The Atlantic - Latest Comments in The very sharp Chris Hayes

Re: The very sharp Chris Hayes

gracious — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:10:56 -0000

I'm going to have to agree with Hayes' sentiment that it is way to early to tell what any of these appointments are going to mean. Can we withhold judgement until they actually do the job for a little while? I think it's also uselful to remember that all of these people are conduits used to implement a policy, and Hayes point that Gates could very well end up ending the war, is a valid one. I think that with his pick of Clinton and Gates, Obama is giving ownership to those who were in favor of the war. You wanted this mess, you clean it up.

@lebecka, your point about pragmatism is spot on. IMO part of the core appeal of Obama he is not an idealogue, unlike the current president.

Gates hasn't even been sworn in yet ok? Hayes point that it's a little early is perhaps the most important one? I also think tagging Gates with Iran Contra is a little unfair, he was cleared of involvement, and was not really in a position to stop it, nor is it known what, if anything he knew, or when he knew it. I think it's a mistake to think of officials in a large government organization as automatically implicated if their peers are indicted. Is everyone at the Department of Justice guilty because of the US attorney firing?

As a side note, can everyone stop getting pissed about all the Clinton administration retreads? It was the last Democratic administration, and a pretty good one. Senior Democrats are actually useful for strategic and political considerations in a town like Washington DC. I think of Obama as a new CEO, looking to fill the positions with the most qualified candidates. I say find 'em any way you can.

Re: The very sharp Chris Hayes

lebecka — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 14:33:29 -0000

Ed and Muzzyology, you two are just as bad as ideologues on the far right.

Sorry if your sense of liberal Democrat entitlement is being tweaked by obama's choices, but if you thought during the election that Barack was anything but an extremely practical, pragmatic, establishment politician, you were not paying attention. Anyone who has read his books or has listened to his interviews could see that he was going to work from the center, embed himself in the establishment, and put a BIG push on pragmatism.

And _that_ is why I voted for him, and volunteered for him, and gave him money. Because, as TNC has said, I just want shit to work again, and because i am sick and tired of the self-indulgent rhetoric from ideologues on both sides.

This Democrat is a radical moderate, and i reserve my right to fight for my moderate beliefs as forcefully and vigorously as any ideologue on the right or left does.

Re: The very sharp Chris Hayes

ed — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:26:52 -0000

Ed, it's only fair to note that Bob Gates isn't a Republican at all. He's a political independent.

Iran-Contra.

And while "change" is a meaningless election buzzword, we need in in Iraq, and that means at the SecDef level.

I'm definitely a liberal,

Compared to what?

Re: The very sharp Chris Hayes

muzz al atesta — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:33:06 -0000

Daniel Larison at The American Conservative :

It is this, it seems to me, that is at the heart of what is wrong with most calls for “pragmatism.” At every stage, the “impractical” purist hears that he should not withhold his support from the marginally preferable candidate under any circumstances. He is urged to be realistic, and so he and those like him do not insist that the candidate make strong commitments on policy positions that are deemed by someone to be out of the mainstream. The candidate pays some minimal lip service to the purist’s “values,” and this is supposed to count for something. In the name of pragmatism, the purist decides that he has to support the candidate, because the candidate represents the best chance of advancing his views, but even before the election is held the purist has already given so much away in the name of pragmatism and realism that he and those like him have no leverage at all. Having yielded and given away their support in exchange for nothing more than lip service, the purists are scarcely in a much better position than before. They can take satisfaction in being on the winning side, but for the most part this means that they will bear the burden if the public turns against the candidate after he is elected and otherwise they will scarcely get much of anything. The purists-turned-pragmatists will receive the blame for enabling the administration in whatever it does, but they will receive no credit or acknowledgement that their support was important enough to merit meaningful concessions to their concens. Having refused in the first place to exact a price for their support, they have made their support worthless and ensured that they will have no influence.

Re: The very sharp Chris Hayes

Lev — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:20:24 -0000

Ed, it's only fair to note that Bob Gates isn't a Republican at all. He's a political independent. And your argument doesn't exactly convince since Gates helped write Baker-Hamilton, which advocated a swift withdrawal from Iraq, and he favors negotiations with Iran and the Taliban. Not exactly Bushian positions. You might want to check out his record--he's the rare (mythical?) honorable Bush official. They picked so many bad people that a decent person would have to get through eventually.

