IMO....Obama is a half-step to where Dems should be. Hillary is a step backward.

[Armstead]

Note:I dislike the word "should" so I emphasize that this is all IMO.

On those political compasses, or blind taste tests, a large number of Democrats line up with Dennis Kucinich on the issues. Not just the "far left" but many mainstream Democrats. And, I suspect, many independents.

Kucinich was not the right messenger for this on a presidential level, in today's image-obsessed media and political culture. But aside from his quirky persona and New Age rhetoric, most of what Kucinich stands for are simply traditional, meat-and-potatoes liberalism and humanism. It's the same values that brought Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, responsible regulation of business, civil rights and a balanced foreign policy.

It is the liberal-progressive-populist counterbalance to conservatism and the power of big business and the wealthy.

It is basically the same balance that existed for much of the mid-20th Century. Not a socialist utopia, but a basic social contract in which business was expected to adhere to certain fundamental standards for economic justice, and politics was based on a basic goal of social justice and serving the broader interests. It's the mix of self-interest and fundamental decency based on the notion that "we all do better when we all do better."

These days, this moderate but staunch liberalism has been marginalized by the centrists in the Democratic Party and demonized by the GOP and conservative movement. It has been branded as "unrealistic" and out of the mainstream and too far left and too liberal. And it has been embedded by the fatalism and cynicism of a population that feels that power has become too big and entrenched and unmovable.

BUT that is still where a majority of Americans are, in terms of their underlying values and hopes. At least, the two thirds of the country who are not right-wingnuts or self-centered elitists.

That, IMO is what Obama is basicvally appealing to in his campaign. That's the chord that many people have responded to.

In terms of substance, Obama still has one foot in the "centrist" mindset. Hence, for example, he favors a minor reform of the current healthcare system despite his real perference for truly Universal Health Care based on a public single-payer system.

Nevertheless, Obama's bottom-up campaign, and his unifying message and emphasis on hope in large terms resonates and has the chance to at least open the doors again. His message also makes it possible to move in the direction of more substantial liberal/progressive reforms to restore that basic balance that once existed.

And, rather than capitulating to the GOP, as Hillary accuses him of, Obama represents an opportunity to loosen the rigid definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" that have aided in the dominance of the phony conservativism of the modern GOP and its wingnuts. It's a chance to move beyond the gridlock of a 50-50 electorate, and move more people in the direction of liberalism.

Hillary, on the other hand, embodies the form of politics that has helped to cause the problems we are currently caught in. It is a paradoxical polarizing on a surface level, which covers over an underlying fusion of the political parties on the core issues of Wealth and Power.

As one of those Baby Boomers now in my 50's, I see Obama as the start of a restoration of the positive aspects of the liberal Democratic Partry of my youth. I don't idealize those days, but I think most of you who are old enough to remember when there were certain positive basic standards that have been steadily eroded over the last 35 years.

I believe that, while he does not go as far as I believe he should, Obama does represent an important step towards restoration of the best side of what the Democratic Party stands for.

[housewolf]

1. Well said

Thank you.

[kentuck]

2. I agree with your basic point...

But I believe people are craving change so desperately that it could be Barry Jones or Barry Smith running for President and, with the same credentials and message, he too would get over-whelming support. Hillary is just a little too close to the home establishment for these folks to vote for - she did not create enough distance between herself and the corrupt status quo, in my opinion.

[Armstead]

3. Charisma is important....alas

I do think Obama's basic charisma is an important factor in his success.

But I agree with the rest of your post.

[kentuck]

9. True...

My biggest fear of an Obama presidency is that it will be like the Carter Presidency - He will inherit such a huge mess, just like Cater except larger, that he will not be able to clean it up in 4 years and the Republican's slime machine will paint him as a great failure, just as they did with Carter. And, unless he gets the people behind him and proposes radical change, that is exactly what will happen.

[TheDonkey]

42. Charisma, hope, inspiration are extremely important to winning and building a coaltion

I'm a huge fan of Gore and Kerry but their weaknesses was they were lacking on charisma and inspiring people to take up the flag for them. They relied on policy and loyalty to the party. That's not bad but we need someone to sweep over the nation and get people fired up about democratic IDEALS as well as our policies.

[Armstead]

44. Good point.

[ContinentalOp]

49. You're right on the money! -nt-

[caseycoon]

4. As a Kucinich Liberal..

in my 60's, I do remember those days gone by.
I agree with what you have said about Obama.
In fact, you have spoken for me here.

