Our blogging days aren’t over by a long-shot, but we’re going to take some time to think about how to be productive as bloggers in the days to come now that we’re operating in a different political environment.

Thank you everyone who contributed, e-mailed, commented, posted, etc. And stay tune for a new announcement soon about our next endeavor…

-Dan

Imagine a world in which an in-coming Democratic President won a strong majority of the country’s votes in an electoral landslide.

Imagine that President planned to confront an economic crisis by launching a massive, jobs-producing, infrastructure investment program via DIRECT government spending.

Imagine that President planned to spend billions in building wind, solar, and alternative energy, and building out the crucial electrical grid.

Imagine that President planned to remove American troops from Iraq – a neo-con war which that President opposed (while most of the country supported at first).

Imagine that President planned to deal with Iran by direct negotiations.

Imagine that President planned to lead the world on climate change, launching a cap-and-trade program that will quickly limit carbon emissions for the first time in our nation’s history.

Imagine that President planned to be multi-lateral and work with our allies on a range of issues.

Imagine that President planned to make passing universal health-care a high priority.

Imagine that President planned to raise the minimum wage.

Imagine that President planned to extend unemployment benefits and food stamps.

Imagine that President planned to shut down Guantanamo Bay.

Imagine that President planned to make it clear that America doesn’t torture.

Imagine that President planned to repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and help lead us into a future in which gay equality takes on greater meaning and shape.

Imagine that President planned to re-build crumbling schools and invest in our education system.

Imagine that President planned to undo restrictions on federal funding for stem-cell research.

Imagine that President believed in science to begin with.

Imagine that President planned to re-orient the tax structure (whether now or after the crisis passes) to slightly raise rates on the wealthy and lower them on the middle class.

And once again – imagine a President whose response to an economic crisis is MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING on infrastructure, energy, and other jobs-creating programs.

NOW…

Imagine the blogosphere’s reaction to that President accused him of being a sell-out.

Imagine diarists and commenters accused this President of not being “change.”

Imagine TV hosts and their guests, some of whom I love, go so far as to proclaim this President “not a progressive.”

Imagine bloggers and columnists accuse him of being “center-right,” some comparing him to the likes of Grover Norquist or worse.

Imagine bloviators accuse him of playing “ghetto” politics, all in an attempt to marginalize the left.

NOW

Imagine a third party – a group of intelligent people with particular, and highly legitimate concerns who express those concerns intelligently.

Imagine this last party having its voice drowned out by the members of the previous party – the bloviators who scream and attack bloody murder.

WELL…

You don’t have to imagine any of it – because it’s happening.

We have the most progressive President-elect in ages, and many of us have launched daily attacks on him two months before he’s sworn into office. Not just attacks that say, “He’s not as progressive as I’d like him to be,” but those that say, “He’s not a progressive, period” and comparing him to the worst elements of the far right.

Let me make one thing clear: Obama is not above criticism and his appointments are subject to careful scrutiny. Indeed, I applaud the work the netroots played in shutting down the hypothetical Brennan nomination to the CIA – torture, is, in fact, unacceptable.

I also applaud the work of people like TomP who wrote a very good diary today expressing his very legitimate concerns about the appointment of Gates and the role of labor in the Obama administration.

Unfortunately, his work is drowned out by other criticism which is so hysterical that it bears no connection to reality.

But when you launch accusations of far-right treason against a President with the most progressive plans for our country we’ve seen in a generation (or I’ve seen in my 33-year-lifetime), a President who is using the temperament and guise of moderation to shift the center of this country to the left, and whose first act as President, I will repeat, is going to a massive government investment in building infrastructure the likes of which we haven’t seen in 65 years, it just makes you seem as out-of-touch from reality as can be.

Criticize, but at least base it in the facts.

So here’s where we are as I see it:

1) I believe we have a genuinely progressive President who has to govern the whole country and actually get stuff done, but is well-positioned to move the political center further to the left – and I believe most of his plans are truly progressive and smart.

2) I believe that he is not above criticism and that legitimate concern, when connected to reality, always has a place.

3) I believe that many elements of the netroots have developed a real credibility problem based on hysterical attacks which are disconnected to reality.

Finally – I want to address the most odious technique being used. It’s the pre-emptive set-up of the false choice that many use.

