Just Words

More empty rhetoric to ring in the New Year:

President Obama recently named Amanda Simpson to be a Senior Technical Advisor to the Commerce Department.

In a statement, Simpson, a member of the National Center for Transgender Equality’s board of directors, said that “as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds, and that this appointment opens future opportunities for many others.”

Also, this seems to be sort of a big deal:

The US has lifted a 22-year immigration ban which has stopped anyone with HIV/Aids from entering the country.

President Obama said the ban was not compatible with US plans to be a leader in the fight against the disease.

The new rules come into force on Monday and the US plans to host a bi-annual global HIV/Aids summit for the first time in 2012.

Change is happening. We’re just arguing with each other about the pace.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






60 replies
  1. 1
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    Change is happening. We’re just arguing with each other about the pace.

    This kind of talk is not good news for the coming Clinton Administration.

  2. 2
    Jay says:

    There are serious policy arguments about four big things taking place – HCR, Afghanistan, civil liberties, economic policy/practice – but, like the health care bill, some positive steps on smaller things have and are taking place. Problem is the other things are so huge that they obscure the smaller things. Other problem is, it’s those big things that are most important but are also being handled the worst.

  3. 3
    Lisa K. says:

    Change may be happening, but the wingnuts are fighting it tooth and claw.

    On another board I frequent, when this topic was brought up, it unleashed a rash of screeds about how all these HIV(+) people were going to come to America just to get free healthcare and eat up all our resources in the process.

  4. 4
    Max says:

    Just like Bush. Worse than Bush. Hillary for President.

    Seriously, the HIV ban is a major thing.

  5. 5
    Phaedrus says:

    Sops so that apologists like you can say – “see, he IS progressive even though he’s escalating two wars, seeking a third in Yemen, destroying our rights at home, propping up Wall street at the cost of Main street, etc.”.

    Yup, I voted for Obama so that the HIV ban would be lifted, not to close Guantanamo.

    You’ll grasp at anything, John.

  6. 6
    Maude says:

    @General Winfield Stuck: Then, we’ll just have to go back to the old ways.
    I was thinking that now it is FWB. The nad bomber was…
    And the dool hung in GA wasn’t white.
    Do you have any cheery news? I’m about to tank.

  7. 7
    aimai says:

    I think its hard to remember just how vile the Bush years were, on every level. It reminds me of the pangs of childbirth–some things are so horrific that your body and mind just sort of reject the memory. When the press started revving up and attacking Napolitano (and I just heard NPR repeating the totally debunked “she said the system worked” canard) I had what amounted to a cold sweat flashback to the savaging of Gore and also to the moment that Dick Durbin was forced, crying, to recant his perfectly reasonable statements on torture and the US military. If Obama doesn’t blink and fire Napolitano, which mercifully he doesn’t seem inclined to do, I will feel that we’ve really turned a corner as a party and that we have some hope of Obama leading this country out of the utter wilderness of bootlicking compliance with the crazy right wing. The media, of course, will be the last to come trotting after (if they ever do). But to me if Napolitano stays in place we will have finally seen our government turn its back on the politics of submission and appeasement of the right wing.

    aimai

  8. 8
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Maude:

    I met a girl who sang the blues
    And I asked her for some happy news,
    But she just smiled and turned away.

  9. 9
    Zifnab says:

    This –

    In a statement, Simpson, a member of the National Center for Transgender Equality’s board of directors, said that “as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds, and that this appointment opens future opportunities for many others.”

    Does not fix this –

    It is going to be really, really depressing watching the Democrats blow this in the next couple of months.

    Listen, it’s definitely a great kumbaya moment for the country when you can have a truly merit-based administration run by the most highly skilled and capable people, regardless of their personal eccentricities.

    However, all the Senior Technical Advisors to the Commerce Department and HIV/AIDS infected immigrants in the world aren’t going to stem the genuine economic problems.

    I’m not sure how Amanda Simpson is going to reign in my insurance premiums or cram down overinflated mortgages. But if you can let me know how, I’ll be happy to hear it.

  10. 10
    jeffreyw says:

    Don’t remember now who said it, or whether it’s even true, but someone opined that scientific progress only happened when the cohort than clung to the older understanding died and made room for the new. It has a truthiness to it. It’s kind of sad that the best predictor for the rate of progressive change may be found in mortality tables.

