What do we want from a Democratic President?

[hfojvt]

I started thinking that Obama and Clinton supporters have quite a bit in common and that we should perhaps list these things. Many of the things Obama supporters hope for from an Obama Presidency would also be acheived (or worked for) in a Clinton Presidency and vice versa. Maybe we should think about them, make a wish list. Such as:

1. pro-choice, pro civil rights, anti-corporate judges
2. likely to end the war in Iraq
3. less likely to start a war with Iran (or Venezuela or Uzbekistan or Bomevia or wherever)
4. increase in the minimum wage
5. rollback of the bush taxcuts, and more progressive taxes
6. increased funding for things like Headstart, LIHEAP, SCHIP, etc.
7. increased environmental, workplace, and financial regulation of corporations
8. less lobbying influence
9. election trustability (maybe or maybe not, but definitely not with a Republican President)

and so on. No candidate promises or will give us exactly what we want, but probably out of 100 things I want from an Obama Presidency, I will get 95 of them with Clinton and 12 of them with McCain, plus a whole lot of crap I would want to stop would come along with a McCain Presidency.

Then I remembered the long history of abuses and usurpations that was the last Clinton administration - NAFTA, telecom deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, welfare "reform" for the poor, etc. Basically a Democratic Party that was pulled to the right and became more of a corporate party.

That being said, at this point I cannot support Hillary even if she wins the nomination, because

A. When Bill was President he pushed for things we did not expect a Democrat to push (capital gains and estate tax cuts) and did not oppose vigorously things we expect a Democrat to oppose.

B. He constantly used rightwing ideology - "The Era of Big Government is Over" "Fiscal Responsibility". Always seeming to want to "Out-Republican" the Republicans.

C. His blurring of the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Making the Democratic party into more of a "socially liberal corporate party" instead of a "working class party" lead to huge losses in Congress, in Governorships and probably in state legislatures too. He undercut the entire progressive message. The RNC ran against Hillary in 1994 and won big.

D. Granted, Hillary is not Bill and is perhaps more liberal than Bill, but she is running on his record, not repudiating it.

E. She pretends to be for working people, but her proposals are aimed at helping those above the median income, people in the 50-80% range, with no attention except lip service to those below the median income. She also adopts Republican rhetoric - "tax credits", "fiscal responsibility", "trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class" (to describe a tax increase on workers making over $110,000 a year).

F. She has a history of caving to corporations and war mongers. IWR and the bankruptcy bill are two prime examples.

I wanted this to be a unity thread but I cannot seem to help myself. I see the DLC as an enemy and Hillary as part of the DLC. They have pulled and continue to pull the Democratic party to the right, and that is what I am determined to fight with every click of my keyboard!!!! and even a few exclamation points!!! I want the DLC to compromise, hold their nose and vote for a populist progressive instead of forcing populist progressives to hold their nose and vote for a DLCer.

[Olney Blue]

1. Your thread started out so well.....

:-(

[hfojvt]

4. Sorry, but a big part of what I want

is a Democratic Party that really does stand up for working people, not just one that says it will. Hillary claims to offer more substance than Obama, but in the details there is not very much for those below the median income. More than we would get from McCain to be sure, but not as much as we would get from an LBJ, to say nothing of FDR.

Can you add to the list in the first part?

[Olney Blue]

5. Yes! I would add a muscular science policy in regard to science education

and more support for research (including stem cells of all types)

[TexasObserver]

2. We want CHANGE. Change from the Unitary president. Change from hidden presidential records.

Change from sleazy deals hidden by undisclosed sources of income.

[hfojvt]

7. change is too empty to me. I have always hated that mantra

Some people will propose something, like a new Wal-mart that they are talking about in my town, and then the supporters will say "opponents of this project are just afraid of change" as if "change" is automatically a good thing. Or they will use "growth" the same way.

My analogy is "suppose I punch you in the nose. If you complain, I will say 'Once you did not have a bloody nose, but then I changed that, you are not afraid of change, are you?' If change is always good, then to change a healthy jaw into a dislocated jaw must be a good thing.

That is, however, another thing we could add to the list - a President who obeys the law, listens to Congress and the people.

[cyclezealot]

3. healthcare and Fair trade

meaning end Free trade. Healthcare. I expect Single Payer. Fair Trade. Terminate Nafta and institute bilateral trade. Those issues are what motivates this household.

[hfojvt]

6. right away you are gonna have to compromise

None of the four remaining candidates are offering that, but the D's are doubtless closer than the R's, and that the Edwards/Clinton plan might lead in that direction.

[cyclezealot]

13. Not us.

Our primary goals are in electing Congress members who will push our goals. I have little faith Clinton or Obama will do such. There can be no compromise on trade issues. Trade is killing us. And will continue to push our goals , unless certain compromises are fought tooth and nail the end result will be failure for all. Unless we are adamant in our demands, the ultimate compromise with those who will sell us out, will be all the more dear.

