Your post suffers, as most of ours do, from vagueness - what's "the left"? Who's "the left"? I mean honestly, what is "There will be tension between Obama and the left. He is not as left, and certainly not as committed to the left, as they are...." supposed to mean, anyway?

I think until we can unwind the semantics - really work harder, and with more rigor to define terms, and, in that sense, define Obama's politics much better than they have been up to now... we got nothing. That's true for the people disappointed by Obama's picks, and it's true for those who cheer him on most. It's helpful to have the murky definitions right now because, in no small part, it's what confounded the right - you can't attack what you can't define well, and find to oppose. But ultimately, most of all, Obama will be knowable. And until we really get to know what we need to know... or at least define things that need better definition, we're really all just groping at straws. That's the problem. And Ezra, I hate to say it, but I tend to expect you to have more rigor in looking for what needs to be known.

Well, I guess we'll have to wait and see what's accomplished before we can decide whether or not to be disappointed. Obama's cabinet could consist entirely of Republicans for all I care if he accomplishes the goals I think most critical. I'm mostly optimistic in my expectations (I think there's a very good chance UHC will pass in 2009), and I'm grateful (among other reasons) that it is Obama rather than McCain who will be overseeing economic recovery efforts. My main disappointments so far are his drug czar (sounds like a real clueless motherfucker according to something I just read in Salon), and his reticence on carbon taxation. Not putting a price on carbon is pretty much the moral equivalent of doing nothing about climate change.

Well, I don't know. Ideology and competence are not entirely orthogonal to one another but they're at least somewhat independent. Obama was not my first choice, or my second choice, or even my third choice because he's really too centrist by my lights. However, you certainly can't fault him on the competence front, and his choices have, I think, centered around competence.

We've been here before with Bill Clinton. I can live with people I disagree with running things as long as they're doing a good job and making the country stronger rather than weaker. I expect to be disgusted on occasion (Obama's FISA vote, for example) but tend to be more concerned about the larger picture.

Wow. No Petey yet to tell us that Ezra is a scumbag who doesn't care about progressive values, and about how Ezra and Matt Yglesias sold us Obama to further their careers.

Weird.

Most of the wonkish discussion of polarity-orientation assumes that there's some special political compass where 'north' is 'centrist' and right centrist is something NNE and left centrist is NNW.

First there's the question of pole star orientation versus magnetic north. But then the bigger question appears: is there only one compass, or is their a compass for each major issue/policy area (with breakdowns, for instance, of national defense into sub-sub categories).

Imagine being a mariner near the helm while the captain has before him 3 dozen compasses each pointing in a slightly or significantly different left/right direction around north. There is no fixed reference point.

Changing metaphors, some will like Obama's pudding taste on some issue and some won't. Since no one has even seen the pudding come out of the oven yet, it's silly to speculate and argue. Of course, I want the dark chocolate recipe, but I might be satisfied with milk chocolate if there is some crunchy nuts as well.

Nearly 80 years later, it still isn't possible to locate FDR's course through the 1930's, except by reference to specific acts (facts) and general course direction. Like all ships (back to maritime outlook), they get tossed in the waves, and the compass swings wildly right to left at any moment the observer notes. Only later can you find out exactly what course of zigs and zags went from origin to destination.

Relax, enjoy the ride!

Well....

At least Shinseki didn't suck.

Of course...

Keeping the architect of the current disastrous wars [Iraq / Afghanistan see Casey - Gates - Bush I 1970's - 80's] we are now fighting is a bit rich for me.

I guess I'm not as partisan as Chris Bowers. I don't like Gates being kept on mostly, I confess, because of symbolism. I think a clearer break with Bush/Cheney was important. But as far as having an "authentically Democratic administration", I'm interested in competence and judgement. I'd rather have had Chuck Hagel at Defense than Sam Nunn or Bob Kerrey or several other D's I can think of.

Whenever someone contradicts what he said in a campaign, some predictable apologist like Tomasky comes forward and attributes it to machiavellian cunning -- Obama's just trying to rope in the establishment, wink wink. But the appointment of Clinton is really worth pondering. He said her judgment on the war was very bad, and also, let's not forget, dismissed her claim that being the first lady was appropriate foreign policy experience, during the primaries. Why has that changed, so that she is now THE MOST EMINENTLY QUALIFIED AMERICAN for this job?

" I don't like Gates being kept on mostly, I confess, because of symbolism."

