Liberals Voice Real Concern About Obama

[John317]

Liberals voice concerns about Obama

Carol E. Lee, Nia-Malika Henderson – Mon Dec 8, 4:22 am ET

Featured Topics: Barack Obama Presidential Transition

Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.

Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.

Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.

“He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it's all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,” said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.

OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: “Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?”

Even supporters make clear they’re on the lookout for backsliding. “There’s a concern that he keep his basic promises and people are going to watch him,” said Roger Hickey, a co-founder of Campaign for America’s Future.

Obama insists he hasn’t abandoned the goals that made him feel to some like a liberal savior. But the left’s bill of particulars against Obama is long, and growing.

Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he won’t enact the tax.

Obama’s pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts favored the wealthy. But now he’s struck a more cautious stance on rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling he’ll merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.

Obama’s post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed. As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.

Now Obama’s says that on his first day in office he will begin to “design a plan for a responsible drawdown,” as he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday. Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role.

The central premise of the left’s criticism is direct – don’t bite the hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect. The Internet that helped him so much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.

“There don't seem to be any liberals in Obama's cabinet,” writes John Aravosis, the editor of Americablog.com. “What does all of this mean for Obama's policies, and just as important, Obama Supreme Court announcements?”

“Actually, it reminds me a bit of the campaign, at least the beginning and the middle, when the Obama campaign didn't seem particularly interested in reaching out to progressives,” Aravosis continues. “Once they realized that in order to win they needed to marshal everyone on their side, the reaching out began. I hope we're not seeing a similar ‘we can do it alone’ approach in the transition team.”

This isn’t the first liberal letdown over Obama, who promptly angered the left after winning the Democratic primary by announcing he backed a compromise that would allow warrantless wiretapping on U.S. soil to continue.

Now it’s Obama’s Cabinet moves that are drawing the most fire. It’s not just that he’s picked Clinton and Gates. It’s that liberal Democrats say they’re hard-pressed to find one of their own on Obama’s team so far – particularly on the economic side, where people like Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers are hardly viewed as pro-labor.

“At his announcement of an economic team there was no secretary of labor. If you don’t think the labor secretary is on the same level as treasury secretary, that gives me pause,” said Jonathan Tasini, who runs the website workinglife.org. “The president-elect wouldn't be president-elect without labor."

During the campaign Obama gained labor support by saying he favored legislation that would make it easier for unions to form inside companies. The “card check” bill would get rid of a secret-ballot method of voting to form a union and replace it with a system that would require companies to recognize unions simply if a majority of workers signed cards saying they want one.

Obama still supports that legislation, aides say – but union leaders are worried that he no longer talks it up much as president-elect.

“It's complicated,” said Tasini, who challenged Clinton for Senate in 2006. “On the one hand, the guy hasn't even taken office yet so it's a little hasty to be criticizing him. On the other hand, there is legitimate cause for concern. I think people are still waiting but there is some edginess about this.”

That’s a view that seems to have kept some progressive leaders holding their fire. There are signs of a struggle within the left wing of the Democratic Party about whether it’s just too soon to criticize Obama -- and if there’s really anything to complain about just yet.

Case in point: One of the Campaign for America’s Future blogs commented on Obama’s decision not to tax oil companies’ windfall profits saying, “Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes - even those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations - is bad for the economy.”

Yet Campaign for America’s Future will be join about 150 progressive organizations, economists and labor groups to release a statement Tuesday in support of a large economic stimulus package like the one Obama has proposed, said Hickey, a co-founder of the group.

“I’ve heard the most grousing about the windfall profits tax, but on the other hand, Obama has committed himself to a stimulus package that makes a down payment on energy efficiency and green jobs,” Hickey said. “The old argument was, here’s how we afford to make these investments – we tax the oil companies’ windfall profits. … The new argument is, in a bad economy that could get worse, we don’t.”

Obama is asking for patience – saying he’s only shifting his stance on some issues because circumstances are shifting.

Aides say he backed off the windfall profits tax because oil prices have

dropped below $80 a barrel. Obama also defended hedging on the Bush tax cuts.

“My economic team right now is examining, do we repeal that through legislation? Do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire, they're not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans?” Obama said on “Meet the Press.” “We don't yet know what the best approach is going to be.”

On Iraq, he says he’s just trying to make sure any U.S. pullout doesn’t ignite “any resurgence of terrorism in Iraq that could threaten our interests.”

Obama has told his supporters to look beyond his appointments, that the change he promised will come from him and that when his administration comes together they will be happy.

“I think that when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like, you'll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some ways reinforces conventional wisdom, in some ways breaks with orthodoxy in all sorts of way,” Obama recently said in response to questions about his appointments during a news conference on the economy.

The leaders of some liberal groups are willing to wait and see.

“He hasn’t had a first day in office,” said John Isaacs, the executive director for Council for Livable World. “To me it’s not as important as who’s there, than what kind of policies they carry out.”