  11. 11
    SGEW says:

    From the New York Times article I’m reading right now:

    Obama has not wanted his presidency to be defined by the war on terror, as Bush’s was . . . . Rather than seeing terrorism as the challenge of our time, Obama rejects the phrase “war on terror” altogether, hoping to recast the struggle as one of a number of vital challenges confronting America. The nation is at war with Al Qaeda, Obama says, but not with terrorism, which, as he understands it, is a tactic, not an enemy.

    Sometimes not bad is as good as it gets. And that, right there, is not bad.

    ETA: cont.

    And so perhaps the biggest change Obama has made is what one former adviser calls the “mood music” — choice of language, outreach to Muslims, rhetorical fidelity to the rule of law and a shift in tone from the all-or-nothing days of the Bush administration . . . . “If you asked him what are the most important things he’s done to fight terrorism in his first year, he would put Cairo in the top three,” Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, told me.

    Words. Words words words. And Raaaahm!1!

  12. 12
    joe from Lowell says:

    Sops so that apologists like you can say – “see, he IS progressive even though he’s escalating two wars, seeking a third in Yemen, destroying our rights at home, propping up Wall street at the cost of Main street, etc.”.

    Reducing our troop presence and combat engagements in Iraq is an escalation now?

    You don’t even have straws to grasp at, so you’re making them up.

  13. 13
    tootiredoftheright says:

    @Max:

    Uh do you realize the ban was lifted not put in place by Obama?

    Your comment makes no sense unless you thought that Obama had banned people with hiv/aids from traveling into the country.

  14. 14
    tootiredoftheright says:

    @joe from Lowell:

    Also why shouldn’t we be doing strikes at terrorist bases in Yemen if the terrorists launched attacks wheter successfull or unsuccessful. Like it or not Afganistan is something we have to deal with due to the issues in Pakistan. It’s a lot harder to deal with matters in Pakistan without bases in Afganistan.

    As for the propping up of Wall Street wasn’t TARP done by Bush?

  15. 15
    rob! says:

    Sops so that apologists like you can say – “see, he IS progressive even though he’s escalating two wars, seeking a third in Yemen, destroying our rights at home, propping up Wall street at the cost of Main street, etc.”.

    Yup, I voted for Obama so that the HIV ban would be lifted, not to close Guantanamo.

    You’ll grasp at anything, John.

    See, I don’t understand this argument at all. AT ALL.

    1)To people with HIV and their loved ones, this IS a big fucking deal, and something that never would have happened under McCain. Just because it doesn’t affect you doesn’t mean it isn’t significant.

    2)When I chose to support Obama, I knew that, despite being an O-Bot, Chocolate Jesus was not going to be able to do all the things he promised, because our political system is completely broken and no one person can come in and fix it all, even in 8 years.

    But here was a guy at least interested in doing these things. Even if he failed at some of them, isn’t that better than someone who had NO interest in doing those things? Sure, maybe Obama can’t close Gitmo on schedule, and that’s a big disappointment. But McCain would’ve packed it to the rafters, so, you tell me, what choice was there in November?

    Obama, during the campaign, aimed higher than any other candidate out there. And he will definitely disappoint me when he fails to accomplish some of those goals. But, Jesus Christ, at least he’s trying–that’s a hell of a lot more than you would have gotten from McCain, or even Clinton.

    And “destroying our rights at home”?? WTF? Where have you been for the past eight years? Maybe you were kept from entering this country from the HIV ban, and didn’t know what Chimpy did from 2001-2009?

  16. 16
    SGEW says:

    Words, words, words.

    Obama also wanted to uproot the resentments and hatred that fuel extremism. “The language we use matters,” he told the Al Arabiya television network a week after taking office. So Obama informally banished the rhetoric of the last administration. “War on terror” was out; so were “Islamofascism” and “evildoers.” The new language did not always go over well. While testifying to Congress a year ago, Napolitano used the phrase “man-caused disasters,” and though she said “terrorism” elsewhere in her remarks, she drew wide scorn. (“I was totally misinterpreted in a sense of what I was trying to communicate,” she later told me. “It was just a mistake. In the editing process, that phrase, usually it’s‘terrorism or other man-caused disasters.’ ”)

    Really, quite a good article.