The symbolism of what? 1/2 million dead is a little more than symbolic don't ya think?
______________________________________

The Iran–Iraq War, also known as the Imposed War (جنگ تحمیلی, Jang-e-tahmīlī) and Holy Defense (دفاع مقدس, Defā'-e-moghaddas) in Iran, and Saddām's Qādisiyyah (قادسيّة صدّام, Qādisiyyat Ṣaddām) in Iraq, and the First Gulf War (حرب الخليج الأولى Ḥarb al-Khalīj al-'Ūlā) in the Arab world (the Persian Gulf War being the Second Gulf War), was a war between the armed forces of Iraq and Iran lasting from September 1980 to August 1988.

The war came at a great cost in lives and economic damage - a half a million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers as well as civilians are believed to have died in the war with many more injured and wounded - but brought neither reparations nor change in borders. It has been compared to World War I.[17] Tactics used included trench warfare, manned machine-gun posts, bayonet charges, use of barbed wire across trenches and on no-mans land, human wave attacks and Iraq's extensive use of chemical weapons (such as mustard gas) against Iranian troops and civilians as well as Iraqi Kurds.
________________________________________
"Yes, Gates will play it shrewdly, cleverly. He's a very wily man. But smart? Please permit dissent from the heartland. Gates helped create the very enemies he'll be empowered to fight. Consider the fiascos he had a hand in.

http://mach2.com/williams/index.php?t=1&c=20061117081615

* U.S. military aid for Saddam Hussein. "Gates was in charge of the directorate that prepared the intelligence information that was passed on to Iraq,” during the Iran-Iraq War, said Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin during Gates' confirmation hearings for CIA Director on Nov. 7, 1991. “The secret intelligence sharing operation with Iraq was not only a highly questionable and possibly illegal operation, but also may have jeopardized American lives and our national interests. The photo reconnaissance, highly sensitive electronic eavesdropping, and narrative texts provided to Saddam may not only have helped him in Iraq's war against Iran, but also in the recent Gulf War." In other words, Gates had a central role in turning Iraq into a regional power under Saddam. Take away Gates' aid to Saddam and two U.S.-Iraqi wars are possibly avoided.

* Iran-Contra. According to the Nov. 20 issue of Newsweek, Gates lied to Congress about this fiasco, which brought shame to the Reagan administration. During the Iran-Contra operation, America sold anti-aircraft weaponry to Iran at the same time that Gates was giving aerial targeting maps and other intelligence to Iraq. Could anything be more cynical during an Iran-Iraq War that resulted in a million casualties? But that's not all. With money gained from such sales, our government empowered the Contra “freedom fighters,” as some liked to call them, in Nicaragua, but they were terrorists by any definition of the word. This in direct violation of laws passed by Congress.

* Empowering the Taliban and al-Qaida. Gates' role in this is unclear. What is clear is that Gates at least cheered on the arming and training of fundamentalist Muslims who later resurfaced as movers and shakers inside the Taliban and al-Qaida. In his book “From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War,” Gates outlines how we began infiltrating Afghanistan with special forces during the Carter Administration. It was a self-conscious effort to lure the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan in an effort “to give the Soviets their Vietnam.” Then, under Presidents Reagan and Bush 41, we trained, armed and otherwise empowered radical fundamentalist Muslims to initiate a jihad against the Soviet Union and throw them out. The mission was successful, the Soviet Union left, but the Taliban and al-Qaida filled the vacuum and soon set their sights on us, even as we finagled for rights to build energy pipelines across their country.

* Gates headed up the Soviet Division of the CIA, and all through the 1980s, the CIA was clueless about the economic collapse of the Soviet Union. Had the CIA reported how close the Soviet Union was to economic ruin, our shadow-government might not have deemed it necessary to empower fundamentalist Muslims in Afghanistan. In short, our current miseries might've been avoided had Gates been wiser and less clever. Many other questions have been raised about him. Does he have a stake in voting machine companies, as some allege? What was his role in “the October surprise” which allegedly delayed the release of all those American hostages in Iran until after the 1980 elections?

Make no mistake. When it comes to assessing the value of human life, Gates casts a cold eye. Maybe such a perspective saves lives. Is it a defensible position to say we should be changing sides, manipulating events, undermining governments, deciding who lives, who dies? Before you answer, ask yourself this:

"Why has that changed, so that she is now THE MOST EMINENTLY QUALIFIED AMERICAN for this job?"

