A proposal for those who support Obama from the left

[Ken Burch]

We are supporting Barack Obama. Nonetheless, we have to recognize that he will need to be pushed, like any SUCCESSFUL Democratic president, from the left.

Here's an idea I've been working on for how to address this throughout the fall.

We could have a mass, national petition drive, taking place at Obama rallies, for language something like this:

"We are supporters of Barack Obama. We'll be voting for him. We support the following proposals that go beyond Senator Obama's currenty proposals:

1)Single-payer health care.

2)A withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq.

3)The repeal or radical renegotiation of NAFTA and all other trade agreements negotiated since 1992.

4)Federal jobs programs to employ all those currently unemployed and unable to find work. "

(there could be other things in this as well, but this is the basic idea.)

If we could get, say 10 million signatures on this(which would be achievable)and especially could get large numbers of signatures in battleground states, we could make a strong case to the Obama Administration that it owes its victory to progressives and should be very open to enacting progressive policies.

This proposal, I think, could both engage people who feel that Obama was "too moderate" and discourage those who would otherwise endanger a Democratic victory by voting for minor-party candidates

[Youphemism]

1. Sounds more like an attempt to torpedo him, to me...

The items you mention that aren't already on his list will pressure him to go left, when he needs to appeal to centrists.

If you ever want to realize *any* of that agenda, you'll back off until after the election.

Pressing issues like that will only be ignored (most likely) or force him away from a majority that could elect him.

If you want that agenda promoted, try doing it at a lower level, instead of saddling the democratic candidate with it.

If you push this sort of thing, I think you're either not serious about getting him elected, or not realistic about it.

[depakid]

30. Herein lies the heart of America problems:

This stupid statement (that's been used repeatedly to justify enabling and legitimizing unpopular far right policies for 30 years):

"...he needs to appeal to centrists."

Well gee, Republicans never tried to appeal to so called "centrists." What they did and why they won for so many years was by standing up for what they believed in- not by pandering to some ephemeral center like every other spineless Dem.

Sounds to me like the record CLEARLY shows that what the realistic perspective is- and what the path to losing both elections and policy battles has been.

Seems to me it's high past time to purge the party of the loser mentality that's been the standard of the "consultants" and the punditocracy, and actually stand up stong for progressive views (which incidentally polls much higher than "centrist" or "conservative" positions).

[Youphemism]

39. Impressively wrong on all points...

Nobody gets elected by appealing to the far left or far right. Even the moron in office now knew that when he ran as a "uniter, not a divider" and made a long-forgotten promise to work across the aisle.

So yes, Republicans try to appeal to centrists all the time. The only reason anyone thinks McCain has a ghost of a chance in this election is his history of breaking toward the center. Luckily, he always changes his mind a little while later, so he makes everyone hate him. The only reason McCain made it this far is that appeal toward the center. The far right Republicans hate him.

As for what the record clearly shows, it shows that every candidate from either party moves toward that party during the primaries, then toward the center in the General Election. Try to cite anyone who won without doing that in the last 50 years.

What it's time to purge is that "if you don't agree with me on every issue, I'll take my ball and go home" attitude that has caused the Democrats to self-destruct so many times in the past. I see it here a lot, and it makes me want to yak.

[depakid]

41. Your "conventional wisdom" has proven itself to be a losing "strategy" time and time again

Make all the rationalizations that you want- but anyone with half a memory (or a smidgeon of honesty) knows EXACTLY how "Republican lite" has worked out for Americans these past 15 years.

Only once a reasonably clear contrast was drawn in 2006 did the Dems finally score a national victory (and one they've managed to do very little substantively with- due to the same tired old "conventional wisdom tirelessly pushed on us, while the country sinks further into a far right quagmire).

[Youphemism]

42. What planet have you been on?

Every Presidential candidate, from every party, tries to appeal to the center during the GE. No candidate has won without doing that. They always, to varying degrees, backpedal from that centrist message once they're elected. (Bush hitchhiked on a rocket away from the center right after his inauguration.)

No point in arguing this. It's not a matter of being on different wavelengths... Your point has no wavelength.

[depakid]

44. The one with the reality based communty...

where people can still pcritically think beyond shallow generalities like "appeals to the center" (whatever you think that that means).

So you think Bush and the Republicans appealed to the "center" in 2004?

And that Kerry didn't waffle and pander to the right?

