I watched the Wisconsin dinner last night

[dsc]

I saw two great speeches by our main candidates with some good lead ins. Only WI Lt Gov was bad (and she was quite bad). I would be remiss not to shout out to Tammy Baldwin, one of two openly gay Congresspeople left. You go girl.

I was glad to see Obama mention gays, if only fleetingly. On the downside, I was disappointed with his revision of the criticism of his health care plan.

We have two great candidates. I don't hate Obama. I do think, for valid reason, that he is just plain wrong on some important issues. Clinton is wrong on some issues as well. I just think, at least for me, the issues he is wrong on are more important than those she is wrong on.

If you wish to feel good about both our chances in November and what we will get when we win watch the dinner.

Hillary is unreal in her knowledge of government and her will to make it work for us. Obama has inspired people.

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. what issue is he wrong on?

and if you opposed the iraq war, what issue was he wrong on that's more important than that?

[dsc]

3. He is wrong on all of the following

I think he is wrong, in an overarching way, on the lessons of the 1990's. The GOP doesn't care about the country and won't work with anyone, at anytime, for any policy we would find desirable. This leads to his big problems on both health care and social security. He will ruin the chances for any type of national health care system with his blatent appeal to right wing arguements on the issue. On Social Security he has done the same thing. There is no Social Security crisis. None, nada. By saying there is he helps sell it down the river. As to the war, yes, when he didn't have a vote he was against the war. But once he got the vote, he voted to fund the war at every opportunity just like she has.

[THUNDER HANDS]

8. i would rebut

that if you send Clinton to the White House, we will lose many senate and house seats, thereby making it inevitable that we won't get any form of health care except what the republicans want.

If you want anything, you send to the White House someone who is going to expand our Democratic majorities to a veto proof-margin.

Not someone who half the country hates and will cost us seats in red states.

and why does being tied on the war, in your eyes, make Clinton the winner of that argument? She did vote for it, afterall.

[dsc]

14. I didn't say she was the winner

I said it was a tie which means the issue is off the table. She is wrong on trade with Obama being more consistently opposed but I don't think trade outweights the issues I sighted. As to the Senate, I just plain disagree. Our candidates will win or lose largely on their own merits. I think Clinton will energize women, especially young single ones who vote less often than older married ones, and Obama will energize blacks who also undervote. In short, I think they are a wash.

[THUNDER HANDS]

15. i think young single women are already voting for Obama

and would if he's the nominee.

[dsc]

18. not in the same numbers as they are for her

and the new ones might well not vote at all.

[THUNDER HANDS]

20. oh well, then

if they don't find Obama an attractive candidate, there's nobody in our party that they would - no male anyway.

[dsc]

21. that might be the case

just like I would imagine there are some new black voters who feel the same way about Obama. I am not sure either one of us have the ability to fault either class of voters for that.

[THUNDER HANDS]

22. possibly, however

I've seen, just anecdotally, more people saying they'd vote for Obama or nobody else, than say they'd vote for Clinton or nobody else.

[dsc]

23. yeah before any negative press or ads against Obama

just wait.

[THUNDER HANDS]

24. i don't think negativity would work on him

but then again, frankly, I don't think anything would work against him - or else Clinton would have done it.

[dsc]

26. You are seriously deluded

or have slept through the last decade and a half. Max Cleland, a man who lost not one limb, not two limbs, but three and a half limbs in Vietnam lost his seat to a draft dodging scumbucket because he was portrayed as soft on national security. Still think they can't smear Obama?

[THUNDER HANDS]

27. they can smear him, I'm saying it won't stick.

[dsc]

29. good luck with that

[THUNDER HANDS]

30. thanks!

:hi:

[Armstead]

9. Here's a comparison of what I think Obama's approach to Republicans is

This is from an interview Bernie Sanders gave during his run for the Senate.

Bernie is one of the staunchest progressives in Congress, but who also has the ability to attract voters that transcend the usual labels and party affiliations.

I think (hope) this is what Obama is trying to do in his campaign. This strategy is NOT a sellout to the Republicans or any version of triangulation.

(I do wish Obama were as committed to a real progressive message as Bernie. But in the context of mainstream Democratic politics, he's a lot closer.)

-------


http://progressive.org/mag_intv1205

Q: Is this a particularly ripe moment for change?

Sanders: I think it is. Given the fact that poverty is growing, more and more Americans are losing health insurance, health care costs are going up, the middle class is shrinking, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider, we have lost 2,000 soldiers in Iraq, we’re spending some $300 billion there, and Bush has no idea of an exit strategy. Add all of those things together and the real question should be asked, how is it conceivable that he is even at 40 percent?

That speaks to the weakness of the opposition. People do not like George Bush. But I think it’s fair to say that they are not flocking to the Democratic Party, or see the Democrats as a real alternative.

Q: So what’s your message to progressives?

