The Left v. Obama Aide, Not Yet A Flamewar

Or maybe those on the far left just need something to scream and shout about. I consider myself to be liberal. Very liberal in fact, but if I've learned anything about the liberal political establishment is that they do not know when to STFU. They make noise for the sake of making noise, and they do not have the consistency or strength in audience they way the wingnuts on the right do to be making so much noise.

Obama hasn't even been sworn in. Appointments mean nothing until the man takes the reigns and lays out his plan and issues orders. Then we'll see who in his administration follows orders or will have to be dropped faster than a Bush WMD lie.

The upcoming clash between left-wing firebrands and the startlingly pragmatic and non-ideological Obama administration will be fierce. Should be fun to watch play out in the media...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Nah. Sirota and a few others are worried. But overall, the blogosphere is keeping its torches and pitchforks at rest. On the Richter scale it's barely a one and a half...

ymmartin, who in the heck is the "liberal political establishment"?
And when, over say the last 16 years, should this creature have STFU?

Sorry, mixed metaphor...

This turns out to be the kind of message that calms nobody's nerves, especially since the criticism of Obama from the left has hardly been that loud.

So Scherer do you think maybe you could write a article repudiating the jack azzes that keep claiming the "angry libruls" are mad at Obama? I mean you did just admit that its a false meme right?

I think this Hildebrand kind of stuff is not for the "left's" consumption, this is to make the Beltway feel reassured and comfortable.

I agree with Hildebrand here, but it might have been better to let someone else point it out. Obama's going to keep his promises as much as he can, and for the most part they are not left-wing promises. But I trust most of the left can figure that out without needing to be told. Obama's been carefully laying the groundwork for choices that will please the left. Gates followed by Shinseki, for example. Obama didn't pay attention to everybody that was concerned during the primary or the general, and he won't go lurching around now, either.

This represents a nice opportunity to kvetch about labelling in the first place. Opposing torture and demanding transparency and accountability are NOT leftist positions. The liberal blogosphere has represntatives with a wide variety of views and plenty of room for disagreement among them. What they don't have is patience for people who are willing to tell them what they are thinking or describe them in the third person without addressing who they are as individuals.

I personally don't care if Obama appoints any self-identified 'progressives' to his cabinet but if he doen't take a firm stand against rendition and torture and 'preemptive warfare' that targets innocents then I'm indeed going to be PO'ed.

Oh, it's a flame war, my young friend.

Steve Hildebrand has that unique feel for saying exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time. It was absolutely dog whistle for STFU.

What's far more annoying, however, is that he buying into and spreading a right wing meme: That somehow The Left is actually united enough to be unglued about something all at the same time. In case he hadn't noticed, it generally takes an actual, you know, WAR, to get the left fully united. Iraq, Vietnam, Gore 2000...

A pretend war against President Elect Most Popular Guy Ever in the first thirty seconds of his yet to be administration is just that, A Pretend War. A story made up out of whole cloth by the bored vacuum of nutbags on the right who see any dissent as, well, something ILLEGAL. Or in this case, at least really, really, really, really serious. And should be treated as such by really serious people.

Steve Hildebrand got punked by the Right. And then stepped in it on the Left. And now he will be treated like my dog's chewtoy.Until boredom sets in and we find another chewtoy.

I see Jane Hamsher and Kos are nominating Caroline Kennedy for next chewtoy for the bizarre reason that she is or is not qualified to be Senator while also has the last name of Kennedy. Or Schlossberg. Or something about "monarchy" that has no bearing whatsoever on reality, her Constitutional qualifications to be Senator, or on the work that she has quietly been doing in New York on education, civics and arts issues for years and years. Here in New York, we love it when folks from other states tell us who should be our Senator. That's going to be super popular. Yes, I predict that piefight/flamewar/chewtoy-nomination is about to erupt into a big old "STFU if you don't live in New York" and "especially STFU if you don't know jacksh!t about the $100 million fundraising issue that whoever the next Senator from New York is going to have come 2010. And 2012."

Piefight/flamewar/chewtoy watch continues.

I'm making more popcorn. Can someone please pour KT a glass of wine?

Thanks.

I'm reposting this, because I forgot how screwed the formatting is and how it makes everything unreadable. And my readability needs all the help it can get.

