Yeah, I was a bit surprised by Greg Sargent's strong reaction. (Sirota, for all of his good work, has always been something of a loose cannon.)

I finally got around to reading Hildebrand's piece, and Sargent's, and I agree the reactions may be a little strong. Hildebrand's piece struck me as dull for the most part; it could've been a standard issue press release. But after the last twenty years of creeping DLCism, and the last seven or so years of Liebermanism/Blue Dog politics, the choice of the phrase "the left wing of our party" was particularly poorly chosen, six little words that color everything else in a rather colorless bit of boilerplate.
I and I think most progressives get that Obama is center-leftist politically and a pragmatist strategically. But using a phrase straight out of the Lieberman/Steny Hoyer 2005 playbook, in a piece apparently intended to placate "the left wing of our party" was not smart.

I read Hillebrand the same way. He's saying what Mark Schmitt has said here many times--Obama is mostly left of center in positions if pragmatic and even-tempered to the point of seeming cautious. He is trying to attract intelligent and capable people who won't overly upset but who presumably are going to be comfortable implementing his goals or they wouldn't have been offered the job.

The fear seems to be that Obama will be too cautious and incremental. But the only area where we have really seen something substantive is the stimulus package, and here he is thinking boldly, folding several substantive, progressive goals like energy sustainability and health care into major economic revitalization.

I'm satisfied, mostly even pleased at Obama's approach. It's the Congress' timidity I worry about now.

As a long-term denizen of corporate America and a relatively well-off suburb, I certainly never have considered myself the "left wing of the party." In the end I am willing to trust the Obama team's judgment, but I as a dead-center mainstream liberal have been concerned with the exclusively neo-liberal cast of his economic team. And I have to come down on the side of Sargent. I, too, had a strong negative reaction to Hildebrant's phrasing -- and frankly don't understand why any self-proclaimed liberal or progressive would not have the same reaction.

The very idea of criticizing "the left wing of the party" is obnoxious, period. People who are suspicious of the purposes and effectiveness of the Rubin-Summers brand of economics are not left. They are squarely in the mainstream of the Democratic Party, and if Hildebrand thinks otherwise he should get out of whatever rarefied cocoon he's in and find out what people think out here in the hinterlands.

If he wants to criticize those (some of whom perhaps could be called part of "the left wing") who are saying the appointments are not progressive enough, fine, that's a perspective I can respect. But even formulating the concept of an angry "left wing of the party" as the source of those criticisms -- the people who were Obama's strongest supporters and a powerful potential source of vocal support for the policies he wants to adopt -- is horrible politics as well as being simply wrong as a matter of observation.

I would add that unfortunately words matter, and laying those provocative words in there seriously undermines what supposedly the essential core of the message -- or, assuming Hildebrand understand the power of words, was it? I would also add that I think the Summers-Rubin people should be heavily there, too. Partly the financial world probably needs familiar faces at this particular juncture. They did some good things in the 90s, too, but they made some very big mistakes, too.

I've got to agree with urban legend. And I'd like to add--what is the point of this essay? who is it directed to? The vast majority of people who voted for Obama and who wanted a more forceful or articulated rejection of bushian policies are clearly backing Obama even if they'd like to see something symbolic thrown their way. They have more or less explicitly asked only for symbolic reassurance. so why send hildebrand out to give them a bitch slap, lumping them with a fantasy far far left (and really, those people aren't the "left wing" of the democratic party at all they are outside the party and always have been) and implicitly attackign them for not being "regular americans?" I really, really, dislike the gratiutous insult in the admonition that Obama promised to be president to "all americans" as though the desires of left of center *democrats* are somehow selfish and narrowly partisan. Last I checked all the policies Hildebrand is touting, specifically getting out of Iraq or national health care are *leftist policies* aimed at *helping all americans* not center right policies. to the extent that Obama has promised to represent all americans he explicitly was elected on a platform that assumed that center/left policies *did reprsent and help all americans*. Otherwise americans would have chosen the other guy who pretty much explicitly advocated for a different notion of "helping" and "americans."

aimai

Being a wild-eyed leftist, I would also like to see Hildebrand apologize profusely without any "buts," or with Klein-like limitations merely to people who were "offended," or who "misunderstood" or "misconstrued" what he meant to say. As a wild-eyed leftist, I naturally prefer Maoist approaches, and would further like to see Hildebrand's intense woodshed self-examination of why he adopted such provocative words that are, as someone said, straight out of the Lieberman-Fox news lexicon. What does it reveal about what he really thinks? If he didn't understand the significance of the words he chose, what does that lack of awareness reveal about the frames of reference he has unconsciouly adopted?

