Pissed off Dems! Please come here and spell out what you're pissed about

[Doctor_J]

You seem to be unhappy with the entire cabinet so far. Pray tell us who should be in those slots. Be Specific. Don't say "some progressive".

[tularetom]

1. I voted for Obama because he was smarter than me

If he picks someone for his cabinet, they're fine with me. He hasn't let me down yet.

I do have one suggestion. He should give Joe Loserman a job in his cabinet and then fire him after his replacement has been selected. And yes I know the Gov is a repub and would pick a repub for Loserman's seat but they wouldn't be any worse.

[lonestarnot]

2. 58 more! That's what I'm pissed off about! Fuck'n A!

[OhioChick]

3. As an IT worker, I'm not too happy with this:

My co-workers and of course myself weren't too happy reading this article the other day...

Obama's choice for DHS could flame tech visa battle

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano has a strong record of support for the H-1B program

November 20, 2008 (Computerworld) The person thought to be President-elect Barack Obama's leading choice to be secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, has been a strong advocate of increasing H-1B visas -- a stance that could turn out to be a lightning-rod issue during her confirmation.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9121059&intsrc=hm_list

Another choice? How about Dick Durbin?

[DJ13]

4. Its not the specfic choices that are troubling

Its the history many of them represent from their Clinton days and the path that suggests his administration may move towards thats troubling.

Im more than willing to concede that Obama will remain in charge, that he will push them in the direction that best represents what he stands for, but its worrisome (in a Carter kind of way) that he chose people based on past experience that he might have to micromanage to keep them in check, rather than to just select people from the start he knows shares his beliefs in the position he chooses them to serve so he could be free to concentrate on the bigger picture that he does so well.

[BlooInBloo]

5. I.e. "I want to bitch at Obama dammit! Whether or not I can name anything wrong he's done!"

:rofl:

You people slay me. Really. You do.


EDIT: Especially because you couldn't actually wait for him to, like, BECOME EMPLOYED before bitching at him FOR POOR JOB PERFORMANCE. Even though no "specific" aspect of the unemployed person's job performance is problematic, according to you. :rofl:

[DJ13]

9. Oh Im perfectly willing to wait, I have confidence in Obama

But that doesnt mean I have to trust those he hires.

How soon some of you forget the arguments we had here in the primaries about the many questionable actions the DLC were involved in during Clinton's two terms.

Many of these choices by Obama are the same people.

[L0oniX]

6. I recall Obama talking about the old business as usual Washington crowd during the primary when...

distinguishing himself from Clinton and calling for change. Anyone else remember that?

[BlooInBloo]

7. Like it was yesterday.What about it?

[MadMaddie]

12. So if we wanted experienced professionals to fill the cabinet whose

administration would you have Obama pull resources from?
Poppy?
How about Junior?
Wait we could go back to Carter but most of those fellows are in their 80's - no disrespect to the elderly.

Under the right leadership and the right plan the nominees can be outstanding.

Due to the dire situation this country is in there is no way that Obama can afford to pick individuals who have to learn on the job, it would be disastrous.

Obama will not put up with drama, we all know this. If any of these selections don't follow his plan they will be gone.

[BlooInBloo]

21. They're fine with rookies. They've said so. Of course it's jackass stupid...

But at least they've answered the question.

[last1standing]

8. Specifically, I would like to see more progressives appointed to high level positions.

I'm not pissed with Obama about it, though. I just think that we can have reasonable discussions about his appointments without anyone being slammed down as trolls and whiners. There are a rabid few (note I did not say most, just a few) with very large egos and opinions who try to stamp out any discussion that could lead others to thinking that Obama may have made a bad decision. The problem is that doing so won't make Obama's decisions any more correct, it just alienates good DUers who want to have civil discussions.

If you want me to be more specific, I think there is a place for Howard Dean within the administration and that Obama would be well served by such an intelligent, hard worker who knows how to connect with the grass roots. Talent like his shouldn't be wasted and his vision should be rewarded. If he doesn't give Dean a job, though, I'll survive as will Dean, but it would be nice.

[BlooInBloo]

10. Nicely played, Palin.

[last1standing]

11. LOL! When you go a trollin' you go in style.

But to be honest, I usually think your insults are funny and your points behind them somewhat real. This time you've let me down. Just calling someone 'Palin' isn't very interesting, Hitler.

