Eight years of abuse leaves you skeptical and it will take a few years for you, the US citizens and the world, to trust again. IMO. I certainly will feel more at ease, as your neigbour living on the border, with Obama at the helm.

It is disheartening to see some of the appointments being made. Hillary in particular. Allowing Lieberman to stay was shocking but the Democrats never had any balls since bush ambushed the White House so why do we expect them to have any balls now.

Cynthia McKinney/Kucinich 2012 !!

Hate to say it, Brad, but if you were listening to Obama you'd realize what was coming. The Republicans ran an idiot that had no real chance- except maybe with the machines- we will never know. Someone commented that the whole election seemed staged- I'll agree. After that momentary glimmer of hope by someone who at least looks different than most of our leaders, the morning after isn't so pretty. The fight for fair elections seems fruitless when there's the likely chance that the person who got the most votes did win this time. That majority will never vote for real change no matter who runs. I more fear one party having unchecked power- either party. You've done an extraordinary job revealing the cracks in our joke of an election system. Keep it up. Writing such pieces just gives the election status quo more ammunition to discount your efforts. It is only with coordinated actions- from all parties- that we will see a truly accountable election system.

You being the ultimate election expert, I'm going to use your tactic and say "You done us wrong, Brad, don't ignore your readers. Use your strengths to fight for a Constitutional right to have our votes counted and Instant Runoff elections." Leave the political party-weighted kvetching to the Jane Hamsher's and John Aravosis's of the world. Please.

It's clear that the Achilles heel of the "Rest of Them" is the Democratic primary. Focus all efforts and $$$ there to create the necessary fear and make their spinelessness work for us.

- Tom

"Somehow, many of those who supported and voted for him got the notion that his calls for "change" meant change from the old politics of both the failed Republican and Democratic party leadership. I don't know where they got that idea."

Brad, I do and you do too.

The so-called "progressives" projected what they wanted onto Obama. Whenever I talked about his Bush-accomplice voting record and neocon rhetoric, the Dem kool-aiders didn't want to hear it because it clashed with their dreamland wishful-thinking. They wanted me to wallow in their wishful-thinking and false hope with them and I wasn't about to do that. They called me a "Rove operative" and "a troll" and a "Repug operative."

Now, some of them are writing "buyer's remorse" comments. Well, I told you so. Suckers. Will they learn from this? Hell No! That D is indoctrinated in them (just as the R is indoctrinated in Repugs) and because of that they will fall for the next slick D politician who comes along and gives "feel-good, inspirational" speeches and tells them what he/she thinks they want to hear to get their vote. Guaranteed. And they will fall for it once again.

I'm reading/hearing desperate-sounding excuses and justifications already from some of the Obamatrons for some of these re-treads that the Pope of Hope has chosen. And some of the people making the excuses call themselves a "progressive." Like hell they are. They are faux progressives. Progressive in name only.

During the campaign, alot of the Obamatrons said "we will hold his feet to the fire" once he's elected. Well, where the hell are you? He's not my candidate. I see nothing. I see no fire. No holding any feet. I see nothing but wimped over, limp-wristed, pink tutu Democrats making excuse after excuse for these right-wing choices, like you always do. We've had nearly 8 years of this pink tutu shit and I'm tired of it. One would think you would be "holding his feet to the fire" (to use your language) NOW since he is NOW making the appointments. Are you going to wait until AFTER the appointments are made to supposedly "hold his feet to the fire?" That's just more of that pink tutu stuff. Drives me up the damn wall.

And finally, today Walk on Water Obama said that if he didn't put qualified people in, people would be angry that he didn't put qualified people in. Did you get that? So, this man is essentially saying that he cannot find ONE qualified TRUE PROGRESSIVE ANYWHERE? Has this man never heard the name Dennis Kucinich, for starters? Sigh. Pathetic.

GWN wrote: "I certainly will feel more at ease, as your neigbour living on the border, with Obama at the helm."

Really?