“These aren’t out-and-out liberals on the national security team, but they may be successful implementers of what the Obama national security policy is,” Isaacs added. “We want to see what policies are carried forward, as opposed to appointments.”

Juan Cole, who runs a prominent anti-war blog called Informed Comment, said he worries Obama will get bad advice from Clinton on the Middle East, calling her too pro-Israel and “belligerent” toward Iran. “But overall, my estimation is that he has chosen competence over ideology, and I'm willing to cut him some slack,” Cole said.

Other voices of the left don’t like what they’re seeing so far and aren’t waiting for more before they speak up.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich warned that Obama’s economic team of Summers and Geithner reminded him of John F. Kennedy’s “best and the brightest” team, who blundered in Vietnam despite their blue-chip pedigrees.

David Corn, Washington bureau chief of the liberal magazine Mother Jones, wrote in Sunday’s Washington Post that he is “not yet reaching for a pitchfork.”

But the headline of his op-ed sums up his point about Obama’s Cabinet appointments so far: “This Wasn’t Quite the Change We Envisioned.”

[Woody]

Don't be fooled. He is an extreme liberal through and through. Just check out his record.

[Kountzer]

I always felt that Obama was a Centrist democrat in Liberal clothing. There's no way the US can just up and pull stakes out of Iraq, and Afghanistan, without suffering major cosequences in the future.

DB

[Neil D]

Don't be fooled. He is an extreme liberal through and through. Just check out his record.

Hmmmmmmmm.......Perhaps you ought to read the following....from a liberal "rag"-the Huffington Post-

Don't Blame Obama For Disappointing Liberals

If liberal Democrats and especially those further to the left are grumbling louder and louder about Obama they have no one but themselves to blame. Even the most cursory read of his record, as well as a fine comb of his speeches, statements, and interviews, shows that he never claimed bragging rights as the "most liberal Democratic senator." That term was wrongly foisted on him from the start by a political magazine, and latched onto as a hit point by conservatives.

He is what he's always been, namely a pragmatic, centrist, Democrat who when circumstances dictate will conciliate moderates and conservatives on a hot button issue that might cause political trouble. Obama's centrist bent was plainly evident during the campaign when he and Republican rival John McCain sounded more and more like political Siamese Twins on the issues of expansion of stem-cell research, immigration, faith-based social services, expanded government wiretapping, building more nuclear power plants, global warming, fair trade, and the death penalty. The similarity between the two was even more glaring as Obama edged closer to McCain on his plans on health care and taxes and the Iraq War.

These were supposed to be sacrosanct Democratic attack points against McCain.

The bitter truth is that Obama could not have gotten the stamp of approval from top Democrats, broken the cash registers on fund raising, beat down the Clinton Machine, gotten the parade of endorsements from former Reagan and Bush Sr., and even Bush Jr. officials, drawn the raves of virtually every major news outlet if there was even the slightest hint that he would be a toss caution to the wind, liberal crusader.

He has adhered close to the tight dictate of American presidential politics. That is that liberal and moderate Democrats in the early stages of the presidential political game run to the left and move quickly to the center as they sniff the possibility of victory. Republicans do just the opposite. They run to the right and scurry quickly to the center as they get the victory scent.

A big part of the Obama appeal, even mystique, as radically distinct from the political reality of who he is and the interests that he had to represent and conciliate to win, and now govern, was the historic first of being an African-American with a real shot at the White House. The other and probably even greater part of the mystique is the loath of Bush domestic and war policies, and the public's desperation to rid Washington of him.

Hillary Clinton was a Clinton, a consummate party insider, wreaked too heavily of the Beltway establishment, and to boot backed the Iraq war. To liberals she represented everything wrong with the Democratic Party.

McCain, Palin, Fox News, the gaggle of hard right talk radio hosts relentlessly hammered Obama as just another tax and spend, big government, pro minority tilt Democrat. That put Obama on the defensive with conservatives and centrist independents. The upside was that it also cemented his credentials as a liberal reformer who would move Washington politics from the musty, back room special interest wheel and deal good ole boy politics of the past. Obama said just enough to feed that hope. However, even as he spoke about change, he was careful to keep the door open wide to reshape, massage, and contour policy issues to conform to what was pragmatic, doable and acceptable.

The near textbook examples are the two biggest ticket issues of all, the war and the economy. Despite the public fury over Congress plopping tens of billions into the pockets of bankers and brokerage houses, he vigorously backed the Wall Street bailout without pushing for any of the tough regulatory checks on the bankers that liberals and even some conservatives demanded.

Iraq. He dropped all early campaign talk of a speedy troop withdrawal and said that the war would end when the generals and command staff said it would.

Neither of these pronouncements tag him as play to the gate political backslider. It merely shows that pragmatism in presidential politics is the only real principle that counts when it comes to winning and governing.

