How can Obama be progressive yet so beloved by rethugs?

[MagsDem]

And how does a "progressive" think he can accomplish a progressive agenda by working with rethugs? I haven't heard him explain that at all. He's not actually the messiah you know. We can't even get enough rethugs to override the SCHIP veto, but Obama is going to get them to go for progressive policies? Anybody going to bother to ask how before we annoit him?

Or maybe he is not so progressive. His healthcare policy is the weakest of all dem candidates presenting them. It mandates coverage for children (in which case mandates are good), but not for adults (in which case mandates are bad). It leaves more than half the uninsured still uninsured, yet it costs more more than twice as much per family than Hillary's, and almost as much in govt spending. Certainly that is not our most progressive choice then. And it also will not be palatable to rethugs.

How about SSI? Why has Obama bought into the rethug ideology that there is a problem with SSI? There is no problem with SSI that a balanced budget and less wasteful military spending can't fix. Did democratic voters forget we beat back Bush's SSI proposals? Are we now going to nominate a candidate that is going to tear down the one firewall our reps have managed to erect in the last 8 yrs?

Now please, if you can't respond to this thread by sticking to the topic and addressing the issues, please just move on to another thread.

[maximusveritas]

1. He doesn't need Rethugs

Just independents and maybe a few moderate Republicans. That'll enable us to then get a working majority in Congress to do what the American people want us to do.

We won't need to be overriding any vetos if Obama is President.

[Radical Activist]

6. And independents want to see someone who tries to work with the other side.

If Obama makes the effort and the public sees that the Republicans won't play ball, then Obama will have the public on his side. Or, he gets a few Republicans to go along with his plans to get it through Congress.

[MagsDem]

34. They do?

Where did you hear that? And why do we have to work with them when we have a majority in congress. Did the rethugs work with us when they had a majority in congress? Hell they won't even do it with us having a majority in congress.

[MagsDem]

24. So why does he say he will work with them then?

That's a campaign pledge I have heard him make over and over. You don't believe him?

[Radical Activist]

2. How do you get major change passed when 47% of the public hates you?

The people who want Hillary to get nasty with Republicans all the time can't tell me how she gets major change done without major public support.

Obama does it the same way Reagan got moderates and Democrats to support him. By inspiring people. And Reagan was able to use that to get much of his agenda passed through a Democratic Congress. That's how Obama will do it. By getting the American people on his side.

When people see Obama reaching out his hand to work with the Republicans, and the Republicans respond by being partisan a-holes, then the public will side with Obama. Its smart politics that works and it will result in a progressive agenda becoming law.

[MagsDem]

25. You run them over with a truck

[Radical Activist]

38. Exactly. Obama can do that with the public behind him.

It takes getting independents and some Republicans on our sid. Hillary can't unless you mean she is literally going to become a dictator and force everything through.

But if you're serious, how do you see Hillary running them over with a truck to get 60 votes in the Senate?

[MagsDem]

41. So why is he saying he is going to work with them?

And why is he adopting rethug positions on SSI?

[Radical Activist]

46. Read what I wrote above.

When people see Obama reaching out his hand to work with the Republicans, and the Republicans respond by being partisan a-holes, then the public will side with Obama because they're sick of partisan nastiness. Its smart politics that works and it will result in a progressive agenda becoming law.

That's why.

And he isn't adopting Republican positions.

Why don't you tell us in detail how Hillary is going to get anything passed? It seems like you haven't thought this through with your truck approach.

[MagsDem]

50. So it's a secret strategy is it?

He's not really going to work with them... he's just saying that to make them look bad. LOL!

Hillary doesn't need a veto proof majority. Her party will pass what she needs them to pass.

[Radical Activist]

54. Why will "her party" pass more than it did for her husband?

Your analysis lacks substance. And how will that happen without 60 Democratic Senators?

Face it, you can't get anything done with 51% of the vote and only one party.

Obama is gaining support from independents with a progressive platform. He's doing it better than Hillary or Bill ever did or ever could.

[MagsDem]

59. Her husband didn't have a majority for most of his term

I should face that you can't get anyting done with one party? Bush sure did.

[Radical Activist]

63. He did for two years and got nothing done.

Again, how will Hillary be able to do what her husband could not? What's her plan? By pissing off independents and Republicans? Sure, that will work. :eyes:

Apparently you haven't thought this through.

[MagsDem]

68. Got nothing done?

He passed a economic agenda that resulted in the biggest surplus in history. He created tens of millions of jobs. He put funding into making an actual consumer internet that has been responsible for tens and tens of billions of dollars worth of GDP. He passed the family leave act. Those are just the ones I can remember without looking things up. You are very ignorant.

[Radical Activist]

70. And you keep dodging the question.

You can't tell us how Hillary will get a single thing done. Obama does. Your post and lining of reasoning lack substance.

[MagsDem]

73. I already responded to that like 3 times

She will have a majority in both houses. Dems will pass legislation and she will sign it. How hard is that to grasp? See? No working with rethugs required.

Now tell me why he needs to? Is he just pandering to them, or is he going to cave to rethug proposals?

[Radical Activist]

89. You think Democrats will have 60 votes in the Senate?

You do know that's what it takes right? And what if she loses Congress like her husband did? Here in the real world you can't get things done with support from only hard core Democrats, especially when there are always some who don't stick with the party.

Obviously Obama's message of unity is resonating with voters. I seriously doubt Obama will adopt the Clinton triangulation approach of caving into the Republican agenda.

[MagsDem]

98. Sorry, but you need a civics lesson

I am being way to nice to you, by the way.

Do you know why it takes 60 now? See if you can tell me why it takes 60 votes. I'll wait.

[Radical Activist]

123. Wow. Clueless AND condescending.

Impressive. You probably think I'm a 20 something naive young Obama supporter that knows nothing about politics.