[BlooInBloo]

14. That's either because I had nothing deeper to offer...

or you missed one of the classic Fey/Palin SNL episodes.

I'll let the truth come out on that question in the fullness of time.

[last1standing]

15. Hmmm.... Could both possibilities be correct?

I think I must have missed the episode you're talking about since I just can't stand to watch Palin (even Fey's skits were hard because they were so close). But if you'd be so kind as to either explain or link the skit, I can make an informed decision on whether you're blowing smoke or were much funnier than I had thought.

I really hope its the latter. :)

[BlooInBloo]

16. Oh yah - most definitely both could be true....

The skit was either a Couric-style interview, or the Biden debate with the mod - I forget which.

But the question put to her was literally "name specific blahblahblahs that would result in blahblahablh".

And her response was "Well, I would *specifically* generalizationtalkingpointgeneralizationtalkingpoint".

It was very funny, as my steel-trap memory should convince you of!

:rofl:

[last1standing]

18. In that case it really was clever. Wrong but clever.

I should never have doubted you.

I did name Dean as a specific person I'd like to see appointed to some position and gave reasons for my suggestion, however, which makes your post funny, but incorrect. And as for the rest of the post, I think stating that I would like to see some appointments who had a progressive background to be rather specific whether the OP wants it to be or not. So, really, I listed a relatively specific desire then narrowed that desire down to a specific individual. Can't get more specific than that unless you want a DNA sample.

So I'm not funny, but I am correct. :D

[BlooInBloo]

20. Pfft. Given the (exclusive this time) choice between funny and true?

I think we ALL know which way I'll go. :P

[last1standing]

23. Ooooh! You win this round, Bloo, but I'll be back!

LOL! At least arguing with you is fun. Too many of these guys just harsh the buzz, you know?

[BlooInBloo]

25. :) Thank gawd for philosophy grad school to teach one the fine art of arguing for nothing more....

than the fun of it.

(scottish lilt) Until cross S words again Trebeck! (/scottish lilt)

[patrice]

13. If I had to draw a Venn diagram of two sets of resolutions: those that an SoS Clinton

would come to in Iraq compared to those that an SoS Richardson would bring about, it is possible, though not necessarily inevitable, that the area of over-lap would be relatively small and I am concerned about the differences. I am concerned about what will be included in those agreements in order "to avoid having to return to Iraq."

P.S. And I never have been that crazy about deeper involvement with Afghanistan.

[leftstreet]

17. I'd like to see more people from Academia - not just more politicians

Jeebus.

[Azlady]

19. Not pissed but am concerned about DHS and Sec. of Commerce

I am concerned about his selection for DHS, just because of her strong support for H1B... but I also have faith that Obama will not allow these cabinet members to preach their own agendas. I agree that Dick Durbin would have been a good selection or perhaps Powell.

My other concern is Commerce..I have had personal dealings with Richardson and he has no regard for small Mom/Pop business, I would have loved to see him in the SoS position, not slighting Hillary, but thought he was a perfect for the job, but not Commerce.

With all that said, I have no doubt that if these people do not stand the line with Obama, they will be out.

[Doctor_J]

22. 8 replies to my OP, only one suggestion

Dick Durbin for DHS, and one "Howard Dean should be in the admin".

About what I expected.

[patrice]

32. I believe I suggested Richardson for SoS.

Doesn't the fact that Obama didn't pick him suggest that Obama disagrees with at least some of Richardson's campaign platform on the issue: All troops out, no residual forces, no permanent bases, regional diplomatic conferences to address security in the region, including our security issues re al Qaeda, and with any eye to Israel & Palestine.

[Two Americas]

36. maybe your premise is wrong

Maybe it is not about which specific people Obama picks for his administration.

Challenging people, in essence, by saying "who would you pick, then?" merely invites escalating the feuding and forces the critics unfairly onto a playing field that they didn't ask for and do not deserve.

People can be unhappy with a situation woithout being forced to come up with an "alternative" as a pre-condition to their grievances being heard and taken seriously.

Many are complaining not about what Obama is doing, but rather about the way that some here are defending what he is doing - by objecting to any and all questioning of his actions and by attacking anyone who expresses even the mildest reservations or criticisms. That is true in my case.

Of course people are going to feel betrayed when Emmanuel is named to the administration and immediately says "we welcome the concepts and ideas" of the Republicans. ROFL, it is almost like a parody of what people have been fearing, isn't it? You couldn't script it any better than that.