If Obama and his fo-po team want to pressure Israel to make politically tough concessions, of the sort Olmert and everyone knows Israel desperately needs to make, it's hard to think of someone better positioned to make that happen than Hillary Clinton. That was my first thought and hope on hearing the rumors of her appointment, before seeing similar reasoning (speculation) echoed in the blahgs.

Did this really motivate Obama's decision? Can't say yet, of course, but there's your plausible explanation as to why a genuine liberal might indeed consider Clinton "THE MOST EMINENTLY QUALIFIED AMERICAN" for the job.

I disagree with about Summers. I just don't see any reason to have brought him back. He was directly responsible for some of the worst crisises of the 90's, and was an architect of our own crisis. I mean, I understand he wasn't gonna pick a communist, but was Stiglitz too much to ask for?

i was stunned by the appointment of hillary clinton and by the jesting manner with which he addressed it with the press.
i was at a large celebratory party held for the volunteers and true believers this past weekend, and others were disappointed with the cabinet choices. we were mostly all confused by them.
it is hard to remember the things he said, and then see him act in an unapologetic and antithetical way.
in a very crucial sense, i think it is important for obama to have a sense of loyalty and/or respect to the millions of supporters who really made sacrifices of time, money and energy because they had trust in him.
i hope very much that he will not forget this. it would be a great mistake, especially to the young people who trusted in him, believed that THIS TIME IT COULD BE DIFFERENT.
a number of people have told me that these cabinet selections are all very politically astute moves.
maybe they are.
i just believed that he was telling the truth of how he really felt during the campaign about the positions of the other candidates, and his beliefs about how he saw the future.
the other day, one of the children i take care of, asked me, "if barack obama didnt agree with hillary clinton on lots of things when he was runnning for president, why did he pick her for such an important job?"
my rule of thumb is, when you cant give children a straight answer to their question, something is wrong.
passing the truth test with kids is really easy and very clarifying.
i couldnt answer the question, and any answer i would have given him, would have just been filed in the "why it is okay to say one thing and do another" bin, and i am not going to be the one to walk him in that direction.
so i just said,"i dont know why he picked her."
that answer wasnt good enough.
the real answer is....
" he said one thing to all the people who believed in him, and then he did something else."
but instead, i said, "i hope he will be a good president and do the right thing, because our country has a whole lot of problems to fix right now.
the little boy looked up and said,
"i hope so," and then asked me if i was mad and was going to take down my barack obama signs yet.
i said i was still leaving them up.
that i still believed he was going to great things. and that was the truth.
and so the truth is somewhere in between.
but i do believe that steve hildebrand spoke innapropriately and callously.
i took time off of working on a suicide and crisis hotline to devote myself to this campaign. maybe mr. hildebrand, who sent me numerous emails each day, needs to remember those of us who worked almost as hard as he did to get barack obama elected.
still hoping and praying for change we can believe in.

But what confuses me about the consternation is that save for Hillary Clinton, all of Obama's choices have been almost entirely predictable.

And even with Hillary, she was only unpredictable because of the personal history between the two; if she hadn't run for president this year, no one would have blinked an eye at this appointment.

He said her judgment on the war was very bad, and also, let's not forget, dismissed her claim that being the first lady was appropriate foreign policy experience, during the primaries. Why has that changed

Did it ever occur to you that candidates say things during campaigns about their opponents that they don't really mean?

...the leftists seem all too willing to paint Obama's actions as betrayals of his campaign promises.

You don't have to be a member of one group or another to make an objective decision as to whether Obama kept his campaign promises or not.

What Ezra et al wishes to do is now apologize for Obama breaking his promises. Ya' know the ones he made to the base when he needed their votes for the nomination.

So, if he didn't keep them because he's dishonest, then you've been *done*. If he didn't keep them because of some other reason like he now sees ____________________(new reason of choice), then he's simply a dumbshit and, again, you got *done*.

Either way, liberals wuz fucked and it wasn't like there were not voices telling them that he had no track record.

i just believed that he was telling the truth of how he really felt during the campaign about the positions of the other candidates, and his beliefs about how he saw the future. the other day, one of the children i take care of, asked me, "if barack obama didnt agree with hillary clinton on lots of things when he was runnning for president, why did he pick her for such an important job?"

It should probably tell you something that you are asking the same questions as a little child.

It's interesting to me that when Jacqueline's love for Obama and her hatred for Hillary Clinton collide, the hatred for Hillary wins out. Guess that was stronger all along!

Jacqueline is "stunned by the appointment of hillary clinton"

But a person who is responsible for the death of million[s], who accomplished his genocide outside the law...gets a pass.

