 |
|
Add to My Group
|
December 15, 2008 at 08:31:38
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 12/15/08: by Rob Kall Page 1 of 6 page(s) |
|
 
|
2
2
2
Interview done on the rob kall radio show, live, on WNJC 1360 AM, December 10. 2008 To hear the interview, click this link (good until Jan 10): Conference Recording Transcribed by Carla Gilby, Amanda Moreno, Paula Sayles, Linda Carraway, Jim Magee. Edited by Jay Farrington. Rob: Okay. Hi, this is Rob Kall, The Rob Kall Radio Show, WNJC 1360. We've got a very interesting show tonight. A couple days ago, Steve Hildebrand, the Deputy National Campaign Director for the Obama Campaign, wrote an article, A Message to Obama's Progressive Critics. It raised a huge uproar, enough of an uproar so that it was discussed in all the major news outlets, it got talking heads and pundits talking about it. So, I invited Steve Hildebrand on the show and he's going to be with us in a couple of minutes. I'm going to read to you what people reacted to the most. He wrote it, so he'll know about it, but I want to read it to you. He says, 
"I could go on and on. The point I'm making here is that the new President, Congress and all Americans must come together to solve these problems. This is not a time for the left wing of our party to draw conclusions about the cabinet and White House appointments that President-elect Obama is making. Some believe the appointments generally aren't progressive enough. Having worked with former Senator Obama for the last two years, I can tell you that isn't the way he thinks and it's not likely the way he will lead. The problems I mentioned above and the many I didn't, suggest that our President surround himself with the most qualified people to address these challenges. After all, he was elected to be the President of all the people, not just those on the left."
This got people outraged. And the response was all over the place. David Sirota wrote,
"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 was such a good idea to empower such 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."
So, that was a gentle one. If you look at DailyKos in the comments, OpEdNews in the comments and the Huffington Post, people have really vilified Steve. I'm expecting him to call in a minute and then we can get down to the conversation here. It's a challenging time. You know, I personally, I, by the time the primaries got to Pennsylvania, I was an Obama supporter. But I was just as much a Hillary opponent, because Hillary to me was, represented the more right-wing side of the Democratic Party and I saw Obama as a centrist. I certainly was never under the illusion that Obama was a progressive or a liberal, like the Republicans were saying. So, to me, I haven't been really surprised. I've been a little disappointed, but I haven't been surprised by the kind of appointments he's making. And I've written about it complaining because I'd like to see him move further to the left, but I haven't been outraged, I haven't been upset about it, but there are people who are. A lot of them. The percentages of people who identify themselves as liberal range in the polls from I think 18 to 24 percent and that's a lot of people. Twelve, fifteen million people who voted, maybe. So, it' s an interesting situation. Are you there, Steve?
Steve: I sure am, Rob.
Rob: Great! So, you know, let's start things off here. You've been accused of using what amounts to a four-letter acronym which means "shut the 'f' up" to progressives.
Steve: And that certainly is not what I intended. I was expressing my opinion and I wasn't telling other people what to do or what not to do. What I was suggesting is that, you know, Barack Obama ran on a platform to become President on change and on bringing people together and, he was supported and elected by some, you know, fifty-four, fifty-five percent-- I can't even remember what it was-- of the American people, and that, at a time when our country is facing so many very big problems that this is a time where the House and the Senate, political leaders all over the country, and Americans from all backgrounds really do need to come together if we want to solve these very big problems of healthcare for all, getting out of the war in Iraq, solving this economic crisis, dealing with climate change. There are a lot of big issues. And all I'm suggesting is that, this is a great time in this country for people to come together and solve the problems. This is not a great time for people to be sniping and trying to push their own agenda.
Rob: Well, you know, the other side of this, though, is that, you know, we won. And that, Obama won, not with the majority, perhaps, of liberals and progressives, but he wouldn't have won without them, certainly, and probably thirty to forty-five percent of his supporters were liberals and progressives, of the people who voted for him.
Steve: And I think there will not be any problem with President Obama representing the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. When he takes on the economic problems that we're facing, the people that are going to benefit most are lower income and middle income people, the working families of this country. And, if he doesn't take on this economic crisis, and deal with it first and foremost, those people are going to be the first to lose their jobs. They're going to be the first to lose their healthcare. They're going to be the first people that lose their homes, if they haven't already lost them to the mortgage crisis. And so, we as progressives, and I consider myself to be a very liberal person, rallying behind Barack Obama, and helping him get that economic crisis solved, is a pretty critically important piece, I would think, to liberal people in this country...
Rob: But the...
Steve: His calls for healthcare, for climate change, for getting health care for all people; these are progressive ideals and this is going to be the first and foremost on Barack's agenda.
Rob: I think, though, that what people read into what you wrote was that progressives shouldn't be discussing his appointments. Sort of, shouldn't be saying that they want him to appoint liberals or progressives to the remaining ones and that they shouldn't be complaining about the ones that he has appointed.
Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 52 comments |
|
A rather insigtful interview
This is not intended to be a scathing criticism but: 1. Smarty interviewees usually use interviews to promote themselves. Mr. Hildebrand did just that and very successfully, I have to say. 2. There was not much about Obama in the interview at all. Mr. Hildebrand talked a lot about his knowledge of the President but no key issues like war, poverty, reverse of Bush policies, foreign affairs were even touched. 3. It though became obvious that Mr Hildebrand had his own agenda based on his affiliations. Not that it was a bad thing but interest is interest and why then does not he fight with the Prop 8 for instance? 4. We the people should not 'stand behind this guy' We are not on a football field. This guy is accountable to us and he accepted such premise, unlike Bush. So... Mr. Hildebrand kind off should not tell me how Holder is a great person but explain what Progressive Agenda would Holder implement. Same with Hillary. But he did not. It does seem that Mr. Hilldebrand DOES NOT HAVE A CLUE about what Obama appointees are going to do really and he is not an insider he claims to be. 'We have serious problems and we need serious people to solve them'. A movie character in the movie American President said it. Mr. Hildebrand did not seem to present a picture of being a serious person. Moreover, and this is very important: neither him, nor anyone else of the new people had expressed any compassion or regrets for the lives lost during the Bush's times, hundreds of thousands, maybe milliions and that they had to do because we, the people need not only serious people in power- we need decent and honest ones. This is the insight I have got. I presume others will share theirs. Thanks by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 9:31:24 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: I have to take some of the blame.
I had a lot of questions to ask him and about 20-25 minutes to do it in. Once you are behind the microphone, you realize how limited a short format interview can be. And keep in mind, on TV, two or three minutes is a lot. It's tough to get a fully fleshed out story. And I'm going to blame you too. You were invited to ask questions and I don't recall you asking any of the ones you now chide the interviewer for not discussing. Really. How many interviewers take the bottom up approach of inviting listeners/readers to suggest questions or topics of discussion. by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:30:18 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You are certainly right, Rob
but I did not mean to criticise, rather to show the prowess of Hildebrand. Come to think of it, what do you think? YOUR final opinion about the interview would be invaluable. Do you agree with me on the summary or not? The whole value of the process is in it. by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:18:13 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Do you remember...
How Hillary claimed to be a progressive? She's about as far right as a NY democrat can go. (She could go further right as a Montana Dem, like Max Baucas.) Steve considers Rahm Emanuel a progressive. I disputed that. But his take on Emanuel speaks volumes on his idea of what progressives are. I think that, Mark, your idea and my idea of what makes a progressive is very different than Steve's or probably, Obama's. Dailykos is full of folks like Steve Hildebrand, who see Emanuel as a wonderful progressive choice. I doubt that 5-10% of Dems are really progressive, rather than liberal dems. Even some who identify themselves may not be. The difference between liberals and progressives is progressives aim higher and expect more change, more movement on the big issues-- ending the war, single payer universal health care, bottom up economic change, social justice, real serious approaches to climate change and pollution, defending the constitution with prosecution... Steve may or may not be there on those issues. He settles for less in terms of appointees. The operative words for the Obama transition team have become competence and pragmatism. Progressive is a word that does not fit between them. Liberal does. I liked Steve. I'd rather have guys like him having been the deputy campaign director/national grassroots head than the creeps McCain had. He wrote down what many of my friends who supported Obama have been saying to me-- give him time and trust him. That little gesture, almost a reflex, in response to the chicago union workers-- it blew a big gust of fresh air into my trust zone. It was an extraordinary gesture we haven't seen from a president or president elect in at least decades. I'm hanging in there, in spite of the appointees who have not thrilled me. by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:29:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Really?
by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 409 comments [85 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:49:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: prove me wrong
What have you done in the past week in terms of activism, beyond writing a comment or two. by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 3:07:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Hillary and progressives
If Hillary is far to the right, we need to tell progressive organizations about it. The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on how often they vote for progressive issues. For each group, by Perry Logan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 558 comments [74 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 16, 2008 at 5:04:27 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Polls of progressive organizations...
Clinton Vs. Barack Obama (progressivepunch) by Perry Logan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 558 comments [74 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 16, 2008 at 5:06:06 AM (0+)
|
|
MR. HILDEBRAND MAKES AN OMELETTE WITHOUT BREAKING ANY EGGS
I do not find fault with the questions presented to Steve Hildebrand, but Mr. Hildebrand is adept at backtracking and obfuscation. I voted for Barack Obama for President without any expectation that he would adhere to his more-populist rhetoric, and I have been striving to muffle my criticism of Barack Obama until he actually becomes President, but he deserves a lot of criticism for the poor selections he has made for positions in the Obama Administration because these personnel selections constitute the initial actions of President Obama. Bill Richardson and Tom Daschle are two of the better people selected by President-elect Obama, but they are both centrist Democrats. It is also ridiculous for Mr. Hildebrand to claim that Rahm Emanuel is progressive on the basis that he almost always votes with his center-right Democratic colleagues; the Democratic Party is only marginally less corrupt than the Republican Party. My remaining source of faded optimism is that President Obama may be forced by circumstances to adopt policies that are more progressive than he is. by Blaine Kinsey (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 181 comments [80 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:08:48 PM (0+)
|
|
Hildebrand can kiss my Progressive ass.
