The LEFT Growing Concerned over Obama’s Cabinet Choices … Obama Throws No Bones to Progressive Base


Return to Clintonville …

For those that voted for Barack Obama who actually believed in his message of change, the choices that Obama has made post election must be eye opening and discouraging. It would appear that Obama’s promise of change was nothing more than a political campaign marketing ploy. How typical. You mean there were people who actually believed Obama’s slogan of “Change you can believe in.”

Change …Where’s the Beef? Alas, you mean after all the speeches, promises and pandering that there is nothing special about Barack Obama. You mean that Obama, The Chosen One, is nothing more than a typical politician who pandered to his base and made promises. Promises that he can never keep.  Progressive Democrats are upset that Obama has thrown no bones to his Progressive base who elected him President. Is the far Left starting to feel used?

Instead of Washington becoming Obamopolis, it is a re-birthed Clintonville that is rising like a phoenix from the ashes.

When is Obama going to appoint someone who reflects the progressive base that brought him to the White House? He won the crucial Iowa caucuses on the strength of his anti-Iraq War stance, and many progressive peace and justice activists worked hard for him against John McCain. So why in the world is he choosing Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State when she was one of the loudest hawks on Iraq and threatened to obliterate 75 million Iranians? And it’s not just Hillary. Obama’s OMB pick, Peter Orzag, is a Clintonite disciple of Robert Rubin. Obama’s AG pick, Eric Holder, is a Clintonite who represented Chiquita Bananas. And Larry Summers’s name is still being bandied about for Treasury, even though Summers, while Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, forced the deregulation of our financial markets and imposed disaster capitalism on Russia.

As Flopping Aces says, “Where’s that CHANGE we heard so much during the TWO YEARS Obama was a professional Presidential candidate (and a U.S. Senator on the side)?”

New Busters: Obama: Giving Raspberry to Progressives With Cabinet/Staff Picks?

 The “progressives” are noticing, too, that far from bringing a “new” wave of politics to Washington, so far Obama is bringing back the age of Clinton. Instead of Washington becoming Obamopolis, it is a re-birthed Clintonville that is rising like a phoenix from the ashes.

It is certainly too early to claim that Barack Obama is going to be a centrist president like the far lefties fear. After all, he hasn’t even taken office yet. But, one thing that can be said, when evaluating his pick of staffers and cabinet positions thus far, he sure ain’t the candidate of “change” he claimed to be when he was a candidate. Obama has picked no one “new,” no one “different,” and no one “forward looking.”

Who’s in the running for Obama administration jobs

If you liked this post, you may also like these:

  • Congressional Black Caucus Concerned that Barack Obama Has Yet to Appointed African-Americans to his Second-term Cabinet.
  • A Tale of Two Baseball Throws: GWB Following 9-11 Attacks at Yankee Stadium and Obama at White House Picnic
  • Add Another Round of Golf to Obama’s List … Second Time This Spring
  • What Hypocrisy … Candy Crowley Asks Does it Matter if There is a Lack of Diversity In Obama Cabinet Matter?
  • Dave Rubin’s Political Awakening … Leaving the Progressives and Bcoming a LIBERAL (VIDEO)

  • Comments

    19 Responses to “The LEFT Growing Concerned over Obama’s Cabinet Choices … Obama Throws No Bones to Progressive Base”

    1. Susan on November 21st, 2008 5:01 pm

      So it’s four more years of Clinton??

      Don’t blame me…I voted for the other guy :-)

    2. Maggie on November 21st, 2008 5:55 pm

      I thought there were going to be Reps. too? The guy who is being considered/picked? to be the Fed… is the one that has been helping Paulson with the bailout pkg.. Comforting?…not to me.. Paulson and Congress hurried out to bail out their banking buddies, in fact they are talking about more govt. help for Citi..the one I think that Dodd got his sweetheart land deal from.. and Rubin’s used to work for.

    3. Maggie on November 21st, 2008 6:04 pm

      Let’s see if the one’s who trashed Sarah Palin’s daughter and Sarah’s son , trash this woman.. and accuse them of incest…

      Rep. Linda Sanchez Expecting a Baby
      Updated, 5:53 p.m. ET

      News Flash: Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), 39 and single, is pregnant. She would be the first single member of the House to deliver a baby while in office.

