More on that in a second. I've been in conversation with a couple lefty friends over Obama's early steps as President-elect. I get why people were pissed that Obama would save Joe Lieberman. He truly didn't deserve it. Man, when Joe Leiberman says "bipartisan" I feel like someone is cursing at me. I also think Chris Hayes has a good point:
Not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in the new administration. Not one.Of course this was before Melody Barnes, but I think the point still stands, and it also illustrates, again, why the whole "Team of Rivals" bit is such hokum. What you really have is a "Team of Moderates." Obama's a moderate himself, so I'm not sure how much he is going to be disagreeing with these folks. I think calling them "the center right of the Democratic Party" is a bit much. I'd go with centrists, moderates or even "progressive moderates," if that makes any sense.
I say all that, because I want to be clear that what I'm writing isn't any sort of rebuke to cats like Hayes who are disappointed. It's more me airing out my own thinking. In doing that thinking I've come to something kind of shocking--I didn't support Obama because of policy positions or who he'd likely appoint. That needs some explanation. I obviously supported the Democratic candidate because of policy--because I'm pro-choice, because I'm pro-gay marriage, because I oppose McCain's ardent belief in military force, because I don't believe tax-cuts, alone, make an economic policy, because I oppose the war on drugs etc. On all of those issues, I thought any Democrat would be closer to me than any Republican. [MORE] Here is the thing--I was a college kid during much of the Clinton administration. I know the web is filled with college kids who kept up with every detail of policy throughout their tenure. But that wasn't me. The Bush presidency was the first presidency of my mature life, and it really had a profound effect on my thinking. Consider everything that's happened--wrong on WMDs, attempting to convince the public that Saddam had a role in 9/11, opposing stem-cell research, backing creationist quackery, a naked embrace of torture, abstinence-only education, waving off global warming, an occupation that looked like amateur hour, all orchestrated by a president who uses faith as shield against his shocking, shocking lack of curiosity.
I don't know if George Bush is the worst president ever, but his legacy is appalling. What I saw, from my vantage point, was a government of suited thugs who squelched dissent and were intolerant of debate. Virtually everything about the last eight years, stands in direct contrast to everything I learned growing up in my parents house--work hard, be self-reflective, be intelligent, read until your eyes fall out, be honest etc. I supported Obama because, and this is weird to say, I thought he reflected my family values--I thought he represented in the world, the way I'd want my son to represent. I thought he was thick-skinned, deliberative, self-reflective, confident and an avid consumer of information.
When Hillary and Obama were debating, I talked to quite a few people about their respective health-care plans. I never got a firm conclusion on who had the better one, though I think it was Hillary's. I thought she was smart as anyone I'd seen on the public stage, and I didn't think she was to the right of Barack. I didn't think Barack was any "nicer" than she was. But I distrusted her propensity for the liberal defensive crouch, as Andrew puts it. I distrusted the fractious nature of her campaign. And though it wasn't her fault, I distrusted her ability to win. I was confident Obama would never pull a Sista Souljah, not just because it was wrong (maybe, not even because it was wrong) but because it was hamfisted, and overt. I wasn't so sure about Hillary. But more than anything I distrusted her inability to say "I was wrong about the War."
Look, it all comes down to this. I believed Obama was the candidate least likely to fly over an American city in the midst of destruction, and appear days later only to tell his point-man he'd done a great job. The most important thing for me is for the leadership of this country to throw off anti-intellectualism and get down to business. I won't ever know the most intricate details of government policy, and smite me should I ever write like I do. But as a voter, and I guess as a blogger, I knew I wanted someone in the White House who would be able to process all of those details--I wanted someone who was an intellectual, who had a supple mind, and saw no contrast between being a thinking man, and loving Monday Night Football. It's small, but it's what I wanted. And it's why, so far, I'm not terribly disappointed. When it comes down to it, man, I just wanted shit to work again.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
"...who squelched descent and were intolerant of debate."
Like you do in the comments section of your blog, T-NC? BTW, I think you meant to write "dissent".
Dude,
Step away from the keyboard. Thanks for the grammar note, but you've got issues...I mean serious, serious issues...
Early on, I viewed the recent primary season as Obama being the candidate best suited for the times. Given the depth and breath of his campaign operations, wide spread support and his vision of the now and the short term tomorrow it was kinda obvious. Nope, he ain't perfect but given the choices he had no competition. In sum basically agree with the points made, TNC.
When comes down to it, man, I just wanted shit to work again.
Fuck, yes.