Very nice interview, especially in the short time u had. But this guy's backtracking when talking to Progressives won't be covered by the MSM... The last impression the majority of peeps will get is that the Obama admin is getting "unfairly attacked" by those nasty leftists lol. If this attitude continues, we will know that they want to drum up anti- Progressive feelings in order to discredit our message and arguments... So they don't have to answer them. All we can go by are ACTIONS not fluffy press releases or talking head clever arguments. And so far the actions of the new administration, eh, mainly suck. The only thing he's done even close is offering lip service to the workers in the closed Chicago factory. Cheap but effective. The reason it is so important that we have at least one legitimate Progressive in the cabinet is this: They are the canary in the coal mine. Presumably they would resign if things got to look too much like a Bush-league operation. And the reason it looks so bad that Obama isn't hiring any, is that it appears that this is the very reason he won't. by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:34:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: "This is just the reason he is not hiring any 'progressives'
You sure got that right! And, I'm a liberal, myself. by FastMovingCloud (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 16, 2008 at 7:49:46 AM (0+)
|
|
Surprise.
Democrats have always been the good cops. They are the enablers and the lazi cowards ever since they let Nixon and Kissinger murder thousands of American soldiers in order to get Nixon in the White House. by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1762 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:36:06 PM (0+)
|
|
A very important warning
Folks, we seem to be very naive here. ALL interviews are signals. ALL interviews have goals. The summary goal of Hildebrand here is to get the proper opinion HERE, on OEN. If we just let it slide and follow him without making a summary about what he said- his goal would be achieved. That is why I asked for Rob's opinion. If OEN states in the summary that Mr. Hildebrand did nothing but smugly promoted himself, that he avoided anything real and barraged the interviewer with clishees (I am a little direct here, but this is the essense)- then we will state the position that in the current atmossphere the progressive forces cannot and will not be satisfied by the cheap talk. Folks, be vigilant- you were talking to a small but very agressive functionary. He is more talk than walk now but be aware - if he reaches his goals with you he will write that in his resume as an achievement. by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:43:38 PM (0+)
|
|
Thank You Rob
First for this interview and the points you make. Your point about not receiving a lot of questions from us is well taken and noted. I especially commend you for mentioning Jersey Girl and her question. That shows me your own moral and political integrity. Unlike so many so called progressive outlets (Daily KOS, Air America etc being prime examples) you will voice the questions and visions of what I am now calling dissident progressives. Those of us who are not Democrats. So many other media outlets practice the golden microphone principle. If you have the gold (or give voice to those who have the gold) then you are given the golden microphone. Those of us dissident types are routinely shut out. You are to be commended sir, for practicing an actual bottom up communication style, in actions instead of words. So many other "progressive" media outlets and groups do the exact opposite (PDA, Sierra Club, Air America etc etc) As noted, Mr Hildebrand's statement about Rahn Emanuel being a political progressive shows just how out of touch Steve is with real progressive politics. Likewise his statement about just how great the Clinton Administration was. Can anyone here say "WTO and Seattle", Depleted Uranium, Extra-Ordinary Rendition, Lani Guineer, Welfare Reform, One Million Dead Iraqi Children and Sancitions, Madeline 'It Was Worth The Price' Allbright, 1996 telecommunications Act, Massive Give-A-Ways to the Lumber and Mining Industries of National Lands etc etc etc. You see, these are the things that real progressives know about those glorious Clinton years. Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Those wacky, crazy, progressive enviornmentalists. Thanks Rob. You were not as hard ball as say Jersey Girl or myself would have been but still good job. You have, yet again earned my respect. Even though you are a Democrat.. LOL by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:21:29 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: if...
I was as hardball as you might have been, the interview might not have lasted the scheduled duration and I'd be on a list of "don't interview with that guy" people. It's a delicate balance and a long haul. Better not to burn bridges. I found Jersey Girl's comment and went with it. I wish I'd had more questions. The ones that came in were mostly dealing with submitters personal interests. Next month, I go to the Democratic Senate Outreach committee's invitation only Progressive Media Summit and will get face to face time with 15 to 25 Dem senators at small lectures and a reception. Again, I do better moderating my interaction, building bridges, than blasting away. Over the past year, we have made a difference in affecting legislation and if we'd come on strong, we would have been ignored. by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:37:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: That's right, I agree.
