Is it wrong...

Yeah man. It's utter nonsense that people keep referring to Obama with surprise that he's "not left-wing." Everyone is using that stupid National Review voting index as their standard for judging this kind of thing.

Posted by SH | November 22, 2008 12:31 PM

Oh man, you're so not alone. My friend Dan and John Cole over at Balloon Juice both said the same thing yesterday in frustration to stories like that -- it's like there's this collective "Well c'mon, DUH people!" reaction happening all at once. There's one guy on this board I'm usually on who makes a point to catalog every last 'disappointment' that he sees when someone from the hard left is mysteriously not appointed to the Cabinet. It's such a goddamn schtick with him the rest of us feel like pounding our heads against the wall (though we'd rather pound his).

Posted by Ned R. | November 22, 2008 12:33 PM

My moms used to say 'I can't win for losin'...I wonder if Mr. President-Elect is saying 'I can't win for winnin''

Posted by Destro Villain | November 22, 2008 12:43 PM

How about we wait until he actually, you know, governs until making judgment on how he's governing. This reading of tea leaves is ridiculous. Besides, on alot of issues even in the primaries, Obama took positions more pragmatic than Hillary's. That passage is just lazy. (though the Hillay SOS pick is dissapointing, why bring all that psychodrama to your cabinet?)

Posted by Roman | November 22, 2008 12:55 PM

Pragmatic was the word I used to describe Obama to my friends after I read his second book. And his speeches that I listened to were about being bipartisan and working together. So I'm not sure why anyone is surprised.

Posted by CLR | November 22, 2008 12:56 PM

i suspect this is really tied in with the complexities of race in america: jesse jackson was a leftist, so barack obama must be, or something along those lines.

in reality, it's been clear that obama is a centrist, but of a subtle kind: he is trying to redefine the american center leftward.

but yes, he wants to get things done and so he's brining in people who know how to do things: how would that be a problem even if he were an actual leftist?

over and over we see the inability of our pundit class to ever deviate from an established line of discourse, regardless of how little sense it makes.

Posted by howard | November 22, 2008 1:02 PM

Were all these people only listening to Republican talking points for the past two years? Or perhaps these are the people who listened to the speeches and forgot that there was a real live person underneath that rhetoric who didn't get to be in the position he's in just because he knows how to make a pretty speech.

If Obama was this kind of Harvard Law Review President, then I'd say he'd be a much improved version of the same as POTUS. Also, like Roman says above - why don't we all wait and see how he makes this team of his work?

Posted by Amrita | November 22, 2008 1:07 PM

Yeah, this is my problem with both pundits AND the news media these past two years. Anyone who thought that Obama was going to get elected and implement a far left or progressive agenda, was sorely mistaken. It's not his fault, it is a) the news media's for seizing on one story that claimed he was a lefty liberal and repeating that theme ad naseaum throughout the primary and general, and b) some supporters who took a hear no evil approach to what the man has said in numerous stump speeches.

Obama is not anti-war. He is anti-Iraq war. If you actually listened to his anti-war speech he specifically said that he is not opposed to all wars, he is opposed to dumb wars, and he thought that the Iraq war would be a dumb war for several reasons. If by listening to that, you thought he was going to be a dove that would never use hard power to defend or pursue our interests, than I feel sorry for you. The anti-war label doesn't even make sense. Especially not when he talks about pulling out of Iraq, but putting more troops in Afghanistan in nearly the same breath.

And, and, neither does this whole going back on what he said theme. He has said repeatedly that once he gets into office, he will convene his chief of staffs to get together a plan to get the troops out of Iraq. He never said that the troops would come out from day one, but he did say he would put together a plan to get them out from day one. However, he has also said that he is sure that there are going to be false starts and delays based on, gasp, shock, horror, the conditions on the ground. Again, for people to now say that he is turning his back on his Iraq promise is dishonest.

And I agree with you Coates. Obama is showing a level of graciousness and political skill by saving Lieberman (who I hate and hope gets voted out of office), and bringing on Hillary (who I dislike and doubt that she has the managerial skills to run a governmental agency). People can't have it both ways. Either he is going to end partisan bickering, and politics as usual--which would presumably include not going after your political enemies, and choosing a former foe that can bring something to the table for your administration, or he is not. I'm sure that if he used his political capital to get rid of Lieberman, the punditry would be talking about how this was no time to settle old scores. They would also be pressing him to include Hillary in a cabinet post--the same way they tried to press him to pick her as VP.

I think I am really upset because these institutions are treating some supporters like they are idiots. On the one hand, they cannot stop discussing how this is going to be the most difficult transition that a president has ever faced, but when Obama picks people to work for the administration that surprise...actually have relevant experience in certain areas by working for the Clinton administration, they whine about how this doesn't represent change. Equally foolish is this pro-war/anti-war theme. The truth of the matter is many people in the Senate, and many foreign policy experts signed up for the war. Although I continue to question their foresight and judgment, I think it would be foolish to ex-communicate them as these media people seem to think Obama would do. Most, still have keen insight on several issues---don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I'm done, enough with my extended rant.

Posted by TRW | November 22, 2008 1:08 PM

Meanwhile, appropriate of nothing, I read the post title in the voice of Morrissey's opening words for "Sheila Take a Bow" and then I had the vision of TNC fronting the Smiths. We need to build the time machine to make this happen.

