Sirota: Obama Aide's "Rant-ish" Message To Critics A "STFU"

Liberal commenter David Sirota responds to Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Steve Hildebrand's missive to critics, wondering if Democrats "were elected to attack the left":

Now, here's a rant-ish "Message to Obama's Progressive Critics" from top Obama aide Steve Hildebrand today demanding the Dirty Fucking Hippies of "the left" STFU:

...

First thing's first: I absolutely agree with Hildebrand that you can't draw concrete conclusions about Obama based only on his personnel decisions - and I've written that repeatedly (and I've also said that most of Obama's policy declarations have been pretty progressive). However, Hildebrand implying that those personnel decisions really don't matter at all is straight up silly. It supposes that all the enormous egos that populate a White House are just mindless functionaries, and that even though those egos are heading major federal departments or are key advisers, they have no hand in making policy and/or their advice to a president makes absolutely no impact. Please - let's get real.

But far more important than that is Hildebrand firing up the whaaaaaaaambulance to whine and cry and moan about "the left." Really, what is with top Democrats explicitly attacking "the left wing of the Democratic Party" in Fox News-style talking points? Why is every substantive, non-partisan, non-ideological question of pragmatism from progressives almost automatically portrayed as some sort of super-Trotsky-ite, ideological and wholly inappropriate demand for Obama to be a president "just for those on the left?" Can anyone even ask a non-ideological question of Obama without being attacked as some sort of raving left-wing lunatic?

TPM adds that criticism of Obama from 'the left' has actually been quite mild, making Hildebrand's response seem somewhat disproportionate.

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

Read Steve Hildebrand's message on the Huffington Post.

Comments

[linaya]

I think this is a complete overreaction. Obama is a moderate, always has been, so his choices don't shock me at all even if I am a liberal. Obama's going to do the best he can. But he hasn't DONE anything yet, so for people to jump on him already is wrong. Wait until he does something! I also don't think those were Fox talking points, not even remotely. He has a right to criticize people who mistakenly think Obama is more liberal than he is. Obama is even conservative on some things, but he's trying to choose who will be right for HIM to work with, plus being good in the job he's picking them for. Don't overreact, I am a liberal and I didn't feel insulted at all by what he wrote.

[AlanMaki]

Both Sirota and Hidebrand draw the erroneous conclusion that people who are liberal, progressive and left are Democrats.

In fact, the worse this economy gets the more people there will be working outside of the two-party structure which is nothing but a trap.

Hildebrand argues that Obama's cabinet choices are irrelevant and others conclude that Obama has chose the best because there aren't enough people on the left who know what to do.

Well, anyone with an ounce of common sense would be exploring ways to get rid of this rotten capitalist system which is on the skids to oblivion and will create enormous misery for many people as it goes down.

After eight years of non-stop attacks on working people Hildebrand has a lot of nerve trying to silence the left which reflects the real aspirations for real solutions that grassroots and rank and file activists have been demanding. Sirota hasn't done any better in bringing forward real solutions to working class problems... what we need in this country is a real left-wing party like the New Democratic Party in Canada... aolong with real single-payer universal health care like the NDP delivered.

It would be a tragedy if liberals, progressives and the left acquiesce to Obama and his Wall Street crowd the way Democrats have let Bush run roughshod over the working class for eight years.

The left needs to set Obama straight before he takes office.

[fishingriver]

Sirota has complicated the s_it out of something simple.

Simply....Obama will give the right wing more if there is no resistance from the left.

[lisa12345]

Just one more point....

Keep in mind that Obama does not have a huge pool of progressives to chose from. He had to work with what he had. How many true progressives -- that are also true to their convictions--even exist in politics? And the ones that do--do they have the experience to know what to do? We could always pull Kuchinich but then we would lose the seat in congress (smile). Yes, I know there are a few, but not many and even some of them are too centrist for the progressive and liberal wing. I am of the progressive wing myself, I am not bashing anyone. I am saying that he has to work with what he has and what matters is that we keep pushing for change, but in a thoughtful, tempered way. It appears that so far "the critics" have been fair, not reactionary. We need to work to change the political process so more progressive politicians and "conviction" politicians are risen up through the ranks. Then we will have people to choose from. My guess is that some of these political dynasties and the ruling elite won't like that. Royalty doesn't like democracy.

