Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiLiberals Wonder When Obama’s Team Will Reflect Them
CHICAGO - President-elect Barack Obama's appointments have tilted so much to the political center that they have drawn praise from the likes of Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh. That alone would seem enough to set off a revolt in his liberal base. But a month into Mr. Obama's transition, many on the political left are trying to hold their tongues.
![[President-elect Barack Obama’s team is being cast as centrist. (Jim Wilson/The New York Times)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/1209-2.jpg "1209-2.jpg")
In assembling his team to date, Mr. Obama has largely passed over progressives, opting to keep President Bush's defense secretary, tapping a retired general close to Senator John McCain and recruiting economists from the traditionally corporate, free-trade, deficit-hawk wing of the party. The choices have deeply frustrated liberals who thought Mr. Obama's election signaled the rise of a new progressive era.
But so far, they are mainly muting their protest, clinging to the belief that Mr. Obama still means what he said on the campaign trail and remaining wary of undermining what they see as the most liberal president sent to the White House in a generation. They are quietly lobbying for more liberals in the next round of appointments, seeking at least some like-minded voices at the table. And they are banking on the idea that no matter whom he installs under him, Mr. Obama will be the driving force for the change they seek.
"It's a great question - one that many of us have been trying to avoid," said Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona, the incoming co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, when asked last week how liberals viewed Mr. Obama's team. "The euphoria of the election is still there, and still there for me. It's not a question of benefit of the doubt. It's a question of trust, and I trust that we're going to be moving in the right direction."
As it happens, Mr. Grijalva is the focus of some of that trust. The Obama transition team has let it be known that he is under consideration for secretary of the interior, and many liberals have made that possible nomination a litmus test for whether Mr. Obama really is serious about including them in the top echelon of his government.
Others are swallowing concerns about personnel to concentrate instead on policy. Some see a New Deal for the 21st century in Mr. Obama's plans to push an economic recovery program that would devote hundreds of billions of dollars to infrastructure projects, social safety-net programs and environmentally friendly industry.
"He ran on such a progressive agenda, if he's not breaking away from that, if he's getting centrists to implement it, we'll take that," said Robert L. Borosage, president of the Institute for America's Future and once a top adviser to Jesse L. Jackson's presidential campaign.
Markos Moulitsas, founder of the influential Daily Kos site on the Internet, said it was way too early to begin judging Mr. Obama. "Some people may be nit-picky about his choices but at the end of the day, he's going to make better choices than John McCain would have made," Mr. Moulitsas said by telephone. "There will be a time to push him, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm going to wait to see what it means on a policy basis, not on personalities."
Some bloggers have been less patient. "Why isn't there a single member of Obama's cabinet who will be advising him from the left?" asked Chris Bowers on his site, OpenLeft.com. Kevin Drum, writing on the Web site of the liberal magazine Mother Jones, echoed that sentiment: "I mean, that is why most of us voted for him, right?"
In an opinion article for The Washington Post on Sunday, David Corn, the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones, wrote that "progressives are - depending on whom you ask - disappointed, irritated or fit to be tied." But he added that "there's no rebellion yet at hand" because the left still is hoping that Mr. Obama will hijack the establishment to advance liberal causes.
Mr. Obama's loyalists have appealed for calm.
"This is not a time for the left wing of our party to draw conclusions about the cabinet and White House appointments that President-elect Obama is making," Steve Hildebrand, one of his top campaign aides, wrote on The Huffington Post in a message to progressives on Sunday. "Some believe the appointments generally aren't progressive enough. Having worked with former Senator Obama for the last two years, I can tell you, that isn't the way he thinks and it's not likely the way he will lead."
The mixed emotions on the left reflect a larger uncertainty about how to view Mr. Obama. Although National Journal deemed him the most liberal senator based on major votes and many liberals flocked to his campaign, Mr. Obama ran more on inspiration than ideology and has not always adopted the orthodoxy of the left. He proposed expanding health care coverage but does not favor a government-run single-payer system. He has criticized the Bush counterterrorism policies but voted for a compromise surveillance bill.
In the weeks since his election, Mr. Obama or his advisers have signaled that he might delay some promises that appealed to progressives, like raising taxes on the wealthy, reopening negotiations over the North American Free Trade Agreement and ending restrictions on gay men and lesbians in the military. While renewing his desire to withdraw combat forces from Iraq in 16 months, he has emphasized that he will listen to alternatives presented by the military.