Your conclusions about who those people are and your stated opinion Here is all what we should expect. Obviously, those folks will not talk to you if you blast them. They talk to you because the have an agenda. You will see that agenda and.. tell us what you think. What we think then would be a source of your tools- use them as you see fit and Godspeed. All-in- all most of us are in the exercise of self- convincing:) by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:05:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You're a real piece of work ...
... you write an article about being shut-up and than censor me in the same manner? Gee, I'm real sorry I didn't write something that would have stroked your ego, please forgive me, but I promise you as long as you keep being an intellectual coward I won't stop. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 5:30:51 PM (0+)
|
|
I agree
with most of these comments Rob. Nice job on the interview. I did not submit questions because I felt my comments made my thoughts and positions abundantly clear. Hildebrand had an agenda. He backtracked after creating a huge backlash with great potential to damage the Obama entry onto the Presidential stage next month. A couple of points. Hildebrand assumes all progressives are Democrats. He needs to get over that. Many of the Obama voters were Greens who feared McCain/Palin. And the Greens, contrary to some lines of thinking in the Democratic Party, are not simply a Progressive special interest group with a particular slant they push, located in the left wing of the Democratic Party. Next-the spectrum of political thought and behaviors is broad, as is the spectrum or continuum of economic responses to crises such as we now face. What Obama has done with his transition and Cabinet selections, is to truncate these continuums to a very narrow segment. If he wishes a broad based, bottom up process addressing our problems etc, he needs to expand his POV to include a broader segment of the spectrums. It is too narrow and self serving. What is being revealed right now is not a broad based bottom up approach, it is more of the special interest approach of the last thirty years. It was stunning to see Hildebrand's interpretation of someone like Rahm Emmanuel as a progressive. The man is clearly not one and never will be. Hildebrand did nothing for his own credibility with statements like that. That last statement being said, it would indicate just how far to the right the Democratic Party has moved over the years, to have a functionary like Hildebrand claim the folks he mentioned as progressives. And it certainly implies a message as to the locus of the Democratic Party on the continuum I mentioned. He has truncated, attenuated, the continuum, much as has Obama with his selections, by cutting off the progressive and liberal left. We have become political orphans, if you will, powerless hostages to the interests and operatives of the center and right. And those without political power will use the only tool at their disposal, their voices, against the power structure. It was, however, nice to see you did the interview Rob, if for no other reason than to note just how far some Democrats will go to pull the wool over folks eyes. Hildebrand tried and failed. He is incredibly self serving. Thanks, The cranky old man. by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 676 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:42:22 PM (0+)
|
|
Good Job
Good job on the interview; well done. Even if he dodged a lot of questions. I appreciate being able to read it. by Marnie Baker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:53:05 PM (0+)
|
|
When are we going to
"out" the neo-liberals (who aren't liberal at all) in the Democratic Party?? The whole world knows these corporatist collaborators and economic imperialists -- but we've let them slide because they've managed to hijack the Democratic Party. Progressives can't afford to give them a pass, or continue this simplistic "two-party" charade. The current crop of appointments forebode a continuation of Neo-con imperialism with Neo-Lib trimmings. It's pretty clear these parasites are too dumb not to kill their host. by Laudyms (0 articles, 1142 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 708 comments [138 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:00:53 PM (0+)
|
|
this jerk is playing hardball with the wrong people
This jerk is going to find out the hard way that he's playing hard ball with the wrong people. Jezz, so now it's a sin for progressives to want ANY representation? And Obama wants to represent "all of us". B. S. Bill by W. Christopher Epler (Bill) (291 articles, 59 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 763 comments [44 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:12:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: thanks
for a nice dose of political reality; all the interview proved to me is that obamamania is alive and well and that the word progressive is generally used in totally meaningless ways by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:41:13 PM (0+)
|
|
I Really Appreciate Some Of the Comments
About the facts of the Dems being so right wing. The comment about being political orphans really hit me. My answer. LEAVE THEM. Do it loudly and publically. There are some of us, what I am now terming dissident progressives who have been trying to build an alternative to the pro-war, corporate corrupted two party system. Ironically, when the corporate party structure is threatened like this, they respond. Here in Minnesota and especially Minneapolis, which has an actual organized and effective Green Party (we had two of the thirteen City Council seats as Greens) all of a sudden IRV has become a reality. Minneapolis will have IRV for the first time in this next election. This is such a win-win for progressives. The issue of being "spoilers" (I have never accepted that arguement BTW) is gone and more importantly those progressive voices are no longer shut out of the public in debates, primary races etc. This is the most important part of pushing IRV IMHO. These critical voices of dissent against the corporate structure will be heard by more than just "the choir" and will eventually resonate and affect public opinion. This can begin the critically needed cultural shift needed to end the war, fight Global Warming, real government accountability, restoration of our rights etc etc. THAT is the ultimate goal. So stop acting like BPDS (Battered Progressive Democrat Syndrome) is an actual medical diagnosis. Leave your abuser, even though it is scary. Help those of us who out here, in the wilderness trying to build an alternative to the pro-war, corporate corrupted two party system. Then watch just how those people react. Power gives up it's own power, not by requests but by demands. Help us DEMAND something better. This message and vision is precisely why those "progressive" groups and media outlets will refuse to give us dissident progressives the golden microphone. Because we do not protect those with the gold. Capeshe? by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:22:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: MC
I am a national committeeman also. Was in Chicago. Have had many dialogues with Greens over the election results and their meaning. Interesting, that the GP has so many Dems in it lately. Maybe that accounts for some of the stuff that has been happening, eh? by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 676 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 7:25:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Excellent, Micheal!
