I’m going to do something here I don’t usually care to do, which is simplify a complex issue into two basic camps.  Those camps are “hold his feet to the fire” and “relax and let him do what works for him.”

For short, I’ll all those two camps “firebugs” and “hibernators.”  If this insults either or both camps, I’m okay with that.

So let me say right now I am of both camps.  Really.  I’m not trying to play nice with everybody.  I’m just feeling both things.  I cried at Obama’s acceptance speech, but whenever he mentions “clean coal” I cringe or shout obscenities at the TV (literally; it’s happened more than once that I’ve shouted something out loud).  

Some of his appointees thrill me.  Others don’t.  I’m okay with that.  I’ve said before that I’d rather have competent people who don’t share my ideology than incompetent people who do.  A big take home from the Bush “administration” should be that you pick good people to do the necessary work of government, even if their politics don’t share yours.

I’ll take one specific example: David Iglesias was a Republican appointee to the Justice Department whom Gonzales fired because he refused to play ball and use his office for political retribution.  I don’t care that he’s a Republican.  Obama should offer him a good position in the AG’s office because he clearly cares more about justice than he does about politics.  

But that’s beside the point.  I want to talk about the anger I’m seeing from both camps: people who feel like they’re being told to STFU and not criticize Obama or Democrats, and people who feel as though those who are criticizing Obama or Democrats are betraying the party.

But before I get to that, I will mention something with a little bit of perspective on the history of this.

In ’92, I worked on the Clinton campaign.  When he won I was thrilled.  A lot of us were.  I didn’t have high expectations of Clinton, but I knew he was better than Bush.  I had also been part of ACT/UP, which was an important AIDS activist group which actively challenged the Bush administration during his time in office.

A lot of activism died when Clinton took office.  ACT/UP lost focus.  Anti war groups weren’t sure what to do with themselves.

Even though Clinton would have made a much better President than Bush, I greatly regretted the failure of activists to keep Clinton’s feet to the fire.  I understand the need to think that things are getting better, and the need to relax after 12 years of pro-war presidents.

But, as activists, I think we failed during the Clinton years. We didn’t do our jobs.  We didn’t protest when Clinton engaged in inappropriate overseas military action.  We didn’t challenge him when he put forth “anti-terrorism” legislation which invaded privacy.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am extremely happy that Obama is president.  But I can be extremely happy about it and still be angry about his FISA vote.  I can be looking forward to his inauguration while questioning whether or not his inner circle will include progressive voices.  I can think that he’s our best hope out of this economic mess while still wondering if Larry Summers is the best person to be at his side during this.  

So I guess what I want to say is that I don’t think we should STFU, nor do I think we should be attacking Obama for everything he does that doesn’t perfectly suit a progressive agenda.  But we do need to pressure him and find ways to promote our own agendas without being so far over the top that we find our way into irrelevancy.

And as I write this, I admit that there’s a part of me which is just tired.  I feel like I’ve been fighting these battles for decades now and I don’t know how many more I want to be fighting.  So there’s a real and honest temptation to say “you know, I can sit this one out and not complain when I hear references to clean coal.”  

But I know what that voice is; it’s just the part of me that wants a fairy tale ending.  It’s not honest.  It’s not real.

So yeah, I’m in both camps, and I understand both camps.  But we need one another to work this through, and we need to accept that criticism is not an attack, that pushing our agendas is part of how politics works, and that this was a really long election and it took a lot out of all of us, and it’s okay to just say “I need a break” and let things go for a little.

So that’s my thought on the topic.

What’s yours?

Vermont Yankee seems to cough up a fur ball about once a week .A sign today of a possible setback as the NRC rules to examine metal on a water supply nozzle used to cool the reactor core . But the NRC is a strange incomprehensible regulatory beast .Neil Sheehan, an NRC spokesman, said”the ruling does not reflect badly on the agency staff’s handling of the metal fatigue issue.”As always Entergy is pressing to go more quickly.Give us the renewal,we can check the cracks later .

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, a panel that acts as the judicial arm for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said in a 154-page decision that Entergy needs to do more tests now, not later, on metal nozzles used to supply water and maintain the temperature in the reactor core.

Entergy had proposed putting off such tests until sometime after the anticipated 2012 date for renewal of its license. One of the nozzles is critical to protecting the reactor’s core in the event of an accident.

Monday’s ruling was a victory for the New England Coalition, a Brattleboro nuclear watchdog group ….”We are the first citizen organization in the country to have one of our contentions sustained by the hearing board,” said Raymond Shadis, a coalition consultant. “Vermonters ought to be extremely proud of what this little, homegrown, organization has done.”

That was from the Free Press coverage …

This from the Rutland Herald causes a little bit of puzzlement .They report basically the same story , including this quote “Is it legally permissible and technically appropriate to issue the license now, and allow Entergy to postpone the necessary metal fatigue analysis until later? Our answer is no,” the panel members wrote in their decision. But curiously floating alone in the article is this claim made by the reporter  …. “However, the ruling by the three-judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission seems unlikely to pose a major obstacle to the plant’s plans to continue operating beyond 2012.”

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

http://www.rutlandherald.com/a…

Political cartoonist, Tim Newcomb, has been

Tim Newcomb's first collection of Vermont editorial cartoons was just released, and there's gonna be a party! Come on out Tuesday, December 9 at The Black Door! Cash bar and appetizers, but most of all, a great celebration of "Nuke" and his 25 years of Vermont political cartoons! Party-goers get $3.95 off the cover price, making "A Gaggle of Governors" a great holiday gift for only $15. Party poopers pay $18.95 retail. (Ok, if you can't make it, you're not a party pooper.)

