Now, we are anticipating the announcement of Barack Obama’s running mate and the rumor mills were churning and turning and then the water seemed to settle down when Evan Bayh’s name came up a while ago. I am pretty good at watching tea leaves inside the party and at this point, it would shock me if Bayh was not the VP nominee.
I, like millions of Americans, will learn about Barack’s choice via text message, standard rates apply, and when I get that text, if it’s not Bayh’s name, it will be someone equally centrist, maybe even further right.
Howard Dean grabbed and held dear to the technology of the day in 2004 because he had no choice; he had no legacy power or mainstream media to help him, so he went outside their web to the Internet where a thousand points of support gathered together and propelled him to the front of the race.
This time around, all of the top six who ran for the Democratic nomination used the technology of the day to far greater lengths than the Kerry Campaign did in 2004, but none really captured the outside in, the power of the people inherent in the technology and that’s a shame.
In fact, the more Barack Obama uses the technology, the clearer it is that he has not captured the soul of the party and now he fails to ignite the passions of the left.
Does it date to when he threw General Clark under the bus? Or when he flipped on FISA, or guns, or Iraq or Public Financing? I actually think it goes back farther than that.
Hillary Hatred was a very real blinding rage that consumed so many Democrats. Anyone But Her became I love Barack. We overlooked his lack of experience, his policies, his love of Joe Lieberman. The warning signs were there and those, like Taylor Marsh or Kristen Breitweiser, who suggested we look at those signs, well, shouted down is far too polite a term for what they endured.
Barack is the nominee, and our country will be far better off if he wins versus John McCain. Like many, however, I am more interested in beating McCain and helping Congressional Candidates. McCain is very dangerous, I have said this for months, and he understands one fundamental political reality that Obama has missed so far.
McCain does just enough to keep his “maverick” label slightly in tact. He did do McCain-Feingold. He did stand up on Global Warming. He did turn down secret service protection earlier this year.
His positions don’t stand up to any scrutiny but he understands in the broad media narrative world we live in, every so often, you have to throw the narrative a bone.
Barack and his mantra of change remains boneless. When he opted out of Public Financing, he could have said he would change the law to be $100 maximum contribution for all Americans, real public financing.
But he didn’t.
With Iraq, the economy, global warming, anything, Barack needs to show there is some reality to the rhetoric, he hasn’t done so yet.
And if he picks Evan Bayh, the son of a political family, the ultimate legacy politician, a supporter of the Iraq War, a centrist / centrist right politician and if it is Evan’s name that comes through the phone that day to you, it will mean that once again, change is how you talk the talk.
But when you walk the walk, it’s the same old path.
I completely agree with your thesis. I just see it as too late for us, as a party or as a progressive network, to do anything about it. Unfortunately, many progressives learned too late that Obama wasn’t one of us until after competitors left the race who offered better domestic plans, but I suspect even more people do think Obama’s more leftward than he’s set himself out as, because he’s just ‘putting himself in general election mode’ as the saying goes. However, it’s my thought in politics that what you see is generally what you get. Barack IS a centrist and centrist policies, unfortunately, don’t win elections when coupled with Democratic candidates. Populist progressivism, on the other hand, just may.
<
p>That said, Obama does have a knack for delivering a good speech and his “change” David Axelrod message works, especially the first time. Most importantly, we’re facing the weakest Republican candidate the GOoPers have thrown at us in decades. All of that amounts to the fact that I’m still optimistic about November.
Two words: Bob Dole.
<
p>While McCain isn’t much better, there was no weaker GOP candidate in the last 30 years than talk-about-myself-in-the-third-person Dole.
<
p>I think it’s part general election stuff, part not-as-progressove-as-people-think. However, there’s some things that have gone progressive despite the centrists – fixing global warming is, I hope, one of them.
<
p>Fixing the tax code and workers fairness in the economy, I hope, is another no-brainer.
<
p>Meanwhile, we just have to keep working.
let’s sum it up
<
p>> running to continue four more years of bush
<
p>> completely erased any good will he had with moderates by shedding his ‘straight talk’ image.
<
p>> even the media is starting to get it (shockingly enough)
<
p>> can’t raise money for crap, depending on the Bush/Rove faction to bail them out… few are buying.
<
p>> can’t talk in front of people, the media or even telepromtpers
<
p>> is so horrid in front of said people, media and teleprompters that the campaign strategy is to hide him away as much as possible
<
p>> can’t even manage to do a rally with his wife without offerring her up to a strip tease show
<
p>This election will be hilarious, so long as he doesn’t win. But nothing changes the fact that he’s an absolutely horrid candidate – the likes of which I’ve never seen before.
has a much stronger brand than Dole or even Bush 1 ever had. War hero, tough guy, uber-patriot, straight-shooter. Dole always seemed the stodgy old-fashioned insider and Bush the out of touch country club Republican.
