Some reflections as the year comes to an end

[beachmom]

John Kerry is the Democrat who inspired me to become involved as an activist. He said it in speeches, and he seemed quite pleased when I told him in person that because of his words I had volunteered for the Webb campaign in '06. So, of course, this year, I continued that activism by volunteering for Obama's campaign for change here in Georgia. I met some great people, and although we fell short, I am so happy I did that work. I'll never forget Election Night, when Ohio was called, and later when the West Coast was called and Senator Obama officially became President Elect Obama. I was in a former KKK region in Forsyth County celebrating with a mixed crowd, black and white, gay and straight, a variety of religions. Some of the African Americans broke out in song singing "Amen", and we all joined in in that old spiritual. It was the ultimate high point of my involvement in politics ....

And then Hillary got picked for Secretary of State. And the magic was gone. Nasty stories were told on TV and in the press that Kerry would have been a "disappointing" choice for Secretary of State, and that is why Obama picked Clinton. This went on and on. At first I reacted intellectually: well, this is a good political move. Kerry will still have the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But as the pettiness and nastiness continued for a couple more weeks, something happened inside of me. I no longer felt euphoric for an Obama Presidency. The joy I had felt on Election Night was gone, never to return. No matter what anyone can say to me, no matter how many times I see a smiling and very busy Sen. Kerry on TV, I still think Kerry was betrayed by Obama. I just can't get around that. Now this does not mean they will not work together -- of course, they will. I see Kerry being considerably influential with this Administration, and I see him doing an incredible job. I see Kerry going to the White House for casual dinners, where his counsel to the President will be very important. But it will never be like it was before. Kerry was the Happy Warrior for Barack Obama. He did not deserve to be treated the way he was.

To be fair to Obama, he was not at all happy the way things went down:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/magazine/21Gibbs-t.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

When I spoke to Obama by phone earlier this month, he said he was not surprised by this. “The transition involves an awful lot of people who don’t actually work for me,” he said. “You’ve got a slew of volunteers in every agency in the vetting process. You’ve got F.B.I. folks involved when it comes to appointments. So we anticipated that we weren’t going to be able to march in lock step on our communications as effectively.” Still, Obama was said to be furious over the serial public airings about Hillary Clinton’s eventual nomination to be Secretary of State. He sent an explicit message that anyone caught leaking would be fired — and he sent it through his newly named chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who a couple of weeks earlier conducted a very public hand-wringing about whether he would take that job.

Implicit in there was that it wasn't right to have all this speculation going on for weeks, while other possible candidates were mocked. I have no idea if Obama telephoned Kerry and said he was sorry about some of those leaks. But if it isn't public, then it isn't real. Kerry was made fun of in the media on account of leaks attributed to the Obama transition team, and nobody defended him except his own spokesperson, and us. I just am not going to be able to forget that.

During this time period, Obama decided that Georgia wasn't worth his time for the Senate runoff. So I decided it wasn't worth my time either, and skipped out on Martin. Now in my defense, the schedule offered for phonebanking was not good for me and I was pretty burned out from the G.E. But I know that the moment all this crap went down on the Sec. of State position, I just didn't know if I wanted to stay involved in politics anymore. I am not making any decisions yet, but the Democratic party in Georgia is pathetic. I just don't see a lot of hope here. The Republicans hold nearly everything: the governership, both Senators, both state Houses, and the majority of the Congressional delegation (we have John Lewis, and two conservative Dems: Marshall (who voted against s-chip) and Barrow). I won't make any decisions on that yet, but I don't feel like volunteering for candidates who always lose, which is kind of how it is here.

The other effect that this disappointment has had on me is actually a good thing in a way. I no longer feel invested in the Obama Administration, so bad stuff that happens no longer upsets me. I can take many steps back, and realize that Obama will be a decent President who will hopefully fix the economy and move foreign policy back toward sanity. He has hired a lot of really smart and accomplished people. Competence and innovation will be back in government. But on difficult issues, he will probably disappoint. And his picking Warren as the minister to give the invocation on Inauguration Day? Hell, that was SO predictable. What a slap in the face to gay people already crushed from Prop 8 passing in California. He is wrong to do so, while politically it is a good move. Believe me, I know lots of fans of "The Purpose Driven Life". They will be impressed with Obama having Warren there, even if they voted for McCain. It's good presidential politics. But it's not for me, and I am not going along with it. It helps to review the New Yorker article about Obama from the summer:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza

Preckwinkle is an Alderman in Chicago who helped Obama out early in his career when he sought the state Senate seat.

Preckwinkle soon became an Obama loyalist, and she stuck with him in a State Senate campaign that strained or ruptured many friendships but was ultimately successful. Four years later, in 2000, she backed Obama in a doomed congressional campaign against a local icon, the former Black Panther Bobby Rush. And in 2004 Preckwinkle supported Obama during his improbable, successful run for the United States Senate. So it was startling to learn that Toni Preckwinkle had become disenchanted with Barack Obama.

Preckwinkle is a tall, commanding woman with a clipped gray Afro. She has represented her slice of the South Side for seventeen years and expresses no interest in higher office. On Chicago’s City Council, she is often a dissenter against the wishes of Mayor Richard M. Daley. For anyone trying to understand Obama’s breathtakingly rapid political ascent, Preckwinkle is an indispensable witness—a close observer, friend, and confidante during a period of Obama’s life to which he rarely calls attention.

Although many of Obama’s recent supporters have been surprised by signs of political opportunism, Preckwinkle wasn’t. “I think he was very strategic in his choice of friends and mentors,” she told me. “I spent ten years of my adult life working to be alderman. I finally got elected. This is a job I love. And I’m perfectly happy with it. I’m not sure that’s the way that he approached his public life—that he was going to try for a job and stay there for one period of time. In retrospect, I think he saw the positions he held as stepping stones to other things and therefore approached his public life differently than other people might have.”

On issue after issue, Preckwinkle presented Obama as someone who thrived in the world of Chicago politics. She suggested that Obama joined Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ for political reasons. “It’s a church that would provide you with lots of social connections and prominent parishioners,” she said. “It’s a good place for a politician to be a member.” Preckwinkle was unsparing on the subject of the Chicago real-estate developer Antoin (Tony) Rezko, a friend of Obama’s and one of his top fund-raisers, who was recently convicted of fraud, bribery, and money laundering: “Who you take money from is a reflection of your knowledge at the time and your principles.” As we talked, it became increasingly clear that loyalty was the issue that drove Preckwinkle’s current view of her onetime protégé. “I don’t think you should forget who your friends are,” she said.

Others told me that Preckwinkle’s grievances against Obama included specific complaints, such as his refusal to endorse a former aide and longtime friend, Will Burns, in a State Senate primary—a contest that Burns won anyway. There was also a more general belief that, after Obama won the 2004 United States Senate primary, he ignored his South Side base. Preckwinkle said, “My view is you have to bring your constituency along with you. Granted, you have to make some tough decisions. Granted, sometimes you have to make decisions that people won’t understand or like. But it’s your obligation to explain yourself and try to do your supporters the courtesy of treating them with respect.” Ivory Mitchell, who for twenty years has been the chairman of the local ward organization in Obama’s neighborhood—considered the most important Democratic organization on the South Side—was one of Obama’s earliest backers. Today, he says, “All the work we did to help him get where he finally ended up, he didn’t seem too appreciative.” A year ago, Mitchell became a delegate for Hillary Clinton.

The same month Mitchell endorsed Clinton, the Obama campaign reached out to Preckwinkle, and eventually she signed on as an Obama delegate. I asked her if what she considered slights or betrayals were simply the necessary accommodations and maneuvering of a politician making a lightning transition from Hyde Park legislator to Presidential nominee. “Can you get where he is and maintain your personal integrity?” she said. “Is that the question?” She stared at me and grimaced. “I’m going to pass on that.”

I read this article, and got several things out of it: Obama was not corrupt nor was he some kind of radical. BUT, it is clear that he is not someone you can count on. He is a brilliant politician, and he will move the country overall in the right direction. But it is going to be a painful four years full of much disappointment. I am thankful that mine came early, so that I will be ready for all the subsequent disappointments. Of course, we know we have a Senator who we CAN count on, and that is John Kerry.

