Obama's Cabinet is a Centrist's dream

[wyldwolf]

* From Politico.

President-elect Barack Obama spent the campaign fighting the notion that he’s an unabashed liberal.

Now he can point to Exhibit A: a Cabinet that’s a middle-of-the-roader's dream.

Consider the scorecard: The centrist Democratic Leadership Council claims ties with half the group. Movement progressives count a single one, Calfornia Rep. Hilda Solis at Labor, a union favorite.

But if Obama gives with Solis, he takes away with former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, a free-trade advocate for trade representative, no union favorite.

Classic Obama, some grumbled.

---snip---

“Barack Obama has never made any bones about it: He is a moderate,” said Matt Bennett, co-founder of Third Way, a moderate public policy think tank. “People who ignored that did so at their peril.”

Obama’s Cabinet, which will be rounded out Friday with formal announcements for labor and transportation, is politically moderate and ethnically diverse. There are Ivy Leaguers and hoopsters, loyalists to Hillary Rodham Clinton and longtime allies of Obama, and Midwesterners, Westerners and New Yorkers. Texans filled 43’s White House, but not 44’s, with just one in Kirk.

n recent years, the Democratic Leadership Council struggled to attract a single presidential candidate to its national convention, while an annual gathering of liberal bloggers saw its cache rise.

Their fortunes have been reversed.

Labor’s not loving Kirk, and no one is mistaking Timothy Geithner at treasury and Lawrence Summers as Obama’s top White House economic adviser for union guys. But still, the cabinet will be “night and day compared to the last eight years,” said Jonathan Tasini, executive director of the Labor Research Association, a New York nonprofit that works with trade unions.



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16734.html?loc=interstitialskip

[Jennicut]

1. Poltico sucks

That being said it was McLame and Palin who said Obama was a "socialist", I found that funny considering he was always far from it.

[wyldwolf]

2. yes, it does

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. Do they suck because they are pointing out facts which you would prefer to ignore?

:shrug:

Is there anything factually incorrect in the article?

[Jennicut]

60. Nope. They just suck.. Everyone knows that.

Obama is a moderate. I am okay with that.

[mod mom]

3. We can only hope that he placed them there to neutralize their power. They have to implement

his decisions.

[wyldwolf]

4. that's just a bizarre and desperate theory created to make some people feel better

[mod mom]

8. Yeah..it was probably Hillary's experience in Bosnia, and peace talks in Ireland

that made her the most qualified person for SOS.

It was probably Eric Holder's support of Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich without protest, or his experience protecting corporate interest in the Colombia/Chiquita case that made the choice easy for President Obama.

Time will tell, but I must say getting some DLC types out of the way and required to implement PRESIDENT Obama's agenda sure could help the progressive cause!

[wyldwolf]

9. your reply has so little relevance to the discussion I wonder why you bothered?

The fact is, the DLC has healthy representation in the Obama cabinet - much more so than "progressives" do. So to try to make yourselves feel better, you create a conspiracy (surprise!) that Obama is filling his cabinet with poor choices to take them out of meaningful political power.

Sorry, that is STUPID.

[mod mom]

10. As Norman Goldman just said on the Ed Schultz show This country has been destroyed

by 28 years of Reaganomics and they and their free market economics were proven WRONG (Paraphrased)

I am thankful their voices will be heard BUT OBAMA's agenda wil be the one IMPLEMENTE.

I guess I'm bitter at what those (read: DLCers) who helped pushed the GOP agenda while wearing a 'd" after their name have done to the hard working people who were abandoned by their pro-corporate agenda.

[wyldwolf]

11. then he's an idiot because Clinton's economic policies were the opposite of trickle down

:shrug:

Facts always get in the way of "progressive" meanderings.

[mod mom]

25. He was speaking about the free trade policies and dismantling of govt reg that has lead

to the economic woes especially to the middle working class. He talked about the export of jobs to China (now who pushed that despite opposition by the Democratic Party)? Give up:

Clinton to renew Normal Trade Relations with China



June 2, 1999
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 2) -- President Bill Clinton will notify Congress Thursday that he is renewing China's most-favored-nation (MFN) trading status -- now known as Normal Trade Relations (NTR) -- for another year, CNN has confirmed.