Posted by Ned R. | November 22, 2008 1:17 PM

The main reason I voted for Obama over Hillary during the primaries was because I supported his foreign policy vision over hers. In fact, I thought then (and still do) that her health care proposal was superior to Obama's and generally favored her on domestic policy. So yes, I am disappointed that he picked Hillary for SoS as this is where I disagree with her most.

It's not that I don't think that Clinton won't or can't do a good job. But if Gates stays on at Defence (which seems likely), and Brennan is appointed CIA director, then Obama's foreign policy team are all right of where I thought he was. This is not because I don't want or expect him to appoint experienced Washington people. I do. I would just like for him to appoint at least a few progressive foreign policy people as well.

Posted by Sabina's Hat | November 22, 2008 1:23 PM

My impression from Obama's cabinet appointments is that he plans on implementing progressive policy in a conservative way, considering that the policy he is advocating for (still) is center-left. The problem is, really, that some people WANT him to be wildly liberal without any consideration of pragmatism. I don't know what's more frustrating, personally -- the sudden realization from the right that Obama is not the socialist that they've maligned him as, or the sudden demand from the left that he acquiesce to all of their demands, immediately, without any respect for the pragmatism that this time of intense crisis deserves.

What's astonishing is that I always used to consider myself liberal until I began following the "netroots;" now I find that, by their definition, I'm a centrist, despite actually having liberal beliefs, because I want things accomplished responsibly.

Posted by Jaime Lutz | November 22, 2008 1:27 PM

Its just sheer laziness. As others have mentioned, Obama has written two books and given countless interviews that give a clear picture as to what his governing philosphy would be. However, reporters choose to continue to write stories using a tired "opposed the Iraq war = left wing" meme.

Posted by Kat | November 22, 2008 1:29 PM

It wasn't just the right wing talking points that pushed the obama as a liberal theme, leftwingers did it as well. People who think that Naomi Klein is a goddess were writing diaries about how Obama is one of them. So a part of it is the fault of what David Mamet terms "brain-dead liberals". Obama said he was a free market guy, he praised deregulation, his policy of keeping taxes as Ronald Reagan levels were all on the record. Many progressives ignored these statements because it didn't fit into their world view. The courtship of the election season has ended and the reality of governing has set in.

Obama supporters who sport Che posters either don't understand Che or they don't understand Obama.

But part of it is on Obama, his constant talk of change isn't exactly lining up with the CLinton admin/era retreads. Since I am more conservative than most here, I am happy with the direction of his picks. It is much better than the dream team picks of the lefty online community with Kucinich as SOS, some union leader as Sec of Treasury, and Feingold as AG.

Posted by DougEMI | November 22, 2008 1:33 PM

govern from the center-right of his party, surrounding himself with pragmatists rather than ideologues.

This is the most grating part for me. Only center-right Dems are pragmatists?

Posted by Eddy | November 22, 2008 1:42 PM

So far Brennan is the only pick that I'm really bothered by. Any whif of condoning torture is right out. However, Clinton is fine. It'll probably keep her out of trouble because being a part of the administration rather than in the senate means that any trouble that Obama has will reflect on her. Even Gates seems like a good choice for DoD. He's done a rather good job under and obviously terrible boss. With that said, once Iraq winds down it may be a good time to reassess what we need.

I'm one of those people who is actually glad Obama plans to govern from the middle. Given that we have Democrats both the executive and legislative branches, someone needs to be exercising restraint.

Posted by Jordan | November 22, 2008 1:42 PM

The other thing about this stuff is all this hand-wringing that Obama's choices aren't progressive enough. HELLO! For the most part these are the same people that have been advising him throughout his campaign.

No matter who Obama picks the buck stops with him. That's why I wanted him IN CHARGE. People are worried about Hillary undermining him, what the hell does she have to gain by doing that?

Bushes appointees sucked mostly because of a philosophy that came from the top. If we don't like what Obama's appointees do than we call out Obama. They will be taking their marching orders from Barack, good or bad.

Posted by Eddy | November 22, 2008 1:49 PM

TNC,

Most reporters are quite bad at their jobs.

You know this to be true.

Posted by Kuros | November 22, 2008 1:55 PM

This is all a way to fill a maximum of column inches with the minimum of effort. However, I prefer the "OMG, water is wet, fire is hot, Obama isn't a radical lefty!" wankers, to the "OMG! Obama's going to send gay black ninjas to take our guns!" wankers. Barely.

Posted by htp | November 22, 2008 1:58 PM

I'm with you on the first article. Obama has always struck me as a very pragmatic centrist Democrat. I certainly didn't expect his early picks to be left-wing ideologues; I don't know why anyone would expect that.

But the second example is much more reasonable. Early support for the Iraq war was the crucial foreign policy difference during the primary. Obama hammered her pretty hard on that and suggested that it called her overall judgment into question. So, while the author may be coming at the issue from a 'find the controversy' angle, the point is basically a fair one.

Posted by MikeF | November 22, 2008 2:07 PM

Ugh. Reporters don't know anything about public policy. I think it must be one of the primary job requirements: "Outstanding written communication skills, proficiency in Microsoft Office, ability to meet deadlines, and an understanding of policy that would make a high school student embarrassed. Applicants who took more than one politics course in college will not be considered, unless they received a grade of C or worse."