<
p>Despite many of his weaknesses, which you rightly point out – McCain still has a lot going for him.
<
p>You say he has erased his appeal to moderates – I can see why we’d want to think that, but that is just not borne out in the polls. His maverick streak may be a mirage as he has kowtowed to the conservative base – but in polls he still does pretty well in the middle and with independents -much better than the Republicans as a whole right now. That is what is keeping him alive in this race.
<
p>McCain is terrible with a set speech and teleprompter – maybe one of the worst of our times. But, he does have mediums that play to his strong suit – notably town hall type Q and A’s (of course in front of friendly audiences).
<
p>His age is getting the best of some of his skills – he does come off as kind of senile on occasion, but his energy is quite amazing nonetheless. He remains formidable and despite his foibles, comes across as confident (if deluded and poorly informed).
<
p>He was always the Republicans best and only hope this election and they were smart to pick him, if only by default. No matter who the Democrats picked – it was always going to be a close race with this guy.
or had?
…. even in it’s currently disintegrating state, it is still stronger than Dole’s was.
He maybe be trading some of it with his petty attacks and pandering – but he still has enough of it to keep it close.
is such a mega-crock and yet you keep pumping this farce. I really don’t think you understand the term.
<
p>How is it that someone who supports aggressive government action and investment to:
<
p>- expand health care to all;
– revolutionise energy production and consumption;
– raise taxes on the wealthiest and reduce them for those people really struggling;
– invest huge sums in our crumbling infrastructure and in research and development;
– raise and index to inflation to minimum wage;
– give new rights to organize to workers;
– supports reproductive rights and civil unions for same-sex couples; and
– wants to expand family and medical leave and support paid leave programs in the States
<
p>not a progressive. Explain this to me? Because of FISA. Because he doesn’t scream how awful Republicans are every time he opens his mouth. If Obama is not a progressive than I think the term itself has become utterly meaningless.
<
p>I guess for you if someone does not agree with you on every issue than they are not a progressive. If they say anything that is not what you want to hear they are not a progressive as you narrowly define it.
<
p>I hate to tell ya, progressive can mean a lot of things and cover a wide range of ideas and views. It always has. Is FDR a progressive? He ushered in the welfare state but also interned the Japanese. Is Truman – he was the first President to propose national health insurance, but he also nuked Hiroshima? Is LBJ – he brought us Medicare and Medicaid, and the war on poverty, but also mired us in Vietnam? Obama’s policy views fit very clearly alongside those of the great “progressive” leaders in our history.
<
p>Your mincing words and quibling over minor points when the picture of Obama’s views would lead our nation in its most progressive direction in years. The fact that he sees the importance of not just winning but mobilizing people, inspiring them to get involved, and that people have responded, is a testament to his progressive values. The progressive movement at the turn of the century was as much about changing the way Government worked as it was about implementing policy. Obama get’s that.
<
p>Ultimately, I believe a progressive is someone who believes in the power of collective action, often but not always through Govt intervention, to address the failings of our economic and political system in order to provide opportunity and greater equality for all and to support and preserve the basic tenets of liberty and democracy upon which our nation was founded. Obama fits the bill 100%. If he wins, we will have elected the most progressive President since Kennedy. Get with it.
<
p>
he’s not for equal rights, he’s not for universal health care, he’s not for truly challenging the status quo, I don’t see where he’s suggesting we need to make true changes to the electoral system, etc. The various policies he’s come out with since he won the primary have only enshrined the fact that he’s running as far away from “progressive” as he reasonably can.
<
p>Many of his policies on the issues above are more liberal than the status quo, but that does not in and of itself make him a progressive. Progressive isn’t just the new, hip word for liberal – there are actual differences between progressive and liberal. Obama trails more toward the latter than the former, unfortunately. And, given his stances since the primary effectively ended, he’s not even doing a good job of being liberal.
So he’s not a progressive because he doesn’t support marriage for same-sex couples but does support ensuring they get equal rights under civil unions. I’m for same-sex marriage but I really don’t someone is not a progressive because they support civil unions instead. That’s crap.
<
p>On univeral health care – he wants to expand coverage for everyone. Go to his website and it is clear as day. Maybe Clinton argued during the primaries that his plan wouldn’t do it – but some folks said the same about her plan. In the end, Obama clearly has universal care as his goal. Like he said in a speech on the issue:
<
p>
<
p>And no doubt Obama has taken some less standoffish positions and is open to compromise – such as offshore drilling or FISA for instance – but I’d rather have a progressive who knows how to get things done then one who talks a great game but never moves the ball forward.