It takes 60 votes to close debate in the Senate. And Republicans are likely to fight tooth and nail to make us get 60 votes. And of course, if Republicans gain control of Congress they will control what gets voted on so we'll be completely SOL.

The only way out is a President who can appeal to the public to pressure Congress and get a few moderate Republicans to come to our side. Obama can do that. Hillary can't.

Why don't you explain to uneducated me where a truck is involved in the process since that's your highly informed plan.

Your plan to pass a progressive agenda with Hillary as President appears to be:
1) Elect Clinton
2) Drive a truck
3) Progressive bills become law.

Wow what genius. Thanks for the civics lesson.

[NMMatt]

112. 60 Senator is POSSIBLE

You people think small - typical defeatist Democrats! 60 IS in reach. Also, regarding Obama's reach to Republicans. You really aren't paying attention if you don't see that it is mostly style (talking about we, minimizing the rhetorical differences i.e. saying we are first of all Americans, etc), quite a bit of Republicans disenchantment with their own leadership in McCain, and little to do with some kind of non-progressive policy positions by Obama.

If you haven't seen the latest Rasmussen Colorado poll, you really should check it out. Obama out-polls McCain by 7 points, in COLORADO. Clinton trails McCain by a larger margin. This is what kind of opportunity Obama represents.

I mean, lets face it. Quibbling about the minutia of health care policy is all well and good, and arguments can be made by Clinton supporters that her plan is better. That's really a minor point. The real question is how do we get our agenda through, on which Clinton and Obama are very similar. Winning Colorado by 7 points would go a long way to getting the kind of mandate - 55 - 45 or better, and down ticket support to get to 60 Senators. This is NOT the election to go for the typical 51% strategy and end up with slightly reversed status quo at best.

[MagsDem]

116. It'd be nice

But the poster is claiming a dem president can't get anything done without 60 votes so will need to work with rethugs. I really can't believe how ignorant some people are. Don't they teach govt in school anymore?

And sorry, I don't think it's a quibble to want to discuss healthcare. Obama's plan costs $5500 for a family. Lower and middle class families don't have that kind of money.

And by the way, Kerry was leading Bush by 10% at this stage in 2004. You're silly to be counting on any polling right now. The rethugs haven't even begun the fight.

[NMMatt]

133. True

Polls don't mean everything, but I still think any objective analysis would show that Obama has a much greater chance to make this the landslide election it should be with the mess the Repubs left us with. Of course the polls could change. There are quite a few unknowns between now and then. You won't sell me on a swing state 51% strategy, however, when we have an opportunity for so much more.

Regarding healthcare, how is a mandate better for a low income person? Heck, I remember when I was really in a financial strap and I found the state car insurance mandate rather burdensome. I'm really not sold on the idea that mandating low income people buy health care will work well in practice. The argument that you need to set the goal at Universal Coverage is solid, but mandates are likely more burdensome than helpful to the type of people we are talking about.

As far as cost, where's the source? From what I have read their approach is almost identical apart from mandates, which implies that the cost would be similar, except by law with Hillary's plan people would be required to purchase some form or another.

In the end it is a moot point unless we can beat a fillibuster and have a popular vote mandate backing the president, which is why a 50 State landslide strategy is vital.

[MagsDem]

142. Healthcare mandates

Mandates mean the pool is bigger, which decreases costs. Her plan subsidies people that can't pay. The mandate applies to people that can afford it but don't want it, that will use emergency rooms like they do every day, which raises the cost for everyone. It's akin to opting out of SSI then expecting the equivelent in a welfare check instead. That's not allowed either.

His costs twice as much per family and $102 billion in govt spending. Her's cost half as much per family and $124 billion, and those are non partisan numbers. Except covers everyone. His has mandates for children by the way, so families will have to pay under his plan. Where does the money come from? Rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy, and cutting the shit out of the wars.

A fillbuster proof majority is not needed if we have the presidency. All the leaders in congress have to do is actually make them fillibuster. They will get mighty tired of being on the senate floor 24/7 real quick. We need a steamroller, not a velvet glove.

[roseBudd]

146. Kerry suffers from charisma deficit, Obama does not

[Hieronymus]

127. You think Hillary will run over them with a truck? I doubt that.

[Mz Pip]

3. How can anyone accomplish

any agenda without some support from the other side? Last time I checked we did not have a 60 vote veto proof majority.

No one, not Obama, not Hillary, not Edwards is going to be able to get anything done without some support from moderate Republicans. That's the reality, like it or not.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[MagsDem]

28. We don't need a veto proof majority if we have the presidency

So why is he saying he is going to work with them? Why is he co-opting their SSI stuff?

[Radical Activist]

42. Yes, you do.

Do you remember how many of Bill Clinton's plans failed when we had a Democratic majority in Congress in '92-'93? Just barely electing a President isn't enough.

[goodgd_yall]

129. So the answer is voting Democratic

We need to win the presidency and the Congress. Unfortunately, Obama never says this. It's all about working with the Republicans. That will only get you watered down legislation. Getting a strong majority in the House and Senate will allow us the possibility to advance some liberal legislation.

[ingac70]

4. Obama has suggested raising the cap on SS taxes...

something a corporate whore repug would never go for.

FYI Hillary has used the fact he said he wanted to do that against him, just like a slimy repug.

[jlake]

18. Actually, his plan is very rethug.... tax the hell out of the middle class.

[ingac70]

20. The caps have to be raised to save it...

Take your tax talk to freerepublic where it belongs.

[jlake]

23. They don't have to be raised.... that is a Rethug line as well... they just

need to stop moving the $$$ to the general fund.

[ingac70]

26. Republicans DO NOT want to raise the cap.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg1845.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/wm667.cfm

Hillary must get her talking points from these guys.