  17. 17
    joe from Lowell says:

    Also why shouldn’t we be doing strikes at terrorist bases in Yemen if the terrorists launched attacks wheter successfull or unsuccessful. Like it or not Afganistan is something we have to deal with due to the issues in Pakistan. It’s a lot harder to deal with matters in Pakistan without bases in Afganistan.

    Absolutely. I’m getting sick of people who spent seven years saying, quite correctly, “Iraq didn’t attack us, they’ve got nothing to do with al Qaeda, Bush took his eye off the ball,” who, now that we’ve actually turned our attention to al Qaeda, don’t like that, either.

  18. 18
    Max says:

    @tootiredoftheright: huh?

    ETA – Oh, I see, I forgot to put the word lift in there.

    Dude, I’m an O-bot. A big one. Chill. A little too early for snark, perhaps.

  19. 19
    Maude says:

    @General Winfield Stuck:
    And there was nothing I could say,
    So, I’ll go out and play.
    Thanks.

  20. 20
    SGEW says:

    We speak the way we breathe.

    Time and circumstances have changed as well. “Four years ago, I would have said — and I did say — the agency’s detention program needed to continue,” [Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security John] Brennan said, referring to the secret “black site” overseas prisons ran by the C.I.A. “There have been a lot of developments and changes, so the things I might have advocated three or four years ago, because of the changed conditions, because of a new administration, whatever, I wouldn’t necessarily advocate [institutionalized torture] now at all. I’ve changed my views.”

  21. 21
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @SGEW:

    You know who else banned the ban on calling it “War on Terror”. That’s right, the idiot genius George Bush.

    . Years ago, State and Defense Department officials tried to move away from the phrase “war on terror,” proposing instead to call it a “Struggle Against Violent Extremism,” or SAVE.

    But when word of the suggested change leaked to the media, President Bush displayed his annoyance at the idea during meeting of National Security Council officials

  22. 22
    DougJ says:

    What’s going to happen if one of these AIDS immigrants knows kung fu?

  23. 23
    K. Grant says:

    @jeffreyw: A good friend of mine has stated that all our department needed was ‘a few well placed funerals’.

  24. 24
    SGEW says:

    @General Winfield Stuck: I’m well aware of that; it is one of the (few) things I give pretty full credit to the post 2006 Bush Administration (i.e., post Rumsfeld and Rove).

  25. 25
    Comrade Sock Puppet of the Great Satan says:

    From the link, about the Commerce dept. appointee:

    “At Raytheon, [Amanda] Simpson — a former test pilot who had worked for the company for more than a generation”

    Sounds like quite a remarkable life she’s led.

  26. 26
    PeakVT says:

    Change is happening. We’re just arguing with each other about the pace.

    Unfortunately, there is a quasi-deadline for some of the big issues, such as global warming and structural health care reform. They need to be addressed in a timely manner. Otherwise, they will reach a crisis stage that will force rather catastrophic change upon us all at once. (I’m not placing blame here, just observing.)

  27. 27
    SGEW says:

    Oh! The abyss:

    [When Pres. Obama] sat down with the human rights advocates in the Cabinet Room,] everyone [ ] raised hard questions, voicing the disappointment of Obama’s strongest supporters. Perhaps the most dramatic appeal came from Anthony Romero, executive director of the A.C.L.U. “Look, you’re the only politician I’ve ever believed in,” Romero said, according to people in the room. “When I was a gay Puerto Rican growing up in New York, I never thought I could identify with a political leader the way I identify with you. But this stuff really pains me.”

    The activists left the meeting chilled that Obama seemed poised to continue holding terrorism suspects indefinitely without charges . . . . But then the administration reversed course; while it would continue to hold indefinitely without charges perhaps 50 detainees left from the Bush era, it would not enshrine the power in law, and signaled that it would not use it for future cases. “We were gearing up for the battle of our lives,” Romero said. Fortunately, they turned back from the abyss.”

    Isn’t avoiding the abyss enough, some times?

  28. 28
    SGEW says:

    @DougJ:

    What’s going to happen if one of these AIDS immigrants knows kung fu?

    We’ll be fine, so long as they’re from one of these 14 countries.

    Countries that are noticeably lacking any notorious kung fu prowess, I might point out. Where are their priorities?