<
p>As far as changes to the electoral system go – while reform of our campaigns and institutions is no doubt a key element of any progressive agenda (and it always has been), it just is not a major issue for the American people right now. That said, Obama has been a leader on ethics/lobbying reform throughout his career and in the Senate. His whole campaign is about the grassroots and upsetting the status quo in DC and if he pulls if off – it no doubt will. Changing laws is not the only way to change the world. McCain-Feingold has made little difference to the power balances in DC. But Obama’s grassroots, inspiring campaign will. Community organizing is in the man’s soul and will inform the way he governs
<
p>By your standards we’ve never actually had a progressive win the presidency and if Obama followed your prescription and preached to the progressive choir – it would stay that way. The fact is – Obama is very much of the progressive tradition. Maybe he is not your favorite but that is not because he isn’t a progressive.
<
p>
I believe this sums it up quite nicely, but feel free to go through my blogs, diaries and comments and I’m sure you’ll find many examples of where I provide specific examples of more contemporary definitions (basically, I think some of the early progressives made a few big mistakes).
<
p>Basically, I don’t think Obama is progressive because a true progressive wouldn’t, for example, make arguments against due process (which Obama’s capitulation on FISA amounted to). I don’t think a true progressive would allow his faith, as Obama claims, to prevent him from supporting equal rights for all. I also don’t think his ideas on things like health care are truly “progressive,” in terms of expanding social justice and making government work for the people. This notion that the private sector can fix health care is nothing less than corporate welfare – welfare they’re making massive profits over, that make our system more expensive and that diminish the quality of the product.
<
p>As I said, Obama is “liberal” in the traditional sense, he’s not a populist or a progressive. That doesn’t make him a bad guy or a bad choice – I’ll vote for him enthusiastically, even if in my view his politics are less than stellar. Some say he’s doing it out of political calculations. They could be right. However, we’ve seen Democrats shifting to the right in general elections all over, for decades now, and where has it gotten us? It’s been a big electoral disaster.
<
p>So, I really, truly think that appealing to the base of our party – the progressives who have been turned off for so long – and by making government a part of the solution in tackling social justice issues and populist economic policies, as well as making government more transparent and responsive to the people (which Obama hasn’t talked about at all), we could elect our country’s first progressive president in decades. Success in office would then sustain the movement.
But you basically are saying that true progressives don’t ever compromise.
<
p>Obama has in the past spoke favorably of a single payer system for health care but no one thinks we have a chance of passing such a law so he seeks to expand health care to all through less radical means – expanding current public programs predominately. I’d like single payer in many ways but don’t believe Obama is not progressive because he is looking to make progress on the issue as opposed to carp about what we could have.
<
p>FISA again is not as clear as you make it out. The whole idea of such a court in the first place could be seen as a compromise of liberties.
<
p>Obama has made a few centrist feints but he has almost entirely retained the platform he ran on in the primaries. His is the most progressive/liberal (whatever) we’ve seen a major party bring to the table in years.
<
p>And you’re just wrong about him not talking about making govt more transparent and accountable – that is what his lobbying and ethics reform stuff has intended to do. He could of course do more but that is not on the top ten list for the public as wars rage and the economy sours.
<
p>Ultimately, a progressive is not easy to define. But I am damn sure Obama thinks of himself as a progressive and that may just be the best definition we have.
when they have to.
<
p>Let’s do a compare/contrast. Jamie Eldridge, our local Super Progressive, voted for the Massachusetts health care plan – an imperfect, corporate giveaway that does improve access, but did nothing for solving cost issues, which are rapidly rising beyond our ability to keep up.
<
p>However, that wasn’t his end goal, he took it because it was there. He wants something similar to Medicare for all, which would mean health insurance for all at an overall better quality and for much less. The fact that that’s what he’s pushing for means there’s plenty of ground to give for compromise.
<
p>But when your plan is compromised from the start, where do you go from there? Obama’s plan will end up being a compromise of a compromise of a compromise, that helps far fewer than it should, a la the Medicare prescription drug program debacle.
<
p>If Obama were saying, in regards to his health care plan, that this was just step one in his long plan – get everyone covered first, then transition to a national health care system or something similar to what Germany does (offers choice between public/private), then that would be a much more progressive and ideal stance… but, as I said, he’s arguing for the compromise that will become greatly compromised after all is said and done.
<
p>
<
p>Maybe, but Obama’s vote took it way beyond the reasonable and sane. And progressive. I think FISA was okay as it was – the Government had to get warrants, no matter what, though it offered sensible emergency provisions. I’d have a difficult time coming up with ideas for a system that manages to balance freedom and security so evenly.