[hfojvt]

15. how do you feel about Ed Fallon of Iowa?

running against Leonard Boswell.

[cyclezealot]

16. can't say I 've studied every house race

Races we consider vital and some of which we have contributed to. Tom Udall, NM; Tom Allen, ME; Donna Edwards in MD; and Dennis Kucinich in Ohio. Should we insist on single payer, this is the way to push for our goals. Contribute to Move On and Democracy for America is one way to further these goals.

[Der Blaue Engel]

8. "That being said, at this point I cannot support Hillary even if she wins the nomination"

"No candidate promises or will give us exactly what we want, but probably out of 100 things I want from an Obama Presidency, I will get 95 of them with Obama and 12 of them with McCain, plus a whole lot of crap I would want to stop would come along with a McCain Presidency."

So, according to your own post, you'd rather have only 12 of the 100 things you want plus a whole lot of crap you want to stop because Hillary may not give you 95 of the things you think Obama will give you.

I think you've tied yourself in knots.

You know I what I want from a Democratic president? Protection from Republican-appointed judges and the neocon agenda.

Everything else would be icing on the cake.

[hfojvt]

10. it is illogical, but there it is

Also meaningless. The Republican will win Kansas no matter who either party nominates. So I really impact the results not at all.

There is also the possibility that she will move left in a substantial way or her supporters will tell me convincingly what they like about her, or that McCain will pull a Dole. By running as a supply-side flat-earther, I had to oppose Dole no matter how disgusted I may have been by Clinton's first term.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. As I've often said, it's not about issues but agenda.

Perhaps Obama and Hillary are very close on the issues - she is still the DLC candidate, and he is the who rejected the DLC.

The DLC was formed to prevent another populist takeover of the Democratic party, which they blamed the losses in 68 and 72 on.

If Obama is socially progressive, fiscally moderate, and conservative in foreign policy, he is reaching out to the people, building a popular support for his positions. Hillary is also socially progressive, fiscally moderate, and conservative in foreign policy, but she wants the decisions made separate from the people, in top-down governance that will lead us to her goals. You can see the difference in their campaigns - the PR and poll driven campaign that is supported by hundreds of big donors, and the grassroots driven campaign that is supported by hundreds of thousands of little donors.\

Obama will listen to us. Hillary wants us to shut up and listen.

[hfojvt]

12. on that we are agreed

but I think the DLC goes beyond that. It is not primarily about "keeping the Democratic Party from losing elections" it is about promoting profits. Just like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation exist to promote anti-government, anti-working class, anti-poor and pro-business ideals and propaganda, the DLC exists to do the same thing from inside the Democratic party. Whereas the SDA exists to make the Democratic party more socialist, the DLC exists to make the Democratic party more Republican.

[Onlooker]

11. You're talking about sexism, and oppose Hillary because of her husband?

There are plenty of reasons to oppose Hillary, but what do her husband's views have to do with it? I think Hillary Clinton thinks for herself, and she's always come across as more liberal than her husband, including on the issues she worked on as First Lady. She's not repudiating her husband's record simply because you don't repudiate your own party and the Clinton years were mostly good years that Democrats can use to support their contention that they are fiscally responsible.

As far as caving in to corporations and the like, she's just been at it longer. Sad to say, you don't run a successful national campaign without getting real support from monied interests. Obama certainly has support on that level and it's hard to make the case that he's significantly more liberal on the issues than is Hillary.

I think the best reason to oppose Hillary is that her campaign sucks.

[hfojvt]

14. yet it is only with the Clintons and the DLC that fiscal responsibility

became such a key. In an era when everybody is too scared to raise taxes even on the rich, fiscal responsibility just becomes another word for "cut social programs". Especially since we cannot cut the military like Clinton did in the 1990s because of the war on Tara.

As far as bringing her husband into it, it's the biggest thing on her resume, and not a good thing IMO. It's not like I would do it for all candidates. Since Mr. Sebelius has never held office, especially has not been governor, he has no impact on my support/opposition to Governor Kathleen Sebelius. But if he runs for Governor now, then he's gonna be stuck with her record whether good or bad if he claims to have been an active part of her administration.

[Seeking Serenity]

17. I have a small quibble with No. 1

I don't want judges who "anti-corporate," with the implication that they would automatically be biased against corporations. I don't think we need judges who are automatically "anti-" anyone. I want judges who are fair and don't put their thumbs on the scales for anyone.

I do understand that that is what we have now, but I don't want to go too far in the other direction, either.

How about we settle on judges who are pro-freedom, pro-justice, pro-fairness.

[hfojvt]

18. agreed. Anti-corporate was a shorthand way to say "not pro-corporate"

as I am guessing the average or ideal Bush judge is.

[Seeking Serenity]

19. Very well.

Carry on.

:-)