Some liberals said they would have only themselves to blame if their expectations were not met. "So many progressives were misled about what Obama is and what he believes," Glenn Greenwald wrote in the online magazine Salon. "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."
At the same time, Mr. Obama arrives in office at a moment when the political dialogue has shifted to the left. Ideas that used to be considered on the fringe are now much more centrist, including heavy government spending in the short term to lift the economy and addressing energy and climate change through green technology. The debate over Iraq no longer is whether to withdraw troops but how quickly.
Even some of his appointees have evolved in their views. Lawrence H. Summers, the former Treasury secretary chosen to be Mr. Obama's chief White House economic adviser, talks much more about income inequality, financial industry regulation and other favorite causes of the left. "The Larry Summers of 2008 is not the Larry Summers of 1993 or 1999," said Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation, a liberal magazine.
Ms. vanden Heuvel has been more critical of the national security team, to be anchored by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state, with Robert M. Gates staying on as defense secretary and Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser. In her magazine, Ms. vanden Heuvel asked why those who had opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, as Mr. Obama did, do not seem to have a place on the team.
Yet she said liberal activists must learn to work from the inside when possible while also pushing from the outside when necessary. "Progressives need to be as clear eyed, tough and pragmatic about Obama as he is about us," she said in an interview last week. "It's too early to tell."
While hewing mostly to the center, Mr. Obama did heed the left in giving up on John O. Brennan, a longtime Central Intelligence Agency officer who was in line to lead the agency, after complaints about his views of interrogation programs. Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. named a liberal economist, Jared Bernstein, as an adviser last week. And Mr. Obama said on Sunday his choice for veterans affairs secretary would be Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the retired Army chief of staff who became a hero to Iraq war opponents for his public clash with top Bush administration officials over troop levels.
Having lost out in most of the top-tier positions, liberals are pushing favorites for remaining jobs: Mr. Grijalva for the Interior Department, Representative Xavier Becerra of California for United States trade representative, Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts for energy secretary and Jim McGovern of Massachusetts for agriculture secretary.
"We assume that there will be a philosophical balance when we're all through with this," said Representative Lynn Woolsey of California.
Tim Carpenter, national director of Progressive Democrats of America, which was founded in 2004 out of frustration with Senator John Kerry's position on the Iraq war, said the retention of Mr. Gates was "startling" and complained that as Mr. Obama builds his team, "everybody he's bringing in is to the right of him." But he expressed cautious optimism.
"Change is in the air," Mr. Carpenter said. "The question is what kind of change. We hope Barack Obama will be a more progressive president."
43 Comments so far
Show All"Let's put it this way... if the people are not responsible for their government, then who the hell is?"
We're not responsible for our gov't. They don't represent the interests of the average American anymore than anyone else in the world.
"If it wasn't for the consent of the people, the government could not do the evil things they do."
They don't consent to it. Polls have shown that the American people want to see progressive reform. History has also shown us dissent and protest are very much American ideals.
"Therefore, the people are complicit in the crimes of their government."
No they are not. Because again, our gov't doesn't represent us.
It's like saying all Israelis are Zionists and that everyone in Saudi Arabia is a terrorist. Are all Germans anti-semites? Are all Hindus Islamophobic?
Another thing you have to keep in mind is that the ruling class stifles solidarity and dissent. Americans work hard, too hard. They're distracted by other things. The media, food, drink, and often times simply how to make ends meet.
The majority of us are not trogolodytes or cowboys who think everything our gov't is doing is ok. Hell, polls even bear out the fact that the American people mostly distrust their own gov't.
Let's all take a dip into the cynicism "everything sucks" pool now.
Jesus.
"I could go on and on.... but that being said, I have met some Americans who don't suck... I have met many that do."
And where exactly are you from?
Wow.
I'm less than impressed with Obama myself, but come on.
Let's put it this way... if the people are not responsible for their government, then who the hell is? If it wasn't for the consent of the people, the government could not do the evil things they do. Therefore, the people are complicit in the crimes of their government.
I just heard Obama's speech. I was impressed by what he didn't say. Until he proves differently put me down as an Obama fan.