Examples:

“Either Obama does X, or he believes in the Rush Limbaugh, Grover Norquist philosophy of government (a.k.a either Obama does precisely what I want him to how I want him to or he’s evilllll)”

or

“If you disagree with my position, then you must be a starry-eyed Obama cultist who thinks he can do no wrong.

For anyone who uses that technique (I’m looking at you Sirota): when you write things like that, the only credibility that is damaged is your own.

My hope is we get this out of the way today and move on to more pressing matters and focus on action. The whole discussion as to whether Obama is a liberal, centrist, conservative has already jumped the shark. We are in the midst of a massive crisis and need to fix this fracking thing. Anything else is just a blogospheric circle jerk (apologies for the imagery).

Story:

John Brennan, President-elect Barack Obama’s top adviser on intelligence, has taken his name out of the running for any intelligence position in the new administration.

In a letter Tuesday, Brennan wrote letter to Obama that he did not want to be a distraction. His potential appointment has raised a firestorm in liberal blogs who associate him with the Bush administration’s interrogation, detention and rendition policies.

“The fact that I was not involved in the decision making process for any of these controversial policies and actions has been ignored,” he wrote, in a letter obtained by The Associated Press.

This is obviously great news, I would say that the criticism from the left played an instrumental role in preventing Brennan from having any position in an Obama administration. Brennan’s position on torture is somewhat, well, tortured. He has come under quite a bit of scrutiny of course, given some of his statements on torture. His position on the issue isn’t really clear (except the fact that he hasn’t really taken a position), but the fact that he leaves himself open for question on the issue was of course a major problem. Unequivocal opposition of torture should be a prerequisite for any intelligence director, or any position in Intelligence or Justice for that matter.

If anyone took him seriously before this mind-numbing rant, then please, be convinced – as I have been for a long time – that he is not someone with the intellectual heft, let alone the maturity, to be considered a legitimate analyst. Yes, tough words, but I have had enough encounters with him on DailyKos and read enough of his junk to last a lifetime.

He frames this discussion with the question, “Why hasn’t Obama appointed any movement progressives?” Now, let’s first take a step back. I have long taken issue with David and others’ definition of progressive, since they seem to have a very strict, iron-clad way of viewing it. So, the other day, I got into it with him on a DKos thread and asked him this very question – how does he define “movement progressive?”

His response?

Someone who has been involved in movement building, not spending their career inside of Washington and corporate law firms.

He cited examples of movement progressives in the past as…FDR and LBJ. FDR and LBJ not spending their career inside of Washington? These were the very definition of institutional candidates! FDR (besides being the cousin of a former President), served in Washington in the Dept. of Navy, was governor of NY and a long-time member of the Democratic institutional elite. LBJ – I mean, where to begin – LBJ spent the majority of his career in Congress, particularly as the Senate Majority Leader!

So, let’s acknowledge that Sirota either (a) has no idea about history or (b) is making this “movement progressive” stuff up as he goes along.

But in this most recent post, he explains how so many of us cult-ists got bamboozled by Obama: the answer? Celebrity! (thanks John McCain):

And the answer to the question, in my opinion, is because Obama effectively ate a huge chunk of the left. And really, Obama didn’t eat a huge chunk of the left, celebrity did.

What I mean to say is that we live in a culture that now organizes around celebrity – and Obama knew it, and knew that lots of left organizations aren’t really ideological – they are, if anything, organized around the Democratic Party and Bush hatred. So he basically figured out that if he could become a celebrity – and a Democratic Bush-hating one – he could swallow up a huge part of the “progressive infrastructure” and organize it around him (and all the hateful “if you question Obama, you hate Obama” comments that will inevitably be at the bottom of this diary actually confirm this!). And we shouldn’t blame him for being a “celebrity” – it’s not an epithet. And we shouldn’t blame him for seizing his moment. Not at all.

and

So now, because of this, you have a large majority (though not the whole) of his 10 million-person email list overarchingly organized around the celebrity Barack Obama – not really around issues (though certainly people can like Obama and support specific issues). That means he feels no real obligation to appointing “movement progressives” because he has his own movement – one that’s about helping, aiding and defending Barack Obama. Again, I say that not derisively or in anger at Barack Obama – I say it just to note an important fact.

Even as he later grudgingly realizes that Obama may ultimately be a progressives who gets these appointments to subscribe to his vision (sort of the only real point, isn’t it? I mean, who cares about personnel – the only thing that matters is policy), Sirota spends most of the post passive-aggressively telling us that people who supported Obama didn’t do so on issues, but based on the cult-of-celebrity of the person that is Barack Obama.