Pray tell the moral precept you're working with here Jacqueline?

Pray tell the moral precept you're working with here Jacqueline?

It's more clear than ever that many of the fanatical Obama supporters going back to the primaries were in it not because of the issues, not because they wanted to help people, but because of a desire for some kind of personal affirmation.

It's no coincidence that a lot of them were baby boomer ex-hippie types.

They convinced themselves that Obama was light and Hillary was darkness, ignoring the fact that these were two politicians whose positions were virtually indistinguishable, and who said nasty things about one another NOT out of some conviction but because - SHOCK! they were running for the same office! It's almost like they were trying to get people to think badly of their opponent so that they could win!

Now cold hard reality comes crashing down on their heads, and it couldn't come soon enough.

s brennan

i read your above post....
and i wrote that i was confused and upset by several of the cabinet choices...and also feel bad that susan rice is relegated to new york.
i mentioned hillary clinton because she was the one who actually ran against him.
and jeebus, if you spend time with children, you would see that they often ask the most incisive questions can see through to the honesty of an answer very quickly.
so, i dont mind that i ask the same questions as a little child.
try giving a smart ten year old child a hypothetical, yet morally confusing question and see if their answer often doesnt contain more clarity and honesty than those that are sitting before congressional hearings this afternoon.
in general, i will go with the ten year old.

I'm not bagging on the kid. I'm suggesting that his/her question comes from a place of deep naivety. He wants to know why Barack would appoint Hillary after saying all those bad things about her because he doesn't understand that politicians often say things they don't mean, especially about their opponents in a primary campaign when they have no real substantive differences.

This is understandable because he is a child. What I don't understand is why so many adults seem to have been just as naive.

So what is Jeebus saying? That we're supposed to know which of the things Obama said in the primaries he meant, and which he didn't, by some sort of esp? Jacqueline's approach is the more mature in the dispute between her and Jeebus, because she has an agenda she believes in, not simply a person to whom she attributes all goodness, so that his divergence from promises can actually be questioned -- and not just trusted, as one would trust in God despite his mysterious behavior.

So what is Jeebus saying? That we're supposed to know which of the things Obama said in the primaries he meant, and which he didn't, by some sort of esp?

I hardly think it takes ESP to know that in a primary campaign the candidates will say things about each other that they don't really mean, and that they will take it all back the MOMENT the campaign is over.

I mean, how many times do we have to watch this happen before you get the idea? It's not ESP, it's just, like, being aware of what goes on every four years. What did John Kerry's rivals say about him before he won the nomination, and what did they say after? What did McCain say about Bush in January 2000, and what did he say about him in August 2000?

In a primary campaign, there is usually little of substance to argue about. The main Democratic candidates this year were all on the same page, for the most part. So Obama had to belittle Hillary's time as First Lady. Hillary had to suggest that Obama was unelectable.

ESP ... that's a good one. You need ESP to know not to take campaign rhetoric all that seriously. Right. When you watch a boxing match, do you always think the boxers must really hate each other? Does it surprise you when the match is over and they embrace?

jeebus

in our ongoing disputes,
i will always believe that character matters.

i believe there are defining moments.
when you look into a camera and lie,
and children and supporters are watching you.

i still believe that when you say one thing with certainty, and then say the exact opposite several weeks later, people who trust you have the right to wonder at the accountability and sudden change in your essential beliefs.
perhaps that is naive, but if your word is not your bond, if your opinions change on the wind of political expedience, it creates more of the cynicism we were working so hard to defeat, in the hope of a change that would be bringing more transparency and accountability.
a commenter wrote here a few months back, "you cant shake hands with the devil and then say you were only kidding."
but, there are so many deep problems now, and i still have great faith that the next four years will take us to a more hopeful place.....but it does begin with the character of the person in leadership. all decisions will ultimately emanate from that.
right action will be at the heart of change.

I don't understand how Obama's saying with certainty that he would be a better President than Clinton is the exact opposite of his saying Clinton is eminently qualified to be SOS. They are not the same job. Not by a long stretch, even in regards to foreign policy. The President sets policy, the SOS executes. Her judgement on whether to go to war or not can still be wrong and yet she can still perform well in a position that does not get to decide if the country goes to war. Where's the conflict?

Clinton played a diplomatic role when traveling abroad as first lady. She brings pre-existing relationships with foreign leaders into a position where creating relationships with foreign leaders is paramount. These are qualifications for head diplomat, that don't equate with qualifications for chief decision maker. She can be a great Secretary of State (which I believe she will be) and still not have been a great President.

