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.

Why anyone would expect one suprises me. Obama is not a liberal and not a progressive. His pragmatic. I was hopeful but didn't expect any.

Chris Hayes needs to go up to his room, lock the door and sit in meditation for a few hours on the following koan:

The ugly rat makes beautiful gold, but who knows it.
The LBJ passes the Civil Rights Act, but who understands it.
The Obama will be the rat in the field to find the missing Health Care.
Ohhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmm.

I am puzzled by the hard Left's frustrations and delusions. The American public just voted in reaction to crisis - suddenly yelling "centre LEft, Centre Left" doesn't undo the rather Centre and not very Left nature of political opinion (and makes it rather more expected that a successful government will be a Centre one in the US.

Matt Yglesias is right on the money. And anybody who's seen the consistency of the Obama campaign in the face of endless second-guessing and hand-wringing should chill, just a little bit, and reflect on the difference between tactics and strategy.

Everything I've read on the Obama team points to the big key decisions on tone, on direction, on agenda, being driven by Obama. Knowing a bit about his career history, it's very hard to see his administration or his governing vision hijacked by his cabinet heads.

I think a lot of people who consider themselves 'progressives' have maybe unwittingly bought into some of the 'Britney' and 'celebrity' bullshit. IMHO, of course.

I think we declare that universal health care, stem cell research, and getting out of Iraq are center-right positions. Anybody opposed to them is far right. And then the liberal wing of the Democratic party can push for really liberal policies.

I'm with Yglesias. And I throw two more chips into the pot:

1) Keep the disenchanted and intelligent republicans he managed to strip off. Right now Sullivan is doing more to ruin Palin and eliminate torture than probably anybody else.

2) Win the midterms.

Keep in mind the midterm disaster Bill Clinton suffered in 1994. Basically that was game set and match.

> And fourth, my goal is to see Obama push progressive policies; whether he uses progressive people to achieve these goals is important but secondary.

I dunno... On the myriad of smaller decisions, plus questions of timing and emphasis and just what gets raised during a Cabinet meeting, the ideological composition matters a lot. You need someone in the room who's got a worldview, or that worldview will not emerge.

About the only thing I like about any of this discussion is that people seem to be taking note of the fact that ideology is for shit in terms of getting things done. We just had eight solid years of ideologically-driven conservative politics, and the country is so shot full of holes it's unbelievable.

The ideologues on the left now want their payday, so they can feel the same kind of pure eternal bliss that the nuts on the right grooved on while Bush burned the country to the ground. I hope Obama leaves them wanting.

I strongly encourage Obama to reconsider single-payer healthcare funding. All we have to do is look at the difference in quality and cost between basic Medicare and Medicare Part D to see what is wrong with including the insurance companies.

Where to start. Steve has a lot of hope and trust going for him at a time when people are so paranoid from having been lied to by elected leaders for years.

"...If universal health care, a clean energy economy, withdrawal of troops from Iraq, an end to torture, and massive new infrastructure investments are a "center-right" agenda because Tim Geithner is Secretary of Treausry then I'll take it. The crux of the matter is to keep pressing for the agenda...." Yeglesias.

Of course most of this has nothing to do with Geithner...but I'm still fearful that Universal health care ins will end up being mandated to private ins. companies with thousands of lobbyists who will spend the next 8yrs pushing to increase their profits. (mandatory car ins also means your rates can be determined by your credit reports, so in spite of having an excellent driving record you could still pay triple if you have bad credit). Pulling out of Iraq I hope doesn't mean pulling into Afghanistan, what with "we'll smash Iran to pieces" Hillary Clinton as SoS.

An end to torture after Obama appointed John Brennan (Mr. torture and private rendition, put in all in Guatanimo, and wire tap everyone legal or not, telecom immunity Darth Vader cheerleader) as head of the CIA??? Riiight.

And massive new infrastructure investments with with Pelosi and Hoyer both screaming we will govern from the center and Geitner being the pupil of Summers and other deregulators that brought us our current disaster. Surrounding yourself with war hawks doesn't bring trust in a peace diplomatic agenda.