That was very similar to my line of thinking. I never expected or hoped for some sort of Progressive Warrior to storm the halls of power and tear down the system. I wouldn't have even liked that because it would have been a liberal version of Bush. The Obama I saw in the campaign and from his books was supremely intelligent, pragmatic, and charismatic. Not perfect, but very capable and willing to try new things in his cautious manner. The other thing I appreciated was his talk of a new politics, which you can see being executed as we speak. The Lieberman thing and bringing in people who didn't support him in the primaries is parcel to that.
Guys on the far left can be as dogmatic and intolerant as guys on the far right, even if I am closer to the left's policy views.
I think the "progessives" complaining on the Huffington Post's comments section and in other blogs are missing the point completely.
As you point out, shit is messed up, and the people he is appointing are good people, mostly democrats, but most importantly, they know what they are doing. They are SMART.
Let's give the president-elect the benefit of the doubt until he does something that deserves criticism. Christ, he's not even President yet.
Right now, knowing the gravitas of his economic team inspries confidence that this might get fixed, while having people like clinton and richardson on board, shows the world we're serious about changing course defensively.
And just how is appointing Daschle not a clear sign that health care is on it's way to getting fixed.
I am reminded of the sweet picture you had up during the Palin Panic. Everyone needs to chill the fuck out. HE's got this.
I've thought for awhile that what a lot of the progressives were doing was projecting their desire for someone as left as Bush was right (man, it's weird to put "Bush was right" in a sentence of any kind, isn't it?), even though it was clear from the start that the Big O was nothing of the sort.
The tragic error of the last eight years, and Republicans in general, is to think that people wanted government to be limited in effectiveness as well as scope. No one wanted that except for the Club for Growth and the rest of the Grover Norquist set. People, in general, want government to be as effective as possible with as little resources as required. No fluff, no waste, just people who work hard to get things done for others in return for our tax money. Katrina, to be overly trite about it, is where Republican philosophy was revealed for the sham that it is.
Yes, we hired Obama to make things work. No, that means you won't get the staff from Pacifica Radio running the Voice of America or Dennis Kucinich as the head of HUD. I want what T-NC wants: people to get shit working again.
Ultimately, I don't think any administration is sustainable without a strong streak of pragmatism. Bush & cronies weren't (shit - *aren't* - I hate that) pragmatists - they were instrumentalists, dismissing all considerations except how to impose their will on the world. Pragmatism usually means governing from the middle, and the American middle is pretty conservative by global standards.
The Left critique of Obama (thus far - obviously, this could change) seems to me to mistake his mandate. He was not elected as the Great Progressive Hope. He was elected primarily to Get Us Out of This Mess, which is going to require the kind of broad consensus-building effort that Obama seems to excel at.
I was very jaded during the Clinton years by what seemed a betrayal of Democratic principles. Then I experienced 8 years of Bush II. I'm willing to forgive a lot of so-called "center-right" shuffling now.
Everything I'm seeing so far in the transition just reinforces the impression I got from Obama's campaign: He's a thinking person who knows how to be effective. Really effective. This is really exciting to me, who spent my college years (of which there were way too many) being appalled by Reagan, and the early years of my career watching Bill Clinton get it almost right, but also squander so much opportunity.
Someone once asked me if I "hated" George W. Bush. I said I try not to hate anyone and don't him personally, so, no I don't hate him. But I consider him a brainless incompetent who appoints his brainless incompetent cronies to positions in the executive branch that need smart competent people in them. Katrina is the clearest evidence. So, no, I don't hate him, but I hate what he's done to this country.
"More of the same" was never about policy. It was about competence. I voted for Barack Obama because he is smart and competent and is not afraid of having smart, competent people around him, even some who are smarter than he is. That is the change we really needed.
I'm among those who though not surprised is confused by the disappointment expressed by a lot of the left. Weren't they listening to what the guy had to say? He campaigned as a pragmatist not a leftist. His whole “hope” message was about getting past old idealogical arguments and focusing on government that works. America is burned out on ideologues and left/right idealogical arguments. Lurching from one extreme in the White House to the other wouldn't do us any good. I don't think the old Clintonian “triangulation” was what we exactly wanted either because its more a political strategy than an actual governing strategy. What we need is calm, competent, smart people with open and curious minds not people with solid and impassioned ideas about the way things ought to be.
So I'm very happy so far. This is exactly the kind of administration I wanted.
This post gave me a couple ideas for new labels to replaced the busted "team of rivals" meme.
