In fact, it seems he perceives widespread anger among progressive activists about the cabinet, but polls suggest that anger is quite limited.

The polling shows a small percentage of Democrats are angry, it doesn't say anything about what percentage that is of "progressive activists", who are (insofar as they are within the Democratic Party at all) themselves a small percentage of the Democratic Party, and quite arguably the people most likely to be concerned, if not necessarily "angry", on this point.

"This is not a time for the left wing of our Party to ..."

my response?

a heart eff you to him and the horse he rode in on, and all the rest of the a-holes who keep repeating this [expletive deleted].

one more time and i swear to god i'm going to punch someone.

when they start chiding the republican base in this way, then maybe it will sound reasonable, but not a second sooner.

i repeat -- eff you, steve hildebrand, et al.

The only people that seem to have issue with the cabinet postings are 'concerned conservatives' with their, 'some change' rhetoric.

karen marie, you just illustrated Hidebrand's case very well. Chill. Sirota could also chill on the matter, as he's not been acting as merely a reasonable, non-ideological questioner with regard to Obama, IMO.

I think this is a message to the Village, myself. "Don't worry. No dirty fucking hippies here."

We won't know until policies start being implemented. I do wish people writing these "some say" stories would use some actual quotations. Bowers didn't get all dirty hippie crazy when we was on with tweety, and neither did Jane Hamsher when she was on with Maddow.

Clip of Jane on MSNBC is here:

http://kroydblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/thankgiving-change.html

I don't understand the point of this prevalent genre of defensive writing. Centrists will complain about Obama picks they perceive as too far to the left and progressives will complain about picks they perceive as too far too the center. The more engaged advocacy and criticism the merrier, as far as I'm concerned. Why is it only the left that is constantly told to mind their manners?

Some CIA insiders were quick to criticize and "draw conclusions" when Obama disappointed them by dumping Brennan. Is Hildebrand also upbraiding them for their impetuous criticisms?

I read it the way Tim Fernholz did. Obama is building a cabinet of people who can carry out his mostly center-left vision. But it is also obvious that refering to the "left wing of the Party" raised some hackles, muddying Hillebrand's message.

The fear seems to be that Obama will be too cautious. But the one area where we have seen real substantive proposals from him is the stimulus package. He wants a large package on his desk on January 20. Pretty bold. And he and his pick Daschle talk about folding in progressive goals like health care reform and sustainable energy as part of the package and further economic reforms. If the people he has picked want to implement these ideas, fine with me. I'm more worried about Congress' timidity at this point.

Barack Obama is a very confident guy. He has now hired people - in several key positions - who have in the past clearly disagreed with him on substantive issues. . . He has clearly stated that he "will set policy - that is his job" and they will implement his policies.

Obviously, it is only fair to give him a chance. But, it is legitimate for us to be concerned when the "implementers" differ quite dramatically philosophically from Obama. (Daschle on healthcare; Summers/Geither on Wall Street regulation; Rahm on ?; Hillary on ?; CIA on Terrorism?)This list is growing?

Can we just agree to be concerned? Is that OK? Are we being traitors to Liberalism?

How come some folks get all pissy and nasty when people talk about the "left wing of the Democratic party" but no one cares when we discuss the "conservative wing of the Republican party"? It's like some people want to get in a fight, justified or not.

Since I'm not familiar with any liberals who are furious with Obama's choices, I'm left to wonder what the fuss is all about. While there have been some criticisms, these have seemed to be slight bickers along the margins, rather than anything approaching anger or outrage.

Since it makes little sense to me at face value, it must be about something else. I'm guessing this is Team Obama pre-empting the inevitable noisy opposition from the right wing noise machine to...well...anything he wants to accomplish. If in doing so he manages to reframe progressive policies as 'moderate' or 'centrist', it will be a huge score.

I'm a little P.O.d at this kind of criticism from "the left" or whoever Sirota and Corn (see the WaPo Outlook op-ed he wrote) are.

The ReThugs have been winning more than their share in part because the hang together, whereas those of us who belong to no organized political party (i.e. are Democrats) just can't wait to wring our hands and kvetch that our leaders just aren't pure enough.