But like Steve says...Nothing's happened yet. So please excuse my paranoia. It's just that usually progressive liberals surround themselves not with old establishment representatives but with progressives. Where is Feingold for instance? Or Susan Blair. I'm starting to sing the FISA telecom immunity blues...but nothing's happened yet and Obama sure spoke a progressive ideology and My God look at the mess he's walking into. Maybe he has to use "the way business is done in Washington" in order to change "the way business is done in Washington". After all, Lieberman was Obama's mentor when he first came to the senate and now look.

btw...I'm not one who would agree to start a war to save our economy but I am one who would agree to end or prevent one.

There was a rumor that RFK jr. was in the running for one of the posts -- either Interior or EPA. The problem is that R jr has pushed the worst kind of pseudoscience in his tirades against child vaccination, this in the face of convincing evidence that timerasol has nothing to do with autism. In spite of years of data that continue to make the point, he has not withdrawn his claims nor explained in any convincing fashion his reasoning. I would like to see grownups in charge of these agencies.

The best places to put progressives would probably be Labor, EPA, Energy and HUD. Obama doesn't need a liberal cabinet member to tell him to try diplomacy.

Your comments are reassuring, Steve. I remember my disappointment during the primaries when Obama seemed to find it necessary to scold the left, even though it was only the primaries, and pretend that somehow our problems were a balance of both right and left difficulties at times. I hope you're right.

We have to be especially careful not to become the party of litmus tests. At the present moment, the Democratic Party is the big tent coalition of broad cross sections of the American public, comprising a sometimes fragile majority in parts of every region of the country.

We've arrived at this point by identifying problems and articulating clear solutions to the public in a no-nonsense way. It's a good thing that Obama is the public speaker he is, because if any other candidate had stuck to the issues with such precision, he would have lost because his voters would be too soundly asleep to elect him.

We'll keep winning as long as we're clear and we're solving problems. As soon as we allow rigidity to creep into our politics... well, we'd better hope the Republicans heal themselves by then, otherwise this country is screwed. Inept ideologues on the Democratic aisle + raging ideologues on the Republican side would be disastrous.

This doesn't mean we should shut anyone out of the conversation -- quite the opposite. But it does mean that nifty liberal ideas should remain nifty ideas unless they map directly as solutions to problems. Stay out of the weeds. Focus on solutions. Build the country up and grow the new economy. That's the recipe, and the only justification, for continued wins at the ballot box.

If we get a big public works program, and universal health care that will, over time, morph into Single Payer (which is what will happen), the media can characterize that as Center-Right all they want. This is how goalposts move.

If Obama is defined as center-right because of his agenda on the economy, health care, environment, Iraq, and others, great, because that pushes the Republican party into being the party of the far right when its members oppose his agenda. Just where they should be in the American psyche. And what independent or "sensible" Republican wants to be identified as far right?

I wouldn't count on Holder having a lock on Justice yet. An Op-Ed in the NYT today (yes, the same edition that had the "Center-Right" "Analysis" piece) by the Times reporter who covered the Marc Rich pardon story in 2001 says that not only was Holder aware of the details of the pardon, he shepherded it to the White House. Arlen Specter already says he'll be asking questions at the confirmation hearing. The Rich pardon was arguably the most disgraceful episode of the Clinton administration (unless you count carpet bombing Eastern Europe with depleted uranium), and that's saying something. However this goes, it may rub some of the glow off the new administration.

FWIW, I've learned to trust Obama's judgement from the campaign he's run. He seems to value competency over almost anything else, and in that I am a complete believer. The last eight years have been the most incompetently run period in US history. (That's a reason I laugh at these conspiracists who claim 9/11 was a "Bush inside job". Those Bush bumblers would screw up a one horse race!)

I will continue to view Obama's governmental picks with a view that they are probably correct for the posts they're chosen for.

oh, and ericfree@6.22p, I have a feeling that Bush is going to pardon SO many people SO obviously guilty that Eric Holder's part in the Marc Rich pardon will seem tame by comparison.

Arlen Specter already says he'll be asking questions at the confirmation hearing. - ericfree

The Republicans may use Rich as an issue, but I'm pretty sure they are far more worried about an AG who isn't going to give them a pass for Bush era indiscretions.