Consider:
Team of Competents
Team of Wonks
Team of People Who Cannot Be Easily Labeled, But Who Will Work Together With Great Effort And A Diversity Of Ideas Under The Studied Leadership Of President Obama
As a progressive, I am particularly worried about President-elect Obama's middle east policy. But in any case, I think the issue for progressives is not in worrying about his choices to date, but to get our issues out there loud and clear, and see if he is paying attention; that is, we need to make our issues important. I like how Rachel Maddow, for example, raises the issue of the need to go after the Bush Administration's abuses of power as a long term legal issue in tempering the power of the Presidency.
I have always thought of Obama as a center-left guy myself, and do not expect him to just represent my point of view; he must be a President serving the whole nation. As I watch his appointments, while skeptical here and there, I am mostly just observing. There are a lot of things on his plate, and the proof will be in the pudding.
To sum up, I see nothing wrong with progressives making themselves heard, demanding to be heard, but whining in front or worrying petty issues seems like a foolish waste of time at this point.
I want Obama to succeed, and I want to reserve my critiques for the precise spots where I see him retrograde to success for our people and the world.
I agree with much of what you have to say.
You know, Republicans love to deify Reagan, but they always focus on the ideology, never his pragmatic side. This was a guy that campaigned in 1980 on a strong anti-Communist and lower taxes platform, but later had the good sense to negotiate with Gorbachev and sign later tax increases to address the deficit created by his tax cuts.
The biggest problem with Bush wasn't just that he had some massive, historic, inexcusable blunders, but that he never really did anything to fix them. He didn't even recognize them as problems.
Time will tell how effective Obama can be in getting some big-ticket legislation through Congress, whether it's a big but effective stimulus package, energy legislation, or a sweeping health care bill. I don't doubt his pragmatism, but I am worried about a tendency to try to be all things to all people.
"When it comes down to it, man, I just wanted shit to work again."
This is the basis of all good governments, isn't it? If shit doesn't work, nobody can get anything else done. I think we would have gotten that from Clinton or Obama.
But I too despised Clinton' defensive liberal crouch. Obama will be better-- has to be better-- than Clinton would have been at uniting the country simply because he is less divisive figure.
Good luck President Obama. i'm pulling for you.
No real hatred for "W" here either. I do think he was a willing puppet of Cheney and Addington and some of the other truly evil people that populated the administration. As for B.O., I think what most gave me hope was the Buddist nature he seems to embody. He is one cool cat who surrounded himself with a team of like minded people. If Hillary had won we would have had that wild bunch of people looking for arguments and disagreements just to whip up a little fun. Thank goodness they didn't win because serious times require serious people.
Google for "obama's priorities" and you'll find he's been talking about the same three issues for the last year: getting out of Iraq, getting real about energy and climate, and health care. Those are three big liberal projects, and the Republicans are against all three. Three weeks after the election he's still talking about those big three priorities. I don't think he's a liar.
That the man is turning some sell-out moderates into progressive soldiers is proof again that he's a jujutsu master. So I'm not worried about Obama and the progressive agenda. I'm worried about a bunch of dumb liberals feeding the villagers with a bullshit non-story.
My thinking is that this is Obama's "fix the country and get myself re-elected" cabinet. Should he manage to do that, I expect that his 2013 cabinet will be somewhat more progressive and put together with an eye towards serious, long-term change.
Amen.
As far as I'm concerned, if Obama is getting bitched at by both the far right and left, he's doing just fine.
The man said....and I'm paraphrasing. ...Its not a choice between bigger government and smaller government. We need smart government. I heard him.
Well said, TNC...As always your thinking is much in line with mine, but you state it far more eloquently than I do. (Or perhaps I'm just too lazy to do so on my own blog) I haven't visited a lot of the 'progressive blogs' that I frequented often during the campaign because I just don't have the stomach to listen to the whining of the Left. It's just as bad as the groveling and the blame-games of the Right, right now. Throughout this entire year, I told my friends and family that I really believed Obama would turn out to be a pragmatic, carefully moderate President -- despite all the claims of him being "the Most. Liberal. Senator. EVER." or whatever. He's proving to be just what I thought he'd be. And you know what? That's what we need. We need a President that actually THINKS before being a "decider." I want reason mixed with compassion. I don't care about right and left -- I care about right and wrong. And of all of the candidates we had to chose from in this campaign, I felt Obama was the best to weigh those options. I can't know for sure if I was right about that until I see the decisions played out, but as of now -- I'm OK with my choice.