And that Gore didn't lose TONS OF VOTES by cowtowing to the right as opposed to minimizing the Greens (which wouldn't have become a force at all, but for Clinton era corporate pandering)?

Or that the so called "Contract with America" that swept Republicans into was anything other than a far right manifesto?

All these elections from 1994 onward could and should have been won -and most of them likely WOULD have been won, had the party leadership (and the candidates) actually been perceived as fighting for traditional Democratic values- and drawing stark contrasts with straight talk about policies that matter to ordinary people.

But did they do that? No -they followed your advice down the losers track for `12 years running. Hell, they've even followed that advice after they won in 2006- to record low congressional approval levels.

And don't think that it can't happen yet again in 2008, should the Obama campaign fall into that trap.

[Youphemism]

51. You're less wrong this time, but not much...

> So you think Bush and the Republicans appealed to the "center" in 2004

This is the closest thing you have to something resembling a point. Bush didn't appeal to the center as much during 2004, because it was an "at war" election year. He appealed to patriotism, the "don't change horses in midstream" sentiment, and the ubiquitous "be afraid of electing my opponent" argument. Elections during a war are always overshadowed by that, and even Bush isn't stupid enough to stray from the proven strategy of the "stick with the incumbent during a crisis" message. It isn't that he didn't want to appeal to the center -- it just wasn't the winning message for his focus, especially given his then four-year record of not being a centrist.

As for Gore, his big push was to be the environmental President. (Example, this campaign ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsQmS1OcXTQ. This was not an "appeal to the center" strategy.)

Gore did try to appeal to the center, and he could not do it convincingly -- largely because he did it as a defense to his criticisms, rather than as a forward-thinking prospective President. Gore lost "tons of votes" because he was a stiff who showed very little personality. He was *handed* that election. It should not have been close.

> All these elections from 1994 onward could and should have been won
> -and most of them likely WOULD have been won, had the party leadership
> (and the candidates) actually been perceived as fighting for traditional
> Democratic values."

Uh, no. Nobody wins an election by appealing only to their party. They win elections by winning over independents and voters from the other party. Without doing that, you lose. Period.

[patrioticintellect]

48. It only works like this

Because of people like you who are slave to the party. The Democratic Party doesn't need to do anything for your vote. You're scared shitless when you think about McCain as president. They know you haven't the balls to vote third party or Independent based on principle. So, they can go to the Right where it's comfortable. They can make more money there too. You've accepted that they can't let you be part of the club until November so they treat you like shit until November. Oh, but afterwards, when they couldn't beat McCain because Obama failed to be a better McCain, it's back to square one.

Then the Democrats engage in the same madness all over again.

No impeachment---We have to win the election!

[1Hippiechick]

31. my initial reaction too; or sort of like HRC trying to set his agenda in her concession speech

[Catherina]

37. So we'll let all the pressure come from the right. Brilliant strategy

NOT.

[wyldwolf]

2. the last time ...

... the left pressured a Dem president, we got failed attempts at health care, gays in the military, gun control, and a tsunami in 1994.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. Could you provide some examples of when who and how the left pressured the Clintons?

I was watching, and I don't recall that happening at all.

What I recall is that Hillary convened a secret handpicked task force of 500 on health care, (after Clinton was elected on health care reform) Bill Clinton's very first act in office was to try to honor his campaign promise and allow gays to openly serve in the military but folded almost immediately under pressure from the right. Gun control was Reagan press secretary Jim Brady's issue, and Republicans voted in identical numbers in 1994 as they did in 1990. The difference was union households stayed home after Clinton pushed herbert walker bush's NAFTA plan through the Dem controlled congress. That pissed of Dem voters. I think it was the right wing of the Democratic party who pressured the Clintons, not the left wing.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. Oh come on wyldwolf, that was all part of Clinton's agenda, not pressure from the left

His first two years in office were a disaster because there was absolutely no Democratic Party discipline in Congress and because he had a difficult time finding senior staff that he was comfortable with in the beginning.

1994 tsunami was a re-alignment that had been in the works for years but just needed a catalyst. Democratic corruption in Congress was also part of that catalyst.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. The tsunami was (and is) a myth. Repos voted in almost identical numbers in

1990 and in 1994.

The difference was many Dems stayed home in 1994. Dems voted in much smaller numbers in 1994 than they did in 1990.

NAFTA and screwing up health care reform made people feel like, "What the heck, why vote for this."

