George W. Bush is a good president. One wonders what rocks they're turning to find these people, or, at the very least, what the quality standard is for measuring a president. But, looking forward, we can see from these early Obama-administration appointments that just 'cuz the brother's got some color don't make him a Black Panther. Just 'cuz he's a Democrat don't make him a liberal. And just 'cuz he excited a bunch of idealists don't make him a threat to a bunch of gun-toting, self-centered morons.

In other words, the only reason we really need to stop and reflect on the centrist overtones of the developing administration is to point out that a bunch of nail-biting, hand-wringing Republican bigots crying for their mothers' teat aren't really so different from the sparkly-eyed liberal idealists they hate so purely: both your identity politics require that Barack Obama be something other than he is.

As for that broad spectrum of folks that fall in between those extremes? We've made our decision, and now we're at the point where we're hoping things work out well. There's a lot going on, and the sun is actually shining today. Get your heads out and feel the warmth. There's a lot going on, and one thing becoming clear during the transition is that we have a president who's going to try. So if these last eight jingocentric years should have any credibility come January 20, it might do your patriotism some good to shut up and get on the trolley. No, you don't have to sell your soul and give the president everything he wants; giving Obama what Bush got would only lead to more trouble. But you do need to wake the hell up and stop pretending that hope will be the undoing of our nation. And stop pretending good faith is cancer.
____________________

Notes:

Greenwald, Glenn. "Progressive complaints about Obama's appointments". Unclaimed Territory. November 23, 2008. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/23/obama/index.html

 

[otheadp]

No surprise there. People say all kinds of things while on the campaign trail. But they are forced to govern from the middle. The constraints of America's governing system make it so.

Another non-surprise: the seething and screeching of "progressive" types. The same progressives with wild imaginations attributing all kinds of monstrous paranoid delusional personality traits to Bush's team attributed with the same, if not bigger intensity, the exact opposite sentiments towards their messiah.

He ain't no messiah, just a false prophet. Or maybe just somebody who knows he can't govern from the left, and someone who won't admit it, but has come to terms that at least in Iraq there is no need to impose the "solution" of 3-4 years ago on today's situation.

Tiassa, I'm just wondering, have you personally been bamboozled by Obama? Were you expecting any different of him?

 

[spidergoat]

Maybe he just wants experienced people, and the last time the Democrats were in the White House was the Clinton administration. Can we just give him a chance? He's not even inaugurated yet.

 

[iceaura]

He ain't no messiah, just a false prophet. Or maybe just somebody who knows he can't govern from the left, and someone who won't admit it

If you missed the point of the OP, it's still there: Obama never campaigned from the left, made no lefty promises, did nothing in his campaign to earn the progressive vote. He is now behaving just as he campaigned - center right, pragmatic and calculated power politics.

As several people here, Tiassa among them, have been saying all along.

 

[otheadp]

If you missed the point of the OP, it's still there: Obama never campaigned from the left, made no lefty promises, did nothing in his campaign to earn the progressive vote. He is now behaving just as he campaigned - center right, pragmatic and calculated power politics.

As several people here, Tiassa among them, have been saying all along.

If he ends up being center-right, the country will be better for it. But to say he didn't campaign from the left is crazy.

Iraq, foreign policy, tax policy (with his class war rhetoric, but better put), social policy... And what he did not say was said FOR him by his friends in the media and leftist fringe, both of which are now disappointed. The former with themselves for being so damn biased, as they now admit, and the latter for being lied to.

 

[iceaura]

If he ends up being center-right, the country will be better for it. But to say he didn't campaign from the left is crazy.

Most lefties around here thought, and said, that he was campaigning as a center right authoritarian.

Now he's acting like one. Nothing false about that. No betrayal.

As several people have been trying to tell the wingnuts for months now, Obama is and has always been a center right, authoritarian politician. His current behavior is completely consistent with his campaign, and his career.

And what he did not say was said FOR him by his friends in the media and leftist fringe, both of which are now disappointed.

Do not assign to others the words the rightwing fruitcakes put in Obama's mouth. It wasn't the lefty fringe that called Obama the "most liberal Senator", or labeled him a socialist and marxist, or misrepresented his speeches to support claims of far-left agenda - that was Fox, and Rush, and Kristol, and the faithful parrot cadre on forums everywhere.

