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

[GeorgeP922]

Here is another even better response to Hildebrand, from another one of those wacky lefty libs this site seems to have turned against since nov 5

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/8/22946/2517/660/670562

Hildebrand, please tell Ford and OMalley (wannabe leaders of the DLC) that their propaganda is not going to work.

Man, it's really just funny that Obama's first obstacle, the DLC was thought that have been beaten.
They are clever, those swarthy little DLC'ers.

[j0em0mma]

I love Brownsox...

"...since when are progressives not allowed to ask for progressive representation in the Cabinet? And why is the left excluded from the discussion of how to govern? Why doesn't being President of All The People actually include those on the left?"

[j0em0mma]

Another interesting take:

"At this point, I'm not sure what to think. As far as I can tell, Hildebrand's goal was to effectively tell the left, "Don't worry so much about these cabinet slots; Obama's going to deliver." And like Atrios, I'll be quite pleased if Obama's team convinces people that Obama is "a sensible centrist who wants to do sensible centrist things like build SUPERTRAINS, get out of Iraq, not torture people or invade random countries, strengthen labor protections, reduce income inequality, improve education, provide health care for people, and reduce poverty."

Your mileage may vary."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_12/015970.php

[Carolab]

I REALLY am getting sick of hearing about "wacky left libs", when it was those same "whackos" who did all the grunt work for the Democrats since about 2004.

[j0em0mma]

ok, my already strong faith in Obama is made stronger:

"Obama Encourages Workers To Protest At Chicago Factory"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/08/obama-encourages-worker-p_n_149184.html

This was just Hildebrand going off script, giving the authoritarian wing of Obama support a platform to attempt ratcheting up the stifling of dissent. Bad move. You need the progressive ideals to be as prominent as the Fox "news" viewpoint, or policy and elected representatives will have to gravitate towards the Right to preserve their office.

[GeorgeP922]

Why does Huffington LOVE the "Dems fighting Dems" meme so much?

Its like a mud wretling ring in here.

Like did we need to be reminded of Mark Penn's xenophobic beliefes that teh ATLANTIC broke months ago?

Nope, the GOP and DLC want dems to fight each other to the death.
Sad what people are supporting this.

[Carolab]

It's not a new fight; it's been going on for some time.

[NordicSci]

Of course appointments matter when it comes to policy. But so does political capital and sometimes you appoint people who will help you build and maintain capital with key constituencies needed to get your policies in place. Sure there might be some appointees who would be more politically aligned with those who claim to hold progressive views. But governing is about what you can get done within our politicalsystem of highly distributed and fragmented power. Things aren’t always how they appear and sometimes they are meant to appear so as to build political capital. And remember a bitter lesson from the Clinton era: pushing too hard at the wrong time or in the wrong way can deplete capital and mobilize the opposition. Progressives would do well to view the progress of this yet-to-take-power administration with greater circumspect. Better yet, help build a broader progressive movement and the policy changes will come easier.

[areaman03]

Excellent comment, you've saved me the trouble! Thanks!

[StillIRise]

Thank you. I hope everyone takes the time to read this post. We can all learn something from it.

[bluehaze]

I respectfully disagree with your assessment. It is one thing to ask for a lap dog. It is another to ask to not be ignored. His picks for his cabinet are his first acts as president and they aren't encouraging signs for the change that was promised, and no he wasn't just talking about changing politics as usual (ie bipartisanship). What I most vehemently object to is this idea that somehow progressive are asking for the world when they've gotten nothing! What I object to is the arrogance of the tone of his message that basically tells progressives"Thanks for you vote, now go away." We are Americans too and he is in office in a large part due to progressives. What this tells me is that the corporate oligrachs are alive and well within our government and that the light at the end of the tunnel will just be another train as usual. It's very disappointing to know that you don't matter.

[NordicSci]

All I'm saying is policy and politics are not one in the same. Getting the policy right means nothing if you can not promulgate that policy in the face of inevitable political resistance (major mistakes of the last two Democratic presidents). As a progressive I don't feel ignored ... I still have faith in my candidate and am not looking for symbolic gestures to convince me that such faith is deserved. Shortly after the election I wrote to many of my international colleagues and said Obama's biggest problem is that expectations are way, way too high and he surely will disappoint. The presidency is not all powerful but can be made more powerful by building a social movement behind those policies he supports. For now focus on building support and save the sniping for later.

