Rahm Emanuel Tells Liberals To Kiss His Arse

According to the Wall Street Journal, Rahm Emanuel has "shrugged off" liberal opposition to the Senate healthcare bill. Although one liberal senator (Bernie Sanders of Vermont) says he will not vote for the measure, Emanuel says "[t]here are no liberals left to get."

Emanuel's comment indicates that the White House will not lobby for the reinsertion of favored liberal provisions like the public plan and Medicare buy-in. According to many published reports, Emanuel himself instructed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to remove the provisions from the bill under the guise of appeasing conservative Democrat Joe Lieberman. But as several commentators have argued, this position undoubtedly reflects the will of the White House, which could certainly explain why President Obama has remained stealth during most of the debates over healthcare reform.

Rahm's statement also declares "victory" against the political Left. He feels that he does not need to negotiate with liberals in Congress because they will not make the critical "mistake" of failing to support the healthcare bill. But Emanuel is forgetting one important thing about recent political events. Liberal members of Congress did not elect President Obama. Instead, liberal voters, along with a coalition of Independents, secured Obama's victory.

By reducing the struggle over healthcare reform to an internal Congressional battle, Emanuel ignores the very activists whose work was instrumental in Obama's election victory. If this behavior continues, Emanuel will probably have to dust off his resume in 2012. Arrogance is very ugly. Good luck!

For the record: I never trusted Emanel or Obama. I still do not.

Update: People have emailed me asking "what do you mean you did not trust Obama?" Here is what I mean.

I did not believe that hype that portrayed Obama as transcending politics. Instead, I viewed him as a politician. Rather than doing things calculated to achieve a liberal transformation of society, Obama would and has done things calculated to achieve his own reelection -- which means doing some things for his base, striving for the middle, and giving monetary prizes to corporate interests.

In the absence of sustained social movement and voter pressure, even liberal-leaning presidents will aim for the center or right. Obama is not different. So, I did not join the liberal mania that portrayed him as a folk hero of leftwing politics. I have written on this many times. See, e.g., here and here. That is what I meant about not trusting Obama.

Washington Examiner's Byron York Bashes the Left

Byron York, a writer for the Washington Examiner, has written an article that blasts liberal bloggers and claims that their activism could harm the Democrats. Chicken Little lives!

My favorite part of York's article quotes an anonymous (of course) "Democratic strategist" who observes that:

These are the same people who have never participated in, much less won, a campaign, who have no idea what it takes to maintain a majority and keep a speaker of our party, who want Obama to kowtow to the loony Left, and then they're going to be the ones who say, 'What happened?' in November 2010, when we lose the House and possibly the Senate and maybe a lot of governorships.

Given the abysmal performance of Democrats in national politics since 1964 -- especially in the White House -- this so-called strategist could use a long look in the mirror. York's essay reads more like an attack on progressive political platforms -- rather than an honest effort to advocate more successful political strategies.

Isn't It Ironic: E.J. Dionne's Column on Politics, the Media and Obama

E.J. Dionne's latest column makes the interesting claim that conservatives Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich are "winning" national political debates because the right-leaning media regularly reports conservative criticism of Obama, while failing to give equal airtime to left critiques of the president. Dionne argues that this unbalanced news coverage legitimizes rightwing portrayals of Obama as a leftist, socialist, Maoist, Lenninist, Marxist, terrorist, . . . .[Dionne did not really say all of this, but it sounds familiar for some reason].

I describe Dionne's column as ironic because until recently, Dionne himself was an unwavering fan of President Obama. For over a year, Dionne, along with liberal columnists such as Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, and Eugene Robinson could not find any fault in Obama from a liberal perspective. Meanwhile they heaved loads of critical commentary towards Hillary Clinton and, naturally, John McCain. Now, Dionne criticizes the media for making the same mistake that he and other columnists made in their past coverage of Obama.

I have always doubted and challenged the notion that the news media is liberal. Instead, I believe it is centrist and opportunistic. When Bush was popular, the media bashed Gore and, later, Kerry. When Clinton was popular, the media raked Bush, Sr., Gingrich, Dole, Limbaugh, and the "vast rightwing conspiracy" over the coals. When Reagan was popular, it knocked Carter and Dukakis. While Obama rode (and continues to ride) a wave of popularity, it trashed Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Sarah Palin.

The media follows Nielsen ratings and money -- not ideology. Because unquestioned adoration of Obama has fallen in popularity, the media wants to stir up attention by citing to and covering conservative critiques of the president. It's all about the dollar, Dionne.

Obama on National Security: I Am Doing the Right Things; I Have Not Broken Campaign Promises

[Update: Even the mainstream media have begun to make similar arguments that I make in this essay regarding the Supreme Court and Obama's national security decisions. Also, thanks to TalkLeft for initiating a thread on the issue (and graciously linking to this post).]

Obama made an interesting speech today. To summarize, Obama basically said he is doing the right things regarding national security, despite the difficulties, and that he has not abandoned any of his campaign promises. Nuance is key to understanding these promises, I suppose. For those of you who do not trust my sarcastic summary, here is the long version of the President's speech: Obama Speech Transcript.

More of the Same?
Throughout the Democratic primaries, the progressive wing of the party said that Obama was extraordinarily liberal, while Hillary Clinton offered "more of the same" (as Bush). But when Obama embraces "preventive detention," this sounds the same as Bush's maligned practice of "indefinite detention." Obama wants to detain dangerous individuals consistent with the "rule of law," but Bush did the same thing, although he called detainees "enemy combatants." "Enemy combatants" sound "dangerous" to me.

Obama has opted to utilize "kinder, gentler" military tribunals, but, like the Bush version, they will operate under a watered-down version of due process in order to secure easier convictions. As a compromise, Obama could have chosen to follow the stricter procedures contained in the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- which govern the prosecution of military personnel for crimes ranging from sodomy to treason. Instead, he has chosen to "stay the course" with slight modifications.

Obama reports that he will reform Bush's tribunals by giving defendants greater freedom to pick their own lawyers and by requiring the government to demonstrate the reliability of hearsay evidence. These reforms, however, will unlikely represent a substantial departure from practices during the Bush administration. Military courts receive so much criticism in part because one entity serves as police, prosecutor, judge, and jury. So, even if Obama changes the hearsay rule, the military (as judge) will still decide whether the military (as prosecutor) can introduce hearsay evidence collected by the military or the CIA (as police officer) for use in a military proceeding (a criminal prosecution). Focusing only on the promise to reform the hearsay rule and not the process for evaluating its reliability is a mere distraction.