[linaya]

I object now and always have objected to the term "true progressive". There is no such thing. I self-identify as a liberal, but people have taken issue with some of my positions on things. So what? I don't let anyone else identify what I am and neither should anyone else. Obama is similarly not trying to be defined because he IS everyone's president. He is not going to purposely choose "just" progressives -- whatever that means. I can disagree with some people on some things even if they call themselves progressives, liberals, or Democrats, or independents. There is no set in stone definition of a progressive. Or a liberal. It's whatever you want to make it. So please no more of the deciding who is a "True Progressive" is, not to point out anyone in particular, but I have heard that enough to last a lifetime especially this year. People can be snobs about their progressive pedigree and it's irritating because being a Progressive is not being part of a master race. Some people are progressive on some things and not on others. That defines Obama, in fact.

[LightningJoe]

I understand the impulse that led Rachel Weiner to post this, but she should start policing her work for overblown hyperbole post-haste, because the resultant upset and controversy can't help but steal focus, even from her main point.

What she's doing here is rally those who 1) don't know the facts, and 2) are ready to be betrayed yet again by our political process -- and then tell them that they are being betrayed yet again; and not just by the political process, but by the very change agent we all voted for. Maybe she got up on the wrong side of life this morning, but there is no reason to take such an apocalyptic view of the first month's actions by the President-Elect.

If she's this upset at the attempted typing of Obama's win as "proof" that America is a "Center-Reich" nation, then she should take that criticism where it belongs: to the Reich operatives that are using that meme to attempt to invalidate Obama's clear Progressive mandate. Those folks are coming from desperation, and are to be pitied, in measure; but their attempted hood-winking of the public should be squashed like the bug it is.

Where are you going to find people who can start off running? In government. In Washington.

Don't worry. There is plenty of change in the wind. We can't just take the top down, and be in a "worker's paradise," you know. Plenty of work for everyone, here. Pace yourself.

[lisa12345]

IMO, Obama chose these folks because:

First, some are major power players in the party. If he leaves them out, what would happen? He almost has to work with them or they might go up against him. In a way, he has no choice because of the party power structure. That is why it is so, so, important that we back him up on progressive policy. If his team sees that his broad base won't be happy at all if they do not stick to the progressive mandate, they'll do it . They want to keep working in the government.
We have an important job: Back him up. He cannot do it without us. So really, we should stay outspoken, as long as we are appropriate. He needs us to.

Second, he may have the ideas, but he needs highly skilled people who have a lot of experience or he absolutely will not be able to do it. I was glad when I saw how experienced the team was. I preferred that to their ideology His ideas will inform their agenda.

Third, it shows a clear signal to the public that he may be true to his progressive convictions in regard to policy, but he is equally true to the progressive conviction of finding common ground, also known as community-building. Very democratic. Votes were madefor McCain. He has to govern everyone. It is possible to bring about serious structural change, and still govern from the center. He can do it.

[bluemike]

I donated, supported, lobbied friends and neighbors for Obama. I think he has the potential to be one of our greatest presidents. I also believe that a few of his early choices appear downright stupid. Others are brilliant. Does stating that Obama made a bad choice or two make me a Leftist? Get real.

[Fongenie]

Oh God, David Sirota is tripping once again. *sighs*

[Carolab]

Oh, he is? Why not read some comments from the DEMOCRATIC Underground about what Hildebrand said?

The OP, madfloridian, by the way, is a Deaniac from way back and very active in the party in Florida.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7961547

[LightningJoe]

Not really. It's not Sirota that's tripping this time, but Rachel Weiner. I take both Sirota and Weiner's points well, but they should all take a deep breath and get back to the basics of where we are, and where we want to be, and how to take the next step on the way. "Articles" like this are not the best way to take those steps.

First, the form of the article itself is flawed, unclear, and -- shall I say it? -- sloppy.

Someone tell me -- who was it, in this article, that said "First thing's first: I absolutely agree with Hildebrand that you can't draw concrete..." ?? The way the article is formatted, one cannot even guess who actually said that, except that it probably wasn't Hildebrand. One might assume, because it's boxed, that it was "not-Weiner" == maybe Sirota?

Weiner (and editors): there's no excuse for such sloppy reportage.

