Monday Nov. 17, 2008 15:00 EST
The mind of the Democratic leadership

"...Congressional Democratic leaders ... consider it a good thing -- not a bad thing -- when they anger their own base.  They're thrilled when they get accused -- accurately -- of acting like Republicans and supporting right-wing measures, particularly on national security and 'terrorism' issues.   They consider it a benefit -- an incentive -- when they are attacked for embracing Republican political policies and violating the principles of their own base.

This is undoubtedly the rationale which, at least in part, led to Obama's own reversal on FISA:  namely, it was considered a good thing that he infuriated his core supporters and was accused of supporting definitively Bush/Cheney terrorism policies because -- in the words of his new Chief of Staff -- "it makes you look bipartisan."  

And here's Greenwald's prescient comments from late yesterday on events, today, as they ended up playing out on The Hill:

Tomorrow, the Senate will vote in secret on whether to deny Joe Lieberman the Chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.  Is the anger that will be generated among liberals if Lieberman continues in that position something that Senate Democrats want to avoid or want to provoke?  One wonders how many similar celebrations Congressional Democrats had all those times when they enabled one radical Bush policy after the next and were excoriated by their own voters.

--SNIP--

Nobody who has watched Congressional Democrats over the last many years could possibly have expected any other outcome.  This is who they are and what they do.  The silver lining is that it will once again remind people, still euphoric over the election results, of this reality.

And as the anger pours forth from people who raise money for Democrats and expended huge amounts of time and effort to elect Barack Obama, the more vindicated Senate Democrats will feel in what they just did.  That's how they look centrist and bipartisan -- by infuriating their supporters, the perceived "Left."  They don't believe in Sister Souljah moments; they believe in Sister Souljahism as an operating principle, a way of life.

Lastly, in addition to the Lieberman story, there's this not-so-little tidbit--a retelling of a piece from Democracy Now, as referenced today, over at the Democratic Underground: 'Melvin Goodman on Obama and his intelligence advisors from Democracy Now."

AMY GOODMAN: John Brennan and Jami Miscik, both former intelligence officials under George Tenet, are leading Barack Obama's review of intelligence agencies and helping make recommendations to the new administration. Brennan has supported warrantless wiretapping and extraordinary rendition, and Miscik was involved with the politicized intelligence alleging weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the war on Iraq. We speak with former CIA analyst Melvin Goodman and Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

-clip-

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, it's extremely, extremely disturbing. When you read Jane Mayer's book, the worst and most onerous chapter is the chapter on what the CIA did to people in secret sites, from small coffins to waterboarding. John Brennan was there at the time. To hear him say that this stuff works is really--or that it's very important to do is really remarkable. He's saying that at the same time when we know about the Center's client, Maher Arar, being sent to Syria, tortured, so-called diplomatic assurances somehow able to protect him. Another Guantanamo people--other Guantanamo people sent to Egypt with the worst kind of torture. So, the idea that Brennan, who should probably, along with Tenet, be facing some kind of war crimes trial, is actually heading the transition on this is extremely disturbing.

-clip-

MELVIN GOODMAN: Well, then you have to wonder who he's relying on, in terms of advice, to keep Bob Gates at the Pentagon, which I think is another example of continuity and not change. You mean to tell me that there are no Democrats who are qualified to become the Secretary of Defense? Bob Gates has supported all of the policies that Obama said he was going to look at very carefully and seemed to oppose: expansion of NATO, bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, deployment of missiles in Poland, deployment of radars in the Czech Republic, the continued acquisition of a national missile defense, which is the most expensive item in the Pentagon's procurement project, an item that we've spent over $500 billion on in the last forty years. This is--again, this is not change; this is continuity.

Let's see...in the past 24 hours we have: Senator Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Senator Joe Lieberman, new White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel,  and most of the leadership of the post-9/11 Central Intelligence Agency.

Now, I'm a huge fan of Senator Clinton, and I think keeping Gates onboard a little while might not be all that bad of an idea (and, just a couple of weeks ago I definitely wasn't of that opinion). But, when you look at how things have been playing out over the past few days, I just have to ask myself: "Democrats?" "Change?"

"...the more they remain the same."

NOTE: Special thanks to 99 Percent Pure's diary, today, at Daily Kos, "From Democracy Now! - Bush CIA Rendition Team Heading Obama's Intelligence Transition Team."