Thank you.
:toast:

[Lerkfish]

5. agreed. well said.

[paulk]

6. there's not a dimes worth of difference between the two

and I would argue that Obama is to the right of HRC, especially in the healthcare debate. Not to mention school vouchers, that Obama has said he would consider. Hillary is unequivocally opposed.

Obama has doen an excellent job of selling himself to the left wing of the party.

[lutefisk]

7. Ted Kennedy agrees with you...and apparently most Dems, too.n/t

:thumbsup: :dem: :patriot:

[Voice for Peace]

13. damn, been trying to get that little bug off my screen

technology is moving too fast for me.

[Armstead]

27. I broke my screen!

Not really, but I did have the same initial response to that little animated gif thingy.

[lutefisk]

29. What bug?

:shrug:

:hi:

[Armstead]

31. Swat!

[Tatiana]

8. Outstanding post. Recommended.

That's the thing... Obama does favor single-payer. If Congress passed a single-payer health care bill, he would sign it.

Clinton would NEVER sign a single-payer bill. EVER.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. If he favors it he should promote it

I think he favors what he says he favors. Which is not single payer. The man has his own voice, and I hear what he says. Very often his supporters say the opposite. He is not for single payer, he has a plan and it is well explained. He calls it 'my plan' and it is not single payer.

[Tatiana]

11. I heard him speak in downtown Chicago about this topic.

He may have changed his mind since '98, but I think he doesn't feel single-payer is politically viable.

That's why Congress needs to get off their a$$es and pass the bill.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Yeah

In 1998 he was many things he is now not, as am I and as are you. If he favored it, he would promote it. He favors Insurance Companies and the favors they supply, just like all the rest. 98 was a long time ago, in such a short career span. Now he is a millionaire and a Senator. Back then, not so much.
In 1998, Hillary Clinton was the First Lady. Times change and so do people.
He has a plan and promotes it with gusto and it is not single payer. He calls it 'my plan'. It is his plan. It is not single payer.
You claim is dishonest and based on conjecture. His words must speak for him, and they do. They don't say single payer. Period.

[Tatiana]

21. Which candidate would sign a single-payer bill? Which one? n/t

[Armstead]

22. I heard him recently and he said....

That if he were to design a healthcare system from scratch, he would favor single-payer universal public healthcare.

However, he added, since that is not the system that exists, we have to work with that.



I personally believe the Democratic Party as a whole ought to adopt universal single payer as a major "moon launch" goal. But that's why I described it as a half-step in the right direction.

[bvar22]

34. The US ALREADY has a true Single Payer HealthCare system.

It is called MediCare, and it works fine. (Try to take MediCare away from a Senior).

There is NO NEED to "design a system from scratch" as Obama insists.
Simply expand the MediCare system to ALL Americans.

[Mik T]

35. Yeah what about healthcare? I may want to take back my vote for Obama

Beacuse Hillarys healthplan is mandatory and Obama's is voluntary- which means it won't cover everyone.

I was a pretty big obama supporter but this feels like a betrayl.

[bvar22]

36. Nonsense....completely BOGUS.

Passing a LAW that forces Americans to purchase their own Health Insurance from private "For Profit" Health Insurance Corporations is a STEP AWAY from single payer HealthCare.
It funnels $BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the richest CEOs in the World, and codifies and legitimizes a corrupt and immoral system.

Passing HillaryCare2 will make it harder to move to a Single Payer system like those provided as a RIGHT in every civilized country in the World.

I see it as a GOOD thing that Obama refuses to go down that path, leaving the door open for a true Single Payer system.

[Mik T]

39. I dunno about bogus

I really do agree with you that Hillarycare or what ever she calls it sucks. I understand the principal upon which it operates and it is unbelievably lame. BUT...

I mean the idea of a universal healthcare system is that it covers EVERYONE. On every issue I like Obama more but if he genuinely advocates a single payer system why doesn't he just say so? What is this BS about leaving Americans uncovered? I mean why just leave the damn door open? why not step through and commit himself?

The last thing we need is another wussy democrat with no guts to do whats right. It makes me incredibly pissed. This is why we have had repugs
for the last 8 years. If the democrats would stop trying to be repug lite and start trying to STAND FOR SOMETHING it would help a great deal.

Whew. I feel better now that I got that off my chest.

[ContinentalOp]

50. Obama is not wussy

You think he should actively propose a single-payer system so his opponents can label it "socialized medicine"? Even though the president doesn't have the power to implement something like that without the support of congress?

