Obama appoints two more DLCers to his cabinet

[Freddie Stubbs]

Obama names Vilsack agriculture secretary

By Charles Abbott

WASHINGTON, Dec 16 (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama, a backer of tighter farm subsidy rules and renewable fuels from rural America, selected former Gov. Tom Vilsack from the major U.S. farm state of Iowa to be agriculture secretary, a Democratic official said on Tuesday.

The nomination would be announced at a press conference in Chicago at 10:45 a.m. CST on Wednesday, along with his selection for Interior secretary, Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar.

Both appointments require confirmation by the Senate, where Democrats have a majority.

Obama supports a $250,000 a year "hard" cap on farm payments and stricter rules on who qualifies as a farmer, changes that could save $100 million a year. Last month, he cited a congressional report on improper farm payments as an example of where to save federal money.

more: http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN16448635

It was only a few months ago when some DUers were using Obama's clinching of the nomination as a reason to celebrate the end of the DLC. Little did they know Obama, although not a DLC member, certainly has no problem with working DLCers:

SECRETARY OF STATE: Hillary Rodham Clinton

HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: Gov. Janet Napolitano

COMMERCE SECRETARY: Gov. Bill Richardson

NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL DIRECTOR: Lawrence Summers

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: Tom Daschle

CHIEF OF STAFF: Rahm Emmanuel

[Maven]

1. Hehehe.

:popcorn:

[FrenchieCat]

2. Could you also list the ones that aren't DLC?

Thanks! :hi:

Is Harkin a DLCer?

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. Every single one who has served in elected office is a DLCer

The DLC usually doesn't list non-elected officials as members.

I do not know if Harkin is associated with the DLC, but he has not been appointed to any position in the Obama cabinet.

[rurallib]

5. I don't think Harkin is DLC, but state pride prevailed in this instance.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Harkin is the one that pitch a fit (kind of like at DU) that Obama

wasn't listening to him....and his recommendation that Obama pick Vilsack as Sec. of Ag.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20081210/NEWS/81210021/1001

[dflprincess]

20. I always thought Harkin leaned left

(He gave a wonderful eulogy at the Wellstone memorial and he's the one that gave us the "Stand up! Keep Fighting!" slogan after Wellstone's death.)

I'm not thrilled with another DLCer, but on Ag secrtary I'm inclined to trust Harkin. I doubt he'd push someone if he thought it would piss off Iowa farmers.

[Ken Burch]

60. Harkin was the only Democrat who ran in our '92 primaries.

Harkin would have beaten Bush. He was stopped because the press had it in for him.

[FrenchieCat]

8. My point is that OP is only listing DLCers, but not listing

everyone that Obama has appointed.

I want to see if the DLCers are outnumbered or if Obama's cabinet contains mainly only DLCer.

[mtnsnake]

wahhhHHH

[BlooInBloo]

3. Obama has betrayed us.

[Danger Mouse]

9. It's all over.

:cry:

[BlooInBloo]

11. Unless Obama personally goes out and shoots every last DLCer dead, he's betrayed us.

[grantcart]

32. and he has to eliminate any record of them from human history.

[polmaven]

48. How DARE you?

That looks like a DLC droid to me!!!!!!

[polmaven]

49. How DARE you?

That looks like a DLC droid to me!!!!!!

[Cha]

6. Yeah, Obama has reached out to all

kinds of Americans to be in his admin because he believes in governing all of the country not just parts of it.

Thank Goodness Obama WON! :fistbump:

[FLAprogressive]

10. not only Republicans....but the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party! (RWoDP) nt

[depakid]

16. You may be singing a different tune this time next year

If failed Republican & DINO policies are recycled by some of these picks, and the economy- as well as progressive groups react accordingly.

We shall see- it's entirely possible that 2010 will look a lot like 1994...

[Cha]

23. I have more faith in Obama's

abilities than you do.