[jlake]

29. They claim that it needs to be "fixed" - It is NOT even Broken.

[ingac70]

33. When Repubs say "fixed" they mean....

dismantled.

I think the cap should be removed entirely....

[jlake]

40. I know what they mean. Raising the taxes to an unbearable level is the

first step to getting the political opinion behind dismantling the system.

[ingac70]

45. Sorry you don't share the same ideas as progressives.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_lifting_cap_on_SS_taxes

[jlake]

49. Sorry, but I don't think that reaming the middle class is progressive.

[ingac70]

53. They will be when Geat Depression II hits.

You sound just like a Rethuglican....

[jlake]

55. Then, as an Obama supporter you should embrace me, your base.

[ingac70]

57. Circular reasoning on your part...

calling Obama a repug after criticizing his very progressive idea of raising SS caps.

Hillary's inept campaign is reflected in her supporters. They can't get what they want straight either.

[MagsDem]

64. Um, raising SSI caps is not progressive

It's caving to rethugs that insist there is problem when there is not. And taxing the middle class after giving huge cuts to wealthy people is not progressive either.

And WORKING with rethugs would entail private accounts of some sort as a trade off for increasing taxes.

Lose, lose for progressives.

[MagsDem]

56. Since when is taxing the shit out of middle class progressive?

[ingac70]

60. ....

http://www.progressiveliving.org/progressivism.htm

[MagsDem]

104. Where on that site does it say taxing the shit out of the middle class

is progressive?

[MagsDem]

31. See, you just can't engage in discussion without being rude, can you?

The rethugs think it has to be saved. The dems just spent 1.5 yrs holding firm on the issue that there is nothing wrong with it, and there isn't. You agree with the rethugs on this then?

[ingac70]

36. No, I don't agree with the Repubs...

I think the cap should be removed entirely.

[MagsDem]

30. It's a legitimate policy issue

Why shouldn't she "use it" against him? I don't want a president who is going to cave to the rethugs on SSI. So you agree with the rethugs on this then?

[stahbrett]

5. Easy - not all republicans are conservative

Then you have the partial conservatives - economic conservatives aren't fond at all with the last 8 years, for example. The social conservatives don't care for McCain much (these probably aren't going to go to Obama though).

You have the so-called RINO republicans, the supposed counterparts to the DINO Democrats. Many of those will strongly consider Obama.

[MagsDem]

39. Consider him what?

A pushover. If he is president, and we have a majority, why do we have to "work with" rethugs? Is is a blowhard campaign thing, or does he not really believe in a progressive agenda?

[juajen]

76. Great thread, Mags! I'm listening with great enjoyment.

I wish I was as quick on my feet as you. Thank you for your very welcome voice.

[stahbrett]

105. Consider voting for him, of course. (eom)

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. There is an Obama honeymoon going on right now. Later on

it will be a bloody mess.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Well, if you think that it won't be more than a bloody mess

with Hillary at the helm, if she were to be the nominee, you've got another thing coming!

Which is why she's not wanting to show her 2006 tax returns till it is too late.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4473288

and there's more than that even.

Please know this, when Hillary says that there's nothing new.......she is saying it because there is.

I'm tired of defending the Clintons. I don't want to do that this time round.

[MagsDem]

43. Why? She isn't saying she is going to work with rethugs

And why would you need to when we have a majority in both houses? Is he full of it, or just not very progressive?

[The_Casual_Observer]

65. You defended the Clintons? Sure.

[juajen]

80. Sorry, but I have to correct.

It is another "think" coming. This really gets to this mature woman. See, its another one because you've already said one. Get it?

[FrenchieCat]

91. No. I am a woman who's 2nd language is English.

Do you have an excuse for talking about me instead of the subject at hand.

I defended the Clintons throughout the 90s. That was more than enough.

[LisaM]

8. But many here have excoriated the DLC for trying to have candidates who appeal to the middle

Here is Obama seemingly doing the same thing. He is CLEARLY appealing to a middle idealogical base, with all of his talk of purple states. I see a disconnect there.

[XemaSab]

17. Framing

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/15/3174/

The DLC tries to appeal to the "middle" by using Republican language and values. Obama tries to appeal to the "middle" with progressive values.

If you enjoy this article, you should get "Don't think of an Elephant" or go to http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/ and read their articles (or both!).

[MagsDem]

51. Which rethugs that he is going to work with have progressive values?

Just wondering.

[XemaSab]

67. ALL OF THEM.

Everyone has two frames in their head: the conservative frame and the progressive frame. These are moral universes here, totally different conceptions of the world. Conservatives believe in a top-down moral universe, while progressives believe in a collective moral universe.

When a politician speaks, he or she can activate one or both of these frames. Obama does a very good job of activating the progressive frame and bringing independant voters into his world. Hillary, notsomuch.

[MagsDem]

71. So Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo, and Coburn...

and all the rest are coming over to our side, huh? Yeah. Okay.

All I can say is you guys are in for some serious disappointment when you find out it's all bullshit, and you were the ones that got bullshitted.

[XemaSab]

75. I don't think we'll get all of them

but I think we can get a LOT of them.

Just like I think we can be competitive and put democrats in office in all 50 states. :D

[MagsDem]

79. So which ones?

And by the way, I think we already have dems in office in all 50 states. At least in some office.

[XemaSab]

90. Which republicans or which states?

:shrug:

'Cause at least here in California, I could see Arnold working with Obama. God only knows he's had problems with W.

[jackson_dem]

149. Arnold is an example of post-partisanship. How did he do it, though?

Arnold, Crist, and Bloomberg are all high-profile executives who have adopted the post-partisan philosophy Obama claims to adhere to. I don't know the details of Crist's record but Arnold and Bloomberg both co-opted parts of the opposing party's agenda in their quests for post-partisanship. That is a sign of things to come if Obama is elected. It is also a sign of things from the past. Co-opting the opposing party's agenda. Where have we seen that before?