Sanders: We have got to change the political culture in America. We need a political revolution. That means we are working on politics not just three weeks before an election but 365 days a year. We have to develop a strong economic message which says every American is entitled to health care through a national health care program. And we’re not going to allow these large corporations to push through trade agreements which allow them to throw Americans out on the street and run to China. We’re not going to give tax breaks to billionaires and then cut back on the needs of our elderly or poor or kids or education. We’re not going to privatize Social Security—in fact, we’re going to strengthen it. We’re going to provide quality education for every kid in America, from preschool through college. We have to take on these corporate leaders who are selling out the American people, whose allegiance is now much more to China than it is to the United States. If we have the courage to take these people on, I think we can overwhelm Bush and his friends.

Why is it that two-thirds of white, rural men voted Republican? Why? That’s what we have to address. That’s crazy. These people are working longer and longer hours. They can’t afford to pay $3.50 for a gallon of gas. They’re losing their jobs. So why do they vote for President Bush? And the Republican Party? We’ve got to address this.

It’s very easy to make fun of George Bush, but that ain’t going to do it. What we have to do is knock on doors and go into communities where there are people who disagree with us on certain issues.

And we have to talk to them. They’re our friends. They’re our allies. They’re our co-workers. We can’t see them as enemies.

That’s easier said than done.

All over this country you have progressive communities like Madison and Burlington, but we’ve got to go well, well, well outside of those communities. We’ve got to go to the rural areas. We’ve got to go where a lot of working people are voting Republican.

We just can’t talk to each other. That’s too easy.

[NashVegas]

33. The Bernie Sanders Model Isn't Going to Work Anywhere Else But NH and Possibly Maine

Vermont is filled with small, independent businesses run by resident owners (including agricultural), the self-employed in cottage industries, and a sprinkling of big box retailers.

Before he went to Washington, Sanders was the mayor of the most populated city in VT (Burlington). Being a socialist is part of Bernie's appeal to Vermont; because he's the only one, it's not like he's going to be able to institute any true Socialism on them, so they get to be contrary.

In short: anyone whose business would truly be threatened by Bernie's socialism doesn't get to vote in VT.

[Armstead]

34. I think youn misread that aspect of his appeal -- plus Obama is no socialist

Vermont also has its share of Big Bidness and hardass rednecks (New England style).

I don't think is support is solely based on being ornery and contrary or "hip.' It is also because he connects progressive issues with the reality of working people and small and mid-sized businesses.

[ShortnFiery]

10. Both HRC and her husband will keep "Don't ask, Don't tell" which is a HORRID policy ...

for gay people serving in the US Military. Bill Clinton did NOT follow through with his campaign promises. Therefore, in addition to "perpetual war" HRC will not bring US Military Policy into the 21st Century. As one of the first groups of women integrated from the Women's Army Corps into the Regular Army, I know from experience those folks who are "undercover" gay in our US Military are NOT being supported, nor will they be under HRC. ... Way back in 1984, our Colonel had our Brigade stand a formation where he rued that "a ring of lesbianism" was pervading our blessed command. I was horrified at his mean-spiritedness. Soon thereafter there were "witch hunts" like you can not believe. Do you really believe that Bill Clintons, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" weak compromise did anything but move the "witch hunts underground" ... did the dumb concept of "Don't ask, Don't tell," make gay military members' lives any more stable?!? No, it has NOT. :grr:

I honestly believe that Obama will have people who work for him, WITHDRAW the rule that gays can NOT serve openly in the US Military. All other democratic, first world countries have reached this enlightenment. I believe that Obama will have people who will convince him to "do what's right." However, HRC's people like Mark Penn will only convince HRC to do what's politically expedient.

The thought that Obama does not respect gay people is, IMO, ONE BIG LIE instigated by those "take no prisoners" supporters who support HRC.

All gays will achieve with HRC is more of the same pablum that her husband left them with. But Shhh!!! *DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL.* :eyes: :(

[bluerum]

13. See GOP controlled congress and Senate for details,,,

And how, does that have anything to do with HRC?

[dsc]

16. It will take Congress to remove the policy

just like it would have taken Congress back when it was put in(sodomy is still against the military code of justice). Barring a collapse of epic proportions in our Congressional numbers we should have a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate which will pass a law overturning DADT. That law will be signed by either one.

[ShortnFiery]

32. Yes, of course that is a wise and spot on assessment.

We all know that neither HRC or Obama are going to say ANYTHING about gay marriage or openly gay people serving in the military now. That, unfortunately is to be expected.

However, Bill Clinton was almost unanimously (save for The Log Cabin Republicans) supported by the Gay American Electorate during the 1990s. But unfortunately the Clintons are so despised by their Republican Opponents it brought in Newt Gingrich and his disgusting "Contract with America."

I honestly believe that the political atmosphere will be more "open-minded" with Obama as our President ... and hopefully Bill Richardson as our Vice President.

The People who fill HRC's Executive Branch will be right wing conservative democrats taken mostly from Bill Clinton's DLC organization. I don't see THOSE "staff members" being open-minded and progressive when it comes to civil rights issues.

Obama will staff his Executive Branch with a myriad of people NOT necessarily from Bill Clinton's DLC. That would be, IMO, a step forward for our Civil Rights Issues that are important to progressives.

[Ronnie]

38. "I honestly believe that Obama will have people who work for him,

WITHDRAW the rule that gays can NOT serve openly in the US Military."