Oh, it's a flame war, my young friend.
_
Steve Hildebrand has that unique feel for saying exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time. It was absolutely dog whistle for STFU.
_
What's far more annoying, however, is that he buying into and spreading a right wing meme: That somehow The Left is actually united enough to be unglued about something all at the same time. In case he hadn't noticed, it generally takes an actual, you know, WAR, to get the left fully united. Iraq, Vietnam, Gore 2000...
_
A pretend war against President Elect Most Popular Guy Ever in the first thirty seconds of his yet to be administration is just that, A Pretend War. A story made up out of whole cloth by the bored vacuum of nutbags on the right who see any dissent as, well, something ILLEGAL. Or in this case, at least really, really, really, really serious. And should be treated as such by really serious people.
_
Steve Hildebrand got punked by the Right. And then stepped in it on the Left. And now he will be treated like my dog's chewtoy. Until boredom sets in and the hunt begins for another chewtoy.
_
I see Jane Hamsher and Kos are nominating Caroline Kennedy for next chewtoy for the bizarre reason that she is or is not qualified to be Senator while also has the last name of Kennedy. Or Schlossberg. Or something about "monarchy" that has no bearing whatsoever on reality, her Constitutional qualifications to be Senator, or on the work that she has quietly been doing in New York on education, civics and arts issues for years and years.
_
Here in New York, we love it when folks from other states tell us who should be our Senator. That's going to be super popular.
_
Yes, I predict that piefight/flamewar/chewtoy-nomination is about to erupt into a big old "STFU if you don't live in New York" and "especially STFU if you don't know jacksh!t about the $100 million fundraising issue that whoever the next Senator from New York is going to have come 2010. And 2012."
_
Piefight/flamewar/chewtoy watch continues.
_
I'm making more popcorn. Can someone please pour KT a glass of wine?
_
Thanks.

" Here in New York, we love it when folks from other states tell us who should be our Senator. That's going to be super popular."
.
Ha- What makes NY exempt?

kathy
.
What exactly is wrong with evaluating Obama's Cabinet nominees? According to the folks around John Brenan it actually helped to keep him from getting nominated to a post in Obama's cabinet and in my opinion, that was and is a very good thing. But the truth is none of the "diry hippies" have even been making a lot of noise about Obama's cabinet. Thats why none of these concern troll stories EVER point out the supposed librul who is so up in arms. They quote Chris Hays from the Nation because he said he wants a progressive in the cabinet. Is that really earth shattering? Its not like he is saying "Obama fooled us all, we must over throw him!" He, like most liberals/progressives states his case pretty clearly and calmly as to why he thinks there should be a progressive or 5 in Obama's cabinet and why many of them would be better for the country that the people Obama has picked so far. Just about the only real deal hissy fit by the left has been over Lieberman and even that was directed more at Harry Reid than it was aimed at Obama. Its like the media are pushing two story lines now
.
1. The country is Center Right
.
2. The liberals/progressives are unreasonable, irrational and angry and therefore they should not be acknowledged nor listened to.
.
And the sorriest thing is that its working. You have Democrats walking around right now ready to apologize for having a liberal ideology or being behind liberal issues. And you have Democrats saying that other Democrats should STFU when they aren't even talking. Its the best propaganda I have seen in a LONG time I just hope its effectiveness wears off sooner rather than later.

Casey Morris
.
There won't be a flame war about Caroline Kennedy because the people who are criticizing her being appointed are making thoughtful, in depth cases for WHY she shouldn't be appointed. It isn't just because she is a Kennedy. Its because if she gets appointed now she is going to have to run again in two years and she needs to raise as you said the 100 million. Wouldn't it be better for her to take the next two years to raise the money and get the people aquainted with her rather than doing some on the job learning and trying to raise money at the same time? Neither Jane nor Kos said she SHOULDN'T be a Senator, they just said she shouldn't be appointed as Senator and I tend to agree. But for the people that don't agree they will need to state clearly what her qualifications are such that she won't be a liablility for the next two years and that she is strong enough to take the attacks. She didn't seem particularly comfortable in the public this year and so I would be happy to hear about what would make her a good Senator also.

As someone, I think Jane Hamsher, pointed out, Hildebrand is swinging at a strawman with the Lieberman/DLC torch of "the left wing of our party". Who, exactly, is this Left Wing he heard saying mean things about Obama in his closet or under his bed last night? Even Scherer acknowledges that the grumblings (and I've been grumbling a bit myself) have been muted. It was a poorly written and poorly thought out piece that didn't say much of anything, and either Hildebrand or the editors at HuffPo decided to emphasize the poorest wording in the piece.
**
@ymmartin: I, too, am curious as to the exact identity of this "liberal political establishment" that has been troubling your 'very liberal' self.
**
I've been away awhile. Is this ridiculous wordpress system here to stay? Is that the real reason AMC left?

I rather prefer the analyzes that say Obama is seeking to redefine the center as progressive: ARE WE READING THE SAME ARTICLE?
.
I also appreciate publius' take on the whole thing as "essentially a giant Kabuki theater" and finds it "a bit amusing to see all the conservative schadenfreude about progressive whining about Obama." Don't Throw Me In The Briar Patch.