I'm definitely a liberal, and I'd just as soon see someone else at State, for example. But the few times that we've seen administrations bring in lots of "new blood" at the beginning it's failed dismally. Just look at some of Bill Clinton's "new" blood: Les Aspin, one of the worst defense secretaries we've ever had (had to resign after the Somalia affair from "Black Hawk Down"); Jim Woolsey, one of the worst CIA Directors we've ever had (anyone engaged with politics in the last decade would no doubt agree); Mack McLarty, who was totally out of his element as Chief of Staff. And so on. I'll go with some people who know what they're doing.

I think that people are overestimating the influence of cabinet members. They generally just run bureaucracies rather than any sort of real advising role.

Re: The very sharp Chris Hayes

TKOEd — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:08:24 -0000

"the question is, is that policy gonna be pursued, theres reasons to start worrying that it won't be"

Chris Hayes on Obama pulling out of Iraq.

What reasons are those? This is the problem with "reading the tea leaves" before the man is even in office. Nothing Obama has actually said or done contradicts his commitment to getting out of Iraq.

Re: The very sharp Chris Hayes

ed — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:00:01 -0000

Chris Hayes is one of the worst contributors on Keith's program.

Who do you think are some of the better contributors to KO?

Yes, Gates is a holdover from the old administration, so that's not "CHANGE", but personnel does not equal policy.

No, but you'd get more change from someone new. A NotRepublican would be a vast improvement and would help chart an entire new and much needed direction.

Re: The very sharp Chris Hayes

PeterGuillam — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:56:52 -0000

"I got a thrill just now watching Keith do his trademark slam-the-piece-of-paper-on-the-table-before-cutting-to-the-guest-to-show-how-ANGRY-he-is on a Obama decision. Get used to it, pal. Those of us moderates who voted for Obama are happy with the Gates selection."

This reminds me of that old saying in politics that we haven't heard for a while - the left look for heretics, the right look for converts.

Of course, with the GOP busy purging their ranks of heretics now, the second part of that saying is less relevant today. But the first part is still true, IMO.

Look, I agree that the rhetorics coming from certain people on the left regarding disappointment with Obama has been overheated and in many cases, totally premature. But I also think that calling out these people as being stupid and ignorant for believing certain things in the first place, or taking a let's-show-em-up attitude are not exactly productive strategies. (BTW I'm not saying you are doing this, MJN, this is my observation about the general response).

It's been a while since we've "won" anything. Can we just not f'ed this up by fighting among ourselves?

Re: The very sharp Chris Hayes

MJN — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:04:36 -0000

Chris Hayes is one of the worst contributors on Keith's program. He's not articulate and he always comes off as whiny, in this clip especially. I don't see at all what was so "sharp" about his analysis. Yes, Gates is a holdover from the old administration, so that's not "CHANGE", but personnel does not equal policy. What else did he say? And the glasses are awful, just awful.

I got a thrill just now watching Keith do his trademark slam-the-piece-of-paper-on-the-table-before-cutting-to-the-guest-to-show-how-ANGRY-he-is on a Obama decision. Get used to it, pal. Those of us moderates who voted for Obama are happy with the Gates selection.

Re: The very sharp Chris Hayes

muzz al atesta — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:55:43 -0000

just a slight quibble, brennan was an active supporter of using torture techniques

Jane Mayer:

Without more transparency, the value of the C.I.A.’s interrogation and detention program is impossible to evaluate. Setting aside the moral, ethical, and legal issues, even supporters, such as John Brennan, acknowledge that much of the information that coercion produces is unreliable. As he put it, “All these methods produced useful information, but there was also a lot that was bogus.

Re: The very sharp Chris Hayes

trevor tb — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:54:05 -0000

Totally sharp. He wasn't on my radar before this. Anyone who can analyze the news from a stated perspective of progressive principles, admit that he can't conclude too much at this point, and then clearly state that he's pivoting to talk strategy -- well, that's a guy I want to hear more from. Even if he doesn't have much to say just yet. No, *especially because* he's not jumping to conclusions just yet.