And, critically, the premise is flawed, because Hildebrand isn't such a fire-brand as portrayed, and even Sirota's comments aren't that inflamatory. Read them all and see for yourself. What Weiner is doing here is rabble-rousing; which is good when needed and appropriate, but here is more like shouting fire in an un-burning theatre.

Hildebrand is right, that Obama has to lead the entire nation; not just the left. That means those not identifying as "Progressives" need to have reason to think his policies will include their priorities. (inclusion is good, neh?)

[Carolab]

I wholeheartedly concur with Sirota.

[Balzac]

David Sirota rocks!

[XME]

Hildebrand was voicing his OPINION that it seems Dems are flipping out over every single decision Obama makes are already judging his entire presidency as doomed based on it...and that perhaps that need to chill a bit and actually let the man take office and actually DO SOMETHING before they begin judging and jumping all over him.

I'd say from your article that all you've done is prove his point about the flipping out over little things part!

[edwcorey]

Bush first ran as a "compassionate conservative" (Which was an admission that conservatives, for all their "piety," are not at all compassionate). Obama, for all his protests, ran as the personification of Kumbaya, painting his opponents as focus-group-heeding, business-hugging Republicans-lite. Bush turned out to be a passionate conservative. (In other words, he dropped the COM and kept the CON.) I'm a naturally skeptical person and, despite a desire to see Obama win, need him to show me the money. He seems to be backsliding. No one gives up the power they inherit, unless they're forced to. And he's backtracked on FISA and windfall taxes, tried to hire Brennan, kept the war criminal Gates, appointed Iraq-war enablers, and surrounded himself with the drug warriors Emanuel, Biden, and Holder. The last is especially egregious in that cocaine and cannabis didn't seem to hurt Obama's life, intellect or career, and anyone thinking the war on drugs is a good thing is either an idiot or a beneficiary.

[XME]

Everyone who is elected will do some "backsliding" because whoever they pick and whatever they do some group of supporters will be disappointed and feel he has disappointed. He cannot do everything and please everyone, and I just think folks should be more concerned with what he accomplishes with his picks that what you think those people stand for. He didn't choose Emanuel, Biden, or Holder as "drug warriors" and I simply think it's at their own defeat that Dems judge every single person on the things they did that they don't agree with and condemn them. One example, he picked Emanuel to help keep the dogs at bay, to be the "bad cop" to his "good cop" and he NEEDS that in his administration. My point, just the man and the people he picks on the ACTIONS in the job he selects them for, not on every single thing you feel they've done wrong by your standards in their past. Dems could condemn just about every single person by those standards and it gives Obama very little chance of proving himself to condemn him before he's even taken office.

[linaya]

Right on. .....Wait until Obama does something. I'm more than a little tired of the freaked out overreactions and offenses imagined. Be PATIENT!

[Freesia2]

Oh for crying out loud. Come on.

This is why I don't join political parties. I registered Independent and stand back and watch. It's not pretty.

Hildebrand was making a point. He was right. His error (and there have been few in Obama disciplined organization) was to create a bit of drama ill serving "No Drama Obama" by writing an article that he didn't need to write. The liberal left's always on fire (sometimes I think they feel the inflamed passion that is their identity smouldering because things are cool so they throw on gasoline - while screaming "gas is bad!". Yes I'm being sarcastic. I'm tired of this.) Hildebrand should've left them to toast marshmallows til they cooled down. He should have stayed out of it.

But the big aggravation here is that what he did creates a response. And off we go....

Obama is one of the finest President-elects we've ever had. He's starting his Presidency in unbelievably bad conditions and he's handled it remarkably well. He's made decisions. He's made many well ahead of any man previously in his position. He's made decisions that we won't know if they were good or bad til they're in action. Which won't happen til January 20 and then add some months. Look at the calendar. Does yours read December 8? So does mine.

I feel like calling the brats a time out, milk and cookies and naptime. In an igloo. As Obama put it so well in Denver - "Enough!".

[commonsensor]

The much overlooked reality in both these pieces: We are a completely divided nation. Ripped completely in half and swirling around the drain faster every day.

Judging from the articles and backlash to the articles and then backlash to the backlash - Obama's election seems to have made this division problem worse. How completely ironic.

When Bush and Cheney set out to destroy America it was the only job they ever did well.