Obama appointees signal continuing aggression and war
http://tinylink.com/?SeU4Dia4dN

Erma,

I feel your pain, but the only other choice was Clinton. How much change would that have been? Sure a McKinney or Kucinich vote would have been righteous, but to what end? To just give Clinton a bigger chance at the primaries? I had no illusions about Obama given his voting record, etc., but I call him DLC-bright. He is no progressive, but I believe this administration will at least be a meritocracy. And that is a serious change from an ideological kleptocracy operating a brain dead puppet.

Ginny Ross,

You wrote "but the only other choice was Clinton." Well that's who you have now with the Pope of Hope. Both Obama and Clinton were pathetic pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-Bush, anti-US Constitution, pro-USA PATRIOT Act candidates.

There WERE other choices. There were true, real PROGRESSIVE candidates, but most faux "progressives" wouldn't support them. Instead, they supported the corporate Republicrat candidates.

Nader/Gonzalez were on most ballots, or you could have written in McKinney/Clemente. There is nothing difficult or hard about choosing Nader, for example. Just look at his platform and when you vote, vote Nader. It just isn't that difficult. Oh, I forgot, all you great thinkers didn’t want to “waste” your vote or else were more afraid of McCain than Obama, although their policies are practically the same, judging from their voting records. I am so sick of people who know better choosing to go along with the conventional wisdom that says third parties do not have a chance (which is true when people fail to vote for them). That outlook is why change never comes, and never will. Period. And now, the rest of us must suffer through some people's buyer’s remorse comments from some thick Dem kool-aid drinkers and articles that tell us nothing new, but apparently help the writer deal with his/her guilty consciences.

And then there's the old "hold his feet to the fire" bull shit. Yes, that's worked so well since 2000 with the useless and worthless Bush-accomplice Dems, hasn't it? As if they give a damn what any of us think!

Well get on it NOW especially you Obamatrons. Get on with the "holding his feet to the fire." NOW.
Who and where is the organization and what's the website responsible for "holding his feet to the fire?" Does anybody have a "hold his feet to the fire" website up yet?

You have to spread the word to get the feet burning if you're serious about "holding his feet to the fire."

Erma @ 5. I will be "more" at ease with Obama at the helm. Meaning that "we" Canada may hold onto our oil and water a little longer, that there will be discussion before the US just decides to take our valuable resources. You know "power and might and the most nuclear weapons", you'll be feared but never respected IMO.

I expect , as my late father said in 1968, there will always be wars and the banks will always run the world, since the US has attacked at least twenty Countries since WW11 that that will continue no matter who is at the helm...

Wars

P.S. Brad thank you for allowing me to comment at your "American" blog for all those years. Good luck in your future endeavors.

If the Democrats make the mistake of "now go away" to the progressive blogsphere, it will eventually put them, and the GOP, out of power over time. The internet has changed the rules of the game forever. Now it is time to begin organizing a national tax strike to get their attention. Billions going into CEO bonuses? I don't think so.

Wilburrr... I'm Thankful it's not MaGoo and that thing in the house . . .

BostonianQueerInDallas,

Since 2000 the faux Dems in congress have told "progressives" to go away. So they've already done that, in part, by completely ignoring us since 2000 and working for the illegitimate Bush regime every step of the way. Most recently, by giving Bush his $850 BILLION Wall Street bailout. Once again, the faux Dems ignored We The People, including so-called "progressives." The faux Dems in congress could care less what we think. They work for the corporations, the lobbyists, the military industrial complex and the like. They correctly know that most D voters will vote for them no matter what they do due to D party-line indoctrination in most people who call themselves a Democrat. They take Dem votes for granted. They only want the Dem voter's $$$, which some/many Dem voters are still gullible and naive enough to still send them!

I suspect the idea of a national tax strike would have as much success as the 3 national general strikes which were called in the last year or so. All 3 were failures. Most people couldn't be bothered and went to work instead, including so-called "progressives."

As for the Internet, this is on Barack "Change we can believe in" Obama's choice for Attorney General:

Eric Holder Supports Internet Censorship
http://tinylink.com/?pAUWDMYCcI

Michael G. said:

Hate to say it, Brad, but if you were listening to Obama you'd realize what was coming

.