Give the guy a break! At least wait and see what he accomplishes as his first few policy victories.

I got "talked down" (as Rachel would say) by an Obama phone bank worker when I was saying he HAD to make Hillary his V.P. pick. The guy calmly said he trusted Obama to make the right choice.

That's what I've decided to do, too.

Obama talked at length about bringing America together, about not being a red America and a blue America, but I guess some folks who voted for him just didn't believe him.

Or DID you vote for him, or did you vote (again) for Nader, whose purity cannot be denied?

Sheesh.

Obama's appointment of Melody Barnes (whom I had the pleasure of meeting) as top domestic policy adviser drew complaints from the Right ("former [Ted] Kennedy Aid" etc.) Ditto for Daschle, hence I am hopeful. My impression of Barnes: classic Democrat, center-left, will be good.

Again, pls. fix Rpi? selector, it just doesn't work (and URLs won't load either.)

actually, david w., if you think my comment illustrated hildebrand's point, i did not make myself clear.

i am staying agnostic on cabinet appointments (even those i may approve of) -- my beef is with concern trolls, like hildebrand, telling THE DEMOCRATIC BASE to sit down and shut up.

i have politely and patiently endured the democratic kabuki theater for two years.

if hildebrand were chiding, oh, say, the villagers on this point, i would say "well done," but he (and others) apparently believe that "the left wing of our party" should just STFU.

[buzzer sound]

wrong.

Where does the notion come from that 'the left' is the Democratic Party's 'base'? The left represented by David Sirota and others on the internet is certainly not the majority of the Democratic Party. I think people should criticize what ever they feel is not going right, but I think it is the odd demand that somehow Obama owes it to 'the left' to do things differently.

The left didn't elect Obama and he didn't promise the left something he is now refusing to deliver. A lot of us on the left supported Obama for reasons other than expectations he would enact a leftwing agenda.

It's got something to do with today's conventional wisdom that progressives are unhinged crazy Marxist American haters. Remember the days when people like Rush Limbaugh were considered extremists?

So, I guess they have to make up stories about us, because, well, that's what we're supposed to be, unhinged, crazy Marxist American haters.

I consider myself as progressive as they come, but I'm very impressed with Obama's choices and his overall managerial skills so far. I think he has the makings of a superb chief executive.

I'm disappointed that his energy and healthcare proposals don't go far enough, especially energy, but at least they're a start in the right direction.

So the who the hell are they talking about? I guess the same folks who are rioting for a new fairness doctrine. Straw people.

O.K. kerry marie, I think better understand where you're coming from. But there have been others who are giving Obama a pretty hard time even before he takes office for somehow selling out. Selling out what, exactly, they can't say because it hasn't even happened yet! We don't need that and I think that's what Hildebrand was speaking to. Put it this way - Hildebrand's not being a concern troll by taking purity trolls (who happen to be on the left) to task.

(FWIW, there are also plenty of purity trolls on the right, but of course we already knew that.)

hilzoy's pal publius has got it right:

Don't Throw Me In The Briar Patch

Contra jayackroyd, Hamsher may not have gotten all worked up on Maddow's show, but I think this sort of thing is what Hildebrand was referring to (even though this is actually in response to Hildebrand):

http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/07/obama-deputy-steve-hildebrand-liberals-need-to-stfu/

Read the comments below to see more of the same (and more of more). I've certainly been hearing this kind of grumbling for a bit also.

To which I'd say basically what I interpret Hildebrand saying. Not STFU, but CTFO (chill the fuck out). Damn, it's like people aren't happy unless they've found something to be unhappy about. You will not be happy with everything Obama does (I'm sure I won't be; I don't agree with his position on gay marriage and I'm much more extreme on single payer health care than ANY of the Democratic Party's candidates this cycle). But I'm positive you will be much happier with Obama than you would be with any other Democratic candidate that had a chance of getting through the primary and the general election. And being in office is the first requirement to enacting ANY policy that you may actually like.