[depakid]

30. You do

Which may be a good thing- or may be misleading.

I guess we'll see.

Once upon a time, a lot of people felt much the same way about the incoming Clinton administration- after 12 years of Reagan & Bush I.

And with good reason- Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar; he and his wife were voracious readers, and the country was in a recession- still paying for exceses from the Savings & Loan Scandal (among other things).

[Cha]

37. Obama is Obama and we've

been through this all during the primaries and even the general.

Too soon to start being negative.

[Two Americas]

39. the political left is not "a part"

The political left represents the best interests if the working people in the country. Just because most intellectuals are bought off and compromised, and speak fir the interests of the wealthy and powerful few, leaving only a few to speak for the people while every day working people are locked out entirely, that does not mean that the left is a fringe, a minority, or merely a "part" of the country.

The left represents what many of us think is best for all of the people, especially the least among us, not some personal gain for any of us.

People may disagree with the left, may think that pandering to or catering to the few is what is best, but they should honestly state their position rather than hiding behind a barrage of lies and insults directed at the left.

This business of claiming that excluding the left is to "represent all parts of the country" is a lie. There is only one "part" that the left does not fight for, and that is the wealthy and powerful few. There is only one alternative to the left, to fighting for the working people, and that is to promote and defend the whims and desires of the wealthy and powerful few.

People should be honest about this. The weakness of the position of the conservatives among us is illustrated by the fact that they do not argue honestly and state their positions, but must always resort to attacking the left.

[girl gone mad]

40. Well said. n/t

[Shiver]

7. I don't care.

The Cabinet serves at the pleasure of the president. Add in that they haven't done anything yet, and that Obama is currently unemployed (President-elect is not a job), I think it's a little premature to prophesize.

Where were the thrilled postings about Steven Chu, Eric Shinseki, Shaun Donovan, any number of the progressive White House advisers that have been appointed? Why do we focus on the "bad choices" and ignore those picks we should be ecstatic over? As I recall it, those topics died by the next day.

Why do we only stand up and speak our minds when we're pissed off?

[Born_A_Truman]

12. Good question

It's amazing that these "bad choices" haven't served one day in the Obama administration yet now we know we've been "sold out".

[Cha]

13. Good question.

"Why do we only stand up and speak our minds when we're pissed off?"

And, why are so many pissed off when we won?

[Shiver]

14. It's been bugging me for weeks.

Look forward to the coming OP on this topic that has been percolating in my mind sometime tomorrow. :argh:

[Cha]

18. Hope I catch it..

It does seem to be the elephant in the room.

[autorank]

35. Chu is the key appointment

We're already seeing the chaos that climate change holds and the enactment of that awesome
drama is about to begin. It will take a brilliant mind to understand the entire history and
trends and Chu is that individual. He couldn't have done a better job. Energy is infinitely
more important than Interior because it's the key to the preservation of both human and natural
resources. In addition, energy will play the central role in preserving the USA as a viable
nation in the midst of all that awaits us. I'm not thrilled with some of the choices but they
pial in significance to this choice.

[cascadiance]

55. Steve Chu is a good appointment for getting intelligence in, but does not address corporate...

... influence which is still WAY too heavy in government now, and still something that Obama needs to address if he's going to be carrying out the will of those who voted him in.

[autorank]

68. I totally agree with you.

The corporate influence is frightening given the level of corruption we're seeing on wall street.

That's where corporate America raises its funds. They obviously don't know how to check out their
market.

Chu and Richardson are a bright lights amidst an otherwise unexceptional choices. I just think that
energy will drive policy. Otherwise I'd hurl at the thought of Salazar at Interior. Good Lord!!!

On Edit: I think Holder has major potential form what I'm hearing.

[Two Americas]

56. because we are free, we are citizens

We are citizens in a representative democracy. We express our grievances. It is our moral responsibility and our civic duty to do so.