Tom Daschle for HHS? He is a good choice. He wrote a book slamming the state of heath-care in America. The role of the insurance companies. Right the heck on. I'll be interested to see him crucified on Common Dreams, where all things Obama are, but personally I think he is a good choice.
"Liberals Wonder When Obama’s Team Will Reflect Them"
Stop wondering. It will never happen.
Mr. Obama is a corporate shill.
The corporations took your pensions, your jobs, your health care, your kids educations, your food supply, your sexual behavior, your banks, and your money.
They have it all. And you think Mr. Obama is the "change we can believe in?"
Suckers.
The whole system is rotten. The doomsday machine will be oiled by the blood of however many innocent victims it takes to keep it running. Obama is a pretty face on a tumor. He's the new captain of a sinking ship. The semi-black figurehead of Neoliberal Capitalism.
Corporate America will expand its dominance, but will look slightly less stupid while doing so. Period.
Hooray for change. Our president will now speak in grammatically correct sentences.
All the better to reassure us as we continue to pursue our collective demise.
"Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torments of man."
-Friedrich Nietzsche:
"He who has never hoped can never despair."
-George Bernard Shaw
I'm worried and disheartened also, of course I've been seeing Obama for the soft Republican that he is from the get go.
Nonetheless, I still feel that we dodged the meteor in McCain, I still am proud that I voted for Nader, and I still think that despite Obama's imperfections (timidity, fear of rocking the boat too much, who knows?) he can be moved.
Get angry, but don't get too cynical. WE have a shot here.
It's funny, I get angry at the right-wingers who hate him (we all know why), the two lefty camps. One lefty camp is blinded with love and enthralled with his rhetoric and the symbolism of it all, apologizing for him to no end and think Nader is evil.
"Obama's not even in office yet!"
He might as well be. Jeez.
Then you have the other camp that's throwing up their hands and wallowing in defeat, ennui, and a sort of nihilism.
I catch hell from all three sides.
The people have gotten change through roaring before, it'll happen again. Hell, it just did in Chicago.
Hold the man accountable and call him on his BS. The time for hate (move to Siberia already), pessimism, and singin' nd swayin' is over.
"Barack Obama's appointments have tilted so much to the political center"
Ummm... No, it's not the political center. it's the RIGHT OF CENTER. What you Americans consider "Center" would be thought of as RIGHT WING anywhere else in the world. Americans have been brainwashed into accepting Right-wing thought as gospel. It's not.
As far as "When Obama's team will reflect liberals"... the answer is simple. NEVER.
Obama is NOT about progressive ideals... or leftist thought. He is about returning the status-quo to the political atmosphere of the Clinton era. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been duped.
Come on people. THINK! Look at who he's surrounding himself with. It's the Clinton-era imperialists. THAT is what you can expect.
I hate to say I told you so. Is it too early to do that? To all those who vilified me and other who were not overjoyed when Obama won the election I say screw you, idiots. My opinion of the American voter has not improved any. Well, lets see how bad things can get, and perhaps that will breed a few more radicals.
The reason the American peoples' opinions on many issues are ignored is in Congress. The issues are fake debated on the floor while the cash deals in the back room set the legislation. Any issue that is not settled in advance never really comes before Congress to fight it out in aggressive debate.
Now that we have teleconferencing, each member of the House should be in the district he is supposed to represent for most of the time. The Senators should be in an office in the State they represent. This might make it slightly harder for perverts and crooks that occupy office to hide their evil from the constituents.
If I were rich I would offer a reward for the arrest and conviction of any politician for illegal acts involving their job, and any documented moral lapse like conflict of interest. I would give a bonus for perp walks and legal citizen arrests of politicians with video on the Internet. Caught in the act stuff, like 'wide stance Craig' and other hypocrites who preach law and order and family values while involved in prostitution, drugs, and pedophilia could win the big prize.
Folks, don't we pride ourselves on being the reality-based community? Then, get real. The American electorate is not "far left," and the voters did not give Obama a "progressive mandate." He was elected to end the Iraq war and fix the American economy. Most Americans do not view those as ideological problems. They MAY be wrong about that, sure, but *perception* is everything. And unless you make the electorate's perceptions match with your (far-left's) perceptions, your bus is headed for a ditch.