      The congresswoman’s pregnancy was announced today in this Op-Ed column published in the Los Angeles Times, written by one of the paper’s columnists.

      “You’re practically the first to know,” columnist Patt Morrison writes. “Even her sister and fellow congresswoman, Loretta Sanchez, didn’t know until a few days ago.”

      According to the column, Sanchez and her boyfriend of a year and half, Jim Sullivan, a public relations consultant, are “unofficially engaged.” The baby is due May 21.

      “I don’t know how it’ll be received,” Sanchez told the L.A. Times columnist. “I hope people will recognize that to be able to plan that in your life — I don’t think that marriage and childbirth are black and white. There are certain instances in which you have to do things in reverse order.”

      According to the office of the House historian, Sanchez is the eighth known member of the House to become pregnant while serving in the House.

    4. LouiseVargas on November 21st, 2008 8:20 pm

      Hey Red, one thing you failed to mention. The stock market slid further down because it took some time while the cabinet choices were in the works, accepted or denied, fully vetted, etc. It is said the stock market does not like uncertainty. As it was announced this morning that Hillary will be Secretary of State and Bill Richardson will be Secretary of Commerce, the stock market shot up. I gained almost $2K between yesterday’s closing bell and today’s closing bell. If Obama’s choices make me gain economically, then that is the hope and change he promised. LV

    5. Ted on November 21st, 2008 8:35 pm

      You gotta hear this 90 minute blogradio on why the media has a blackout of the looming Obama Birth Certificate Constitutional Crisis:

    6. Linda on November 21st, 2008 8:39 pm

      What are you kidding?

      It is change, complete change from Bush and his crooked cronies.



    7. Fox Fire on November 21st, 2008 8:54 pm

      Kay Zee:

      Just to let you know…

      I wasn’t referring to eleven students who died at a ‘Who’ concert in Ohio… I was referring to the four students that were gunned down by our National Guard during a peaceful, Anti-Viet Nam War protest at Ohio’s Penn State University.

      It was shortly, thereafter, that Ayers and the SDS became active.

      Sound Familiar?


      What’s YOUR beef?

    8. caesu on November 21st, 2008 10:29 pm

      I am perfectly fine with appointments from the Clinton years.
      How many Democratic politicians with experience on the federal national are there?
      Weren’t they all somewhat connected to the Clinton administration?
      Most of them are Progressive and Liberal.
      But during most of the 90s Republicans controlled Congress.
      Stalling all Progressive legislation. :(

      Now Democrats are in charge of both Houses.
      Even with a filibuster-proof Senate majority if you include a few RINO’s and maverick McCain. :)
      And a Minnesota and Georgian Democratic Senator is still possible.

      As long as BHO doesn’t keep on anyone from the Bush cabinet – it is progressive.

      Eventually the GOP will recover and win an election again.
      I hope the GOP will go all out Conservative.
      Or even better: split up in a moderate and Conservative part.
      The bashing and scapegoating of Sarah Palin by Republicans and McCain getting cozy with BHO might make such a split possible.

      Because that will make it more difficult for them to win an election.

      But i hope this window of opportunity BHO made is wide enough to pass through plenty of Liberal and Progressive legislation. :)
      Finally the U.S.A. is entering the 21st Century to join the other nations of the world. :)

    9. Richard on November 21st, 2008 10:31 pm

      Is the leak that Hillary Clinton is being considered for secretary of state intended as an appeal to her to take the position? I can’t imagine that the news would be leaked without Obama’s approval … unless it’s a back-handed political maneuver to force somebody’s hand.

      Or did a Hillary supporter put the info out?

      Anyway, my guess: Obama is already looking to corral potential opponents for his 2012 re-election bid, which I assume he will make.

      I posted earlier that I thought Clinton might be thanking her stars for her defeat this year: if Obama proves unable to tackle the economy, she can present herself as ‘the true Democrat that could have done the job’ and maybe win back support of the Democratic Party.

      But if she takes the job, then she is honor-bound to adhere to the Obama line.

      So I guess in essence my question is: does she think that she might yet be a presidential candidate in the future?