From Green Mountain Daily

Some teaser cartoons just below the fold…

From Green Mountain Daily

From Green Mountain Daily

From Green Mountain Daily

Burlington Representative Jason Lorber has decided to drop his candidacy for the number three position in the House Democratic Caucus – that of Assistant Majority Leader (or “Whip”). The position is currently held by Floyd Nease who is making a run at the Majority Leader spot.

Lorber is now supporting Rep. Lucy Leriche (D-Hardwick) for the position. It’s possible there could be some consensus building going on behind the scenes as we approach the December 6th caucus, particularly since it seems likely that both the #1 and #2 spots (Speaker and Majority Leader) will most likely (but not certainly) be occupied by men (Doesn’t actually sound like that’s happening).

Sadly, my telepathy helmet is on the fritz, so to gleam insights into the thinking of the leader of what has to be the most active pre-administration in the history of the Presidency, I am forced to infer, deduce, second-guess, study body language and constellations and tea leaves, and throw some bones – like every other political observer. While I still believe firmly that the progressive left should never allow anybody a “honeymoon”, as early positioning and pressure can pay off a hundred fold in later policy struggles, I also think that things may not be as dire looking as some lefty observers like Sirota clearly fear.

First of all, as Bowers points out, progressives aren’t being entirely shut out of the nascent Obama administration, they just aren’t getting the high-profile, departmental leadership positions. Now that’s a mighty big “just,” as those cabinet roles are hardwired policy powerhouses in th executive branch, while the lesser-known appointees cited by Bowers simply get as much influence as the President is inclined to give them.

But Obama may be trying for an all things to all people approach in his early staffing and positioning decisions. If he puts in usual suspects that the media accept as “mature” and “serious,” he lengthens his media (and by inevitable extension, his public) honeymoon, making it easier for him to do what he seems to want to do – make some major policy moves very quickly. We all know how progressives would be greeted by the media in major cabinet roles – the hand-wringing about ideologues would saturate the Sunday talk shows and spill into all the op-ed papers with gleeful support from the likes of GOP Senate muppet McConnell.

Now we also know that Obama is no progressive. Many during the election were counting on the idea that he was a closet lefty, waiting to blossom in the Oval Office, but I’d say that’s a pipe dream. What’s less of a pipe dream, though, is that he may turn out to be a relatively free thinker who, while centrist, may not be the sort to be bound by centrist intellectual orthodoxy. If this is the case, the progressives he’s invited to the table won’t merely be tokens, but could have an actual impact on his thinking.

Of course we all know that an “all things to all people” approach is doomed to collapse. Hopefully Obama is smart enough not to buy into his own hype enough to imagine for a second that he’ll be mystically immune to that political law of nature. But a firm hand on a centrist cabinet, coupled with genuine open mindedness and a cadre of advisors that include progressive thinkers would be a good thing. After all, we on the left fancy ourselves the real pragmatists, so if Obama remains open to all views, I have confidence that we can have an impact.

In any event, this is simply one theory that happens to fit the facts. It’s not the simplest explanation, of course, based on his highest profile appointments. That would be that Obama is simply a relatively orthodox centrist. The key to whether or not this alternate theory is simply wishful thinking will be in which positions have progressives, and what their connections are to Obama. If we see a “Whitman’s Sampler” kind of appointment (a scattering of individuals from supportive constituency or interest groups into low profile positions), that suggests tokenism. If his appointments seem more personal, its more likely that the view from the left will get a stronger hearing. And if we see lefties placed across the board in certain categories – Bowers suggests the Assistant Secretaries for Policy in the Departments – that would be even more significant.

So keep watching, but – as always – keep being loud. The left in this country at all times, in all contexts, and with all Presidents has (hopefully) learned a long time ago that it has to continually be a very squeaky wheel to have any hopes whatsoever of getting any grease.

So, as Zappa said, let’s all try and keep it greasy.

If you have never been over to Integral Psychosis, it is definitely worth a regular visit. Right now Wes (wdh3) has a great post up about how much of a challenge Obama is for the radical lefts. He has a nice knack for being inflammatory (Obamafascism?)  and thoughtful at the same time. Maybe “provocative” is the word that unifies those two poles.

Below that post you will find the first two parts of my interview with him for VTblogosphereTV. Here’s part 3:

This interview took place 2 days after the election and we spent most of our time trying to sort out its monumental meaning.  I think Wes was trying to bring me down off my giddiness, but I’m afraid I’m still buzzing. We did manage to get in a word or two about the state of the State in regards to the fractured left.

We must have been overtaken by the exuberance of the unity and change rhetoric in the air that week, because by the end we made a dem/prog truce brokered by Bernie seem like a forgone conclusion. No such plan is in the works. I have no reason to believe in such an outcome. But goddammit sometimes speaking something makes it seem more possible. The clip closes with a little Obama Halloween season beat with dueling jackolanterns of joy and dread. I hope it captures the zeitgeist of a time not so long ago.

Next up is the Return of the Odum. Moohoohahahahaha

He’s back and he’s talking GMD visitor spikes, Lieberman, deficits and the progressive economic inferiority complex, and the December 6 meeting of the minds. You can see that on ORCA and VCAM (public access TV) this week and I’ll get it up on the youtube soon enough.

VTblogosphereTV archives HERE

Let me know if you are interested in sponsoring the show locally (basically just telling your public access channel that you want them to pick up the show) or maybe even coming on (we shoot in Montpelier).  Easiest is probably “send Message” on the youtube page.