MFN/NTR status offers low tariffs and treats countries as normal trading partners.

The formal notification, required by the Thursday deadline, is expected to trigger a major debate in the House and Senate due to allegations of Chinese espionage against the U.S. and other recent diplomatic tensions, including charges China tried to influence the 1996 presidential election with illegal campaign contributions.

One of the first speak out against Clinton decision, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California), derided the president for making the decision near the 10th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

-snip

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/02/china.mfn/



Clinton Proposes Renewing China's Most-Favored Trade Status

Congressional reaction mixed amidst larger China policy issues


WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 3) -- President Bill Clinton on Wednesday proposed renewing most-favored-nation (MFN) trade status for China, saying it was "clearly in our nation's interest" as he urged Congress to support the request.

-snip

House Speaker Newt Gingrich welcomed Clinton's recommendation for renewing MFN status for China, and vowed to work in a bipartisan manner to ensure that China receives it from Congress.

Gingrich, joined by Reps. Bill Archer (R-Texas) and Philip Crane (R-Ill.), made his comments in a letter to Clinton.

-snip

House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt issued a statement Wednesday opposing Clinton's plan to extend China's trading status for another year.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/03/china.trade/

ON DEREGULATION
On April 6, 1998, Weill and Reed announce a $70 billion stock swap merging Travelers (which owned the investment house Salomon Smith Barney) and Citicorp (the parent of Citibank), to create Citigroup Inc., the world's largest financial services company, in what was the biggest corporate merger in history.

The transaction would have to work around regulations in the Glass-Steagall and Bank Holding Company acts governing the industry, which were implemented precisely to prevent this type of company: a combination of insurance underwriting, securities underwriting, and commecial banking. The merger effectively gives regulators and lawmakers three options: end these restrictions, scuttle the deal, or force the merged company to cut back on its consumer offerings by divesting any business that fails to comply with the law.

-snip

Citicorp and Travelers quietly lobby banking regulators and government officials for their support. In late March and early April, Weill makes three heads-up calls to Washington: to Fed Chairman Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and President Clinton. On April 5, the day before the announcement, Weill and Reed make a ceremonial call on Clinton to brief him on the upcoming announcement.

-snip

Weill and Reed have to act quickly for both business and political reasons. Fears that the necessary regulatory changes would not happen in time had caused the share prices of both companies to fall. The House Republican leadership indicates that it wants to enact the measure in the current session of Congress. While the Clinton administration generally supported Glass-Steagall "modernization," but there are concerns that mid-term elections in the fall could bring in Democrats less sympathetic to changing the laws.

-snip

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html





BTW Norman Goldman is far from an idiot. I'll leave that term for those who supported this devastating agenda! Mr Goldman is an attorney and a good progressive:


http://www.thenormaninvasion.com/

[wyldwolf]

34. then he's still an idiot. Free Trade agreements are not Reaganomics

[mod mom]

37. yeah...and you Clinton supporters who won't face what havoc your policies did to this

country are not. I'll consider the source.

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

38. why do you have an Al "Mr. NAFTA" Gore avatar? And how did Reagan influence FDR on free trade?

[mod mom]

39. Al Gore had a change of heart back in 2000 (from Boston Globe)

I am convinced that the failure of the DLC to acknowledge Gore's win in 2000 (in fact they blame his "loss" on breaking with the DLC and becoming a populist-i'll post a link below) and their active role in keeping Kerry from challenging Ohio in 2004(thanks to Clinton ally James Carville (also posted below) was calculated as to allow a HRC run in '08. If either would have taken the office they won, then HRC and her corporate cronies would not have had a chance in 2008. Also look how they try to undermine Howard Dean. Anyway, here are some links:

FIRST..GORE BROKE WITH THE DLC TO BECOME A POPULIST:

Published on Sunday, August 20. 2000 in the Boston Globe
Thank You, Al Gore
by Robert Kuttner
A funny thing happened to Al Gore on the way to his surprisingly effective acceptance speech. He became a liberal.

The speech was as liberal as anything FDR or LBJ or Jesse Jackson or one of the Kennedys might have delivered. It was built around a commitment to fight for ordinary people, against large and powerful interests. This, of course, is precisely what made it effective.

