Blogging Obama's Administration

By Cernig

Jeralyn Merritt has an excellent post about blogging during a Democratic administration: the short answer is that there's going to be plenty to be critical about as well as to supportive of. I feel the same way. Blogs have become an important facet of political debate and have often replaced the mainstream media in it's Fourth Estate role of providing information and interpretations of the facts independently of government spin. There's no reason to change that from Newshoggers point of view.

We'll continue to bring "news less travelled" and foreign affairs posts, as well as domestic politics. Offtimes, we will agree with President-Elect Obama's policies and broad style - as we do with his emphasis on negotiation and diplomacy rather than unwarranted belligerence. That's already showing fruit: Iraqi politicians are sure that Obama can help them make a transition to being the determiners of their own nation's future once again, North Korea is hopeful that it can come in from the cold through negotiation and even Russia, despite some hype suggesting otherwise, is hopeful that Obama won't be a saber rattler in the Bush mould.

A Kremlin statement said Obama and Medvedev "expressed the determination to create constructive and positive interaction for the good of global stability and development" and agreed that their countries had a common responsibility to address "serious problems of a global nature."

To that end, according to the Kremlin statement, Medvedev and Obama believe an "early bilateral meeting" should be arranged.

But there have also been some worrisome aspects to Obama's policy and team building, which we at Newshoggers have not and will not soft-soap. I, for one, recall all too clearly the empty promises of Tony Blair coming hard on the heels of the collapse of Thatcherism. There's a real risk that Obama, like Blair still far better than the alternative, may fall short on his promises or turn out to have misled on them.

In that respect Obama's staffing choices so far, replete with Clinton-era old guard, are a worry. There's no chance of the President-Elect or anyone who has his ear noticing this tiny blog, but I would still advise him if I could to put together a "Devil's Advocate" team of "young guns" to offer a more progressive and fresher alternative to the Cold Warrior mindset. In foreign policy, names that easily spring to mind include Vali Nasr, Juan Cole, Barnett Rubin, Marc Lynch, Travis Sharp and Matt Duss. In economics, Paul Krugman, Nouriel Roubini and Pat Garofalo might be apposite choices.

Maybe, with such "oppo" teams contributing, Obama wouldn't be so given to saying Iran is seeking nuclear weapons when all the evidence says it isn't, or to claim Russia invaded Georgia when the Georgians were the aggressors. He'd perhaps want to rethink the potentially disasterous interventionist aspects of his policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan too. Jeralyn has a list too:

When we get a President who vows to impose a moratorium on executions, close Guantanamo, and try accused terrorists under the Code of Military Justice or in federal courts, who pushes Congress to abolish mandatory minimum sentences, put a lockbox on social security benefits and provide mandatory health care, including affordable and compassionate nursing home care for the elderly, and who has ended the war in Iraq and promised not to get us into other wars preemptively or under false pretenses

These are the kind of things that we should be keeping an eye on as an Obama administration comes together, and here at Newshoggers we certainly will, being critical when we feel we should no matter what partisan politics might ask.

Update: Nicole at Crooks and Liars comments by email:

The one thing that I would caution about being too reactionary about is the inclusion of former Clintonites in the administration.  First, just because you worked for Clinton doesn't mean that you are a DLCer. Second, just by default, because they're the only Democrats we've had in 30 years, if you hire Democrats in DC, chances are pretty good that you're going to get someone who worked for Clinton.  While there are some things that definitely detract from Clinton's legacy (NAFTA, DOMA, DADT come to mind), the prosperity and global status we enjoyed with Clinton are not exactly something we should be running away from.

She has a point and it's one I wish I'd made clearer in the original post - Clinton Dems are, mostly, the only ones available with experience of being in an administration so 'we go to the White House with the Dem staffers we've got, not the Dem staffers we wish we had', as it were. And not all of them are neo-liberal interventionists. But I think my idea of "oppo teams" would just be strengthened by the inclusion of those less awful Clintonistas.

Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald notes that of course it's too early to say how an Obama presidency is going to turn out, however:

It makes perfect sense -- for the reasons Digby so aptly described this week -- for people to start pressuring Obama now to pay attention to their political principles and agendas.  And it's certainly likely that Obama will end up doing many, many things that warrant and provoke intense criticism.  I have no doubt about that.   But he's entitled to actually start doing things -- on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, civil liberties, the economy, and otherwise -- before judgments are formed.

Comments

[smintheus]

The purpose of any self-respecting political blog ought to be to comment/report critically. It's what right-wing blogs almost uniformly failed to do under Bush.

We'll see which lefty blogs fall into the trap of becoming mere cheerleaders for the Democratic administration. I would hope that Obama and Biden have the sense not to encourage leftopia to become an uncritical megaphone for their policies; that would benefit nobody but the GOP in the long run. At the moment many of us in leftopia have credibility, whereas rightopia has virtually none, anywhere. It would be a huge mistake to throw that advantage away.

I do think there will be a lot of whiplash for many lefty bloggers during the first year as they try to negotiate the turn from opposition to not-opposition or something like it. In a lot of cases, it'll probably be unedifying or downright unappetizing to watch.

But at least there was a dry-run in 2007, during which some bloggers got the stupid partly out of their systems. I remember cringing at a lot of what I was reading in early 2007 at some prominent blogs. But after about 6 months of cheerleading too close to the wind, the keel of critical thinking generally began to assert itself some more.

Another danger is that lefty blogs will lose the way forward, lose sight of the prize. I think the path forks beyond that point. One way leads to growing resentment and curmudgeonly sniping, or just partisan skittishness. The other leads to empty and feckless over-optimism about reforms that always lie just over the horizon. I think this might be the bigger problem in the long run if the administration doesn't *try* to deliver on necessary reforms.

[Batocchio]

The mood has definitely changed. But since most of us are still the peanut gallery somewhat, not all of the dynamics. As a whole, I think the liberal blogosphere will continue to be a force, and probably more importantly, a forum. We can offer constructive criticism, support where deserved, rebukes where necessary. The difference is, for all an Obama administration's faults, we do have relatively sane adults in charge now, which goes beyond any party identification. I don't want to see unquestioning cheerleading, but on the other end, while idealism is good, there has to be some recognition of the strategy, tactics and pragmatism necessary to get things done. I also don't think the liberal blogosphere just stops now. The Blue America PAC will keep rolling, but the goal isn't just to elect better candidates, as important as that is. The point is to help citizens engage, to discuss, and take action. There's no candidate and no administration where that won't be necessary and vital. While I think many of us were spurred by the outrageousness of the Bush administration to speak out and take action, to try to take our country back, there's a certain basic level of engagement that I think doesn't fade.

I agree that hiring former Clinton administration people isn't necessarily horrible, and it's certainly not unusual. But there does need to be plenty of new blood as well, though, and I'm most concerned about some of the same economic team who helped create the current mess having positions of power. Giving them voices is one thing; handing them the megaphone is another. I'm also hoping that much of Obama's more belligerent rhetoric was pandering to a Beltway class so amnesiac, moronic and imperialistic that they think the only way to prove one's self "serious" is to promise to bomb the hell out of foreigners. That's one area I know I (and many other bloggers) will be watching. Whatever else he is, Obama is wicked smart, as are many members of his team. I definitely intend to keep watch, but with good will and the principle of charity for now. As for action, I'm all for pushing for that New New Deal.

[Russ Wellen]

I don't know how Bush to Obama will be. But the blogging transition has been seamless. We've scarcely missed a beat.

[Emocrat]

This post and its commenters are actually one of the reasons why I allow myself to feel some genuine optimism at times, since the election.

If there ever was a time to keep a watchful eye on the new government, this is it.

If there ever was a great time for Obama's base of support to assert itself, it is now. People were promised change and they clearly want it. They weren't really told what kind of change Obama had in mind, so there's certainly no harm in letting him know what people expect or want. They won't have to listen to us if we don't speak to them, eh?

While it seems "reactionary" (interesting choice of words) to be critical of the Clintonistas, with all due respect for Nicole, it isn't Robert Reich (who was probably Clinton's best cabinet member, IMHO, and thusly a Clintonista by def) that gives me hives. It's the architects of the Greatest Ponzi Scheme In Recorded History that are now poised to once again rule over our economy, with some new neo-liberal scheme, that gives me the creeps.

Summers in particular is an epic failure waiting to happen IMO. If you haven't signed the petition over at Open Left at

http://action.openleft.com/page/petition/nosummers

please do.

It won't be that much longer before more people realize the time to speak is now. But I don't fault them for simply wanting to bask in the moment either. That was the way I was in November '92.