<
p>
<
p>Woefully inadequate. Touting that as a major success, to me, is disingenuous at best. That bill will have done nothing but pay lip service to getting money out of politics. At least Feingold’s attempt was much more serious and radically changed the way we pay for campaigns, even if ultimately there were loopholes in it that lead to shadow campaigns likely spending as much or more than the actual campaigns themselves. And it did some good, with organizations like MoveOn rising out of the McCain/Feingold ashes. I will admit that it’s tough to enact strong legislation here, even if it weren’t bitterly resisted by practically every lobby in existence. The very fact that these same lobbies have whole slews of lawyers and lobbyists to find new loopholes, or try to sneak new ones into good legislation, makes it difficult, but the bill you brought up – nonetheless – was only ever a half-hearted attempt.
<
p>
<
p>I won’t argue with that. As I’ve said before on this thread, I will enthusiastically support him. I think he’ll be a decent President. I just don’t view him as a progressive and he’s just not as far along on the issues as I’d like him to be. It’s not as though I’m questioning whether I’ll vote for him – heck, I’ll probably give a weekend of my life to him in Maine or NH if need be.
<
p>
<
p>It is hard to define when used in today’s language. However, there’s a long history to what it means to be a part of the progressive movement – and none of that should be confused with the frequent times many politicians substitute progressive for liberal. The two words, politically and culturally, have different meanings, context and history, even if they are somewhat closely related. Basically, a good way to look at progressive vs. liberal is this: all progressive tend to be liberal, but not all liberals are progressives. Progressives are a movement, or a part, of the whole, quite often with the same hopes and aspirations, though differences in how we approach reaching those goals. It’s those differences that distinguish between the two – the focus on social justice, populism and people-powered government.
But I’d say comparing Eldridge’s support for the Mass. health care law and Obama’s position on the issue is like comparing baboons with orangutans. Eldridge ain’t running for president in a fundamentally conservative country – Obama is. Obama doesn’t have the luxury of trumpeting “progressive” principles – he has a race to win and if he does it, the country will change in a markedly progressive direction – rolling back for the first time in decades the Reagan anti-government revolution.
<
p>You say Obama has essentially already compromised on health care already. Well, if he proposed a single payer plan he would have seriously compromised his chances during the primaries and would have gotten ripped apart coming into the general. His plan – while not entirely ripping apart the private health care apparatus – would dramatically expand public programs to people in need. That is liberal no doubt, but also progressive in recognizing the limits of market-based care.
<
p>And historically, so called progressives are not always the most radical or averse to working within current market-based frameworks – in fact they often have been in the forefront of trying to make markets work. Take Justice Brandeis, who believed fundamentally that business had to be regulated for the common good – but also fought against big government programs that he saw potentially as harmful as the big private monopolies his regulatory policies sought to break up. Bradeis was a progressive as he saw the downside of unfettered capitalism and knew it needed to be checked – but in order to foster competition and equality – not to replace private monopoly with a public one.
<
p>Anyhow – I’ve enjoyed this back-and-forth and don’t mind continuing here or elsewhere.
I’ll agree with that – if you’re talking about electing Presidents. We do elect 2 Republicans for every Democrat. But not on health care reform – people want universal health care, badly. It’s the pundits who think otherwise, but polls bear out the truth (there’s been several bmg diaries on this, so I hope you’ve seen them).
<
p>Hence, Obama’s plan. It could be a better plan, though, without “hurting his chances during the primary.” Here’s a nice little inoffensive option he could have gone with (it was in both the Hillary and Edwards plans): an option (not a mandate) for people to buy into Government health care. That would have truly increased choice and broadened the market by offerring real competition. It also would have been healthcare that couldn’t be refused to anyone, no matter previous conditions, age, etc.
<
p>That would have been very progressive and could have set the stages to transition to a better, more efficient system years down the road. That would be a ‘progressive’ step in the right direction, in numerous ways – a compromise without compromising Obama’s chance in the election. I hope, whenever we do have health care reform, we’ll be able to get that provision in there, because I view it as essential to solving our health care problems in this country.
Because Obama has chosen to use modern communications technology to announce a VP pick that you believe will be a politician that you don’t particularly care for, this is proof that Obama has “not captured the soul of the party and now he fails to ignite the passions of the left”?
<
p>How about you just say that he fails to ignite your passion and let the rest of us speak for ourselves?
<
p>Perhaps the fact that you are less than blown away makes you think that the rest of us–the hundreds of thousands that have flocked to his speaches or given money and volunteered for the first time or registered to vote in record numbers–are not as passionate as we seem to think we are. Perhaps you see no value in the polling data that shows the depth of Obama’s support among the majority of his supporters. Perhaps Evan Bayh once stold your favorite stuffed animal and now you have a thing against second generation politicians despite the examples of Ted Kennedy and Al Gore.