And so good to hear that IRV is gaining ground. This basic nuts-and-bolts adjustment to Democracy is LONG OVERDUE! by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 760 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 16, 2008 at 9:43:43 AM (0+)
|
|
Obama's Appointees Show Him to be Anti-Progressive --Period
Obama's economic team are from the Rubinomics/Reaganomics/voodoo economics school -- unbridled free trade, deregulation, privatization -- and they all personally benefitted from what Rubinomics caused -- the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy in the history of the United States and the collapse of the financial system. There are no progressives in his front line economic team. It's really not confusing. Same for State. He selected a warmongerer who voted for the invasion of Iraq, the declaration of part of Iran's military as "terrorist" -- someone who refused to apologize for sending the military members of my family, and millions of other families -- to risk life and limb against the interests of the United States. Hillary has many talents -- but not in international affairs or national security. And same for Defense. Gates's only claim to fame is he's better than Rumsfeld. That's not the yardstick. He approves torture and wants to remain in Iraq forever. He's done nothing to find the missing billions. One has to really have his or her head in the sand to believe that Obama's choices are not a smack in the face at the progressives who supported him. There isn't even idelological diversity. He has appointed neo-liberals to virtually al key economic positions and warmongerers to the positions dealing with international relations, defense and national security. Progressives got a liaison to try to keep them from attacking Obama and a bunch of articles from those so blinded by Obama that they can't see the truth when it smacks them in the head. Not one progressive in any key position. by Joel Myron (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:56:02 PM (0+)
|
|
Anything new about this interview?
Not much, sorry to say, but in a half hour it is difficult to even get up to speed with these slick, double talking, flim-flam artists . I really believe we have much to worry about, and the first thing on my agenda isn't how progressive Democrats are, they aren't. I'm looking at the crud being selected for the cabinet as an indicator of just how bad the situation really is. If you need a half assed conservative to make the nation swallow this ecomomic horse pill just to keep the system afloat, you can bet your bottom dollar we are all standing on the poop deck of the Titanic. Playing nice with the people who turned the screws on the poor, both Republican and Democrat, is completely out of the question. Waiting for politicians who generally vote with the Democratic party to fix things is as rediculous as expecting bankers to be trustworthy. We saw what happens when Harry Reid, the Democrats own leadership, voted against the Detroit bail out. The change we need is not a tweak here and a tuck there, we need something completely different. You don't get that from these cabinet people, they don't have it in them to look beyond their own self interests. In the meantime, we just dig a deeper hole. by Steve Hanken (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 37 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 3:35:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Rob, thank you for presenting my question..
which of course he didn't answer. Obama, just like Bush, has put foxes in charge of the henhouse. From warhawks to moneychangers, I don't see much "change" in any of his choices. If their is still such a thing as the two party system ( of course you all know I believe there isn't) then why do the republicans have no problem kow towing to the right wing loonies on their side but the dems lambast & run away from the left on their side? Why hasn't Obama chosen someone like Dennis Kucinich for his cabinet? He'd be my choice to work on a healthcare plan. But of course, he is for single payer, Obama isn't. Obama wants to keep those health insurance shysters in business. It drives me insane and in fact has driven me right out of the democratic party. My exodus started when Kerry conceded so quickly, when he promised he would wait until every vote was counted, and ended when Pelosi said impeachment was off the table. We all know the rest of the story of the '06 dem congress. I have to agree with most of the commenters here. Rahm Emmanuel a progressive ??!!! Holy crap! Did Hildebrand realize he was talking to politically educated people here? But then again, that pretty much sums up just how unprogressive he and the other new cabinet members are. As the others stated, Hildebrand did nothing but confirm for me what a center right politician Obama is. It also showed me just how pompous and self serving Hildebrand can be. by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 4:29:14 PM (0+)
|
|
Jersey Girl ROCKS
Thanks.. //:-D>------- by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 4:43:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Mind games
Universal health care and single-payer are two different things. The Obama folks want us to think they mean one and the same.....same goes for combat troops in Iraq or troops for training, etc..... It's all mind games and this interview shows me that the Dems will be playing these word-mind games with real progressives from here on out. Richardson-Daschle-Clinton-etc are not progressives. They are agents of the oligarchy. They've proven that they will not rock the boat and that is why they are where they are now. Obama would never been allowed to get the nomination if the oligarchy feared for a moment that he would "change" anything real. Hildebrand indicates to me that a form of "red baiting" is coming our way. The Obama admin will be telling us to relax, vote on priorities via their web site, and slow down the criticism. If we put the heat on them they intend to push back on us. If we fall for it we are all fools. by Bruce K. Gagnon (128 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 42 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 5:19:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Amen Bruce !