[GKHaley]

LOL! You know that Obama is doing a good job when BOTH the far right and the far left are complaining. The president is responsible for the WHOLE electorate. Not just the far wingers of either party. Grow up!

[dryrock]

In broad terms, I agree. My read of it was a request for patience. As a gay man, I'm unhappy to have been defined as a second class citizen again in, what, five states. BUT, as an American, I know that I cannot enjoy or benefit from that equality if the nation falls off the economic/energy/climate change cliff (and in my community, heathcare is a critical issue - I've lost over 200 friends and my partner of ten years).

Obama's constituency is now the entire electorate, and his first responsibility is the security of the nation. That means stabilizing the train-wreck of the last 8 years, which will take some time, it will take some time - and patience. Probably some priority setting. If Obama has to do that before tackling my list of personal issues, so be it. I've never gotten everything I wanted, not even close, and don't expect to. Does it disappoint, Yes. Does it hurt, Sometimes. I'm not complaining, that's life (I've had 55 years of it). To those who read 'grow up' in the article, in some cases the author may have touched a raw nerve.

[MyNameIsJames]

We have a choice both within the Progressive Community and the Democratic Party. To coddle "Clinton like" triangulators, or push for a progressive agenda that is both smart and responsible. I believe that Obama can be persuaded in either direction.

The progressive community should stand up with pride and promote their beliefs and policy options with clarity and aggressiveness.

We should not back-down from those who were players in a Clinton administration who failed to get even 50% of the popular vote and ended up losing both the House and the Senate during their tenure.

An era when Dems were afraid to be called "liberals" . An era when Democrats showed no real sense of political courage.

Currently,there are a BUNCH of losers, from this era, within Democratic ranks, who are seeking to regain power due to a powerful Obama victory.

We cannot allow this to happen!

Progressives must push to capture the Democratic Party and direct its movement toward progressive ideals and policies without APOLOGIES to those Democrats who were AFRAID of the Bush administration and the Conservative movement for the past 20 years!

Progressives are reasonable people, and we can compromise up to a point-- BUT we should not abandon our principles in order to accommodate the type of Democrats who lack vision and political courage.

[NordicSci]

Lesson from the Carter years: you don't get anywhere in DC by pissing off your Democratic colleagues ... Obama knows this that is why he is working hard to co-opt the entrenched centers of power in Washington. Of course there is a balance between co-opting and being co-opted, but I don't think Obama is particularly susceptible to being persuaded (progressive versus triangulation). Its more the other way around, he is doing the persuading. Time will tell.

[sarimn00]

I don't think anyone is going to persuade Obama to do anything. He is gonna do what he thinks is right after listening to all opinions. A persuadable doormat he is not.

[sarimn00]

And why do you have to dog all Democrats that aren't like you as to lacking vision and political courage. Unless you meet all of them, you are in no position to judge.

[StopThePress]

You don't speak for me. I am a liberal that isn't crying and moaning like you....I have no problem with his appointments.....I guess you guys should've voted for Kucinich.

[GeorgeP922]

Dont buy the hype, this is all a DLC/GOP conspiracy to break Obama.

[Fongenie]

Probably.

[Pip1860]

I am a hardcore democrat and I do believe that Obama owes his victory to the Liberals! I am not completely LIberal but I do think Liberals put their life out for this election. The way they campaigned and fought every tooth and nail has to be recognized by President Obama and rewarded by listening to their grievances. Of course everything cannot be accomplished but let us start by a systematic defanging and neutering of the Right wing nut job base and their leaders first.

[anney]

I'm a progressive Independent who isn't bound to a political party, but I can tell you this. It isn't politically naive for progressives to vehemently reject a conservative direction by someone who made progressive promises.

The truth is that conservatism and progressivism don't mix. Extremely simply, conservatives don't believe in government for the benefit of Americans, while progressives do. No politician can keep a foot in both camps and be consistent or make anyone whole.

So, it's valid to say that a president must basically govern from either the left or the right, not somewhere in the middle. Progressive governing can certainly be accomplished while taking into account valid concerns from the conservative side and accommodating them insofar as one's own principles are not violated, but to cede one's political principles to principles that are directly contradictory is a foolish thing to do and is very bad government.

[j0em0mma]

hear hear

[StillIRise]

"Progressive governing can certainly be accomplished while taking into account valid concerns from the conservative side and accommodating them insofar as one's own principles are not violated ..."