Do you think Bush should have campaigned on an "Invade Iraq" policy in 2000 as well? For better or worse, "likability" is where it's at with the American electorate. As difficult as it is for us to admit that Bush has even the slightest shred of charisma, a good chunk of the American public saw something in him that they liked enough to overlook his blatant incompetence and fascistic tendencies.

So what I'm getting at is that a candidate who says "single payer system" is going to lose. A candidate who can inspire people can actually win and can accomplish the seemingly impossible once in office.

[Armstead]

37. I know and I agree completely

[Mik T]

40. Dude if he started talking like that he might just sweep so many dems in

on his coattails that it just might BECOME a viable option. Bottom line- he lacks balls. I really don't think it's a "major moon launch goal" If people see it as that diffucult then it will be. If someone just says "Hey we are gonna do this and I want every dem in the congress to sign a pledge as a part of this that they wont leave until they get it done.

I am especially attached to this because we are a 3 person family with an income of roughly 65K year and we spent-no exaggeration-12K$ on healthcare last year. Thats almost one fifth of our income. It's more then our mortgage. And we don't have cancer or anything. Copays for the usual baby stuff, physicals, new glasses, a few fillings and a root canal plus a ppo blue health plan which is worth 12K and we pay for 7K$ of it. My husbands employer pays the other 5K.

And we still have to pay taxes on that 12K! Ouch!!

[Armstead]

43. I agree -- Look at my OP again

That's why I said half-step.

But, in fairness, Obama (nor anyone else) could not give the entire Democratic Party a gut transplant to unify them on the side of real Universal coverage (as in Medicare for all).

The first step has to be at least get more people receptive to major changes.

I wish it were otherwise.

[Mik T]

54. If such a huge chunk of the population want it...(How to embrace socialist labels)

I dunno- this catering to the center HAS to STOP. The repugs don't do it. You would think repugs lying about national intelligence and getting away with torturing people and electing fascists as attorney generals (Ashcroft) and radical fundies as supreme court judges would teach us a little about what we can get away with, only we could use our powers for good.

I mean it is WUSSY to worry about what other people are going to think before you do something. It's that worry that always weakens the democratic party. Here we are worried about people thinking Obama is muslim. Now we are worried about people thinking he is a socialist.

Bush doesn't worry about a damn thing, as much as I dislike him he has balls the democrats don't have.

Yanno what I have discovered about the socialist label. If the shoe fits wear it. Every chance I get I tell people that although I am a registered democrat, I define myself as a democratic socialist. Then when people ask, I get to explain what that is.

Suprisingly, once they figure out that I feel the Soviet Communist party is as rotten as they think it is, and that I am not about to take away their civil liberties, they get over it.

I'm not some teenager either. I am an activist mom who helped the local mayor get elected and is on speaking terms with many local government people. I do volunteer work etc.

Now I do realize that I have some freedom that Obama doesn't have because I am not running for office, but I still think the major problem with the dems is a kind of moral cowardice.

Maybe Obama should use some of those passages from the bible that talk about helping the poor as being the ONLY way to get close to God. That would give him street cred as a Christian and a unique opportunity to explain socialized medicine in religious terms.

After all Christ helped out the lepers and if we REALLY want to bring God into govt... maybe we ought to embrace some of the things the bible actually SAYS, because last I looked it didn't say anything about abortion. It did, however, go into details about throwing the money lenders out of the temples, and the lack of possibility of rich men getting into the kingdom of heaven.

[Armstead]

55. Good Post, and I concur

My observation are based on what the the Democratic Party currently is and has been for too many years. Gutless wonders. (Not all democrats, but the new breed of "centrists.")

I wouldn't suggest that it define itself as socialist (not that there's anything wrong with that) but they should ignore and deflect that charge -- with humor when appropriate -- to focus on the fact that initiatives like true public Universal Health Care are totally in the tradition of initiatives that created and bolstered the Middle Class for many decades.

[ContinentalOp]

51. I disagree

A likable candidate with crossover appeal will have coattails. THEN the "major moon launch" goals can be accomplished easily.

[bvar22]

32. WE can help him make it politically viable.

The American citizens must DEMAND Single Payer.
Most already support it.

Obama will listen.

[peace13]

14. I think the point is that he would listed to other options

if they were presented. His roots are not so solidly wrapped around the river that is the insurance industry.

