Would Hillary and/or Obama Govern Farther Left than they're Campaigning?

[rucky]

Help me out, here. Biden's out, and my decision will come down to "who do you trust?"

Cynical me thinks all three frontrunners are saying what they think they need to say to get elected. So here's the rub:

I like Edwards' message the best, but his past actions don't correspond.

I like Hillary's track record on progressive issues, but I dislike the way she's campaigning. Is she just doing what she needs to do to win the GE? What does she owe entrenched power that's supporting her?

I like Obama's - well, I just really like Obama. But I'm not sure what he means by reaching out to the right. Can he do that without compromising progressive principles?

[Lerkfish]

1. here's my breakdown:

clinton will likely govern right-leaning and pro-AIPAC and imperialism in foreign policy, that won't change or will get even more right
Obama will likely govern where he is now: somewhat centrist leaning right in foreign policy, perhaps changing more left as he gets in --frankly unsure
Edwards will likely govern moderate to left-leaning where he is now in foreign policy. I see no change.

on domestic issues:
Clinton - procorporation, pro pharma, pro insurance lobby, pro outsourcing anti-labor (duh!)
Obama - procorporation, anti outsourcing, moderate labor (a guess)
Edwards - anticorporation, anti outsourcing pro-labor.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

4. Personally i think Obama will govern more left once elected

atleast thats how i see it based on his record.

Its actually one of the things i like about Obama, he is good at talking about progressive issues in the 'language' of those he speaks to(which at times might confuse others who expect him to talk the same way as the left)

Combine the ability to talk their 'language' with that he shows them respect and seems to listen to them and you got somebody who is able to disarm and convince others to his side of things

sidenote: with 'language' i basically mean church goers, conservatives and so on, its not a case of deserting his liberal principles, but explaining them in a way they understand and that they can support

I actually think Abraham Lincoln has a quote that fits Obama's way of operating quite well:

When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted. It is an old and true maxim that 'a drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall.' So with men. If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what he will, is the great highroad to his reason, and which, once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing him of the justice of your cause

[rucky]

6. That's an excellent point, as well.

And that's the way I talk to conservatives, so I should probably trust it more. As long as McClurkin remains unresolved, though, I'm waiting to see if he can do that without pissing everybody off in the process.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

10. Way i see it, he can't really do much about that

1: He has stated he disagrees with those views
2: He has a solid record for LGBT rights
3: He is the only one in this race i am aware of who has actually faced black pastors/church goers and talked about how homophobia is wrong and needs to be addressed in the community
4: I'll likely get attacked for this one but once part of the LGBT community actually demanded him to remove McClurkin he basically could not do it for political reasons as it would have had him knuckle under for the demands of a group, which would leave him open for a lot of attacks from all holds(outside the LGBT community)

In some ways its a good thing he did not knuckle under as he showed that he will not surrender to the demands of a group if they start making demands(and due to his LGBT record that also means he will refuse to knuckle under to conservative/anti-LGBT groups)

on reason 4, think about it, would you have been able to trust a politician to protect your rights if he were to start knuckle under to the demands of groups who disagreed with his decisions

Sidenote: I personally wish he had never hired McClurkin but he did and that was a mistake that will tarnish his record a bit, but i refuse to believe it removes all the positive he has done for the LGBT community.

Sidenote 2: for most on DU i don't think he could actually ever make it right, i seem to recall that there have been news reported about Obama talking to LGBT people and groups on DU, the general responses of people against obama was: he is pandering, to little to late, do he think we are idiots, and other things along those lines

[GainesT1958]

2. So did Clinton in his first two years...

He was forced to moderate by Newt and the Repubs in Congress to get anything of substance passed. Sure, NAFTA was a mistake, but it was an exception to what he tried to do in his first two years. But if Obama did so, I'd don't think he'd be punished by voters the way Clinton was; he doesn't have the built-in skepticism over scandal that Clinton--and Hillary--did. Most of which was fabricated, of course, but was repeated by the SCLM over and over. But he would start with a lot of goodwill--and a stronger desire by the public for a clean slate.

B-)

[rucky]

3. Good point.

Having a Democratic Congress doesn't hurt, either.

[Exultant Democracy]

5. Clinton's triangulate so by definition she would be governing even farther right then

she is running right now.

[rucky]

7. To be honest...

I don't even really know what triangulating means. I suspect it's finding a solution that pleases both sides of the middle and pisses off both ends? Like mandatory affordable health insurance?