Hate to say it, Michael, but if you read the actual article I was pointing to, you'd see that I did realize it. That being just one of the reasons I didn't vote for Obama. I'd have quoted back to you from the article to that extent, but Erma already quoted one of the points from it that I would have copy and pasted here to you myself.

As to this:

You being the ultimate election expert, I'm going to use your tactic and say "You done us wrong, Brad, don't ignore your readers. Use your strengths to fight for a Constitutional right to have our votes counted and Instant Runoff elections." Leave the political party-weighted kvetching to the Jane Hamsher's and John Aravosis's of the world. Please.

Readers are never ignored, though I have no idea where you get the idea that I don't have opinions on politics, and that I shouldn't express them whenever I feel like it.

Similary, I have no idea where/why you got the idea that I'd be interested in fighting for IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) when it remains such an irresponsible idea at this time, for many reasons which I've enumerated many times in the past.

Erma -

Keep making noise. I always enjoy it. But I'd caution that you be careful about presuming to know my position on some of these issues (when I haven't expressed them, even as you seem to think I have).

I'd also advise you to wait for Obama's actions before you criticize him for them. I believe you've jumped the gun and have been rather presumptuous in your beliefs of what he will (or won't) do.

You may be right in your suspicions, but I'm of the mind that he (anybody, for that matter) deserves the benefit of the doubt in such a role before casting judgment.

Not that you need my advice.

I do find it interesting, however, how commenters both here and at the Guardian have focused on my comments about Obama, and almost not at all on my comments about Democratic Leadership, for whom most of my criticism was levelled.

Brad,

I haven't presumed to know your positions. But I know that you are not dumb and you can figure this stuff out just as I can, even if you won't outright say it like I do. That's why I wrote, "Brad, I do and you do too" in an earlier comment.

I haven't "jumped the gun" on anything. All I've talked about is what Obama's already done (his actions), such as right-leaning appointments, his Bush-accomplice voting record. They are his votes as a senator. No "jumping the gun" there. I've talked about his neocon rhetoric (such as attacking Iran, Pakistan and a surge in Afghanistan.) All neocon, right-leaning positions. Even this morning on RawStory there's a headline: "Fox guests hail Obama picks."

http://tiny.cc/rreFS

People on Faux News are now PRAISING Obama? That tells me that something is wrong with this picture!...and this president-elect.

And really, I don't give any politician the "benefit of the doubt" in this context. Not at all. I look at the person's history (his senate Bush-accomplice voting record) and what he has said outside of "feel good" speeches and now Obama's actions with his appointments. I give no credence to any "inspirational" pabulum speeches because it is just to make one feel good inside. It often has no bearing on reality in the end. Bill Clinton is a good example of "feel good" speeches and not acting on much of it.

Were the so called "extremely progressive" bloggers like Jane Hamsher and John Aravosis so progressive? I always found them status quo consevative. Any liberal who refuses to write about 9/11 and how the crimes are being swept under the table, now by the Democratic congress, is no liberal at all. Obama always made it clear he didn't believe the government was behind it, lying all the way to the bank and now to the presidency. The country gave Obama a clear victory to go ahead with the Republican agenda on most issues.

You know what, Marzi, I have been plenty irked lately by people who are very clearly plain old group-think Democrats glomming on to the term "progressive" for themselves. I've heard idiots bellyaching that if you aren't approving of Obummer's actions, you aren't a progressive, or, when they're trying to be patient, you are "less progressive". Sometimes I think I'd like to grab their lapels and tell them they wouldn't know "progressive" if it fell on their empty skulls.

But, well, I'm really crabby about the state of the world, so I try not to vent it on them.

I gave more thought to what Brad wrote:

"You may be right in your suspicions, but I'm of the mind that he (anybody, for that matter) deserves the benefit of the doubt in such a role before casting judgment."

Imagine, for a second, that someone asked the liberals to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Funny thought, huh?

The Gates appointment: Obama slaps antiwar voters in the face
http://tinyurl.com/5pqjvt

(And we're supposed to give the Pope of Hope the benefit of the doubt.)

