Anti-Obama progressives?

Steve Hildebrand, deputy campaign manager in the Obama campaign (I'm not sure how many "deputy campaign managers" he had) has attracted a bit of attention by his Huffington Post piece, A Message to Obama's Progressive Critics 12/07/08. My initial response reading it was, "Bite me."

But then, the retention of Robert Gates is the only one that I've thought was a poor choice. And every administration needs some regular cheerleaders to encourage people to support every thing he does. Most people don't find that advice difficult to ignore, at least on issues they care about.

Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld at TPM Election Central (Top Obama Adviser Hits "The Left Wing Of Our Party" For Criticizing Cabinet Picks 12/08/08) also note that there really hasn't been that much criticism of the Cabinet picks from the liberal Democratic base, which is presumably what Hildebrand means by "progressives". Sargent and Kleefeld writes:

Really, one has to ask if Hildebrand is really trying to reassure "the left wing of our party," or whether he's trying to stir them up further out of some unknown political calculation or other. After all, many on "the left" have also made Hildebrand's point: They've noted that Obama should be allowed to let his actual policies do the talking, while simultaneously asking completely legit questions about what his choices portend about the future direction of his administration. If merely asking such questions is enough to incite an attack on "the left" from someone in Obama's inner circle, it seems reasonable to conclude that the motive here isn't to mend fences at all.

I'm guessing that Hildebrand is mainly throwing read meat to the national press, who have taken it into their heads that Obama is swiftly backing off his campaign promises and that "the left" of his party is seething about his Cabinet picks.

Hildebrand's little scold piece is one of those that you really have to wonder, just who is he talking about? Some categories of political groups are obvious, e.g., Iraq war opponents, pro-choice voters, anti-abortion activists, the Christian Right, civil libertarians. Even with those, it often pays to ask on unusual claims just who is meant. But on a vague category like "progressives" or "the left", it's often hard to know.

Especially, in this case, since most hardcore Democrats I come in contact with both in person and online don't seem to be particularly upset over the Cabinet picks. And here's a post from Progressives for Obama (there are currently two active blogs by that name), from someone who is fairly critical about the Cabinet appointments: The Main Message: It’s Up to Us by Bill Fletcher, Jr., of BlackCommentator.com 12/07/08.

He characterizes Obama's developing set of appointments as a "center-right" group. And he doesn't mean that as a compliment. But here's part of his ferocious criticism:

So, the long and the short of it is that while condemnations of Obama as a betrayer completely exaggerate what is going on, relying on good-faith and the hidden intentions of the President-elect is a recipe for an upset stomach. We can only operate based on the facts on the ground and an analysis of historic patterns of the people involved. ... That said, the major message that needs to be conveyed at present is not to rely on good-faith or good-intentions, or the fact that many people may happen to like President-elect Obama or that he is using cyberspace in creative ways. The major message is that it is up to progressive social movements and activists to shape Obama and the Obama administration in the way that we believe it needs to be shaped. If we do anything else, we are engaging in wishful thinking. [my emphasis]

That doesn't really come across as angry outrage. On the contrary, it's pretty straightforward, almost a truism, really, about how the American political system works. Political leaders take individual decisions at times based on their own judgment or strong feelings about an issue. But on big issues, changes don't happen without a lobby or an activist public pushing to make it happen.

Sargent and Kleefeld link to this post by David Sirota at Talk Left, Mandate Watch: Were Democrats Elected to Attack "The Left?" Part II 12/07/08. Sirota makes the sensible observations:

Most progressives questioning Obama have done so rather gently, and have done so on the pragmatic substance. For instance, people wondering about the appointment of Larry Summers to a top economic position in the White House have wondered whether it's such a good idea to empower an ideological free market fundamentalist (pro-free trade, pro-deregulation) whose policies as Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary played a major role in creating the economic crisis. That is, most have wondered why Obama thinks that kind of ideologue is "the most qualified person" to deal with our economic situation, rather than, say, a pragmatist like James Galbraith or Joseph Stiglitz who has been right all along.

Same thing for progressives concerned about the Iraq War. They have wondered whether the ideologues who got us into the war - who got us into the war on wholly ideological and non-pragmatic grounds - are really "the most qualified people" to get us out of that war. They believe that perhaps the pragmatists who opposed the war on the basis of a factual analysis of intelligence might be better suited to the task.

Dday at Hulaballoo gives his own unique take on it in Hippie Punch Of The Day 12/08/08.

Tags: establishment press