By that standard, Obama's load up of Hillary Clinton, and former Bill Clinton intimates, officials, and Bush officials in his top gun staff and cabinet posts makes sense. They are the ones who know the Washington and Wall Street ropes, and will cautiously adhere to the established political, economic and foreign policy game rules.

Obama takes great offense at any talk that he's back flipped on the issues. He pleads for time to make the changes that liberals want to see. That's a fair plea. Though the early signs aren't good that he'll make good on that promise, liberals bet the political bank on him. They have no choice but to wait nervously and see if he will.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is How Obama Won (Middle Passage Press January 2009)

[Woody]

I will blame Obama for any thing and every thing I can find to do .... Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

[Neil D]

I will blame Obama for any thing and every thing I can find to do .... Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Now you are going back on your promise to support your president.

I would rather hate to see that happen....I would rather see what could be done to over come the problems that are occuring and that come out of the new adminnstration.....

I know...You would rather see Ms Palin in office...unfortunately, you aren't too enthusiastic about the current president and she would be more of the same .... How can you support that type of President who has ruined the USA PR in the world, ruined our economy, supported 2 wars, doesn't work for peace, and this woman supports political parties whose primary purpose is to susceed from the United States....????

For the spouse of a minister, you sure are a strange dog......

[Woody]

Quote:

For the spouse of a minister, you sure are a strange dog......

I will take that as a compliment somehow. However ... I am not a dog ... I am a tree ... My name is Red Wood. You can call me Red or Wood ... but not dog.

That rambling aside ... I will point out that our president to be has already lied. He campaigned to stop the war and to tax the rich. He has already indicated that he is going to go against his campaign promises in this regard. Thus ... he will now forever be called for what he is ... A LIAR.

Does any of this sound familiar? YES? I recall that some of your enthusiastic Demos wanted and insisted on calling our good President George W. Bush ... a Liar.

So ... turn about is fair play.

The news said today that Obama wants to spend billions on our roads now. I feel that Barack will make us Broke with his socialistic programs.

No. Obama is not your mama. He has already gone back on his word. I would have thought better of him.

[Woody]

Quote:

Now you are going back on your promise to support your president.

I support him when he does good. And call him on the things he does bad. He is my president to be. But he is already doing bad by going against his word. Sin needs to be called by it's name. Lying against us and heaven is serious. Just like GW ... you know. This should all ring a bell.

Quote:

" Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss."

[Neil D]

Quote:

The news said today that Obama wants to spend billions on our roads now. I feel that Barack will make us Broke with his socialistic programs.

1] at least, your wife parishners will be working and have the ability to support the church....if they are willing...

2] You can get somewheres without worrying that a bridge will fall out from underneath you...

3]You can get credit for your large purchases now...as long as you meet the requirements and if you need to get something

4]Perhaps you can get a better chair with the overhaul of the health care industry....if and when it happens....

Isn't that better than the alternatives? ie, out of work parishners, poor infrastructure, no short term credit to buy things you might need, and ever increasing deductions on your insurances...

[Neil D]

Quote:

Now you are going back on your promise to support your president.

I support him when he does good. And call him on the things he does bad. He is my president to be. But he is already doing bad by going against his word. Sin needs to be called by it's name. Lying against us and heaven is serious. Just like GW ... you know. This should all ring a bell.

Now, Redwood,

your current president isn't doing much, according to the news...And now that Obama is able to actually see the true figures, well, as he said, "it's gonna get worse before it gets better"...... Which means he's seen some pretty bad things up there...Which means that some of the rich are gonna take a hit too, worse than they thought....and he's easing somethings for some of them...Thus, the liberals are not liking everything he's doing, and ...well...YOU don't like anything that he's doing...

And he does have some pretty heavy hitters in his administration line up...Some pretty good thinkers, and figurers [not a word, but you get the idea]....

Tell me, was Bush ever this far along BEFORE he took office?

[Taylor]

Quote:

For the spouse of a minister, you sure are a strange dog......

I will take that as a compliment somehow. However ... I am not a dog ... I am a tree ... My name is Red Wood. You can call me Red or Wood ... but not dog.

Lol! I love your light hearted attitude here!

[Woody]

The only thing that Blanche and I are concerned with is the poppy market. How will better roads help that market? We don't need better access to our poppy fields.

[Neil D]

The only thing that Blanche and I are concerned with is the poppy market. How will better roads help that market? We don't need better access to our poppy fields.

Oooh good night....Lord, what did I create????

[Woody]

Yes. It is all your fault.

[Neil D]

Oh no, can't be ALL my fault....I gave the inch, but you have taken it a mile....

[John317]

I always felt that Obama was a Centrist democrat in Liberal clothing. There's no way the US can just up and pull stakes out of Iraq, and Afghanistan, without suffering major cosequences in the future.

That's for sure, and Obama knows it. There is a good chance that Obama will go after al-Qaida harder than Bush did. He definitely does not want to be responsible for losing Afghanistan to the Taliban, nor will he want to be responsible for allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.