Take, for example, the appointment of Richardson, a committed support of extending corporate wealth agreements like NAFTA across the hemisphere, to Commerce.

I am opposed. I wish it was someone else ... almost anyone else ... for that particular position.

But disappointed? Of course not ... Obama supported some of the corporate wealth agreements in the works during the primary season ... anybody who expected him to be on the side of the ground-up economic development model in Latin America was just not paying attention, or more likely substituting what they wanted to hear for what was really being said.

Clearly, that's a fight that will have to be fought through Congress.

And of course, it would have been silly to make an issue of it during the general election, as on that issue (as on most of them), McCain was far worse.

perhaps that is naive, but if your word is not your bond, if your opinions change on the wind of political expedience, it creates more of the cynicism we were working so hard to defeat, in the hope of a change that would be bringing more transparency and accountability.

Cynicism is essential to transparency and accountability. How did you ever get the idea it wouldn't be? Cynicism is good; it's when Democrats listen to David Broder and take courtesy and cooperation as goals in and of themselves that things get fucked up.

the other day, one of the children i take care of, asked me, "if barack obama didnt agree with hillary clinton on lots of things when he was runnning for president, why did he pick her for such an important job?"

Well, he said he would want Hillary as an advisor to his administration way back before the Iowa primaries.

Well of course people on the left don't expect a Democrat to govern as anything other than a standard moderate liberal. But they can at least hope otherwise, and be disappointed when their hopes are not realized. Disappointment is the essential emotion of the American left.

The conversation thus far between Obama and "DA Left":

OBAMA: My leftist policies are American policies.

DA LEFT: See, Obama is being a centrist.

OBAMA: I believe in universal healthcare, getting out of Iraq in 16 months, a 1 trillion Kensian stimulus package, climate change, re-regulation, equal rights for gays, and many of things that are American values.

DA LEFT: See, once again he's proving he's centrist. God, he may be worse than Bush. I am not saying he's worse than Bush. I am just saying maybe.

OBAMA: (Finally aknowledging Da Left and curious about the question raised by Weboy) Okay so- what do I have to do to be a part of your posse on Da Left?

DA LEFT: Ain't nothing you can do. This is about moving the overton window. So whatever you do will per se never be "da left" because even if it is progressive policy making as American values we need to leave things ill defined as to Da Left so we can push you further left. That's the only way we get what we want. By acknoledging you are most progressive President in decades- we lose the perception war of triangulating to the left.

DA END

Jacqueline's comment stings most because of her previous undiluted Obama enthusiasm...

But the apologists on the "pragmatic left" or whatever their evershifting politics are, will be there to defend these uninspired choices.

To the Obama apologists: What good is any of the BS your spewing about how we got what we deserved going to do in 2010 when you'll need an enthusiastic base to the Republicans from cleaning your clocks?

I predict that if Obama continues to make hippy bashing and corporate fealty hallmarks of his campaign, we'll probably lose the senate by 2012 and the white house as well. Obama had the opportunity to give people something to believe in, instead he seems to be choosing to shatter any belief people had in him.

godplay | December 9, 2008 8:30 PM: "DA LEFT: ... By acknoledging you are most progressive President in decades- we lose the perception war of triangulating to the left."

It should be noted that "most progressive President in decades" is an awfully low bar. Even four decades back takes us through Bush-43, Clinton, Bush-41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon. There are progressive elements one can point to for both Clinton and Carter ... but taking the more progressive half of either would still not be a full-bore progressive in economic policy.

To define the "left,liberals,progressives" is like trying to herd a group of cats into a small room. Is it too much for Obama to throw us a few bones?

Many of us have put hundreds no thousands of hours in for Obama and the rest of the Dems. We are also well aware that Obama ran on a public relations campaign that repeated the words"hope and change". Many of us did not buy it but jumped on the bus anyway and worked for him.

While I understand Obama has to play much of it down the middle...middle right (Clinton, Rahm Emmanuel, Jones, Gates) is another issue.

Obama needs to throw us some bones. A new Dept of Peace with Kucinich in the lead, Wesley Clark in some role, Ralph Nader as Car Czar something...someone who comes at the problems from a more progressive stance.

"Obama needs to throw us some bones. A new Dept of Peace with Kucinich in the lead, Wesley Clark in some role, Ralph Nader as Car Czar something..."

This is weak parody, right?

The whining and caterwalling is like music.

He's not even in office yet and already the disappointment is stark. Enjoy the next four years.