  29. 29
    Jon says:

    I’m a huge Obama fan, but don’t give him too much credit for lifting the HIV ban. The key work there was done by language in a 2008 statute called the United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act, passed by Congress before Obama’s election. Everything since then has been bureaucratic wheels grinding slowly, conforming regulatory language to the statutory policy judgment.

  30. 30
    Anya says:

    @General Winfield Stuck: I don’t know what to think about this. Did Hamsher say anything yet about how progressives should feel betrayed about this action – after all it’s only one transgender appointment out of thousands he made?

    Re: Lifting the HIV ban, I think we should give props to that horrid president who ruined the zeros for not vetoing the legislation.

  31. 31
    joe from Lowell says:

    Uh, yeah, Obama was helpless to decide policy once the UN expressed an opinion.

  32. 32
    Tom Hilton says:

    Change is happening. We’re just arguing with each other about the pace.

    Which is a necessary discussion, and in theory it should be possible to have that discussion without resorting to the language of betrayal and corporatist sellout and same-as-Bushness.

    In practice, that doesn’t appear to be the case.

  33. 33
    Gwangung says:

    Which is a necessary discussion, and in theory it should be possible to have that discussion without resorting to the language of betrayal and corporatist sellout and same-as-Bushness.

    Yes.

    PLEASE!

  34. 34
    kay says:

    I’ll get slammed, but I just think think the listing of grievances is counterproductive.

    The stimulus is a good example, because it’s usually first on the list of Obama betrayals.

    The stimulus was not big enough, and it was weighed too heavily towards tax cuts. But, the stimulus part of the stimulus worked. The progressive part of the stimulus worked. The safety net worked.

    I simply do not understand why progressives are out there daily trashing the stimulus, along with conservatives, when it would be really, really productive and smart to point to the fact that the 2/3s of the stimulus that was focused on progressive economic and safety net policy worked like a charm.

    We do realize that the general public is going to give Obama and the Democrats no credit for the fact that they kept police and teachers working, right? The infrastructure projects? There are thousands of them.
    We do realize that Obama and the Democrats are going to get no credit for strengthening the safety net when people really needed it?
    This happened. It has gotten completely lost in this general stimulus trashing that we have indulged in, but it happened. A progressive policy and immediate action that the GOP opposed en masse, and we can’t celebrate it because it wasn’t big enough?
    The fact is, this would have been a lot worse for regular people if the Democrats hadn’t acted. We can’t see that or promote that, because we have to repeat, endlessly, like a mantra, that it wasn’t big enough?
    How in the hell does this advance progressive aims? I don’t think it does.

  35. 35
    horatius says:

    As good as all this change is, it comes with a 8 year expiration date. And that’s hoping things don’t go terribad and the expiration becomes a 3 year one. That’s never good enough. As much as we celebrate this, we have to keep that in perspective. We have 8 years before we make this temporary change permanent. It only takes one Repuke administration, and not even a competent one at that to roll back rights won during the Dark Ages.

  36. 36
    Svensker says:

    Am I happy with everything Obama is doing? No.

    Has he done some good things that McCain/Palin would never in a million gazillion years have done? Yes.

    Is he better than the Chimperator and Darth? Hell yes.

    Do we need still need to hold his feet to the fire over lots of issues? Hell yes.

    Was there anyone else running in 2008 who had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning that I think would be doing a better job than Obama is doing? No.

    In a country in which McCain/Palin got nearly half of the votes even given the last 8 years and an economic collapse, you go to work with the politicians you have, not the knights in shining armor you make up in your head.

  37. 37
    Mnemosyne says:

    @kay:

    We do realize that the general public is going to give Obama and the Democrats no credit for the fact that they kept police and teachers working, right? The infrastructure projects? There are thousands of them.

    We do realize that Obama and the Democrats are going to get no credit for strengthening the safety net when people really needed it?

    It really is an argument between perfection and incrementalism. As long as people are convinced that large gains maybe could have been made, small gains will be dismissed as not good enough. The fact that this plays into Republican hands and only increases the feeling by Democrats that absolutely nothing has been done when in fact things have been done is dismissed as cheerleading and Obotness.

  38. 38
    Amanda in the South Bay says:

    Its great that a trans person is being chosen for a job based on their qualifications (egads, what a novel concept!!!!!) rather than being dismissed out of hand because of being trans. You know what I really want, though? An inclusive ENDA passed ASA fucking P, so those of us who aren’t corporate/industry bigwigs like Simpson can profitably find the most meager of employment.