I agree, and I believe this is EXACTLY what PE Obama will do and what his leadership will reflect.

[1ladybug]

That is not true. Without the moderate middle Barack can not govern. It is the votes of the moderate middle that actually determine who will be elected. The Right lost the moderate middles vote and so they lost the election. Every Representative and Senator is fully aware of this and will not support a President that is too far left in their estimation. Barack is also fully aware that he can not govern with out the Senate or the House or the majority of the people. Those on the extreme right and left are not in large enough numbers each on their own. President Carter found that out shortly after he became President and he became a lame duck.

[sarimn00]

Anyone that listened to him knows that he was running as a moderate Democrat, not liberal. He is not the most liberal senator to walk the earth. He wants to work across the aisle, he said he is going to work across the aisle, and now he is doing it.

[southernsepia]

Blacks voted overwhelmingly for the PE. Using the left's logic we should be foaming at the mouth right now because he has not signed off on "the Black agenda".

I am a progressive but what I voted for was education reform, healthcare, environmental responsibility.
All things PE advocates, I don't need for him to sign off on any writ of liberalism to prove it.

Sorry, all the premature had wringing sounds a little looney.

[CarbonDate]

I was unaware that there was a "Black agenda", other than to be treated on a level playing field with the rest of the country. Near as I can tell, President-elect Obama is on board with that.

[GKHaley]

Best post in the thread! Bravo!

[anachoret]

I completely agree with Sirota, and he shows guts in even saying this.
"The Left" is being used to build unity as the "Common foe." Triangulation.

[j0em0mma]

Exactly. In nature, you win every battle 'til the last... politics seems to answer to the same forces...

[anachoret]

I think Sirota is dead on.

Absolutely.

[aperezfl]

I'm real liberal and I've had enough of David Sirota's mindless "me! me!" rants. Who does David Sirota suggest Obama place on his economic team? I don't think Sirota is a "raving left-wing lunatic" as he suggests his critics contend. He just doesn't know what he's talking about out, plain and simple, and has grown accustomed to using the word "progressive" in place of meaningful thought.

[bygollymissmolly]

You know David, I have always admired you but not in this case. I believe it is YOU who is overreacting. I read what Steve Hildebrand wrote and I did not get that he was saying that Obama's "decisions did not matter". All I got was his saying what Obama says which is that the decisions will be Obama's and why don't we wait and see what he does with the people he has picked before criticizing him.

You have let us down on this one David. I guess that Steve Hildebrand hit a nerve with you.

[Bart Motes - Huffpost Blogger]

Very well said.

[lennix]

lets get the country back on track and stop the bs we are crying befor he even get started come on lets grow up

[sarimn00]

I read Hilderbrand's letter last night. The majority of people agreed with it. Of course a few were angry.

IMO, he was right. He's got a bunch of appointments to make yet, and people are already freaking out.

If you listened to Obama in the first place, you would have seen that he was not running as super liberal. He was running as a moderate dem. He is doing exactly what he said he would do by having a bipartisan cabinet.

I keep saying this, but it bares repeating. Economists are starting to whisper the word depression. Whenever they do this, it means that we are already heading into one. Now is not the time for partisan cr*p from either side. It is time to work together or this country is never gonna climb out of the hole it's now in.

[Julie02]

well said.

[HJF1968]

I voted for Obama and will give him a chance. If he has done a good job after 4 years, I will vote for him. If not, I will cast my vote elsewhere. As Dr. Martin Luther King said, we as Americans don't need to give up holding elected officals accountable after casting our votes. If, after 4 years, there are no liberals/progressives in his administration, then there will be cause for concern. When George Bush, for example, named his picks to the Supreme Court, he did not choose centrists, he choose those who refelcted the views of his party's base. Well, we've seen what conservative governing has done to this country. Obama should study FDR's model of governing since he is coming into office under similar if not the same circumstances. Liberal policies led to the creation of the Social Security Administration, the FDIC and regulating banks which kept greedy practices manageable. Some people like to demonize the word Liberal but a lot of our best programs have come under Presidents who were Liberal.

[j0em0mma]

Agreed! Why is it the Repubs are in lock-step, while the Dems attack groups trying to help them, like Moveon.org? We let the Repubs slide, then trash those who agree with us... sad...