FUCK!!!!!
"dreamland wishful-thinking"? What the hell ELSE did we have? This impressive, charismatic, INTELLIGENT (thank Christ!) man bursts on the scene---

Yeah, he is pretty goddamn far from as progressive as I'D like him to be, but he is a lot farther left than I dared hope for in this crazy goddamn country lately!!---

So he takes the burgeoning response & runs with it all the way to the White House. Yes, it was crazy, with way more hero worship than I'm comfortable with, but I'll take a goddamn hero after the bloody horror of the last eight years.

I hope to Christ he's not in anyone's pocket. But he's almost there and (I would THINK) has to tread on fucking acres of eggshells until he can gather all his strings & pull them tight. At THAT point, I hope to FUCK he pulls left.

People "couldn't be bothered and went to work instead"?? As if a job is just something you do to amuse yourself when there's nothing better to do?? You guys who are bitching & moaning & blaming Brad & whomever..what is it exactly you would like to see us--the netroots, the progressives, the people--DO & what is your actual practical plan to get us doing it?

I think we should give him a chance, see what he does. After that if it's the same old bullshit--after I cry my fucking eyes out--what? Seriously. Sarcasm aside. And sorry for all the fucking profanity but I'm as frustrated as you are. I'd really like to hear a plan. Who's gonna bring the torches & pitchforks?

Joan,

You said you'd like to hear a plan. Well here it is:

The Pope of Hope should be making real, true progressive appointments. He is NOT. I can only gather that Walk on Water Obama has never heard the name Dennis Kucinich, for example, who would make an excellent appointment.

He (Obama) should put in place universal health care, which he's opposed to.

He should end all wars/occupations, which he says he's not going to do. He wants to escalate Afghanistan and keep troops in Iraq. WRONG! A true progressive would make a Department of Peace and scale-down the Department of War. And I read the other day that Obama is going to INCREASE the Pentagon budget.

He should arrest and jail the entire Bush Crime Family. All of them. Don't let a single one walk. He will NOT do this.

Close Guantanamo. Stop torturing prisoners.

And so on. You know, the true progressive "agenda" that we all supposedly want.

Now, I distinctly remember those who were supporting this Pope of Hope/Chairman of Change saying over and over and over how they were going to "hold his feet to the fire."

But, I don't see anyone "holding his feet to the fire" as he's making these damnable appointments. What are we getting from most of the people who voted for him and were screaming "hold his feet to the fire?" Well, now these people having fitted themselves with their pink tutus and like wet doilies they have begun their excuse-making and justifications for what he's already done. Would they be making excuses and justifications for this man if he had a R behind his name? SIGH. I've not heard or seen any of them say a word about their precious "hold his feet to the fire." I said it was bullshit when they were saying.

I'm not at all offended by your colorful language. I think we're all adults here. And keep getting mad.

Let's quit the bitchin' and work with the new Prez O, y'all! He's certainly the best choice we had that could WIN!

I agree with Brad that the Dem leaders have screwed us all the last 2 years by not going after the votes for which we put 'em there.
1. Leave Iraq
2. Fix Health Care
3. Tax the rich
4. End corporate welfare
5. PAPER BALLOT ELECTIONS!
6. etc...

Support Prez O. Make him hold the Dem Congress feet to the fire.
And support Brad's Blog.

shw

Joan,

I meant to say this in my previous comment.

You asked:

"FUCK!!!!! "dreamland wishful-thinking"? What the hell ELSE did we have?"

You had Obama's Bush-accomplice VOTING RECORD and his neocon rhetoric.

It seems to me that a candidate's voting record would be the #1 criteria for selecting a presidential candidate for an intelligent person. That's what I went on.

I did not base my decision to not vote for him based on his "inspirational, feel-good" speeches or his "hope" and "change we can believe in" marketing slogans. I voted for Nader/Gonzalez.

Progressives did have 2 excellent choices:

1. Nader/Gonzalez
2. McKinney/Clemente

Both Nader and McKinney had excellent platforms, but most people did not vote for Obama based on his senatorial Bush-accomplice voting record or his neocon rhetoric. Most people probably never examined his voting record, or even cared! Most Dem voters I talked with didn't give a damn about his voting record. They were sold on his "hope" and "change" language. And most people voted out of emotion.

