Clinton surrogates work much harder for elections than working for actual progressive values.

[olkaz]

I would have been a Clinton supporter from the start of this thing if they turned this unflinching unwavering ambition toward a fiscally progressive agenda in the 90's. I would be donating everything I could afford, I would be making calls for Clinton non-stop.

I mean, I watch the Clintons, Carvile, Begala, Lanny, all these guys, and they have **zero** shame. They will do anything to accomplish their goal. And, begrudgingly, I can respect that. That type of fighting, applied to things like fixing the trade deficit and building up infrastructure would be incredible.

But the thing is, I only see the Clintons and the Clinton entourage fight this hard when it involves an election. For an election, they are fighters. Otherwise, they are opportunists, free-traders, and prone to triangulation and forsaking their progressive base.

I miss John Edwards.

[msongs]

1. neither obama or clinton are progressives, they are imperialists nt

[ClassWarrior]

3. The OP is talking about Clinton, not Obama. But since you bring him up...

...what Obama represents to Progressives is an OPPORTUNITY that Clinton will never represent. 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.

[RB TexLa]

2. If you are not willing to do whatever you have to do to win then you have no business running

[Romulox]

4. Barack Obama is a middle of the road centrist.

A generation ago, a huge number of his supporters would have considered themselves Liberal Republicans (liberal on social issues, right-wing on economics.)

After religious nuts took over the Republican party, Liberal Republicans were marginalized and driven from the Republican party, much the same way blue-collar/labor voters are being driven from the present-day Democratic party. Many, many, many of these "socially liberal/economically conservative" voters have thrown their support behind Obama.

[ClassWarrior]

6. Agreed, but see post #3 above.

NGU.

[Romulox]

8. Right-wing "third way" economics have been US policy since Reagan

Wages have been stagnant in that time, and class mobility has ground to a halt. Obama isn't proposing a break from these policies.

So which way does your analogy cut?

[ClassWarrior]

10. Wow, that's overthinking of the first order. All I'm saying is...

...it appears that there's an opportunity with Obama - that doesn't seem to exist with all-other-things-being-equal-Clinton - that he can be pushed to take more Progressive stands than he has in the past. And that, in fact, he and his campaign are creating the very conditions necessary for this to happen.

NGU.

[Phillycat]

9. Agree, agree.

No one remembers how few people liked either of these candidates on DU when we still had other choices.

[olkaz]

12. I know. That's not my point.

I was trying to say that it is a shame that this incredible tenacity that they have has never been used for the American people.

Obama is a centrist, and I do support him, but I do so mainly because the Clintons already had eight years to prove their scruples with me. I'll take the functionally equivalent alternative.

I ended the post with John Edwards because I supported a progressive from the start and still think it's a shame he couldn't pull it all together. It's going to take serious work from the grassroots to force Obama into a progressive agenda. He's going to need our help.

[ClassWarrior]

13. "He's going to need our help." How true. And...

...yes we can.

NGU.

[JVS]

5. Earth to HRC supporters, it's a primary election, not a Holy War.

[highplainsdem]

11. Earth to Obama supporters, you need Clinton supporters to win the GE.

We need unity. Insulting Clinton's supporters will not help.

[Bread and Circus]

7. You make a key point. K and R.

[blm]

14. Clinton sided with Bush on major issues so they wouldn't have to take any hits for opposing him

They sure have no problem attacking and smearing other Democrats - but, attack BushInc? Nope.

[RainDog]

15. Clinton drags this nation back into the past

87% of ALL voters in the 65 and under demographic in Indiana went to Obama. Hillary won in the 65 and older group. This group is what gave her the edge in Indiana (if you don't factor in the voter purge issue - in that case, like Gore, it's likely Hillary wouldn't have won Indiana.

Obama is calling for ALL Americans to face the issues we have now and solve them. We are at a crisis point in this nation and if we continue with the status quo, we will face a whole new world of pain. Obama can inspire across ages and races and gender to make the changes we need.

THIS is what Obama offers that Hillary NEVER can. NEVER. No matter what she says in any campaign.

The 13% of diehard racists in this nation will not vote for Hillary in the general when they can vote for a republican. So to claim she must be the nominee because of them is electoral crack.

People are ready for a change. There is a mandate for change already if you look at Bush's approval ratings. Why would anyone in this nation want to go back to the Bush/Clinton/Bush past if they want to create real change in this nation? If they want to get past the Bush era mess?