Go Figure

Josh Marshall writes:

I don't have any problem with Obama's cabinet picks so far. But it's certainly true that Democrats with a high partisan profile haven't figured prominently among his major appointments, with the notable exception of Rahm Emanuel.

I guess Hillary is in the "Hillary for New York" party. I am tempted to attribute this to CDS but that is probably not the case. He probably does not think Hillary has a "high partisan profile." After all, Republicans love the Clintons - remember all the Hillary-cans?

Speaking for me only

This is an Open Thread.

< We're The Centrists Now | A Nightly Gadget Update >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Marshall is simply taking (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by BrianJ on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:35:01 PM EST
    Obama's primary supporters at their word.

    An awful lot of your columns of late have been about judging Obama by the standards his own supporters have used.

    The margin by which Martin lost in Georgia suggests that Obama's accommodations to political reality are not being accepted by many of those supporters, and that's going to be a problem for Democrats going forward.  Still, Obama is doing what he has to do, and for that I praise him.

    Your comment seems nonresponsive (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:37:47 PM EST
    to my post.

    I have no idea what this comment means. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:40:07 PM EST
    Will Obama go soft on torture? (none / 0) (#29)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 10:36:13 PM EST
    [This is a follow-up to a prior thread about Obama being in a bit of a bind on the issue of torture.]

    In the months leading up to the election, Obama repeatedly denounced the fact that America does torture under the Bush Administration. He echoed those sentiments in his recent interview with 60 Minutes, when he promised: "I'm gonna make sure that we don't torture". However, in the same breath, Obama made a simultaneous, seemingly contradictory, pronouncement:

    "America doesn't torture."

    The parsing of this latter statement yields multiple meanings. Including the message that President-elect Obama has developed a more 'nuanced' perspective on torture as defined, and practiced, by the Bush cabal. Obama's embrace of Brennan is also suggestive of such a shift in tone.

    In fact, it looks like this WaPo article is laying the groundwork for Obama to walk-back his prior tough stance against torture:

    Even some senior Democratic lawmakers who are vehement critics of the Bush administration's interrogation policies seemed reluctant in recent interviews to commit the new administration to following the Army Field Manual in all cases. [As pledged by Obama during the Presidential campaign.]

    Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who will take over as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in January...indicated that extreme cases might call for flexibility. "I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible," she said, raising the possibility that an imminent terrorist threat might require special measures.


    A made-to-measure "extreme case" and "terrorist threat" just came to the pols, and the public, yesterday in the form of a newly minted Congressional Report, The World at Risk. It predicts a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013.

    Clearly, this new report can, and will, be used to perpetuate the 'Global War on Terror'. At he same time, it gives the Dems a 'pragmatic' rationale to make allowances for Bush's "enhanced interrogation" techniques. And, worse than that, it allows the Dems to give Bush extra cover by suggesting that some of those techniques may 'need' to be used in an Obama Administration.

    Let's hope that critical voices in the netroots will keep up the pressure for follow-through on campaign promises.


    Uh, that would be the (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:59:23 PM EST
    "New York for Hillary" party.

    Yes, that's how pompous Joe was.

    (CFL-CT) (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by DaveOinSF on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:03:25 PM EST
    I think you meant the "New York for Hillary" party

    Urghhh!!! (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by lilburro on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:49:39 PM EST
    Why did you link us to a picture of David Frum???  Gaaah!

    As for Josh, I guess today the D in CDS stands for "Denial."

    I like the new CDS you describe (none / 0) (#24)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:01:51 PM EST
    because they will be in denial long after others have, yet again, given her grudging respect she earns.

    Very good column in WashPo (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by lentinel on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:33:32 PM EST
    by Harold Meyerson.

    He doesn't mince words about Bush.
    It is refreshing.

    Bush's final fiasco

    Excellent article (none / 0) (#36)
    by Amiss on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 12:08:41 AM EST

    lentinel (none / 0) (#69)
    by cal1942 on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:02:29 PM EST
    thanks for the link.

    I think he was just looking for (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by eric on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:39:51 PM EST
    something to write.  The only person with a higher "partisan profile" than Hillary Clinton is Bill Clinton or perhaps Ted Kennedy.

    Think, who do right wingers complain about when they hear the word Democrat?

    Josh isn't making any sense.

    Clinton isn't partisan as a legislator (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Lolis on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 11:09:01 PM EST
    Have you thought that maybe he is judging Hillary based on her Senate career? She has a reputation for being rather conciliatory and hasn't exactly been a legislative powerhouse or behind the scenes kingmaker like Emmanuel.