Supreme Court Implications
Civil liberties organizations have already promised to file lawsuits challenging the military courts. In two different rulings, the Supreme Court invalidated the procedures used in Bush's military tribunals. Potentially, the Court could rule against Obama's courts, especially if he chooses a "true" liberal to replace Justice Souter.

I suspect that for this and other reasons, Obama will aim for the middle and for familiarity. This standard works against Judge Sonia Sotomayor (whom people have labeled as a leftist without reading her opinions) and Professor Pam Karlan (who is a bona fide leftist).

Elena Kagan, however, is probably the presumptive front runner. She is the most moderate of the individuals on the reported short list. More importantly, Kagan has already embraced the expansive notion of indefinite (sorry: "preventive") detention that Obama says he will utilize. Furthermore, she is a known quantity to President Obama, and he undoubtedly asked her many questions about law and national security before selecting her to become the Solicitor General. Also, after Souter announced his retirement, several leading Democrats floated a script that discouraged the selection of a sitting judge. Kagan is the the most popular front runner who is not a judge. Although this analysis sounds logical, I will decline to make a formal prediction. There are clearly many factors at stake.

Final Thoughts
Ironically, Obama, who ran as the antiwar candidate, is now the "war" president. He is the commander-in-chief in two ongoing offenses, including one in which he has authorized a "surge." As proof that his antiwar rhetoric is a distant memory, Obama has delivered a speech to justify his Bush-esque national security policy against liberal (and Cheney's) criticism in a building that houses the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, which rank among the most enduring of American symbols. This is a long road from the flag pin controversy.

Finally, I will leave readers with some "oldies but goodies" from Dissenting Justice. These articles argue that the Left set itself up for disappointment with its irrational exuberance surrounding Obama. He is, as Reverend Wright accurately stated during the campaign, a politician. All presidents before him were politicians as well. I was stunned that liberals refused to see this. So, to the formerly effusive and uncritical Left: I told you so. To everyone else, enjoy the articles.

Latest analysis on Dissenting Justice:

Cutting Through the Rhetoric Regarding Hate Crimes Legislation


Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

* 2008 Is Not 1964: Why Liberal Mania and Conservative Panic Are Nothing But Melodrama

* Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State

* Head Explosion at The Nation: Left "Duped" by Its "Own Wishful Thinking"

* From the "Duh" Files: Effusive Political Adoration Does Not Lead to Social Change

* Warning to Progressives: NYT Proclaims Obama Will Govern From Center-Right

* Leftists Finally Realize Obama Is a Moderate; Huffington Post Suddenly Embraces Clinton and Political Center

* The "Left" Responds to Obama's "Centrist" Foreign Policy Team

* Reality Check: Obama's Election Victory Does Not Mean That Era of Race-Based Identity Politics Has Died

* Back Down Memory Lane: A Review of Anti-Clinton Rhetoric by "Progressives" on Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and AlterNet

* Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Hold Your Breath

New Democratic Organization Wants To Chase Moderates Out of Office

A group of left-leaning Democrats have created a new organization called "Accountability Now," which will sponsor election challenges against moderate Democrats. The group, which has support from MoveOn.Org and the Service Employees International Union, hopes to move Democrats in Congress to the left, so that they will support President Obama's initiatives and respond to the people who elected them.

Two Things
First: Politics is very local. Many moderate Democrats embrace the center due to their own ideological background and for political necessity. This is true of both parties. Blue-state Republicans and red-state Democrats are often moderates. And their constituents (or "the people who elected them") are moderates as well.

If Accountability Now does not recognize this, its efforts could fail or even backfire (i.e., cause the election of Republicans). Republican candidates could take advantage of discord among Democrats. Also, in order to gain money and other assistance from the group, candidates could "punk" the organization by running to the left during the primaries but then dashing to the center in the general election -- which leads me to my second "thing."

Second thing: Why does the group believe that Obama wants to move or that he will move to the left? I strongly believe that social movement pressure can force moderate presidents to the left or right. Accordingly, I admire the efforts of liberals, including the founders of Accountability Now, who choose to organize around progressive politics. But I have not witnessed broad social movement activity surrounding Obama, and I doubt that one organization can do the work required of many.

According to opinion polls, Democrats (and independents) remain extraordinarily pleased with Obama. Consequently, most liberal activists have done very little in terms of publicly criticizing or pushing him on any issue. Many liberals have in fact defended him or remained remarkably silent even though he has replicated some policies (such as rendition, use of state secrets privilege, etc.) that the Left passionately contested during the Bush administration. So long as most voters remain pleased with Obama, he will have no incentive to move to the left (or right). Concerted pressure might accomplish this goal, but Accountability Now needs help from other progressives.

Finally, during the Democratic primaries, groups like MoveOn.Org and Service Employees International Union proudly supported Obama, whom they portrayed as a leftist dream come true. Now that Obama has grabbed the political center and has even embraced some of Bush's most despised policies, these groups believe they need to push him and other Democrats to the left. Even though they mistakenly assumed that Obama was a leftist, they still insist that they can isolate "real" leftists to challenge moderate Democrats and that their handpicked leftists will then push Obama -- whom they previously believed was a leftist -- to the left. Well, even though I'm cynical, I'll keep my eyes on this one -- and even send a contribution!

Two Important Terrorism Updates...But You've Heard Them Before

FIRST
Today, the Obama administration decided to maintain the Bush adminstration's legal position, which asserts that individuals detained at the Bagram Air Force Base near Kabul, Afghanistan do not have a right to seek judicial review of their detention. The Department of Justice argues that, unlike Guantanamo Bay, the base is located in the "theater of war" and this makes judicial review impracticable." Also, the government argues that the Bagram detainees are not entitled to habeas corpus because they are subject to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 -- a statute that Obama denounced.

This military base is not subject to Obama's executive orders which require the review and subsequent closure of Guantanamo Bay. Also, the facility is not a longterm CIA prison which the executive orders also require the government to shutter. Presumably, the government can indefinitely detain individuals at Bagram -- rather than Guantanamo Bay -- without judicial review. Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Attorney General Eric Holder essentially validated this position when they endorsed indefinite detention of terrorism suspects during their confirmation hearings.