I had this argument with my lefty brother, before the election. He voted absentee and said he was tempted to vote for Cynthia McKenney because Obama is center-right. I don't know where these people have been, but when have we had a democratic president who invested 120 billion in alternative energy and gave us a national health care plan? Sure it won't be a single payer plan, but at least it will be a step in the right direction. Nader, Kuccinich, or Mckinneysay all the right things, but even if they had gotten elected there is no promise they would be able to get their agenda passed. If Obama can do half of what he's promised, that will be great! So he's not the lefty president of our dreams, well I guess we haven't gotten the American public there yet. I feel pretty confident we won't get into any stupid wars. And practicality has advantages over ideology.

van,

"even if they had gotten elected"

No shit. In such a case, watch out for the flying pigs. :-)

Obama's doing a great job of naming a competent Cabinet. I'm not surprised at all because our president-elect is so focused on appointing the best and the brightest.

But with all his "sexy", high-profile appointments, a major one has escaped the notice of blogs, the MSM and the public...FEMA director.

Bush's and Brown's handling of Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 will remain a dismal chapter in American history -- and a signature failure (and turning point) in the Bush presidency.

So, I can't wait to see whom Obama nominates for FEMA chief. Judging from his nominations thus far, I've no doubt he'll select a seasoned expert rather than another incompetent GOP tool.

I think Obama's apparent competence outweighs the fact that he's basically a centrist, from the left side. I am disappointed in the modest scope of his energy program, and I really think he could get some Republican cooperation on a much more ambitious plan, but other than that, I'm pleased. Hell, I'm really feeling upbeat now. This guy looks like he knows what he's doing and how to get it done.

I'm impressed with what he's doing so far. Very impressed. And I'm pretty liberal.

Also, note that because of a very long, very cold period for liberals in government, there are very few actual progressives with any experience governing. I suspect that the next layer down of political appointees -- a lot of deputies and assistants to deputies -- are going to be considerably more progressive than was seen in the Clinton administration.

Given the choice, even given that I'm considerably more liberal than Obama, I would make virtually the same choices.

Obama is quaint. He believes that competence rather then ideology should guide his choices. It is now quite a while ago that of the extremes-right and left have been seem as similar. they are both, to quote Yeats, filled with a passionate intensity. Far left litmus tests have already cost us Larry Summers in Tres. (thought Gaithner is fine the idea was to have them as a team). He had to be hidden in the White House.
Haven't we had enough of incompetent ideologues in the Cabinet. Is there an Fairness Doctrine which would insist that left ideologues have earned their chance in Cabinet?
Phoey

Who are the great "dyed in the wool progressives" who are supposed to have gotten the positions that we currently have candidates for. You're never going to get a real lefty at Defense, Treasury, DHS, and Commerce. A real lefty at Justice would also be pretty incredibly unlikely. You might certainly have done better at State than Clinton, but foreign policy is an area where "progressive" means even less than usual. (And god, I really, really hate the word "progressive." Any time anyone uses it my general sense is that I shouldn't be listening to them.) And while Daschle is, I guess, not really lefty on everything, I don't see who we could get who's a better choice for getting health care through.

What exactly is wanted here?

Surprised nobody has mentioned this. Neither party in America can win elections with its base only. We win by carrying the independent vote. It was very obvious this year that Dems understand this while Republicans really, really do not. (As has been succinctly pointed out several times on this blog.) While in 2002 and 2004 Bush was able to hold onto enough of the independent vote by using the fear factor, by 2006 independents had hopefully learned to look at the facts instead of the flag-waving. Now that we have them back on our side, is it any surprise that Obama is not appointing hard left Cabinet members? Why would that make sense? Moderation is a good idea. We want to keep and increase those congressional majorities in 2010. We will do this by not alienating the independent vote.

Democrats are in ascendance. It's a center-left nation, ...

1) Democrat does not equal progressive

2) while the population is center-left, politicians in general are not representative of the people, they are plutocrats - a ruling class with very little first hand experience of what most Americans go through.