Most people can never let facts get in the way, can they?

Shannon Williford said:

"I agree with Brad that the Dem leaders have screwed us all the last 2 years..."

Make that nearly 8 years. Since 2000 the faux Dems in congress have screwed us. They were not required to continually vote for any of the criminality and shit (such as Alito and Roberts and the USAPATRIOT Act, on and on) they voted for to help the Bush regime. The faux Dems willingly served as Bush-accomplices all on their own. Just examine their voting records. Oh there are those damn facts again getting in the way.

Most Dem voters I talked with didn't give a damn about his voting record. They were sold on his "hope" and "change" language. And most people voted out of emotion.

Facts politicians never ignore, even if you do.

It's a fact that none of the other candidates had the first part of a chance to come anywhere close to winning. You didn't let it get in your way.

It's a fact that most people want to put their vote where they think it can do the most feasible good, which immediately lets out the candidates you like. You didn't let that fact get in your way either.

Seems to me Joan was pleading for some concrete ideas about what we can do about this stuff. Seems to me we could start facing these facts and find good candidates we can turn into the frontrunners BEFORE the criminal party prime movers have a chance to grab everyone's attention with their cronies... which means getting it done long before election time.

People have been screaming that we have to vote third party for decades and IT DOESN'T WORK, ever. That's a fact that doesn't get in your way either.

Most people can never let facts get in the way, can they?

No. And that includes you. Seems to me you have the energy to start making a candidate with a great platform into the kind of candidate most people would vote for, but it involves identifying the person and building a staff and a grassroots juggernaut big enough to knock the pins out from under the major parties.

They're never going to lose their footing if we don't make the ground too slippery for them.

Not all Democrats laid down since 2000 Erma. The leadership (sic) sure did though. By taking impeachment off the table Nancy Pelosi says no law needs to be obeyed by any American any time any where.

It is up to us to keep their/his feet to the fire. I am disappointed in his appointing all the flat world sock puppets to the economic positions. I would also like to see us claw back some of the billions the "bankers" stole in bonuses and fees selling crap they knew was worthless to the other pigs.

Prosecutions anyone? Don't tell me they didn't know they were selling crap. Lying, cheating, and stealing all the way to bonus days paid for by the taxpayer this time. Trillions down the rat hole never to return.

No, seriously, Ross Perot had the right idea, came the closest. It helped that he had the money. You couldn't go anywhere without seeing people with Perot tables set up. If he hadn't been so dweeby, with such an annoying voice, we wouldn't have had Bubba.

It would help if the candidate were already famous, because name recognition is huge, and media draw is huge, and mountains of money need to come from somewhere, but that person has to be out there getting everyone's ears on important matters long before "election season" so they're already the favorite when everyone starts announcing for president. Then there's a chance. Then the facts are on everyone's side.

AFSMP

We haven't been able to get anyone's feet close to any fire for a long time and the prosecuting that needs doing would need to come from the people who need prosecuting.

It's ugly out there.

Personally, I think the Thai's who have brought Thailand to a standstill have the right idea. It's dangerous as hell, but it works when enough people are determined.

Agent 99 wrote:

"People have been screaming that we have to vote third party for decades and IT DOESN'T WORK, ever."

Of course it doesn't. It doesn't work because most people including yourself apparently don't have the intelligence to vote for them, assuming you voted for the Chairman of Change.

Then Agent 99 wrote:

"Seems to me you have the energy to start making a candidate with a great platform into the kind of candidate most people would vote for, but it involves identifying the person and building a staff and a grassroots juggernaut big enough to knock the pins out from under the major parties."

Again, we already have the candidates (I listed them previously) but most people are not going to vote for them because of D and R party-line indoctrination in most people. That's why "we" stay in this rut one election cycle after the other. And until one gets out of this D and R party-line indoctrination rut, we will continue to have the pro-war, corporate candidates. And that is a fact that you seem to let get in the way.

We wouldn't want to elect a candidate that's really progressive, would we?!

We do NOT already have the candidates, Erma.