[Muttocracy]

1. Error: You can't recommend threads from this forum

:)

[WildEyedLiberal]

2. You echo my thoughts exactly

Particularly here:

And then Hillary got picked for Secretary of State. And the magic was gone. Nasty stories were told on TV and in the press that Kerry would have been a "disappointing" choice for Secretary of State, and that is why Obama picked Clinton. This went on and on. At first I reacted intellectually: well, this is a good political move. Kerry will still have the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But as the pettiness and nastiness continued for a couple more weeks, something happened inside of me. I no longer felt euphoric for an Obama Presidency. The joy I had felt on Election Night was gone, never to return. No matter what anyone can say to me, no matter how many times I see a smiling and very busy Sen. Kerry on TV, I still think Kerry was betrayed by Obama. I just can't get around that. Now this does not mean they will not work together -- of course, they will. I see Kerry being considerably influential with this Administration, and I see him doing an incredible job. I see Kerry going to the White House for casual dinners, where his counsel to the President will be very important. But it will never be like it was before. Kerry was the Happy Warrior for Barack Obama. He did not deserve to be treated the way he was.

I am well and truly done pouring any sort of real emotion into politics. It's obvious John Kerry will never be anything more than a hopefully somewhat influential lifetime Senator, and as I doubt I will ever live in MA, my ability to help him out is limited. I can't even be bothered to get upset one way or another over anything that's happened since the Hillary fiasco; after that last cruel knife in the back - that I honestly and truly did NOT see coming - I am done with the personal emotional investment. If Obama does something great, then hooray, good for the country, but I won't be feeling the euphoric sense of personal victory I felt when JK accomplished things. If he does something boneheaded or conservative, I'll be disappointed, but not beset by a crushing sense of personal betrayal. Politics has lost its ability to betray me any further than it already has. My concern is purely academic at this point; I want the country to move farther to the left, into a more progressive and sustainable future. Not because I any longer give a shit about my "team" or favorite pols, but because the nation and world demand a more sustainable course of action. I care about getting universal health care; I care about economic parity and justice; I care about preserving our environment and ecosystems and stopping the rampant rape of the planet Earth. But the rest of the little battles and games hold no interest for me any more. I used to want a career in politics, and I don't have any idea what I want to do now. But politics can't break my heart any more. You can't trust a damn soul in that business, with one notable exception. And look what happens to the good guys.

[MBS]

3. I agree with you and beachmom, but JK will get the recognition he deserves

I think it's already starting to happen. And given all the traits you both have noted about the incoming administration, I am absolutely delighted that JK will have his independent voice in the Senate, and not serving at the whim of O.

I have towering respect for the way that JK has handled the last 4 years - the multiple disappointments, the trashing by fellow Dems and the press. He has kept moving forward, with integrity, guts, and grace (and a beaming smile, to boot!). Honestly, I don't know how he stands this stuff, but I'm so glad he does. JK is a class act in every way, and a daily inspiration and role model for me as I work my way through the frustrations and of my own stupid (and nerve-wracking) professional situation.

[beachmom]

4. As to writing about John Kerry's work, I have no choice in the matter.

I am simply COMPELLED to write about him. You can't argue with passion. So many days, I say I will turn off my computer and do something else. Then I will read about something Kerry has said or done, and the creative juices flow. I don't see that slowing down. My discussion about being an activist is more about going out there and volunteering for Georgia Democrats or Obama's re-election campaign. That, I still am thinking about what to do. I am also weighing checking out environmental groups here, as I think that is a major problem in Georgia.

So John Kerry is reason enough to keep writing. It's the other stuff I am not sure about.

[karynnj]

5. I think I am with you, but could never have expressed it as well

I think I was a little less surprised because I never was totally sure about Obama. Kerry's endorsement did make me more convinced, but I never was sure whether things both he and Kerry stated as his positions were as firmly held by him as they were by Kerry. But, I knew that by the time Kerry told Obama he would endorse him, there were only 2 other possibilities. Both would have had less chance of being the change needed - and even without the affair, Edwards stood a good chance of losing. At this point, I think that Obama will have to be a great President, but he might not be the one who can make the real changes needed in the political culture or as big a change as Kerry would have made in foreign policy. (I also don't like his transportation Secretary - unless he has changed his position on high speed rail.)

I also was not happy that in his convention speech he singled out the Clintons, Gore and Biden for thank yous - leaving Kerry out. (Yes, I know many others spoke - but Kerry should have been treated as Gore was.) Not to mention, Kerry was nearly the last person added to the schedule - another slight. Yet he still gave the best speech of the convention. Yes, I saw the backstage photo of him obviously happy with Kerry, but it was not the same - Kerry deserved that same public status, especially after that speech. The same thing is happening now - there was a public meeting with Gore a day or so before Obama made his energy choice known - likely because having Gore there gave Obama some credibility, while Kerry has not been seen with him - even as he went on this important transition trip. Obama could have had a short photo op with Kerry before he left, saying things that could have indirectly countered the Clinton backed smears - likely driven by their vindictiveness over Kerry's endorsement of Obama. Instead there are just little Obama spokesperson comments that Kerry was going to report back.

What also bothers me is that Obama likely had thought of who he wanted as S o S back before the election. There are stories of asking Biden about S o S or VP and there was a shift in Bill Clinton's behavior sometime in September/October when he stopped the intentional faint praise of Obama. Obama should have known Kerry well enough to know he was 100% sincere when he said he would work his heart out to elect whatever Democrat got the nomination. It would have been better had he pulled Kerry aside and explained that he would not offer Kerry the position. This would have allowed Kerry to both save face and to say in Massachusetts that he would be there for the state, rather than qualifying the answer. I assume that would have helped Kerry gain more of the affection he deserves from the state he obviously loves. The only thing I can think of is that Obama was either so self centered he didn't care or he was afraid that Kerry would be less willing to be out there for him - so he led him on, which all of us know is not likely.

Another story, that seemed to bother me and few others was the story of Obama and Biden going to a 4th grade math class. Obama praising the kids for learning "hard" things like decimals, joked that Joe Biden didn't know decimals. Biden played along with it. This bothered me on at least 2 levels. One it was a public demeaning bullying of Biden, who HAD to react pleasantly. When DUers thought it cute, I asked them to substitute Michelle and see what they thought of it. Other than a Biden supporter who sometimes comes here - everyone disagreed. This was after 2 months of Biden being smeared by the RW because he was the VP. The other level is that it is patronizing to say that to the kids - especially as decimals are one of the easier things they learn in that grade. I doubt a single teacher doesn't show them that dollars and cents are really decimals. He was charismatic and the kids loved him, but kids KNOW when they are being talked down to - he was genuine when speaking of the dog, but he was awful speaking about schoolwork.

A diversion - When my oldest daughter was in fifth grade, I took her to work with me on "Take your daughter to work day" at Bell Labs where I worked. A group of people had put together an extraordinary day for the kids. To begin with Arno Penzias, who had won the Nobel Prize as one of the Scientists who proved the Big Bang theory, spoke to the kids. He explained to them that Physics was the science of how things worked and he delighted them by telling them that science was NOT the rote memorization of words that many teachers made it. In answer to a kid, he explained how they were able to prove the Big Bang had happened - by comparing it to observing a race starting an hour after it started. You could show they started at the same point if the faster moving people were further out than the slower moving people. Penzias, like Obama, was not an educator - but what he did was the opposite of what Obama did. He made physics sound fun and something they could do. Obama confirmed some views that math was hard and there was no hint that it could be fun, andthough he did make the point that it was needed - he said his VP didn't know 4th grade math. My daughter, who interests were more writing and art, spent the next two years saying she wanted to be a physicist.


I hadn't seen that Chicago era story, but I had seen others. Between those stories and the choice of Emannuel, I think that Obama, like the Clintons, is a typical very ambitious politician who sees loyalty as a one way street. At this point, I am where I was when I realized that I would vote for Clinton - which happened when Bush vetoed SCHIP. I am happy that we have a Democratic President and I hope that he will run a cleaner administration with more principles than Bill Clinton did. I also want to do what I regret I didn't do in the 1990s - which is hold Obama to the same standards I would hold a Republican to. Seeing this - but still hoping I'm wrong, I am actually glad that Kerry is independent. He will still give his advice - and whether Obama takes it or not is likely independent of the job he has. When they disagree, it will allow Kerry to be Kerry. Obama can't expect loyalty at his point especially when he doesn't return it.