What on earth has he ever done or said to make you believe this?

[bluerum]

11. I agree. The gop is old school and to suggest that it can be rehabilitated

is denying the 18 years previous to 2006.

Ronnie Raygun
George Sr.
Clinton, GOP controlled senate and congress
George Jr. GOP controlled senate, congress, supreme court and crony administration

[Schema Thing]

35. I notice you have a picture of Howard Dean

He, like Obama, opposed the war from the start, but made a clear distinction between that opposition and later funding of the troops who were engaged in the effort that Senator Clinton, GW Bush, et al, sent them off on.

[dsc]

36. that is just not true

In 2004 one of the major issues of the primary was a $87 billion funding bill that Dean was against and his opposition and the fact it was an issue caused both Kerry and Edwards to vote against (remember he was for the $87 billion before he was against it) that is what was being referred to.

[Little Star]

2. Thanks for trying to be a uniter. k&r

[FrenchieCat]

4. Your generalities are overwhelming me in your post.......

"he is just plain wrong on some important issues. Clinton is wrong on some issues as well. I just think, at least for me, the issues he is wrong on are more important than those she is wrong on."



in other words, could you be a bit more specific? :shrug:

[dsc]

5. see post three

[BeyondGeography]

12. Which reads like a watered down version of all the anti-Obama Krugman screeds

Very original.

[dsc]

17. Krugman happens to be right

and yes, a better writer than I. Why would I reinvent the wheel? Do you believe SS is in crisis? Do you think mandates are unnecessary for health care? If yes on the second question, why mandate children, as Obama does?

[BeyondGeography]

25. Well, Krugman has really blunted Obama's momentum with all those columns, hasn't he?

There are easy answers to your questions.

Insurance mandates do not in any way guarantee universal health care and will be used by the Republicans to short-circuit the entire discussion. "Hillary's coming for your paycheck." Game over for HillaryCare, part deux. Children have no say in the matter and need to protected. They are also the cheapest to insure, so that's the least expensive and least politically risky mandate. Once an affordable, cost-effective alternative to the private market is in place, Obama has said he has no problem with triggering mandates to make compliance universal. He has the sequencing right, in the eyes of many people.

The payroll tax is regressive and creating a bubble between $97K and $200K will eliminate the need to keep increasing the retirement age and/or reduce benefits (it's something Hillary even said she favored in a rope line in Iowa when she didn;t know an AP reporter was listening).

More important, you and Krugman are wallowing in the death-trap of conventional Democratic thinking about what it takes to win presidential elections and be an effective leader. The wonk who gets all the questions right on the multiple choice test is not the person we should be looking for. You'd think having lost seven of the last ten presidential elections going with the CW would have taught us something. Hopefully, the voters will save us from ourselves this time and make it impossible not to nominate Obama.

[dsc]

28. If we change the way SS is taxed we will end its support

it will become just another welfare program and will be ended just like welfare was. As to the children, that makes no sense at all. What parent would refuse to insure their own children if it was affordable? No Obama is in favor of mandates for children due to it being politically expedient but why in God's name should I and every other insured person in America pay for medical care for wealthier 20 somethings who refuse to insure themselves? That is who mandates would hit and yes, they should be required to participate. Otherwise I will be paying for myself and them.

[bluerum]

6. I feel the same way - two great candidates. Bama inspires while Clinton wonks

you out with her knowledge and grasp of detail.

Of course, like anyone, I do disagree with them on certain issues.

[dkf]

7. Well Obama got Iraq right, and that is the biggest "judgment" test to me.

Hillary is a wonk and knows policy in and out, but her lack of judgment, even on her 1st health care plan, makes me wonder how effective she could be as President.

I think her own confidence in her thought process is her biggest stumbling block as she is not very good at recognizing where she is failing and adjusting to it until it absolutely slaps her in the face.

[dsc]

19. actually on health care her misjudgement

was to try an Obamalike solution. His plan now, is virtually the same as her plan then.

[dkf]

37. I don't really like Obama's plan.

I want single payer.

BUT, I do realize that her selling of the plan was godawful.

From Time Magazine, 1993:

And despite occasional press leaks, the First Lady, assigned by the President to oversee health reform, jealously guarded the full text of the proposal.

Until last Thursday. On that day, Mrs. Clinton visited Capitol Hill to persuade key Congressmen that she welcomed their suggestions. But Fortney Stark, the irascible California Democrat who chairs the House health subcommittee, complained that he could not seriously study the plan under Mrs. Clinton's ground rules: that legislators could see it only in guarded "reading rooms" in the Capitol, where they would be forbidden to make copies or take notes. By early evening, majority leader Dick Gephardt ordered that they be given copies of the plan. And by 6 p.m., copies of those copies began making their way to news organizations, including Time.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979251-1,00.html

[Evergreen Emerald]

31. Obama gave a good speech in 2002--as a Senator he got

Nothing right! HIs votes were no different than Clinton. The difference is that he is running on a platform that he has ALWAYS been against the war. Really? Since elected and had the Power to do something what did he do? No speeches? Took nothing to the Senate floor for a vote? No protests? No defunding. NOTHING.