Mason claimed "liberal left" is "up in arms" over Gates, Clinton selections; didn't note poll showing strong Democratic support for Obama's choices
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, Washington Examiner correspondent Julie Mason asserted that the "liberal left" was "up in arms about Robert Gates staying on at the Defense Department, and some of these other picks, and even -- even the pick of Hillary Clinton at the State Department." But neither Mason nor anchor Alex Witt mentioned that a recent poll showed strong support among Democrats for President-elect Barack Obama's selections of Gates and Clinton.
On the December 6 edition of MSNBC Live, Washington Examiner White House correspondent Julie Mason asserted that the "liberal left" was "up in arms about Robert Gates staying on at the Defense Department, and some of these other picks, and even -- even the pick of Hillary Clinton at the State Department." But neither Mason nor anchor Alex Witt mentioned that recent polling data shows strong support among Democrats for President-elect Barack Obama's selections of Gates and Clinton. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted December 1, 89 percent of Democrats approve of Clinton's nomination to be secretary of state, and 79 percent of Democrats approve of Obama's decision to reappoint Gates. The poll also found that 94 percent of Democrats "approve of the way Obama is handling his presidential transition."
Mason also claimed during the MSNBC segment that "[t]here was a bit of an outcry on the left saying, you know, 'This isn't change. This isn't the change that he promised us.' " However, the USA Today/Gallup poll found that 77 percent of Democrats indicated that Obama's administration will be "more effective" because he has chosen individuals who held positions in President Bill Clinton's administration, with only 3 percent saying those choices will render Obama's administration "less effective."
As Media Matters for America has documented, several other media figures have similarly promoted the notion of division among Obama's supporters, claiming that "the left" has been or should be disappointed with his Cabinet selections. But, like Mason, many of these media figures have have not offerred evidence supporting their position, which is undermined by the USA Today/Gallup poll.
From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the December 6 edition of MSNBC Live:
WITT: Julie, there is another poll out there, it's a Newsweek poll conducted, which shows that 72 percent also approve of Obama's choices to fill the Cabinet-level positions in his new administration so far. Do you think the more liberal left is in agreement, or do you think they're not inclined to agree with some of the centrist picks?
MASON: Well, that's an interesting question. You know, they seem to support him generally, and they want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But, you know, they were up in arms about Robert Gates staying on at the Defense Department, and some of these other picks, and even -- even the pick of Hillary Clinton at the State Department. There was a bit of an outcry on the left saying, you know, "This isn't change. This isn't the change that he promised us." So, there is some concern. But I think, overall, they're still -- they're still taking a wait-and-see attitude. His picks have been very careful, very pragmatic, and we see him not taking any real major risks. And even the Clinton thing, they, you know -- that was leaked weeks before it was actually announced, so people had a chance to really get used to the idea. So, I -- I think the left is watching very carefully, and they -- they do -- they do have some concerns.
WITT: Do -- do you think --
ED O'KEEFE (WashingtonPost.com's Federal Eye blogger): And Alex -- Alex, some of his -- some of his most sensitive picks still remain. They may not be sensitive or high profile on the minds of most Americans, but labor secretary, education secretary, EPA administrator, intelligence director -- all of those are gonna be of big importance to a lot of different liberal groups --
WITT: What -- what --
O'KEEFE: -- in the coming weeks.
WITT: And I'm curious -- what do you think, Ed? Do you think Barack Obama will run into a problem with the very people, the liberal left, who were so eager for him to win?
O'KEEFE: He's probably going to on at least one of those picks, absolutely. I mean, a lot of the labor unions who worked so hard for him during his campaign are very concerned about who he'll pick for labor secretary. There's a great divide in the education world over those that want reform and those that would prefer something along the status quo. You know, there's a lot of big-city school chancellors that people would like to see, and the teachers' unions and others would hate to see that person picked. So, there's plenty of -- of sensitivities and things he'll have to take into account. And -- and again, I think that's where he could very well stumble with at least many members of the base, more so than he has on the higher-profile picks.
WITT: Well, maybe that's why those have yet to be named, at this point -- still being considered. OK, Julie Mason, Ed O'Keefe, thanks so much you two.
You people are always trying to generate controversy! WE trust Obama. He is the reason we went for the democratic nominee...not because of all of these perceived red and blue and right and left B.S.
He will give us the intelligent, family oriented, true American that we always hoped to have in our C. & C.
She should have said "far left" instead of liberal left. It's not surprising that the polls show strong Democratic support for Obama's choices because most Democrats are not "far left" I think the ones that are are thinking they would have wished Obama had selected differently.
Self described "progressive" hosts such as Rachel Maddow have been asking questions along these lines over the past couple of weeks, so I really don't think Mason's comment is that far off. "Up in arms" is too strong, but I don't believe the far left are dancing in the aisles, either.
Maddow isn't "far left", by the way.
but I don't believe the far left are dancing in the aisles, either.
I think most people would agree that Clinton and Gates are capable of the jobs offered to them by Obama but it's nothing to dance in the aisle about. Are you dancing in the aisle?