    You guys should be happy that Marshall and Kos are accepting Clinton as SoS and letting go of any skepticism they may have had. Why can't people here move on also?


    Kos accepting Clinton? (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 11:12:27 PM EST
    More like trying to rewrite his primary history . . .   ;)

    By gum, I think you've got it: (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 01:07:25 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton at State? One of Obama's tough tasks ahead is to repair the damage Bush did to our relationships around the world. By picking Hillary Clinton, the second-biggest political celebrity in government today, Obama just told the world he takes that task very seriously. He essentially gave them the biggest name he possibly could, double-underscoring his commitment to re-engaging the world as partners, not as missile targets. On purely pragmatic grounds, it was extremely well played. Politically, I see zero downside, except maybe the idiot traditional media and their bizarre Clinton fetish. But screw them.
     [Excerpt from Kos FP post.]

    lol!~ yup, that was the post (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:53:28 AM EST
    that prompted my comment  ;)

    Politically, I see zero downside, except maybe the idiot traditional media and their bizarre Clinton fetish. But screw them.

    LMFAO! Does he not realize he's on record repetitively for months for the same behavior?!


    why do y'all care so much? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Lolis on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 10:02:45 AM EST
    I just don't get why you try to ridicule people who have been mature and moved on from the primary. That is not rewriting history, it is getting over it. It feels good.

    Speaking for me only, I care because (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 10:33:28 AM EST
    the owner of the most visited and commented on blog, who I recently learned has a law degree, chose for years to use his bully pulpit and permit it to be used by others to unfairly disparage Hillary Clinton.

    He's like the spoiled brat kid (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 12:16:46 PM EST
    who exercises his bratty kid behavior.

    Then when HE's READY he stops doing it.

    Kos should have been sent to his room and grounded for a week.


    For a Week? (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by cal1942 on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:06:18 PM EST
    You're a gentle soul TeresaInSnow2.

    I was thinking more like brat abandonment.


    Is this self-parody? (none / 0) (#62)
    by lucky leftie on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 10:05:25 AM EST
    It has to be.

    By watching Obama, Kos may have seen ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by cymro on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:41:25 AM EST
    ... the benefits of co-opting ones (former) opponents. Or at least, he may have seen the benefits of adopting that narrative as his justification.

    "Move on, move on," the pundits have been heard to demand. But the precise subject of that demand may change subtly, as the occasion demands.


    Two people in his cabinet (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by joanneleon on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 10:31:04 PM EST
    ran for the Dem nomination for president... this year... and another was the Dem Senate majority and minority leader until January, 2005.  What does it take to be classified as "high profile partisan" in Marshall's book?

    Streaking nekkid (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 01:18:33 AM EST
    through the Republican National Convention?

    What, maybe he wanted Donna Brazile to be given an appointment?


    OH MY GOSH!! Please don't mention Brazille (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by DeborahNC on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:39:10 AM EST
    while I'm having breakfast. Thinking of her makes me feel ill.

    But, the thought of anyone of them streaking through the RNC nekkid, is really funny.


    Did you buy your Obama Holiday Mug?! (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 10:37:01 PM EST
    It's just so, ummm, festive?

    This holiday season, celebrate our historic victory with a limited edition Obama coffee mug. Your donation will support the Democratic National Committee and help recover[?!?!] the enormous resources they committed to this campaign.

    Oy. I'll stick to celebrating Christmas, TYVM!  ;) And I think I'll send Madame Secretary a holiday donation towards her debt.

    "twould be ever-so-much (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 12:31:57 AM EST
    more attractive if it sd.:  President-elect Obama.

    Shouldn't that be (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 12:39:58 AM EST
    "Office of . . ."?

    They could have at least offered the mugs in Obama Red. I mean lets get real here! His marketing crew is slackin'.


    With a U.S. flag on each side. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 12:46:25 AM EST
    No flag! (none / 0) (#45)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 01:00:51 AM EST
    O logo only!!!!!  {grin}

    I appreciate your periodic design commentary. (none / 0) (#57)
    by DeborahNC on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:50:09 AM EST
    It imbues the political commentary with a bit of elan and...well, fun. Keep it up!

    "made in China"? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 01:21:21 AM EST
    Inquiring minds want to know!

    Plus from the image, I can't tell if it is plastic or ceramic.  The handle looks too skinny to be ceramic.  


    Heh, it prob is M.I.C. (none / 0) (#54)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:58:27 AM EST
    I thought it was glass? Hard to tell. It could be Melamine, that would hold hot coffee, lol!~

    Maybe when they start showing up in predictable households, we'll get the lowdown via excited postings on blogs? ;)


    I think "High Partisan Profile" (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 11:06:47 PM EST
    ... means "people who hate the Clintons".