I don't understand the recent comments from those left-of-center liberals regarding Obama's post-election decision making any more than I understand those critics on the right who were painting Obama as a socialist in the weeks running up to the election.
Did these people even bother to read Obama's books? Why anybody would be surprised that Obama is anything other than a died-in-the-wool centerist is beyond me.
I think we are at exactly the same place on this.
I was for Barack because he had his stuff together, because he was willing to learn and grow (watch clips of him in debates with Hillary and then watch him trounce McCain...he's gotten better and better during the last two years and I have no reason to think he isn't going to get better and better and more Presidential during the next two years), and because he seems like the kind of center-left moderate liberal who I don't agree with 100% but who might actually be able to get stuff done. Barack supported the Supreme Court striking down the D.C. handgun ban. I thought "I'm not with that, but ya know, that's the kind of guy who isn't going to get sidetracked or sucked into the 'culture wars.' The more they try to brand this guy a radical, the sillier they'll look. And I don't think he's posturing. He really seems to be that guy."
It's not the time for us to try to pull off some kind of political "realignment." It's the time for us to be pragmatic and fix what's broken. If Barack is successful, Republicanism will be so thoroughly discredited that we'll get that realignment anyway. Want to live in a center-left country? Be thankful you've just elected a moderate Democrat who has his sh*t together.
That press conference yesterday was a typically stunning performance. To use another cliche, it really does feel like the grownups are in charge again. So far, so good.
And thanks for that picture of Michelle. I'm with you on that too. I got a little teary even before I scrolled down to see what you were going to say about it. BTW, I'm a white guy. It's not just you.
Jordan,
I've been thinking for a while now that Obama's cabinet picks should be called a "team of competents."
You are right that policy is not the major factor in Obama’s victory. As a Canadian watching the U.S. election with a great deal of interest, I was very impressed with his thoughtfulness – especially in contrast to the complete foolishness of the past eight years of the White House.
In my mind, leadership is not just about the policies you have, but also about the way you lead. I’ve had bosses who are open to new ideas, constructive criticism and disagreement at the management table. The discussions and debate result in a better plan, including one that has truly examined all the options. I’ve also had bosses who make decisions in a vacuum, where dissent is forbidden and absolute submission is necessary. I got fired by someone like the latter, and have felt good about that moment ever since.
Obama’s early decisions are about building a team of smart people, who will bring different opinions and information to the debate. It’s a good sign that he isn’t signing up a bunch of Yes-men. Of course, once the initial decision is made, everyone needs to work to make it successful. The other aspect is that he will change course it the original decision isn’t made.
I’ll make a reference to another of your favorite topics – football – in comparison. Bill Belichek (for the record, I’m not a Pats fan) is successful because he values smart people, and is willing to change how they play the game. The Patriots have been winning in many different ways – power running game, with a great defense, vs. the Brady-Moss air show last year. He figures out what works with the resources he has. He has been successful because he has been willing to make changes.
Belichek is in stark contrast to Al Davis and the Raiders (I'm a fan, but have had a hard time lately). Davis doesn’t appear to want anyone around who might be able to be given credit for any success the organization might have. I don’t know if he has always been this way, but the past decade or so has marked by his ego getting in the way of making necessary changes in the organization and philosophy. Davis only wants people around who confirm his own brilliance, rather than challenge him to be better.
Obama is not threatened by other people who are smart and knowledgeable. People who disagree with him on policy and decisions will not be seen as threats, but rather as valuable assets who force everyone around them to thoroughly examine an issue before making a decision. It’s not about ideology – it’s about what works.
Some of us tried to tell our more Left-leaning friends 'don't believe the Republican hype' when it came to Obama. IMHO he's always been more Centrist than a 'true Liberal' or 'real Progressive.' However, like others have said, I want the government to actually display some competence and work properly. That will be quite a bit of "Change" after the last 8 years. And if he launches a massive public works program, gets us out of Iraq (but not into a different form of quagmire in Afghanistan), and provides Universal Health Care, I won't care what political label he wears.
Also, recognize that, since Reagan, anything to the left of the Editorial Page of the Wall Street Journal has been considered "liberal" or "Radical." IMHO anything he and his administration can do to bring the country BACK TO the center, and cooling off the rabid tendencies of our recent political discourse would be major achievements.
centrism is the new black
The whole "where do these people fall on the ideological spectrum within the Democratic party" question has always struck me as rather silly. So too, in fact, has the fact that we on the left allowed the Republican party to make liberalism a bad word -- fleeing to the term "progressive" rather than say "hell yeah I'm a liberal, liberals gave us. . ." the way President Bartlett did on West Wing.