[beachmom]

7. I think Hillary would not commit to the SoS job in Sept.

So Obama had to keep his options open, in case she decided against taking the job.

I actually remember another incident during the bailout vote. I watched c-span at the time, and the Senators were all milling around waiting for the next vote. This was the time when Obama went over to shake McCain's hand and was kind of rebuffed. But I also noticed two conversations Obama had. One was with Hillary -- they talked and laughed for quite a while. Obama struck me as being in schmooze mode. Clearly, he wanted Hillary on his side. She laughed and talked a lot, while he listened. Then later on he ran into Kerry, where they both talked closely into each other's ears, so that nobody would hear. Kerry looked like a confidante that Obama trusted completely. In spite of everything, I bet you that is still the case. When Obama is down, he will reach out to Kerry. And in the name of service to his country, Kerry will be there for him. There is nothing naive or foolish about that. This is the future of the United States of America we're talking about here, and personal slights are meaningless set against the perilous place this country is in right now.

So my whole essay here is not that Obama should be shunned. He should be engaged. But he is a bit Clintonesque. Hopefully without the scandals or lying. I am also skeptical that the change we need, which would be systemic, can happen. But you never know -- Obama could be full of surprises. After all, he has reached his goal. Well, except re-election. But the thing is, he can't go higher. If you want to be more hopeful, his time at the Harvard Law Review explains how he envisions things:

Watch this excerpt from PBS's The Choice.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/view/3.html

Starting at 9:16 into the film about the Harvard Law Review.

[karynnj]

10. That is interesting

I hadn't meant to imply that Obama should be shunned. I also do think that Kerry will always be there to do things he thinks are right. I can't imagine Kerry doing less than what he thinks right - and he is neither naive or foolish. I am certain that he would have endorsed Obama even if he knew he would not be an insider in any way (which I don't think is the case) and that he would not have endorsed him just because he thought it would give him a cabinet position. To think otherwise is to completely diminish Kerry.

What I do think is that Obama has taken Kerry's support for granted and has never publicly acknowledged any debt, either politically or in terms of policy. (On policy, before the election it made sense not to say that his exit plan was basically K/F, but it was annoying to see him pat himself on the back on MTP saying that he was for that plan "when it wasn't popular". It simply was not true and it erases Kerry and Feingold completely. I am not saying that he should have mentioned Kerry there - just that claiming that it was a stand he took when it was a tough position to have was not necessary in answer to that question.) In fact, even in Boston before his primary the only thing he credited Kerry for was giving him the speech - after laying praise on Kennedy.

[Mass]

6. Just a quick few points before I leave.

(Trying to get ahead of the snow storm).

I share a lot of your and karyn disappointments, but, for many of them, I am not really surprised.

First, many of the cabinet positions disappoint me, but I was lucid that Obama's commitment to the environment and clean energy was not as deep as mine (all you had to do was to look at which energy bills he sponsored, and I am not speaking about the general energy bill, but added subventions for ethanol and insistence on coal). Which is probably why I am not mad that Obama met with Gore and not Kerry. Gore is committed to only one issue and, while Obama's pick that day was good, the choice of Vilsack, Salazar, and Lahood should tell us a lot about the fact he is not that committed to these issues.

Second, when it comes to the convention, while I also noticed he did not mention Kerry in his speech, do not forget that the previous day, there were a lot of recognition for Kerry, with Biden naming him explicitely, the handshake at the end, and THK pro eminently seating next to Michele Obama. This should be put in context.

Last, when you read the newspapers in the world, the world this week perceived Kerry as Obama's envoy. I do not know to what point he was indeed his envoy, but this is how he was seen.

So, we all have to remember that a lot in political life comes to PR, and nobody should expect that Obama, Biden, or anybody else, is going to throw flowers to Kerry just like that. They will do it when they think they will win something out of it. I know, it is cynical, but it is how politics is.

So, I would more focus on how issues advance than how people are publicly rewarded, and the fact that the Clintons have to go through Kerry for this nomination has to PO them a lot, IMHO.

Now, on the road.

[ProSense]

8. I agree with most of this, but have a slightly different take on this:

"I still think Kerry was betrayed by Obama."

There may be signs that Obama was considering others for the SoS position, but these may also indicate that he was going to rely on Senator Kerry for something he needed much more: a strong ally in the Congress. I'm not sure that this is betrayal. It may be that they came to an understanding.

I am more confident that Kerry in the Senate was the better path as the transition plays out. With all the drama and the "team of rivals" stuff (LaHood for to head Transportation), Kerry certainly doesn't fit into Obama's model. Frankly, he would have been the odd man out in the current make up of the cabinet.

In the Senate, where everything, including climate change, the economy, foreign policy, health care, the nation's infrastructure and wars, is in need of urgent attention, no one represents a more consistent and progressive voice on all of these issues than Kerry. He is one of the few who will likely have a hand in most of the important legislation this Congress will have to deal with. I can see Obama wanting Kerry there as someone who shares his vision, can be trusted, and will not hesitate to act independently in pushing the envelope where it may not be politically advantageous for Obama to do so.

The other thing is that it may not have been hard for Kerry to accept this role. The SFRC chair, his seniority and his ability to be his own man (add the drama of the nomination process, which obviously irked Obama) may have erased any disappointment he may have felt. Also, the SoS position is not a long-term one, and while it touches on a lot of issues, it would confine him to carrying out the President's wishes. There is no doubt that he'd have accepted the role---the opportunity to serve---with honor and pride, but the independence of being a powerful Senator is nothing to scoff at. Kerry will have the ability to continue helping to strenghten the Democratic Party, something he would be unable to do as SoS. The fact that Kerry is far more progressive than Obama makes his independence that much more valuable.

[beachmom]

11. Well, the betrayal was not that Obama didn't pick Kerry for SoS.

It was the way it was done. It was handled horribly, especially with the pre-cabinet speculation (maybe floated by Clinton allies -- who knows) that a) Kerry was the frontrunner for SoS and b) that he was heavily lobbying for the position. This made him look bad when it ended up Clinton would be the one. And, you know, I do hold Obama responsible for this in part.

As to Kerry in the Senate, I agree with you 100%. I am also glad that he is not in the cabinet.

[TayTay]

9. So, why are we here? And what do you believe?

A progressive or liberal is someone who lights a candle against a vast darkness. The darkness doesn't go away simply because the candle was lit. Change, it has often been observed, is the one inevitable thing in life and the one thing that is unbelievably hard to achieve. We live, breathe and hope in the heart of that contradiction.

Politics is the art of the possible. It is an elegant process only when it is written up in simplistic history books that look back on what happened and tend to ignore the complications and compromises. A lot of life involves making compromises and learning to live with the consequences. We are human and live within the confines of our human limitations.

The exercise of power is not a pretty thing. It never has been. It involves balancing competing and contradictory ideas and making choices. The act of making a choice, by definition, means that other options were not taken. The founding of America involved compromises, fatal, painful compromises that left critical issues unanswered for generations. The American Civil War was a consequence of decisions made decades before and issues that festered in the country. "All men are created equal" was not a true statement in 1776 and it is not a true statement now. It is a goal; one that we have zigzagged toward in the course of our history, sometimes getting closer, sometimes moving away.

Why are you here? I have been known to annoy people with that question in this group from time to time. It is not navel-gazing; it is a critical question that demands reflection to answer. Most Americans don't pay that much attention to politics. They like the cliff notes version of what is going on. That version presents a complete narrative with a beginning, a middle and an end and presents simplistic versions of people and events that clearly state what is good and what is evil. Life is not like that though, it is mixed and gray more often than not.

Politics is not fair. It will never be fair. The exercise of power is an inherently unfair act. Anyone who has been around politics long enough knows this. The very act of making choices is unfair to some interests. Just noting that something is unfair though isn't meaningful. Why stick around, why show up and try again in the face of that? What is the point of lighting a candle against a vast darkness that will always be there?

You could quit you know. There are many, many people who hate politics, hate the crudeness of it and the compromises and the sordid details of how things are done. The option of not paying attention, of not actively seeking out knowledge is there for all of us. We could just stop paying attention, resign from the groups that seek change or reform and hide away from all this with the cynical view that nothing ever changes anyway and the process is inherently corrupt and unyielding. Why are you here? Is this your view?