All we had on the left was some hope, the possibility of a modicum of sanity and attention to actual governance, a reasonable Conservatism to replace the bizarre whims of the genuinely crazed and terminally corrupt that have been running the place into the ground.

It was said long ago that the first black or woman President would probably be a Republican. And so it has turned out.

 

[otheadp]

So you're actually happy that Obama is center-right? (or at least appears to be so)

 

[iceaura]

So you're actually happy that Obama is center-right? (or at least appears to be so)

Nope. None of us left libertarians are happy about what's happened to the US political system and media establishment.

 

[Carcano]

What's that? Obama has managed to annoy some of the people on his progressive bandwagon?

The word 'progressive' seems to mean handing out trillions of dollars the government doesnt have...no?

 

[iceaura]

The word 'progressive' seems to mean handing out trillions of dollars the government doesnt have...no?

No. That's what "Republican" means, since Reagan's tax cuts.

"Progressive" means taxing the rich.

 

[Tiassa]

Then, now, and what's to come

If he ends up being center-right, the country will be better for it. But to say he didn't campaign from the left is crazy.

Iraq, foreign policy, tax policy (with his class war rhetoric, but better put), social policy... And what he did not say was said FOR him by his friends in the media and leftist fringe, both of which are now disappointed. The former with themselves for being so damn biased, as they now admit, and the latter for being lied to.

Wow. That second paragraph is amazing.

So here you are trying to put other people's words in Barack Obama's mouth? How sick is that?

Seriously, that is a great sentence. Truly. Without sarcasm. Absolutely amazing, Otheadp. Here, let's try that again, to stand alone:

"And what he did not say was said FOR him by his friends in the media and leftist fringe, both of which are now disappointed."​

Really, do we need the idiot's breakdown? What's that? Oh, right. Of course. Very well.°

Let us start with the first part of that:

What A did not say was said for him by B and C ....​

Believe it or not, that's not even the biggest problem with the sentence.

The actual problem is that, as you've written it, the leftist fringe should be annoyed at the media. And, I suppose, that's entirely possible.

But take a look, for a moment, at some of the more liberal voices on this very board. You know, people like Iceaura, PJdude, Joepistole, and myself. People who, oh, say, Buffalo Roam thinks are stupid.

Just think about it for a moment.

Not a single one of us were fooled. Believe me, we're happy about Obama, and for diverse reasons. But nothing approaching the concept of "liberal media bias" fueled our faith in the liberalism he isn't showing. If any aspect of media coverage encouraged us to consider Obama as particularly liberal—especially considering his primary-season remarks about hitting Pakistan, refusal to openly support gay marriage, and votes in support of FISA and the "bailout" with apparently no real ... um .... Huh? Oh. Right. Come on. The most liberal things we heard about Obama were at the center of conservative accusations. Rev. Wright? The only reason that's important to me is because other radical preachers (Republican affiliated) were left out of the mix, including the warmongering, nearly genocidal aspirations of his campaign's spiritual adviser, Rod Parsley. Say nothing of Palin's preacher, who said God would reach his hand out against America. William Ayers? Hey, guess what? Sarah Palin gave much love to her husband's political affiliation, the Alaska Independence Party, whose planned secessionist presentation before the United Nations was sponsored by ... Iran. Seriously, you want to associate Obama with a Chicago Citizen of the Year? A respected scholar who has done much to make good on a questionable past? It's not our fault the government blew its chance to prosecute the guy. And, to the other, it turns out we've gotten more from him out of prison than in. Life goes on.

Muckrakers hoping to capitalize on Obama as a Communist only offered us a context in which to become more comfortable with Obama's sensibilities. Tracking down some ridiculous counter-contextual snippet about economic distribution from a 2001 radio show in Chicago proved to be an enlightening and, therefore, comforting experience. It is clear that Obama understands certain subtleties, such as how to compromise between conscience and reality. That he is the president does not mean he can walk on water. The gamble is that he will challenge reality to meet his conscience. Always a losing endeavor, admittedly, but it's damn well what we need right now, and unlike the lame duck, this is a conscience that suggests confidence instead of begs fear. We'll do okay by this one, and right now, that's a lot to ask.

