I originally set out to write a diary critical of Obama's choice of Rahm. Let's face it, the guy is #2 on my electoral hitlist next to Holy Joe. I've thrown out the media's narrative about Rahm being a rabid partisan, as he's shown bipartisanship on all the wrong issues. The fact that this myth is the media's talking point should give you pause. But the more I looked at the pick, the more I thought it really makes perfect sense. Here's what I came up with.
- Rahm is one of the most hawkish dems in the party.
He was the only one from the Illinois caucus to vote for presidential authorization on Iraq. He supported going into the Balkans under Bill Clinton's reign. Rahm votes for war. Why he does it, I don't quite know.
- Rahm hangs out in the imaginary "Center".
He calls himself a "Centrist". We are all wary here of the so-called "Center". It's a euphimism for selling out our values. I could see myself being a "Centrist" someday, if our political opposition was a leftist socialist party. But we're stuck with the republicans until they finally collapse under the fracturing of their own conflicted demographics.
- Rahm is given credit by the media for the victories in '06.
This is also ridiculous. Anyone could have been head of the DCCC during this juncture. If anything Rahm did more to hurt our chances by cherry picking candidates during the primary who subscribed to his "centrist" philosophy. Most notable was the Cegelis Duckworth race, but there were other instances where Rahm broke the policy of not interfering with primaries and chose wishy washy blue dogs who went on to lose instead of leaving the races to the district's constituents and letting the democrats win. He'd rather control the party and lose, than allow progressives to win in districts that had traditionally gone republican. I should note that Durbin and Obama did this as well. Barack never once campaigned for Ned Lamont as he had promised to do. That was especially audacious, given that Ned had even garnered the Democratic endorsement.
I find it funny that out of all those races, the only one we won against the republicans was the one where the DCCC blue dog lost the primary. And BTW, Howard Dean is responsible for the victories in '06.
So why give the guy Chief of Staff?
I try not to read too deeply into Barack Obama. Yeah, I voted for him, but I didn't know much about him given his record of voting present, which to Boehner's credit really is a chicken-shit move. He's either a stealth conservative or a stealth progressive, but all of his actions during the '06 cycle point to conservative aka "centrist". We'll ultimately see what he does and I will judge him by his actions as president.
The only other way it could be logical is if Obama knew he had to appease Emanuel early on and this action is a Lincoln-esque tactic to keep your enemies closer while removing Rahm from the DCCC. This, however, is unlikely.
Either way the election is over and I feel just fine beginning my usual nuanced criticism of the "democratic" establishment and their undermining of a real victory for progressives. I have no regrets in my choice of Obama as the lesser of two evils. As we continue to overpopulate this planet how can we as well as our governing bodies help but step all over one another?
Courage.
** Update - If nothing else, thanks for the lively conversation. It's good to know that there are still skeptics alive on DKos who won't troll rate you for speaking your mind AFTER the election is over and it's safe and responsible to do so.