still feeling the hope? [rquoter]Obama Throws No Bones to Progressive Base By Matthew Rothschild, November 19, 2008 When is Obama going to appoint someone who reflects the progressive base that brought him to the White House? He won the crucial Iowa caucuses on the strength of his anti-Iraq War stance, and many progressive peace and justice activists worked hard for him against John McCain. So why in the world is he choosing Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State when she was one of the loudest hawks on Iraq and threatened to obliterate 75 million Iranians? And it’s not just Hillary. Obama’s OMB pick, Peter Orzag, is a Clintonite disciple of Robert Rubin. Obama’s AG pick, Eric Holder, is a Clintonite who represented Chiquita Bananas. And Larry Summers’s name is still being bandied about for Treasury, even though Summers, while Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, forced the deregulation of our financial markets and imposed disaster capitalism on Russia. Worse still, heading Obama’s transition team on intelligence matters are two former deputies to George Tenet, of all people. (See Amy Goodman’s great story about this on Democracy Now!) Look, there are a lot of talented progressives who could be in an Obama cabinet. Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Prize-winner in economics and a critic of corporate globalization. He should be Treasury Secretary. Senator Russ Feingold is a champion of civil liberties. He should be Attorney General. Robert Greenstein is head of Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He would make a much better OMB director. Arlene Holt Baker, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO, would be a tremendous Secretary of Labor. And if Obama really wanted change, if he really wanted to honor progressives who backed him early on and then did the grunt work against McCain, he’d nominate Dennis Kucinich as Secretary of State. That sure would indicate a welcome departure from empire as usual. But at this point, progressives are getting absolutely nothing from Obama.[/rquoter]
obama has never claimed to be a progressive liberal. but i'm sure the liberals appreciate your concern for them
I will tell you again. Find Trade_Jorge's ass and insert your head. That's where your intellegence lies....
I would be all for Russ Fiengold as Attorney General but how can anyone with a straight face talk about Kucinich as Secretary of State. For that matter why does Kucinich deserve to be appointed to any cabinet position for doing grunt work against McCain. After the primaries I don't recall Kucinich doing that much for the Obama campaign. My guess is if anything Obama wanted Kucinich as far away from him as he could get.
Its true Obama himself hasn't and if anything a few of his recent votes would indicate that he isn't. I think though that many liberals have put a lot of faith into Obama. While no doubt a lot of this was due to finding a candidate who could put an end to Republican control of the Whitehouse I think a lot of liberals are expecting him to govern more to the left than I suspect he will.
And misleading too.. While Obama might not be governing as a radical progressive I don't think you can argue that in the US political spectrum people like Hillary Clinton, Janet Napoliano and Eric Holder aren't progressives. The writer seems to mistake being in the Clinton Admin. as somehow equating not being a progressive.
Now if Obama would just start an unnecessary war or two, Basso might go back to the original lie that he was "open to Obama".
Keep in mind that the original candidate the progressive community supported was John Edwards. It wasn't until after it was clear he was going to lose that they picked Obama over Clinton, who they really dislike (presumably for the Iraq vote, but not sure). Obama has never been a progressive - he's always been very much a concensus-building moderate.
I think New Yorkers are bitter about a ton of other things than Obama's victory. If anything Obama's victory has been honey to the psychological palate of New Yorkers than the plate of raw hops (financial meltdown, Yankees sucking, Mets melting down) they've been fed recently.
John Edwards had a lot of progressive support early on but I think Obama had more. If I recall correctly Move On supported Obama early and given that it was two years that the Obama Macintosh ad came out that was made by progressives upset by what they percieved as the DNC shoving Clinton down their throats I think Obama has always had very strong liberal and progressive support.
Yes, thanks. Obama is not king, he's president. He has to judge who's going to be effective in implementing his policies and carrying out his vision while working within our system of government. I'd much rather he be practical instead of ideological (that worked so well for you Repubs). Democrats know how to govern, Repubs only know how to campaign and so far I see Obama picking people based on their ability to make government work and not on their ability to score political points. And really, the idea of Kucinich as SOS is laughable. Still, if you're that concerned about whether progressives are getting a fair shake or not, I will bet you that an Obama administration ends up being greatly more progressive than the Bush administration was "compassionate."