That's perfectly crystal clear. You have a lot of nerve remarking on my lack of intelligence when you do continually not let facts get in your way.

Do you at least browbeat Obummer's transition team this much, or are we the only ones?

I've been urging the Obamatrons to "hold his feet to the fire" NOW, as they said before the election they would do after he's elected. But I see none of them doing that. All I see them doing are making excuses for and struggling to justify his establishment/status quo choices thus far.

It's The People who need to change, and changing The People will take generations to do because most D-party line indoctrinated/programmed people can't possibly conceive of voting for a candidate who doesn't have a D behind his/her name (such as Nader or McKinney).

Until The People change as a whole, things will remain as they are in the big scheme of things.

Dude, the election's over. He's your president now too. Maybe the "Obamatrons" won't do it, but nothing's stopping you.

Ok, first of all, can we please fucking kiss & make up & stop bitching at each other like they want us to do? Easy to say, I realize, but still.
You are smart people & heh, I need you to make sense of this universe of bullshit we're in because you're smarter than me! So...

Erma,
You & I are about 95% on the same page. Plus I'm bitching about people bitching, by doing my own bitching. Not exactly constructive.

#22/24
Thanks for always getting it, 99. So we're locked in with "that one" for 4 years, come what may. And I'm not saying DON'T try & hold his feet to the fire, god knows.
But again, what does that MEAN specifically? I mean, I know it MEANS hold him accountable, and like, I'll hold his ankles or whatever, but what do 'we the people' DO to do that??)

Erma, you write
"And most people voted out of emotion". Ok maybe that's true. But who gives a fuck? Who cares if they voted because he's "black" or because they liked his sugar-bowl ears, you know what I mean? A mix of factors made people vote in droves. What exactly was that mix of factors?
Personally I think: person of color (about damn time), had charisma AND intelligence AND was articulate AND knew the issues AND was farther left...what else?

99, if I understand you correctly, when you write "identify the candidate" you're saying "look to the future, start now, who's out there". I agree with you that voting for Kucinich (love him) or Nader or McKinney was more than futile..it could have given us president McCain, were it not for the numbers, which they just could not foresee.
Yes? No?

Oh & I should say re the 'feet to the fire question'...
I'm a nobody, don't work in politics, just an ordinary garden variety citizen, so I have no 'access' to lawmakers other than phone, letter, email, going to their local office, going to protests. I do write a decent letter, so that's mostly what I do.
But after 8 years, all that feels pretty pointless. Plus I'm in my 60's so...probably not gonna ACTUALLY storm the Bastille. Unless it's absolutely necessary.

Oh also!
Yes, whoever said it, investigation & prosecution of the Bush cabal is IMPERATIVE. If Obama drops THAT ball, he definitely loses me and, I suspect, a lot of others.

Come on folks, the guy ain't even gone to work yet.
CHILL! Watch him work. Then jump in.

It will be most important for the left to consolidate our win. Then we can pressure to move further left, when we get good results. The good news is that Obama was (as the McCain's regularly told us...) "the most liberal Senator." So he voted left. But as Prez, he'll be more of a pragmatist, if he has any sense of steady growth. To jump up and go Socialist from the start would never fly, given our system...
Still, does anybody think we'd be better off with McCain???

We unfortunately live under a 2-party system. That's the way it is, and I don't see anybody changing that barring a "Pearl Harbor-like event."

shw

Joan, #30, last paragraph, yes. Just so.

As to what we do specifically to hold his feet to the fire, as far as I can tell, it means massive demonstrations. It could do some good to swamp his website with complaints, and letters to the editors and all that. He might lose his stride if he's finding how not smoothed over we are, but, honestly, huge crowds of displeased citizens is the only thing that ever works when the government is not responsive. If you and I, or Erma and I go pound on his door and grab his ankles and some matches, the Secret Service will vaporize us before we get the matches lit. It has to be massive, and peaceful, no matter how many heads get cracked open. Otherwise there's fuck-all The People can do to direct their behavior.

I was hollering that we needed to get real on him while he was running, that that was the only time we could have real influence, and, Erma's right, everybody said, "Wait till he wins."