But the truly liberal expectations are rooted in conservative political attacks that simply failed to frighten the American people into voting for more of what we've been getting. Really, like I said of McCain's concession speech: If only that McCain showed up for the campaign. Which one do you think would be president? Surely, he would have done better than Bush, but the style of campaign gave McCain as little opportunity to shine at the behest of his opponents. I never had any reason to spend hours listening to old radio shows looking for contextual cues. It was in his concession speech that the real presidential candidate finally showed up in McCain. Unfortunate. Perhaps his record accentuates the genuine conservative, but I never heard it expressed. McCain's failure to distinguish himself from the past was so total that calling someone a Communist had no significant effect. In past years, the Palin roadshow would have worked. But not this time. People would like to stop being afraid. We can work on actually being happy once we have the basics in order.

To answer your question directly:

Tiassa, I'm just wondering, have you personally been bamboozled by Obama? Were you expecting any different of him?

No. Not in the slightest. I've known what I was getting into with this vote at least since July.

That said, I am surprised at how bold a couple of Obama's picks have been. The Clinton-era revival taking place is actually a stronger statement than I expected, but that's not a problem. Howard Fineman of Newsweek said the day after that he felt the overarching theme of the Obama cabinet would be excellence. Taken in that context, the President-elect hasn't done poorly. And, hey, I voted for Bill Clinton twice, so I don't object to this as a starting point.

It's going to be a good show, I think. Fascinating, but not so morbidly as the last eight years. There's a lot of grim news yet to be had, but there is much hope that we are, in fact, past halfway through the forest.

And if President Obama proves that sense true, well, that's a lot to ask, given the challenges set before us. Economy, war, prestige: Fear.

And that's just the beginning. Education, poverty, crime and punishment, and ... oh, yeah, major infrastructure demands.

Can't forget the environment.

Oh, shit. Health care.

Seriously, stay tuned. This might actually get exciting at some point.
____________________

Notes:

° What's that? Oh, right. Of course. Very well. — For those who accuse me of elitism, snobbery, and other such disdainful attitudes of mine, please take note: I just wrote four consecutive two-word sentences. Okay? Alright? So don't tell me I don't take time out to accommodate political conservatives now and then.

 

[madanthonywayne]

What's that? Obama has managed to annoy some of the people on his progressive bandwagon? Imagine that! After all, we've been hearing for weeks how the former Illinois Senator is an extremist, a Communist, the face of our demise in liberal decadence. How could this have happened?

Well, if conservatives stopped with their ego-stroke fantasies, that would be obvious:

Take away the leftist diatribe and insults and you could have condensed your OP down to this:

Obama campaigned on a platform of being all things to all people. He sold himself as "good for what ails ya". Once he gets down to actually doing something (even the little he's done at this point, having not even taken office), he's going to piss a lot of people off. It's inevitable.

 

[otheadp]

T, I won't address every single bullshit point you've made (like the one where you drool over Ayers, or the one where you say you knew all along Obama was center-right). All I'm going to say is this: so far, this "fascist wingnut neo con" is pretty darn happy with Obama's moves. The latest is where he picked a guy for the AG post who defended (1) the non-extension of rights under the Geneva Convention to AQ types, and (2) Guantanamo bay. (Link). More please

 

[Tiassa]

This and that

Take away the leftist diatribe and insults and you could have condensed your OP down to this:

Obama campaigned on a platform of being all things to all people. He sold himself as "good for what ails ya". Once he gets down to actually doing something (even the little he's done at this point, having not even taken office), he's going to piss a lot of people off. It's inevitable.

That is certainly one way of looking at it. But what that means is a different issue entirely. I'm not particularly concerned with leftists who are disillusioned at this point; we've been over them before.

However, for all the times Democrats are accused of being liberal, and of walking a liberal party line, and given that around this time four years ago I was called on to answer for why I never (not true) criticized Democrats and liberals, I thought it worth pointing out that we're only twenty days into the transition, and already liberals are starting to call out the leadership.

One would have thought it obvious that the lockstep party only looked foolish when accusing Democrats of blindly following a party line. And if that wasn't enough, the rise of the Blue Dogs forced an unpleasant hand among Democrats on FISA. So why should I think making the point now will be effective? I don't. But at least y'all can't say you weren't told. Seriously, it amazes me sometimes how, when the question suddenly becomes important, some people can forget certain things.