[Tatiana]

20. That is the point, but the poster seems to be willfully oblivious. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Oh please

I'm just saying if he favors it he should champion it instead of something else. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. I take him at his word. He favors his plan, which is not single payer. That is what he says. If he means something else he should just say so. That is my whole point.

I'm sure he would be open to other ideas of course.
I'd like him better if he spoke for single payer. Much better.

[Tatiana]

28. We'd ALL like him better if he advocated for single payer!

But it's a matter of picking the lesser of two evils at this point. You can see what happens when one begins with immediate attacks on the control corporations exercise over this nation and its policies. Ask Edwards or Kucinich.

The way to get this done is through the Congress. I wish it were different, but these are the cards we have been dealt.

[cilla4progress]

12. Style and substance

I have struggled with the "style v. substance" aspect of Obama's campaign, and his apparently more centrist stance than I take on some issues, and here are my thoughts: 1) how often do we talk about an issue requiring only the POLITICAL WILL to get passed in legislation? Once a society HAS the political will, monumental things can get done that otherwise couldn't; the mechanics become easy. I'm sure y'all can come up with loads of examples. To me, this is a major strength of Obama: he DOES inspire, he KNOWS how to work folks (his background as a community organizer), and I believe this is a legitimate criterion on which to support him - everything else being equal, ie, his and HRC's positions being almost indistinguishable in the bottom line. 2) If you look at the ratings from ACLU, LCV, and others, Obama does stand as one of the most "liberal" senators in Congress. He presents an interesting balance of being both a unifier consensus-builder(which can translate as centrist - but doesn't necessarily have to), and progressive in his positions.

[Armstead]

24. Yes, rekindling the political will for positive change is a necessary step

[samer]

15. Great Points

Its also an interesting point that Obama is the only candidate running that is not from the Baby Boomer generation.

[cilla4progress]

17. On baby-boomer comment...

I thought I heard in the last debate, in Obama's comments about meeting with the new Cuban leader and other leaders of "enemy" countries (hate that term, though!), an Eastern philosophical thread. Did others of you hear him say that we need to conduct ourselves not as top dog, but as an equal to other countries. (I don't recall his exact words.) I don't recall EVER hearing an American political leader refer to us as other than a super-power, leader of the free world, blah blah blah. I found it terribly refreshing, and I think it bodes so well on so many levels: is, perhaps, "free-market capitalism" not the only and best economic system? Do we have something to learn and gain from OTHER cultures and systems? Cripes - are Euroamericans perhaps not the superior ethnic group and mindset here in the US? I think Obama represents a move away from linear, good/bad, black/white (no pun intended...but it is interesting to me in a symbolic sense) thinking. America is very much an adolescent nation and society. Maybe if we elect Obama it demonstrates we are moving into young adulthood - a time of more nuance, wisdom, humility, and restraint.

[samer]

30. Exactly!

The reason I am for Obama, even more so than Kucinich is that he not only has good ideas; but he has the power to put them into play.

Alot of people had great ideas this election, Ron Paul had some great ideas, so did Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards. Out of all of these candidates the only one that had great ideas and could make change is Obama. I think that is primarily the reason he is the nominee, and i think McCain is the nominee for that same reason on the republican side.

[Ravy]

16. I could agree with that....

*if* he is real. By that, I mean, if he can what his supporters are hoping for.

I think the Democrats are taking a chance on him, and perhaps that is a chance worth taking. It could pay off big, it could be a disaster for the party at a time when the national electorate was swinging our way.

Another republican presidential victory could not be adequately measured in steps backward.

[wiggs]

18. Totally agree. Was it not Edwards who, after Iowa, said that the caucus

reflected a rejection of the "status quo"? He was saying the same thing you are.

Another point imbedded in the OP: the tough, polarizing, negative, attacking style Sen Clinton is using to express herself is something we've seen for 7 years from the WH and are tired of. I don't care if it's a dem using misinformation, fear, distortion, and ridicule....I don't want to see it for the next eight years from anyone. Time for honesty, integrity, transparency, information, and real democracy.

Truth is the enemy of power, now and always. Einstein

A well informed public is the basis of democracy. Lincoln

[elixir]

23. Armstead, as a functioning ADD sufferer, I respectfully request shorter posts.

[Armstead]

26. OKay

Read the thread title. That was my point in a nutshell. The rest was elaboration.