I've had both my head and my emotions in this from the start. So I hate how he's approaching this, hold out very little hope that he can pull anything like real change for the better out of it, and am so fucking relieved it's him and not McCain I can barely stand up. McCain meant naked and starving hordes outside guarded palaces. Obummer means some small measure of relief for those suffering the worst and maybe a little breathing room for people to recover enough to make themselves safer.

Being ultra-realistic, I don't even know what I'm doing here because we can vote till we're blue and even if it all goes perfectly, whoever is elected cannot override the invisible others who actually run this show. Getting rid of them would involve the people in government who know who they are, and who's actually in their pay, getting seriously radical to get rid of them. As anyone can see, NONE of them are down for that. A couple of them probably would be if enough of their peers had the gumption for it.

Shannon, he's done plenty enough already. We are watching him work.

So is Karl Rove.

Shannon wrote:

"Come on folks, the guy ain't even gone to work yet. CHILL! Watch him work. Then jump in."

Shannon, even though the Obama coronation is not until January, he's already gone to work. You say to "Chill." Well, what about your responsibility as an Obama supporter to "hold his feet to the fire" (since you clearly believe that thinking by your "push him left" language.) I would think you would start "holding his feet to the fire" NOW, and not AFTER the appointments are made. He's making the right-wing appointments NOW, Shannon. Such as with this damnable appointment:

Who is Paul Volcker? Obama appoints a longtime enemy of the working class
http://tinyurl.com/55uyn7

I keep raising the "hold his feet to the fire" and now the "we will push him left" nonsense because it is just that. Nonsense. I keep raising the "hold his feet to the fire" bull because that's what the Obamabots kept saying before the election that they would do to Obama and I told them at the time that it was bullshit. I asked: When since 2000 have these scum of the Earth Bush-accomplice politicians (Obama being one of them) been pushed anywhere?

Was Obama PUSHED to the left on the $850 BILLION Wall Street bailout that he actively worked for and voted for despite The People's opposition to it?

Was Obama PUSHED to the left when he voted yes for Bush's FISA which shreds the US Constitution?

Was Obama PUSHED to the left when he voted yes repeatedly for Bush's war appropriations?

Was Obama PUSHED to the left when he voted yes to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT ACT which shreds the US Constitution?

Despite all the PUSHING to the left and "hold his/their feet to the fire" from:

1. phone calls
2. faxes
3. e-mails
4. petitions
5. sit-ins (Conyers' office, for example)
6. national protests
7. local protests
8. and other actions

...you see the state of things, don't you? You're not going to "hold his or anybody's feet to the fire" or to the left because these useless and worthless Bush-accomplice politicians don't give a damn what "we" think once they have your vote. Period.

I didn't vote for any of these Bush-accomplice scum in congress and I voted for Nader/Gonzalez who are already left and don't need to be PUSHED anywhere. Their platform/agenda is already LEFT. It is already PROGRESSIVE. But most people didn't have the intelligence to vote for them due to Dem party-line indoctrination in most people.

The millionaire politicians in congress have to care what "we" think in order to "hold their or his feet to the fire" or PUSH them anywhere. In case you've not noticed, these establishment/status quo millionaire politicians have essentially told us to Fuk Off and "Go Away" (until they want your vote next time and as suckers you'll give them your vote because they have a D behind their name when most of them are Repugs and they are supposedly the "lesser of the two evils" or at least you want to believe that when really they are the same and are paid from the same people). But most of you don't seem to understand that. Probably because you don't want to, AND because of what I spoke about earlier: Dem party-line indoctrination/programming.

Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear. Now look what's happened. Agent 99 and Erma are somewhat in agreement. Imagine that. Let's see, it's the 29th of November 2008. Remember that date.

I think I'm going to go sit in this hot sauna (even though I don't have one) and celebrate the Pope of Hope's economic team along with Karl Rove.

So Karl Rove is now praising the Chairman of Change. Uh huh. Now that's wonderful company to be associated with, isn't it?! Karl Rove? If I were Obama and truly serious about change and "change we can believe in" (versus that being an empty campaign marketing slogan), the last person I would want praising me would be one of the illegitimate Bush regime criminals by the name of Karl Rove. Just the other day people were on Faux News praising Obama's (right-wing) appointments as well (according to an article I read on RawStory). Does that tell anybody anything?