The one thing we CANNOT do is sit down and shut up. How scary is it that there are right wing democrats telling progressives to shut the f*** up ? AND so called "liberals" agreeing with them? Damn, I always knew "holding his feet to the fire" was as empty a catch phrase as Obama's "change you can believe in". Shout out loud and clear, a true progressive cannot be silenced ! by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 5:59:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I don't know about that ...
... they're doing a pretty good job of trying to silence me around here. Of course, one might consider me more radical than progressive. So when did knowing the truth and having to temper it, smother it and nuance it to death become progressive? Why is it that just calling a spade a spade is now "radical"? We're living in hard times that are about to get a lot harder, and I can promise you this, you keep playing nice with these cretins and they'll continue to roll right over you. Ah, I'm not going to use my response to you to rant, just the NY coming out, I'm sure you understand ... ;-+ I'm just over this "you got to be gentle with these people" or you don't get invited "back to the ball", f*cking attitude, so f*cking what? It might be your last dance, make it a good one, because the only way you get invited back to the ball is to "play nice" with f*cking murderers ... and all in the face of a brave man, that happened to be a journalist, with bad aim, had the God-Almighty true courage to do what needed to be done! f*ck Steve Hilderbrand, and anyone else that isn't taking their shoes off in protest all over this world in support of this brave man! As a matter of fact I'm making a pledge right now to all writers, journalists, and people anywhere to go barefoot from now through Christmas Day, in honor of all that's right, let this be our Rosa Park moment. Now, don't get stupid, I don't want anyone getting frost-bite, but what would happen if between now and Christmas we had millions of barefoot people all over the place? Maybe we could carry our shoes over our shoulders and make politicians real nervous ... lol ... yeah, I like that idea ... better do it now before S-1959 comes into effect and they call all shoeless people "terrorists" ... no wait they've already done that ... ... now where was I? oh yeah, I wasn't going to rant ... ah, what the hell? In honor of Iraqi reporter Muntadhar al-Zaidi I'm going to whenever I can, at the bar, at work, walk around with my shoes around my neck Maybe those that want to show their solidarity, wear a pair of babies shoes to symbolise all those innocent children we've murdered in the name of people of the likes of Steve Hilderberg ... be polite to this man? Let's see how polite he is to a room full of barefoot reporters with a shoe in one hand! f*ck him! We're the ones that should decide who comes to the ball! This is suppose to be our country - right? Ah, damn it, there I go again, I'm sorry if I offended you with some of my more colorful language ... damn, NY ... ah, what the f*ck? I'm going to do it, and I'm asking everyone else here to do it, just fling some old sneakers, or new, over your shoulders, maybe you'll see someone on the street in need of shoes, there isn't a day that goes by, I don't see someone like that, it will be a great way to clean out those old shoes and do something symbolic for Christmas, so between now through Christmas, whenever I can, I'm going barefoot or socks, waiting in line at the Post Office, shopping, I'm going to wear shoes around my neck and when people asks me why, I'm going to tell them, its in honor of Iraqi reporter Muntadhar al-Zaidi, and explain the reasoning behind it, that this is my "I'm mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" And I'm going to document this and ask people to join me on the spot, or at the very least ask them to think about wearing baby-shoes pinned in a show of support, and I really don't see why this has to end at Christmas, if an idea like this flashed across every blog there is and by Christmas there were several million around the world wearing their shoes around their necks and by New Years maybe several hundred million? Wouldn't it be great to see some barefoot people at Obama's ball? I honor of Iraqi reporter Muntadhar al-Zaidi, a shoe-in for my Journalistic Integrity Award, if there ever was one! What say Ye' sweet Deb? Will you join me? And who else? Spread the word! Shoes for Peace! Shoes for Accountability! Shoes for those that have died for greed, and twisted power, born out of a sickness that no normal man can possibly comprehend ... it's a small price to pay to suffer at little nip, maybe catch a pebble, to make a point so simply. Where a pair of shoes around your neck. What can it hurt? Ask Bush ... by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 8:44:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: oops ... "wear", not where ... "shoes around your neck" ...
... got carried away ... now where are those old sneakers? by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 9:22:56 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Precisely.