Obama and the Democrats mostly just play progressives and the American people, pretending to be sympathetic to their plight, but because they haven't the empathetic experience, they know nothing of what that is. As we've seen over and over these past 2 years, Democrats, elected with the energetic support of progressives have only dissed progressives in return, preferring time and time again to suck up to republicans.
.

Can I just say, I absolutely hate the "continue reading" link. Could it be a flash pop up or something at least so I don't have to go back and forth between pages? It slows down the reading by quite a bit. The injustice!

Yes, high profile names might seem less left wing than I would like. But, if you have left wingers in charge at Interior, EPA, Transportation, and Labor, then you can see dramatic change without the sexy media coverage that State and Defense usually get.

Third, I'm not especially surprised by any of the choices thus far. The truth is, Obama campaigned as a pragmatist. He seems to like wonks and technocrats, and has always emphasized competence and results while downplaying ideology. That's who he is; it seems to work for him.

"truth?" hmmm. that's not how I interpret Obama's foreign policy arguments, Steve.

Obama is about to take a giant risk on the theory that nations establish good governments from the bottom up, a idea about how governments best evolve into democracies that is diametrically opposed to the conventional wisdom.

Obama has been frothing at the mouth to step into this debate, one which has been raging among us international relations junkies since Reagan.

To right, Kilpatrick argues that democracies best come from the top down. She points to Chile.

And the Pragmatists in this debate are in fact led on the right by Henry Kissenger's Real Politik. He doesn't really care if a government is democratic, as long as it serves our strategic interests. See his conversion on Cuba.

With Hillary, though, Obama tempers his bottom-up, dyed-in-the-wool DEMOCRAT advocacy. She's the international pragmatist on the left. by appointing her to State, he did another Obama-wise thing.

But don't miss this drama, Steve. There is a lot at stake for those of us who say we must honor and respect the governing practices on the ground, as it were,

an idea that couldn't be more unlike what we just did in the green zone.

I just find the notion of retaining Gates as SecDef to be particularly appalling. You could just as easily appoint some other rational minded Republican who was outside the Bush administration if you were really bent on appearing post-partisan.

Anyone who had a role in the Bush administration should be treated like poison, and I don't care how competent they are (precious few, for sure.) What has me really incensed about the Democrats is that they haven't moved one tangible step in the direction of reestablishing the rule of law or making an example of the criminal exceptionalism of the Bush Administration. Yes, they had a razor thin majority in the Senate, but they never even tried to make the case. The Democrat's strategy since '06 has been the political equivalent of the prevent defense.

Now, with a greater mandate and the executive, they'll surely act more boldly, but I really feel holding onto Gates sends precisely the wrong message. If the Bush Administration isn't overtly repudiated in every facet, the horrendous precedents it has set will only embolden the next "charming", dictatorial twit who makes his way into the Oval Office. And the one saving grace of the Bush administration was the incompetence. We may not be so lucky the next time.

I grew up in a Stalinist household. That's what "progressive" meant back then. And in the sixties, as a slightly older fellow (I am not a boomer, but really a Depression baby) I also learned how easy it is to mouth slogans and think in slogans and be totally ineffective, even counter-effective. And it certainly made me question what the slogans actually meant when the heroic proletariat turned to beating up war protesters in front of City Hall in NYC. (And even earlier, when the Red Army crushed a workers rebellion in Budapest in 1956.) I've become something of a passionate centrist.

We have serious problems, and we all know what they are. But this behemoth of a society is like the largest aircraft carrier in the Universe and not a sports car; it has had huge momentum and it cannot turn on a dime or even a billion-high pile of $-bills, especially when you have the right-spewers like Limbaugh and Dobson desperately trying to skew the helm to the right.

Let's try some patience. Take deep breaths and pray to whoever or whatever (I prefer His Noodliness myself) that in the 2 months or so until we actually have a new and grown-up administration, that the present collection of dead-ducks does not gum up the works so badly that we must spend 2, 4, or even 8 years getting back on a reasonable course --- let alone veer significantly to the left. (BTW, I find the Right-left distinction, like the liberal-conservative much two one-dimensional to have much meaning or usefulness anymore. It's time for some new terminology that reflects present reality. The FDR New Deal coalition was made up of Southern mandarin racists, big industry unions, academic liberals, a smattering of Jewish intellectuals, dust-bowl farmers and blacks where they could vote. How could this be described as "liberal"?)