[XemaSab]

172. With the Clintons?

:shrug:

[jackson_dem]

147. It won't happen

Obama is ignoring the very reason we have always had a two party system. Folks simply have had fundamentally different views of the role of government going all the way back to when Jefferson and Hamilton clashed during the Washington administration. Obama either doesn't know this (unlikely), is so full of himself thinks he can break this pattern, or is lying because he knows voters like happy talk about bipartisanship (see Bush 2000 and to a lesser extent McCain 2008).

[juajen]

97. It wouldn't be so bad if they were the only ones hurt.,

But, we all will be in a world of hurt.

[XemaSab]

103. Who was hurt by the Clinton impeachment?

:shrug:

[MagsDem]

108. So you think that was legit, huh?

I will remind you that it was the rethugs Obama wants to work with that spent 80 million tax payer dollars to investigate him for 8 yrs to find a blow job. THAT is who Obama wants to "work with." Pardon me if the thought makes me want to hurl.

[XemaSab]

117. For YEARS the republicans has said Clinton was sleazy and slimy and a womanizer

and after ALL THAT he still couldn't keep it in his pants?

He KNEW they were out to tag him. He KNEW they were looking for ANYTHING they could get.

And then not only did he let Monica suck his dick IN THE OVAL OFFICE but he lied about it.

How dumb can you get? :shrug:

[MagsDem]

136. You spend 80 million bucks you're going to find something

The public did not agree with it at all. Why should anyone care if he got a blow job? All that tells me is that rethugs are assholes -- the same ones Obama wants to "work with."

[jackson_dem]

150. the Clinton impeachment. The same folks who brought us that will work with the messianic Obama?

Yeah right! Even the very popular Clinton got attacked viciously by the rehtugs. The meek Obama would be run over by them.

[LSK]

109. so the Congress is not going to change next year?

This election is for the President only??

:shrug:

[MagsDem]

113. Oh yeah, the rethugs are poised to pick up lots of seats, right?

LOL! Now you're really digging.

[LSK]

114. huh?????

What the hell are you talking about? Theres going to be a lot less Rethugs. A lot!

http://agonist.org/caro/20070913/brent_budowsky_62_democratic_senators

[MagsDem]

143. So I ask again, why is he pledging to work with them?

[MagsDem]

44. Exactly!

[ctaylors6]

9. I wouldn't say "beloved" by rethugs. I think some think he's a nice guy based on sound bytes

and first impressions. Some republicans I know do say he's "way too liberal." However, even this wide-open year, I think there are many voters who haven't checked in to the election enough to know details. I think that'll change closer to Nov. I fully anticipate that if Obama is the nominee, we'll be hearing "Obama" and "liberal" in the same sentence about a bazillion times a day.

[MagsDem]

47. But he is pledging to work with them. Why?

Isn't that kinda DLC of him?

[jgraz]

10. Repugs are SHEEP

They will follow whatever charismatic leader enters their field of vision. Obama has the ability to be a reverse Reagan, turning mindless Repug drones into good rank-and-file Democrats.

[MagsDem]

52. He's talking about working with rethugs in congress

So, why is he doing that if he is so progressive. Which rethugs share his "progressive" values?

[creeksneakers2]

158. Republicans do follow their leaders almost blindly

But they aren't going to follow Obama that way. They'll think Obama is the anti-Christ after hearing a strong dose of propaganda.

[tridim]

11. Because he's belovable.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

14. Heh ... 'belovable'

I believe I belove that! :hi:

[smalll]

139. It's true, Obama has good loveability numbers.

He also scores high on the "Would you want to have a latte with him" question.

[XemaSab]

12. Framing.

He's a student of Lakoff's.

He knows our values, and he uses language that reflects our values, activating the progressive frame in the republican mind.

Happy? :)

[MagsDem]

58. Lakoff told him to say he would work with rethugs?

I am pretty sure he didn't tell him to say that.

[XemaSab]

72. No, but if you understand framing

telling the other side that they will be PUNISHED because they are BAD is a conservative frame.

Telling the other side that we understand that they have goofed but we're still willing to accept them as partners in our admisistration is WAY more progressive.

[MagsDem]

83. Lakoff says that?

Really? Because I have taken his classes and I don't remember him saying anything like that. Read his book too and don't remember him writing it there either.

[XemaSab]

88. Strict Father vs. Nurturant Parent

It's that simple.

[MagsDem]

96. Which has nothing to do with the topic, but then...

you are an Obama supporter.

[XemaSab]

99. If you were indeed familiar with Lakoff

those phrases would mean something to you.

One of our shared values as progressives is community. Successful communities cooperate and collaborate. Prograssive values hold that the whole nation is ONE community, and we should try to incorporate as many people as possible into that vision.

[MagsDem]

138. The phrase does mean something to me...

But it doesn't answer the question of which rethugs Obama thinks are going to work with him to pass progressive policies. THAT is the subject of this thread.

[jackson_dem]

151. They make it sound as if Obama can use mind control tricks to disband the entire rethug party

How the fuck is he getting away with selling this? Oh yeah the msm...

[FrenchieCat]

13. Being a progressive and having the Rethug liking you is a feat

that Hillary cannot even accomplished as a centrist War Hawk. Now, that's sad.

[MagsDem]

62. Which rethugs in congress have endorsed him?

If they like him so much and are going to work with him to pass progressive policies like he claims, tell me who these folks are?

[jackson_dem]

155. Obama has passed 1 bill in his 3 years in the senate

He knows how to reach across the aisle, unite everyone and get things done. He proved it. Once on a bill that created a website.

[jackson_dem]

154. Lieberman is a progressive who has accomplished a great feat then?

[stray cat]

15. Many moderate republicans are more anti-dem than pro-republican

Obama talks about personal responsibility, faith, and doesn't come across as a liberal elitist who doesn't know the midwest or south exists.