I consider myself pretty far left, and I approve of both Gates and Clinton.
Why would any democrat be "up in arms" over a Hillary Clinton nomination? That would just be, well, pretty damn silly.
Because she voted for the war and never apologized for it. Isn't that what ultimately cost her the nomination in a very close race?
And now she's Secretary of State.
Anyway, that's why I think some on the far left wouldn't like her as a choice.
Politicians always argue over that kind of stuff in the primaries. Hillary isn't Kucinich but she isn't Cheney either.
I didn't like her vote for the use of force (it's not a war, technically). But, that is just one vote out of many different votes and positions. I couldn't judge her any more on one vote, than I could judge myself on one certain thing. For some, this may be a make or break issue, for me, it's not. If she were the deciding vote in that matter, it would be more of an effect, but she wasn't. There were plenty of other democrats who voted for the use of force as well. I do think that they were all lied to, as we were, about the intelligence, and you know, how the BA skipped over the salient parts, like Saddam didn't have WMDs and things like that.
She is going to be SecOfState, and I think she'll do well at her job. Just as I think Gates is the right man for the job currently. Again, I am far left, and wouldn't oppose either of those nominations.
Another invented "issue" by the MSM.
I agree, for the most part. I think most of us Obama supporters are happy to have changed the nation's policies and priorities. Contrary to George Will's recent column in Newsweek, we did not expect to completely end "politics as usual." If Obama has retained Gates as Defense Secretary and appointed Sumners and Rubin to his economic team (for which there might be some genuine disappointment -- see Frank Rich's column in today's New York Times), he has also said he believes health care is a right (I don't believe either Clinton went that far), and he has now appointed Gen. Shinseki to head the VA. So I do see some real change coming.
That's the most they can get in '10?
Probably.
Hey, keep talkin! When you get trounced again two years from now you can console yourselves by saying us mean ol liberals would rather vote for a liberal that lied to them rather than switch over to has been and wind tunnel.
We are????? Really????? Gee, thanks for telling us, Julie!!!!
For some of us on the progressive left, voting for Pres-Elect Obama was a compromise
but it was also a vote against the Democratic Leadership Council (Clintons, Lieberman,
Harold Ford, Al Gore etc.) who never met a war they didn't support.
Huh? Your vote was a vote against Al Gore? Oh yeah, because you know those pesky Nobel Prize winners have no place in our government.
Not to mention, I don't remember Gore running for, you know, anything..
People who use terminology like "up in arms" aren't being specific, and aren't being informative. If someone giving testimony in a criminal case, or even an investigation, referred to someone else as being "up in arms", they'd be stopped and asked to clariify what they mean: "You mean they were angry, agitated, what? And who are you talking about... who is angry or agitated or upset, if indeed that is even what you're saying?"
People who use the term "liberal left" are also saying essentially nothing at all, but just voicing their own dim and vague perceptions of the world, in this case of American politics.
I think President Obama is the object of an extraordinary level of faith on the part of the vast electoral majority that made him President. I think they (that vast electoral majority) don't presume to know more than Mr. Obama about what he precisely faces, in administering our Federal Government for us: and they don't presume to micromanage that administration along with the President, through the media and by poll result. I think this faith and confidence extends now even to some part, maybe the greater part, of those American People who had formerly supported John McCain for the Office.
These media idiots who are presently trying to undermine this high level of faith and confidence the American People have in their new President, by hacking away at him in the media, using exaggerated and contrived compaints against the man, and pretending them to be voiced in the name of fictitious people (in this case the "liberal left"), I think these idiots misstep. It's a bad strategy. They (the media idiots) are already in a leaky enough boat as it is, in the minds of most of the American People (the electoral results are a solid indication of that): this present noise they make, against our new President, just sinks them deeper and faster, into the low places these media idiots noisily seem to love.
But it's really just noise in the final analysis. It's the actual things, destructive threatening and malicious, that President Obama's political opposition plans and shall execute, that we really need to be watchful and sharp for. And when those things happen, we will be much more than "up in arms", and we won't be fictitious either... and the object of our actions won't be to blame the President, but to blame those who are trying to subvert his administration before it has even had a chance to govern.
Right now, that's the idiot media playing that part. But it will be others, soon, and it will be real.
This reminds me, after the 2006 midterms, when the MSM said that the election of the House Majority leader between Murtha and Hoyer was "party infighting" despite the fact that the vote was 149-86 for Hoyer (63% of the vote). But when the Republican vote for Senate Minority Whip was 24-23 for Trent Lott (a guy supports racial segregation, and 51% of the vote) they said it was "decisive". Well, maybe they didn't say that, but they acted like nothing was going on.
Frank Rich today in the New York Times talks about the "best and the brightest" being appointed by Obama as his choices. The problem is with his economic team not Hillary or even Gates. I agree with Frank Rich the economic team should be more about change not a continuation of the Paulson(bush) regime. Further Obama should not allow Paulson to deplete the bailout billions before he takes office.