Why would a John Kerry still be in the game, so to speak. He could retire, join a lot of cushy boards, become an gray eminence of Dem politics and for the country. He wouldn't have to face hostility. The press would no longer be so snarky toward him because he would be removed from power and from the struggles of politics on a day to day basis. The Senator has access to vast wealth and could live a really nice, comfortable life, maybe write, deliver lectures, teach, etc. All of these are worthy things. He can have this life for the asking. Not many people are lucky enough to have that choice. So, given that, why is still there, still putting himself out for public commentary, still taking chances and getting disappointments and so forth?

Why struggle so hard to keep that candle lit? What is in it for him? Given that he really and truly doesn't need anything else to secure his place in history, why do this? Is one little candle worth it?

[beachmom]

12. The answer is I don't know. And I think part of the struggle is giving

oneself the option to quit. Otherwise there is no choice involved. I used to be a reader of the extended Cliff Notes: I read (in tree form) the New Yorker, the Economist, Time magazine, the newspaper and watched Jim Lehrer. I knew what was going on, but I didn't know all the little inside baseball fights. I do question the point of knowing about all of that. After all, if you like the show "Friends", is there any real reason to also have to know all of the ups and downs in Jennifer Aniston's private life? Of course, not.

I just think that Obama will not be all that interested in listening to us. (Us meaning loosely liberal bloggers of all stripes). He hates us. He pretty much said so when he knocked Daily Kos. No, DKos is not the whole blogger world, but his contempt for it was that it "never surprised him". In other words, that there were certain principles it believed in without compromise. I don't see the problem in having people who, say, do not want coal in the mix for energy, because of how detrimental it is to the environment. Now, maybe one has to compromise, and coal ends up in the mix. But to show contempt for people who do have the luxury, as non-politicians, to hold a view with a principle behind it is wrong. And the funny part, is I have always defended politicians who make the difficult decisions and compromise. It is necessary. But to be so totally shown the door is a bit hard to take. I guess I like being in the middle: between those holding hard positions and the politicians who must weigh various factions. It has always been a dance. But now the Base, if you will, is being shut out. And I think that is wrong. I don't believe in pandering to the base (see Bush, for how disastrous that turned out to be), but I also think it is very wrong to ignore the base. Hey, sometimes they are right being uncompromising. Like torture.

So I am still thinking this over.

[ProSense]

13. When did this happen:

"He pretty much said so when he knocked Daily Kos."

The funny thing about compromise positions and people who aren't where many progressives are on issues, when pushed, they can find their way there a little faster. For example, Obama in response to the Warren outrage:

I am fierce advocate for equality for gay and—well, let me start by talking about my own views. I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something I have been consistent on and something I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.

There are positions that people hold that may not be progressive, and they truly believe their stance is the right one, but pushing is how change comes about.

Even Warren found himself trying to say that he wasn't anti-gay in response to the outrage. Inch by inch, pushing, whether politicians like it or not, is how change comes about. That isn't to say there isn't a right way and a wrong way to push. Some people on the left push using lies and deception.

Also, this isn't to say that pushing Warren will lead to anything. He strikes me as the typical disingenuous RW conservative on the issues.

[TayTay]

14. I disagree with what you have said.

#1 change so far: Joe Biden is voluntarily dialing back the power of the vice presidency. Dick Cheney was virtually his own untouchable and unaccountable branch of government. He amassed unbelievably power to himself to determine what was or was not legal, who could be tortured and who couldn't and whether or not American military actions could be taken.

Joe Biden is walking away from this. This is not nothing. This is huge. Do you have any idea how rare it is for someone to walk away from power and accept instead limitations and the rule of law? This is eyes on exactly the right prize. I applaud Joe Biden and Barack Obama for this. This is what I voted for and worked for all year.

Barack Obama has not walked away from the netroots. That is an unsupportable assumption. Someone in his transition team said some questionable things about the netroots. Obama is saying what he said in 2005, that he believes that the best way to make change is to embrace compromise and navigate through the middle. There is much to be said for that. That can be a way to make change. There will be consequences from this. There would be consequences, good and bad, from any decision he makes. There is no wholly complete act in politics, there are only the steps you take now. Nothing completes, nothing is ever decided forever. That is reality.

I do not feel sorry for anyone in public life. I do not feel betrayed, I never have. Doors open and close all the time in politics. Ways get blocked, obstacles get put up, things don't go right. So what. Find another way. That is the inherent challenge. That is the reality of it.

I have no problem with Obama's cabinet choices so far. I feel no sense of betrayal. Yeah, the press coverage was snarky. So what? The people who are still in there are used to this. They either learn how to maneuver in that atmosphere or pack up their toys and go home. What are the goals here? Why endure this? Are there any prizes worth keeping in mind, so that you can dismiss all the garbage that goes on?

This is about something, that is why it is so hard. The coming months are about saving America from a horrendous fiscal situation that is the worst since the 1930's. It's about changing American foreign policy and directing it away from arrogance and ignorance. We have enormous problems and face really difficult times. We are perilously close to a situation in which a "strong man" could appear in this country. I want diversity in that cabinet, I want Obama to have to listen to people contest his views. This is vital right now.

The netroots face their own challenge right now. They will have to fight to get their views heard. Welcome to the real world where everyone fights to get what they want. This is no less than social service agencies and schools and hospitals and so forth. There is no inherent goodness in the netroots that means they are exempt from the struggle to be heard. This is the time when the netroots will define themselves. Can they continue to be a pressure on elected officials for change? The netroots will rise or fall on their own will to get things done. Nothing will be given to them, that's not how it works. (Power is not given; power is taken.) The netroots will adapt or cease to be a force. That is the reality. It cannot be otherwise.

[sandnsea]

15. Thank you Tay n/t

[beachmom]

16. It was not "someone in his transition team" who knocked dkos. It was Obama himself:

http://nymag.com/news/politics/21681/index4.html

And so this impulse to reconcile now shows up in politics. In town-hall meetings, when those who opposed the war get shrill, Obama makes a point of noting that while he, too, opposed the war, he’s “not one of those people who cynically believes Bush went in only for the oil.” When I ask about Lieberman’s recent vilification of the left, Obama seems equally vexed: “His most recent comments tying the bomb threat in Great Britain to Iraq was a pretty crude political play.” Obama’s first year in office, he voted for cloture on the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court (though not for the nomination itself), earning dozens of angry posts on Daily Kos, a hugely well-trafficked liberal blog. Obama responded with a polite but stern four-page note.

“One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me?” he tells me. “And increasingly, when I read Daily Kos, it doesn’t surprise me. It’s all just exactly what I would expect.”

This, of course, is bull****. There were a variety of voices that responded to his diary. Some positive, some negative. He chose to only focus on those who gave him a hard time. And dismissed the entire site as clearly a site that does NOT do interesting work. I believe Barack Obama. He doesn't like daily kos. He tolerates it, and uses liberal bloggers when it suits him. I found his above comment quite elitist and misinformed. And, you know I have fought Kossaks tooth and nail for 4 years. Yet my voice and others there have found our voices erased. Hell, I stuck up for the bailout today. But what is the point when politicians paint us all with a broad brush?

[ProSense]

18. This piece is from 2006.

Given that Obama has posted on Kos, albeit in 2005, I doubt he disrepects the D-Kos community.

[beachmom]

19. I know it's from 2006. I doubt he has changed his mind on dkos.

[ProSense]

21. That single statement from 2006 simply doesn't

negate what he said in his post earlier, and it discounts his outreach efforts during the campaign.

[beachmom]

22. Yes, but that was for campaigning. Of course, he will reach out when

he needs votes. But will he reach out to discuss issues? I just think he figures he can do a workaround. He's got the Facebook set with him. A lot of people who support Obama don't know much about the issues. They just like him personally and his historic run. The problem for Obama, is that it's the annoying real netroots that is willing to pick up the phone and call their congressmen, etc.