[MagsDem]

66. So which reps in congress is he going to work with?

To pass all these so-called progressive policies?

[Yael]

16. The neo-cons hijacked their party

Many are disillusioned and looking for a 180 degree change.

If that means they have to give up on conservative social stances to get the country back on track -- many are willing to compromise that this year.

The Rovian 'values voters' got taken for a ride and got bupkus for it.

[MagsDem]

74. I guess you actually have to read the post

He is telling people he is going to work with rethugs. You know he means rethugs on congress right? So which ones, and why? What policies is he going to make palatable to rethugs and why when we have a majority?

Or are you just taking it all on faith?

[jackson_dem]

156. They hijacked foreign policy but not domestic policy

Bush is a continuation of Reagan domestically. The rethugs have held these views for decades. Obama is going to cause the rethugs to disband?

[IsItJustMe]

19. All you have to remember MagsDem is this, "Yes he can". LOL

[MagsDem]

69. Apparently. LOL!

[DS1]

21. Easy. His name isn't Clinton

[mtnsnake]

27. If Obama reaches out any further to the Repugs, he'll become one of them

[jackson_dem]

157. Short, sweet and to the point mtnsnake

:thumbsup:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Because the Republican party is collapsing.

Even Republicans are tired of the war, and lack of affordable health care.

It's an opportunity.

[MagsDem]

77. So he's not really gonna work with them, just let them become...

progressives, is that it?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

107. He's going to work with them on progressive issues.

They're progressives, they just don't know it.

You are too. Why don't you come over? Everybody's welcome.

[Freida5]

35. He is not progressive.

[MagsDem]

78. Bingo!!! Finally, the right answer

Thank you!

[mucifer]

37. Americans are stupid. We largely vote for style and how the

candidate relates to the people. That's how reagan pulled in the dems. I like Obama. I voted for him. I don't agree with him on some of the issues. But, he has more of a chance of winning than Hillary because of his personality and we are a media based culture. Luckily for us Obama is a very intelligent man and not george bush.

So lets just take advantage of the situation.

[Az_lefty]

48. He's articulate and represents real change.

a break from the status quo, that is taking us nowhere. This is something that has broad appeal.

[MagsDem]

87. Not the question -- which rethugs is he going to work with in...

congress to get "progressive" policies passed -- which rethugs in congress are going to turn all progressive and work with him to pass progressive policies? Or are the policies just not very progressive? And why, when we have a majority?

[creeksneakers2]

159. The Republicans are already pointing at the same thing

They say all the talk about hope and unity is just sloganeering.

[incapsulated]

118. And this kind of silly talk will make the repukes love dems, eh?

Hey, this guy is articulate and represents "real change"!

Well, blow me down, I just became pro-choice, anti-war and fiscally responsible! All it took was an articulate guy who likes change! Wow! Sign me up.

:crazy:

You know how he is going to "work with the republicans"? The only way anyone can. By giving them what they want.

[sloppyjoe25s]

61. Same reason Ronnie Raygun tore down so much in the 80s

it's called - having a mandate & a HUGE election win. Reagan got Democrats to vote against their own interest and for HIM! And we are paying the price for all the things Reagan tore down in the 80s (and I'm not talking about the Berlin Wall).

If Obama can pull off a "New Majority" - by getting the disillusioned independents, and disillusioned republicans to vote for him - then there will be huge coat-tails, and the best chance to enact progressive legislation in 40 years.

Given our current structural budget deficits, and the costs even if we get out of Iraq ASAP - Obamas approach of "Redefining the Political Center" - as The Nation put it - is the only approach that has a HOPE of actually passing progressive laws.

On health care - HE ALONE - not Edwards or Hillary - said he believes SINGLE PAYER is the best system - "if we could start from scratch" - but he is smart enough politically to recognize that we can't pull it off right now. I can line up 100 political science PhDs to tell you why - and 50 more who will tell you that Hillary's plan with a Purchasing Mandate - would also go down in flames - particularly given that even if she could win - she would win with the tinyest of margins, and then would try to govern with no capital or ability to rally the American people behind her.

[MagsDem]

92. Oh, so he is going to win in a landslide....

and then all the rethugs are going to say, man, we're beat. We are going to vote for your progressive policies!! And he is going to do this with almost no experience in federal office. And you believe him?

Oh man, you guys are really going cry when you find out that is a fairy tale of gigantic fucking proportions. Promise to stick around so we can say told you so, okay?

[NMMatt]

153. Not at all

Your really missing the point of how he appeals to Republicans and Independents. It is nearly 100% on style (unity talk, etc.), and of course they won't be swayed... unless, of course, if he has a large popular mandate and significant majority in Congress. Then they will cave.

But I suppose we should go the safe route and try to eek out a 51% majority with what is likely the most unpopular Democrat to non-Democrats in a year when we are running against the party of one of the most unpopular sitting presidents ever and a candidate who can't shore up his own base, but may appeal to Independents. Some Democrats have been loosing so long, they can't see a golden opportunity when it lands flat in their lap.

Of course president Obama won't pass all of his agenda. I've seen enough of these play out to know that the policy details a president runs on are almost meaningless - i.e. he or she will get whatever they can get. The MOST important things are margin of victory (think Reagan in 1980 and 1984 - his landslide was enough to get his extreme right agenda through a DEMOCRATIC congress) and who controls congress and by what majority. I refuse to set my sights low. Not this year. In 2004, of course - 51% was a great idea. In 2008, not only no, but HELL NO. We are running in Georgia and Virginia and Colorado this time.

[no name no slogan]

81. The same way George Wallace voters in 1968 loved RFK

It was widely rumored that the only way Wallace would have stayed in the Democratic Party in 1968 was if Bobby Kennedy got the nomination. RFK was also noted to be the second choice of a lot of Wallace voters, too.