Further, I think progressives need to go back and understand who was elected on Nov. 4. Many thanks to progressives for voting for Obama, but progressives did not, in and of themselves, win this election for the Democratic candidate. Obama has never positioned himself as a progressive on the order of, e.g., Dennis Kucinich or, God forbid, Ralph Nader. So why get upset because he's not one?

I'm with Kneejerk Moderate. It is in the best interest of the country, the world, and certainly everyone politically from the center to the left for Obama to succeed. One good way to hurt the chances of such success is to help shrink the length and magnitude of the honeymoon by giving the media a way to cast doubts and aspersions on Obama, or to portray him as "just another politician," or has having lost his broad mandate.

And so it was with particular annoyance that I read David Corn's WaPo piece. And with even more annoyance that I listened to Barney Frank and others in Congress complain that Obama -- who is transitioning faster and more visibily than any newly-elected President in history to my knowledge -- need to be doing more about the economy. With friends like Corn, Sirota, the Congressional Dems who screwed up the last 2 years, and our own Socratic Gadfly, who needs RedState?

Look, it is way too early to critique Obama - he isn't even President yet. And if the left thought Obama was the reincarnation of Paul Wellstone, or expected him to appoint only those untainted by any hint of relevant experience, those were pipe dreams to begin with, nothing Obama should be measured against.

The "change" I most cared about was to have competent adults who seem to care about some set of people beyond their own cronies in charge of the government. So far, Obama gets high marks on that score. If anything close to his economic and health plans end up in place, it will be the biggest one-term move to the left since the Great Depression, even if it is less-far-left than some might like. I get the sense that Corn and the people he speaks for had wildly (I would say childishly) irrational expectations and look for ways to be disappointed rather than for ways to help the team. The best way to help the team succeed in moving left at all? Don't be a fair-weather friend. Don't play into the story the MSM is just waiting to write about "the loss of Hope," and Obama's failing coalition. Give Obama room to operate and time to start undoing 8 years of ruinous Bushism.

If you cant do that then Hildebrand is right to tell you to STFU.

Everyone chill the f out. He's got this.

"...But first let's get our economy moving, bring our troops home safely, fix health care, end climate change and restore our place in the world. What a great president Barack Obama will be if he can work with Congress and the American people to make great strides in these very difficult times..."

Isn't this what the so called leftist base wants? What the hell does he mean by , "But first...". Seems to me the dems liberals all try to demonize the base by calling them "leftists", "left leaning" etc. when ever they attempt to cater to republican wishes. The majority of the country is liberal and left leaning. Bush was so far right that just disagreeing with him make you a leftist. Like you say...who is Hildebrand referring to or addressing?

Like you say...who is Hildebrand referring to or addressing?

Someone like this:

Fast start, short honeymoon

I'm rather sick of those who stamp their feet and insist that Obama. Is. Not. Doing. Enough!

Or someone like this:

Fast start, short honeymoon

Damn funky html variants...

Obama is a brilliant strategist. He's framed a liberal agenda--health care, green energy, income equality, etc-- as a purely centrist solution to our current economic mess. By doing this, and pissing off some on the left, he makes his progressive ideas seem simply pragmatic so no reasonable republican will be able to oppose them.

Just as not supporting Bush 100% made you liberal, centrist is defined as "hates hippies." Which means, he has to spend a lot of time marginalizing and spitting on the same people who were right all along, to soothe the egos of the pundit class that was wrong.

So, I'm more than willing to have Obama do a lot of hippie hating, if his policy is progressive and unapologetic progressives get a seat at the table. But so far, Obama's willingness to "consider all points of views," as always, does not include those views of people who have been right for eight years, but includes lots of people who are always wrong.

hark,

He's talking about people like David Sirato who've been screaming hell and high water about how Obama's cabinet pick are complete betrayals of the progressive movement of who apparently Sirota is the self appointed spokesperson.

Sirato, who as he tells it single handedly elected Obama and caused the collapse of the republicans through his superior messaging.

Even though Obama completely ignored everything Sirato was involved with. Obama started up his own movement, whose volunteers worked their arses off for him and the netroots as represented by Sirota did eff all.