    But I forgot, Congress can only concentrate on one thing at a time.

  39. 39
    Lisa K. says:

    @kay:

    I’ll get slammed, but I just think think the listing of grievances is counterproductive.

    You would be no fun at Festivus time, then.

  40. 40
    Bruce (formerly Steve S.) says:

    We’re just arguing with each other about the pace.

    Some may be arguing about the pace, but the core issue for me is keeping up the pressure. I mean, a couple of posts down you just told us that the financial industry has us all by the shorties and we’re all doomed. That may or may not be true, but one must at least try to fix it, mustn’t one?

    One must at least try to get the maximally good health care bill, mustn’t one?

    One must at least try to get LGBT equality laws, mustn’t one?

    The war is indeed a long one, and we can indeed acknowledge the small victories as you do above. But the reward for this small victory is to get back to hammering on Obama and the rest of the Oligarchy five minutes later. We can never let up.

  41. 41
    gwangung says:

    Well, who’s the real enemy here?

    The people who actually made steps forward but probably left money on the table? Or the people who resisted every step forward and want to take us backwards?

    Answering that will tell you where most of the hammering should go. (Because the country isn’t split exactly between the two; there is still the middle to attract).

  42. 42
    Tom Hilton says:

    @Bruce (formerly Steve S.):

    But the reward for this small victory is to get back to hammering on Obama and the rest of the Oligarchy five minutes later. We can never let up.

    It’s very telling to me that you phrase it as “hammering on Obama” rather than hammering on the issues. IMO, the latter is productive; the former, not so much.

  43. 43
    kay says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    I don’t think people are going to make a distinction with stimulus, between good stimulus and bad stimulus.

    I recognize that Paul Krugman sees a distinction, and to his credit, he always points it out, and everyone who comments here sees a distinction, but if you’re out there saying “stimulus didn’t work and it didn’t make any difference” it’s, 1. not true, and 2. probably going to make it very tough the next time you want to promote a progressive policy that involves spending money.

    The stimulus was valuable, to people, immediately. It just sucks that the whole idea of stimulus is now considered politically toxic, because both the left and the right couldn’t wait trash it. That we’re also not pointing out how freaking horrendous this collapse of radical free market dogma would have been without the safety net that was set up by liberals and protected by liberals, from decades of conservative attacks, is insane. The main reason this isn’t like the Great Depression is FDR and others set up a safety net, for just this reason.

    We’re undercutting our own best arguments. I want to tear my hair out listening.

  44. 44
    Bruce (formerly Steve S.) says:

    It’s very telling to me

    It’s very telling to me that you would seize on a turn of phrase rather than add anything of substance to a discussion. Go away, tiny person.

  45. 45
    gizmo says:

    There is some good stuff happening because of Obama– but his administration is doing a lousy job of telling the story. Most of it flies under the radar, and thus he gets no credit. There’s an old maxim in the public relations business–

    “If you don’t tell your own story, someone else is going to tell it for you.”

  46. 46
    kay says:

    @gizmo:

    Ah, but that would be “words, just words”.

  47. 47

    I’m gonna get flamed but screw it.

    Obama is doing more to help transgenders, gays, feminists, and those with AIDS than he’s doing to help straight men, especially straight BLACK men.

    He’s part of the agenda to feminize America.

    {{-_-}}

  48. 48
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @gwangung:

    The people who actually made steps forward but probably left money on the table? Or the people who resisted every step forward and want to take us backwards?

    If life were fair and/or people were rational, this would be a strong point. Problem is, our world is ruled by narratives, and narratives are frequently unfair. Case in point: who is the villian (aka who does the audience boo the loudest for when he comes “on screen”) in most accounts concerning the US Civil War? Jefferson Davis? Robert E. Lee? Stonewall Jackson? other CSA commanders?

    nope, nope, nope and nope.

    The villian in most accounts is George Brinton McClellan. Why? Because he was on the right side, but he was a fuckup. He didn’t get the job done and blew opportunities that cost more lives in the long run. That, as it turns out, is a more unforgivable sin than having been on the wrong side.

    That is something our ConservaDems should think about.

  49. 49
    BTD says:

    John writes:

    Change is happening. We’re just arguing with each other about the pace.