    10. Murph on November 22nd, 2008 8:49 am

      The Clinton crooks are better at stealing then the Bush crooks. Our country is in serious trouble! Neither party cares about the country- only power and money!!

    11. JoeGoodGuy(R) on November 22nd, 2008 12:54 pm

      Hey Murph,

      Cheer up! Before you know it we’ll have, ahem, “free” universal health care, and 20 million new Dumbocrats will suddenly emerge once amnesty gets shoved down our throats (my version), I mean gets signed into law by “popular demand” (MSM’s version).

      All part of the CHANGE!, as in spare shange, which is what this once great country will be worth with -0- and the pelosi/barney frank pirates at the helm for at least the next 4 years. They have their multi-billion dollar Fannie/Freddie social engineering boondoggle, I mean “experiment” as a proven model, so enjoy the ride!

      Brings a tear or two to my eyes…

    12. Maggie on November 22nd, 2008 1:56 pm

      caesu on November 21st, 2008 10:29 pm
      I am perfectly fine with appointments from the Clinton years.
      How many Democratic politicians with experience on the federal national are there?
      Weren’t they all somewhat connected to the Clinton administration?
      Most of them are Progressive and Liberal.
      But during most of the 90s Republicans controlled Congress.
      Stalling all Progressive legislation.

      Now Democrats are in charge of both Houses.

      So the Republicans were in control most of the 90s and stalled things? Not Clinton’s fault. Yet , when it’s brought up the Dems have the lowest approval ratings ever for dem Congress the past 2 years and called the do nothing Congress, it’s George Bush’s fault nothing can get done, because he will overide it lol.. typical…And Dems like to blame Republicans for deregulation,, when it was Clinton who signed it into law and the vote was overwhelmingly for it, including dems. Clinton and Carter were also the one’s who pushed for all those houses for poor people who couldn’t afford them.

      The fact is Clinton worked with a Republican lead Congress just fine.. Even Clinton said this..

      Going very much against the media meme that the current financial crisis is all George W. Bush and the Republicans’ fault, Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC’s Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been “resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac”

      Whether he knew it or not, Clinton was going against virtually all press outlets that have been pointing fingers at Republicans since this crisis began, and likely much to the dismay of such folk actually agreed with a Fox News segment aired on Tuesday’s “Special Report” (video embedded right):

      BRIT HUME, HOST: In the recent spate of government bailouts, buyouts and rescues, the federal takeovers of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are arguably the biggest of them all. And those two firms are also arguably the biggest reason for the credit crisis in the first place. So the question arises — how did this come to be? Chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reports.

      JIM ANGLE, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): There is one nagging question behind all the debate over how to get out of this mess.

      CHRIS DODD (D-CT), SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE CHMN: American taxpayers are angry and they demand to know how we arrived at this moment.

      ELIZABETH DOLE (R), NORTH CAROLINA SENATOR: My constituents, and indeed taxpayers across the nation are asking how we arrived at this crisis. It is infuriating.

      ANGLE: But Senator Dole and others think they know the answer, and it’s something the Senate tried to fix three years ago but was thwarted.

      DOLE: To the mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which was made possible by weak oversight and little accountability.

      MEL MARTINEZ (R), FLORIDA SENATOR: A lot of what we’re dealing with today has its origins in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

      ANGLE: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, backed by the federal government, buy mortgage loans from the lenders who make them. But four years ago, both were in trouble over shoddy accounting. Fannie Mae Chief Franklin Raines, President Clinton’s former budget director, was fired. To placate those in Congress who watched over them, Fannie and Freddie promised to do more to help poor people get mortgages. That led them to buy riskier and riskier home loans from private lenders creating incentives for everyone to make shakier loans.

      PETER WALLISON, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: The problem is that they encouraged very bad mortgages to be made by banks and other institutions, because Fannie and Freddie would buy them.

      ANGLE: Eventually, they bought trillions of dollars worth of mortgages, a substantial portion of them based on poor credit, then resold many of them to financial institutions who thought they were safe because the federal government was behind them.

      WALLISON: As a result of this appearance that they were backed by the government, people never paid very much attention to the assets they were acquiring or the risks they were taking.