Like Wallace, RFK spoke to something in voters-- he wasn't just politics as usual. He promised something DIFFERENT, that transcended politics. Reagan had the same effect on Democrats in 1980, as well.

As far as working with Republicans: like it or not, unless the Democrats get super-majorities in congress, ANY future Democratic president will have to work "across the aisle". Reagan had to work with a Democratic congress. Clinton had to work with a Republican congress. Our system of government is based on compromise. Like it or not, President Clinton/President Obama will STILL have to work with the GOP to accomplish anything.

[MagsDem]

93. Yeah, cuz Bush really works across the aisle

And Reagan did too right? LOL!

[no name no slogan]

110. Believe it or not, yes.

You don't see it (because cooperation isn't as newsworthy as conflict), but yes, Dubya does work across the aisle. And so did Reagan. In fact, Reagan wouldn't have gotten a thing done had he not worked with Speaker Tip O'Neil and the Democratic-controlled house.

[creeksneakers2]

168. There is no compromise with Republicans

They aren't out to work together or even drive a hard bargain to get concessions. They are out to destroy the Democratic Party and the left. All through the Clinton years they refused to pass legislation. Even programs they liked like welfare reform were filled with unacceptable poison pills so they wouldn't get passed into law.

No amount of inspiration will make a difference. Neither will political pressure. Think about how unpopular Iraq was. With only 20% support and 65% against, mostly strongly against, the GOP hung tight. The only ones who broke ranks were the few regulars. I can't think of one of them who called for an end to the war. They lost the 2006 election and they blamed moderates, not the war hawks. They resolved to drive out all but the "true conservatives."

The only thing that works with them is a stubborn refusal to back down.

[Orangepeel]

82. First, he isn't beloved by republicans. He just isn't hated.

Second, why do you think that republicans are smart enough to accurately judge him but progressives aren't? You are selling progressives short.

Third, progressives can legitimately disagree about the best approach to make progress on progressive issues in a world where not everyone is progressive, including health care.

Fourth, I think the cap on earnings subject to FICA withholding is totally REgressive.

[KAZ]

86. Hint, she's not going to listen to you. Good post, BTW.

[Orangepeel]

94. I know. Sigh.

but thanks! :-)

[MagsDem]

95. First, you'll find out how much he is hated pretty damn soon

Second, I don't think rethugs like him at all, and I don't think they are going to work with him.

Third, that sounds like you saying we can call a hairball progressive if we want to. Unless their name is Clinton.

Fourth, increasing tax on the middle class is NOT progressive. Nor is pretending there is something wrong with SSI (a decidedly rethug frame of mind) that fiscal responsibility can fix.

[KAZ]

102. Oh! The FICA cap is now progressive?

[MagsDem]

111. Did you understand what happens to SS taxes now?

Do you understand that there is and will for the next 40 years be more FICA taxes collected than is needed to pay SSI? Do you know what they do with those surpluses? They use them to fund the government, and the military most of all.

Here's an idea.... stop taxing the shit out of the middle class and make wealthy people pay their fair share for the wars they make money on. Then use FICA taxes for what they are supposed to be used for -- SSI.

WE DO NOT need to raise FICA taxes on the middle class to fund non-FICA spending so that wealthy people don't have to actually pay their fair share of taxes.

God damn, no wonder you are voting for Obama. You don't understand basic issues. You're right up there with the guy upthread who doesn't realize we don't need a veto proof majority if we have the presidency. For pete's sake.

[KAZ]

130. I'll spare the vile. Now that you've explained your ...

.. position, I agree. The bleeding of the trust to the rich is unconscionable. What might be more helpful is a discussion about how our two candidates view this. I still think the cap is wrong, regardless of what Krugman et.al. say. I'd like to live in a society that takes care of our elders and incapacitated, in a fashion that is dignified.

[MagsDem]

137. Well then you should vote for an actual progressive

Instead of someone that plays the spend the FICA on tax cuts for the rich, then raise the FICA taxes.

[KAZ]

140. May be. But I voted the winner.

That's my only goal this cycle.

Peace.

[Orangepeel]

132. the raiding of social security funds is a different issue than the cap

social security funds should be in Al Gore's lockbox. That doesn't mean that someone who makes $500,000 should pay the same in FICA taxes as someone who makes $97,000.

[MagsDem]

145. Tell that to the middle class on the west coast or east coast

Where $97K barely buys you a decent apartment to rent and gas for your car.

[Yuugal]

162. Only 6 percent of Americans make more than 97K a year

This country already has a party for the 6 percenters. They call themselves republicans. The rest of us see no reason why everyone shouldn't have to pay the same percent of their wages to social security.

[Orangepeel]

131. I wish that eyeroll smilie worked in the subject line

:eyes:

1. I'll grant that some "rethugs" might hate him. But I think that many if not most republican voters are much closer to clueless than evil (the leadership of the GOP is a different story). Maybe I too would hate Obama if I was generally filled with hate.

2. I believe that the average progressives voter is smarter than the average conservative voter (now, the leadership again, may be a different story; there are some goddamn evil geniuses in the republican party). But on average, progressives are smarter; that's why we vote progressively.

3. No, it doesn't sound like that at all. (And I do think Clinton is progressive on most issues).

4. IMO, a tax that taxes every dollar of middle and lower income individuals but only the first $97,000 of income of affluent individuals is not progressive.

[donkeyotay]

84. Obama, all things to all people? I decided to take a closer look at his donors.

He loves to talk about how it's the little people giving little amounts to his campaign, (women, by the way) but his top donors come from a smallish universe. How about Goldman Sachs, DLA Piper, JP Morgan Chase, Lehman, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, UBS AG, and a company called National Amusements, Inc. run by Sumner Redstone. Available at opensecrets.org.