It's like they saw that Geithner is respected by Wall Street and concluded that he must therefore be a conservative. Fools. He's a serious government interventionist. A Democrat with a background in public service, rather than the financial sector and right-leaning economics departments. He earned Wall Street's respect by being really fucking good at his job. And more broadly, the centrist Clinton-era high-profile economists have pretty much all moved left in the past ten years.

Clinton brings star power to the State Department role, suggesting Obama wants to take diplomacy seriously (no surprise there). Gates isn't even registered as a Republican, and wants to cut weapons systems (something a Bush appointee is more likely to get away with).

These are professionals who will be able to enact a broad center-left agenda. Same with Orzag and Daschle--the focus is on people who will get shit done.

People who think that Naomi Klein is a goddess were writing diaries about how Obama is one of them.
Really? All the leftist types I know think that Obama is a sellout.

Posted by rufustfyrfly | November 22, 2008 2:21 PM

The left wing fantasies about Obama never made any sense. He gets elected on a platform of bipartisanship, then veers hard left. And what happens then? He loses the Senate in 2010 and is replaced by a Republican in 2012. (Mitt Romney, say, who would win the primaries as a social conservative, the general election as a pragmatic centrist, and govern as the brazen opportunist he is.)

The only way to govern successfully is from the center. Bush was a failure because he veered right, Obama would be just as likely to fail if he veered left.

Posted by Katherine | November 22, 2008 2:30 PM

besides who obama is or isn't, isn't it perfectly reasonable to expect different interest groups to throw their weight around with a new administration, many with conflicting intentions.

And since large parts of the economic and political elites have shown such spectacularly bad judgement, hasn't the chess game been thrown up in the air? At least so far that the spectrum of acceptable political debate in our popular massmedia has widened, especially on what foreign policy we citizens would like implemented.

Posted by muzzyology | November 22, 2008 2:35 PM

Really? All the leftist types I know think that Obama is a sellout.

I have seen a lot of comments by people on Daily Kos with political compass scores of -5.8/-6.2 ( or even further left) in their sig lines who think Obama can do no wrong.

Posted by DougEMI | November 22, 2008 2:42 PM

I share Eddy’s resentment above at the ‘ideologues’ sneer in the NYT piece.

BushCo is about as far right wing as one can get without actually wearing white sheets and brown shirts. But the SCLM virtually never refers to conservatives as ideologues.

Posted by Watson | November 22, 2008 2:45 PM

Coates

What it comes down to is the Mainstream Media outlets are trying to run controversial stories not only to sell papers and increase viewership but also to help drive bigger wedges between Obama and the progressive and liberal base of the Democratic party so they will have things to right about going forward. Now make no mistake, there HAVE been some things that have pissed off the netroots and progressives most recently the Joe Lieberman debacle and before that the FISA vote. But for the most part none of those things have made the base mad enough to consider turning on Obama.

Now when you get enough articles quoting unnamed sources that make it seem as if Barack Obama is almost deliberately doing things just to piss off the base then the media is hoping to whip up enough dissention that they will have those kinds of stories to write about the next four years. When you sit back and think about it you have to say its a good game plan for them. Nobody will want to read a love fest every day of the Obama's first term and nobody will want to see the only negative stories about Obama coming out of the conservative section of the country because that is simply too predictable. Who DOESN'T think Rush Limbaugh is going to rag on Obama? But here is the thing to notice about every article on this subject. None of them actually reflect the TRUE sentiments of the netroots and the base. They never refer to Lieberman's dismal record as chair of the HSC or his campaigning for Republicans Coleman and Collins when they talk about the netroots wanting him stripped of his gavel. Instead they try to make it seem like they just wanted him thrown out of the caucus because of somethings he said so as to make the netroots look small and petty. They keep bringing up supposed "outrage" about him naming Hillary to SOS but if you look on most left leaning blogs like dailykos, openleft or firedoglake, you will be hard pressed to find any articles expressing said outrage. Most people I have seen in the blogosphere have either been ambivalent about it or have endorsed the move. I saw a different article today that totally butchered a quote from the founder of the dailykos. In a politico article the writer relays a quote from Joe Lieberman when he was interviewed by the writer where he said he wasn't sanctioned by the Senate Democrats. The article this morning it quotes him thusly.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/11/22/2008-11-22_barack_obama_doesnt_fear_the_enraged_imp.html?print=1&page=all

"He wasn't sanctioned," seethed Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos. And Senate Democrats trying to make that claim are dishonestly trying to cover up the extent of their betrayal of the American people's vote for change."

Now here is the link to the article and the relevant source quote. You can decide why the person who wrote the article with the misquote in it ommitted the first part of the statement. Hopefully since he is a fellow journalist you will take him to task

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15801.html

The Daily Kos blog’s Markos Moulitsas, who declared in disgust Tuesday that he was “done” with Reid as majority leader, said Wednesday that Lieberman’s characterization of the Democrats’ action was correct
He’s right. He wasn’t sanctioned,” Moulitsas said.

Its all a game man, they are trying to pull a Willie Lynch on us (I know the Willie Lynch story is fake but the strategy isn't) and pit the netroots and the base against Obama. I for one am going to keep my eyes on him, crticize him when he is wrong like I did with the Lieberman deal, and not just blindly follow him but I will NOT be falling for the media's shenanigans and and as Obama would say the "okie doke" and I hope no one else will either.