Sirato's claim about messaging is completely the fabrication of a Guano distorted reality view. Obama sure as heck wasn't depended on Sirato's messengering. And indeed Sirato did nothing but whine about that during the primaries and the election.

Obama's has zero obligation to Sirato as Sirato has eff all to do with Obama's win. But that doesn't stop that little concern troll to try and rewrite history so he can claim that Obama and all democrats really should bow down and kiss his hiney in deference.

But what can you expect from somebody who claimed that there really isn't any economic crises and who thinks he has the economic knowhow to claim that Krugman is "confused" and talking to please whom ever his audience is?

Sirota is the boil on the progressive side who Hildebrand was talking about. And the fact that he's a stain on our side is not because his ideas or ideals but that his intellectual dishonesty and mind numbing arrogance taint everything that he comes into contact with in his quest to become the voice and final arbiter of all that is progressive.

As you can tell, I don't really like the fellow.

Me, I'm gonna wait till Obama's actually a president for a couple of years, before I start bitchin' about his being more to the right than I had hoped (actually, I thought he was more to the right than I liked from the beginning but, the alternative...). In the meantime, I'm deriving a great deal of amusement from listening to my Repub acquaintances. Some fall into the category of: "I'm still a good Repub, but I voted for Obama, because he's so sensible and cool-headed". Others say: "I voted for McCain, but I'm actually relieved Obama won; I think he'll be better at dragging us out of this mess". One made my jaw drop when she said "I bet you never thought you'd hear me say this, but I sent a nice card with congratulations to Mr and Mrs Obama; I'm quite pleased they and their cute kids will be in the White House for the next 4 years"

And yes, I realise that, if Repubs are happy, I should, probably, be very suspicious, but... All it means to me is that he'll at least *start* with more slack from that quarter than could have been expected. It should help him re-define "center" as being positioned more to the left than it had been (and I'm sure he'll do that much, at least). So that, the next time around, "left" will be viewed with less wild-eyed fear and can be pushed another wee bit...

Blerg, @16:47

You seem to have trouble deciding whether the object of you dislike is named "Sirota" or "Sierato". It's *definitely* "Sirota" -- "Orphan", in Russian. Such a useful language, Russian.. :)

Folks, people like David Sirota have as much right and good cause to say their interests and opinions should be part of things as anyone else if not more. I know Obama campaigned as a centrist, but the whole progressive point is: fight for the "general public", the workers, the "outsider" etc. and don't just service upper class interests. Being suspicious of appointments like Summers makes perfect sense, actually it does for any of us.

as a moderate republican Obama's cabinet choices have been excellent. He has been a true centrist.

You're right, my bad. Somehow I just keep mixing up the o and the a. My apologies to David (I'm cheating now, I know) on that account, as it is a very nice name.

Obama is a brilliant strategist. He's framed a liberal agenda--health care, green energy, income equality, etc-- as a purely centrist solution to our current economic mess. By doing this, and pissing off some on the left, he makes his progressive ideas seem simply pragmatic so no reasonable republican will be able to oppose them.

Yep. John Harwood at CNBC has spotted it.

Right now, Obama is spending a lot of time presenting workers' rights and health care reform as center-right positions. It's a little weird that so many people have risen to the bait and are also treating workers' rights and health care reform as right-wing ideas.

Dave Sirota is even more irrelevant than I thought. Haha.

i have to defend barney frank here ... he is my rep, after all.

i may have not heard everything he said that is referred to above but what i did hear did not sound like complaining (that obama should get more involved in the economy now) but more an expression of frustration that due to the technicality of his not actually being president, he isn't.

a lot of people think barney frank is a nut and i think this is a case where the worst spin was put on his remarks to reinforce that "nutty" meme.

It's a little weird that so many people have risen to the bait and are also treating workers' rights and health care reform as right-wing ideas.

Weird, yeah.

I have a simpler explanation: Hildebrand wants a big time media gig. And the single acid test is left-wing bashing.

Why did, say, Peter Beinhart, of all people, start getting so many TV appearances? Answer: He routinely blames a phantom left wing for all that ails us.