Just Saw the List of Obama's Economic & Domestic Policy Advisors :(

from an article in the Chicago Tribune. http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printe...

While he has dozens of foreign policy advisors, the following handful are the sum total of his economic and domestic policy advisors:

Michael Froman - Citigroup bank exec., pro-free trade & "business-friendly", former Pres. Clinton advisor
Austan Goolsbee - professor of business at U. of Chicago
David Cutler - Pres. Clinton health economist, opposes single-payer
David Blumenthal - Director, Institute for Health Policy, Harvard Medical School
Jeffrey Liebman - Economist, Harvard professor and member of Clinton White House Council of Economic Advisers. Research has focused on role of earned income tax credit in moving people from welfare to work
Dan Tarullo - International trade expert, Georgetown law professor and former Bill Clinton economic adviser i.e. GATT & NAFTA
proponent
Eric Holder - Clinton deputy attorney general
Cass Sunstein - University of Chicago law professor
Laurence Tribe - Harvard law professor
Cassandra Butts - Senior policy adviser to House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt

I'm a lifelong progressive, I've made around 300 online phone bank calls for Obama, and after reading this, I'm heartsick. Note the total dearth of labor economists, economic development experts, experts in "green" economics, environmental advisors, anyone to educate him on the opposition viewpoint to the current trade agreements. No wonder the economy/jobs section of his website is so minimal. JFK used to have experts from both sides of an important controversial issue verbally duke it out during cabinet meetings so he could be sure he got the whole picture before making a decision. He knew he was weak on practical economics so he met with John Kenneth Galbraith almost daily. HE took his responsibility seriously.

Thanks to Bush & Co. we're facing possible economic meltdown (and all the suffering that would accompany it) if the next administration doesn't implement creative means to grow the U.S. economy, and restore some manufacturing (preferably green) in order to boost the demand side (purchasing power). Why couldn't John Edwards have had more charisma, or one of the charasmatic Ohioan populists, Gov. Ted Strickland or Sen. Sherrod Brown be the newbie with the chutzpah to run as the "outsider". Foolish me for assuming that Obama, who made such a point of taking no PAC money, avoiding lobbyists on his campaign staff, and is clearly brilliant would use his independence to enact domestic and economic policies that restore balance by favoring the people over the power elite.

This post may not make it to the board, and I may get asked to leave, but, to be honest, I'm beginning to think the Pennsylvanians and W. Virginians might have got him right--a fellow so full of himself, so above everyone else, that he doesn't even know what it is he doesn't know.

I thought both Obama and Clinton were too far to the right. However, Obama says he will listen to other points of view. If he wins the election, I say we hold him to it.

Interesting that the candidate who is allegedly going to purge the DLC is getting his economic policies from them, isn't it?

So his senior policy advisor is a good name to have on the list.

It's a fair concern, but the last line of your post makes me suspicious that you were ever an Obama supporter. It seems odd that someone would go from making phone calls for him to saying he is so full of himself that he doesn't even know what he doesn't know just from looking at a list of advisors seems a little odd.

The alternative is much worse. There is NO completely progressive candidate.

or the OPer?

I meant the OP, but a reincarnation wouldn't surprise me either. :crazy:

Watch it.

So I doubt that the reason KY didn't vote for Obama is because some of his foreign policy advisers are pro-business.

"It's OK if my candidate's closest advisors are all corporate hacks, because your candidate does it, too!"

That's what passes for astute political analysis on DU since we got all hopeful and changealicious.

If Clinton and McCain have the same types of advisers, how can that be true?

Here's the relevant part:

This post may not make it to the board, and I may get asked to leave, but, to be honest, I'm beginning to think the Pennsylvanians and W. Virginians might have got him right--a fellow so full of himself, so above everyone else, that he doesn't even know what it is he doesn't know.

It says pretty clearly that the voters of those states perceived Obama as "full of himself" and "above everyone else." It does say anything about that perception having come from viewing a list of his advisors.

My point is that one candidate's supporters cannot simply jump up and scream that the others also have corporate shills running their campaigns. It's true, but it doesn't make it OK, for example, for Obama to have the likes of DLC Goolsbee making his economic policy proposals. Unfortunately, about 90% of the discussion on this board is now along the lines of "Oh yeah!? Well, ___ does it too!"

But because all of them do it, how can that be a factor? For example. I can say "I support Obama because of gay rights." Well, this eliminates McCain, but because Clinton has the EXACT SAME positions on gay rights as Obama does, it isn't really a valid reason to hold him up over her for that point. Nor would it be ok to say "I don't support Clinton because she is not for gay marriage" when Obama has the exact same stance on the issue.

between Clinton and Obama. Their positions and legislative records are very similar. The only real differences have to do with contentious things like race, sex, and personal style, and I think that's why the campaign has been so very ugly.

Frankly, I am tired of people acting like this election is Jesus vs. Satan. No, it's between two corporate centrists who have lots of shills from Big Money, Inc. advising them.

In all honesty, when we started the campaign, Obama and Clinton were low on my list because of their closeness to corporate interests, and that hasn't changed. I think they are pretty much interchangeable, and I'll vote--very unenthusiastically--for which ever one of them gets the nomination, then start hoping that maybe a real progressive might somehow manage to get the nomination next time.

Kucinich was my first choice, but he had no chance. As someone downthread pointed out, you really don't get to be a senator without money and power on your side.

they are already bought and paid for. Sad, isn't it?

Is anyone really shocked at this?

How else does one get to the point of being a Senator, or President, without being from the "elite" class of American?

2+2=4

candidate.

If the OP was being sincere, he/she would have used the internet and know this.

Thank you for your concern.

So what's in a name?

In your dreams.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Subprime Obama"
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=511

"The Obama Bubble: Why Wall Street Needs A Presidential Brand"
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=548

"Obama's Money Cartel: How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street"
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=613

some months ago that he was about to have colin powell as a foreign policy advisor, it made me sick.

be warned, however, that anything even slightly negative about obama will get you flamed.

In before the hilarity!