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | November 22, 2008 2:50 PM

@Sabina's Hat

Obama foreign policy vision is still in play. Hillary will work for Obama, not the other way around. If you don't think she will see my above comment.

Posted by Eddy | November 22, 2008 2:52 PM

Two fairly small groups had incentives to see and paint O as a pinko lefty: Hopeful pinko lefties and opportunistic/desperate Republicans. As noted above, lazy writers who equate conflict with narrative are incentivized to pretend that these groups' beliefs are much more widely held than they really are.

(FWIW, I think the Politico story is largely legitimate).

The question I have, which can presumably be answered: What percentage of the electorate can be classified as "far left"? People have referred to these folks as "the Democratic base," but I don't see it. And that skepticism naturally leads me to ask the same question about the Religious Right.

Posted by DB Cooper | November 22, 2008 3:09 PM

DB Cooper

The question should really be is there a such thing as the "far left"? The far left I keep hearing the conservatives talk about I have yet to encounter. They are convinced that there is a substantial section of our country who are Democrats that want women to use abortion as their preferred method of birth control, want homosexuality to be indoctrinated into kids in kindgergarten, want to allow foreign countries to take us over and want the government to take care of everybody financially. The "far left" is an imaginary boogie man cooked up by the Republicans to scare people in to voting for them if you ask me. By the way the same conservatives that think that way are the ones who usually represent the "religious right".

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | November 22, 2008 3:18 PM

Eddy,

Obviously Obama will be the President--so I would naturally expect his foreign policy views to be most important. However, he will be relying on Clinton, Gates, Brennan, et. al. for advice. I don't have a problem with that--they all seem like competent people. However, I would prefer to see Obama include people to his left as well in high ranking positions--and so far haven't.

Plus, even though Hillary will answer to Obama, she will still be running the State Dept., and so I would expect her to be more likely (even if only at the margins) to appoint people whose views are congruent with her own.

Posted by Sabina's Hat | November 22, 2008 3:20 PM

I think I remember sort of the same bullshit about Bush in 2000 and how Colin Powell was a signal that he wasn't a bugshit insane militarist. That didn't really turn out so well.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 22, 2008 3:21 PM

The election was pretty simple: we've had an unbelievably incompetent administration, and McCain decided to double down on the incompetence with Palin. BHO has been elected to straighten things out.

For or against the war is not a question of right or left, but about gross stupidity versus something approaching realism that the world is not easy to change. In fact opposition to the war is best described as conservative.

Re econ policy, yeah, anyone with a lick of sense could figure out that BHO was not gonna overthrow capitalism.

DKos commentators really have political compass scores? That's hilarious. I want a guilty-whiteness score for this place.

Posted by Colin | November 22, 2008 3:29 PM

Let me take the time that I should have taken in my earlier post to debunk this Hillary is a Center Right candidate bullshit. Hillary Clinton is a BIG TIME Liberal. She voted for the war but damn near every other Senator did also. So for anyone who wants to dispute that she is a big time Liberal I DEFY you to prove it with her voting record. Before you try though allow me to launch my own preemptive strike from one of my favorite sites back during the campaign and that is her ontheissues.org page

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Again, don't let the MSM define people for you. Do your own research and you will be much better off. Don't get me wrong, I like watching talking heads as much as the next guy, but you always have to keep in mind that they ALL have their own agendas

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | November 22, 2008 3:31 PM

Yeah, Hillary is a liberal, she's a cruise missle liberal and I was really, really, trying to get away from those folks. Given that she was given the job of SecState how she feels about abortion or card check or whatever doesn't matter much.

I'm going to hope she sticks to script and doesn't start telling Barack how they used to do things back when she was first lady.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 22, 2008 3:36 PM

@Sabina's Hat

What we have here is a speculation trap. We don't know what Obama's complete cabinet will end up looking like. We also don't know what Obama considers himself. Maybe he considers himself to the left of all the folks mentioned so far & therefore feels the need to hire people to give him contrary views.

Posted by Eddy | November 22, 2008 3:41 PM

That Times article was a stupid and ineptly written piece of journalism - a good explanation as to why newspapers are going out of business. "governing from the center right . . " WTF?
Clinton's a great pick as is Dachele. Picking Tim Geithner for Treasury provided the first bit of good news Wall Street has heard all year. I don't know much about Holder at AG but if Andrew Sullivan doesn't like him, he must be a stud.
I was originally a supporter of Bill Richardson, then Clinton and finally Obama. Obama is demonstrating the judgement and decision making I hoped he'd display - and then some. Ignoring the left, giving the middle finger to such neurotic idiots as Cristopher Hitchins and picking the best talent available regardless of the past or the conventional wisdom. This country is in good hands - at least after January 20th.

Posted by Nathan | November 22, 2008 3:52 PM

sgwhiteinfla, your comment illustrates the trouble with definitions. It's all relative to yourself. I consider myself "center" (center-right on some things and center-left on more). I can readily identify the kooks on the Right - easy. But I think I have been ignoring the dolts and loons on the left. Check some of the pro-union comments on one of McArdle's bailout threads. Dennis Kucinich is far-left, isn't he? It's not a boogeyman. I just don't know if numbers-wise, it's as big as the social Right.