The emotional heart of the speech, Gore's honoring of four ordinary American lives, did not just salute the struggles of workaday families, the way Ronald Reagan often did. It identified who was dishonoring their struggles - corporations. He singled out heartless HMOs who pressure a family to sacrifice a child; drug companies that force a pensioner to choose between food and medicine; corporate polluters; corporations that pay workers inadequate wages.

And he identified the solution: strong, reliable public Social Security; better Medicare; welfare reform that rewards work rather than punishing the needy; higher minimum wages; and more investment in public - not voucher - schools, so that working families don't have to send kids to crumbling classrooms.

What is the evil? Corporate power. What is the remedy? Effective government.

-snip
http://www.commondreams.org/views/082000-105.htm

SECOND, AFTER GORE'S WIN THEY BLAME HIS 'LOSS' ON BREAKING WITH THE DLC:

Strange Theory on Why Gore Lost



The so-called Democratic Leadership Council has decided that Al Gore should have acted more like a Republican in order to win the 2000 presidential electoral college vote in addition to his nationwide popular vote victory. This strange finding has drawn some attention, including coverage by the Associated Press and the Environmental News Service -- we have a few excerpts from their reports for you here.
Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm


DID YOU GET THAT?
Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful"

DLC ARE SCUM!!!!!!!

AND FURTHER, CLINTON ALLY JAMES CARVILLE'S ROLE IN THE QUICK KERRY CONCESSION:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

[wyldwolf]

42. #1, you links have nothing about NAFTA, #2, Gore still spoke favorably of NAFTA in 2006

Larry King Live, June 13, 2006:

KING: We're back with Al Gore. Before we talk about immigration, a look back at then Vice President Al Gore debating Ross Perot in 1993. The most viewed regularly scheduled cable show ever happened right here. Well, it happened in Washington. The subject is how NAFTA would improve our relationship with Mexico. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GORE: The best way to eliminate our influence down there is to defeat NAFTA. The best way to preserve it is to enter into this bargain, continue the lowering of the barriers. We've got a commitment that they're going to raise their minimum wage with productivity. We've got an agreement for the first time in history to use trade sanctions to compel the enforcement of their environmental standards. As they begin to develop and locate better jobs farther south, we cut down on illegal immigration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Has that happened?

GORE: Well, it's hard to say that illegal immigration got any better. It obviously got a lot worse. But it might have been worse still without the effort to try to boost the economy in Mexico. (that would be NAFTA - wyldwolf)

You know, during the Clinton-Gore administration, we faced a couple of big challenges on that front. There was a financial crisis in Mexico and we took the bold step of shoring them up. And then when it came to this agreement to try to strengthen their economy and get more good jobs down there to slow down the flow of immigration, I think we did the right thing.

I think other developments in the aftermath of those years, principally the rise of China and the movement of jobs from Mexico to China and to other Asian countries, made the situation worse than it would have otherwise been. But without the agreement that was made and without the shoring up of their economy back then, it could have been much worse still.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/13/lkl.01.html

Gore's words are clear. He thought NAFTA was a good idea in the 90s, and in 2006 he still thought NAFTA had made things better than they would have been without it... unless you can show me a post-2006 link where he refutes NAFTA totally?

And forgive me if I don't accept the "progressive" sensational spin on the DLC's analyis of Gore's campaign. The same conclusion was reached by any number of sources. Simply, Gore ran away from the Clinton economy.

[brentspeak]

41. What connection does FDR have with NAFTA and MFN status for China , genius?

[wyldwolf]

43. I've not said or implied FDR has a connection to NAFTA, genius, but he did run on free trade

FDR ran against the protectionist policies of Herbert Hoover, specifically Smoot-Hawley. He was convinced that the United States could never prosper unless the whole world was united in a system of relatively open, non-discriminatory exchange, which we have come to call "free trade."

China was first granted MFN status in 1979 - which certainly predates it to Reaganomics.

