When Obama hired Geithner, it was clear to me where this was going. That move threw cold water on any dreams of change, since it showed Obama was ready to "stay the course" and continue the Bush/Paulson economic model. There are still some good ones out there but they're nowhere near the White House. The main players in the party are so far removed from the problems of the middle class, it's not possible for them to appreciate the problems of working families. That anyone in the party or the press can say Daley is a "moderate" is amazing. He's center-right at best. Greenwald is right when he says people need to stop complaining about Obama's people and face the fact that Obama chose them. He wants those people and their ideas.
More from Glenn Greenwald on giving blind support:
It is probably the case that a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Democratic base contributed to the Democrats' defeat in the 2010 midterm election. But what Obama cares about is getting re-elected in 2012, and he knows full well that come March or April of that year -- if not earlier -- most of the progressives who are now continuously complaining about him will be at the front of the line waving their Obama banners, pulling out their checkbooks and whipping into line anyone who is not similarly supportive. By contrast, corporate institutions and Wall Street tycoons will pour their money into Obama's defeat if he does not show them the proper level of deference and accommodate their policy demands, but will support him (as they did in 2008) if he pleases them. Resource disparities between those factions are significant, but it's also due in part to their own choices that Wall Street is empowered, and progressives are irrelevant.
If someone wants to lend unconditional support to Obama and the Democrats, there's a cogent (if not persuasive) rationale to justify it. But what I find baffling is that those who make that choice -- and who make clear that this is their choice -- then express surprise, anger and scorn in situations like the Daley appointment when the White House so blatantly ignores what they want. Given the posture of progressives, why would the White House possibly do anything other than ignore them (except when they're deliberately attacking them in order to appear more centrist)? What motive does the White House have for doing anything other than that? None that I can see.