Posted by DB Cooper | November 22, 2008 4:27 PM

Coincidentally, Sullivan just posted this:

"...if Obama really wanted change, if he really wanted to honor progressives who backed him early on and then did the grunt work against McCain, he’d nominate Dennis Kucinich as Secretary of State," - Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive.

Posted by DB Cooper | November 22, 2008 4:31 PM

DB, is Kucinich a dolt or a loon? If yes why?

The far-left is a boogeyman of sorts. The way the media describes the "far-left" you'd think there was this huge swath of the Democratic party that wants socialize everything, blacklist anyone who doesn't agree with them & has pictures of Bill Ayers in hanging in their homes.

Yet there is a large swath of conservatives who are the opposite faction of the lefties I described above. The big difference is in the GOP they call the shots, see Palin, Sarah.

Posted by Eddy | November 22, 2008 4:35 PM

this is why i come to read your blog.

Posted by Newsies | November 22, 2008 4:52 PM

DB, You illustrate my point PERFECTLY. Dennis Kucinich is a true Liberal but he isn't far left the way its used as a boogey man by the conservatives. Dennis Kucinich is staunchly opposed to the war but he is also a very practical person. If you don't believe me you should watch him grill people during Congressional Hearings. Again you offered up Dennis Kucinich as a "far left" liberal and yet you still declined to define a "far left" liberal. The truth is being against interventionist military action is a CONSERVATIVE principle not a liberal one. By the way he voted yes to banning partial birth abortion. That in and of itself should take him being "far left" off the table

http://house.ontheissues.org/OH/Dennis_Kucinich.htm

Now I can define the religious right. The don't want abortion of any kind, they don't want any sex education other than abstinence, they don't want any special rights afforded to LGBT peoples, they want to be able to keep their tax exempt status while doing whatever they want including endorsing candidates, they are against any candidate who is not a professed and confirmed mainstream christian, they want very tough penalties on drug offenses even on first time offenders, they are staunchly against embryonic stem cell research because they think it will lead to killing babies for the express purpose of using their tissues for experimentation. Your turn.

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | November 22, 2008 4:56 PM

Let's be clear though - REAL left-wingers NEVER supported Obama. If they were active in the Democratic Party this year, they invariably supported Kucinich, Richardson, Dodd, or Edwards. In fact, most "progressives" were openly contemptuous of Obama and his "bipartisan schtick" as they called it.

Obama was painted as left-wing by first Clinton, and then McCain propaganda.

Moreover, people tend to stereotype young, insurgent politicians as being more extremist/idealogical than they are. Pop quiz: who was the left-wing Democratic contender in 1984 - Walter Mondale or Gary Hart?

Obama's actually appointed who you'd think he'd appoint. Where he's reaching for Clinton-era veterans, he's tending to go for the ones who supported him (Holder, Craig, Napolitano) in the primary, except for a few neutrals (like Emanuel - who may have been neutral in the primary but is one of Obama's close friends) and then of course the big "rival" - Hillary Clinton. And that's basically it so far for the "team of rivals".

The moral of the story is that a lot of journalists and pundits are really dumb. If more of them wrote with the fierce urgency of Mr. Coates, we'd be all better off.

Posted by Bahrad | November 22, 2008 4:59 PM

I would agree with you about left wingers not supporting Obama in the PRIMARY. But in the general they all jumped on board because they didnt really have an alternative. But again left wingers that didn't support Obama weren't kooks. Most of them just wanted him to be more against ALL wars and they didnt like his vote for the FISA bill. But its not like they were pulling out their hair when he won the primary.

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | November 22, 2008 5:09 PM

yep, and the "most liberal voting record" stuff is a crock. My leftier friends supported Edwards in the primaries, then usually HRC because she seemed more committed to universal health. BHO has been a cautious centrist throughout his political career.

"Far left" and "liberal" used to be a contradiction in terms, and it's a measure of how dumb political discourse has gotten that people try to align them. Let's try to specify positions on particular issues rather than using broad terms whose meanings people don't agree on.

Posted by Colin | November 22, 2008 6:07 PM

What is it with this blog and typos? C'mon, man....read over the very first sentence of your post--AT LEAST.

Keep it up, and you'll end up like Yglesias....swimming with the lefties.

Posted by Nate | November 22, 2008 6:40 PM

The National Review's criterion for "liberalism" was ethics--if you favor ethics, then you are a crazy, left-of-the-socialist liberal. Apparently. (Also apparently, National Review is totally out of money, judging by The Corner this week. I mean, I'm an NPR listener, and this is beyond the pledge drive.)

I suspect, in the absence of even worse news (or, ahem Obama people, a first puppy), we are doomed to a succession of "Based on this latest appointment/rumor, Obama is proving himself a pragmatic centrist/a disturbing liberal" stories until he gets into office and actually does stuff.

I agree with everyone who noticed the "Obama is supposed to be a darling of the left, but he's actually a centrist pragmatist" stories have been with us since last winter.

Posted by Deborah | November 22, 2008 9:05 PM

sgwhiteinfla, as I understand what you're saying, there is no far left?

Kucinich wrote a letter of solidarity with Hugo Chavez, for God's sake. He, Jesse, Ed Asner, and Howard Zinn. If that's not the left, there is no left.

You want to talk policy? From his platform:
Unilaterally disarm, nuclear-wise.
Ban all handguns and the death penalty.
Pure single-payer healthcare.
Free college for all.
Withdrawal from WTO and NAFTA.
Repeal USA PATRIOT.
Full social security benefits at age 65.
"Secretary of Peace"
Legalize drugs and same-sex marriage.