RIP USA

[LightningJoe]

Alright: bare bones.

The even-more-overlooked reality in much of our national discourse, is that most ideological and political issues, positions, parties, and fears, are born in the human conditions of necessarily incomplete information, and a human -- "way of belief," let's call it -- that blesses the "believer" with an uncanny sense of being individually right, at the utter expense of all of humanity's differing opinions to the contrary.

We CANNOT logically each be right, but we each maintain the illusion that we are.

The ideologies we each carry in our heads are utterly convincing to us -- unless we approach reality by proactively giving up, in the face of its actual (and incredible) complexity. Symbolic characterization of reality (commonly known as "beliefs") is the only way we humans have of "understanding" the complex universe as we live in, and the complex societies we've created.

In other words, might I propose that most of our "divisions" are rank fantasy and misinterpretation. The illusion of opposition, that leads each side to progressively harden their positions into prospective defense against the other.

As an example, look at the Dalai Lama. No more sympathetic soul can exist, and still live in our reality. Yet, a majority of Chinese, even in this country, think he's set on the violent secession of Tibet from China. He's a "devil" to them. Why? Because of the fearful fantasies the Chinese government paints him with.

We don't have to do the same thing here, with David Sorota.

[luvangelHussein330]

This is like the pot calling the kettle black

[timinhi]

Right on. Ironic that Sirota rants about Hildebrand "ranting."

[realitylover]

Oh. Dear. God. When will the "Democratic Wing" of the party stop whining? When will they grow up? I'm so sick of it. Please, do yourselves a favor and turn off the computer, go out and find a couple of volunteer opportunities where you can make a real difference in your community - right now, today. Let's at least let our new president be inaugurated before the backstabbing begins in earnest.

[j0em0mma]

Oh, dear god, when will the focus be what we're doing and not the personalities involved? Advice right back atchya, btw.

[peacefull]

The so called "progressives" are sounding like a bunch of spoiled brats. The man has not even taken office and you all are all over him. Did you think that he was going to go into office and become a pacifist? Eliminate all greenhouse gases overnight? Take money from the rich and start handing it out to the poor on the street? The "progressives" other option was McCain and Pailan, are you saying that these were better choices? Besides Obama was elected by a cross section of Americans, which means he doesn"t owe any particular narrow thinking group anything. If you had any real power and had directed such venom towards the current president, who happens to still be in office and has been for almost eight years, maybe president-elect Obama wouldn"t have such a hefty load to bear even as he tries to get to the White House. I think progressives are so accustomed to taking an adversarial stance that you don"t know how to work in concert with someone who really has the best interest of our country at heart. This group also fails to understand that they don"t have all the answers and your stances on many positions are just as extreme left as the religious right. I"m not even saying give Obama a break I"m saying let him actually do something before you are up in arms picketing the White House and blocking he and his family"s entrance before they even move in.

[j0em0mma]

This is one of the most unreadable screeds I've seen on this thread yet. Let's review the points:

Obama is not being attacked, Hildebrand is

Leaving broadcast alternative viewpoints to Fox News is counter-productive

We probably need to cut Obama slack, he has proved himself (except for FISA) so far

Attacking your base at a time when the narrative needs to change from Center Right to the proper Center is dumb

any questions? Want to tone it down to a dull roar so an actual conversation can happen?

[MaynardGK]

So is Barack Obama Tweedledee, or is he Tweedledum?

[LightningJoe]

"progressives are so accustomed to taking an adversarial stance..." What a joke. The old "They've been in the opposition so long, they've forgotten how to lead..." screed.

Remind you: Congress has been Reich only since the Contract on America. It's the Repuglicans who have no idea what real people want, and the Progressives that are finally back where they should be, in charge of the people's business.

[jdenham]

I agree with Sirota, Hildebrand seemed to be telling us to Shut up and sit down. I was getting the feeling that the Progressive voice was being drown out with all the DLC appointees, but Obama made a statement that he would direct policy not his appointees. I took him at his word, i have no reason not to believe him. I was a little insulted by Hildebrands post as were many others. I guess Hildebrand wants us to sit down and shutup when the Right starts attacking these nominees during confirmation too. I think Steve Hildebrands post did more to inflame some progressives than to calm the storm.