Short enough? :)

[Johnny__Motown]

33. Reasonable

[bvar22]

38. Kucinich supporter here, and I agree.

I can't get really excited about Obama, but prefer him as the lesser of two "Centrist" evils.
I prefer the Obama "Hope" to the Hillary DLC shure thing.

I will vote for the candidate that has picked up endorsements from Kucinich (in Iowa), Kennedy, Kerry, Feingold, and MoveOn.

Obama has also angrily disavowed himself from the DLC. I would like to see a stake driven through the heart of that organization.

[Armstead]

41. Half-Kick

[ozone_man]

45. I honestly don't see much difference between the two politically.

In style and personality there is a large difference and I do prefer Obama over Hillary in that sense. But, both are corporate candidates, so not much difference there, or in who they have taken money from.

In my opinion, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, or Bernie Sanders are where the Democratic Party needs to be eventually. Will Obama take us in that direction better than Clinton? I hope so, because it looks like he will win the presidency. But there are not that many clues to date that he will. Nader feels compelled to run to in order to keep him honest in the general election, otherwise he might drift to the right in search of Reagan Democrats and the evangelical vote.

My only hope is that he has run as a moderate corporatist only to gain the presidency and once in office will shift left. It could happen, but I won't be shocked if it doesn't. The danger is that, while he isn't DLC, he may be a Democrat/Republican of a more pragmatic sort than Clinton.

The upside, if he doesn't become a liberal in office, he won't be able to run on "hope" and the promise of being liberal in 2012. He'll be a known quantity by then.

[Armstead]

46. You may be right -- But I do think he'd be more subject to popular pressure

To me, a key to the possibilities of Obama is his experience as a grass-roots community organizer.

Having worked in those fields, I think (hope) that he is more grounded in reality and an awareness of what people in real life are thinking and experiencing.

I totally agree with you that Democrats ought to be modeling its message on Bernie Sanders, who is a truly progressive version of what Obama says he is trying to accomplish.

[ozone_man]

57. It's not clear that he is trying to accomplish a progressive agenda.

He does not speak with a populist progressive message like John Edwards for example. Not that Edwards is particularly progressive, but he has become more so. I "hope" that this is because Obama is trying to be electable and will "change" in office. But hope and change are not substantive. Hope is what religion teaches us to defer social and economic equality until the afterlife instead of demanding equity in this life. Notice that Obama uses religious undertones in his speeches. It's great for rallies and winning votes from noncritical thinkers, but show me the substance. Why not single payer health insurance? It's time.

Like I say, in four years, we'll have a better observation point. He won't be able to run on hope or change again, if he hasn't delivered on it. And the economy will be going down fast now. He will have to hit the ground running. End all wars, cut the military not expand by 100,000 troops, single payer, green jobs, infrastructure jobs, cut corporate welfare, end tax cuts for the wealthy, reign in the Federal Reserve and reckless monetary policy and deficit spending, end NAFTA and job outsourcing, lower college education costs. These are all things that will have to be tackled with various priorities. And he supports some of these initiatives.

While he criticizes NAFTA, he thinks we can't end it. Why? I think he also supports CAFTA. So, there is not a clear indication that he is much different than Clinton. We'll see.

[Scurrilous]

47. K & R

:thumbsup:

[ContinentalOp]

48. Great post, couldn't agree more!

I agree with Kucinich on the issues but he clearly could never win. Obama is the first candidate I've seen in my lifetime who can actually win, knows how to campaign, and is pretty much acceptable on the issues. I hope that he can essentially be a Democratic Reagan -- somebody who appears moderate on the surface but hopefully, once in office steers our country down a more progressive path. Kind of how Reagan somehow appealed to "moderates" while shifting our country to the extreme right.

[Armstead]

52. Dashell Hammett fan?

[Laelth]

53. I hope he's lying.

I hope that, deep down, he's a full-blown left-wing lunatic who's simply playing the "middle" to get elected.

As for Hillary, I believe she's the Republican-lite person she's always been. For Obama, I have hope.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Solon]

56. What are you smoking? And can you share?

Seriously, that's some fucked up shit you just came up with. Have you even looked at either Obama's or Hillary's issues positions? Both candidates are center-RIGHT at best, not really anywhere near the left or Dennis Kucinich, moderate conservatives, in other words. They reflect their political party, which hasn't been liberal since at least the 1980s, and most likely earlier, depending on your interpretation of events.

[cooolandrew]

58. YESSS, dignity to the Whitehouse. It's what the world is crying for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEDwpvcn2bk