Hildebrand has a point here. His STFU is justified but it also shows he needs a bit of an education in the personalities of his party. The Left love to critique everything and anyone. It is what makes them part of the left. Yes, it does seem like a natural choice to smack them around a little when the jump the gun and cry wolf on Obama not making waht they consider the best decisions based on their handbook, but that gets you no where fast. You need to learn how to filter out the noice and I don't know if Hildebrand did this to the best of his ability.

I am not as convinced as others that the Democratic Party is as strong as it appears and the Republican Party is falling apart. This election became one of individuals not parties. There are now Obama Democrats and those democrats may not align with the rest of the party's ideals and candidates the way the DNC would like. Democrats still have a lot of work to do to gain the type of stronghold the Republicans have regarding the (blind) loyalty of their members. honestly, because of the reasons most people choose the Democratic Party, I don't think it is possible. There will always be serious questioning within the party. i actually kind of like it that way, but it must be very difficult when you are trying to lead.

Man, that was easy. MS turns out the lights, throws a stink bomb, and instantly everyone's going all meta arguing with each other about whether liberals are arguing with each other.
.
MS, how about a post about Republicans' disagreements, which are far more substantive and, you know, real? As well as interesting to us schadenfreude fans.
.
Although in that vein, I'd be pleased to think that R's infighting is considerably less consequential for the next few election cycles.

First I want to commend Michael for actually naming the blogs he is talking about and providing links. This is something the MSM seems loathed to do. Instead they (the MSM) hide behind "those blogs on the left" lefty blogs and obscure blogs or the left to hide the fact their own lazy reporting is helping to create a controversy that does not yet exist. But which they are hoping will be born even if they have father it.
.
As for Hillebrand he needs to STFU because if he thinks for a minute there will be blind loyalty he's in for a very rude and crude awaking. He may even get his feelings hurt.

Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet. People need to step back and take a deep breath. There is no telling how he or his staff will perform until they are in their jobs with some time behind them. What ever happened to giving someone the benefit of the doubt?

P-NNTO
-
I think we have something of a reputation for outspoken rudeness. Not me of course. I'm sure it's the other New Yorkers.
_

queencersei
.
Ever wonder why people have resumes? Its so employers can theoretically project how they will perform in the future based on what they have done in the past. To not vet the people in Obama's Cabinet to me wouldn't be the benefit of the doubt, but instead rank hypocrisy. We would ALL have been fact checking every name floated if John McCain had won a month ago. And many of us would have been complaining LOUDLY if he named people we didn't agree with. So because Obama won does that mean we just follow him blindly like we scorned the Republicans for doing with Bush? I am sorry but I am not built that way. If John McCain had won I truly doubt the majority of regulars on Swampland would be saying "lets give him the benefit of the doubt" so I won't be saying it for Barack Obama either. Now I won't engage in hysterics over rumors of who he MIGHT name, but after he names someone to a post I think its just being a responsible citizen to try to find out about that person and how their knowledge and experience will help lead whichever post they are assigned. Thats just how I feel about it.

sgwhite - nothing's wrong with evaluating Obama's nominees. But I do think he's doing that too, and I've no reason at the moment to think that I know more about any of these people than Obama and his vetters do.
.
Every now and then a story in the news is something I know about directly, or I'm even quoted in the news. The story practically never gets the whole thing right. Have you had that experience too? So I take with a little grain of salt what we hear about these people, especially when their motives are impugned.

Funny Casey, here in Minnesota we opt for softspoken rudeness. Not me of course. I'm not softspoken.
.
Is anyone really taking this "no complaining about Obama" seriously? It's all just game playing by the media.

kathy
.
The main reason that I advocate speaking out is precisely because so many news stories get things wrong. Just like the "critics call it torture" or "Brennan says he was against rendition" or "the leftys wanted Lieberman to be punished because of his speech at the RNC". There are so many false stories out there that many times its incumbent on people to correct them. And then you have situations like the Brennan situation where no MSM journalists are reporting anything about his background other than what HE is telling them. Again to me thats a time to speak out. There is a diarist on kos who is critiquing all of the potential Ag Secretary choices. Well I don't know much about all that, so for me what they are doing is a great service because I honestly wouldn't have a clue whether the person was for subsidies or not, or for stronger regulation or not, with out the diaries I read on kos. Now the one thing people like Scherer won't cover is when the left are actually happy about appointments like they were with the Susan Rice appointment, the Napolitano appointment, the Richardson appointment, and for the most part the Gen Jones appointment. But you will NEVER hear about that. Its all a game right now and the media folks are trying to beat liberals and progressives into submission so they will stop critiquing the choices and they are using any criticism to try to turn the party on itself. We have been clammoring for accountability for 8 years. I plan on helping that along a little bit.