Of course many people are going to be angry and feel betrayed. They are being attacked here now for expressing that. Why? Because they are wrong? Because they are doing anything wrong? Because they are "whiners" or "purists" or "hand wringers?" No. What they are doing that some find so objectionable is forcing some of Obama's most zealous supporters to confront their own cognitive dissonance about this - the gap between what they were saying before the election and what they are saying now.

It is this cognitive dissonance - the gap between what supporters were saying during the primaries and what they are willing to say now - that is causing most of the problems, IMHO.

You can't pound on people during the primaries that "Obama is the ant-DLC" candidate and should be supported on that basis, and that Clinton was the prime representative of the evil DLC, and then turn around after the election and applaud and defend the appointment of DLC folks and Clinton to the administration and not expect people to notice that inconsistency. I was not on either side of those two arguments, the one before the election nor the one now. But I will point out the inconsistency and hypocrisy there.

[last1standing]

37. So instead of following up you type out an insult thread. You're pathetic.

You got the answer you wanted because you set it up like that and because your limited intelligence can't handle anything that doesn't fit into your narrow little world. I gave an honest answer that you didn't even have the balls to answer directly with an honest reply. That makes you a coward.

[Doctor_J]

38. Ouch

That smarts. I hope I can sleep tonight after taking that mighty shot.

As I feared, this thread has produced almost nothing in the way of specific cabinet suggestions, and riled the bombers like yourself. Maybe I should have been more specific, like "don't reply here unless your post contains at least 2 replacements for those already chosen, and at least 2 for the as yet unfilled spots". Then perhaps the knee-jerk jerks could have figured out what the thread was supposed to be.

For me, I think adding Gephart for Labor, Krugman for Treasury, Hightower for Ag, Dean for SG, and Schweitzer or another visionary for Interior would provide a nice balance of populism, classic liberalism, and conservatism, experience and youth, insiders and outsiders, and regional balance. I wold like more color and estrogen and 1-2 repukes on board, but I will leave that to the rest of you.

[last1standing]

42. So why didn't you say that to begin with instead of just slamming people?

Hell, I'd even agree with you on every appointment but Gephart (Bonior would be a far better choice). Why did you need to post some snarky "just what I expected" post and insult people when you could have gone this route to begin with?

[trayfoot]

Until Obama deviates from his campaign philosophy,

I will continue to support his decisions. Cabinet appointments are people who work FOR Obama! HE makes the policy, they will follow it! Until there is a REASON to be upset, I am happy as a clam!

[trayfoot]

24. Until Obama deviates from his campaign philosophy,

I will continue to support his decisions. Cabinet appointments are people who work FOR Obama! HE makes the policy, they will follow it! Until there is a REASON to be upset, I am happy as a clam!

[stillcool]

26. In a post someone threw...

out the names of John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Robert Reich. If that's someones idea of "Progressives" it sure makes me wonder what their real problem is with Obama. The shame of all this, is progressive ideas are what we should all be working for, but that is not going to happen by ripping apart Obama. He is not going to be able to do anything without 'we the people', and we are not going to be able to affect policy at all, if we can't get it together to allow him to set up the government he thinks will help him to advocate the social policies that we are so desperately in need of. It's the all or nothing thinking that guarantees division and failure. Us vs. Them is no longer Republican vs. Democrat, Red States vs. Blue States. Perhaps what is necessary is the complete collapse of our government, and the splintering of the "United" States, and perhaps we are closer to that end than we think. But who cares? Rahm Emanuel is DLC!!!

[agentS]

27. I'm pissed, but not at Obama or his choices

I'm pissed that Bush/Cheney are still in office, doing effectively zilch while the world economy burns.

THANKS BUSHIES! YOURE DOING ONE HECKUVA JOB!

I told y'all them folks was racist. They'd rather wreck the country and then give the pieces to a black man rather than give it to him in some relatively decent shape.

[Clio the Leo]

28. I still have to wait 57 flippin more days!!

It's NOT FAIR!!!!!!

[DCBob]

29. I'm pissed there are so many threads about being pissed.

[BlooInBloo]

31. Meta-pissed! Level 1 achieved!

:rofl:

[Two Americas]

30. simply this

I am unhappy with the rightward drift of the party, with the influence of corporation over the party, and with the control of the national political discussion and political process by corporate power and right wing political hacks. I am unhappy wioth a media dominated by a handful of powerful players. I am unhappy with the lack of any voice for the poor people and struggling working people. I am unhappy with the dominance over our economy and our lives by the financial industry.