How is that different from the others' healthcare plans, though?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

11. according to Wikipedia(for what its worth)

Triangulation is the act of a candidate presenting his or her ideology as being "above" and "between" the left and right sides of the political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one's political opponent. The logic behind it is that it not only takes good ideas away from your opponent, but that it insulates you from attacks on that particular issue. The triangulation strategy is most frequently employed by Democrats who are fearful of right-wing criticism, or who generally support corporate interests such as the Privatization of Social Security, an enlarged Military-industrial complex, and systematic underinvestment in Human Capital. Triangulation is usually associated with the policies advocated by the Democratic Leadership Council, the policies adopted by the Clinton Administration and the rhetoric of Mark Penn(political strategist and pollster for Hillary Clinton).

The term was first used by President of the United States Bill Clinton's chief political advisor Dick Morris as a way to describe his strategy for getting Clinton reelected in the 1996 presidential election. It is often referred to as "Clintonian triangulation". Morris advocated a set of policies that were different from the traditional policies of the Democratic Party. The idea Clinton used behind some of these policies was to be "more Republican than the Republicans." These policies included welfare reform, tax cuts for the middle class and balanced budgets. One of the most widely cited capstones of Clinton's triangulation strategy was when, in his 1996 State of the Union Address, Clinton declared that the "Era of Big Government is over."

Many members of the U.S. Democratic Party, in particular the rank and file, insist that triangulation is "dead." They cite the attempted uses of triangulation by Democrats in the 2000 and 2004 U.S. presidential elections. In the 2000 election, Al Gore's call for larger tax cuts than those of opponent George W. Bush were seen more as an admission that Bush was correct on the issue. The use of triangulation by John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, in such areas as the War in Iraq, resulted in flip-flopping charges. It also forced Kerry to defend positions that he took which he may or may not have actually had.

Many rank-and-file Democrats use the term "triangulation" as a pejorative, sometimes in reference to the Democratic Leadership Council. They believe that triangulation has led to multiple electoral defeats and eroded the principles of those who use the strategy.

I removed the numbers and 'verification needed' parts, also there is one section i didn't cover as i was unsure if the 4 paragraphs things is in effect on a Wikipedia post, if you wish to read it all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_(politics)

This Wiki entry is disputed so take parts of it with a fair amount of salt

[abburdlen]

8. I wonder more

which one *can* govern further to the left-

Both Clinton and Obama can be called progressive but whomever gets elected will have to work with Congress.
Especially after last night I see Obama having a better chance than Clinton getting a filibusterer proof Congress.

[rucky]

9. With a D in the White House, and a D majority in Congress...

there will be no excuse NOT to pass progressive legislation. It would be our first opportunity in years. Do you think our Congressional majority is in trouble if we don't get the kind of crossover votes that Obama racked up?

Crap! every time somebody makes a point, I change my mind.

[abburdlen]

12. at best

Clinton helps continue the trend of picking up a few Senate seats, but it will be tough with the complete hatred the RW machine has for her.

I do think Obama can bring enough first time and political burn-outs to the polls that the Democratic party ends up with a super majority. That's a mandate for change.

[sandnsea]

13. Check his record

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

[sallyseven]

14. I trust Hillary to do the right thing.

She is progressive and Obama is too religious for me. He will reach out to the right and try to be like them. Over the history of the US the people who have been helped are the lease able to reach down and back to help others. No matter what nationality they are. Think about it.

[rucky]

15. kick

[Radical Activist]

16. Obama is campaigning to the left.

I know all the Edwards people are trying to spin Obama's call for unity as a move to the right. They don't get it.
Obama hasn't compromised his values which have shown through with his long progressive record. If you want to know what Obama will do in the future then look at what he has done in the past. He was one of the most liberal State Senators in a liberal state. He is about to be the first left wing movement activist to be nominated for President.

[rucky]

20. I just looked at his state senate record from another post...

I think you may be right.

[BringBigDogBack]

21. Bam!

[Kucinich4America]

17. Vote Kucinich to be on the safe side.

If you want a Liberal President enacting progressive policies, vote for one.

Edwards recent rhetoric doesn't match his track record, but we can hope.

Obama doesn't have a track record, but his talk of unity can be troubling without knowing exactly who he wants unity with.

Hillary wears her DLC affiliation on her sleeve. She is not at all interested in anything BUT right wing agendas masquerading as "centrism" and anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves.

[rucky]

25. I voted for Dennis in '04

and I'm not ruling him out this time by any means.

[bigwillq]

18. Vote for Kucinich

:bounce:

[annie1]

19. Hillary will go left. She seems like she's not left right now b/c...

none of them are talking about specifics b/c they're all close to the same. but once she gets in the white house and starts revamping education, the money will go in, the structure, healthcare, her appointments will be liberal, her justices liberal, and it'll all be to the left of what people think of her as a centrist. that B ain't no centrist. long live.

[DemBones DemBones]

22. If you want a president to govern from the left, vote for Kucinich.

:kick: 4 Dennis!

[Forkboy]

23. Hope springs eternal.

[LSK]

24. why does everyone think Edwards was born in 1998???

:shrug: