Lieberman (0.00 / 0)

is not my favorite Senator nor is he my favorite personality. And I don't like his stance or rhetoric on Iraq or his cozying up to Bush. But the guy is still a solid liberal in many other respects and is one of the champions of all thing environmental. In fact he and Warner has a pretty food Cap ans Trade bill making the rounds.

I'm no one to discount a persons attributes because of their flaws. If you do that on a consistent basis then you'd like no one. If you do it on a selective basis then it is just an exercise of bias.

As for Clinton not being as far Left as the party - tell that to Lynn 'Out of Iraq' Woosley, Barney Frank, or James McGovern...

All bonafide Liberal Progressives who have endorsed Clinton for President. I think they among others know a thing or two about being 'left' and would not endorse someone that wasn't on the same wave length as themselves.

Frankly this subtle Clinton bashing that goes on here with total disregard for the opinions of people like Woosley and her ranks is disturbing.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 19:13:44 PM UTC

Frankly people who are lock-step hillary parrots are disturbing (4.00 / 1)

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 19:31:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It Is So Refreshing (0.00 / 0)

to see people like you who are so supportive of the democratic process.

Now move to Pakistan would you. There you only get one choice which seems to be your idea of democracy.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 19:43:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow (0.00 / 0)

You've got some very impressive harshness going on there.  Saying you're a Clinton partisan in unkind terms translates into preferring dictatorship?

And uniformed, too.  The Lieberman-Warner bill is deeply flawed, setting up a cap-and-trade in which the heaviest polluters (such as coal plants) get hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies so that they needn't be tempted to reduce their emissions.  Lieberman is a dependable vote on some progressive causes, but not the big ones on everyone's minds right now.

But I apologize on Chris' behalf for his broad-brush analysis without regard to Lynn Woolsey's ranks, or something.  Truly, it is horrifying.

Tim Wolfe

---

by: bruorton @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 21:00:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama is to the POLICY RIGHT of Clinton and Edwards (0.00 / 0)

Domestically it is crystal clear that on most issues and most importantly, health care Obama's actual policy positions are more right wing that Clinton and Edwards. Krugman points out that

1. his plan is not universal and the lack of universality undermines the real world workability and its eventual success....it may even doom it to failure.

2. and even more tellingly his initial version of the plan had NO PUBLIC OPTION.  A public insurance component is absolutely essential to a transformation from a private-for-profit system to a form of single payer.  It was only the howls of healthcare economists who finally prevailed upon him and his campaign to grudgingly include it. 

3. He uses right wing frames to talk about health care and many other issues. 

I think it is clear that not only is Obama the least partisan Democrat of the 3 he is the most conservative in terms of policy.

Foreign policy I think they are mostly a wash. By that most people mean the war.They will all end the war, none of the 3 would have started the war and none of the 3 would start another one.  Please do not confuse the diplomatic play ---the theatre of keeping options open as a form of diplomatic leverage ---- with the move to war.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:38:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is this Bloomberg's opening? (0.00 / 0)

Isn't the main point you are making the fact that the large majority of voters are moving towards embracing progressive political values and forcing the candidates of both parties to move to the left to catch up with them?

The Republican and Democratic Parties' nomination structures and processes are inhibiting their candidates from espousing progressive values, especially their use of polling techniques that are quite retrograde when it comes to putting words into voters' mouths that do not allow them to genuinely express their progressive views.

The candidates keep jousting with each other to make it appear as if they are speaking for the voters but in fact are lagging behind them using vague code words to cover their political behinds because they continue to fear and/or do the bidding of the financial interests that run the country and government by funding the electoral process.

(For example, I find it incredibly irritating that while all the candidates in both parties decry the ruination of the middle class and dependence on foreign oil that is bankrupting the country, none of them can bring themselves to call for the enforcement against gas and oil companies (not to forget the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies) of U.S. laws prohibiting windfall and excess profits. When are any of them going to have the political courage to craft and present to us an actual legislative program for rescuing working families from the predatory corporate practices that are engendering stagnant real incomes and surging costs of living that are destroying their livelihoods?)

Although Clinton and Obama are being pushed from behind in a progressive direction by Edwards, all three continue to flail around in debates that do not concretely address voters' issues and state what policies they will advocate to respond to the desperate economic and financial straits in which voters find themselves. It's all talk and no action. It's like watching a high school debate in which none of the debaters have ever held office or had to balance a budget and present a comprehensive legislative program.