<
p>All this I can forgive you for.
<
p>What I can’t forgive you for is your pathetic “Barack is the nominee, and our country will be far better off if he wins versus John McCain” but let me throw up a long, totally unhelpful post detailing all the reasons why I dislike Barak and think other people should be less than excited about him. It’s entirely unproductive.
<
p>Perhaps the next time you find yourself disappointed by Obama or his campaign you might consider coming up with some ways that we can mobilize as progressives to help nudge him in the right direction. Otherwise–if all you want to do is bitch–just keep it to yourself.
Writing a post that essentially urges a different course by Obama may possibly be unproductive, but no more or less so than any other post on the progressive blogosphere. We surely have some power, but there’s no individual post that changes everything.
<
p>Fortunately, people haven’t stopped taking up the call because they know that their individual post, alone, won’t make a huge impact. If enough people bring up Boyce’s concerns, perhaps Obama will pick someone who’s further to the left than Bayh, hopefully a true progressive.
<
p>If Obama’s smart and not stubborn, at least, that’s what he’ll do. Otherwise, the overwhelming support you cite will dissipate if Obama continues to disappoint. (And you can’t deny the fact that, to the progressive community at large, he has disappointed us in unacceptable ways, big time, on more than one occasion since the primary effectively ended).
Ryan,
<
p>I agree that an individual post isn’t necessarily going to have a huge effect, per se. But I don’t see how, in a relatively closely fought election, it does us (as a community) any significant good to vent online about our disappointments in our candidate.
<
p>James and I disagree on whether Obama is inspiring or not. And that’s fine. I’m not calling for unanimity of thought here. But I am disappointed–particularly in light of James’s feelings about McCain–in what I see as the unconstructive nature of the criticism in his post.
<
p>I agree that, if enough supporters voice their concerns about the direction of Obama’s campaign, there is always the possibility that the campaign will respond. I simply feel that positive/constructive manner rather than in a negative/unconstructive manner.
<
p>-Seth
that he could have been a little bit more obvious about where his constructive criticism was going here, but you still should recognize it. He obviously doesn’t want Bayh as our VP nominee. Tying it together with the technological aspects of the campaign took away from the point, because it was confusing to the reader, but there still was some ‘constructive criticism’ there.
<
p>Patiently explaining why Evan Bayh, a man about as far to the right as a prominent Democrat without having the last name Lieberman can get, is an awesome start. How is it going to mobilize progressives to pick for vice president a man who wants to build more prisons, institute John McCain’s gas tax holiday, push Russia out of the G8, establish private management of social security accounts, voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in 2006, and designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group?
<
p>Pick Clark, Kaine, Webb, Biden, Napolitano, Dodd, Sebelius, Clinton, Richardson, Zinni, almost anyone…but Bayh? A guy too far to the right for John Kerry to stomach? I don’t see how picking a semi-unknown who contradicts Obama on everything from Iraq to prison construction helps anyone who cares about the Democratic Party.
<
p>
<
p>I’d love to hear from somebody…anybody…who gets excited about Evan Bayh as vice president. Eight years in the desert, and as a reward we got a nominee who wants to expand Bush’s theocratic programs and a vice president who was gung-ho on Iraq. That does not result in passion for a progressive.
<
p>
<
p>The greatest talent of David Axelrod is convincing Democrats that language like that in defense of his clients (I was told that Deval Patrick must have kicked my dog) is anything other than gutter trash. This is language unbecoming a progressive, a Democrat, or anyone who claims to support Barack Obama.
<
p>Debate the issues.
but the veep choice is not about mobilizing progressives. Obama needs no help in that regard. He’s done that better than any politician of our generation.
<
p>No its about conveying a message of the type of competent and credible people – beyond ideology – Obama will be bringing into the Administration.
<
p>Rallying the base is the least of our worries – they will turn out big time. We need to win enough moderates in purple states to pull this off. And when we win in November, we need to have a good team in place to help Obama govern.
<
p>I agree that Bayh is as stale as week-old bread. I like a lot of the other names you put on the board better. But, I can see some merit in Bayh all the same.
<
p>
Sabutai,
<
p>
<
p>I agree entirely. But that is not what James did. Rather than listing legitimate reasons that progressives should be concerned with Bayh, James–if I may be allowed to steal your term–engaged in the “gutter politics” of attacking Bayh for his being a second generation politician. Perhaps we disagree, but I don’t think that the profession of a person’s parents or grandparents should have any bearing on what job is acceptable for them to hold, politics not withstanding.
<
p>
<
p>I never claimed to be excited by Evan Bayh. I was arguing–and I think quite clearly–that Obama was inspiring to hundreds of thousands. He’s not inspiring to James. He apparently isn’t very inspiring to you. I hope he can change that; but even if he can’t, he still has millions of passionate supporters and pretending otherwise, is just foolish.