[ProSense]

24. He reached out in 2005, that was not campaigning. n/t

[beachmom]

20. I don't want to be yet another Liberal Interest Group.

The Daily Show skewered very deftly the Democratic party back during the 2004 Democratic convention. You've got the Pro-choice group here, the gay rights group there, the unions here, and so on. I don't want to add yet another group -- the "Netroots" group. Count me out for that. I want to work in alliance with the Congress and President, which, by the way, I did post 2006. Who defended Congress for "not ending the war NOW"? Me. And now Obama has made the job quite difficult for me, because I. JUST. DON'T, TRUST. HIM. This is about doing something from your gut. Kerry always talks about doing things "from his gut", and when he says that he means it. My gut tells me Obama is not worth my advocacy because he simply will turn his back when the going gets rough. That he will compromise so much away, there will be little left. That is far different from what was done on, say, Iraq, by Kerry and later a majority of Senate Democrats. Yes, they did compromise. But they had an underlying principle: timetable for withdrawal, which they did not bend on. I believe them and know to be true that the problem was they could not get to 60, or really 67. That explanation was reasonable to me. But I really feel the pain of gay people. I don't think they should have been treated this way. Don't forget, this Warren deal is happening after Prop 8 was passed in California. I am sorry: this is a Clintonesque move, and Clinton screwed liberals and the left and especially gays, every chance he got.

If, after Obama is inaugurated, and he is done with his symbolic backstabbing, and will get to work on things I agree with, then maybe I will change my mind. But right now, I am not feeling good about the situation.

[ProSense]

23. You don't have to be, that's the beauty.

When people care passionately about an issue, they organize, form groups, focus and fight for what they believe in. There's nothing wrong with that. If you don't want to be part of such an organized effort, a lot of people don't, there are other ways to fight.

Fortunately, while I question some of Obama's moves, some I've come to understand and put in context, I have found no reason not to trust him. I still don't consider him Clintonesque. He could prove me wrong, but he has not yet.

[Mass]

17. I agree with alot of what you say here, and it was basically the topic of discussion I had with my

husband while driving (we made it before the snow). But I do not think it is an Obama issue. It is the way democrats function. They want to look reasonable and end up not listening half of the argument, or rather not publicizing half of the argument, and I find it painful.

This said, this is NOT a reason to give up. It is though, a reason to fight on the advocacy side, not the political side, and to make these issues heard both to politicians and to the general public.

I'm getting tired to see people here and on Huffington Post explain how we should believe in Obama and not criticize. It is not about Obama. It is not about Kerry or Clinton. It is about the issues that you care about and this is what you should continue fighting for, and all activists should continue fighting for, because these ideas need to be heard.

[TayTay]

26. I think we should criticize.

Emphatically. That is the whole point. Nothing happens unless people fight, constantly and continuously.

This fight never ends. There is no end date, there is no end point, there is no one time where you can slack off and pretend the job is done. There is no single person who can be elected who can make me think that progress has reached the point where anything can end. That is not the way it works. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, after all.

Power corrupts. A little or a lot, but it corrupts. It is the inherent nature of power to corrupt. It is the job then of true patriots to push those in power, friend or foe, continuously for change. That never stops.

There is no end date here. Ever!

[beachmom]

25. I am not the only one struggling with all of this. Read this poignant

piece by Andrew Sullivan. Bizarrely enough, I tend to agree with Sully AND Greenwald.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/taking-yes-for.html

He is talking about gay issues, but this could be true about any of the issues that have happened during the Obama transition:

The bitterness endures; the hurt doesn't go away; the pain is real. But that is when we need to engage the most, to overcome our feelings to engage in the larger project, to understand that not all our opponents are driven by hate, even though that may be how their words impact us. To turn away from such dialogue is to fail ourselves, to fail our gay brothers and sisters in red state America, and to miss the possibility of the Obama moment.

It can be hard to take yes for an answer. But yes is what Obama is saying. And we should not let our pride or our pain get in the way.

Greenwald thinks this is simply the continuation of Democrats ... being Democrats. Sully thinks Obama is different, and that he will wait and judge on what Obama actually does.

I am not certain who is right. Time will tell.

[ProSense]

27. Here's an interesting piece from TPM

Are Obama's "New" Politics Really New?

By Greg Sargent - December 19, 2008, 2:25PM

Glenn Greenwald has an interesting post about the Rick Warren mess, which he uses as a jumping off point to argue that Barack Obama's "new" politics isn't really new at all.

Greenwald's basic point is that Obama's efforts to placate the right by picking Warren -- and the effort to get the left to scream that pundits have claimed was behind the decision -- isn't really different from the bait-the-left politics that Democrats have practiced for decades now. And they simply haven't worked.

As proof, he points out that Bill Clinton all but perfected the art of baiting the left and throwing cultural bones to the right, and all he got to show for it from Republicans was "hatred so undiluted that it led to endless investigations" and "accusations whose ugliness was boundless."

That's true. But there is an important way that Obama's politics is new, and the landscape is different from 1992 in key ways that give him an opening to use his own brand of politics to disarm the right and potentially clear the way for big progressive achievements.

Warning: I'm making this case at some length.

As this blog argued recently, one thing Obama's victory represented was a potential death blow to the 1960s-rooted cultural politics that has held sway for the last four decades of the 20th Century. It's telling that Obama defeated both of the leading practitioners of this brand of politics -- the Clinton machine, and the Rovians who hijacked the McCain campaign -- by explicitly running against politics as they practiced it.

Obama won the primary, and in the general election he succeeded in disarming the power of the right's narratives by employing not just a standard claim that he's above partisanship, but by making a new political argument: Only someone who had not gotten caught up in the cultural and political wars of the 1960s could achieve the sort of transformation of our politics that this historical moment demands.

It's true that in a narrow sense, efforts to placate the right by picking Warren doesn't represent a "new" politics, as Greenwald says. But the Warren mess aside, Obama is and has been making a larger argument than simply saying that partisanship is bad and that we need to unify.

more

[TayTay]

28. The Obama moment is not about Obama

It's about us. Obama is a human being with all the failings and strengths that flesh is heir to.

The Obama moment is about us and what kind of country we want to live in. Many people not even elected to public office will play the defining parts in that.

[MBS]

33. I agree that it's not about Obama

The one thing that constantly sustains my hope is that the citizens of America voted for change.We are the ones that decided that we want to return America to his higher self. Obama (with his administration) is the vessel for that change, but WE are the ones that decided to lift ourselves up.
But, Tay, that's also why it's appropriate for us, in fact, required of us, to criticize when necessary, to question when necessary, and to push the new (YAY!!) administration to live up to its promises, to implement the change that we voted for, the changes that we so desperately need. . . .and not just sit back passively and trust that Obama will save the world for us. Obama said that we are the ones. And that's true. WE are the ones who will save ourselves . I trust Obama's judgment in general , but that does not mean that I have to agree with everything he does or everyone he chooses, or that I have to stay quiet when he or his administration does something that is not worthy of its promise, or that I can't push our government to live up to its highest standards.

PS I've been following Obama closely for a long while, so, while I cheered wildly at his 2004 DNC speech, and cried on election night, I lost the Messiah feeling about the time he cast his first votes in the Senate. Thus, while disappointed by his several of his post-primary and post-November maneuvers, I am (sadly) not surprised by all of them (Well, by almost all of them. . a few remain for me real head-scratchers. .). Nevertheless, as a letter-writer wrote in the Globe or the Times just before Nov. 4 (not exact words, but it's more or less what he said) "I know that I will be disappointed by Obama. But, with a choice between catastrophe and mere disappointment, I'll take mere disappointment any day."

Obama is the man of the hour. But this is also OUR time, our chance to move the country forward.

God, I'm glad that JK stayed in the senate.

[YvonneCa]

36. I think Obama IS different...

...so I agree with Sullivan. My issue is education. I am waiting to give him a chance and to see...

[beachmom]

29. Speak of the devil, the netroots is beginning to grapple with the changes

taking place. As in, we are no longer in the wilderness.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/19/143922/59/168/675130

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/19/132147/94/201/675097

I just talked to my neighbor who also voted for Obama. She doesn't understand the fury over Warren. We on the blogs are out of the mainstream.

[beachmom]

30. Change.gov shuts down discussion:

http://change.gov/page/content/discussservice

Comments (4,199)
Commenting disabled
Further commenting on this blog post has been disabled by the blog admin.



Gee, I don't remember johnkerry.com wussing out like this.

[karynnj]

31. True - not even during the awful time after the media distorted Kerry's skipping a word in a joke

and every RW site sent people over. 4,199 comments is a huge amount though, but there was a discussion with both sides there and both the liberal/gay and the evangelicals were far politer than the RW was on jk.com.

The video was really not what I would have expected on the internet - it was bland and almost patronizing - though of course it was ignored.