It is not our job to be cheer leaders or public relations agents or salespeople for powerful figures. They represent us, yet so many think it is the other way around, and get angry if we all don't represent them, sell them, boost them, fawn over them, idolize them.

This intolerance for dissent, for anything that will break the spell, the magic effect of an idealized fantasy world, is an expression of enslaved minds, of people who seek predictability and the comforting security of immersing themselves in a mob of subjects all worshiping and idolizing a strong leader, a prince, and who fear the rigors of a free and open discussion so necessary for a healthy and functioning representative democracy. It is very weak and it is not appropriate behavior for free citizens who are willing to tackle the burdens and challenges of self-government. It is the sentiment and mood of a people yearning for the certainty of tyranny or fascism.

[Shiver]

61. You completely miss my point

I said nothing about not letting them know when we're upset, and I said nothing about not expressing dissent. My point was, that we should let them know when we approve of what they're doing just as much as when we disapprove. If all we do is complain, how are they supposed to know when they do something we like? We create the image that we cannot be pleased with anything, then they are less likely to try.

It's one of the reasons, I think, that the left gas been marginalized in this country. All we do is complain and protest. When we do get something we want, there's a tiny expression of happiness that dies before it begins, and we shift over to something else that's bothering us, or we proclaim that what we just won "isn't good enough" or "must be better". I don't know about you, but when I work at something for someone, and I manage to succeed, and they barely acknowledge it... it doesn't make me too inclined to help them again.

By all means let them know when we're upset! Write letters, make phone calls, stage protests. But we don't have to stand up and make our voices heard ONLY when we don't like what we see.

[firedupdem]

17. What's the problem? n/t

[dflprincess]

25. The problem is that Obama is surrounding himself

with people who supported the policies that got us in the mess we're in today. And we're suppose to believe they'll get us out of it?

[firedupdem]

27. Well now they have to support Obama's policies...thats a big

difference. If they don't they won't be around very long.

[dflprincess]

57. But if he's looking for new ideas,

these aren't the people to ask.

[IsItJustMe]

33. Admittedly so, I would not expect the kinds of change that we all want & need from the above listed

group. But who the hell knows, stranger things have happened.

[stillcool]

69. what got us where we are..

is the American people ceding their power to so few people. And absolutely nothing will change if a fraction of the American people do not seriously involve themselves with their government representatives. Bitching about cabinet picks doesn't do shit.

[Ken Burch]

19. There really wasn't any good reason for you to start this thread.

Why would you HATE progressive Dems anyway? Have any of us ever done anything that was all that terrible?

You know perfectly well that anyone you'd have wanted to be nominated in '72 would've lost 49 states too. The China trip and the Dirty Tricks squad were to blame for that, not McGovern.

[PBS Poll-435]

21. Where did the OP say that he "HATE(ed) Progressives?"

Have any of us ever done anything that was all that terrible?

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

22. You don't know Freddie.

That's his whole thing, dissing anyone in the party that doesn't think the DLC are our natural leaders.

He's been on that jag for years now.

[PBS Poll-435]

24. Still, I think it is very encouraging and wise to have diverse viewpoints in the Cabinet

And there are some very progressive/liberal members of the DLC.

[hootinholler]

44. Oh really?

Please enlighten me as to whom in the DLC is liberal?

-Hoot

[Two Americas]

52. "diverse viewpoints"

"Diverse viewpoints" always seems to mean the exclusion of all but the corporate viewpoint.

The way people talk about this, one would think that the poor corporations are shut out and have no power and that the threat was those big bad leftists trying to dominate everything.

We are complaining because a diversity of viewpoints is not being included, not because diversity of viewpoints is.

What does "a diversity of viewpoints" even mean? Why does it matter? Including the same old people who have had power and influence all along, and then calling that "diversity" is just bizarre. Obviously, "diversity of views" can only mean including voices that have been previously excluded. That is most definitely not happening.