Again, I admire Kucinich's integrity and enthusiasm. I agree with him on a lot of these points. But to pretend he's not at the left edge of American politics - or worse, to pretend that there is no left and this collection of views is actually mainstream? Well, that's silly.

Posted by DB Cooper | November 22, 2008 10:51 PM

"What is it with this blog and typos? C'mon, man....read over the very first sentence of your post--AT LEAST.

Keep it up, and you'll end up like Yglesias....swimming with the lefties."

I have no idea what that shot at Yglesias is supposed to mean, so I can't answer it. As for me, we all have our weaknesses. This is mine. Point out the error and I'll fix it. It's that simple.

Posted by Ta-Nehisi Coates | November 22, 2008 11:45 PM

I am surprised that anyone is surprised at how shocked -- shocked! -- so many pundits are that Barack Hussein Obama, soon to be President of the United States of America (I just cannot see that getting old!), is not the mirror (for the left) or straw man (for the right) that they were counting on him being.

That he is an intelligent man who actually appears to honor intelligence in others, who is cautious or audacious when appropriate, and who genuinely seems to want to unite instead of divide is beyond them. Maybe part of it is eight years of the polar opposite, maybe part of it is having too much invested in standing in opposition to the "other." I do not know if people whose thinking is absolutist and binary are unwilling, or are truly unable, to understand how other people can be nuanced in their world views. I am learning to hope (thanks, BHO!), so hope that watching Obama in action for another eight years will help.

I am left-of-center on most things, far left on a few, right-of-center on a few, and pretty far right on a very, very few. I support a woman's right to chose to have an abortion, and I think there is a place for the death penalty. I supported going to war in Afghanistan and bitterly opposed going to war in Iraq, but I do not think it is some deep mystery or contradiction that quite a few people towards the left on many things -- like Clinton -- joined most the rest of the country in, at first, believing Bush et al's rationales for invading Iraq. (I am generous, and think Bush believed most of them, too, for what it is worth.)

That said, I sometimes think of the wacky far left and psycho far right as something like cattle prods: profoundly annoying at times, but keeping the mass of us towards the middle and moving forward. Move too far to one side or the other and ZAP!

Posted by bgbaysjr | November 22, 2008 11:57 PM

DB

I said there is no "far left" and again Kucinich's policy stances you listed are nothing more than run of the mill liberal. The Hugo Chavez letter came after Kucinich initiated an investigation into whether or not our government had supported a coup against Chavez's presidency (which we had). I haven't seen anywhere that he wanted to unilaterally disarm our nukes but rather in 2007 he wanted the US to particiapate in the nuclear non proliferation treaty so that everyone would be getting rid of their nukes which is actually a good thing. The free education thing is again a liberal philosphy but he didnt just say college, he said pre K through college and he talked about how he would pay for it. Don't forget that Obama advocates subsidizing college tuition to students who do community service. Is he a part of the "far left"? http://house.ontheissues.org/OH/Dennis_Kucinich_Education.htm

The withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO comment needs some context. He didnt want to just do away with them, he wanted to replace them with something more beneficial to workers.

The global trade regime of NAFTA and WTO has enriched multinational corporations. But for workers, family farmers, and the environment, it has meant a global race to the bottom. Companies leave the US in search of low wages, low commodity prices, anti-union climates, and lax environmental laws. NAFTA has been used to whipsaw workers at the negotiation table, forcing wages and benefit concessions under threat of moving jobs overseas. Trade treaties must be conditioned on workers' rights, human rights, and environmental principles. The U.S. must withdraw from NAFTA and the WTO--and replace these with bilateral fair trade agreements.

Now, do you want to see some of the Republican platform from this year? Remember this isn't the "far right" wing but supposedly the mainstream of the Republican party.

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/

We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.(meaning no abortions)
Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it.

We affirm every citizen’s right to apply religious values to public policy and the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious objects or symbols, or becoming subject to government-imposed hiring practices.(which means they can discriminate against on the basis of religion)
We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as violations of the Second Amendment.(Ill bet cops LOVE that idea)

Reviews of death sentences imposed for murdering a police officer should be expedited, and a retrial of the penalty phase of the killer’s trial should be allowed in the absence of a unanimous verdict. (that means they get to keep trying until they find a jury that will fry your ass)

We renew our call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens with increased funding for abstinence education, which teaches abstinence until marriage as the responsible and expected standard of behavior. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS when transmitted sexually.

Now if you want to go to the far religious right allow me to introduce you to resident Wing Nut U.S. Representative Michelle Bachmann

http://michelebachmann.townhall.com/blog/page1

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | November 23, 2008 12:15 AM

lol tnc smile to yrself and go play with the kid man yr stressing. yr here jamming for yrself, u and occasionally us, instead of off chewing cud saying the grass sucks. not too high not too low. just enjoying my thing while i got it...

Posted by peter pan | November 23, 2008 12:25 AM

you're the guy writing for the Atlantic, and you're surprised the media like a narrative?

Time to rent or re-rent Network.

Speaking liberally, some of my best friends are conservatives, and they're freaked out too.