[Hippo_Tron]

14. What about independents?

And do you have data for this?

[John Q. Citizen]

18. I don't know about independents.

http://www.fairvote.org/reports/1995/chp3/gans.html

Here is some data I found. It supports the basic premise, that Dems didn't turn out. It also says that independent voting was on the rise.


The original concept of a Dem ebb tide instead of a Repo tsunami I got from:

Getting the Facts Right
Why Hillary's Health Care Plan Really Failed
By VICENTE NAVARRO

http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro11122007.html

From the article:

-The number of people who voted Republican in 1994 was no larger than in 1990 (the previous non-presidential congressional election year). The big difference was in the Democratic vote. Abstention by working-class voters increased dramatically in 1994 and was the primary reason why Democrats lost their majority in Congress. This is a point that Starr ignores. The Gingrich Revolution of 1994 was an outcome of voter abstention, particularly among the working class, who were fed up with President Clinton. But NAFTA was also the death knell for health care reform. One could see this in the White House task force. NAFTA empowered the right, and weakened and demoralized the left.-

[newmajority]

16. No, that's because the right pressured him, and he caved into them.

BTW, I notice NAFTA wasn't on your list. That was the worst thing he pushed through in his first term. And yeah, I know Poppy Bush created the thing. All the more reason Clinton should have killed it.

[wyldwolf]

19. The right pressured him on gun control, health care, and civil rights for gays?

Surrre...

[Ken Burch]

21. I've taken you off of ignore temporarily to say "HELL YES, the right pressured him"

What were you smoking in 1993-94? All there was was right-wing attacks on Clinton and his administration not only never answered them, it wouldn't let progressives answer them. We were all told "It's enough that he's a Democratic president, you have no right to ASK anything of him and we don't dare fight back against the bad guys".

Remember those vicious hearings on gays in the military?
The ones where Sam Nunn refused to guarantee that any service member who announced he or she was gay or who spoke in favor of lifting the ban would not face retribution for doing so?

Remember how Johnetta Cole and Lani Guinier were abandoned, and the Civil Rights position was left unfilled until 1995, leaving African Americans and the rest of the Rainbow with no meaningful defenders against right wing attack?

And remember the jihad Rush and the rest of talk radio waged on the Brady Bill and the health care proposal(which the administration screwed up on by refusing even to consider single-payer?)

You aren't really going to pretend that Clinton wasn't given a pass by the left and the full court press by the hard right, are you?

The insistence on leaving progressives totally out in the cold in 1993-94 was what caused the 1994 disaster. There was NO post 1992 "swing to the left" that cost us votes. Single-payer had majority support, increased funding for social spending and reductions in the post-Cold War military budget had strong support.

Clinton had an overwhelming mandate in the Electoral College for progressive populist change. He lost because he refused to try to get it.

He couldn't have gone any further right and still STAYED a Democrat. And, weirdly, Clinton seemed much more comfortable in office after he'd cost us the House and Senate.

Clearly, we never should have renominated him. Doing so made the '96 election meaningless.

[wyldwolf]

25. so the right pressured him to enact gun control? That's the point the other poster made

[Ken Burch]

26. No, the right pressured him ON gun control...to NOT enact it...

And they pressured him hard, with no fightback from the Administration and none allowed from us, on the other issues. We were all told "shut up, you have no right to ask anything and you can't speak out against them". The pressure was all one way. It always hurts the party when the left shuts up and the pressure is only from the right.

[wyldwolf]

27. I wasn't discussing what the right pressured him into. But hs DID enact it.

I said, quite plainly in Post #2, that the left pressured him on gun control. It was a classic liberal issue. And Clinton enacted it. Then someone stated in reply "No, that's because the right pressured him, and he caved into them."

Really? He caved into the right on gun control? ha ha. Reality flies out the window when the left attacks Bill Clinton.

[Ken Burch]

28. We meant he caved in on the other stuff.

We never said he caved to the right on guns. He caved to them on everthing else. And Clinton was going to back the Brady Bill anyway.

You got it wrong on this one.

Also, the original poster didn't, now that I've reread it, even MENTION guns. So that was a red herring.

It was Clinton's fault alone that we lost Congress, because he alienated the base. You can't leave your base out in the cold on all issues and then STILL expect it to show up. You know that as well as I do. And it was the BASE, not any mythical "New Democrats" that elected Clinton, and elected him on a left-populist economic agenda that he abandoned for no good reason.