This is where Bloomberg can easily step in and steal the thunder of all the candidates in both parties in a heartbeat. He is an astute politician who knows how to win elections with platforms that resonate with voters and use canvassing techniques that cross party lines and get targeted voters to the polls. And he has years of successful, in-depth executive experience in both the public and private sectors to his credit.

If he runs, he will do so on a platform that integrates into a coherent whole all the progressive stances being espoused by all the candidates in both parties while throwing to the wind their accumulated political baggage, anti-progressive sacred cows and dependence on the corporate hands that feed them. While Bloomberg IS a corporate titan and no saviour on this front, he has enough of his own dough to out-fund the entire current roster of candidates put together without creating any dependency relationships with the predatory corporations -- particularly in the financial services area -- that are wrecking our economy. While there is no guarantee that he would walk his political talk if elected, at least he could craft a coherent progressive platform.

Interestingly, I read today that he is conducting research in all fifth states on voter preferences that is NOT based on party affiliation, presumably because he knows that party identification is losing its value as a predictor of voting behavior. (See NY Mayor Bloomberg Weighs 2008 Run.) The rise of Obama and his cross-party appeal is evidence of this phenomenon.

I do not know whether Bloomberg will run or whether he should run. The prospect of his becoming president, however, is no more disheartening to me at this point than that of Clinton or Obama becoming president. What does interest me is the prospect that Bloomberg could make an end-run around the deplorable, insipid electoral politics in which we are now trapped for the foreseeable future. Surely he would be able to spare us the embarrassing dumbing down of the issues into meaningless arguments about "change" and who is or is not the "change" candidate to which we have been subjected in the past few weeks. 

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 19:34:49 PM UTC

I think you are overestimating his appeal (4.00 / 1)

West of the Hudson.  He just isn't that big a deal in the rest of the country, isn't going to be an appealling candidate outside NYC, has no organization at all, in fact nothing but money, vanity, and . . . he's mayor of New York!  Not really sufficient these days (in fact never was) as a qualification for Pres.  Only if Huckabee is the GOP candidate can he be plausible, and can he wait that long to get organized?

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 22:16:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Square One (0.00 / 0)

Bloomberg probably has next to no appeal at the moment in any quarter. He appears to me to have very little charisma and to be ill at ease in front of crowds and cameras.

He is at square one and possibly will not even run. And even if he does, he would be a wild card in terms of what he would do as president.

Nonetheless. . . anything that would shake up the dismal two party system to which we are chained at the moment would be a good thing, provided of course a Bloombery run does not lead to a Republican victory, which I think is unlikely based on the disastrous impact of the Bush/Cheney presidency on its rank and file and the Independents that used to vote Republican.

To your other point, based on the little I know about Bloomberg's run for NYC mayor, I have little doubt that he could organize a national effort in an intelligent and effective manner.

What leads me to view his candidacy in a hopeful light is that I think he has the qualifications that none of the other candidates have to put together a progressive agenda that addresses the serious threats we face to our financial solvency and economic health.

WE MUST FUND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT so that it can meet its obligations, and this means taxing the wealthy and the corporations that are making off like bandits. He taxed them in NYC after 9/11 to salvage the city's sagging finances.

We must make sure that the nation's families have the buying power they need to purchase basic necessities and I am unconvinced from anything I have seen that Clinton, Obama or Edwards have a clue about how to do this. Bloomberg knows or can figure out how to manage economic and financial assets, balance budgets and stem the flow of dollars outside the country.

My main reason for optimism about what might come out of a Bloomberg, now that we are so far along the primary trail and all we get is more and more hot air, is that I am pretty discouraged that we are going to get any more policy or programmatic specifics from the existing roster of candidates than we already have for addressing the threats we face.

I would like the progressives to take over the Democratic Party but it looks very unlikely that they will do so, given the undemocratic way the party conducts its primary process. The only reason that Clinton is the front runner is that she is leveraging what she and her advisers learned during Bill's presidency, particularly about raising early money.

If Edwards stays in and obtains 20% or more of the delegates, he might be able to influence the outcome. But Obama and Clinton are far from my ideal progressive candidates however Edwards plays his cards to determine who gets the nomination.

So that's why I am intrigued by a Bloomberg candidacy. There is a lot of wishful thinking in this intrigue and I am mindful of the adage "be careful what you wish for". There are those who say that Bloomberg has thrown his money and weight around in NYC quite a bit in order to stifle criticism and dissent, so he could be quite dangerous in the presidency. But so could Clinton and Obama.