The argument among ourselves also only reinforces the tendency of the MSM to argue that Obama's appointments, which may be centrist in terms of Democratic party politics, are thus "center-right" and that we remain a center-right nation. It's patent nonsense, and we only contribute to it with our own debate (not to say that the debate shouldn't happen, only that sometimes such debates can have unintended consequences).
In terms of where a President Obama will land on the ideological spectrum, my answer is that no matter how "centrist" his appointments may be, only two things matter: 1) his marching orders and 2) that all these folks share a vision of how America -- and the world -- works that is way, way, WAY to the left of the Bush team.
And in the end, those are the things that will matter, not whether Tom Daschle is more centrist than Howard Dean.
In terms of foreign policy, where Obama also is favoring centrists, this is what I said on my own blog, Undiplomatic:
"[A]n Obama administration is likely to pursue a foreign policy based on sound strategic principles and coherent tactics. Realism should trump ideology, and principles should trump interests. Call it pragmatic idealism, if you must apply a label."
The man in realistic, and given the surrealism of the past eight years, that may be the most reassuring fact of all.
I've cross-posted this over at my blog as well (link above)
I share the positive feelings about BHO. I think that he’s a hundred times better than Clinton, and a million times better than Bush. Nevertheless there remains the fundamental question of economic policy.
Obama may or may not have been the ‘most liberal member of Congress’, but the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ in our political lexicon refer to liberal and conservative capitalists. And our reigning economic theory, courtesy of Reagan-Greenspan-Clinton-Rubin-Summers-Bush, holds that the best capitalism features maximum privatization and de-regulation. (Although in practice, capitalism has always provided a socialist safety net for the rich -- witness the Paulson-Bernanke trillion-dollar no-questions-asked giveaways.)
Obama’s impressive electoral mandate, which he earned by campaigning as an inclusive, moderate-liberal capitalist, coincides with an authentic economic crisis. Our current economic situation obviously requires government solutions that overlap with what’s been known as socialism.
Obama has been at pains to stress that he is not a socialist. What will he do? Is he inclined to break out of the ideological straitjacket? More socialism for the rich? Or for everyone this time?
I DO believe Shrub will be called the worst President EVER.
I had to LOL when I read the quote someone posted from the Economist, sighing with relief that 'competence had returned'.
It's sad that mere competence would make people this happy. But, YES, it's been that ##($ed up.
What does this mean: "Clinton's defensive liberal crouch"?
I get why you supported Obama. What I'd like to know more about is why you didn't "trust" Clinton. Was it personality? Was she too partisan? (Because this is why I liked her.) I'm just curious.
I agree w/many here that she might have governed from a similar policy standpoint as Obama, but would have been a more polarizing person, given she's a Clinton. But I'd like to understand better your thoughts on her; this post is interesting, but it'd be cool to understand you liking Obama in a more detailed context compared to his competitors.
The only good thing about 8 years of Dubya is that it's made it clear-- making shit work IS liberal policy at this point. I mean, the man is talking about raising taxes on the rich, universal health care, a half-trillion-dollar infrastructure/stimulus package, and cap-and-trade carbon emissions reduction. That was a Dennis Kucinich pipe dream in 2004! Why is it cautious centrism now? Not because the ideas have changed, but because the last four years have made it abundantly obvious that "conservative solutions" is an oxymoron. So Obama doesn't get credit for liberal ideas because now they're obviously correct?
Obama may be motivated more by technocratic caution than by progressive idealism; I can't say where his ideas come from. But that's not what matters-- what matters is that he's advocating the right ideas, eloquently and forcefully, and he has the political muscle to make them realities. You can call him liberal, or centrist, or a pottery muskrat; as long as I get my universal health insurance the label is less important than the product.
@chrismealy "you'll find he's been talking about the same three issues for the last year: getting out of Iraq, getting real about energy and climate, and health care. Those are three big liberal projects, and the Republicans are against all three."
EXACTLY!
I'm probably to Obama's left but I keep reading Open Left & wondering what the fuck is going on over there. You can not & will not get everything you want in one person. These three issues matter a lot. Let's start with them & go from there. Like someone else in this thread said, if Obama is successful America will move to the left automatically, because the big things he wants to get done are VERY progressive.