Sure, I'd like to see US troops out of our bases all over the world, universal single-payer health care, a drastically reduced arms budget (don't call it Defense!) and many other leftish things. But before that can happen a great many people will have to have their perspectives altered, and that will take time...after all, it took years for the vociferous right to turn "liberal" into a dirty word, and that --- and all the ugly implications it caries --- will not be undone in a few weeks, especially when the focus of our hopes is not yet even in power.

Take it as a sign that even Broder is being positive...he is a toad but he goes with winners and who he goes with tend to become such. And be heartened by the near-total absence of coherence and embrace of fantasy instead of reality on the right (e.g. the "Fairness Doctrine" foofaraw, no doubt being brought in by the black helicopters). We haven't even begun...so let's not conclude that anything has been lost yet, and in the meantime try to keep our shorts untwisted.

I don't expect to live long enough to see all of this happen, but I'd sure die happier if I thought that it might come true for my grand-daughter (now 1 1/2).

Spector is going to ask questions about Rich? Oh boo hoo. And then filibuster the AG in a time of war? That should go over well.

What do people think a Center-Left administration will actually look like? It will have Centrist people in it! It's a different thing than a Left government.

There is a difference between the Left and Right in the United States. There are not coherent Fascist parties in the US -- the GOP is where it is at for them. On the Left, there are and always have been, organized parties to the left of the Democrats -- now the Naderites, the Greens, the umpteen kind of socialists, the Trotskyists and the Communists. Most of them supported Obama, and all of them are right now turning toward an anti-Obama position, and it has nothing to do with Obama and his policies and picks. Millions of activists have been recruited into the Obama organization, and the ultra-Left wants to find those who are more radical, and recruit them. Criticizing Obama as a weak leader selling out to the Right is the way that will be done.
Obama has not been inaugurated yet and the drumbeat has started. This is a very old pattern. It's part of disfunctional patterns that cripple progressive movements in this country, because whenever there is a Democratic government, the most active and progressive elements withdraw their support from the elected officials.
I, for one, say no more. The crucial question for the success of a progressive agenda is whether the rank and file Obama volunteers and activists stay active. So, it falls to those who shape progressive opinion to keep their eye on the prize.

Gates is bad, but any republican as Secretary of Defense is absolutely the wrong thing to do (which isn't the least surprising) because it reinforces the huge lie that republicans are strong on security and national defense and Democrats are weak. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Obama will be doing Democrats and the nation another huge, huge disservice by promoting the perverse notion that only republicans are qualified for Defense, just like he did by commanding no accountability for LIEberman.

The Obamabots seem hellbent on reinforcing the worst lies about Democrtas and progressives.

Gates at Defense is fine. The same instructions will go to Defense no matter who is there. Our forces have plans for leaving. . .time for them to be implemented. No need for anyone new to get up to speed.

However, getting out of there with minimum casualties on all sides will be tough, and getting out of there with a stable security situation for Iraqis will be tougher. So Gates will get the blame if there are problems, and Obama can replace him. Further, if there are few problems with withdrawl, Obama will likely replace Gates anyway, once we are just about out. This is a good strategy with little downside for all parties involved, except maybe Gates, who has a bit more exposure.

The pick that bugs me is Hilary Clinton at State. I just don't get it. She is intelligent and certainly competent, but I don't see any fit past that.

Enough. As someone who proudly admits to be afflicted with Bush Derangement Symdrome-- which I think is wholly justifiable-- everyone who is panicking/pissed/cynical/disgruntled needs to chill out.

It's as if we've all been programmed over the past 7+ years to respond to politics with outrage and bewilderment. It is going to take some time to get accustomed to not being perpetually angered and despondent.

Obama isn't even in office yet. Regardless, he hasn't shown any signs that he isn't going to be the rational, pragmatic person that he campaigned as-- if anything his choices thus far reveal that he might be something that a lot of us aren't used to. There is a very good chance that Obama might actually be boring in his devotion to "no drama" and careful, thoughtful competency-- at least that is my hope.