      ANGLE: And so shaky mortgages spread throughout the system. But in 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then chaired by Republican Richard Shelby, tried to rein in the two organizations bypassing some strong new regulations.

      WALLISON: Which would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring this bad — these bad mortgages. It actually gave a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie the kinds of powers that a bank regulator had.

      ANGLE: All the Republicans voted for it. All the Democrats, including the current chairman, Senator Chris Dodd, voted against it, and that was after Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan had issued a stark warning to senators that Fannie and Freddie were playing with fire. Greenspan said without stronger regulations, “We increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis. Without restrictions on the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States.”

      ANGLE: Which turned out to be exactly right, but because Democrats blocked it, those new regulations never got consideration by the full Senate and died. So that’s how we got into this mess, and how we missed a chance to avoid it. Getting out of it now, of course, will be a lot more difficult — Brit.

      HUME: Oh, boy. Thanks, Jim.

      Two days later, former President Clinton agreed:

      CHRIS CUOMO, ABC NEWS: A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, “This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this.” Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the ’99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They’re all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation?

      BILL CLINTON: Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    13. caesu on November 22nd, 2008 3:16 pm

      #12 Maggie

      yes, that’s right, Republicans started stalling liberal/progressive legislation ever since they took control of Congress in 1994, and they were at it again since 2006.
      this stalling let to the low approval ratings.
      Republicans in Congress get the lowest approval ratings.
      no wonder why they lost big in the Election in both Houses.
      and Democrats gained many seats in both Houses.

      but now with a filibuster proof majority Senate (a few RINO’s + maverick McCain included), Republicans will not be able to do that anymore.

      so yes, progressive/liberal CHANGE is coming. and a lot of it. :)

    14. Maggie on November 22nd, 2008 4:34 pm

      Oh I get it Clinton wasn’t at fault in the 90s it was the Republicans in Congress and now its bush not the dem congress the last two years.. If Obama goes far left Liberal..he will lose big time.

    15. Maggie on November 22nd, 2008 4:35 pm

      btw it seems its the dems..that Clinton is blaming not vice versa..and all those clinton people are coming back..

    16. caesu on November 22nd, 2008 5:22 pm

      #14 Maggie

      exactly, that’s what a Republican Congress with a Democratic President during the 90s did.
      and Democratic Congress with a Republican Filibuster over the last two years.
      blocking all (progressive/liberal) legislation.

      as long as Democrats keep this filibuster proof majority, they can’t hide anymore behind Republicans stalling them.

      i just hope BHO and Congress will deliver on most promises so Republicans won’t be able to take back Congress in 2010 or 2012.
      or at least pass enough liberal/progressive legislation that Republicans won’t be able to turn around without a filibuster proof majority – because that’s what they are not going to get for a long time – with so much infighting in their party.

      BHO can thank Bush and to a lesser extent McCain and Palin for that. :)

    17. Maggie on November 22nd, 2008 7:19 pm

      too funny ,,,,,,,,, clinton didn’t say the republicans blocked him and by the way if the prez has overiding power couldn’t Clinton do that? like people accused of Bush doing to Dems the past two years.. Can’t have it both ways.. get over it, everything the dems do isn’t grand and everything the Reps do isnt grand all the time it or not…there is almost 50 percent of the people who don’t agree..

    18. Maggie on November 22nd, 2008 7:23 pm

      The major of the USA isn’t liberal.. either.. if it goes liberal..forget it.. they’ve been saying all along he needs to govern middle like Clinton did..

    19. caesu on November 22nd, 2008 8:41 pm


      Clinton needed to govern in the middle from 1994 onwards, because he didn’t have Congress behind him.
      BHO doesn’t need to do this (yet).
      and it doesn’t look like Congress will swing all the way back to the Republicans in 2010 or 2012 as the GOP is in disarray at the moment.

      i am not saying Democrats are all good.
      but some liberal/progressive changes are long overdue.
      over the last 28 years Conservatives controlled for the most part the government.
      with the exception 1992-1994.
      the U.S.A. is just a bit late entering the 21st century.
      but i am almost certain they will make up for that.

    Leave a Reply

    Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

    • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
    • Red (comments)
    • Dugga (technical issues)
    • Dana (radio show comments)
    • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
    E-mail It