Thanks! by Jill Herendeen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 213 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 16, 2008 at 7:31:48 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I was told to shut up
...by Stephen Pizzo when I criticized Obama's choices. (I replied to the Commemorative Plate I "Had to Have" offer with, "Why, so I can smash it against the wall after I see all his promises broken?") "Have some Patience and stop being a Harpie." I was told "Wait til he has a chance to actually DO something" (As if making important appointments wasn't "Doing something".) I told him I still had lots of "Hope" and wanted his presidency to succeed as much as anyone (even made up a new batch of Obama Victory Brew to toast him with on the 20th!)...but I'd like a little more encouragement, please! ( so I don't have to sing "Strange Brew"...or "Thin Gruel" to that famous Cream tune!) by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 760 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 16, 2008 at 9:56:02 AM (0+)
|
|
Michael C
Thank you ! I think you and the green party ROCK more ! by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 5:09:02 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Jersey Girl
We should talk. Sadly, not all is so green and rosey with the Green Party. I speak as a former Green Party National Delegate and had run in the past as a Green. We should talk some time. Contact me via this site. by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 5:43:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Why the hell was my comment taken off?
There was nothing in that comment other than saying SH lied. Which he did. That our government is near totally corrupt. Which it is. You have a problem with addressing that? Can you? Has this site turned so mamby-pamby that you simply tune-out anything that grates you? You that much in denial that when someone mentions truth your deny them a platform? SH is a placating lying PR tool. You have a problem with me saying that, prove me wrong, but don't be a coward and just censor me. I had one comment that agreed with me, it couldn't have been that bad. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 5:25:19 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Rob
I am with Mr M on this. What did he say that was so bad that it had to be deleted? Another thought. I hear you and understand your point of view re playing hardball and denied access. Which makes my point about the golden microphone. Likewise, that is why the corporate media have been so craven and cowardly in repeating the Bush Admin lies, without any critique. They had to to keep "access", right? You are better than that. Stop letting corporate tools like Mr Hildebrand using you and Op Ed News, just to push their agenda and "greenwashing" their image. I still respect you. Precisely because you do not do the golden microphone thing, unlike so many other self described "progressive" media, blogs and organizations. like the Nation, Air America, PDA, Daily KOS etc etc. Keep it up. by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:24:20 PM (0+)
|
|
I agree with Mr M and Michael
What did Mr M say that was so horrible? The reason we have the wimpy(or bought and paid for) press that we do is that they go along to get along. Now we even have that sycophant David Gregory hosting "meet the press". What a joke. Mr. "dances with karl rove" is what we now consider serious journalism? Is that what freedom of speech and the public's right to know has come to in america today? Don't say anything untowards to anyone. Just shut up if you don't have anything nice to say. Just take a wait and see attitude. Everything will be fine. Don't make waves. Don't rock the boat. Don't dissent or speak out. You might hurt someone's little ego and then they won't deign to talk to you again. If you can't ask the tough questions because they won't give you a second interview, than what the HELL is the point of inviting them on in the first place? Good god. How do I escape bizarro world? by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:41:06 PM (0+)
|
|
I think, everyone here understands
Rob included that we are dealing with the shrewd political operator. Such people use ANY oppotunity, even minor to enhance their career. Of course, Mr. H, does not care about the opinion of the OEN, he does not care for liberals and progressives, etc. He belongs to the winning group in his party and that group has an image. His role in that image is to ... calm down waves. He does just that. I think Rob understands that. Surely he understands that the excuses about the economy to dominate the agenda, so that real progressive issues should wait are.. pathetic to say the least. In fact, there was no other message in Mr.H.'s talk except for one and one only : live with it. He also presented himself as more important than he apparently really is. It is a pack mentality and he is not even an Omega wolf if I may say. He desperately wants to be one but he is not. In that aspect the interview gave us all a very valuable information. We all should be grateful to Rob for making those people talk and drop their defense. Otherwise we would not be able to find out anything at all. Also Rob's opinion is most valuable too even if some of us do not share it. It is important to know the atmosphere we live in. Folks, it is as good as it gets. We know now what kind of people we are dealing with and who will be close to the President- Elect. We should put this info to the good use. To illustrate, if such thing happens and Rob would, for instance, suddenly read on the radio all our responses to the interview I can predict what would happen: two things-a)Rob would not be granted any more interviews and b) Someone on DailyKos would brand the OEN as irresponsibly radical. They know how to spin and which dogs to unleash. Thus I would suggest to take the valuable info, say thank you and ask Rob to get us more. We then will use the info accordingly. I have Six honest serving men They taught me all I knew Their names are What and Why and When And How and Where and Who R. Kipling by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 7:37:47 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: "... shrewed political operator ..."?