I'd love for Obama's presidency to be so stable and level that it's, well, sorta boring. It would be the perfect antidote to the destructive, near-apocalyptic Bush Years.

I dunno... On the myriad of smaller decisions, plus questions of timing and emphasis and just what gets raised during a Cabinet meeting, the ideological composition matters a lot. You need someone in the room who's got a worldview, or that worldview will not emerge.

Alex C has it right. With no one with a left/progressive worldview in the room, there's going to be no one advocating it. And no, Obama doesn't count. The point is there should be in this supposed 'bridge building' and 'listening to all sides' some people actually to the *left* of Obama.

Seriously, a foreign policy team where not one single fucking person and the brains and backbone to recognize Iraq for the con job and disaster it was? Doesn't exactly give *me* much confidence about avoiding the next disaster.

And given that FISA tells me that Obama would have just like Clinton voted yes on AUMF once the executive waved the bloody flag, don't bother with that smug 'oh, but that's going to be *Obama*', either.

"naming the best and the brightest"

Seems as though there are many names etched in granite on a long wall in DC who served under "the best and the brightest".

I would settle for the most competent humanitarians leading our nation.

For the last eight years (at least), we have suffered less from conservatism than from incompetence.

We have many problems that need solving. The Obama presidency may come up with different answers than I might prefer. So what? At least with this team of people we'll know that the answers are the result of some serious thought.

That doesn't guarantee they will work, but it gives them a reasonable chance.

Another way of looking at the political leanings of Obama's appointees is to examine their record within the portfolio they will influence. Take Daschle for example. The website www.ontheissues.org lists the following ratings:

Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 50% by NARAL, indicating a mixed voting record on abortion. (Dec 2003)
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 43% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 63% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation. (Dec 2000)
Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 16% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 33% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues. (Dec 2002)
Rated 88% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 63% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment. (Dec 2003)
Rated 90% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 15% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

Overall, it's left of center. However, in the issue areas HHS impacts, it's a pretty strong progressive record. The only rating hovering around 50% is from NARAL and, for a Catholic Dakotan, that's not too bad. And if a "no" on late term abortions except in the case of the mother's health is enough to give one a 50%, then I guess this lefty would get one too.

I haven't done the same analysis for the other prospective appointees – but wouldn't be surprised if the results were similar.

In my blog "Customer Experience Matters," I make the case for President-Elect Obama to appoint a Citizen Experience Officer.

I am pleasantly surprised again by the comments I am reading. I too worried that the country -- or at least the blogosphere -- was
"... programmed over the past 7+ years to respond to politics with outrage and bewilderment. It is going to take some time to get accustomed to not being perpetually angered and despondent."
(And, in passing, a long-deserved congratulations to two commenters who have consistently remained calm and sensible through the time I've been hanging around Benenville, Zoe Ky and Phoebes SF. Your calm sense has always been an anchor when our more hysterical commenters have seen the sky falling. And a special hat tip to a sensible commenter even older than I am, J. Rosen -- I am one of the 'true' boomer babies, conceived as a result of the troops' returning -- only way I can explain my existence as the child of a lesbian. Anyway, you've watched what I have, and more, and your comment deserves a link from almost every progressive blog.)

Would I have chosen differently if Obama had put me in charge of picking his cabinet? Yes. I would have picked Sen. Whitehouse for Attorney General -- with an agreement that Lincoln Chaffee would replace him. I would have tried to convince Hillary to take a position more suitable to her strengths than to her ego. I might have looked for a stronger Keynsian at Treasury, etc.

But after watching Obama closely for ten months, I've noticed a pattern. When I disagree with something Obama has done -- as contrasted to some positions he's taken -- I've admitted that events have shown his choice to be better.
(I would have picked Sebelius, not Biden, would have concentrated more on Bush's specific failures rather than make "Bush" a symbol of everything we were unhappy with politically, would have spent some time attacking Palin's incredible series of lies and McCain for picking her.)

So, while I'm sure that I'll have things to criticize in the Obama Administration, I'm going to hold off criticizing prospective things until Obama breaks his record of being right.