Obama's been very clear about the fact that he will govern from the center. In a world that desperately needs balance rather than ideological extremes, I welcome that. The answer to extremism IS NOT MORE EXTREMISM. Stop acting like kids in the schoolyard, pissed off because Johnny got 10 pieces of candy while you only got 8. I would expect that from conservatives, but not from our own!
Really?
On what issues are not the majority in agreement with the Left?
Healthcare? Ending the war in Iraq? The environment?
You name it and the left OWNS the issues--but they don't own the spin. The Democratic party has failed because they don't own the issues--they would rather embrace the spin and Obama is falling right in line.
Think about it, fool. Most people in a blind test solely on the issues aligned themself with Kucinich.
Idiots like you echo the spin that keeps people ironically opposed to their own interests by maligning the left--or liberal baiting when the Left is not an extremist position--but rather, based in reality, smack dab in the center.
"Really?
On what issues are not the majority in agreement with the Left?"
Vern, in no particular order, off the top of my head,
1) Free Mumia. 2) Tree sitting. 3) Banning guns. 4) Hawaii/Alaska/Puerto Rico succession. 5) Supporting Palestinian terrorist organizations like Hamas. 6) Nader. 7) The Greens. 8) Single Payer. 9) "Out Now". 10) "Don't support the troops". 11) The re-distribution of wealth. 12) Cutting the military budget. 13) Impeachment. 14) Criminalizing over-consumption. 15) Defending antisemitism. 16) Save the whales or spotted owls or whatever. 17) Gay marriage. 18) Supporting the ACLU. 19) Supporting atheism. 20) Nuclear disarmament. 21) Obama-bashing. Etc... Need more?
If people "really" had values like Kucinich, then why wouldn't they vote for him in the primaries? You can't make a "lesser evil" argument when picking between democrats. If voters had values like Kucinich then he should have won the nomination.
We chose Obama. Whether you will admit it or not, Obama represents our values, not Kucinich, or any other divisive far-left wingnut.
> If people "really" had values like Kucinich, then why wouldn't they vote for him in the primaries?
Beats me. But the polls show that the people generally agree with Ralph Nader. 'Tis a mystery. Most people think that their candidate agrees with them. Often when presented with their candidate's actual policies they can't accept them.
The average man not only has no clue, he/she makes stuff up on his own and firmly believes it.
People don't seriously think things through. If you are a right-winger, then someone says something about gays and abortion being bad, guns being good, and defending America and expanding the military being important. Some rhetoric about this stuff will suffice. Very few actually read between the lines.
Folks listen to what the news tells them. They regurgitate talking points at work and pretend they actually know something.
People on the left. They hear a little something about change and ending the war (but not right away, and not really) and they grasp onto it regardless of the facts.
People don't vote for the Greens or Kucinich or Nader because they don't ever actually hear more from them besides a couple sound bites followed by pundits discrediting them as wackos. The military-industrial-media complex prefers it this way. And when you do cut through the spin and the soundbites, on commonsense issues (the ones most are taking issue with Obama for not speaking out on) the majority of us agree.
It isn't being on the fringe or being radical to suggest that we stop the global meltdown of the ecological systems that allow us to exist, and simultaniously stop blowing up little kids. That's just called not having your head up your ass.
The article title should say "A Few Liberals Wonder When Obama’s Team Will Reflect Them".
Those liberals should wait and see.
I have always believed that each of us needs to look at actions not words. When Obama says that he believes in negotiation over military intervention then appoints primarily hawks to his inner cabinet negotiation is not what I would expect as the first response to any conflict. When he says he strongly apposes FISA but votes for it I say he is not supporting the rights of individual americans. When he says he will get troops out of Iraq in 16 months then appoints people that appose that he will either redefine a huge number of troops as just the remaining police force or he will waffle of his promise of 16 months. When he says that he will abolish the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy or the exorbitant profits of the oil companies then waffles on that he is not being honest with the people who elected him to do just that His appointments do mean something. He is building a substantial momentum by his appointments to continue the current foreign policies of the Bush administration that are so objectionable to the American people, our allies and people around the world. When you want divergent opinions you seek the council of others that have different opinions you do not bring them into your cabinet to set policy. I believe that all progressives that funded, canvassed and campaigned for Obama have the right to expect him to be honest about what he would commit to try and do and to follow through with those commitments in his appointments and his policies. So far that has not been the case!