[brentspeak]

44. FDR believed in free trade, not one-sided Clintonian/DLC/GOP/Wall St. cheap labor

FDR envisioned free-trade as something where American companies built plants overseas to make products which would then be sold in those countries where the new plants were located. Meanwhile, the companies would retain the U.S. - based plants in the U.S. Never in the New Dealer's worst nightmares did they ever imagine that slick, fast-talking, cocktail-party-gathering idiots like Bill Clinton and the DLC Mob would push through policies whereas U.S. companies relocated their facilities so as to lay off American employees; and then to have those cheaply-made and cheap-quality overseas-made products shipped back to the U.S. for sales in American Mall-Warts to now-much-poorer American citizens -- who have been redesignated "consumers".

[wyldwolf]

45. so you're backing off the China MFN status association to "Reaganomics?"

doesn't surprise me.

Trivia - when did the Democratic party move towards what you call "one-sided Clintonian/DLC/GOP/Wall St. cheap labor?" This should be good.

"progressives" would gain a little more credibility if they'd quit trying to rewrite history in regards to the pre-Clinton Democratic party. It isn't that your points are valid concerning free trade, it's the dishonesty (naivety?) you use to arrive at those conclusion that are the problem.

[brentspeak]

49. I never associated China's MFN status with Reaganomics in the first place

It was Clinton, along with Rubin and his pals, who pushed for granting China permanent MFN status. The Republicans and the DLCers loved him for it.

[wyldwolf]

50. then why did you hijack the discussion and intject the topic... which you're wrong about anyway

It was Jimmy Carter who first pushed for it - In 1979 he sent Congress a trade agreement with China that included a MFN waiver which gave China MFN status on a year by year basis. He restored normalize relations in 1980.

Also check former Carter's Op-Ed article in The New York Times on April 30 1991 calling for "reconcilation" and the renewal of most-favored-nation trade status for China

[brentspeak]

54. You're drowning in disingenuity

It's coming out of your ears, in fact.

Read my post again - I said that Clinton and his DLCs pushed for permanent MFN status for China. I never claimed that Jimmy Carter or any other Democrat before Clinton had nothing to do with pushing for MFN. Keep waltzing around the subject.

[wyldwolf]

55. you're drowning in dishonesty AND disingenuity

#1. You edited permanent in (post 49, see edit timestamp) AFTER I pointed out it was Jimmy Carter who restored MFN status to China yearly. In fact, I had a feeling you'd do that so I took a pre-edit screenshot. Wanna see it?
#2. Despite that, Carter again pushed for permanent MFN status in 1991 - several years before Clinton took office and several more years before Clinton agreed with him.

Keep waltzing around the subject.

:rofl:

Right, you keep revising your most recent posting history to compensate for your lack of knowledge.

[brentspeak]

56. LOL.

Do you enjoy making yourself look pathetic?

#1. You edited permanent in (post 49, see edit timestamp) AFTER I pointed out it was Jimmy Carter who restored MFN status to China yearly. In fact, I had a feeling you'd do that so I took a pre-edit screenshot. Wanna see it?

Me, editing my post at 8:40 pm: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8005563&mesg_id=8016465

You, making your Jimmy Carter "point" at 8:44 pm: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8005563&mesg_id=8016489

In your bizarre world, four minutes after is actually something that took place 'before'?

[wyldwolf]

61. LOL back

you first mention clinton and MFN for China at 2:03

at 5:46 I made first mention of MFN status for China in 1979

at 8:35 you made your original post

at 8:40, you made your edit, inserting "permanent"


(pre-edit, no 'permanent.')

See, the Carter point was made hours before. Your argument was shot to hell by the simple year of 1979, which all your "progressive" faux-expertise on the evil DLC never prepared you for.

[Runcible Spoon]

12. no kidding!

I cringe every time I hear that..."Obama just wants them close so he can neutralize them" as if he is made of kryptonite or something. If Obama is TRULY progressive, he will have to spend his entire tenure chasing after his cabinet like an overworked daycare provider. At worst, he picked powerful, influential people who will most effectively help him craft policy...just not PROGRESSIVE policy, but more DLC capitulation and corporate whoring.

[jonnyblitz]

29. delete, wrong spot

[Thrill]

5. More Politico Bullshit. Find one positive Obama article on the whole site?

[wyldwolf]

7. I didn't consider the article negative nor could I find anything factually wrong with it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. Here is a positive one:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16734.html?loc=interstitialskip

[ErinBerin84]

6. thanks as always, politico.