SECOND
Obama's executive orders create a task force to study Guantanamo Bay and then subsequently to close it. Today, the Pentagon, responding to a request by President Obama, released an 85-page report which concludes that the maligned facility complies with the Geneva Convention. During the Bush administration, many individuals in the human rights community passionately disputed this position.

While the study finds that the facility complies with international law, it concludes that some of the more dangerous individuals should now receive play time:

The report recommended some changes, including an increase in group recreation for some of the camp's more dangerous or less compliant prisoners, according to a government official familiar with the study. The report also suggested allowing those prisoners to gather in groups of three or more, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not officially been released.

FINAL WORD
I have written many articles which track the similarities between Bush's and Obama's anti-terrorism policies. For the record, I do not necessarily disagree with some of these practices. For example, I have argued that the government should probably receive wide latitude to invoke the state secrets privilege and that courts should defer to the government's conclusion that a potential item of evidence qualifies for the privilege.

Also, asserting executive authority to do a particular act, does not mandate the use of such power. So, even if the government believes it can detain terrorism suspects indefinitely, this does not mean that it will.

My purpose for engaging this subject arises from my belief that the Left must hold consistent positions and that it must rethink the uncritical approach it took with respect to Obama during the Democratic primaries and the general-election campaign. If McCain (or probably even Clinton) had won the election and began validating Bush's policies, my fellow liberals would condemn him as Bush III.

In order for our arguments to have legitimacy, we must remain consistent or explain why we shift. If progressives now believe that they overreached in condemning Bush, they should make this clear. If progressives simply wanted to drum Republicans out of power, they have made a mockery of the very values they claim to embrace. Criticism and consistency, rather than partisan defense of "our" candidate, can permit greater accountability. Silence and acquiescence do not. I hope I am not the lone progressive who sees this. Ok - that was a melodramatic ending. And for the record, outside of Ron Paul, I have not seen many conservatives criticize other conservatives for not taking Bush to task on his extravagant fiscal policies.

From the "Duh" Files: Effusive Political Adoration Does Not Lead to Social Change

John Judis, a writer for the New Republic, has written an article in which he laments the lack of critical progressive commentary and social movement activity regarding Democrats, including President Obama. Judis observes that:

[I] think the main reason that Obama is having trouble is that there is not a popular left movement that is agitating for him to go well beyond where he would even ideally like to go. Sure, there are leftwing intellectuals like Paul Krugman who are beating the drums for nationalizing the banks and for a $1 trillion-plus stimulus. But I am not referring to intellectuals, but to movements that stir up trouble among voters and get people really angry. Instead, what exists of a popular left is either incapable of action or in Obama's pocket.

This article sounds markedly less upbeat than an essay Judis wrote immediately following Obama's election victory. In that article -- America the Liberal -- Judis argues that the Democrats' success demonstrates that a new political bloc consisting of persons of color, women and liberal professionals could potentially engender longterm progressive reform.

Although Judis tries to temper his excitement, he believes that the 2006 and 2008 elections mark a fundamental leftward shift in the ideological makeup of the electorate:

The rise of [women, people of color, and professional liberals] within the post-industrial economy has brought in its wake a new political worldview. Call it "progressive" or "liberal" or even "Naderite". . . .[P]rofessionals are the vanguard of the new progressive majority. Their sensibility is reflected in the Democratic platform and increasingly in the country as a whole. . . .Professionals are generally liberal on civil rights and women's rights; committed to science and to the separation of church and state; internationalist on trade and immigration; skeptical of, but not necessarily opposed to, large government programs; and gung-ho about government regulation of business, especially K Street lobbyists.

Many are children of the 1960s and '70s--heavily influenced by Martin Luther King Jr., Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and Nader--but their views are clearly reflected in succeeding generations of college-educated Americans, particularly the "millennials" who grew up during the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Ucla's annual study of incoming college freshmen across the country found in 2006 that 28.4 percent identified themselves as "liberal"--the highest percentage since 1975.

Judis also contends that:

[S]even years removed from September 11, liberal views have re-emerged with a vengeance. Now, the coming recession seems likely to push voters even further left.

Needless to say, this "push" has not occurred.

The Left Effusively Endorsed Obama During the Democratic Primaries
I have always been suspicious of liberal arguments which celebrate the demise of the GOP and conservatism and which welcome the advent of a liberal Utopia. I wrote many essays on this subject during the campaign and since the election -- including an essay which responds to Judis's "America the Liberal." I also created Dissenting Justice because often, the Left seemed like it was in a collective Obama-Vegetative State, which rendered progressives incapable of offering critical and balanced analysis of the Democratic presidential candidates. I hoped to shake things up with my own rigorous analysis.

And as gauche as saying "I told you so" seems, I can barely resist doing so. Nevertheless, I will attempt to make a critical contribution to this debate by reiterating some of the basic points I have made on my blog and elsewhere.

What the Political Left Needs to Understand
First, an election is not a social movement. Although many diverse people united to support Obama and to oppose the GOP, this does not mean that they shared a leftist political ideology. The invalidation of same-sex marriage in California -- where Obama won by more than 20% of the vote -- demonstrates this patently obvious point.

Second, progressives were so unnerved by Bush and the Clintons that many of them projected radicalism upon a moderate (or undefined) Obama in order to frame voting for him as a dramatic break from the past. Although "change" supports many meanings, for progressives, it symbolized liberal transformation of U.S. political life and policy.

Third, many liberals wanted so desperately to believe in the myth of a post-racial America that they treated Obama's electoral success as the ultimate triumph of progressive race politics. Despite the fact that strong racial cleavages shaped the vote for both Obama and McCain, many commentators, nevertheless, argued that Obama's victory would allow the country to move beyond race altogether.

Fourth, many self-described liberals are actually political moderates. They passionately support a set of symbolic liberal causes, but they do not favor more substantive societal transformation. Beating up Don Imus or Republicans who sing about a "Magic Negro" is a lot easier to do than creating good public schools that do not deprive poor children and children of color of a quality education. And passing the much-needed Ledbetter legislation does not resolve the substantive legal difficulties that civil rights plaintiffs encounter if they manage to overcome tough procedural hurdles. Yet, liberals cheered loudly for Ledbetter without even discussing (minus a few exceptions) the need for more progressive measures.