• • •​

T, I won't address every single bullshit point you've made (like the one where you drool over Ayers, or the one where you say you knew all along Obama was center-right).

Okay. Makes sense.

All I'm going to say is this: so far, this "fascist wingnut neo con" is pretty darn happy with Obama's moves.

You might think. We'll see how that works out. I would suggest, to the one, that the happy fascist wingnut neocon is a wingnut in part because he is unable to view the situation in enough dimensions. The question is how Obama applies the talent he is assembling. At some point, he is obliged to deliver on something that is resembles "change", and there are nearly infinite possibilities for when, where, and how to do that.

To the other, though, it is entirely possible that Obama will utterly and completely fail. So even if he does somehow bring us another four years of Bush—which ought to make the fascist wingnut neocons happy—odds are he'd do a better job at it.

But therein lies the question. Like I said: The gamble is that he will challenge reality to meet his conscience. We're only twenty days into the transition; much like the worried "progressives", the happy fascist wingnut neocon would be well served to wait and see how things play out. Perhaps their sentiments will prove justified, but that doesn't change the fact that the nearest things to properly progressive Obama promised were in his health and environmental packages, which are at present mere sketches.

Even if Obama fails completely, he never promised me the Revolution, or any fundamental component thereof.

The latest is where he picked a guy for the AG post who defended (1) the non-extension of rights under the Geneva Convention to AQ types, and (2) Guantanamo bay. (Link). More please

More, please, indeed. What is the fundamental point you're trying to make on that one? I mean, it can't be what I'm thinking, because it's not even a whole point. And, well, even if it was, there would be something obvious you've missed.

So ... help me out. Just what are you trying to say on this one?

 

[spidergoat]

...Obama campaigned on a platform of being all things to all people. He sold himself as "good for what ails ya". Once he gets down to actually doing something (even the little he's done at this point, having not even taken office), he's going to piss a lot of people off. It's inevitable.

Agreed, he's going to piss off some people. The auto unions will be in conflict with the environmentalists over bail-outs to the car industry. He does want to close Guantanimo, and detainees, if they are not POWs, must be tried as criminals.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Tiassa, just imagine that, Obama lied.

 

[madanthonywayne]

He does want to close Guantanimo, and detainees, if they are not POWs, must be tried as criminals.

Trying them as criminals in American courts would mean, essentially, letting them all go. I really don't think Obama will do that. it's one thing to stand on the sidelines and decry the evil fascist tactics of the Bush administration in fighting terrorists. It's another thing entirely to be the guy in charge and let loose a bunch of potential terrorists. How would it look if Obama opened the doors of Guantanamo bay and let out all the "detainees" and then a few of them got together and set off a dirty bomb in New York City? What would that do to Obama's re-election chances? Hell, I'd say he'd have a better than even chance of being impeached.

If Obama does close Guantanamo Bay, he'll just ship the detainees to some other holding facility or to another country to be tortured to death. He might release a few of them if the evidence is absolutely clear that they should never have been picked up in the first place, but most of those guys will never get out.

 

[S.A.M.]

I hope that is not true. Bad enough you would kidnap people based on monetary incentives, but to keep them in that state because of what you did to them would be inhuman. I for one would lose what little faith I have in the justice system.

 

[ashura]

Trying them as criminals in American courts would mean, essentially, letting them all go.... It's another thing entirely to be the guy in charge and let loose a bunch of potential terrorists.

Every single native person in the Middle East is a potential terrorist. Surely we need a more substantial reason than that to hold people in places where torture is authorized?

You mention that the evidence needs to be absolutely clear that these people are innocent. Whatever happened to the idea of evidence being absolutely clear in determining a prisoner's guilt?

 

[madanthonywayne]

You mention that the evidence needs to be absolutely clear that these people are innocent. Whatever happened to the idea of evidence being absolutely clear in determining a prisoner's guilt?

That is the standard for criminals, not war or terrorism. Do you think any of these guys were read their miranda rights? Should they have been? Perhaps each soldier should be accompanied by an attorney to ensure that none of the enemies rights are violated?