Anyone who thinks that:

[cali]

Either Obama or Clinton is

repub lite
or
a neocon
or
neoliberal
or that
nothing will change if one of them becomes president
or
that either is simply a corporate tool

is talking through their hat.

There are difference between the two, but we will see a huge change in the direction of this country if we elect one of them.

Gitmo will me closed
Habeas Corpus will be restored
The war and occupation of Iraq will end
Judges and Justices in the mold of Breyer, Stevens and Ginsberg will be appointed to the Federal Bench and SC.
Health care will be tackled
NCLB will be altered and funded
taxes will become more equitable
America's image in the world will immediately improve on the day that a democratic president is sworn in.
SCHIP will be expanded.
Climate change will be addressed
Environental policy will improve
Energy policy will improve

No, I'm not saying that a Utopian America will spring up out of the ashes of the bushco nightmare, I'm simply saying the changes will be significant and start immediately.

[joshcryer]

1. Great post.

Lost on many here I'm sure.

[Armstead]

2. That's a given -- But do we simply tread water or actually swim forward

My fear, frankly, that all that will happen is a replay of the 90's in which the symptoms are treated with aspirin, while the underlying causes are once again ignored and glossed over.

(I mixed my metaphors there, but hopefully the idea is clear.)

[cali]

3. I think everything I listed is more than cosmetic change

it may not be enough to satisfy many of us, but it'll be a sea change from the last 7 years.

[Meshuga]

7. If president Gore became president in 2001

We wouldn't be in this mess and gradual changes toward real change would continue. But instead, we got Bush to put the country in the hole. And it is a hole we have to dig ourselves out of even if slowly.

[cobalt1999]

4. Nice post.

I didn't really expect it from you to be honest. Good job.

[Prefer]

6. (this is going to be good...)

:popcorn:

[zbdent]

5. with a supermajority of 61 dems in the Senate, maybe ...

have to negate Lieberman ...

[cali]

8. no. you reallly don't need 61 dems

once you get a clear majority of 54 or 55- something that's very likely, it becomes practically and exponentially more difficult for the repukes to hold together, and easier for the dems to peel off repuke votes like Collins, Snow and Specter. Look how much crap bush rammed through and you'll see that your assumption is wrong.

[zbdent]

9. please ...

some anonymous R can throw a filibuster and the Rs can sit there and say "Oh, I'd vote FOR the matter, but we're stuck ..." and then, like Voinovich and Specter, when the time comes for them to put their vote where their mouth is, they go all party on the vote ...

[cali]

10. that's not the way it works. If you don't even know the basic

mechanics of the Senate- and clearly you don't. It's not even worth discussing it. I suggest you educate yourself.

[zbdent]

11. what, the "nuclear option" was a myth?

[cali]

13. Do you know what the nuclear option is/was?

It was a threat by the majority to change Senate rules about cloture votes on judicial appointments. Did they do it? No. And what does that have to do with a dem president and a dem Senate with a solid dem Senate and an even more solid dem House?

[Iktomiwicasa]

12. And while all that is happening....

...the Dem politicians will continue to ignore my people on the only truly meaningful issues for natives. Sure, they'll throw us a Indian Health Services bone or two, but they will do not a goddamn thing to move forward on restoring full treaty rights. On the contrary, they would actively work to prevent full restoration of treaty rights because to do so would put us out of the grip of their control, something no politician can permit, no matter what party they belong to. Piss on 'em, all of them.