[wyldwolf]

29. Sorry, I was discussing stuff in particular. I like sticking to the topic. Obviously you don't

It was Clinton's fault alone that we lost Congress, because he alienated the base.

:rofl:

Base?

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

33. The Democratic base, the poor, working people, women, LGBT voters

You know, the people who actually ELECT Democrats(unlike anti-liberal "moderates").

The ones you think shouldn't have a say in any Democratic administration.

Clinton got 43% in '92. Any Democrat would have at least matched that.

I was sticking to the topic in the rest of the post. Obviously, after what I'd said in the previous lines, you'd have to concede that I proved that the other poster did NOT say that "the right pressured Clinton to ENACT gun control". If you repeat it again, you're repeating a lie.

[wyldwolf]

36. The very people who voted for Dems in DROVES in 1994

Doesn't sound too alienated to me!

Dems had a drop-off of voters mainly in the South in 1994 - which speaks to an alienation of white conservative voters.

Clinton ran against two candidates in '92 and still got millions more votes than Dukakis did in '88.

I was sticking to the topic in the rest of the post. Obviously, after what I'd said in the previous lines, you'd have to concede that I proved that the other poster did NOT say that "Clinton caved into the right on guns".

Sorry, the other poster did say what I said he did.

[Ken Burch]

47. The guy said Jim Brady pressured Clinton on guns. Besides, Clinton backed that bill from the start.

He didn't say the left pressured Clinton on guns. And you know he didn't say that Clinton caved to the right by passing gun control. Your point was proven wrong. Back down on that one already.

African American voters stayed away from the polls in droves in the South in '94. This was largely because people like you got their way and the Dems nominated candidates who had the brilliant idea of running to Clinton's RIGHT. Logically, this should have won the party those "white conservative" voters you're on about.

The big reason the Democratic party's popularity crashed in '94 was that Clinton was made to look totally ineffective by Congress' failure to pass his health care reform package. And this failure was SOLELY due to conservative Democratic congressmembers and their determination not to pass it. The left wing bears no responsibility for that, and you know it. You also know that there is no position to Bill Clinton's right that is distinguishable from Republicanism. Even in the South.

[wyldwolf]

54. you really need to pay attention. You've either not followed the conversation or you're confused

1. NO ONE has mentioned James Brady.
2. AFTER I said the left pressured Clinton on gun control among other traditionally liberal issues, HE said the RIGHT pressured Clinton.

African American voters stayed away from the polls in droves in the South in '94.

Actually, it was only off 2% from the 1990 midterms and was up from '86.

http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Not-Enough-Candidates-Presidential/dp/0742548066/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214433246&sr=8-1

The big reason the Democratic party's popularity crashed in '94 was that Clinton was made to look totally ineffective by Congress' failure to pass his health care reform package. And this failure was SOLELY due to conservative Democratic congressmembers and their determination not to pass it. The left wing bears no responsibility for that, and you know it. You also know that there is no position to Bill Clinton's right that is distinguishable from Republicanism. Even in the South.

Do you make this stuff up as you go?

This is another example of a "progressive" falling back on the post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy, really no different than the assumption that George Bush’s foreign policy has thwarted Jihadist Terrorism because there have been no strikes on the U.S. since 9/11. The fact is, the Democratic party's dominance had been weakening for years leading up to '94, starting in the late 60s (because of "progressives"). The Democrats lost 5 House seats in 1968, 12 seats in 1972, 15 seats in 1978, 35 seats in 1980, 16 seats in 1984, and 9 seats in 1992. We also lost control of the Senate for six years in 1980.

The facts of that year have not changed. in 1994, there was years of pent-up popular frustration with a Democratic-dominated Congress, skillfully exploited by the GOP’s dishonest but resolute alliance with the term-limits and balanced-budget movements.

If progressives like you didn't rely on simple-simon agenda driven explanations, their memories would clear and they'd remember the early 90s gave us...

* ... encouragement from the left, leading to an unpopular embrace by Clinton of traditional liberal issues like gun control, health care, and gay rights that had Clinton's popularity plummeting.

* ... rubbergate. (look it up)

* ... a huge number of Democratic retirements in conservative districts.

* ... racial gerrymandering that guaranteed big southern losses in the House

* ... the first big mobilization of the Christian Right...