It's not weird AT ALL to say Obama represents your family values. He represents regular family values more than those who co-opted that phrase in politics during the 90's. I come from a conservative family (in the general sense of the word) and his rise and story are just exactly that. Work hard and be honest and optimistic and think hard and genuinely respect others. Play fair, and like, study for the love of learning, not for the damn grades. (hehe, but get good grades.)
This is what family values, or as my mother calls them, 'human values,' have always looked like. I don't want to jump on the Obama worship train, but I do believe he is a decent person who won while - in fact partially BY - repudiating the despicable identity politics of the past twenty, thirty, forty years. He's totally a regular dude in my eyes, a guy I and everyone I know would have a beer with or chitchat with after mowing our lawns or play a pick-up game with or whatever, whatever it is.
America, and I say this cautiously, and this isn't predicated upon Obama becoming the new Jesus or on him fucking up royally or not - you are slowly getting off crazy pills, it is normal to actually be normal instead of an eerie Orwellian simulacrum of normality. (Fuck you, Warren G. Harding, like you knew normalcy actually was in the dictionary.)
Well, the Dude.... he's the man for his time and place. He fits right in there.
Obama's kind of a party hack. And he's incredibly egotistical. And he's not somebody to stick his neck out for his ideals on a regular basis.
He's also intelligent, and flexible, and appears to be good at getting stuff done. And he's ideologically mildly progressive. And all I really wanted, when I voted for him, was somebody in office who was marginally less likely to bomb Iran than John McCain.
I think he'll probably be a good President. I think he may be a great President. If you're a progressive and thought he was a fellow traveller, you were deluding yourself. If you're a progressive and you're going apeshit already, you need to take a deep breath. He'll have plenty of time to disappoint you once he starts governing. He may even do some good things. It's awfully hard to tell until he's actually President, though.
"I won't ever know the most intricate details of government policy, and smite me should I ever write like I do."
This is why I read this blog. The others, I want to smite sometimes.
What does this mean: "Clinton's defensive liberal crouch"?
I get why you supported Obama. What I'd like to know more about is why you didn't "trust" Clinton. Was it personality? Was she too partisan? (Because this is why I liked her.) I'm just curious.
Not to speak for another, but when I read 'defensive crouch' I immediately thought of her stance on her Iraq war vote. She couldn't or wouldn't admit she was wrong, she didn't own up to not having done her homework, and the whole thing lived in some kind of weird place where she could neither own nor repudiate it. And she took, IMO, similar stances on similar issues. After eight years of a President who cannot say 'I was wrong' that was especially galling from a Democratic Presidential candidate.
I'm right (or is that left?) with Chris Mealy and Eddy here.
If you read Krugman's book and you're about my age (i.e., the President-elect's age) you'll realize that the parallels with FDR are amazing. When I was a kid, the Democrats were the power and the Republicans were for the most part just a moderate opposition party. Then things began to fall apart and Reagan came in and made Goldwater's dream come true.
For those of us who consider ourselves progressive or liberal, it's been very frustrating. I signed up on day 1 for Obama's campaign because he rightly saw that the way to bring things back to the way they should be, that is a society that is for the good of the greatest number, we need to focus on policies that actually benefit the greatest number.
But you don't get there by some test of ideological purity, but rather, as TNC says, by making shit work.
One way to do that is most definitely to co-opt a significant number of the opposition (or at least those who are not blindly against you), as well as bringing in the most competent team you can muster. Obama shows all signs of doing this, or rather continuing to do this.
Now watch when the right starts to scream when the new administration attempts to institute a universal health care system because that is going to seriously f%ck up their ideology when another government program (like SS, medicare, the interstate highway system, ...) actually solves people's problems.
Of course, I am sure that I will disagree, perhaps passionately, with President Obama at some point, but I have no doubt that he is very much a game changer, and much moreso than a President Rodham Clinton would have been at least from a realignment of political forces perspective. On the sexism front of course, we still have a lot of progress to make.
Them's my two cents, I hope no one will want to smite me. ;-)
I think what you're saying is that, because of the profoundly irrational 43rd president, you've become a single issue voter: namely, you will vote for the candidate who has the strongest connection to the objective world.
This vote transcends policy, philosophy etc. Why is this? Because at this point, being progressive means simply understanding that there is a factual basis upon which decisions can be made, and that ideology is for the most part unhelpful. The left was driven here by the last 20 years of theocratic governing by the right.
So I would encourage everyone to VOTE RATIONAL. Because, let's be honest, if you don't vote for a rational candidate, does it really matter what their ideology is? It won't be executed in an intelligent and proper manner anyway.