[cascadiance]

54. A diversity of viewpoints is not the so-called manufactured "left vs. right' but NON-corporate!

We need some non-corporate viewpoints in the cabinet in STRONG positions. The real change needed is to get some folks in that will take down corporate power in our government, not reinforce it at every level.

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. He never said that

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. There was a damn good reason to start this thread

To show that Obama is staying consistent. he campaigned as a pragmatic centrist, and he is surrounding himself with people who agree with that philosophy.

[Ken Burch]

59. Obama did NOT run as an enemy of the left, and did not insist

that the party keep progressives out in the cold.

You're arrogant gloating is no help to the cause of party unity.

This party belongs as much to us as to you. We have the right to expect as much of it as you.

[Freddie Stubbs]

65. The party belongs to those who have the ability to get votes and pass legislation

[brentspeak]

66. Since when does corporate whoring on the beltway = "pragmatic centrism"?

Truman was a pragmatic centrist. Eisenhower was a pragmatic centrist. JFK was a pragmatic centrist.

Obama's cabinet picks sure as hell don't qualify as making him a pragmatic centrist. More like the beltway/Wall St./corporate pal that was Bill Clinton.

[Freddie Stubbs]

72. Perhaps Obama wants to be a pal to everyone

I don't the America wanted a President who was an enemy of those who employ most of us.

[brentspeak]

73. "Those who employ most of us"

Such as...? Names, please?

What you just said is the classic Republican refrain.

[QC]

26. He's just doing that so he can fire them later!

:crazy:

[Beacool]

28. Well, what you see as bad some see as good and breathed a sigh of relief.

There's always two sides to a coin...........

:shrug:

[cascadiance]

29. Maybe, just maybe, he'll do the war on the DLC later! and this is the beginning of that...

If he hires a lot of elected DLC officials from congress, and they get replaced with non-DLCers (hopefully), and then once later he declares war on the DLC if they don't do the right thing for grass roots Dems. and just turns around and fires all of those he just hired and in effect takes them out of office that way. Then we have both the congress "cleaner" and then perhaps his cabinet cleaner later.

I can only hope that's what's in store! Anyway, Barack, you have that excuse later, if it becomes clear to the whole nation that the DLC is the cancer (which many of us believe that it is) that is in the way of real reform. You could come off looking like a genius later if you pulled this off in this way...

[mtnsnake]

34. Let me get this straight

Obama is hiring all these DLC'ers to work for him, some of them at the highest levels in his administration, because he secretly wants to wipe them all off the face of the map by having them all fail and then firing them all.

Sounds logical to me :think: :crazy:

[Two Americas]

36. it is quite a plan

What I don't get is why he doesn't appoint Republican Senators, and then we could get rid of them.

[wyldwolf]

41. some desperate soul has proposed that wacky theory here before

[cascadiance]

53. i don't think it necessarily WAS his plan in so doing, but...

... it could *become* his plan later, when he discovers that America does NOT want DLC folks in power when they discover they don't represent them, but corporations instead. It would be a nice out for Obama to be able to fire them all and help with the purge when America sees that it is necessary to restore the middle class and American values again.

Those of us that will be lobbying him in the coming year for the correct stimulus packages and reform changes could point this out to him as a way to work with us later, when it becomes clearer that America is fed up with lack of anything substantive being done for them.

[mtnsnake]

58. In essence, you are actually saying that you hope Obama's administration fails

just so he can fire all the DLC'ers he chose of his own free will to work for him...and to prove a point. Great logic there.

[Two Americas]

62. don't be absurd

The definition of success in a representative democracy is hearing and responding to dissent.

People here have every right to influence the discussion and so to influence the administration, for the sake of the success of the administration. Just because they have different ideas then you do as to which direction the administrations should go does not make them disloyal or traitors to anything. It is disgusting that these insinuations are being thrown around.

I think - as does everyone else here, and as everyone has the right to think - that my ideas, what is best for the people, and what would make a successful administration are all one and the same thing. You may disagree with my ideas, but please stop impugning people's motives and sincerity.