Posted by scooter | November 23, 2008 1:25 AM

It's the results that matter. If in four years our foreign policy situation is improved nobody is going to care about what signals his nominations sent initially. If in four years the economy is in good shape, nobody is going to remember these headlines.

What I learned from Obama is that he doesn't care about news cycles rather the long term results. This isn't a secret either as he's consistently said this.

As to where he falls on the "ideological spectrum" he is basically not a idealogue - rather a pragmatic progressive. His goals are progressive (increasing access to health care, restoring American alliances abroad), but he cares more about people getting things done than any kind of lithmus test.

Posted by Matt | November 23, 2008 2:09 AM

Right now I am watching a CNN profile of a recently unemployed Phoenix father of two who, in desperation,, has brought his two sons along to panhandle, and he is crying that he has to use his kids in this humiliating venture in this way on this busy street corner. I have duly noted that lake shore houses in southwestern Michigan, once summer homes for the upper middle class of Chicgo and Milwaukee, are now being given away for as little as $39,000. They have fallen into disrepair and are a tangible symbol of Americans, not just the economy. We are in a state of disrepair. Therefore, I do not give a flying fig if some uber progressives wax whimsical over Obama settling down centrist routes. We need experienced, brilliant minds to lead us out of this quagmire. If Rhodes scholar Bill Clinton had some of the brst and brightest surrounding him and he strengthened the economy, then I am all for that. Letthe progressives get the EPA and other branches. I want a mature experienced person minding the baby, not a 12 year old.

Posted by BG Rhule | November 23, 2008 3:56 AM

I hate that my first and only comment on one of my favourite blogs isn't a positive one.....

But, please, Ta-Nehisi, PLEASE, edit your copy more carefully. You always seem to skip words, those little ones that your brain fills in for you when you don't write them in.

ex: " Am I the only not surprised that"

should read

" Am I the only ONE not surprised that".......

I'm such a nit-picker, I know, but thought I would just point it out.

Keep up the good work.

Posted by Aaron | November 23, 2008 4:29 AM

The thing that's bugging me is Obama's early nominations had swung hard left, whatever that would be, there'd be a ton of stories with headlines like "Obama abandons bipartisanship" and ledes like "He ran on change and bipartisanship, but President-Elect Obama has veered sharply to the left..."

Matthew 11:16-19 (take it away, Jesus!):

"To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:
" 'We played the flute for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge
and you did not mourn.'
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."

Sounds like today's pundits had their equivalent in Jesus' day.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | November 23, 2008 9:37 AM

I said there is no "far left" and again Kucinich's policy stances you listed are nothing more than run of the mill liberal.

sgwhiteinfla, your premise just wasted a bunch of my time. You've essentially said that one point on a continuum does not exist. It's like saying there's no such thing as "too hot." YOU may see Kucinich in the mainstream and anything right of David Brooks as "extreme right," but that doesn't make it accurate.

I was trying to engage in an objective taxonomy of the American political landscape, not debate the merits of policy.

Posted by DB Cooper | November 23, 2008 10:37 AM

The thing that made BHO more viable than Kucinich is that he drew people who were to the left of Hillary and those who did not trust hillary and those who did not trust Bill and those who read his book and those who heard him speak and those who cared about racial prejudice in America and those who didn't believe america was ready for a woman and those who cared about the issues BHO spoke to with such careful focus. Kucinich was never a viable national figure. For most of us, to hear and see him was to dismiss him. Everyone got that he was not really there to run. One could love that kucinich spoke up just as one loved when Nader tried to speak up but it remains that these mean mostly hurt the issues they cared most about. They were rodieo clowns at the rodeo, the folks that we did not pay to see.
Including Hillary makes sense. She has gravitas.
She like him is a movie star. Now he doesn't have to be in every scene of the movie, even if he is the name above the title. She is someone he can send anywhere without a note pinned to the jacket, without a string through the coat holding the mittens against loss. She has the credibility of 18 million votes. She replaces a woman who replaces colin Powell who replace m. albright. it is good that we are not returning to the white male SOS of 16 years ago.
She stuck to the script for eight years with Bill. She has the eleanor R. gene somehow. thinking she's going to embarras him like janet reno or palin is silly.
And by sticking with her vote for Iraq that so many found indefensible she proved that she has the absolute discipline required to support a story line that she herself no longer particularly holds to be true.

Posted by Michael C | November 23, 2008 11:07 AM

If some think the MSM is inventing conflict on this issue, just read Open Left the past few days. The disappointment is real. I am not saying these people are going to abandon Obama, they helped put him there and have him for at least four years. They have nowhere to go.

On the issue of what is liberal, it is difficult and not just because the mean Republicans have made it a pejorative. Democrats have contributed to the fuzziness as well.Just look at Hillary Clinton, one poster above called her liberal, while many activists consider her a DLC, corporatist, warmonger who is still a Goldwater Girl at heart.

Posted by DougEMI | November 23, 2008 11:08 AM

DKos commentators really have political compass scores? That's hilarious. I want a guilty-whiteness score for this place.

Some posters include scores in there signature lines, it isn't assigned or calculated by DKOs.

Here are the scores of the candidates, and how they shifted from the primary to the general

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

Obama and Biden are in the right authoritarian sector. Someone at democratic underground did a survey of people there, most where in the far left of the far left sector ( which means their scores were -5.0/-5.0 or more. This places them far to the left of the mainstream of their own party leaders.