At least Bloomberg would bring competence and executive experience to the job that neither can offer. And, more importantly, he would have to conduct an exhaustive grassroots campaign to get himself on the ballot and get elected. As long as this would not split the Democratic vote and elect a Republican, I think a Bloomberg run as an Independent would be good for the country. At the very least the average intelligence quotient of the debates would rise significantly.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 23:08:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bloomberg can't win by doing policy position papers (4.00 / 2)

Sadly because he's no fool like Perot, to win he will have to play on people's disdain for the political process.  He will have to resort even more than the Democrat who wins the nomination will habe to heighten and increase people's cynicism with the efficacy of the political process and government.

He will have to enlarge their anger, fear and scepticism about the poltical process being able to actually respond to voter's real world needs as well as dreams.  Because someohow he has to convince people he can be their savior from he callous disregard of what he would term "Washington politics"

And do not be deluded one little bit....and I can say this as a Manhattanite, he can only take votes from the Democratic side of the ledger because in many ways he is the Democrat he alwyas was.

His social positions are liberal....he's against guns and smoking.  He has lots of other liberal positions on other issues like immigration and even economically he is at least moserate, though I have heard him talk about this less.

The government in DC needs competence to root out the dug in remnants of the catstrophe that Bush left behind in all the agencies...But competence is the least of what we need.  We need a vision of  people centered governance.  No matter how competent a billionaire buying office undermines the futrue of democracy.

It would be vanity and ego which would make him run because getting 270 electoral votes in a non partisan process is perhaps impossible.

  Now he would be willing to spend 1-2 billion dollars. Even being well meaning and I think he is, that kind of money could disrupt the future integrity of our political process forever....Think Rome

 

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:54:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

All good points (0.00 / 0)

Your points are especially well taken because you speak from first hand experience.

Maybe. . . probably he is as self-serving as all the commenters to this post believe he is.

But he could actually decide to put the well-being of the American people ahead of all else.

He of all the candidates has the freedom and resources to do so.

It's hard to believe that with working people in dire straits,  and a recession and possibly even a depression on the way, he would decide otherwise.

I just can't get my mind around the idea that he could actually view a Bloomberg presidency as an opportunity not to reduce the wealth gap but to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 02:28:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I do think enough of him to hope he would not run (0.00 / 0)

I would hope he would not want to hand the election to a Republican, that he cares enough of his country not to further put it in jeopardy.

I don't think he can win and if he spends 2 billion to win I don't think he can govern.  This is not a parliamentary system and 3rd parties have no place in a non parliamentary form of govt.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:17:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Chris, I think you meant... (4.00 / 2)

Al Gore shifted to the left and brought the rest of the country with him.  The power of his narrative had, I believe, that kind of effect.  Not only that, I can't believe how he has evolved as a voice for the left.  Imagine what could have been to watch that evolution in the WH.  What a loss...

TrumanDem

Truman's Conscience

---

by: Trumandem @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 19:53:27 PM UTC

You've got it wrong (0.00 / 0)

I don't see Obama as being a part of the left at all. In fact, quite the opposite. He's been running on a platform of bipartisanship that appeals more to independents and more moderate republicans. He is actively wooing those people, which is repugnant to most progressives who do NOT want to compromise in any way, shape, or form with anything coming out of the neocon right.

---

by: CognitiveDissonance @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 21:01:06 PM UTC

Edwards Communication Strategy (0.00 / 0)

JRE's comm shop (if you could even call it that) had the option over a year ago to run him as an outsider who had changed since leaving the bubble of Washington.

The idea was to drop the "Former Senator" title, play up how much he saw while on the campaign trail that America's small towns were in terrible shape, play up how much he accomplished  towards helping people (through the Poverty Center and it's offshoots like the College for All program, and the IRC and SEIU) all of which he did since leaving the Senate.  This was all to stress that fixing America can't be left to people in the DC bubble.

The winning counter argument was that one should not acknowledge a change on a series of issues so profound as to suggest a change in character. 

This counter-argument assumed that running as the former Vice Presidential nominee would make him the heir apparent. (inexplicably in spite of Clinton's existence) and that people loved the old JRE.

The other opinion was that a reinvention as a tranformative populist outsider should have been his stump.

---

by: Abijah @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 22:35:03 PM UTC