<
p>As to your accusation that I was engaging in gutter politics with my “Perhaps Evan Bayh once stold your favorite stuffed animal” line. I’m not sure that it was quite gutter politics–I didn’t attack the man, misconstrue his positions, lie about him, etc.–but it was unnecessarily snarky. And for that I do appologize.
<
p>-Seth
… but honesty and reflection, not “being productive” was the point for this post as far as I can see it. Such reflection is useful to a ‘reality based community’ and so I think asking him to ‘keep it to [him]self” is a little out of line.
… but then again, I think that there is a difference between honest reflection and a disappointed venting. James’s post, IMHO, fell into the latter category.
<
p>-Seth
… disappointing venting is merely a comment on the quality of honest reflection. A debate on the quality of the reflection is certainly ok (why put it out there if it wasn’t).
I’d be willing to grant that Bayh needed to adopt his neocon-ish ways to win in conservative Indiana, a state where old nuns are denied the vote out of the fear that some hypothetical foreigners might try to vote without proper state ID, and if you are going to make that argument for Bayh then you are stuck with the conclusion that picking Bayh puts one more Republican in the Senate–and since Bayh’s replacement would be picked by the Republican Governor, he won’t pick some moderate like Dick Lugar, he’ll pick a wild-eyed rightwinger like that Mike Pence… your basic Indiana Republican Hack.
<
p>Who would never vote for universal health care.
<
p>Picking Bayh means President Obama would start governing with one hand tied behind his back… and the poor people, the stretched-thin middle class, the working people of America do not need another disadvantage in Washington.
1-Running to the left will lead to a loss this election
<
p>The person who assembles the largest coalition of voters wins. We can’t win with just the 40% of the country that is self identified liberal-a part of the country that tends to win in states we already have in the bag. We need to bring in moderate independents and Republicans who are sick and tired of the neocon/theocon agenda running their party into crazy town but are afraid that Democrats will pursue an anti-market economic agenda and a pacifist foreign policy.
<
p>Now I am not saying we will pursue such an agenda, but we need to credibly defend against those charges. I think the poor economy makes government regulation look damn appealing, and the fact that Iraqs Prime Minister and the Generals on the ground-and even the Bush administration are picking Obama’s plan on Iraq over McCains can only be a good thing in getting these voters and refuting those charges. But VPs help in this department as well.
<
p>While putting a solid progressive like Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, or any of those people on the ticket would be awesome for us blue staters it would alienate these very voters we need to win. It will allow the Republicans to claim that the ticket is being hijacked by the looney left that it will raise your taxes, put gays in your churches, etc. Now again these attacks are bullsitt but the media will think them less credible as will most swing voters if there is a solid moderate nominee on the ticket. Someone with a proven track record of bringing red states into the Democratic fold. Webb, Strickland, Warner, Napolitano, Sebelius, Kaine, and yes Bayh all bring that crucial credential.
<
p>2-Evan Bayh while boring, uninspiring, and frankly a safe choice that defeats the change message of Obama is not a right winger by any stretch of the imagination
<
p>This shows that for his state Bayh is actually fairly progressive. His senate record is to the left of many Democrats in less conservative states. He is to the left of Bill Nelson, the left of Mark Pryor, the left of Blanche Lincoln, the left of Mary Landreiu all states that have solid Democratic majorities at the state level or are more competitive than Indiana.
<
p>His voting record is to the left of blogger favorites Jim Webb, Ted Strickland, Wesley Clark who admitted to voting for every Republican from Nixon through Bush and opposes gays in the service, it is to the left of the pro-life Tim Kaine, the pro-life Brian Schweitzer, and to the left on gay issues and fiscal issues than blogger darling Mark Warner. it is to the left of Hillary Clinton on Iraq post 2004.
<
p>Now I will not defend Bayh as the best choice-frankly I would also consider it a disappointment since i would want Obama to pick someone bold, lately Clark is seeming like a bolder pick that doesn’t pose too many risks, if Webb would reconsider that’d be another great pick, and I am still not sure why Richardson isn’t even being vetted considering his wealth of experience and successful outsider image. But Bayh is not this conservative Democrat the blogs are making him out to be. He is right in the middle of his party in the Senate, yeah thats pretty conservative compared to our Senators here in Massachusetts, but thats pretty damn good for Indiana. And its frankly better than some other Democrats in bluer states like Arkansas or New York.
I don’t get what you are talking about. How would Bayh hinder Obama and hurt the middle class? Beyond a rhetorical jibe – demonstrate how you see that happening practically.