"This is not a time for the left wing of our party to draw conclusions about the cabinet and White House appointments that President-elect Obama is making,"
Why not? How do you not draw conclusions based on observations? I have learned not to trust others who say "You don't have to think, I have this covered." Who the heck are they? Pardon me if I take responsibility for my own thoughts and stances.
The right wing is always aggressive and very rich. Why should the relatively weak left self-censor? When is the right time to bring up things like lack of accounting on the bailout or the folly of trying to "win" militarily in Afghanistan? Constructive criticism should never go out of style in a democracy.
To be fair - I was encouraged and gratified by Obama's stated support for the Republic workers. Never would get that from the preppy loser and his evil sidekick.
Joe
Constructive criticism should never go out of style in a democracy.
To be fair - I was encouraged and gratified by Obama's stated support for the Republic workers. Never would get that from the preppy loser and his evil sidekick.
Amen!
The omens are not very good, but omens are not the same as what will be. Progressives will know within three to four months (120 days)whether Obama is leading his adminstrative team or they are leading him. Either way, based on what has or has not been done by his adminstration at that time, progressives should stop talking and start acting.
Assuming that this Bush-lite cabinet pretty much reflects their president the actions among others that ought to be contemplated are:
Removing yourself from the fabled multi-million name data base of internet addresses being used by the Obama campaign.
Organizing to recruit alternative candidates to run agaisnt blue dog Democrats like Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Lieberman, Diane Feinstein, etc. Then, support alternative candidates (otherwise known as 3rd. party candidates) or stay at home on election day.
Constant in your face protest by means of vigils, picketing, boycotting of town meetings, etc.
But until next May 20, (and especially not until after January 20, 2009), let's not jump to conclusions too quickly. By then we will have the amunition necessary to either smooth the way for an Obama adminstration or to turn it into a living hell for Barack and all his allies if they choose to be pale, stale, Bush-clones.
Poet
in a way:
while obama deserves great credit for organizing his campaign so well, borne out of his, he ought NOT to forget, own grassroots, community organizer background - and which ought to reflect in his policies - it also has the danger of becoming calcified just like previous times in which the democrats - KNOWING that the ":left" or progressives have "nowhere to go but the Lesser evil" as generally been the case (only because there are a few more principled politicians in the democratic party, even if MARGINALIZED) . and if that is what will turn out, obama will find out, if he has not ALREADY, that he TOO will be trapped by the establishment and the very same forces that have brought america to where it NOW -- which HE claims to want to improve and fix.
what is happening, from the bailouts , to the "govern from the center" - even perhaps to "CHANGE"-ing the FACE of programs institutionalized more openly by bush in promotion of the same american empire project , is that obama might end up or ALREADY has decided to end up merely giving cosmetic changes to such things as "presidential executive orders" on "interrogation" , imprisonment, spying, etc.
I have a feeling - there will NOT be many changes from that. the USA is now too DEEPLY entrenched in these things and the parties with interest in this are too strong. i am not optimistic at all.
to begin with - although obama is probably the much better choice than McCain - obama was , seemingly, NEVER really a progressive politician, or at least, not one WILLING and ABLE to make the fundamental , BASIC changes in american structures and USE the bully pulpit FOR it. he might prove to be TOO MUCh of a "consensus builder" whose consensus will be defined by --- the entrenched interests: the military/industrial complex, the corporate interests, wall street, big business, etc....and ALL the supposed Changes -- will be designed MORE to "preserve" or "save" the structure as IT IS FOUNDED, rather than truly serve the interests of individuals and the people as a whole.
i think this can be summed up in different ways. one way is by a phrase :
:SAVING THE BANKS, save the corporations, save the financial structure, save the WAY of doing things by "fixing it", "save" homeland security by incarcerating SUSPECTS in CITY jails rather than guantanamo, "save" the SURGE in iraq and afghanistan, save the Missile Defense by MAKING SURE the BUDGET is proper and the missiles "actually work".......... in ORDER to save the people.
when it should be the OTHER way around, save the people in order to save everything ELSE.
in other words -- a different , less boastful face, but the same underlying policies.
we shall know soon enough , in practice.
but one thing can almost be certain - this path is NOT going to "save" the USA from its own eventual collapse.
like with wars -- which in this case , missile defense postures being WARLIKE already - as benjamin franklin warned:
"WARS are not paid in full while they are waged...the REAL bill comes later".
same with the policies that brought things to this stand..and if obama MERELY tries to "fix" them to 'save' the system -- he has already missed the fundamental problem:
the SYSTEM ITSELF is ROTTEN! it's not about "bad apples in a barrel"
it's about the BARREL of ROTTEN apples.