Let’s be fair, part of his has a point – Obama did indeed build a movement that isn’t tied to any particular institutional wing so he really can do whatever he wants now. But notice that Sirota, as always, relies on the extremely childish, straw-man argument that Obama supporters were “cultists” who can’t take any “criticism” of their hero.

It’s in this post, but also look back at some of his writing on DKos and the way he responds to comments – he keeps falling into this trap, continually calling Obama supporters blind supporters, insulting our intelligence with broad generalizations that include the notion that any criticism of David’s critiques of Obama MUST therefore come from cultists who can’t stand hear any criticism at all. In other words, Sirota isn’t ever wrong, and if we take issue with his analysis we are guilty of “blind worship” of Obama.

This is an adult. A columnist. A contributor on TV. Someone who uses this juvenile and pathetically insecure construction to ward off criticism. Look, he even populates his posts with pre-emptive attacks:

So he basically figured out that if he could become a celebrity – and a Democratic Bush-hating one – he could swallow up a huge part of the “progressive infrastructure” and organize it around him (and all the hateful “if you question Obama, you hate Obama” comments that will inevitably be at the bottom of this diary actually confirm this!).

Aha! See – criticism of Sirota’s posts are (a) automatically “if you question Obama, you hate Obama” types of criticisms, and (b) reinforce his essential argument that it’s all just a cult of celebrity!

When, later in my conversation on DKos with him, I said that some people I considered “progressive,” (although note, not “movement progressive,” whatever that means), Sirota wrote the following:

OK – thank you for this. If you believe Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton and Tom Daschle are movement progressives (and I like some of them personally), then you and I aren’t living on the same planet. And I suspect you aren’t living on the same planet as most other people as well.

There, ladies and gentlemen, is David Sirota in a nutshell.

So, to re-cap:
1) Someone not that aware of history.
2) Someone who pre-emptively accuses his critics of being Obama cultists.
3) When push comes to shove, insults people childishly (but note how much he decries “personal insults” in his posts).

Criticism of Obama is more than welcome. But make it smart and relevant. David’s Sirota’s writings are neither.

In a small piece of overlooked news, I’m happy to report that Tom Vilsack will not be named Secretary of Agriculture:

Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack today said that he won’t be the next agriculture secretary, ending speculation that an Iowan would snag the post important to a large swath of the state’s economy.

In an e-mail, Vilsack said he had never been contacted by aides to President-elect Barack Obama about that position or any other.

Why do I see this as good news? No disrespect to Gov. Vilsack, who I’m sure is a capable guy, but his views are too inexorably tied to his state and its central role in our food system. Indeed, he’s been one of the earliest and biggest pushers of corn-based ethanol as a solution to our energy crisis.

Now, to be fair, this is not Obama’s strongest issue as he too hails from a midwest, corn-producing state.

But, in an ideal world, the agriculture secretary will be someone who will start to wean us off this corn-based, centrally-managed food system (which, by the way, is highly vulnerable to disruption and attack) and instead move us to a more regional system.

Yes, you can tell I’m a fan of Michael Pollan of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” fame, and he’s certainly written a great deal on the subject of food policy, almost all of which I agree with. Take his October, NY Times Op-ed in which he writes an open-letter to the next President as an example:

Which brings me to the deeper reason you will need not simply to address food prices but to make the reform of the entire food system one of the highest priorities of your administration: unless you do, you will not be able to make significant progress on the health care crisis, energy independence or climate change. Unlike food, these are issues you did campaign on — but as you try to address them you will quickly discover that the way we currently grow, process and eat food in America goes to the heart of all three problems and will have to change if we hope to solve them.

Indeed – food policy is directly connected to national security, global warming, health care, and so many other crucial policies – it’s the glue that connects all of them. So, while it’s a long-shot we’ll get a truly revolutionary Secretary of Agriculture, what we know so far is that we’re not going to get one who definitely isn’t.

P.S. strongly recommend reading Pollan’s entire op-ed, if not his books. His work is terrific and highly convincing.

Rachel Maddow is an immensely talented, entertaining, informative and intelligent voice on television, something sorely needed. I am thrilled her show is so successful and look forward to watching her for a long time.