<
p>Obama will have a mandate for change – he will pursue his agenda focused on the three top priorities he has identified – universal health care, climate change/new energy and getting troops withdrawn from Iraq. Those will be the defining issues and and Bayh or any veep will be there to help get that done – supporting the President in any way he asks. There will be no darth Cheney in the Obama Administration.
The Republican Governor would appoint a Republican, narrowing the margin in the Senate, and increasing the likelihood of GOP filibusters.
pick up more seats in the Senate.
<
p>And putting Bayh on the ticket will put Indiana in play. Indiana has a tight Governor’s race going on right now – with Bush’s former Budget Director Mitch Daniels potentially beatable. Maybe Bayh wins Indiana for Obama and helps down ticket dems there – pulling in the Governor’s mansion as well. Then we get to pick Bayh’s successor.
<
p>But anyhow, I’d much rather get the White House than worry about one Senate seat when we are going to have a good year in Senate races.
<
p>I don’t think Bayh will necessarily be on the ticket. Signs point now to Biden. But Bayh wouldn’t be the disaster some proclaim.
The thesis of this post strikes me as cherry-picking, presenting one aspect of Obama as if it were the whole. It seems written from a point of view where the conclusion came before the hunt for evidence to back it up.
<
p>For example, from Obama’s “plan for America” posted on his web site:
<
p>… so not only is he in fact supporting legislation (and I think working on it) to reform the existing system for presidential campaigns, he also supports true public financing for other campaigns. (The bill he introduced in Illinois didn’t pass, unfortunately)
Remember, the next President is going to be President of all Americans, not just some. To truly work together with congress and maintain a decent approval rating that allows you to succeed on large parts of your agenda, you are going to need to compromise, work with others, incorporate others’ ideas. Bush was able to do this for his first term because of 9/11, but if it weren’t for that, his Rove-style of “governing” would not have worked at all. People who are disappointed in Barack for his stances, I would encourage you to re-watch his 2004 convention speech and read “The Audacity of Hope”– he’s always been into compromise and the middle ground– what are you surprised about?
<
p>This is not to say that all politics should come from the center: I am a progressive and in an ideal world I’d love to have a purely progressive President, but even I want all Americans to at least be heard.
Yes, obviously our democratic ticket must have broad appeal and as one who lived in the Midwest for 17 years, I can say that Massachusetts is far from the heartland not only in geography, but also in mentality.
<
p>Both Obama/Bayh and Obama/Clark could be winners. The recent crisis in Georgia seems to indicate the need for a running mate with foreign policy gravitas.
<
p>One clue that the choice may end up being Wesley Clark after all is that the theme for the night at the convention when the VP nominee will speak, is “securing America’s future,” and this just happens to be the name of Clark’s PAC. Coincidence? Maybe so, but one can still hope.
how so many people seem to miscatergorize Obama on the ideological continuum. He’s right – center-right. How so? Because he opted out of public financing. Hillary would have as well. Any Dem who could raise the type of money he can from the donor base he has would have done the same thing. That is not about ideology but about practicality. That does not make you a righty.
<
p>FISA – I hate to tell everyone but that one issue does not define where you are on the ideological spectrum. And he voted against immunity. Guns – he’s still for regulation, licensing but recognizes that an all out ban is not realistic in the courts any longer and is political dynamite in every purple state in the country. Not a flip flop. Throwing Clark under a bus – please, like that is even an issue anymore.
<
p>Obama falls definitely into the mainstream of the party on almost every issue – from health care to family leave. He talks about bringing the country together but in order to pursue a sharply different course than the one we are on now. We can’t pass a progressive agenda without winning over a lot of people who consider themselves moderate to conservative. Obama is aiming to do that. He has to speak beyond self-identified liberals like us to get things done. And he has been effective at that.
<
p>Evan Bayh is not much more centrist than the Clintons are other than that he represents a more conservative state than New York. I’m not a Bayh fan but I also could see why it may make a good choice. Puts Indiana in play and let’s face it – Bayh is as solid as they come (or so it seems). He was a big Clinton backer so there again may help us all be friends.
<
p>WHO DO YOU WANT AS VEEP? Other than a lame critique of Obama you don’t suggest a “progressive” alternative. If not Bayh then – who? Have some balls and put a suggestion out there.
<
p>Abnd P.S. – love of Joe Lieberman – like the time he pulled Lieberman into the corner of the Senate and gave him a tongue lashing. What the f are you talking about?
<
p>
… an ideal candidate be nominated ever. This, combined with the lesson Ralph taught me that not picking the lesser of two evils can be more than disastrous (thanks Ralph), informs my voting behavior of trying to get my ideal candidate through a primary and then choosing the lesser of two evils. These days it almost never means a Republican nominee because even a ‘better overall’ GOP nominee still enables a GOP party that is out of control. Fortunately, when a Democrat emerges as the lesser of two evils, I find enough good in their policy stances to not have to hold my nose when I vote. I won’t be holding my nose at all when I vote for Obama.