I thought that we all were - or most of us were.

This is true now, and was true before the election, and was true before ther primaries. It was true in 2004 and in 2000 and in the 90's, and I am saying the same things now that I said then.

The difference is that now we are being aggressively asked to stop saying the things we have been saying all along. Who would not be unhappy about that? I think that threatens to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[political_Dem]

33. Thank you for this thread. You've allowed a platform for thos who have dissented to speak.

With that said, I'm not angry with President Obama. I think he will be the gold standard when it comes to the presidency.

However, I am not pleased with Tom Daschle as Sec. of HHS. I thought that Howard Dean would be a better fit.

I would also prefer Bill Richardson or John Kerry as Secretary of State. They are better qualified with both professional and field experience in this area than Hillary Clinton. I believe that the the Secretary of State position was given to her because it was a quid pro quo situation.

Thirdly, Janet Napolitano should not be Sec. of DHS because Arizona is slowly becoming a battleground state. If she leaves her post as governor (and does not run for Senator against John McCain), the state will remain red because the Republican officials will work to reestablish the state in their corner if there isn't anyone strong enough to challenge them. I also agree that some of her policies are rather suspect as well.

Lastly, I don't like the message Mr. Obama is sending by leaving liberals out of the loop in his picks for cabinet.
It is as if he is catering solely to centrists and moderate Republicans. I also agree with Glenn Greenwald in the fact that if progressives and liberals do not challenge Obama on keeping his promises to push for their causes, it will still be promoted through policy as well as the MSM, that the only cogent way to govern a country is through centrist and conservative ideals. Liberals need not apply.

[Doctor_J]

40. See reply 38

I understand your concern about Napalitano, but Obama should not short-change the country or his admin because it might (not) put a state in play. She can serve the cabinet for 18 months and then run against McSame. Or anoint a successor for her job in Phoenix.

[Why Syzygy]

34. "Change you can believe in"... ain't happening. Same old dry bones.

[Doctor_J]

39. See reply 38

[Adsos Letter]

35. I have a WHOMPER cold....

and it is consuming all of my current "pissed-offedness"... :(

[ElsewheresDaughter]

41. Paul Krugman in NEC...Summers is a terrible choice

yeah he's smart but his heart/spirit is fucked up...

here's why:

Export Our Filth to the Third World Says Summers -- "They Don't Live as Long Anyway".

Exporting Pollution to the Third World Is Good Business

Larry Summers' War Against the Earth. By Jim Vallette

Back on December 12, 1991, then the chief economist for the World Bank, Lawrence Summers, wrote an internal memo that was leaked to the environmental community, and we, in turn, publicized it. This memo remains relevant.

Mr. Summers, currently the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Dept., is President Clinton's nominee to replace Mr. Wall Street, Robert Rubin, as U.S. Treasury Secretary. As the country's chief economist, Mr. Summers will be the driving force behind its global economic policy. We can thus look forward, with trepidation, to further exertion of the U.S.' free trade - at any cost to people and the environment - policies.

In 1994, by the way, virtually every other country in the world broke with Mr. Summers' Harvard-trained "economic logic" ruminations about dumping rich countries' poisons on their poorer neighbors, and agreed to ban the export of hazardous wastes from OECD to non-OECD countries under the Basel Convention. Five years later, the United States is one of the few countries that has yet to ratify the Basel Convention or the Basel Convention's Ban Amendment on the export of hazardous wastes from OECD to non-OECD countries.

THE MEMO

"DATE: December 12, 1991
"TO: Distribution
"FR: Lawrence H. Summers
"Subject: GEP

"'Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs ? I can think of three reasons:

"1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.

"2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I've always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.

"3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable.

"The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization."

POSTSCRIPT

After the memo became public in February 1992, Brazil's then-Secretary of the Environment Jose Lutzenburger wrote back to Summers: "Your reasoning is perfectly logical but totally insane... Your thoughts a concrete example of the unbelievable alienation, reductionist thinking, social ruthlessness and the arrogant ignorance of many conventional 'economists' concerning the nature of the world we live in... If the World Bank keeps you as vice president it will lose all credibility. To me it would confirm what I often said... the best thing that could happen would be for the Bank (World Bank) to disappear."

http://www.converge.org.nz/lac/articles/news990613a.htm