I am just glad he didnt make Bill Richardson the secretary of the Interior.
The guy loves hunting--canned hunting, even cockfighting.
From a counterpunch article by Martha Rosenberg:
Richardson defended the "sport" on the Tonight Show in 2006 saying there were "good arguments" on both sides of the debate over its legality.
Really?" retorted host Jay Leno. "What's the good argument for cockfighting? [It] keeps roosters off the street? It gives those roosters without any skills a chance to make it? What reason is there for cockfighting?"
Slow news day. Mr. Baker? January 21, 2009 and thereafter is the time for such articles. I suspect there are a lot of folks who thought they were getting a job that may be bemoaning who is getting tapped and who is not.
I take Mr. Obama's Groupthink comments as accurately representing what he is doing.
Give it a rest!
First, we all need to be patient folks! GWB has made such a terrible mess of this country that the whole world has been affected by it. I am one of the most liberal people around and I truly believe in Obama. He has to play it safe, he has to play this fast, and he has to have people that he knows can make it happen. He is focused on the economy first because it is crashing! People are losing their jobs and homes and unions are being busted.
The people that he is chosing may not be our favorite people, but they are smart and can get the job done. Once the economy is stable, he WILL (I truly believe) will make all of us proud. When I say all of us, I am including the right as well. This country has been divided too long. I don't agree with MOST (actually, probably ALL) of what the right has to say, but I am smart enough to know that in these terrible times, we need everyone together to bring our country back to greatness. If it takes Hillary and gang, so be it!
"we need everyone together to bring our country back to greatness. If it takes Hillary and gang, so be it!"
How naive.
Was the US "great" during the Clinton era? Hardly. In fact, I can't think of a time when the US really was great. It's always been an imperialistic, genocidal bully. That doesn't sound great to me. Perhaps to you folks who live in the US and have had that patriotic bullshit shoved down your throats from an early age, the US may seem great, but to the rest of us, you suck.
Hey now, easy does it! Who sucks? Our government? The common people? Who, me? I suck?
Hey, not all of us Gringos suck, you know. Many of us suck, I will admit. But we are just human beings, like you. Some of us live in New Jersey, some of us live in New Guinea. Some of us live in New Mexico, and some of us live in old Mexico. Some of us suck, and some of us give. I wouldn't be so quick to generalize.
Where are you from? England? Australia? New Zealand? South Africa? Canada? Russia? China? Columbia? Uzbekistan? Are you so blessed as to have been born or immigrated to a country with a government and a population that doesn't suck? So no one on your side of a political line drawn on a map sucks?
In defense of the US of A, it's not a bad place to live, really. Could be worse. There are many things that suck here, but many other things make up for that. I could fill up 3 pages with a list of things that don't suck about the United States, and admittedly at least as long a list of things that do suck.
I'm reminded of the Monte Python movie: The Life of Brian. There's a group of zealots sitting around the table complaining about the Roman government (and I paraphrase). "What has Rome ever done for us?" "They gave us roads!" "Well yes, besides that?" "Aqueducts" "Yes, of course, but besides that, what has Rome ever done for us?" "Hospitals." "Theaters." "Libraries." "Universities!" "Well, OK, besides that?!!"
So think about it, what has America really done for the rest of the world? What has America really ever given us? The cotton gin, the telegraph, electricity, the light bulb, automobiles, refrigeration, television, telephones, airplanes, computers, the internet... Well yes, but besides all that??? Oh yeah, Hollywood, Disneyland, the nuclear bomb... Yeah, I guess we do kinda suck, don't we? Sorry!
So what are you and the rest of the world going to do about it? May I suggest a general boycott of all American goods and services. Don't buy or use anything made in America or invented by an American. You can start with your computer. Then throw out your telephone. In fact, box up anything in your house that even reminds you of America and send it back to America. That'll teach us!
Aw....we're not that bad! We have some redeeming qualities.