Liberal Regrets: Not Obama's "Fault"
Progressives cannot blame Obama for his effort to straddle the ideological center. Instead, they must look inward and discover why they chose to treat a politician (as skillful in that role as he might be) as someone who is mythological or larger than life.

They should also canvass history, as Judis has done, to learn about the critical role of passionate collective activism in the evolution of U.S. politics and policy. Moderate presidents have presided over great changes in the U.S., but they did so with the backing and agitation of engaged social movements. True social change does not result from effusive adoration and acquiescence; instead, it arises from criticism, collective activism, strategic compromise and political opportunity.

Conclusion: Silence and Defensive Partisanship Will Not Create Change Either
Many liberals have remained silent or have become defensive partisans in response to commentary that reveals striking similarities between Obama's policies and Bush-era practices that provoked sustained and angry criticism from the Left. Consequently, I am not hopeful that progressives will welcome dissent and self-criticism in the near future. Dissent and criticism, however, are staples of successful social movement activism, which is an essential component of progressive (or conservative) political change.

Ironically, I have found that political conservatives (e.g. Glenn Reynolds) often provide the most accommodating space for dissenting progressives. Admittedly, progressive dissent can serve conservatives' interest in hearing criticism of Democrats. But this process can also link nonpartisans across the political spectrum, who, despite disagreeing on many issues, can learn and benefit from open debate. I hope that progressives will begin to provide the same space for liberal criticism that some nonpartisan conservatives have already offerred.

PS: My sudden obsession with links to my previous essays is just a subtle way of saying "I told you so!"


Just Added to Dissenting Justice:

Presidential Idol: Lincoln the Best, Bush Not the Worst

Reactions to Reverend Rick Warren from My Blogger Buddies

I started a link list in my post on the Reverend Rick Warren controversy, but some of the arguments are so passionate and precise that they warrant special attention. For example, check out my "pal" Professor Nan Hunter's response on her blog Hunter of Justice:

Your election is over, pal. You won't lose any votes next time over this, but do you really believe you're going to gain any?

[]I know what you're banking on - the appeal to Americans of the anti-ideologue, the leader who solves problems, who "reaches across the aisle." But when principles are important, the public also wants a leader who has a few, who stands for something, who isn't constantly trying to please and accommodate.

I am reminded of one of Barney Frank's quips from a speech I heard him give a couple of weeks ago: "Every time Obama talks about post-partisan politics, I get post-partisan depression."

[]Historians may . . . compare your moves on this issue to how FDR mollified white racists in order to get his New Deal legislation through Congress. . . but . . . at least we got the New Deal.

What will we get from you?

[Editor's note: Strong words, Professor Hunter!]

And stop by new blog buddy Christal Phillips at the blog that shares her name. Phillips, who has a highly impressive resume (B.A. from Michigan in 2005, J.D. from Michigan in 2008, currently enrolled in Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism!), does not waste any time before dissecting this issue:

This election year has proven that it is easier for Obama to stand for nothing or remain silent on controversial issues such as gay marriage and affirmative action (because the majority of gays, women, and minorities will support him anyway) while he garners support from right-wing moderates and Libertarians.

Remaining silent is bad enough. But to invite someone like Warren to this historic inauguration speaks volumes about Obama’s commitment to GLBT rights. To allow someone like Jon Favreau to keep his job speaks volumes about Obama’s commitment to women’s rights. Until Democrats hold our leaders accountable things like this will continue because they know they can get away with it and still win.

[Editors note: I disagree with calls for Favreau to resign or for Obama to fire him, because I take my cues from Clinton on this one. I agree with everything else Phillips argues.]

And Heidi Li (both Li and Hunter teach at Georgetown Law Center) of Heidi Li's Potpourri offers a response right here on Dissenting Justice:

By choosing a clergymember whose views are homophobic Mr. Obama is affiliating himself with those views. I know Mr. Obama claims that having other clergy who are not homophobic sort of cancels out the affiliation, but that isn't how it works when it comes to affiliating oneself with haters. . . . Suppose we grant that not everything Strom Thurmond ever did was bad; he was still, in my view, irredeemable, because of the virulence of his racism against blacks. In general Mr. Obama shows an alarming tendency to think that everything is ethically equal - so one can balance keeping Bob Gates in office by making some other appointments of people who opposed the war in Iraq. But that is not how good ethical judgment works.

[Editor's note: See my response to Li in the comments section.]

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

The Fallacy of Obama's "Diversity" Defense: Rick Warren's Views Already Have a Place at the Table

New Obama Drama: GLBT Groups Upset That Rev. Rick Warren Speaking at Inauguration

Embracing Uncle Good-But-Homophobic: Why "Reaching Across the Aisle" to Rick Warren Does Not Feel Safe to Everyone

New Obama Drama: GLBT Groups Upset That Rev. Rick Warren Speaking at Inauguration

During the brief post-election season, critics have had many opportunities to problematize Obama's leftist credentials. Progressives, seemingly awakening from an Obama-Vegetative State, have complained about his Cabinet choices, his shifting position on war, and his decision to delay raising taxes on the wealthy and upon oil companies. In the latest progressive flap, GLBT rights groups are upset with Obama's decision to have Reverend Rick Warren perform the invocation at his inauguration ceremony.

Warren's conservative views on gay rights (and other issues) should alarm progressives. For example, he is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage, and he campaigned in favor of California Proposition 8 (a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage in heterosexual terms). When asked to explain his objection to same-sex marriage during an interview, Warren responded that he also opposes incestuous marriage, marriage between adults and children, and polygamy. He later said that he views all of these "relationships," including same-sex marriage, as moral equivalents.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest advocate for gay and lesbian rights, has sent an "open letter" to Obama, complaining about Warren speaking at the inauguration. Ironically, in 2006, many members of Warren's conservative congregation criticized his decision to invite Obama to speak at the church where he serves as a minister. Specifically, congregants disagreed with Obama's pro-choice voting record.

My Analysis

There are a few points I want to make about this issue. First, although I have condemned the unseemly desire of the public to project itself into the private religious lives of political candidates, this case is distinguishable. This situation does not represent a moment where the public has unnecessarily scrutinized Obama's private religious beliefs. Instead, Obama himself has made his religious practice public (to the extent that selecting a minister to participate in the inauguration constitutes "religious practice") and therefore subject to public scrutiny.