Of course, the fact Clinton won reelection in 1996 along with a 8 House seats, 5 more congressional victories in 1998, and again more House seats in 2000 is pretty inconvenient to your hypothesis.

[Ken Burch]

57. Clinton supported gun control and health care ON HIS OWN

If he hadn't supported health care(or at least acted like he did)he would have been indistinguishable from a Republican. The people WANTED universal health care. They wanted(and still want)single-payer health care. And Clinton embraced lifting the ban on gays in the military on his own. That wasn't even an issue the LGBT community had pushed for.

Without his health care plank, why would Clinton have even DESERVED a Democratic nomination? What did he support without that that wasn't conservative?

And Clinton wasn't really pro-choice, and a half-hearted "pro-choice" position that didn't even reject the idea that women who seek abortions should be stigmatized isn't pro-choice at all.

Face it, the voters didn't want Clinton to be EVEN FURTHER RIGHT. One step further and he'd have been Reagan. And they why should we have bothered?

[wyldwolf]

60. lol! Funny how you convenienty ignore the facts that prove your previous ramblings wrong

What? You can't refute what I previously wrote (besides from your imagination)

No, these issues are traditional liberal issues (at least since "progressives" started destroying the party in the 60s) and Clinton was pressured by them to tow the liberal line.

[Ken Burch]

61. It's not like Clinton would have opposed gun control if it weren't for "liberals"

OR that he would've opposed universal health care(why can't you accept that he supported that on his own?).

And if he had avoided all the positions you blame for '94, again, why would he have deserved a DEMOCRATIC nomination? Nobody wanted us to nominate a candidate who didn't disagree with the GOP on anything that mattered, and, without health care, Clinton DIDN'T disagree with the GOP on anything that mattered.

The voters didn't want, and DON'T want, two conservative parties.

And we'd have lost in '68 if we'd renominated LBJ, as even you would have to concede. He was at someting like 35% public approval rating in September 1968(according to ALL major polls). Not being challenged wouldn't have improved his support level, since the country was already against the war.

Shouldn't you just admit that you don't want Democrats to be different than Republicans on anything?

[wyldwolf]

62. who knows for sure? I don't claim to have a crystal ball like you do

The fact remains, Clinton was expected to tow the liberal line and he did - to his detriment.

And if he had avoided all the positions you blame for '94, again, why would he have deserved a DEMOCRATIC nomination?

Because Democrats favored him over the other choices. Say, you're not trying to fall back on that "progressive" revision of "Democratic ideals" are you?

The voters didn't want, and DON'T want, two conservative parties.

But they do want a centrist one, which is what the Democratic party always was (and is) when they're winning.

And we'd have lost in '68 if we'd renominated LBJ, as even you would have to concede. He was at someting like 35% public approval rating in September 1968(according to ALL major polls). Not being challenged wouldn't have improved his support level, since the country was already against the war.

Yet, the left still sat out the '68 election. :shrug:

Shouldn't you just admit that you don't want Democrats to be different than Republicans on anything?

Shouldn't you admit...

1. You have no grasp of Democratic electoral history?
2. You have a mistaken notion of what the Democratic party has been and what it should be?
3. You don't want Democrats to be different than socialists on anything?

[40ozDonkey]

3. This is December talk.

There's no need to do anything more than support the most progressive candidate with the best chance to win. Save the wish list for Christmas.

[Faygo Kid]

5. Thanks for that. The list is good, but not now. Not after the last 7 years.

By the way, I could use a new watch at Christmas (hey, just a hint!!).

[Ken Burch]

22. We don't have to keep silent to elect Obama.

Demonstrating that our ideas have widespread support couldn't possibly hurt Obama.

The fact it, tacking to the center doesn't work and silencing our progressive wing doesn't work. 2000 and 2004 proved this once and for all.

Our ideas are popular.

[Radical Activist]

35. Obama IS expressing progressive ideals.

He's doing it in language that appeals to people beyond the liberal base. Isn't that a liberal's dream? Someone who finally has the skill and charisma to make our ideas appeal to a majority? Or would you rather have someone who panders to the base like Edwards did?

[ieoeja]

43. Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding! Give that man a cigar.

This is EXACTLY what I love about Obama. And find annoying with so many Liberals who don't get it. His words sound too close to what the righties say, so they have a kneejerk response instead of hearing the all important difference.