As usual though the media is obsessed with Hillary, and she isn't a problem for me or really anyone on the left.
"Further Obama should not allow Paulson to deplete the bailout billions before he takes office."
And precisely HOW do you expect Obama to stop him? As Obama repeatedly points out we "only have one President at a time" and Obama ain't it - yet. If there was a danger the Paulson would "depelet" the billions - then the time to "stop him" was at the time of the vote in Congress. They could have used any number of delaying tactics to hold off the vote until after Obama took office.
And besides that, isn't "depleting" the billions sort of the reason they were voted for in the first place? That Paulson will SQUANDER them is a different argument.
They, Congress, could not have waited, because this was supposed to be "neccesary but not sufficient" in Obama's words.
So I guess then Obama is helpless to do anything now?
Further my understanding is Paulson has to get some sort of permission from Congress to use up the rest of the money. If Obama said he was opposed I am sure Congressional Democrats would agree, like they did with the recent Lieberman vote.
It matters little what the rank and file democrats think about Obama's selections.
The cabinet picks, appointees to policy branches, and support staff are battlegrounds for the select few Washington insiders...all jockeying for positions of power in the Obama administration.
-- As President-elect Barack Obama continues to assemble his "team of rivals" by filling Cabinet positions with former political opponents, he has drawn the ire of one self-styled rival who feels he has been unfairly overlooked: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH).
Speaking to reporters in Washington today, a furious Mr. Kucinich said that it was "unfair and insane" for Mr. Obama to spurn him for a Cabinet post..."In your inexorable rise to become President, let's not forget that the first body you climbed over was that of Dennis J. Kucinich." -- huffpo
Ah, Wes, you have stumbled on the "liberal left" (Kucinich) that is upset. Nice detective (investigative reporter) work!!!!!
Despite mmfa's love for their cherished polls...one doesn't have to look far to see the unrest from many on the left concerning Obama's selections.
-- Nominating Gates to stay, “would be a violation of the mandate for change that Obama says he represents,” said Medea Benjamin, cofounder of the anti-war group CodePink. -- CBS
-- This should be an open and shut case. If there was one message that Obama ran on loudly, clearly, and indisputably, it is that he was going to bring "change" to Washington, D.C. If Gates were kept on as Secretary of Defense...is about as far from change as possible...
We need change in the Department of Defense, and keeping Gates along with his entire team of advisors and assistants doesn't fit the bill. -- openleft.com
In re-reading the lead above, MMFA uses "strong support". Seeing as how Obama's 52% of the popular vote was "overwhelming", I would think "strong" is in the near neighborhood of 50% (or even perhaps a tad less, with some undecideds).
Et tu, Wesley, et tu?
Don't worry Wes, It happens to the best of them. You're quoting from Andy Borowitz's column. It's parody. Here's one of his recent articles.
"Obama's Use of Complete Sentences Stirs Controversy"
The great Boston Herald also thought they had a scoop and printed an excerpt from Andy's column in which VP Cheney allegedly challenged Hilary on "Meet The Press" to a hunt-off and told her to meet him in the woods.
"To be frank, Hillary Clinton’s stories about her adventures with guns don’t exactly pass the smell test,” the vice president told host Tim Russert. “If she really wants to show that she knows how to handle a rifle, there’s an easy way to do that: meet me in the woods.”"
Nice work king...slipping a little subterfuge by you is like trying to sneak the sunrise past a rooster. My huffpo 'cover' was not near clever enough to survive your scrutiny.
But I would expect no less from one who spent his formative years watching Sergeant Preston of the Mounties...and he always got his man.
Nice save, Wesley. You weren't suckered, you were just seeing if anybody else would fall for it.That seems very reasonable that you would use a satirical site to support your point, then call it "subterfuge" when busted.
Come on, you're supposed to be one of the reasonable cons at this site.Step it up a notch.
colonel...I'm a pretty regular reader of his columns...and while I'm not a devout disciple of his teachings...I enjoy his humor.
For me he's the left's lite version of Coulter...just not as ascerbic.
The daily tracks on my conservative internet library card might surprise some...but it shouldn't surprise you. During the course of my morning chores of milking the cows and feeding the chickens...I still have to make a stop by the facility identified with a half moon on the door for my daily movement.
I'll be glad to meet you there anytime and we can swap reading material. Don't worry, I proudly own a two-holer...just like most of my greedy rich conservative friends. I'm not adverse to sharing my wealth...but in the interest of fairness and redistribution of wealth...be prepared to occassionally bring one of your old Sears and Roebuck catalogs.
I am not being tricked into another restroom meeting with a Republican.
Another???
You heard (read) me. Never again!
Psst. Colbert really isn't a conservative blowhard. either Pass the word.
Posted by truthseeker77 in reply to wildofski
REPLY »
Huh? Your vote was a vote against Al Gore? Oh yeah, because you know those pesky Nobel Prize winners have no place in our government.
Yep, Remember Nobel Prize winner Henry (Mad Bomber) Kissinger
I smell wishful thinking.