But having said that, I’ve noticed that she can be somewhat of a (and I mean this with love) concern troll when it comes to Barack Obama, and has been for some time. Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think any media figure should roll over for this guy. But the problem is, her analysis has been wrong repeatedly.

She was the lone voice saying over and over during the last couple weeks of the election that Obama didn’t have it in the bag or anywhere close to it, and that all early voting stats were BAD news for Obama (turned out to be just the opposite).

Yesterday, she expressed concern about how “un-changey” Obama’s administration-in-waiting has been, what with all the appointments of previous Clinton officials. Unfortunately, her analysis failed to separate “Clintonites” from highly qualified Democrats with experience who happen to have served the Clinton administration in some capacity. For example, she grouped in Eric Holder into the “un-changey” group of former Clintonites, but as Al Giordano has explained so well, he is anything but a Clintonite.

Look, I love me some Rachel Maddow. She should be skeptical and critical of Obama. But someone with her level of intelligence and analytical skills should also be able to be a little more…well…analytical with her “concern.” Segments like yesterday were a bit too simplistic and reactive for my taste.

I know, I know, many of you will say I should expect media figures to bow down before Obama and I’m just part of the cult, yada yada. Not at all. But when showing worry and concern continues to be different from the facts, that’s where problems arise.

“SNL CONSIDERING NEW OBAMA ACTOR!”

We all miss the election Mark, we do.

Let me make one thing clear: I hate Joe Lieberman as much as, if not more, than the next guy. I hate his fake sanctimonious, concern-troll tone as he went against everything he stood for his whole life and campaigned against Barack Obama. And while I understand why Obama sent the lifeline he did to Lieberman, I don’t like that Joe made it out of yesterday with a slap on the wrist. I also don’t like that he was removed from the environmental committee – the one issue he was pretty good at – but retained the Homeland Security committee (of course, my solution to this is to get rid of the Homeland Security department all together).

Having said all that, and understanding and being a part of the anger so many of us shared, yesterday was perhaps the most embarrassing day to be a member of the liberal blogosphere that I can remember. It was the Great Lieberman Temper Tantrum of 2008.

I’ve never seen so many ostensibly educated, reality-based, and “mature” people behave like petulant babies en masse like I did yesterday. From threats to run primary challenges against all of the 40-something Senators who voted to protect Lieberman, to accusations of treason against Harry Reid and Howard Dean (wait, aren’t we supposed to love Howard?), the reaction fulfilled every stereotype of “wild-eyed liberal” that the pundit-world could have hoped for and then some.

You had people such as Kos writing snarky lectures to Barack Obama on what it takes to govern, drawing a false equivalency between what he did for Lieberman to what he should do to former Bush aides. Markos Moulitsas, a guy who has been on Meet The Press, written two books, and expects us to take him seriously as an analyst, wrote the following passage about Obama:

Since he doesn’t want “purges” to be the order of the day, perhaps he’ll make sure to keep the thousands of Bush appointees in their respective offices, from Cabinet secretaries on down? That would only be consistent with his meddling in the Senate.

I half-expected his next sentence to be, “And I’m going to hold my breath and stomp my feet until I get what I want!”

Once again, let me reiterate, while I understand why Lieberman was given a reprieve yesterday, I don’t like it at all and strenuously disagree with it.

But the juvenile, petulant manner in which the liberal blogs had a mass freak-out yesterday, led by the very people like Markos who have argued (I felt, as a blogger for 6 years now, rightfully) that bloggers should be taken seriously, was an embarrassment.

The admissions office may have to keep mum, but senior Joel Mittleman ’09 actually had the chance to personally confirm the rumor when Obama held an open town hall at Strath Haven High School during the Pennsylvania primaries. “I did ask Obama [whether it was true],” he says, “not during the actual question and answer, but as he was walking the line shaking hands afterwards.” Mittleman recalls the Senator laughing in response, asking him where he heard the information, and then saying “Yes, it’s true. It really broke my heart, actually.”

Alum Anne Kolker ’08, a former intern in the Senate office and Mittleman’s original source of the rumor, further confirmed the story: “Yes, the first thing President-elect Obama said to me was “Ah, Swarthmore, great school. They rejected me.” Thankfully, Kolker reports Obama held no grudge against her. Here’s hoping admissions doesn’t write off any other presidential hopefuls.

Too bad, would have made our reunion weekends more interesting.