(not that they don't have valid points, but I just know that Politico would be saying that it was a "Communist's Dream" or something if he had a couple libs in there...their job is to be the beltway gossip/shit stirrers.)

[ShortnFiery]

36. Exactly! Don't forget how much "Dear Leader" shilled for Politico.com as soon as they

slithered out from under a rock. A few years back at one of his inane "pressers," Bush said to one correspondent several times, "Oh, what organization do you represent? POLITICO DOT COM ... you said POLITICO DOT COM." The foregoing tells me all I need to know about them, i.e., mouthpiece for the ruling investor class - political elites.

[bunnies]

13. Im sensing a ping of satisfaction, wyld...

Am I wrong? :shrug: :hi:

[wyldwolf]

14. well..

I'm not disappointed.

[bunnies]

15. lol.

:rofl: I knew it! :smoke:

[wyldwolf]

16. but I will say this

If he was filling the cabinet up with respected progressives, I wouldn't bellyache about it. Better for that to happen than another Republican appointing hard right nuts.

[bunnies]

19. I hear ya....

but I remember that liberals werent what you where predicting. In fact, I seem to remember the phrase "DLC wet dream" :rofl: I think I probably even argued against it a *cough* time or two *cough*. Seems you called it right wyld, I gotta hand it to you.

[wyldwolf]

20. it was all fortold here:

[bunnies]

21. Indeed.

I read and loved that book. But the romance - oh, the romance - how not to be swept up? I was powerless.

[S_E_Fudd]

17. Its about competence...

Obama is more interested in getting results that pushing an ideology...that is what truly distrubs certain "progressives"...that he is willing to use good people no matter where they come from

Having supported Hillary in the primaries I have to say I am pleasantly surprised by Obama so far...

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. Are you suggesting that centrists are more competent than those in the ideological extremes?

:shrug:

[scheming daemons]

23. One could argue that...

...those on the ideological extremes more often make decisions based on emotion and passion and not on deliberative reasoning.

...and that could be tied to competence.



(just to play devil's advocate)

[S_E_Fudd]

24. Not what I said...

I said his primary concern is competance over ideology....

[Raineyb]

59. Well they're certainly competent at lining the pockets of their donors

Unfortunately for the rest of us that generally comes at our expense.

Regards

[anaxarchos]

46. "competence" is a slogan...

... for the burbs, for middle management, for a return to "good times". I suppose if Bush had been "competent", he wouldn't have been so bad.
Good luck with that.

All kinds of people can make the trains run on time.

[IndianaJones]

27. I LOVE his cabinet picks. nt.

[firedupdem]

28. They can label the picks whatever they like...as long as the agenda

is carried out we'll be fine. If anybody goes rogue, we'll have issues.

[Cha]

32. Big

Time Issues:bounce: :)

[jonnyblitz]

30. yup, it is. nt

[mmonk]

31. Aren't they all?

[Odin2005]

33. Politico is spewing divisive BS. Obama is a liberal.

And his cabinet has a mix of liberals and moderates.

And the Naderites need to STFU.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShortnFiery]

35. Yes, I thought you would be pleased.

To me: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. :thumbsdown:

In the end, Obama's tenure will continue to gut the Middle class ... THINK - "Frog placed in slow warming pot."

I joke with my family that I'm considering moving to Vancouver and opening a Head Shop with Tommy Chong. :silly:

[LWolf]

40. True, not news, not a surprise.

Opposition from the left should come as no surprise, either.

[ulysses]

48. truly said.

[ulysses]

51. enjoy.

[depakid]

52. Except that science isn't "centrist"

and data, facts and analysis typically result in a decidedly progressive "bias" when applied to public policy decisions.

The trouble with so called "centists" is that they either:

Lack the ability to appreciate the analysis;

are corrupted by the influence of money in the political process; or

are cowardly and lack the political fortitude to solve the policy problem(s) given the facts and resources at hand.

[AtomicKitten]

53. He's just choosing some pros to carry out his policy. n/t

[ecstatic]

57. Politico and other MSM outlets now know how to play us like fiddles

We will be their puppets over the next 4 years. If they succeed in dividing us enough, we will spend January 2013 protesting Fred Phelps at Palin's Inauguration ceremony.

[Forkboy]

58. As expected. His book was the literary equivalent of 1% milk.