I'm an Atheist. I get tired of all the religious talk in politics. And Obama talks a lot of it. But there is a difference in how he talks it. The righties always conflate Christianity with being an American. I don't here those weasly words in what Obama says. More than that, when he does talk about his faith, he almost always goes on to talk about inclusivity for other beliefs.

And the big one for me, he argues in favor of human rights for Gays and Atheists in front of hostile audiences. Most Dems are only willing to have that discussion in front of friendly audiences.

[Radical Activist]

45. Obama understands that

the modern progressive movement in America since William Jennings Bryan to Jesse Jackson is rooted in Christian ideals and language about love, compassion and charity.

Yes, its unfortunate that some people automatically assume Obama is being moderate or conservative just because he occasionally uses religious language.

[Ken Burch]

46. No, I never had a problem with Obama usingn religious imagery.

That was totally NOT my point.

It was more when he says things(and I heard this in an NPR interview)like "what I think is progressive and what you think is progressive may not be the same things".

I support the guy, but those of us in the left flank of his supporters need to be able to expect some accountability from him and not just be told "shut up and trust him". What we support is neither unpopular nor disgraceful.

[Radical Activist]

53. That quote sounds like a basic statement of fact.

Everyone has a different idea of what liberal or progressive is. Rush Limbaugh thinks it means hating God, killing babies, and wanting government to control everything.

There's no opportunity for accountability until he's elected, so that's where I'll put my efforts until November. Then I'll work to move him left.

[patrioticintellect]

50. That's what we thought in 2004

It got us four more years of Bush & Co.

[patrice]

4. I've been thinking about after the GE. Your idea is interesting and

I think it needs a means of attaching consequences to grassroots support for such policies, i.e. defining the policies and soliciting signatures should by organized through a series of Congressional District townhalls. Representative and Senators can blow some things off because they are too abstract. Things going on in their districts, potentially, have more consequences to them.

Imagine, We the People coming together to re-write the American Contract, to demand Real Value (Free Education for all age groups, Health Care, Secure Jobs, Secure Vote, Campaign Finance Reform) for our Real Capital (our bodies, talents, skills, labor), not phony completely arbitrary values like money, which is all the American Contract consists of now.

[PM7nj]

6. Let's get him elected first.

Once he is the President we can push him. Not now though.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. We need to organize now to push him then. And we also need to get him elected.

[PM7nj]

13. Why can't we do that after he gets elected?

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Because the faster and better organized we are the more likely we are to get some of what we want.

Also, the Obama campaign itself is a perfect place to be organizing about issues for after he's elected.

When Betsy Myers, the Obama campaign's Chief Operations Officer (C.O.O.)came and spoke to small groups of Obama supporters in Montana, I asked her if Obama would listen to the grass roots, and specifically about health care. I asked if the grass roots were to come out strongly for a plan with less insurance company influence would he be open to possibly going along? And she said, "Absolutely."

Which is why I think it's important to organize now for when he's elected so we can get right to work.

[Ken Burch]

23. What harm does it do it before.

We'd make sure that people knew Obama doesn't support this agenda yet, but that it has its own widespread support. And this would increase interest in the race and discourage the crazy third-party efforts.

There's no downside.

We don't have to be silent and act like our ideas are somehow shameful. Our ideas have majority support.

[AZBlue]

65. All that time, money and effort can be better used now to get him elected.

Unless someone has no job and no responsibilities of any kind, they wouldn't have the real time to do both.

[madrchsod]

7. you mean dennis`s ideas......

i agree but look what happen to dennis by some people here at du...maybe after january if we have enough brave people to pass these ideas but i think that is not going to happen.

[Ken Burch]

24. Dennis' vote total never reflected the support his ideas had

Dennis was the candidate everyone agreed with and almost everyone wouldn't let themselves vote for. He lost on trivialities like his appearance and height(People couldn't stand it that he looked like Gollum-even though we have an Administration where everybody has the SOUL of Gollum.)

[John Q. Citizen]

8. i'm glad you are thinking and talking about this. I think that the left has to walk and chew gum at

the same time.

We need to continue to work for Obama's election, and we need to simultaneously organize to push Barack in the right direction so we are ready from day one when he wins.

Here is an interesting analysis I heard. Sen.Max Baucus will probably control whatever health care legislation makes it out of both the house and the senate.