I consider my self center-left and I am for the liberal, progressive movement, even though at times I can be moderate. But please, can people just stop panicking (that's what it seems like to me). Let the man do what he does. If Obama listened to every complaint liberals and progressives had with him or tried to satisfy their needs and neglect the rest of the country, he would have lost this election. At the end of the day, it's about his policies and his policies are progressive. Bush could have had the best cabinet in the history of the U.S., but his policies sucked and it only made his cabinet look worse.

And while people are complaining about the cabinet I always keep this in mind: It could have been worse. John McCain could have won this election just as easily and we should all be happy that he didn't because I could only imagine the cabinet that he would have had and with Obama winning I'm glad I don't have to see that. People calm down.

You know, I wish commentators would stop the "you spoiled lefties want ideological dominance" meme. Cause the complaint is not that we don't dominate. It is that we don't have one freakin person in the top tier. Are you really going to say there are zero qualified progressives out there? How about James Galbraith or all the people who got deregulation and public investment right. How about all the people who got the war right.

It is one thing to say that Single Payer is not realistic at the moment. But don't you think that whatever plan Obama ends up supporting would be better if there was one person criticizing it from the left, pointing out holes that could be plugged short of single payer. It is one thing to point out that Obama never ran as a dove, that he never planned to get all the way out of Iraq or get out quickly. But don't you think he would benefit from having one dove in on the conversation on a daily basis? Do you really think Obama will be a better president for excluding the left viewpoint from the conversation?

I don't get what the concern is here. The fact that someone served in the Clinton administration should not be taken as any indication that the person is not a progressive. Where's the disconnect on that in the minds of the whiners? Sometimes all this whining and fretting actually gives some credence to Phil Gramm, as absolutely difficult that is for me to say. He was wrong on all the reasons, but the progressives seem to not be capable of optimism or pragmatism. Being in the White House is serving all of the Nation, and it requires a ton of experience. Anybody that thinks this is not a "real Democratic" administration should just bail until the Zoloft kicks in. I'm a progressive, picked Obama 18 months ago and am totally thrilled about his choices. I would have been happy to see Summers as Sec of Treasury but am glad he'll be there as an advisor. He was pilloried at Harvard totally as a result of some really nasty academic politics and his attempt to reassert the President's perogatives over the University. It was totally irrelevant to any national political position or process.

Given what Bush has done it would be smarter for Republicans to ask if he's committed a felony and upon hearing "NO" they should thank him and vote for his appointment.

They should be thankful Democrats have won the White House and will fill the administration with people who won't destroy America -- thereby saving Republicans from having to take the blame for destroying the republic.

They should hurry HURRY to put all of Obama's appointments into place so they can get on with saving America from Republican policies.

There needs to be more discussion of 'progressive' approaches on blogs and in the msm so that such ideas are seen as part of the common currency and not as out-of-the mainstream extremism. Writer Naomi Klein in Rolling Stone and in the Nation has spelled out how the British attached all kinds of consumer protection language to their bank injection plan, and how this was not done by the US treasury. But you do not hear her take discussed on the Sunday morning talk shows, the political op-ed pages or on the evening network news let alone MSNBC. She has also also spelled out the weaknesses of the Rubin/Summers brand of economics. I am not seeing that here. Also, I read in the NY Times that R. Rubin's son who is on the Obama transition team was tasked with headhunting for the economic choices. So that explains alot.

>I don't get what the concern is here. The fact that someone served in the Clinton administration should not be taken as any indication that the person is not a progressive.

Ok, again the question is not whether somebody served in the Clinton administration. But there is not one person like James Galbraith who supports a stimulus in the hundreds of billions annually instead of tens of billions. There is nobody Maxine Waters who supports getting out if Iraq now and cutting the military budget. There is nobody like Al Gore in who supports a fast phaseout of global warming gases and a fast phasein of efficiency and Renewables. And if you object to those particular names, I can give you alternatives. Heck Gore is from the Clinton adminstration, and if he has too much baggage pick Joe Romm, who has an impressive resume from Republican admins, the Clinton admin, business, and academia. If Obama can put Republicans in the cabinet, then why not one single person who supports policies to his left?