    My conservative parents were (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 12:36:25 AM EST
    very much hoping for Clinton as SoS. Quite frankly, that surprised me, especially as I heard it from my dad. We don't talk politics for a reason and I was trying to deflect out of the conversation when he said that. I'm beginning to wonder if pragmatic is the new code word for experience behind inexperience . . . and that is why conservatives aren't so up in arms. Centrist may just be a knee jerk reaction to the fact the Dems have been caving to Bush so much, lol!~  ;)

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out . . .

    Josh Marshall's judgment (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 08:16:01 AM EST
    is so warped that it's impossible to take anything he says seriously anymore. Who knows What Josh Really Meant-- and who cares?

    Very cool... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 10:56:05 AM EST
    ...44 Presidents in 4 minutes.


    This ongoing (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 12:39:06 PM EST
    who-has-the-biggest-blogger-dick is beyond boring and about as relevant and current-reality based as those hurray-for-Free Trade posts (that we've been seeing less and less of lately for some reason).



    What on Earth are you talking about? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 12:47:25 PM EST
    Blogger Dicks (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jazzharp on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:11:44 PM EST
    They're pissing into the wind.  Bad Josh hates Hillary.  Come on.  Let it go, youngsters.  This is all you have to fill up your time?

    TPM kicks ass by being intelligent and representative of the views of most of us in the progressive bloggosphere.  I wasn't a Hillary supporter, but was ecstatic to hear she was the pick for State.  By your reasoning, I shouldn't like her at all.

    You Josh haters are like sister kickers.  (Figure that one out!)


    And this has what to do... (none / 0) (#72)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:22:43 PM EST
    ...with the link I posted???????????

    apparently, they can type (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jes on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 09:30:52 PM EST
    and sleep at the same time.

    I did enjoy the 44 morphs - thanks.


    Oh Ambien... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 09:43:59 PM EST
    ...is there nothing you can't make us do in our sleep?  :)

    Glad you enjoyed the link.  I hadn't realized that high collared shirts were the height of fashion for so long.  

    Still needs more diversity though...


    Funny (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 10:12:10 PM EST
    Jondee is responding to you off topic and you are responding to the topic off topic.

    Even funnier because jondee is on topic for the thread.

    In any case both comments are great.


    Another commenter caught (none / 0) (#78)
    by jes on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 11:00:38 PM EST
    in the maze. Please note: "This is an Open Thread."

    I See (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:43:22 AM EST
    Josh is a joke. He hates Hillary to his core and (4.50 / 6) (#4)
    by Angel on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:42:14 PM EST
    refuses to recognize anything positive about her.  I think it is CDS.  And Josh has the worst case imaginable.

    Not a question of positive or negative (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:45:21 PM EST
    here - just silly.

    "High partisan profile" pretty much describe Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    BTW, it also describes Barack Obama.

    that is what happens when you run a serious campaign to be President of the US.

    It also describes John Kerry, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, etc.

    I think Dukakis does not make the cut.  


    I understand about the positive and negative - (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Angel on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:52:28 PM EST
    but surely you know that if it is remotely - and I mean remotely - negative with regard to Hillary then Josh is all over it.  He just can't see straight when it comes to Hillary.  He is blinded by his hatred.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:54:57 PM EST

    But here I am just making fun of him.


    I never venture over to the cesspool that Josh (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Angel on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:58:39 PM EST
    runs.  Does he smack you around?

    That's the fun part (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:00:01 PM EST
    My existence goes unacknowledged - like Bob Somerby.

    I have a free hand.


    You are the canary for us !! (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:42:56 PM EST
    Let's here it for taking one for the team.  Hip, hip Horah.

    I've often wondered why (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 10:59:56 PM EST
    Bob Somerby is never acknowledged.  No major papers or magazines have profiled him.  You never see him on the tube.  It's quite amazing considering the contribution he has made to media criticism in the last decade.

    I suppose that acknowledging him would be tantamount to admitting that the "liberal" press isn't so liberal after all.


    They would have to talk about (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 11:27:11 PM EST
    how they talked about the "sighs" and helped install the worst President ever.

    A good thing, prolly. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Angel on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:01:14 PM EST
    He uses the NBC strategy (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:05:52 PM EST
    ignore the criticism so you do not have to deal with it.

    Or the old playground strategy of ignoring the meanie.

    Problem is Somerby and I do not stop poling him. Hell, I admit it is fun.  


    I was going to comment (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:26:51 PM EST
    that if Somerby had RSS, I'd read him more often. I notice that he FINALLY got a feed!