I beg to differ, we're dealing with a Jack-ass that happens to be a bully that would fold like a lawn chair if confronted with hard questions and pressed for real answers. Piss on this sycophant. He should fear us, not the other way around. How shrewed is to lie to evade questions when there's no follow-up? How hard is to ask him politely that there are many millions of people that are asking for a new 9/11 investigation, and does he consider the new evidence driving them to ask worthy? And if he answers "no", ask if he's looked at any of the new evidence? And if not, why not? And would he if you provided it? Don't you people get it? It's not a secret anymore. These people aren't shrewed, they're craven mass-murders that are exposed and all we have to do is ask them and watch them wither under the harsh glare of truth. Least we could do is throw our shoes at them. They don't deserve our respect. Unless you consider being a murder respectful. These people are not that clever. If they were they wouldn't have made a mess of 9/11. Hell, they couldn't cover-up killing Kennedy(s), let a lone 3,000 people. What the hell are we waiting for? For them to murder 300,000 before we start asking tough questions? You think these cretins are done murdering us? You think if we treat them with kid-gloves, they'll respect us? Because if you do, you don't know a damn thing about how these cretins fight a war, they move forward with all the force of a freight-train until they run into resistance. Well, start f*cking resisting! by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:51:07 AM (0+)
|
|
Obama is not my ideal choice
Obama is not my ideal choice. However, my observation has been that he surrounds himself w/ smart people w/ a wide range of views. He lets them battle it out asking questions here and there. If he and they can come to a consensus great. If not he uses their discussion to solidify his thinking and makes the decision and accepts the consequences. by Pulladigm (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 59 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 8:02:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Really??
I read your "observation' of the way Obabma works. But I can't understand what you have been observing, other than his excuses as to his cabinet choices...because he has not been sworn in and NOBODY has observed the whay he works. Do you have a crystal ball? If so, how's the economy going to work out by mid next year? by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 8:46:09 PM (0+)
|
|
I just hope Congress
...researches those appointments of Obama's THOROUGHLY as I have done. They have more flaws and if ever found out by the public at large, the ppl would be greatly disappointed. As I always say, the history books will reveal the truth and those of us that know it, will certainly go down as the few that knew. He is way too ignorant or untruthful (Hildebrand) to actually see the Clinton Administration as good. NAFTA, Waco, Ruby Ridge, even the Crimes Bill Act that takes the 2nd amendment right away from anyone renting in Gov't owned property. The fact that Bill Clinton gave the nod to the PNAC. Speaking of the Project for New American Century, which calls for a ONE party country, with that keyword, Century--centrist-- notation being floated about. You know, the "coming together", all uniting as one group to help the country, all seems so "centrist and one party-ish", yaknowwhatIam saying... Sounds like Obama is onboard the PNAC train, bottom line. by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 9:35:24 PM (0+)
|
|
REALITY CHECK (Just a reminder)
This comment has been flaggedReason: (Great Comment: Promote to Article) Great Comment: Promote to Article
1. TIMOTHY GEITHNER – TREASURY SECRETARY by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:00:18 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks
William thank you for this brief yet informative bio about the new cabinet. Peace, by Edip Yuksel (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 90 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:33:24 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Waay too much Bilderberg in there!
I guess Reality Chick ain't done Kicking Ass yet! by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 760 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:10:05 AM (0+)
|
|
Thanks Willy!
Telling Resume's, No? Anymore questions? by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 557 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:35:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Thank you Wm Whitten
That's the list I have been searching for in the endless bio searches I did on all of these appointments. That should answer Mr. Hildebrand very well. Actually, you answered superbly. The way that Illinois Governor was slinging the fu*k word around, sure seems we should ALL get to use it and fluently at that. Why not make a law that f*ck is now just an everyday word to be used anytime an adjective is called for. lol It's sad that these elected ones think we are so stoopid. I guess because there are so many uninformed that they just get away with MORE OF THE SAME. That's one thing I must say about our congresses and elected ones, they are REACTIVE and not PROACTIVE> They just don't let the cat out of the bag, so to speak, that what has gone down has happened until they have sort of botched recovery plan that they sell to the sleeping Americans. Kucinich is proactive and that makes him rise above most in the H of R. I think A. SPector tries to be proactive as well. There is a handful of the proactive officials but the most of them are all reactors, OMG, what? Where? Who When? How many years ago? !!! They "fix" instead of prevent. However, they never really fix anything, they cover it with a band-aid and hide it. They never stop the bleeding, they just keep adding gauze. by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:46:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thank's for the kudo's
Thanks for the kudo's, but this compililation is actually the work of, Victor Thorn, and his article can be read at: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/obama_bilderbergers_160.html by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:56:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: ...these elected ones think we are so stoopid...
Hmmm....not sure about "stoopid," but certainly powerless to DO ANYTHING THAT WILL MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE. Am reading Howard Zinn's PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE U.S.--according to that, this crap has been going on, non-stop, for 200 years, at least. by Jill Herendeen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 213 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:08:10 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Inspiring (1) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