Now, I'm not saying I know what the alternative is or that I'd support Hillary. I am saying that people aren't being very critical in the rush to accept Obama. Maybe he's everything he claims and more. I don't know. But I do know I feel skeptical when he seems so much more concerned about uniting repos while showing little concern for dividing the dems, even tho we should be used to it by now.

[MagsDem]

100. You got it -- he is claiming to unite rethugs while dividing dems

I'm at loss on how that benefits the dem agenda.

[libbygurl]

165. Ironic, isn't it? nt

[goodgd_yall]

124. Well said. n/t

[ourbluenation]

85. same reason so many dems voted for reagan. n/t

[MagsDem]

101. Because they wanted tax cuts?

[ourbluenation]

161. who the hell knows. you'd have to ask them. But lots of them did. n/t

[LSK]

106. READING IS FUNDAMENTAL

Protect Social Security

Obama is committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama will be honest with the American people about the long-term solvency of Social Security and the ways we can address the shortfall. Obama will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike. And he does not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security.

Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/socialsecurity

And Social Security is in trouble because Reagan/Bush1/Clinton/Bush2 all "BORROWED" from the social security funds to hide their deficits. How did I learn this? By reading people such as Paul Krugman and Thom Hartmann, those crazy right wingers.

:eyes:

[XemaSab]

120. Krugman is a pro-Hillary shill

:cockporn:

[MagsDem]

122. What makes him a shill? Do tell

[XemaSab]

126. He's in the pay of the New York Times

which is a mouthpiece for the DLC, which is in turn a mouthpiece for the BFEE.

:poopcorn:

[KAZ]

134. I'm sorry. Krugman is not a shill. If you read what the opposing

posters are posting, you might see a lot af actual agreement.

Politics can be blinding sometimes.

[XemaSab]

173. .

/satire

[MagsDem]

135. His writing for the NYT makes him a shill for Hillary?

How so? And what has he written that makes him a mouthpiece for the DLC? And why do you answer questions with more accusations instead of responding the question?

[LSK]

125. hes just pissed Edwards is out

:poopcorn:

[MagsDem]

121. Incorrect. Krugman doesn't think there is damn thing wrong with SSI

And Clinton did NOT borrow from the SSI fund. When his term in office was done the national debt was increased almost exactly the amount of the interest charges accumulated over that same period from the national debt incurred by previous adminstrations. He added nary a penny to the net over an entire 8 yrs. In addition, we had huge budget surpluses when he left office.

If you have been paying attention over the years you should know that what rethugs do when they take office is give huge cuts to the wealthy. Then they claim there is an SSI crisis, because they have spent FICA money on tax cuts, and then they raise FICA taxes. Then they spend that too. That is exactly what Reagan did, and it is how they shift the taxes to the lower and middle class and away from the wealthy.

And there is nothing progressive about a Dem being dumb enough to play that game.

[LSK]

128. Al Gore? Lockbox???

:shrug:

Maybe you should read Screwed and The Great Unraveling.

And where does Obama want to do what Reagan did with borrowing from Social Security? His solution sounds like Edwards solution which is also what I would propose.

[creeksneakers2]

169. Then they will say they are willing to accept compromise

There is no problem with Social Security. We have a debt problem. Once the GOP frame about SS is bought into, a chain reaction starts where something has to be done about a problem that doesn't even exist. That ends up with compromise.

Its ridiculous to even ask where the money for SS will come from. SS has trillions in government bonds. Where will the money for the military come from? They don't even have bonds or anything like that, but you don't hear anybody projecting that the military will run out of money and demanding a solution.

The only sure way to control future expenses is to pay off debt now. That will leave more money available for future generations to fund what they wish to support.

[George_Bonanza]

115. He's seen as unselfish and objective

[incapsulated]

119. Once again, how does this make republicans fall under his spell?

And suddenly decide, after decades of fighting against everything you supposedly hold dear, to change their ways? The way he is "seen"?

What in the world are you talking about? The question is how he will really "unify" with the repukes, not what his press kit says.

[totodeinhere]

141. That shows Obama's brilliance.

Obama is one of the most progressive senators in the Senate yet he is able to somehow get support from many rethugs. What a brilliant politician he is!

[sueragingroz]

144. Don't discount the evil genius of Karl Rove and the MIC

Call me extremely cynical... and a bit depressed by all of this... but I predict that america will be beseiged with another looney toon as president for at least 4 more years and here's how:

1) As much as I hate to admit it, Hillary has no hope of winning the nomination now. Why you ask?
a) The best that she can do right now is a miniscule lead in delegates - even if she does well in the big three. She won't have won the majority of the states and the popular vote will be about even.
b) Pressure is already being made on the super delegates by the Obama camp to "listen to the will of the voters" in their respective states. All except for the Kennedy's that is...
c) More and more republicans will register as "independant" and some will bold-faced vote as republicans and vote for Obama in the remaining open primaries in hopes of putting him over the edge or at least keeping him close.
d) The MIC controlled MSM will continue to ignore their duty to vet Obama properly and will continue to equate ANYTHING that ANYONE associated with the Clinton campaign does or says with the coming of the apocalypse ... ok I lapse into hyperbole here :-o
e) If there is any hint of the Party coming to Hillary's rescue in the form of decisions by the DNC and/or the votes of superdelegates, the Obama backers and fans will spaz and threaten all sorts of things.... The DNC will capitulate "for the good of party unity" and make Obama the nominee. Hillary will be forced to step aside to make room for the "uniter". She will go back to the Senate and will end out her distinguished career there. Without presidential aspirations to keep her moderate, she might surprise everyone and finally come out as the liberal feminist that she is... That would be the only consolation prize for me in all of this. She will call for her supporters to back Obama and they will for the good of the party.