The left shouldn't propose a plan, instead we should propose outcomes. By that I mean we demand that any plan passed is affordable, covers everyone with the same comprehensive benefits, and guarantees the right of patients to chose care providers.

Since only a single payer fee for service system can meet these criteria, it will be up to our law makers to figure it out.

By the way, Baucus currently is opposed to single payer. Fine. Let him come up with a plan that meets the criteria that isn't single payer then.

We need to organize to sign up millions to be on board with the outcomes, instead of pushing one particular plan or another. It's got a lot less down sides and many more up sides.

[woolldog]

17. OMG, are you kidding?

Are you trying to give away the election to McCain? What's wrong with you people?

[Ken Burch]

20. We wouldn't be saying that Obama supports these things

We'd be showing that the public does. How does that hurt Obama?

I'm talking about building and demonstrating support for progressive ideas in a way that doesn't harm Obama. We don't have to just shut up and let him fudge to win. The country is moving our way, we don't need a path of least resistance politics this time. And 2004 proved the "ask nothing of the candidate" approach doesn't work in the fall. Kerry would clearly have done no worse if he'd actually defended liberal ideas or at least allowed others to do so in his behalf.

We aren't THAT unpopular.

[woolldog]

40. Yes you really are.

[Ken Burch]

49. The majority want out of Iraq now. The majority want single payer.

Gay marriage is now pretty much an even split in the polls and the pro-gay side is gaining steadily.

So no, we AREN'T that unpopular, and we've done nothing to deserve being treated like red-headed stepchildren.

[WA98070]

32. It's a little late to expect to get a Democrat elected. We just have to "HOPE."....

If we elect enough none DLC Democrats to Congress maybe we can drive the country back to it's roots. Pro-individual, anti-corporation.

[LWolf]

55. It's a little late for that, too, in many cases.

The primaries are over. If the non-dlc/centrist/corporatist/bluedog/"new" dem didn't win the primary, then it's hard to elect him or her to office in November.

[Radical Activist]

34. I'll do that after the election.

If Obama loses I don't want to be left thinking that the time I wasted getting 10 millions signatures could have been better spent getting Obama elected. No progress will occur until we get a better President.

And I realize that Obama will never be left enough for socialists, but I think those who describe him as moderate haven't paid enough attention to his record or platform. I still can't believe we nominated someone who worked for a bunch of radical lefties like the ones who run Project Vote.

[Ken Burch]

67. You do realize it's a little weird that you have a "Che" avatar

And then BASH people as "socialists", don't you?

Once again, my intent here isn't anti-Obama. It's pro-Obama in that its about helping Obama not be hemmed-in in on one side.

[olkaz]

38. I'm pretty goddamned progressive, and I can't support that lineup.

"4)Federal jobs programs to employ all those currently unemployed and unable to find work. "

Employ ALL those currently unemployed? No thanks. Maybe start a new alphabet soup situation (to create public works in places that need it), but no way would I support just hiring people for the sake of hiring.

[ellisonz]

52. "say 10 million signatures on this(which would be achievable)"

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

58. And why wouldn't it be? Those ideas all have strong support.

You'd just do the petitioning at Obama rallies and other campaign events. It would hurt no one.

We don't have to assume the country has a permanent antiprogressive majority.

[ellisonz]

59. Logistics.

Not to mention it would be completely counterproductive to what you're trying to achieve and the campaign would never allow you to do that since they're paying for the stadium.

[ClassWarrior]

56. Go for it! History precedes you...

CUNY Professor Frances Fox Piven on a recent Democracy Now!:

You know, in 1932, FDR didn’t run with a good program; he ran with the same program the Democrats had run with in 1924 and 1928, and that wasn’t a good program. But nevertheless, his rhetoric encouraged people who were suffering as a result of the Depression—working people, the unemployed—and helped to fuel the movements, which then forced FDR to support initiatives which he otherwise would not have supported, including the right to organize...

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/6/super_tuesday_roundtable_with_bill_fletcher

NGU.

[Orsino]

63. Obama will need to be pushed like *every* president.

Or any politician.

[Ken Burch]

64. Of course. And that was partly my intent in proposing this idea.

Obama will have to be pushed. And progressives have the right both to push him and to have a real say in Democratic policy.

[Orsino]

66. The best thing about Obama is that he seems at least somewhat amenable to being pushed.

I'm sick of the hard-right candidates who never admit to uncertainty or compromise. We might be able to train Obama, a little bit.