[cascadiance]

64. That would be like saying those that pushed FDR to do the New Deal wanted him to fail!

I said NO such thing! I just said that given the circumstances of him taking many DLC members out of elected positions for his cabinet positions, where they CAN be fired and taken out of positions of power, that if later as America discovers that the DLC is working against the people's interest (which is what I believe will happen at some point), we have more of an ability to move some of these people out of power than if they'd stayed in the congress.

I DO believe that Obama at some point must serve the people that helped put him into office. Those that BELIEVED that his espousing himself as a candidate of CHANGE, and not perpetuating the status quo, are still waiting for and DESERVE To get newer voices that will speak for them, not corporate shills...

Now, I can't read Obama's mind to know what his true motives are in his new appointments, and am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now, but I will be looking for means to push him into answering the call for change that was campaigned on, and that Americans should have delivered to them. I don't want to see him "fail". I want to see him SERVE US! Now if he doesn't want to serve us, THEN I'll want to see him either fail or be forced to change his approach to serve us. But until I see clear evidence that he isn't working for us, I want him to succeed, but in serving us, NOT corporate America, and I will keep pushing for that to happen. I'm not going to sit back and presume he's going to work for us without "coaxing"... Not many presidents have served us without many of us pushing them in a certain direction, including such greats as FDR... Obama's no exception.

[mtnsnake]

70. Why would Obama fire them unless they failed?

You're hoping that the DLC gets wiped out by some assinine notion that Obama is going to hire them, then he'll fire them all when they fail, as if it's some sort of master plan. Well if THEY the people he hires fail, then his administration fails.

[cascadiance]

71. I'm saying he has the OPTION to fire them, not that he has plans to at this point...

I say that because, as this country discovers that the DLC by its VERY MISSION to serve corporate interests over the people's interests, and how so many of these appointments are this DLC that aren't serving the people's interests, this *option* could afford Obama the ability to get out of a bad situation later if the people feel that they've been betrayed by Obama picking corporate-serving appointments over people-serving appointments, that he could fire them to bring in those that serve the people, and even make it sound like that was the plan (EVEN IF IT WASN'T his plan!). That's politics. And as someone that wants to see the DLC out of both congress and the executive branch in favor of those serving peoples' interests, I'll take that as a means to change the government, even if it wasn't Obama's original agenda, whatever his reasons for hiring them might have been. And if Obama's smart and doesn't want bad PR at that point in the future when people see that DLC power is a bad idea in this time of economic crisis fomented by too much control by corporate interests, and perhaps the start of a new party that will seek to take out corporate control of our government, he will take advantage of this "out". If he doesn't, he doesn't deserve another term then in many of our books. But I'm not ready to judge him just yet, until I see where he's going with all of this.

[NoPasaran]

45. Straight out of Machiavelli For Gooberheads

[Laelth]

31. Good!

I want to see every DLC member of congress out of the congress (where they can't be fired) and, instead, placed in appointed positions where Obama can fire them at will if they don't toe the line.

This could work out very well, indeed, for the progressive agenda.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[QC]

38. I just know there's a pony in here somewhere! n/t

[LostinVA]

42. That's because he's a DLCer who just didn't join the Club -- which isn't a surprise

PE Obama hasn't done one thing since elected that goes against his political history or beliefs.

[wyldwolf]

43. the club?

[Lilith Velkor]

51. The New Democrat Coalition, I presume.

[RhodaGrits]

50. Appointing Vilsack is a terrible mistake that

advances the corporate agenda of driving out small farmers and eliminating real food. Obama now has at least two unforgivables - the telecom amnesty and now this.

[Tumbulu]

67. I can't believe that he picked Vilsack!

Doesn't Obama have any real ag people advising him? I am appalled. It makes no sense at all. I am hoping that he changes his mind.

[IndianaJones]

63. bravo. nt.