2) Obama won't pick Clinton as his running mate because:
a) Too much bad blood between the two campaigns - and Michelle will have a say in this one.
b) She would overshadow him while he's in the White House and he doesn't want that.
c) He'll want Richardson to sow up the Hispanic vote.

3) McCain's surrogates will crucify him in the GE by:
a) unleashing their "swift boat" strategy (god knows what they will dream up - but they'll think of something) only once he safely has the nod.
b) ridiculing his lack of experience. Let's be real - he's a first term Senator who hasn't successfully pushed a piece of legislation through the Senate yet.
c) going after him for drug abuse. You have to remember that there is a double standard. It's ok for Bush to do drugs (anyway he hasn't admitted to it) but it's not ok for Obama to do drugs because 0bama is a librul.
d) going on and on and on and on about the ties between his church and Farrakhan. It won't matter how many times Obama denounces this. It will sound disingenuous after a while... Soon they will be chanting "a vote for Obama is a vote for (insert someone who rhymes with Obama). And then there's that unfortunate middle name. Let's face it, republicans aren't exactly known as being progressive... That's kind of an oxy moron... this is the sort of stuff that will bring the base back out...
e) going on and on and on about Rezko and the house sale that took place after Rezko's activities were exposed and investigated. They will ignore it while the trial itself (which starts on the 25th) is going on and save it for when it matters.
d) generally putting Obama off of his message of "unity and change and hope" and onto his new message of "damage control and deflection".

4) Obama fans will first defend him vociferously. Then they will defend him irrationally. Then they will start to doubt their choice... and then they will eventually get depressed. Most will vote but with a heavy heart. Some will stay home.

5) These "independants" and repugs that voted for Obama will merrily vote for McCain in the General Election just like they planned.

6) SOME of the Hispanic and soccer mom vote will swing to McCain because he's a moderate don't you know...

7) The Republican base will not stay home because as much as they hate McCain, they hate the alternative more.

8) McCain will win the race and america will have to deal with:
a) a worsening economy
b) a draft
c) a war with Iran
d) an even lower standing in the world.
e) etc. etc. etc...

I'm a firm Hillary supporter but I must admit, I really thought that her campaign would:

a) see what was going on during the primaries early enough to do something about it and
b) reign in Bill sooner into the South Carolina mess... but then maybe nothing could be helped there... I don't know.. but I'm pissed at Bill for handing a good chunk of the traditional base over to Obama like that with his idiotic comments...

Now of course in all of this, I'm being a bit naive in assuming that there will actually be an election... you know... clear and present danger and all of that...

Maybe I'm wrong about all of this. I certainly hope that I am. It could all be because it is February and I tend to get maudlin in February...

[roseBudd]

152. Obama beat the Swift Boaters to the punch by tattling on himself...

They will have to tread lightly or come off as racist

People are quick to believe poorly of people they perceive as being unlikeable, and slow to believe anything negative about someone they like

Hilary is not Bill.

[Olney Blue]

163. I agree with alot of your post. I just hope you are wrong.

:-( (except for Hillary going back to the Senate and blossoming as a liberal feminist)

[sueragingroz]

166. I desperately want to be wrong /nt

[mopinko]

148. howard dean-"wait, you might not be a republican"

he wants the raygun democrats back, and he is getting them. and i don't think they will ever to stray again.

[DrFunkenstein]

160. Because Liberalism Is Common Sense If You Frame It Properly

You just show your convictions - and some humanity in the moments of disagreement - and it will go 1000% further than weasling around through triangulation, which always fails in the long run anyway.

[mckeown1128]

164. It is in how he approaches the republicans.

He is not trying to stick it to them...like a certain other candidate. He is trying to open conversation with the right. That goes a long way to convincing indies and repubs to voting for Democrats or at the very least listening to what progressives have to say about issues.

By the way you are going on my ignore list... since your posts are only about attacking Obama. Your posts also leave out the details.


You have attacked Obama on SSI but you don't even bother to talk about his plans. You are just attacking him on wanting to solve the problem(A problem that all candidate on both sides of the isle have noticed.)

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

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

[creeksneakers2]

170. To Republicans, Obama is the black knight who is smoting Hillary

Defeating Hillary is the only thing Republicans like about Obama. And if Obama defeats Hillary the GOP will give him a big heart felt round of applause. Then they'll water board him with slander. By late August they'll hate his guts. I know the Republicans because I monitor them. They can't stand John McCain because he isn't an obedient enough conservative. Imagine what they'll think of Barack Obama.

[bridgit]

171. Well isn't that just the question. Today on Randi, a caller made the point...

Obama may well be The JFK candidate of the moment...but it took LBJ to put the programs through and into law. And that Hillary (by her mention the Can-Do, Day 1 gal) is by that template The LBJ candidate, with Obama left to grip/grin & crack jokes.

Obama, as did Kennedy, is running on hope & change. And JFK only won by the slim'st of margins. These days, there are no jump balls. All the points are shaved. Regardless, there are mountainous, ill-formed, relentless oppositions Obama will not merely have to cross the aisle to shake hands with...but crawl in bed with at the end of the day i.e. there's little doubt Yucca Mountain is prepared to extend it's withered hand for support.

After having positioned his candidacy, and presidency to follow; upon delivering the not-so-progressive, if while ethereal concepts such as "hope" and "change", will his supportors, having believed he is The One to deliver them; will they feel even deeper sense' of universal denial, dislocation, and disenfranchisement if he is unable to do so?

Will social disruptions ensue if The Man/Mr. Charlie is perceived as impinging upon his ability to do so?

Will Barack Obama be able to admit when he was wrong to have left out so many details?

[jillan]

174. Wow - what did Randi say??

I listened to her for about an hour today & she was all about Obama.

[bridgit]

175. For what it's worth, she said it was a "brilliant" take on matters