[sandnsea]

32. Every blog post was closed

after a few hours. There was never an opportunity for an issue to get out of hand on the blog because of the preventive nature of monitoring the blog.

[YvonneCa]

34. This thread is very depressing. n/t

[YvonneCa]

35. As the year comes to an end for me, I am really...

...bothered by this thread. The people in this group mean a lot to me because we agree on so many things AND because everyone here is so knowledgeable about the issues. As I have said before, I learn a lot from ALL of you. So I read this thread yesterday, and have been debating myself about whether to enter the conversation or just stay silent. Silence lost. :7 So here goes:


I became more involved in politics after Bush was elected...sort of...in 2000. I thought then, and still believe, that his policies are really awful for our country. Eight years of his presidency have showed his policies to be more dangerous than I ever could have imagined. Among the many problems we now face are:

Economic instability
Iraq, Iran and the terrorism threat
Nuclear proliferation and our world leadership/institutional failures
Climate change and environmental/energy issues
American values crisis…What DO we stand for? Pre-emptive war, torture, habeus corpus, domestic spying?
Elections and the functioning of our democracy are fragile corruption/ethics/$$$ in system
A nation divided cannot stand…or lead. Unity is required to solve problems.


I don't often share personal details, but I want to tell you about my Dad. He died a year and a half ago. I loved him a lot. A former Navy man, he didn't like JK and voted twice for Bush/Cheney. He knew my politics and we talked often about issues because family trumps politics in our family. My dad serve in WWII, Korea and VietNam. He fought for his country out of a sense of patriotism and believed "When your country is in danger, you have a duty to stay and fight." Walking away is not an option. During Viet Nam, he thought those that went to Canada to escape the draft were doing that… and that was why he opposed it. He believed they should stay and fight to change the country if they thought it was wrong. Today, some in GD will say things like ‘If so and so is not elected this time, I am moving to another country.’ That would be the same thing…like walking away when you have a duty to stay and fight. My Dad would not have approved. He went to war three times for this country. EVERY time, he believed he was preserving our democracy and our country.

Tay’s question, “Why are you here?” is important. My answer, I think, is "I am my father's daughter." I think this fight is not just politics, it is about keeping our democracy. That's why the 2000 and 2004 elections are such a big issue for me. (If we can't be sure votes count, what does that mean?) . For me, it’s never been about the politics. I think we have to solve the problems we face or our country is at risk. And we can’t solve ANY of the problems if we don’t first unify as a country around what the problems are and how to tackle them. For me, that doesn’t mean that certain policical actions by certain people...even Obama..won’t be frustrating at times. It doesn’t mean I will agree with every decision, or that I can’t speak up when I do (DISSENT). It just means I have to keep my eye on the ball.

The ball (think ‘goal’) is not to elect JK, or Obama, or _____. The goal is not to win every political battle...though I hope to win more under Obama’s leadership than during the last eight years. The goal is to save our country and our democracy. That means we must unify for the battle. That means, our leaders must educate us on why we need to fight this particular battle at this particular time. And then it means leaders must prioritize our efforts. That last one...prioritize our efforts...is really difficult right now, I think, because we sort of need to do them all at once...NOW. And to do that, it really does mean a ”All Hands On Deck” effort.

So this thread depressed me because it sounded like everyone here...who I thought understood most of this...thinks now is the time to BAIL OUT. I can see how you might think that IF you are only here for the politics. But now is the WORST time to do that, IMO. Obama hasn't even been inaugurated yet. He is naming a leadership team and working on unity...because, without that, we will fail. Period. And failure is NOT an option.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take breaks or ‘pace ourselves’ for a long struggle. That doesn't mean we shouldn't change our tactics or even ways we want to be involved. Nor does it mean we shouldn't state our opinion anytime on anything. A famous hero of mine once said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." ;) But, for me, it isn’t okay to just run off to another place because the fight is too hard. As a matter of fact, the real fight is only beginning. We have reached our first goal...Obama will be president. I personally think JK, Gore, Biden and Clinton are working WITH him because they know what is at stake. How is it okay to walk away just because we don't get our own way every time?

[TayTay]

37. I am bothered to, but in a different way

Forgive the sad story, but bear with me. A few years ago, my brother had a restaurant fail and go into bankruptcy. That was one of the most awful events I ever saw up close and personal. That restaurant had been his dream. But, slowly it had gone downhill. Corners were cut that never should have been, bad decisions were made and things got worse and worse. The family tried everything to save this enterprise, within their means, and it wasn't enough.

The place entered into a sort of business death spiral. Being a person of good will, or so I thought, I wanted desperately to do something to save my brother and his family from this agony. I went to others who probably had to the cash to invest to help out. "Save them," I cried. "We can't," they responded. It couldn't be saved. It was time to let it go, let the place close, let the family grieve their loss and move on.

They were right. This loss had to happen. All the nightmares and guilt and recriminations and pain had to stop. It had to have an endpoint. I could not save my brother from this pain. I could be there to help him cope, but I could not prevent the inevitable. Any other actions would have prolonged the pain, frozen it into place instead of stopping it and letting it go.

I am reminded of this because of all the apprehension around the transition. I don't want to stop people from questioning what is happening. Campaigns foster illusions, big grand illusions that grand and great things will happen and problems will be solved quickly and so forth. It is not that way. It has never been that way. The expectations surrounding the win this fall was an illusion. It was never real. It was there because of all the pent-up hopes and frustrations of the last few years. We saw what we wanted to see. But that doesn't make it real.

It is damaging to pretend that everything is going to be rosy now that "we" are in power. That is unrealistic and it is hurtful. I don't want to say comforting things about that or give assurances I don't believe in. It hides the truth and we need to see the truth.

President Obama is not some magician who is going to wave a magic wand and suddenly everything will be alright. He is coming into office at a really awful period of time. There are millions of Americans who are on the verge of being thrown out of work, facing homelessness and really bad economic times. Health care, environment, foreign policy, economics, all these things are bad at the same damn time. This man is going to have to go to extraordinary lengths to get anything done. I am not surprised at all that he has a cabinet with deal-makers in it. He is going to need it.

There are people around who are going to work very, very hard to try and make things better. The thought that this would be some sort of magical transition and that having Dems in power would lead to some sort of wonderland obscures that. That should go away.

We elect human beings, we don't elect gods. The false expectation that Obama is going to do whatever it is that we want him to do is damaging. It takes "us" the citizens out of the picture. It puts too much power into the hands of one person. And it takes away from all the stories of all the people who are going to work so hard to help get us out of this mess we are in. Their stories matter too. (Maybe they matter most of all.)

So, I am in a quandary here. I have nothing but buckets of faith and hope with which to face the future. I have seen too many good people who have fought too long to give up. The coming years are going to be their story as they save their own country from it's own darkest impulses. Obama is a guide for that, and an imperfect and human one at that. He is not there to save us, we are there to save us. He helps. So do many others.

It got better for my brother. The initial sadness and grief and feelings of failure faded. It became possible, once the illusions were gone, to actually move on and build a new life. He is doing much better now and he has a healthier family life and actually sees his kids and wife now. He could build a future because he was building it on real ground with real expectations. That was a fine thing to see. It gave me real hope and real faith. It was renewal, born out of hard work and the love and help of others. It was real and it might even last a while.

John F. Kennedy once said, "There are three things which are real: God, human folly, and laughter. The first two are beyond our comprehension. So we must do what we can with the third." I try to remember that and walk something of a balance here. It is not my job to convince people that something is so when it isn't. That is not helping or hopeful, it is another way to lie. We have had enough lies. I think I will do what I can for bit with laughter and honest hope instead.

[YvonneCa]

38. Great post. Thanks for taking the time...

...and for sharing your story. I'm glad to hear your brother is doing better.

For what it's worth, I never believed the illusion. I supported Obama because I think things in our country are out of control and I think, in general, most Democrats have better answers to the problems we face. Take education, for example...I believe we may be seeing the end of public education. I am not happy about that, and Obama's 'stated' positions don't make me feel any better. I'm not sure any politician has the right answer. But I have hope. And I'm willing to give him and his team time and a chance to try things. SOMEBODY has to...education is WAY too important to continue as we have under NCLB.

I just think success on any of our country's problems will first require common ground...some unity over the necessity to act that MOST people can get behind.