If you think I am "waffling," then so be it. Besides, I am analyzing the issue primarily from a political perspective. At the end of the day, I am far more interested in how Obama views GLBT rights issues, not in whom he chooses to speak at the inauguration. Unfortunately, I am already skeptical about his support for gay rights.

Second (here is the political analysis), I am not sure why Obama believes this is a good move politically. Although it is certainly consistent with his "reaching across the aisle" philosophy, many GLBT people are already suspicious of his support. The doubting started during the Democratic primaries, when he campaigned with "ex-gay" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin. Also, it has become increasingly clear that repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell will not become a priority until late in his presidency, if at all (see my analysis here, here, and here). Furthermore, because Warren played such a visible role in the defeat of same-sex marriage in California, his inclusion in the inauguration ceremony will only exacerbate the perceived vulnerability of GLBT people.

Finally, I hate to say it (not really), but "I told you so." GLBT activists remained silent while all of the leading Democratic candidates, including Obama, took moderate-to-conservative positions on sexual orientation issues, especially same-sex marriage. Obama and Warren have both stated that they oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds. It seems more than a little inconsistent for HRC to condemn Warren's presence at the inauguration when his views on the morality of same-sex marriage are materially indistinct from Obama's. In fact, Obama's opposition should bother HRC even more than Warren's because Obama occupies the highest position of political power in the country, while Warren is simply a minister who lacks the power to promulgate public policy. If the Left wanted to engage in critical inquiry concerning Obama and sexuality, it should have done so at a much earlier point. Instead, a lot of them simply gave him a pass.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

Rick Warren versus Don Imus: Obama's Inconsistent Positions

The Fallacy of Obama's "Diversity" Defense: Rick Warren's Views Already Have a Place at the Table

Embracing Uncle Good-But-Homophobic: Why "Reaching Across the Aisle" to Rick Warren Does Not Feel Safe to Everyone

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Hold Your Breath

Stonewalling on Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No Action Until 2010

Robert Gates as Obama's Secretary of Defense: "More of the Same" for Gay Rights?

Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State

Would Obama Have Won If He Were Black...and Gay?

What Did Obama Really Say About the Chicago Sit-In? Depends on What the Meaning of "If" Is

Yesterday, President-Elect Barack Obama expressed his views on the workers who are protesting the failure of their company to provide them with notice of a shutdown as required by federal and state law. Before turning to his comments, let's take a look at how liberal commentators have construed them. Most of the reaction was extremely positive. Many progressives cited Obama's remarks as a wonderful and rare example of a president expressing support for class struggle.

Daily Kos
Obama Supports Republic Windows Workers Who Are Occupying Factory!
I didn't think he'd do it, but he did. I figured Obama would sit this one out. I mean, occupying a factory is illegal, at least formalistically. There could be a political downside. He didn't have to say anything. But I was wrong.

Huffington Post
Obama Encourages Worker Protest At Chicago Factory
The protest, along with vocal support from President-elect Barack Obama, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, civil rights activists and others, has . . . created . . . a chance for unions that have been losing members and strength for years to show they still matter.

Balkinization
In any event, I confess myself exhilarated by having a president-elect who may be unafraid to recognize the existence of class conflict in America and who seems willing to put the power of the United States behind the victims of what in the 1930s would have been called capitalist exploitation (and today can be described perhaps as "the operation of impersonal economic forces").

Guardian Unlimited
After eight years of labour being exiled to the wilderness in favour of corporate hand-outs, it is a rather stunning to watch what's now unfolding in response: President-elect Barack Obama has publicly come out in unequivocal support of the workers . . . .

Yglesias
Change I Can Believe In
How nice is it to have a pro-labor president. . . I like it.

Now, here are Obama's specific comments on the situation:

When it comes to the situation here in Chicago with the workers who
are asking for their benefits and payments they have earned, I think
they are absolutely right . . . .

I think that these workers, if they have earned their benefits and their pay, then these companies need to follow through on those commitments.

Obama's statement is a straightforward, unassailable legal principle. No one can dispute that "if" workers are entitled to unpaid wages and benefits, then their employers should pay them. The Left, however, has read this as a progressive support of the sit-in, which he carefully avoids endorsing.

Obama only stated that he supports the workers demanding money to which they potentially are legally entitled. They could make this demand through litigation, an open-letter, or any number of means. Besides, the business is not operating at the site, and it has not complained about the presence of the workers. There is no issue of a work stoppage or slowdown. This is a unproblematic sit-in.

Obama also does not argue that Bank of America should pay the wages, which separates him from state and local politicians and the workers. Instead, he makes a generalized statement about ensuring that federal relief to lending institutions reach companies that need credit. My advice to the Left: Learn to read. . . between the lines.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

* Laid-Off Republic Windows and Doors Workers: Pawns in Political Football

* Dodd's Discriminatory Bailout: "Regime Change" for Main Street, But Not for Wall Street?

* Factory Closes in Chicago; Workers Invoke Bailout During Protest

* Paulson, Geithner and Rubin: How the Big Three "Hooked Up" Citigroup

* Was GOP's Opposition to Bailout a Clever Ploy? Concessions for House Republicans Could Increase Budget Deficit, Make Plan More Expensive

* READING THE FINE PRINT: BAILOUT IS STILL A DEAL PRIMARILY FOR BANKERS

* Bringing Back Welfare As We Knew It: My Indignant Take on the Wall Street Bail-Out

Latest Cabinet Buzz: Richard Holbrooke to Lead South Asia Diplomacy

Today's Washington Post reports that Obama will likely select Richard Holbrook to lead diplomatic efforts in South Asia. Holbrooke is an advisor to Hillary Clinton on foreign policy. He also served as Ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton administration. Before Clinton accepted her position as Secretary of State, media accounts indicated that Clinton negotiated having top roles for her advisors in the State Department. Holbrooke's rumored appointment could reflect this agreement.

Although Holbrooke has a wealth of foreign policy experiences, progressives have expressed nothing but contempt for him. In fact, he was a major part of a "guilt by association" strategy they used to construct Hillary Clinton as a bloodthirsty hawk: Because Holbrooke, who advises Clinton, is militaristic, then Clinton is militaristic as well. By contrast, progressives argued that Obama surrounded himself with a collection of peaceful doves, which, along with his stated opposition to the war in Iraq, made him a leftist in terms of foreign affairs. Some would argue that this argument is valid from a "common sense" perspective, but as a wise professor recently told me: "Common sense is for people who do not want to read." Now that Obama has surrounded himself with the same group of supposed hawks, progressives are in a state of near panic.