"Now isn't the time to draw conclusions..." about the ultimate value of Obama's appointments.

IOW, Hildebrand's criticism isn't STFU. Instead, it's more like please don't transform your uncertainty about Obama's appointments into conclusions about their effect on the future. You might be wrong and talking as though you know more than you do can be harmful.

Hildebrand doesn't spell it out but he piece does not actually say that criticizing Obama's choices is wrong; just that it should be tempered by the reality that we don't actually know whether supposedly centrist choices will serve the left as poorly as some people fear.

Responding to A Tversky

I agree.
That's a problem when people deviate from the status quo. What we read into commentary like Hildebrand's is always based on unspoken and mostly unrecognized biases. We take what we see, recognize patterns, and draw conclusions that are often quite arbitrary.

Marc Ambinder had a different take, basically Hildebrand is saying Obama is defining the center to include traditionally leftist position:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/the_washington_left_asserts_it.php

"In Steve Hilderband's "trust us" caution today, I see a bit of a genius move: By all means, we must reject all the concerns of the die-hard leftists, and instead, move sharply toward the center of American politics, doing such reasonable, centrist bipartisan things as bringing the troops home from Iraq, making health care affordable, and embarking on a massive public works projects and using government policy to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels."

Of course, Ambinder's no leftie, but in this case, I tend to agree more with his interpretation than David Sirota's angry retort.

And really, people should be concerned more about what policy is being implemented, rather than someone supposedly bitch-slapping them or something. If he's implementing the policy we want (I'm not saying he is or isn't, that's the point, we don't know yet, he's not the freakin' president yet), does it really matter if we feel that we are being disrespected?

They can call me dirty hippie for all I care, if that means it will be easier for universal health care to pass.

Think of it this way, do you care more about respect and recognition, or do you care more about the things you believe in being implemented?

For all the willies people are getting about "centrist" appointments, every one of them is doing so promising to push the key points of the progressive agenda, and that includes Bob Gates and Jimmy the Marine General.

Obama has to roll the media and the Republicans over hard to get his program through, and if he wants to lable National Health Insurance "centrist" to do so, I'd say go for it. Just don't mimic Republican talking points while you're about. Obama knows this even if Steve Hildebrant is shaky on the subject.

If you actually read Sirota and Sargent its a reaction to the meme that Hildebrand is pushing which has been pushed by the MSM since Nov 4th and that is that any criticism of Obama from the left is some how unreasonable and irrational. Mind you they will print EVERY article with Bill Kristol criticising the members of the Cabinet. And how many people remember the hysterical reaactions many Republicans had to Rahm Emmanuel being named Chief of Staff. But the media doesn't report that as if Jim Boehner is irrational or unreasonable. But EVERY cable news program has been trying promote some kind of split of liberals and progressives away from Obama supposedly over his cabinet picks and never do you see them name who these supposedly angry leftist libruls are. (as I type CNN is running a story about liberals being concerned about Obamas cabinet and Chris Matthews dedicated almost his whole hour of "Hardball" on the subject Hildebrand just helped to legitimize that meme with his ham handed huffpo article. Again if anybody can find me an article from a prominent leftist librul where they are throwing Obama under the bus because off his Cabinet appointments I would love to read it. But as it stands its a dishonest framing of the left so as to marginalize them and devalue their criticisms.

For everybody that thinks the left is being too hard on Obama ask yourself a question. How willing would you be to take a wait and see attitude about Cabinet appointments if John McCain had won the election? To me its hypocritical to hold someone else to a higher standard just because they are from the other party.

This from Greg Sargent to me is exactly spot on.

After all, many on "the left" have also made Hildebrand's point: They've noted that Obama should be allowed to let his actual policies do the talking, while simultaneously asking completely legit questions about what his choices portend about the future direction of his administration. If merely asking such questions is enough to incite an attack on "the left" from someone in Obama's inner circle, it seems reasonable to conclude that the motive here isn't to mend fences at all.

its a reaction to the meme that Hildebrand is pushing which has been pushed by the MSM since Nov 4th and that is that any criticism of Obama from the left is some how unreasonable and irrational.

What? On my teevee, I see centrist and conservative talking heads praising Obama's picks and rubbing their thighs gleefully about how angry those "leftist bloggers" must be. Sirota/Seargent's hysterical over-reaction of milquetoast press-release calibre boilerplate fits very nicely into the script.

ed hardy ed hardy clothing
ed hardy clothing

If you don't know about jewelry knowledge, but want to action you can see jewelry fashion review,then maybe you can save your money!