[TayTay]

40. Yes, exactly so

We will find common ground. That is what the hope is for me. The Bush Administration disinvited the people from their own government. I think this is a time for them to be re-invited back in. That is wonderful. It is worth celebrating.

[YvonneCa]

41. Bush "disinvited the people from their own government"...

...is so true. I am ALL FOR re-inviting the people back in. Remember the line from JK (paraphrasing here) about the most important word in the American language...other than love...being 'citizen.' And we have a duty, all of us, to be good citizens? He got that VERY right. :patriot:

[Mass]

39. I agree that this thread is very depressing, but it is a combination of many things.

I have been political for ever, so I am not going to bail out now at nearly 50. Politics is about my life, my kids' life and the life of those I care and those I do not know.

However, there is a lassitude that comes from not being heard, by seeing our leaders always making the extra step to appease the other side and taking us for granted, and while this will not make me bailout, it may lead some of these new people that Obama has brought in because he thought he was different from not only Bush, but the Clintons and those who led the Democratic Party during the last 20 years. It is a little bit naive to put so much trust in one individual and I think many people missed the point that drawn me to Obama despite so many issue differences: the aspect always repeated that he was not the important thing, we were.

The point is that the "we were" requires a lot of work from people. The US have had a Republic for more than 200 years, but they seem to have forgotten what that means, in particular that it means that more than voting every two years. This is why I was not outraged by the primary challenge to Kerry (I was outraged that nobody of value challenged him). Democracy requires work from his citizens, and it is something that is easy to forget, both by people who are disabused AND by people who are blind supporters of a political man. Democracy requires that you make what is important to you clear. We will not get our way each time, but we can be sure that we will NEVER get it if we do not make our ideas clear.

So, my answer has two points, no bailout because it is about us, but also no adulation of our leaders and silent acceptation of what they do: it is the duty of a citizen to speak out. (Just to be clear, nobody here has told me to stop speaking out, but the spectacle of DU-GDP is a very good picture of what I mean).

[YvonneCa]

42. Thanks for this. I agree with everything you said. I also...

...think our democracy requires work...and we became too complacent. That allowed eight years of GWB. It never would have happened if people had been paying attention.

That's also one of the strengths I saw in Obama...he ignited a hope for what this country 'could' be in people who hadn't hoped before, or in a very long time. But now the work begins. We have to sustain that...that's why I think the real work is just beginning.

DU-GDP is fun (sometimes) ;) . It's a microcosm of our democracy...with a tad of a liberal bent to it. :) It needs us...and that sense of humor TayTay was talking about. :7

[LittleClarkie]

61. I will be there. Being part of an Obama team was too important to me

and if those people want to continue, as has been indicated locally, and try to get some things done, then I'll be there.

But I feel for my GLBT friends who feel betrayed by things like Prop 8 and Warren. I think he will be a pragmatic leader, and will reach across the aisle, which I think is a needful thing.

But he won't ever inspire me the way Kerry did.

[ginnyinWI]

43. Lest we look a gift horse in the mouth...

Never, never ever forget the Bush years. No matter what flaws Obama will eventually have, whatever mistakes he makes, at least this sinking ship called the U.S.A. has begun to right itself and bail out the bilge-water. For that we can all be so thankful!

I'd have loved seeing a Sec-State Kerry, and he probably would have enjoyed it. Maybe it's still in the cards, if Obama decides to replace Hillary after his first term. But maybe even Kerry believes that he can do more in the Senate for a few more years. I don't believe Obama would have made this decision lightly; I'm sure he weighed it carefully.

Maybe, since Obama had said of Hillary during the campaign that her experience of foreign relations consisted mostly of having "tea parties" around the world--maybe that is just what he has in mind for his Secretary of State. Maybe the real work gets done elsewhere, like the U.N. and/or the Vice President's office--maybe not, but Obama has and will continue to surprise the status quo--of that I'm sure.

What I'm saying is that maybe Hillary fits his vision of what his Secretary of State should be like, and not someone like JK. Maybe he feels that Biden will be able to fill any gaps Hillary leaves, and that JK's talents would then be redundant. Biden and JK's skill-sets do overlap quite a bit. Maybe he didn't want to steal both of them from the Senate. Maybe if JK had not been the previous presidential candidate, he would have been chosen for veep--who knows.

JK's always been a loyal team player and I doubt he holds any bitterness. We've inferred that he really wanted Sec-State, but is this indisputably true? Could he not have wanted the chair of the SFRC just as much or even more? Unless someone has a direct quote, I'm not going to be so sure he doesn't prefer just what he's gotten.



To respond to this thread's other topic: I figured out why I am here just recently. I mean, I knew this before but it's become very clear: it was 9/11 and Bush and realizing what dangerously inept hands we as a nation were in. I wasn't really paying attention to politics before. Fear was why I sat and blogged for hours. Kerry was the one we all pinned our hopes on during the '04 election, and Obama's the one we pin them on now. And it looks like it's actually going to happen finally.

Now that Obama's taking responsibility, I'm a lot more relaxed--ready to breathe again. It's like I woke up after 7+ nightmare years, rubbed my eyes and said, now where was I?

A good, steady, smart and capable guy presiding over a whole band of highly talented and dedicated people to run our government--that's more like it! The root of "president" is to "preside" and that's exactly what I see Obama doing. Not running things himself, just guiding and directing the action of many many good people. That's how you get the job done.

[YvonneCa]

44. Excellent, excellent, EXCELLENT post! You said so...

...many things that I just LOVE:

"It's like I woke up after 7+ nightmare years, rubbed my eyes and said, now where was I?" Exactly!


" I'm a lot more relaxed--ready to breathe again." And I really missed breathing. :7


"Never, never ever forget the Bush years. No matter what flaws Obama
will eventually have, whatever mistakes he makes, at least this sinking ship
called the U.S.A. has begun to right itself and bail out the bilge-water.
For that we can all be so thankful!" Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it...something like that.


"We've inferred ..." Yes, we did. Too much speculation.


"...it was 9/11 and Bush and realizing what dangerously inept hands we as a nation
were in. I wasn't really paying attention to politics before." Same here. And my civic duty kicked in. Thanks, Dad. ;)


We here at DUJK have been on a journey together. I am SO grateful to have found this group for the companionship along the way.

:grouphug:

[ginnyinWI]

45. aw, thanks.

I'm happy to have found this group too--it's given me a voice and a way to make sense of it all. Hugs to each and every one of you this holiday season! :hug:

[YvonneCa]

46. Stay warm...

...you guys must be getting a lot of snow and really cold weather. That last storm even caused snow in S. California. :hug:

[ginnyinWI]

49. you could say that!

Today we woke up to -8 degrees. And that's real temp, not wind-chill! The wind chill is very high because of the winds today which we can hear whistling through the trees and around our eaves so I suppose that's around -25. We stocked up on groceries and did all errands yesterday so are just hunkering down today. Oh and that last snowfall dropped about a foot of snow, to add to the foot that was already on the ground. We're keeping the bird and squirrel feeders stocked for the critters. I'm baking for Christmas today: chocolate cheesecake and Christmas bread.

Local stores are taking a hit that they won't recover from before the shopping season ends. Tuesday and Wednesday look like better days, so maybe there will be a last minute flurry.

[YvonneCa]

50. And I complain when we hit...

...32 degrees! :7 I just can't even imagine weather that cold. Baking makes a lot of sense on a day like that. :)

[Inuca]

51. In hunkering mode as well

though by comparison is balmy down here (in the minus range with the wind chill, and it IS windy, low teens otherwise) and no snow.

By the way, may I have some of the chocolate cheesecake, pretty please :-)?

[ginnyinWI]

53. I haven't cut into it yet --needs to chill overnight in the fridge.

I'd love to send you all a piece through cyberspace, :) but I can do the next best thing: http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/Chocolate-Cheesecake-II/Detail.aspx

I didn't put any berries on mine like in the picture. I used lower fat cream cheese, used chocolate graham cracker crumbs instead of cookie crumbs, and half 'n half instead of whipping cream. And I followed the advice of the first reviewer and made the topping with only a half-cup chocolate chips so it wouldn't be too heavy.

I'm also excited about my bread--it's a German stollen with nuts and raisins, and it actually rose high enough, and didn't burn on the bottom--yay! (Unlike a lot of my adventures making yeast bread where it turns out more like a brick than a loaf of bread!)