I have pulled together a collection of progressive critiques of Holbrooke and have pasted them below. Some of these arguments were made during the Democratic primaries, but others only recently emerged.

The Progressive
Holbrooke . . . carries a lot of baggage—some of it pretty unsightly. He was a State Department official in Vietnam during the 1960s, and under President Carter served as assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs. During those years, he helped provide key assistance to U.S.-backed dictators in South Korea, the Philippines, and Indonesia. His constant refrain was the preservation of U.S. national security interests in the region. After Park Chung Hee, the South Korean dictator, was shot to death in 1979 after eighteen years of increasingly brutal rule, for example, Holbrooke exploded in anger when Christian dissidents protested the continuation of martial law. Their actions, he complained in declassified documents I obtained in 1996, were making it difficult for the United States to avoid “another Iran” in that country.

And like Brzezinski, Holbrooke lent enormous assistance to Suharto’s military to put down the Timorese resistance. Among the weapons systems sold to Suharto with U.S. support were A-10 Broncos that were used to strafe Timorese villages. “If you look at the statistics, from 1976 to 1978 we massively increased our assistance that made the occupation and quelling of the [East Timor] rebellion possible,” Edmund McWilliams, a longtime U.S. diplomat who served in Indonesia during the Clinton Administration, told me. “To my mind, that was when the great bloodletting took place, and it was all done during the watch of Richard Holbrooke and Jimmy Carter, the human rights President.”

Holbrooke also was hawkish on Iraq and has had harsh words for Iran, comparing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler.

Foreign Policy in Focus
During the lead-up to the war, Obama’s advisors were suspicious of the Bush administration’s claims that Iraq somehow threatened U.S. national security to the extent that it required a U.S. invasion and occupation of that country. . . .

By contrast, Clinton’s top advisor and her likely pick for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained “a clear and present danger at all times" . . . .

Holbrooke, rejecting the broad international legal consensus against offensive wars, insisted that it was perfectly legitimate for the United States to invade Iraq and that the European governments and anti-war demonstrators who objected “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein.

Air America
[Richard] Holbrooke will have major sway over U.S. policy, whether or not he gets an official job. . . . Among the many violent policies he helped implement and enforce was the U.S.-backed Indonesian genocide in East Timor. Holbrooke was an Assistant Secretary of State in the late 1970s at the height of the slaughter and was the point man on East Timor for the Carter Administration.

According to Brad Simpson, director of the Indonesia and East Timor Documentation Project at the National Security Archive at George Washington University, "It was Holbrooke and Zbigniew Brzezinski [another top Obama advisor], both now leading lights in the Democratic Party, who played point in trying to frustrate the efforts of congressional human-rights activists to try and condition or stop U.S. military assistance to Indonesia, and in fact accelerated the flow of weapons to Indonesia at the height of the genocide". . . .

[]Holbrooke also supported the Iraq war. In early 2003, shortly after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the UN, where he presented the administration's fraud-laden case for war to the UN (a speech Powell has since called a "blot" on his reputation), Holbrooke said: "It was a masterful job of diplomacy by Colin Powell and his colleagues, and it does not require a second vote to go to war. . . .Saddam is the most dangerous government leader in the world today, he poses a threat to the region, he could pose a larger threat if he got weapons of mass destruction deployed, and we have a legitimate right to take action."

San Francisco Chronicle
Clinton's apologists include Gloria Steinem and too many other feminists, who should know better than to betray the women's movement's commitment to peace in favor of simplistic gender politics. It is disturbing, not because they conclude that Clinton is the best candidate, but because they refuse to challenge their candidate to be better. Does it not matter that Hillary's key foreign policy advisers are drawn heavily from the ranks of the neoliberals, who cheered as loudly for Bush's war as did the neoconservatives? Are they not concerned that Richard Holbrooke, who exploited his experience and access to secret information during the Clinton presidency to back the Iraq invasion, is a likely contender for secretary of state should she win?

The Atlantic
Roger Cohen lobbies hard for the inclusion of Richard Holbrooke in a very powerful role in an Obama administration. I would say the fact that this seems relatively unlikely to happen was emblematic of the reasons to prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton. I think nobody doubts that Holbrooke is an very able practitioner of a certain brand of diplomacy, but his judgment and substantive ideas about broad policy questions leaves much to be desired.

He's the leading light of the clan of self-proclaimed "national security Democrats", that faction of the party sufficiently "serious" about foreign affairs to have seen the deep wisdom of a costly and destructive invasion of Iraq. . . .

The Nation
In diplomacy, even a veneer of decency and statesmanship can matter. Neither Richard Holbrooke, the author of Dayton, who lost no opportunity to refer to the UN as "deeply flawed" or Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who disposed of Boutros Boutros-Ghali in the most high-handed and thoughtless manner, can lay claim to glory as statesmen. Albright, responding to critics at the UN, reminded everyone that we are the "indispensable nation," so get over it.

The "Left" Responds to Obama's "Centrist" Foreign Policy Team

Today, I posted a blog entry that recounts some of the harshest progressive criticism of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Since that time, I have scanned the Internet and collected some of the initial responses by progressives to the official nomination of Clinton as Secretary of State. Here are some of the items I have found.

AlterNet
(Stephen Zunes)
With the selection of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State . . . it is no longer possible to make any more excuses [for Obama's cabinet choices]. It is getting harder to deny that Barack Obama intends to tilt his foreign policy to the right.

This is not simply a situation where Obama desires an opportunity to listen to alternative perspectives from hawks as a means of strengthening his dovish proclivities. These hawkish perspectives have long been dominant in Washington and in the mainstream media, so even without these appointments, Obama would be getting plenty of this kind of feedback anyway. It appears that he has appointed Clinton and these other hawks because he does not have any principled objections to their disdain for human right and international law.

[Editor: Zunes is consistently extreme in his critique of Clinton. Now, he offers similarly melodramtic statements about Obama.]