Posted by DougEMI | November 23, 2008 11:26 AM

This is a sloppy post. You conflate centrist with experienced. Obama could have picked experienced people who leaned further to the left, like Tony Lake and Susan Rice, both of whom advised him during the campaign and both of whom have serious experience. And it's not just story-chasing political journalists who are upset. The lefty foreign policy bloggers and writers who you and I both admire - e.g., Matt Yglesias and Spencer Ackerman - are surprised and disappointed about this. They didn't think Obama would be so centrist on foreign policy (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_obama_doctrine) and are now taken aback by the direction of the appointments. This is a perfectly fair reaction.

Posted by Benjamin Yunis | November 23, 2008 12:17 PM

I said there is no "far left" and again Kucinich's policy stances you listed are nothing more than run of the mill liberal.

sgwhiteinfla, your premise just wasted a bunch of my time. You've essentially said that one point on a continuum does not exist. It's like saying there's no such thing as "too hot." YOU may see Kucinich in the mainstream and anything right of David Brooks as "extreme right," but that doesn't make it accurate.

I was trying to engage in an objective taxonomy of the American political landscape, not debate the merits of policy.

Posted by DB Cooper

Actually YOU tried to throw out a candidate to illustrate your point as being "far left". And I pointed out that nothing you brought up about that candidate would qualify to most people as "far left" But back to the CENTRAL point. I asked you to define "far left" yet you never did that. I defined the "religious right" so there are quantifiable policy stances that you can point to and say that person is a part of the religious right. But you REFUSE to try to list characteristics of the "far left". One can only imagine that its because you realize like I said that there is NO SUCH THING as the "far left" in any quantifiable sense of the word. Again define the "far left" and we can have a real debate on it. Otherwise you are just running around the issue and trying to use misdirection to cover for the fact that the term "far left" doesn't really describe anybody.

Now to spark your memory I put this statement to you up above

Again you offered up Dennis Kucinich as a "far left" liberal and yet you still declined to define a "far left" liberal.

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | November 22, 2008 4:56 PM

I am still waiting for your definition

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | November 23, 2008 12:26 PM

Your liberal media, folks. Nit-picking the government - even when they're not actually the government yet - suddenly becomes a super-patriotic expression of the duties of the Fourth Estate.

But only when it's the Democrats in charge. Republicans, on the other hand, must be allowed to govern with a free hand, or you're being un-American.

Posted by Chet | November 23, 2008 12:51 PM

Seriously - he's NOT anti-war! Where does that idea even come from, when one of his most famous pre-2007 quotes is "I'm not against all wars. I'm against dumb wars."

Obama was against the Iraq war, and has been promising to expand the Afghanistan engagement for the entire time. Failure to remember this will lead to disappointment for genuinely anti-war activists.

QT

Posted by QueenTiye | November 23, 2008 2:36 PM

I was reading the comments on Greenwald's column about why Obama wasn't putting progressives in his administration. And, wow, I gotta say there sure are a whole lot of people out there who are very confident about who should be in the administration and how to handle the economy and energy crisis. Here I've been thinking some of that stuff was beyond the amateur level. Boy was I wrong! I also had know idea so many people were intimately acquainted with the likes Krugman, Nouriel Roubini, and Larry Summers. I'm clearly out of the loop. I better brush up on my Quantum Physics while I'm at it.

Posted by Lesley | November 23, 2008 3:35 PM

"I have no idea what that shot at Yglesias is supposed to mean, so I can't answer it."

Hah! TNC, beware of the spelling and grammar police. They are all over Yglesias, now you seem to be the new target.

Frankly, I don't really see what the big deal is. It's not like we can't fill in the blanks and understand what it is Matt or TNC are trying to say.

Posted by PeterGuillam | November 23, 2008 4:16 PM

Going by voting record in the Senate, and characterizing the left-right axis by partisan differences, Obama actually is to the left of Hillary Clinton, but not by that much. He's nowhere near as left as Sanders or Feingold, the usual standards of Senatorial leftiness.

The narrative has actually been pretty complicated. Early in the primary campaign, Hillary Clinton was still the great hobgoblin of the conservative imagination, and lots of post-partisan independent and semi-conservative types somehow imagined her as a hard lefty and Obama as the centrist or third-way alternative.

Then at some point there was this whole Limbaugh "Operation Chaos" business where dittoheads said they'd vote for Clinton to sabotage the Dems because, unlike Obama, she was obviously unelectable.

It was only once it was clear that Clinton was going to lose the nomination that the right suddenly painted her as the sensible Democrat and Obama as a crazy commie bomb-thrower by comparison. Neither portrayal really makes any sense, but it was how the stories went.

Posted by Matt McIrvin | November 24, 2008 12:13 AM

Well, to answer that -- Coates' penchant for typos has only been rivaled on theatlantic.com by the late-great-Yglesias. However, Coates' are easily understood, while Yglesias would often leave out crucial words ("not") for instance and occasionally swap McCain and Obama until commenters berated him to fix the post.

Posted by Nate | November 24, 2008 2:21 AM

I'd love one of these people to actual point out a few center-right policies. If health care, an end to the war in Iraq, green jobs, energy independence, economic stimulus for the people not the banks, etc.. = center-right then what does the left look like??

Posted by Jay | November 24, 2008 7:53 AM

TrackBack

Comments (68)

Post a comment

Monthly Archives