Kind of off topic for the JK forum, but hey, it's Christmas. :toast:

[YvonneCa]

58. That looks DELICIOUS...

...!!! I added the link to my favorites. If I ever start cooking again :7 I'm going there. Merry Christmas, ginnyinWI!

[Inuca]

47. Thanks to all for the thought provoking reading

Took me a few days to go through the whole thread. As I was reading I realized that at times I agreed with seemingly opposing views which means I guess that these views may not be as different at their core as they may seem on the surface and/or that I am rather confused myself. Actually the confused part is almost a certainty. In spite of my age and the amount of "wisdom" that is supposed to come with it + my natural tendency to often see the glass half empty, I latched onto Obama with the almost irrational need to finally get to the point where things will start to be clean or at least cleaner. Like the need for a shower when you feel not only dirty and smelly on the outside but on the inside as well. Rationally I knew that he is not the "blessed child" (M. Dowd) nor "the One", and was (am actually) thankful that he is no Bambi but an effective politician with a sure hand instead. But I wanted to be uplifted, I wanted to be deeply moved by the variety of people I met when I went volunteering out of state and their enthusiasm, I wanted to be moved to tears by the big speeches (and I was), and Rick Warren or not I will take a day off work on the 20th and plant myself in front of the TV the whole day. I am fully aware of the mess to come, the imperfections, and impurity below the surface, but I need that one more day of superficial purity to feel cleaner, and be able to say to myself one more time (maybe last time) "yes, we did".

In a way, the very subjective reaction I tried to describe above is also a kind of mirror image of how I reacted to various things that happened since the election. The rational, analytical part of me says that it is OK, it is a well-balanced, high brain-power, potentially very effective cabinet or that the Warren choice is a good political move and reflective of a true policy of inclusiveness and bridge-building (which I am all for) but at the same time, I don't know... it just does not feel quite right. I guess that my sense of right and wrong would have liked to see those who "fought on the barricades" rewarded, not in the sense of payback for services rendered, but a recognition for their courage, foresight, knowledge, etc. Also and related, I think that words should have meaning, even when they are uttered in the heat of a campaign, and find it difficult to accept that after what was said between the BO and HRC camps especially, now everybody is BFFE. There is a famous (for Romanians) quote from an excellent 19th century satirical writer (an absolute genius, too bad he wrote in a language and about a reality and a culture known only in a small part of the world, much of the essence is lost, even if well translated), a quote that has become part of everyday language, especially when you want to refer to people grandstanding but only caring for their own petty self-interest. The story is about shady, mean-spirited political infighting, in the best Balkan tradition, in the end everybody gets what they want (Blagojevic style), and a local journalist telegraphs back his report of the happy end, the last line being "Kissed Independence Square". There is often a practical need to "kiss Independence Square", I understand that, but that does not make it right. I hope all this makes some sense to you guys :-)...

As for JK specifically, my worthless personal preference always was to continue to have him in the Senate (so that all the fun will not go away from watching SFRC hearings :-)) + my gut feeling that tempted as he probably was/is by the SoS position, his sense of duty and service also told him that this is the place for him to be now. Incidentally, I continue to feel like my nails are scraping against a blackboard whenever I hear Hillary mentioned as SoS, but that's a whole different story.

[YvonneCa]

48. You describe well the ambivalence...

...I share. Great post. :)

[TayTay]

52. Ambivalence is fine

That is a fine response to seeing one thing coming down and another going up.

We don't know yet what will happen. We are in the period after the elation of the campaign when all things were possible to the after when we see what really is possible. We can't have everything we wanted, but we will get something. As yet, it is not defined.

Winning is every bit as traumatic as not winning. It's just in a different way.

[ginnyinWI]

54. true

Change is always stressful, even if a good change. We have these underdog habits--but it's getting easier to assume a feeling of majority. After all, it started in 2006 after that election. This is just the next step of the way.

It can be a little hard to go from campaign hopefulness to a position of trust and confidence in a sitting administration--it takes a little while to get there (longer for some who might have climbed on board later in the process).


Personal story: a friend of my husband is a moderate Repub who voted for McCain. Didn't think Obama had the experience--or that was what he said was the reason. He's watched Obama appoint his cabinet and now has full confidence that he'll make a good president and is looking forward to next year to see what Obama does. This is what Obama wants--he wants all sorts of people to have confidence in him so that he can lead effectively. My point is that those of us on the left are only part of his constituency. He is going to be the president of a whole country. As long as he remains mostly on the Dem side (the smart side) of things, we need to reserve judgement and give him some room to work.

[MBS]

55. your personal story is very apt

I guess we're all waiting with baited breath to see what he does (and we do) with that consensus and confidence from the American people.

[ginnyinWI]

56. yes and even more so because he's relatively new

to the national stage. If it were JK people would be able to look at his track record. But I think his lack of record is probably a net positive for Obama--a lot less 'splaining to do.

[YvonneCa]

57. It is a positive. And I agree...

...with you that we have to give him some room to get work done. I WANT him to be President of all the people...that's the only way he, and our country, will be successful.

[Mass]

59. A lot of people struggle what being president of all the people mean.

Does it mean you will listen to anybody without a priori in order to be sure you are not missing an important idea because somebody is seen bad a priori, knowing where your principles are (I am fine with that)

Or does it mean that you will accept to do things that are against your principles. Take the difficult topic of same sex rights, for example. I understand Obama not rushing to deal with it because there may be more urgent things to deal with right now. But does that mean it is an ideal that we want to totally forget. Does it mean that people should stop fighting for it? Does that mean that we should extend honors to people who are so clearly against it? Where does talking to everybody stop just accepting that people we disagree on some issues with can have something positive to cooperate and when does it start being enabling these people.

I have seen way too often on DU people getting confused between tactics and strategy to be surprised by the explosion the Warren choice provoked. People who can forget what Pat Buchanan stands for because he is opposed to the Iraq War (agreement on one idea vs agreement on the general scheme) or who can forget what Kerry stands for because they disagree with his vote on IWR, could not understand that the choice of Rick Warren (misguided in my opinion, but it is only mine), does not mean that Obama stopped being committed to most of the ideas of gay rights (once again saying most because of gay marriage, of course).

This said, I also struggle a lot with bi-partisanship and this is not what attracted me to Obama. The people side is what attracted me, but bi-partisanship can too easily be construed as an abandon of ideology and ideology is as important to me as pragmatism (the second one being used to get done what the first one tells is most important to achieve). Both go together in order to get a better country.

I guess I ramble a lot here, but, as happy as I am that Obama was elected (and I am and still expects a lot of him), it is the hard moment where we need to see how the dynamics of the government (both between cabinet members and between cabinet and Congress and States) will work. It is a big question mark at this point (not that surprisingly), and the difficult economical situation does not make it any easier.

As a note, I disagree with the " give space" comment. We are not admiring a king here. We are people with opinions and it is important to make these opinions clear, not to expect that our leaders will find the solution on their own. This does not mean that we have to declare Obama bad before he has the time to do anything, but that does not mean that we have to be silent if we disagree. Obama was the first to say that people were the most important part of the equation. I hope it did not only mean when we agree with him.

[YvonneCa]

60. Great post. I think we agree. :) About the...

...'give space' part...I guess that is not clearly defined in the post. I like your definition...and dissent is never out of order in my book. ;)

[YvonneCa]

62. How is everybody feeling these days? I just re-read this...

...thread (with the new February context). :) It really is a great thread...very honest. I hope all of you are still around and doing well.:patriot:

[TayTay]

63. It is a great thread

There were a lot of heartfelt things in here, things that should be pondered for a while.

Doing well. Still hanging in there.

And I still believe the best is yet to be. (Ah, it's my nature, lol.)

[YvonneCa]

65. Very heartfelt. I think that's really...

...good. It's one of the things that keeps this group going.


And I agree with you, the best is yet to be...my nature, too.:grouphug:

[Inuca]

64. Keeping fingers crossed and

still feeling like pinching myself (really!) every now and then when I hear "president Obama" or see that big, luminous smile associated with the word "president".

[YvonneCa]

66. I get an 'inner smile', too, when I hear or write...

...'President Obama.' For me it's the proof that when people come together to right a wrong, they CAN right a wrong. Success is possible. It took a lot of hard work from a lot of people to get to 'President Obama.'

If we could do that, we CAN fix the other things.