The Nation
(Katrina Vanden Heuvel)
Barack Obama not only had the good judgment to oppose the war in Iraq but, as he told us earlier this year, "I want to end the mindset that got us into war." So it is troubling that a man of such good judgment has asked Robert Gates to stay on as Secretary of Defense -- and assembled a national security team of such narrow bandwidth. It is true that President Obama will set the policy. But this team makes it more difficult to seize the extraordinary opportunity Obama's election has offered to reengage the world and reset America's priorities. Maybe being right about the greatest foreign policy disaster in U.S. history doesn't mean much inside the Beltway? How else to explain that not a single top member of Obama's foreign policy/national security team opposed the war -- or the dubious claims leading up to it?

(John Nichols)
Obama is not assembling a team of rivals -- at least not with the Clinton pick. He is selecting a fellow senator who he came to respect and even to regard somewhat fondly during the course of a difficult but not particularly destructive primary campaign. More importantly, he is selected someone who agrees with him on almost every significant global issues and who he is certain will be able Secretary of State.

No, the man who spent the past several days consulting by phone with outgoing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, is not staking out bold new turf with his selection of a replacement for Rice. This is not fundamental change. But no one who paid serious attention to Obama's campaigning, even in the early stages of the race, thought he was about fundamental change.

Huffington Post
[Editor: Apparently, today's theme at Huffington Post is: "it's all good." The pro-Obama blog features several essays that praise Obama's foreign policy team, even though it was a major player in the construction of Clinton as a worthless hawk and the portrayal Obama as a Leftist dove. Although Arianna Huffington criticized Obama's choice of Clinton before it became official, Huffington Post bloggers have seemingly moved fully behind the new team. One essay even offers a "progressive" take on Robert Gates.]

(James Warren)
As the season's first snow hit, Barack Obama on Monday took a shovel to the chilliest element of Bush administration national security policy: moral certitude. Rather than look to the heavens, a skillful president-elect seemed distinctly focused on the ground for inspiration.

With Sen. Hillary Clinton and six other new colleagues aligned in front of their very own American flags, Obama left little doubt that we're shifting the political center of gravity. For all Monday's talk of power, and successfully ending the "war on terror" in Afghanistan, the significance was less the obvious signals of being "muscular" than of an attempt to be flexible and, yes, multilateralist.

(Max Bergmann)
[Editor: Here's the progressive take on Gates.]
While many progressives acknowledge that Gates has said some reasonable things . . . and has been a positive influence within the Bush administration, many argue that this does not justify keeping someone on who was simply not as bad as the rest - especially when you have an opportunity to bring in someone more progressive.

But in keeping Gates, Obama, is actually indicating that he is very serious about instituting significant reform of the Pentagon.

Gates has advocated some very bold progressive reforms during the last couple of years. He has broken with the Rumsfeld emphasis on military transformation and has repeatedly talked about the need for the Pentagon to move away from procuring unnecessary weapons that are hugely expensive and have little strategic role (italics added).

[Editor: "Very bold progressive reforms"? Apparently, I missed an issue of my subscription to Bold Progressive Reforms Magazine. Also, it is pretty sad for lefties when simply disagreeing with "shock and awe" Rumsfeld gives someone progressive credentials.]

Cecile Richards
The selection of Senator Clinton [as Secretary of State] represents an important first step down a new path for American foreign policy -- an enormous shift represented by the selection of a champion of women's health and rights to be in charge of America foreign policy. . . .

Senator Clinton understands that improving the status of women is not simply a moral imperative; it is necessary to building democracies around the globe. Improving the status of women is key to creating stable families, stable communities, and stable countries. Women's ability to control the size of their families, regardless of economics, nationality, or culture, has a direct impact on their economic well-being and that of their children. Senator Clinton understands that women's quality of life directly affects the major issues confronting the globe: national security, environmental sustainability, and global poverty.

[Editor: During the Democratic primaries, Huffington Post published a number of "open letters" from feminists "for Obama" (or simply "against Clinton"). I do not recall seeing much pro-Clinton feminist commentary, except from solid Clinton supporters like Taylor Marsh.]

Concluding Thoughts: As I stated at the beginning of this entry, I have always believed that Obama and Clinton are both centrist Democrats. My view of the candidates' shared political ideology has placed me in constant opposition with other progressives.

But I do not believe that having a centrist president precludes progressive change. Accordingly, I am not writing about Obama's moderate politics in order to denounce his administration. Instead, I hope to remind the Left that dissent is a critical component of progressive politics. Because many progressives abdicated critical analysis of Obama, they are now becoming disaffected or searching for ways to reconcile their earlier praise of Obama and hatred of Clinton with the reality that he is a centrist and that she is the "fresh face" of U.S. foreign policy.

Back Down Memory Lane: A Review of Anti-Clinton Rhetoric by "Progressives" on Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and AlterNet

Now that Clinton has officially received her offer to serve as Secretary of State, I thought readers might find it interesting to ponder with me how the Left will react. During the Democratic primaries, I found both leading candidates highly attractive. When it became clear that the race would go to the wire, I even favored a "Dream Team," but that never materialized.

The Left Bashed Clinton as a Conservative Hawk

By contrast, my liberal and progressive colleagues (many of whom are other academics) had the utmost disdain for Clinton. While I viewed the two candidates as fairly mainstream or guardedly liberal on most issues, other progressives passionately supported Obama as the most radical choice and dismissed Clinton as a self-interested, conservative (or valueless), inexperienced, racist, demagogue who would govern as a centrist (at best), continue Bush's hawkish foreign policy, and fail to offer any fundamental change in society.

Progressives' disgust with Clinton stemmed, in part, from their lingering dissatisfaction with Bill Clinton's presidency, which they viewed as betraying the Left. Hillary Clinton became a punching bag for Leftist discontent with centrist politics of the Democratic Party. Disclaimer: I (a self-proclaimed progressive) also disagreed with many of President Clinton's compromises with the right. I was 20-something at the time, and I now appreciate the value of compromise much more than I did at the time. Furthermore, and more importantly, I refused to conflate the Clintons and view them as a pathological "Billary," as many liberals shamefully did. That term has an unmistakeably sexist connotation.

Progressive Bloggers Helped Portray Clinton as Bush III

Some of the loudest "progressive" criticism of Hillary Clinton came from popular liberal and progressive blogs. In particular Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and AlterNet (among many others) frequently posted vitriolic essays warning readers of the awful nature of Clinton's politics. Now that Clinton has received the highest position on foreign policy in Obama's Cabinet, I assume that the Left will soon express dismay -- if they actually believed the harsh criticism they lodged against Clinton and the effusive praise they reserved for Obama during the Democratic primaries.