Oh I can hear it now: Erma, you have to give him "tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime" (with long emphasis on the word time) and "give him the benefit of the doubt." Bull shit.

I saw that picture at that Karl Rove article that Agent 99 linked to. Did you check out that picture? Now does that look like "change we can believe in" to you with all those goddamned flags behind him? Looks just like the Bush regime "set" to me. Imagine that.

Yes, and, well, one thing that really did give me some comfort was that Obummer was a Constitutional Law professor, and so, thought silly me, he would at least not further harm it, if not immediately restore it in full... but right out of the box he fucks that one up too.

This would be why he has not formally announced Clinton for SoS, and I'm certain the entire Thanksgiving holiday has been taken up with wheeling and dealing to try to smooth that over somehow. The only decent course is to nominate someone else instead, but more like they're trying to undo the salary raises or figure out who can be booted out of their chairmanships to give Hillary more clout in the Senate as a consolation prize.

I suspect the overwhelming approval of Obummer's picks by the GOP is about pissing us off so badly we want his head on a pike, sticking with their fucking divide and conquer shtick, but, damn, they've got some great material to work with!

So Bush regime criminal Rice is now praising Queen Hillary of the Borg Collective. I see.

At the rate this thing is shaping up, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the Chairman of Change were to ask Cheney to stay on as VP.

[ed note: The software decided you were spam for some reason... sorry. --99]

For those who feel that Obama is a let-down because he isn't the perfect progressive, I am truly sorry. But I told you so. If we had to pick an imperfect candidate, my preference still runs to John Edwards and for one reason--the only reason that matters now: he wanted to take the progressive fight into the halls of power. Obama never did and has made it clear long ago he is a Reagan Democrat who thinks his only hope is to rule from the center-right, not even the center-left. He is not a fighter. Say what you want about Edwards extra-curriculars. He understood progressives need to fight to achieve what they want. We will suffer several years of Obama trying to learn this lesson and we can ill-afford it.

Re 34
99,
"It could do some good to swamp his website with complaints, and letters to the editors"
I actually think that (might) have more of an effect than demonstrations. But I dunno... in either case, it would be effective only if it were truly massive. I think most people are still reeling with the joy of him being elected.

It's Monday morning...& maybe the prez-elect could say something about this?
"AIG Pulls Fast One --- "Cash Awards" Going To Managers"

I'm a bit late to the discussion. I was a Kucinich supporter who voted for Obama. I am older, but online only one year. I knew Obama was not progressive. I am a bit surprised at his picks as of today, Dec.1. I've started nagging the transition team via email, e.g. close captioning and/or interpreters of Amer.Sign Language (ASL)for deaf people and transcripts. (I urge that on all folks who post video on their blogs, please. There's lots of readers online who are deaf.) Brad ends with "it's not going to be pretty". True. So what? Us older folks have some history with activism small and larger.

Of the trio, Obama, Hillary, and McCain, the one most likely to cater to corporate interests was probably Hillary. The one 2nd most likely to cater to corporate interests is a toss-up. McCain certainly would do it in some cases, but he at least has SOME track record at bucking the corporate system. Obama might appear to be the guy to buck the corporate system, but over the last year I watched his positions morph into basically clinton-lite as far as fighting corporate control of the government.

I voted for Ron Paul, even though I disagree with him on many issues (I like having a public school system, and having government organizations like NIH, NASA, NSF, etc), he at least wouldn't be afraid to implement 'change'. He would have acted to reduce government spending, and government control in our lives. He would have acted to reduce corporate control of our government.

Nader would have also enacted 'change'.

Noone who voted for Obama, Hillary, or McCain should whine about 'more of the same'. All three of those candidates stood ready and eager to support the corporate-control-of-our-government system. None of them would have sucked as bad as bush, and I think Obama is probably the best out of the 3 for the country, but he's far from the best as far as implementing fundamental 'change'.