(but you know--i'm not really that surprised--it's seeing it admitted, and printed, that's surprising)

I'd really like to know what real basis anyone has for being optimistic or expecting actual good things--now more than ever.

and I betcha Hillary's name was not on that list.

online, or in the MSM.

It's not that I'm really all that partisan or even ideological. I don't see this as a game where I cheer on my team and hate the opposing team. So I wouldn't really care so much if people were Democratic or Republican. But ...

If the last 8 years didn't convince you that "politics as usual"[1] was destroying the country, then the last 8 weeks surely should have. What's tragic about all of this is that there are no solutions in the traditonal mode of political operation. It's really going to take new and creative ideas to get us out of the multiple messes we're in and the solutions are hard.

You can't keep letting lobbyists write legislation and expect to have a well-regulated financial system or solve climate change. You can't just lend billions to the automakers and expect them help reduce oil imports and CO2 emissions and at the same time you can't let the automakers fail if you want to avoid becoming a third world country. You can't throw out simplistic solutions like "free markets" or "raise gasoline taxes now!" (the 2nd diary at Cheetopia today advocating that) or all the other myopic programs people support that pretend to fix one problem while ignoring all the other problems their pet solution creates.

We watched the Mike Judge (Office Space, Beavis and Butthead) film Idiocracy last night. It would have been a lot funnier if it wasn't so close to the truth as it exists today.

Electing and defending Democrats because they're 2% less evil isn't going to solve any of the problems that have been created by the Predator State, and there isn't any hope or even any change in a government whose leadership has been assembled with the aid of McCain's organization. It turns out the cynics among us were right - it made no difference at all who you voted for. It's all the same Versilage.

It makes me want to scream.

[1] "Politics as usual" being the influence of big money and lobbyists and the pretense of governing in a way that solves problems or helps the country instead of destroying it.

"hopers"?

I'm pretty stunned. Not sure if I'm angry, but definitely amazed.

And, yes, even more so that anyone let this cat out of the bag.

Wow.

Or..is this a bone to keep the Villagers from going too crazy about the appointments/nominations?

http://action.credomobile.com/sirota/200... -- Sirota-- Ghettoization & The Difference Between Politics & Policy --

"... use the argot of progressivism in their public presentations (to "hold power with the left hand") - all while wielding conservative policy ("playing the music with your right"). ...

the initial structure seems to resemble the principle in American politics of politicians publicly selling their policies in progressive terms, while having those policies be crafted with much more conservative ideology.

... does he believe that if he combines his own personal salesmanship talents with a strong political team that is skilled at the language of progressivism, he can sell a right-of-center Establishment agenda as huge "change?"
..."

of the "Unified Field Theory" of "we are so fucked, and it won't ever change due to our permanent ruling/drooling class which exits without regard to party, which is in turn just a pathetic charade put on for the distraction of the rubes."

And, if anyone thinks that only McCain and Obama have participated in this (i.e. Village incest), then they are fooling themselves. Though, I'm sure that this being both McCain and Obama that between the two they absolutely had no problem with doing this.

I just love that no matter when this happens, there is never a president-elect left wanting for cheering for the race to the center of the political earth.

BTW, I'd like to add that I'm not against bi-partisanship, in general. In fact, sometimes it is absolutely necessary. But, let us make it clear; this is not one of those times, not even a little bit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clem... -- a Clemons comment at HuffPost -- "... I am trying to get some of the other majors to go after this and ask about the list compilation and if it fed into the Obama campaign. ..."

denial and grief (our anger was never tolerated) and straight into acceptance.

We're being trained to smile and say thank you when served our sh*t sandwich.

...as defined by Peter Dale Scott.

"...the investigation of parapolitics, which I defined (with the CIA in mind) as a 'system or practice of politics in which accountability is consciously diminished.'...I still see value in this definition and mode of analysis. But parapolitics as thus defined is itself too narrowly conscious and intentional... it describes at best only an intervening layer of the irrationality under our political culture's rational surface. Thus I now refer to parapolitics as only one manifestation of deep politics, all those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged."

The other term is deep politics:

“...in every culture and society there are facts which tend to be suppressed collectively, because of the social and psychological costs of not doing so. Like all other observers, I too have involuntarily suppressed facts and even memories about the drug traffic that were too provocative to be retained with equanimity.(1)”

It's important to realize the level of deception is such that the players, themselves, are being played.

and dialogue. Thanks!

I’ll just be a wet blanket here. Of the appointments made or considered settled thus far, which of Obama's new government would McCain also have selected? Clinton? Emanuel? Holder? Geithner?

Is there even one? I don’t think so. I see no evidence at all that this claim is true, yet the assertion is accepted here and elsewhere as being somewhere between plausible and accurate. Provenance is a reasonable concern, and it applies here as well as elsewhere. I for one am still waiting for Larry Johnson to roll out that “Whitey” tape and this has the same smell of fuckwittery.

Very effective though at alienating the Progressive community; stir them up, get them angry and hostile and inspire them to denigrate Obama and the Democratic Party, to separate themselves from the political process.

For those who enjoy speculating, a good question might be: Who could possibly benefit from that?

but she still is delusional, overall -- "... So, he's likely to be more liberal in that area than any of us ever dreamed he'd be, as will all of his neo liberal economic advisors. ..."

on the shared list-- "... it's fascinating --- and horrifying. These two people allegedly ran on entirely different visions of where to take the country and were backed by millions of people who thought they were making a serious decision between the two. And yet according to this account months ago (before the current meltdown) they were secretly coordinating to assemble a common roster of people to run the government no matter who won the election. What the hell did we bother having a campaign for? If this is true it validates every political crank out there, including Ralph Nader, who says there's literally not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties...."

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/c...

--on Emanuel, but applicable to all Obama's picks so far, no? And most if not all of McCain's too, if he had won, for sure.

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/11/hbc-9... --

"... Without even so much as a symbolic gesture in support of reform, the great agent of “change” immediately selected as his chief political enforcer a figure who epitomizes the Washington consensus of the past two decades—pro-“free trade,” pro-Iraq invasion/occupation and, perhaps most importantly, pro-pork barrel. ..."

-- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12274754...

"Many of the Republicans emerging as potential members of the Obama administration have professional and ideological ties to Brent Scowcroft, a former national-security adviser turned public critic of the Bush White House.

Mr. Scowcroft spoke by phone with President-elect Barack Obama last week, the latest in a months-long series of conversations between the two men about defense and foreign-policy issues, according to people familiar with the discussions. ..."

L: Let me itemize the ways in which this single sentence is wrong.
Itemized is good. Let me respond, almost in order.

No. (1) the "claim" Clemons makes is that there was a "large roster" ("a pool of solid policy experts," in comments) that would be "called on" after the election by whoever won. Roster: "a,b,c,d" say (right to left). McCain: "a,b,c", Obama: "b,c,d." A large roster of overlapping names is not the same at all as "a shared list of common names who would be appointed regardless" -- in the example, only "b,c" are shared. (I now issue a prophylactic against the rhetorical move claiming misinterpretation, a multiplicity of interpretations, etc.; the plain meaning of what Clemon's wrote is clear. The essence of a roster is that not all members of it are on the field; the essence of a pool is that only some are picked from it.)
You can stuff your prophylactic. ("I now issue...."?!?! Who made you Mullah?) As I read it, the claim is that there exists a common pool of names from which the new administration will be drawn. If there is not substantial overlap, what in the hell would be the purpose of joining forces to create the list? There would be none. If, on the other hand, it is as you suggest – Pool = "abcd", McC = "abc" and O = "bcd" – then we should expect to see a substantial overlap and thus far there is not. Projecting that someday there might emerge from Obama the names of nominees suitable for both administrations is not proof now that such a list exists; it is merely self-serving conjecture.

No. (2) Clemon's story is not a "claim"; anybody can make a claim. It's reporting; it's sourced, and Clemons is just as reliable as any news source we quote, and more reliable than some.** Now, the reporting could be wrong, but Clemons is not making a "claim." (I now issue a prophylactic against ad hominem attacks on Clemons, as well as a prophylactic against the post-modernist idea that claims and reportage are somehow the same thing.)
(Another Issued Prophylactic? Does just anyone get to do that, unilaterally shut down anticipated dissent, or is there a class to be taken and a certificate required?) Don't care one way or the other about Clemons so no need for you to leap to his defense, although if I did have concerns about him I'd sure as hell speak my mind and Issued Prophylactics be damned.

As far “reportage” and “claim” I certainly do assert that they are not the same and this is not reportage, not by any standard of journalism I'm familiar with. One anonymous source may be enough for a gossip column, but not for something of this importance and uniqueness - “rare” is the descriptor Clemons chooses. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but this one is made without any proof whatsoever. Considering the magnitude, not even another independent anonymous source would be enough without some sort of further corroboration - like a comparator list of names, for instance. That any authoritative listing of names coming thus far from the Obama camp would disprove the claim certainly explains why no such list is offered.

Further, Clemons asserts that confirmation of his claim is easy to obtain:

But the story is verifiable if the networks or other major news dailies just call the campaign directors. They have no reason to hide this now -- it's just no one has asked them.

So why didn’t he do so? Could it be he tried and everyone laughed in his face so he’s trying to foist off the responsibility to do his work onto others, and suggest it is only by their laziness that the story has no decent sourcing? On reflection, I am starting to have some doubts about this guy.