    On another post about Josh Marshall (3.66 / 3) (#20)
    by hairspray on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:09:58 PM EST
    here a few weeks ago, it was noted that he had no female writers on his website.  Someone reminded us of a woman who had been hired and then was fired after a short time because she was not as deferential as she needed to be.  The conclusion of some here was that Josh really doesn't like women. Can't remember her name but it did cause a flap.

    I remember that. Apparently, she wasn't staying on (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by DeborahNC on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:31:29 AM EST
    message. You know the message: Obama is the greatest and everything he does is okay with me. And, by the way, Hillary Clinton is #&!^$%+ !!!

    According to her account, there were several exchanges of e-mail messages, but in the end, they wouldn't let her stay.


    Well, clearly Josh is implying that (none / 0) (#6)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:51:09 PM EST
    Hillary is not partisan, since there is no argument about her profile.
    Perhaps that is because of her AUMF vote?
    Strange argument for a war hawk like Josh to make, if he did.

    Then does Obama also lack (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:53:11 PM EST
    a high partisan profile after voting for the FISA revise?

    more so than Hillary, arguably. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:55:05 PM EST
    Can't be that (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:55:58 PM EST
    Rahmbo voted for the Iraq Debacle too.

    SUPPORTED it rather (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:57:57 PM EST
    From Wikipedia - "Emanuel supported the October 2002 joint Congressional resolution authorizing the Iraq War, differentiating himself from all nine other Democratic members of the Illinois Congressional delegation (Sen. Richard Durbin, Reps. Bobby Rush, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Bill Lipinski, Luis Gutiérrez, Danny K. Davis, Jan Schakowsky, Jerry Costello and Lane Evans) elected in 2002."

    True. It's just pure nonsense then. (none / 0) (#12)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:57:40 PM EST
    In Context (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 12:20:16 PM EST
    The quote is responding to the congressional quarterly, not the NY POst, or populist other rag.

    So by high partisan profile he is clearly not referring to the pop icons like Hil or bil. To include Rahm as a high partisan profile, it the tipofff.  Most americans have never heard of Rahm, but he is known in Congress as a highly partisan bulldog. Hillary is known as a dealmaker.

    That does not mitigate the fact that Josh has a serious late stage case of CDS.

    You are showing signs of JDS, and keep it up, it is very entertaining.


    Cabinet (none / 0) (#25)
    by koshembos on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:03:54 PM EST
    A cabinet that has Daschle, Holder, Richardson and Geithner (so far) is a bad cabinet. If you add Gates and Jones you are talking about a freak show.

    Hey, Richardson shaved off his beard. (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 12:33:08 AM EST
    And revealed a lack of . . . (none / 0) (#41)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 12:37:14 AM EST

    Not the first guy to (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 12:45:40 AM EST
    be laid bare, so to speak.

    lol!~ (none / 0) (#47)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 01:06:57 AM EST
    Honestly, he looks like he's put on weight and it's not just the lack of beard. His lack of chin was just very noticeable with the angles they showed of him. He also seems to be having a bit of a hair issue along with the shave*

    *disclaimer: I used to work in fashion, I can't help but notice this sh!t!!


    All in good clean fun, right? (none / 0) (#61)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 10:04:18 AM EST
    Not male bashing--or the latest and greatest trend around here, Richardson bashing, I'm sure.  

    However, I just can't help but imagine the outrage that would erupt had someone said something along similar lines about--oh, I don't know--Hillary or some other female.


    I don't like it either (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 03:56:04 PM EST
    whether male or female. Making fun of people's weight, looks, etc. Not nice.

    Presentation is key (none / 0) (#79)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 02:51:52 AM EST
    prob one of the reasons I noticed. But yes, I was busting on him. But back to presentation, he doesn't always "present" to his fullest. He can be a downright embarrassment (imo) verbally and/or visually. Not what you want in an SoS. The images of him I recall seeing while auditioning for the job were more together.

    Hillary will present herself well. She understands that.


    let me simplify this for you BTD: (none / 0) (#46)
    by cpinva on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 01:04:08 AM EST
    I am tempted to attribute this to CDS but that is probably not the case.

    he's stupid.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#51)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 02:06:45 AM EST
    Is there such a thing as Marshall Derangement Syndrome?

    It could be MDS, but I tend to think of it as (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by DeborahNC on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 04:58:03 AM EST
    Josh's commentary from his new home in an "alternate universe," because the Josh Marshall that I knew before the presidential campaign has definitely left the building, er, TPM.

    looks like another case of.... (none / 0) (#81)
    by joel dan walls on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:07:32 PM EST
    ....Josh Marshall Derangement Syndrome.