Thank you!
<
p>Finally reason from fellow BMGers.
<
p>Russ Feingold while awesome would lose us voters, and frankly Id prefer him in the Senate.
<
p>We need a real heartland Dem who can win over more voters, who can fight McCain on national security and be credible doing so, who speaks for an idea of change and hope, and who can be a very credible and loyal asset of Obama’s White House when it comes to governing. Bayh fits this all, and like I previously demonstrated he is about as right-wing as Hillary Clinton and comes from a state where over 60% of the voters self identify as conservative Republicans but continually wins over 80% of all voters in that state demonstrating he can bring in a lot of people to a BIG TENT that can govern.
<
p>The big reason Bush was a failure was not because he was a radical conservative, but because he governed for 51% of the country. He won re-election by 2% and called that a ‘landslide’ a ‘mandate’ ‘political capital’ and didn’t realize he needed to govern for the majority of Americans-this is why he barely won re-election and why he had low approval ratings is second term. The bottom finally fell out in 2006 making him the lame duck we knew he was. So Obama can’t govern for the 51-54% of people that vote for him and expect to be a great president. He needs to bring everyone to the table-and yeah look over his 2004 speech its not a new message. He is a bona fide liberal who talks like a centrist and will work with conservatives where he can-aka a liberal that will get things done in the mold of LBJ<, JFK, and Truman not a liberal like Mondale or Dukakis that fights the good fight but gets his ass kicked.
<
p>People said that about him when he ran for Senate. Multiple times. He wins by bigger margins each time.
<
p>We’ve given into the notion that it takes Republican-lite to win Presidential General Elections for too long – it’s been an electoral disaster. Why would anyone ever argue against mixing it up? The fact is people in general support Feingold’s policies. What would exactly lose us votes with him? That he opposed the war from the start? That he wants to reign in money in politics? That he supports universal health care? These are all things the American people want – and would vote for if given the chance, as they have in his very competitive state many times.
<
p>
<
p>Bayh supported the war. Obama wouldn’t have won this thing if he didn’t oppose it from the beginning. Bayh could tremendously hurt Obama’s credibility on the war, but I guess that’s what we look for in regards to ‘national security experience’ – candidates who have been total failures in their international policy. Odd that the voters disagreed with you during the primary, but okay.
<
p>
<
p>Because talking like a centrist and playing to the right worked so well for John Kerry and Al Gore. Or the hundreds of congressional and senate races we’ve lost over the last decade thinking these absurd ideas that have been tangible failures. I truly suggest you read “Crashing the Gate.”
<
p>I’m not saying candidates in the mold of Dukakis or Mondale are right either. What we need are candidates who can talk about hot button issues in ways that people will respect them even when they disagree. Hiding away from those issues is not respected by the public, as elections have proven time and time again, and certainly hasn’t helped Democrats gain power over the decades.
<
p>Yet, the few candidates who have been successful in getting people to realize that even if there’s one or two buzz issues a politician holds that particular voters don’t agree with, electing that candidate is still the right thing to do for the country (or state, or district). Deval Patrick managed to do this exceptionally well – and he ran a truly leftwing campaign in the election, yet one in which people from the entire spectrum a) respected him for and b) thought he’d be the best person for the job, despite any disagreements.
<
p>Just think about how Patrick managed to talk about issues that ‘hurt democrats’ like immigration during the primary – he held positions that were very much against the polls, yet won in a landslide. Why? We, as the voters of this state, didn’t let debunked conventional wisdom get in the way of nominating the best choice for office, a progressive candidate who’s now gone on to do a lot of good in this state. I wish candidate Obama was a little bit more like candidate Deval, because as strong as I think our chances are to win this thing, I think they’d be much stronger if we truly did have a progressive candidate running for the White House.
Excellent article. I feel exactly the same way about Obama’s current standing, although I was more optimistic in the past.
<
p>I’m from Chicago and for a while here he was known as a very progressive politician. He spent a lot of time around the Palestinian community on the South Side and was an activist for similar political causes.
<
p>Now I look at him and I see a different man. I think it hurt me most when he went to Israel and gave speeches to AIPAC talking hard about Iran and claiming to be “pro-Israel from the start.” I remember when he used to have dinner with Edward Said and was a prominent supporter of Palestinian statehood.
<
p>In any case, I’m starting to become disillusioned to the extent of voting third party… in Illinois it wouldn’t matter much so I think I will unless Obama revokes his support for FISA (a whole other issue): http://tinyurl.com/5w9w9v