IF you put all the good stuff the US has done on one side of the scale, and all the bad stuff the US has done on the other... you will undoubtedly have far more bad stuff.
I hate how many americans live in a xenophobic little bubble... never able to see past the jingoistic bullshit they've been fed all their lives.
I hate the US brand of predatorial capitalism that places profit before everything else, including the viability of humans as a species to survive.
I hate how the US can't keep their bullshit inside their own borders. The feel the need to try to re-make the world in their own image.
I hate how the US thinks it's the "greatest country in the world". Considering the country of one's birth is completely by chance, it's foolish to be proud of it.
I hate how the US considers itself to be the "leader of the free world". That's only because you have the most guns and everyone else is scared of you.
I could go on and on.... but that being said, I have met some Americans who don't suck... I have met many that do.
drummergirl,
You are exactly right.
"Liberals Wonder When Obama’s Team Will Reflect Them?"
It already does. Pay attention.
Remember when French fries were renamed "freedom fries"?
Get this, Obama's national security adviser Gen. Jones speaks french!
"The people that he is chosing may not be our favorite people, but they are smart and can get the job done."
That merely begs the question of what "job" will be getting done. The people who are going to be deciding that are the people he is picking, and they're all rightist scum. It isn't a matter of them being "favorites"; it's a matter of them being incompetent, offensive, and fundamentally wrong. And they're what we're going to be stuck with for the next 4 years. There's isn't a penny's worth of wisdom in advising people to sit around with their thumbs lodged in their orifices while hoping for the best.
To put a finer point on this, the Obama administration hasn't even begun, and it's already a failure. Nothing will come from this pile of rubbish he's assembled except a particularly rank smell.
---
Left Hook! The Blog
http://claslib2.tripod.com/pow/
hopefully you are wrong, and i am wrong too about misgivings on the "writings on the wall" with his cabinet. etc.
but it seems to me that what is going to be practiced is a form of "putting on make-up" on a zombie-like cadaver...a system that is through and through already ROTTEN. from its war making , to its empire project, to its "military/industrial/congressional complex" power structure (words by Ike Eisenhower)...and all the other evils and intellectual , moral and financial corruption that emanate from those.
aside from its misguided "capitalist" free market fundamentalism innard that is the most ROTTEN aspect of it, its own foreign policy is that of a fullblown WAR ECONOMY (whether it is through military wars or economic wars)....
and ordinary americans are suffering for it, even as they try to do their best just to "run in pace" with where they are being led....towards an abyss of PERMANENT decline and the eventual loss of everything that was ONCE the best about being an american.
i think this is what will happen eventually - so long as the path is taken the way even obama seems to want to continue "under new management" ONLY..but NEVER deviating from the PATH.....
Hillary is rightist scum? Jim Jones? Incompetent? You must be looking at a different list sir.
Hillary IS to the right of center Thomas...
elmysterio
Hello my friend.....but look at it this way, she is certainly to the left of Condi Rice! Can't argue with that can you???? (LOL)
I'm just hoping that Obama sets a good course.
she is to the left of condi... but not by much.
"Hillary is rightist scum?"
Damn right, and of the worst sort. It took Obama months on the campaign trail to beat back that damned triangulating harpy, and the people who made the rounds knocking on doors, registering record numbers of new voters, forking over huge amounts of campaign cash they couldn't really afford to give, and turned up at the polls in droves to help him accomplish that and then to make him president didn't do it so he could then turn around and make her Secretary of State to garner the praise of Rush Limbaugh and Henry Kissinger.
"Jim Jones?"
Those same people didn't help Obama defeat McCain so he could then turn around and appoint a McCain protege, either.
"Incompetent? You must be looking at a different list sir."
I'm looking at the people he has actually appointed. Perhaps you should start doing the same before it's too late.
---
Left Hook! The Blog
http://claslib2.tripod.com/pow/
I've been faily pleased with his appointments so far, except for Richardson. I hope you are wrong. I can assure you thast you are wrong about at least one. Jim Jones is first class.
We'll all know in 6 months from now though.
Hope you are right. Meanwhile, I hope he is telling the bailout managers that he will be reviewing their books very carefully as soon as he gets in office. I hope he will ask where the money went. No more disappearing tax money like in Iraq.
Joe
And I REALLY hope you are right!
What a wonderful and realistic viewpoint. Thanks for your comment.