    True of course. But we are also arguing about the efficacy of certain policies. For example, I support the President’s Afghanistan policy fully. Indeed his entire foreign policy (it is also important to note that he really has done foreign policy as he promised in the campaign) yet I believe there are shortcomings in his economic policy and his approach on health care. I am happy that his campaign rhetoric on trade policy was just smoke (I thought it was).

    It is of course ridiculous to argue that Obama = Bush. But it is also wrong to make Bush the measuring stick it seems to me. Certainly I was hoping for better.

  50. 50
    Tom Hilton says:

    @Bruce (formerly Steve S.): And by dismissing the distinction as merely “a turn of phrase”, you demonstrate once again that you really don’t get it.

  51. 51
    Sanka says:

    Change is happening.

    Yep. Change.

    Repeal of the ban…began under the Bush Administration, as part of the former president’s PEPFAR legislation to curb and treat HIV/AIDS around the globe.

    Yeah. Whatta guy, that President Obama. It takes real gumption to follow through on the previous administration’s initiatives.

  52. 52
    geg6 says:

    @Sanka:

    So the Shrub had an initiative to hire more transgendered individuals into his administration? Wow. Wonder how his personal Jesus feels about that.

  53. 53
    Kevin K. says:

    @Bruce (formerly Steve S.): Bruce, how do you feel about wingnut birthers using enraged, short-sighted progressives calling Obama a “little prick” to help usher in the age of “President Palin”? You cool with that, Mr. Big?

  54. 54
    Sanka says:

    So the Shrub had an initiative to hire more transgendered individuals into his administration?

    That was referring to lifting the ban on HIV-infected people.

    As for a transgender in the Federal government? Meh.

    But I’m sure Joe Six-Pack who is scrounging to sell his wife’s jewelry to make a rent payment, or pay for his kids braces is glad to hear that there’s now a transgender in some Federal office in DC. Yay Obama!

  55. 55
    sparky says:

    at the risk of being flamed here, it seems that most of the Obama supporters here are conflating policy with politics. i can agree that it is better (marginally, perhaps–meaning literally, on the margins, such as this post) to have a D in the white house than an R, but it simply does not follow that therefore the Obama administration’s policies are good ones. viz., stimulus, health care, finance, foreign policy.

  56. 56
    Tom Hilton says:

    @sparky:

    i can agree that it is better (marginally, perhaps—meaning literally, on the margins, such as this post) to have a D in the white house than an R, but it simply does not follow that therefore the Obama administration’s policies are good ones. viz., stimulus, health care, finance, foreign policy.

    Nobody is saying anything remotely like that. We (John and other Obots) are pointing out administration actions that a) we think are substantive improvements, and b) wouldn’t happen under a Republican president. And when someone takes issue with a), people argue the point on the merits–not on the basis of where the policies come from.

  57. 57
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Lisa K.:

    On another board I frequent, when this topic was brought up, it unleashed a rash of screeds about how all these HIV people were going to come to America just to get free healthcare

    Right, like it’s impossible to get free healthcare anywhere else in the world. Because, you know, the US has been such an innovative leader in providing healthcare to all comers. We’re in the vanguard on that one, we are.

    /snark

    (Sorry to be so late to this thread; haven’t had a chance to check any posts since about 8:00 this morning.)

  58. 58
    Bruce (formerly Steve S.) says:

    Bruce, how do you feel about wingnut birthers using enraged, short-sighted progressives calling Obama a “little prick” to help usher in the age of “President Palin”?

    Gee, I don’t know, how do you feel about a blogger who isn’t you linking approvingly to another blogger who isn’t you?

    When you have a question that meets even minimal standards of intellectual honesty let us know.

  59. 59
    Crust says:

    We’re just arguing with each other about the pace.

    That’s just bogus. We’re also arguing about the affirmative actions Obama is taking, not just the speed of his actions. See e.g. Greenwald today. It’s not just that he’s doing good stuff too slowly for some, it’s also that (in the view of many progressive) he’s doing some bad stuff. I don’t see what you think you’re accomplishing by pretending otherwise.

  60. 60
    Crust says:

    The larger point is that pressure on Obama from the left is a good thing. Even if he secretly really wants to roll out a complete progressive agenda and is playing 11-dimensional chess to get there, a key part of his chess game has got to be pressure from the left to create political space to do it.

Comments are closed.