Because people have very short memories, I have posted some material from several liberal and progressive blogs below. As you read them, consider how the writers could possibly reconcile their earlier positions on Clinton and Obama with Obama's decision to make Clinton Secretary of State.

Examples of Progressive Critiques of Clinton from Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and AlterNet

Daily Kos

(1/2/2008)

This is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. Will it be the party of corporate insiders and the Democratic Leadership Council’s centrist, triangulating approach to politics? Or will it be the party of a new generation shaping the future of the Democratic Party in a progressive direction.

We face a turning point for this country and for the Democratic Party. We have the potential to launch a progressive revolution in America. That’s why we cannot risk everything on a centrist, unpopular candidate, and why progressives must unite behind the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton in the primary race.

(3/8/2008)

Everyone knows that Hillary Clinton has made the completely wrong and incompetent judgements in Foreign Policy, on both Iraq and Iran. Even far worse than any one particular vote, she attached her own credibility to public promotion and parroting of the plainly fraudulent White House talking-points, and a bizarre faith-based loyalty to their bogus intelligence (White House manipulated) -- even after the inconvenient truth was reported both Nationally and Internationally, and revealed before the whole World. . . .

The errors are even larger, and something that is permanent and institutionalized by her own choice of trusted advisors, and that incompetence will never change either now or in the future. You can learn a whole lot about a candidate by who their trusted advisors are.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary have hired advisors that at one time served within the former Clinton administration. Yet, the similarity ends there. . . .

(4/10/2008)

The more I see Hillary Clinton on TV and think about her, the more I realize that she doesn't care in the least bit about the Democratic party. She cares about herself and her husbands legacy and nothing else. Frankly, I am sick of it, and I will be even sicker if she somehow manages to get this nomination. People who are nominated for President by a party have usually worked in the past to show that they actually care about the party, not just themselves. Hillary Clinton has done nothing to show ths [sic]. . . .

Huffington Post

(2/9/2008)

A major difference stands out among those they are likely to appoint to key posts in national defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs: Almost everyone in Senator Obama's foreign policy team opposed the U.S. invasion. By contrast, most of Senator Clinton's foreign policy team, which largely comprises veterans of her husband's administration, strongly supported George W. Bush's call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. . . .

Hillary Clinton has a few advisors who did oppose the war, like Wesley Clark, but taken together, the kinds of key people she's surrounded herself with supports the likelihood that her administration, like Bush's, would be more likely to embrace exaggerated and alarmist reports regarding potential national security threats, to ignore international law and the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars.

(2/25/2008)

The problem of Clinton's poor instincts on foreign policy is compounded by the hawkish foreign policy advisors she has surrounded herself with, the most important of which are Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke, Lee Feinstein and Sandy Berger.

(3/7/2008)

Hillary's triangulating against Obama is true to form for the Clintons. That's all they ever do: cozy up to the Republicans, cut off the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and help push along the Republican agenda on trade, welfare, taxes, and corporate power. The Democratic Party has still not recovered from the Clinton failures to stand up to the GOP. Hillary was on the board of directors of Wal-Mart, one of the most anti-labor companies in the world. That's not much different than being CEO of Halliburton.

Now she, in effect, endorsed John McCain over Barack Obama in the 2008 election. It was both a shortsighted attempt at tactical advantage and a snub to Obama stating that he can forget about sharing a ticket with Hillary. How can Hillary ever join a ticket with Obama now that she has ranked him below the GOP's choice? . . . .[I] will vote for Ralph Nader before I'll vote for Hillary Clinton.

(2/21/2007)

Let's face it: No matter how much many of us who oppose the war in Iraq would also love to elect a female president, Hillary Clinton is not a peace candidate. She is an unrepentant hawk, à la Joe Lieberman. She believed invading Iraq was a good idea, all available evidence to the contrary, and she has, once again, made it clear that she still does. . . .

[The record] shows a fondness in Clinton for war and bullying adventurism that vastly overshadows her sensible stances on many domestic issues. As Barry Goldwater supporters stated in kicking off the Republican revolution, what we need is a choice, not an echo.

AlterNet

(8/15/2007)

What in the world was Sen. Hillary Clinton thinking when she attacked Sen. Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in going after Osama bin Laden? And why aren't her supporters more concerned about yet another egregious example of Clinton's consistent backing for the mindless militarism that is dragging this nation to ruin?

So what that she is pro-choice and a woman if the price of proving her capacity to be commander in chief is that we end up with an American version of Margaret Thatcher?

(8/19/2005)

In July 2002, at the first Senate hearing on Iraq, then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden pledged his allegiance to Bush's war. Ever since, the blunt-spoken Biden has seized every opportunity to dismiss antiwar critics within his own party, vocally denouncing Bush's handling of the war while doggedly supporting the war effort itself. . . .

The Democrats' speculative front-runner for '08, Hillary Clinton, has offered similarly hawkish rhetoric. Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee, appears more comfortable accommodating the President's Iraq policy than opposing it . . . .

(12/24/2007)

Why is [Clinton] even a Democrat? As we all know, Democratic presidents are almost as likely to wage war as Republican. Then what's with her reputation as a liberal?

It's almost as if the cover of arch-liberal with which conservatives have conveniently provided Hillary allows her inner hawk to fly free. . . .Thanks to the efforts of people like Stephen Zunes, more and more of us understand that, with Hillary and her militaristic proclivities, what you see is what you get.

(2/17/2008)

Would you have not paid serious money to watch the Anointed One's composure disintegrate before your very eyes as the ground receded from beneath her feet? Can you imagine her sheer fury at having sold-out everything and everyone to be president, only to be left holding the bag, her butt good and well kicked by a funny-named nobody from nowhere? . . . Could you have hoped even in your wildest dreams that Bad Bill's true colors would finally be exposed to his idiotic supporters who never saw him for the Republican he always was? . . . .

The public is ready for a turn to the left, and Obama wants to give it them. Young people have abandoned the GOP in droves. As importantly, conservative policies and politics have been discredited for a generation or more, especially if some Democrat could unplug their brain from life-support long enough to just say so. Obama is saying so.