Now some interspersed commentary, so I’m going to blockquote it and go all Caro in reply:

Further, (3) on the "obvious [to some] [to me] evidence [links?] [examples given upthread] of its being false," and the ancillary pearl-clutching about "the [unnamed] [ah, but then I’d be guilty of “personalizing” and that would be bad] Obamaphobic fragment [faction?] [fragment; not big enough to deserve “faction”] of Leftist thinking" who have ... Oh, why go on. [I don’t know; why start?]

(Alas, I could not issue a prophylactic against the trope that failure to submit to Obama/Biden Thought with sufficient joy can be diagnosed as a mental disorder. Surely that one's rather shopworn by now?)
Barely used, Obamaphobe; plenty of mileage remaining. Nothing to do with submission (again with that D/s framing) but rather with the irrationality. How else to explain the discrepancy between an insistent demand for provenance in support of a video showing truculent, racist, angry, knuckle-dragging behavior by McCain/Palin supporters, behavior no different than seen displayed by the same cohort in a dozen other videos, and the eager acceptance here of an assertion damaging to Obama that has no demonstrable supportive evidence whatsoever? When a claim benefits Obama then absolute provenance is required, but one that hurts Obama needs no provenance at all; I took that difference in treatment to be the result of some uncontrollable psychological disturbance, certainly the kind view. Are you suggesting instead that it is a willful double standard? Surely not.

In fact, what's obvious is that the process that Clemons reports is one the many possible implementation of Unity. To quote once more the famous pre-amble to the Democrat platform: A great nation now demands that its leaders abandon the politics of partisan division and find creative solutions to promote the common good Well, one good way to abandon the politics of partisan division would be to choose officials from a roster of candidates acceptable to both parties, would it not? Since the process Clemons describes is perfectly compatible both with Obama's expressed views during the campaign, and with platform on which he ran, then where on earth could any "rancor" and "division" come from -- except from Obama's own actions when their results are reported to Democrats to whom the Democratic Party is important?
Or, it is unsupported bullshit that happens to be / was designed to be disruptive to any reconciliation by the Left to Obama’s already obvious Center-Right bent. One thing to be accepting however reluctantly if his choices are simply Centrist, quite another if they were made in some early stage collusion with McCain and the Republicans.

Finally, (4), the story here -- or, as bringiton would have it, the non-story -- is not that centrists were chosen; Obama is a centrist, so that is hardly surprising. The story is that an actual list was made and shared between the campaigns; it's the difference between independent actors coming to parallel results, and co-operating actors seeking a single, mutually acceptable outcome (the roster). Not the world's most important story, to be sure, but clear unless obfuscated.
It is a “story” alright, in my view more of a “tale”. It would indeed be an important story, certainly worth this much discussion, if there were anything to it more than an unattributed claim. There is not, and so I say the story is not in the foundationless assertion but in who promoted it, for what reason and with what aims.

NOTE * The comment to which bringiton responds is a question from amberglow, who makes no claim. The "claim" made is from Clemons, so far as I can tell. If the move is to say that I misread, then points (3) and (4) still apply.
Yes, I speak of the claim made by Clemons.

NOTE ** Comparing Clemons to Larry Johnson... Well, what is there to say?
A false assertion. I made no such comparison. What I did/do compare is the nature of the claims: both extraordinary, both stretching the bounds of credulity, and both resting solely on the unsupported word of an anonymous source. The easy way to have your claims not be comparable to those of Larry Johnson, of course, is to provide some decent sourcing.

And that will be enough time to invest on this!
At last, something we can agree on; far too much time expended.

There are stakes in the ground here; nothing further in the way of dispute will change them. Let whatever emerges from the passage of time sort it out.

Bringiton wrote:

Provenance is a reasonable concern, and it applies here as well as elsewhere. I for one am still waiting for Larry Johnson to roll out that “Whitey” tape and this has the same smell of fuckwittery.

I respond:

Comparing Clemons to Larry Johnson... Well, what is there to say?

Bringiton attempts to backtrack:

NOTE ** Comparing Clemons to Larry Johnson... Well, what is there to say?
A false assertion. I made no such comparison. What I did/do compare is the nature of the claims:

Claims don't have wits -- even "fuckwits." Only people do. Ergo, bringiton is comparing Johnson to Clemons; the people, not the claim.

Of course, the article is thinly sourced, and Clemons, to his credit, is quite explicit about that. That doesn't put Clemons in the same class of "fuckwittery" as Johnson. The moral of the story of Johnson's long-promised, much posted upon, and never produced Whitey Tape is the Johnson, I believe, will do whatever it take to win; the truth has become instrumental to him. Clemons, I believe, has no such record. (If so, let the links be produced.) IOW, it's obvious to anyone who's been paying attention that (a) the cases are not comparable and (b) the two bloggers are not comparable.

For the rest, you don't have to eat the whole ox to know that it is tough. I, for one, don't plan to.