Hold Obama's feet to the fire

[JoFerret]

Message to all democrats - if Obama moves on to the nomination and into the WH we have to hold his feet to the fire on key democratic social and economic issues. If he goes all pandering "faith and family" during the general election there will be nothing to keep him honest once in power. Getting anything done in Washington is hard enough but without any fire in his belly (I see none) we will have blown our best chance.

What does he stand for? What WILL he stand for? Will it be for us?
If he wins with crossovers and republicans will he blow the best chance of a generation?

And no more sexist crap please.
We would not have tolerated its racist equivalent so why are we tolerating the sexism?

[meow mix]

1. i agree, and i think he would want us to push him... hard.

he needs us to push him to make things happen

[FrenchieCat]

4. He'll need us to push our congress to let him passes what he proposes......

And I'm sure that he will propose plenty.

That's what he means by us staying involved beyond voting......

We are his working majority and we are the ones who will hold all of our government responsible.....for a change.

[meow mix]

8. that too =)

if the party can stick together Obama is opening the window for us much more than the clintons ever did. i believe..

[Bobbieo]

12. To push Congress, he will need reliable department heads

NO MORE POLITICAL APPOINTEES!!!

[anamandujano]

19. How will "we" be able to do that? Will an email suffice or will we

have to organize a huge rally? How big do the numbers have to get to make an impact? How many before he knows he's hearing the voice of the people?

See where his intentional vagaries leave us?

[Bobbieo]

2. It will depend on who he chooses for is cabinet members and department heads.

[susankh4]

3. Agreed. And there will be no better way...

than for us to make it clear that we want Hill in the VP slot.

She can hold his feet to the fire for us. And I know she will!

[high density]

5. We do?

Why is that? :freak:

We want somebody that supports him instead of a virus acts like an albatross. After the last month of campaigning I don't know how Clinton meshes at all on an Obama ticket.

[JoFerret]

6. I don't think she would accept

And he is a sore winner so he won't offer.

But he will need her and we need her.

Senate leader? (Someone is going to have to do the work).

[cali]

7. It's not going to happen

There is no way that Hillary will accept it if offered. And why should she? She'd be giving up a powerful Senate seat for 8 years as second fiddle. She'd be 69 by the time that an Obama presidency ended. She'd have to suboordinate her ideas and goals to his.

[susankh4]

10. I know my Hillary and...

I simply do not agree.

She will do what is best for her party. This I trust.

[JoFerret]

11. We are all going to have to live with this "choice"

And my fear is that when the bubble bursts we will all have to live with the consequences.
I sure hope not. we have waited too long and worked to hard.
But I must say some of the signs are not encouraging.

Faith and family give me the creeps as election slogans.
And while I am an "anyboby but Bush" democrat I do find Obama an empty suit and a tad patronizing.

What will he stand for when push comes to shove. Other than himself? Is that enough? Not for me it isn't.

And the Obama worship? - when it's over we know what that will mean.

[cali]

17. Sorry, all that comes through in your posts is bitter, sour

grapes. Nothing else. No astute observations. Just the parroting of lines. Obama is not an empty suit. Anyone that uses that line is either very ill informed or simply bitter. We have a real chance here with Obama. He's well informed, he's thoughtful, he's well organized. Could he fail? Sure. Could he be a disappointment? Yep. But some of you aren't willing to give him any kind of a fair chance.

Oh, and I have NEVER heard him use "faith and family" as an election slogan. I'm sure since you claim it, you can provide a link, right?

[greguganus]

14. "We"? n/t

[JoFerret]

15. Yes. "We". Meaning all of us

All of us whether we wanted something "better" or not.
Just as all of us have had to endure the bush regime we will all have the same president come 2009 whether we like it or not.

And maybe it will not be so bad if Obama wins. I had high hopes of something better this time around but looks like I will have to settle. Certainly we can all celebrate the end of Bush/ Cheney. but the hard work of undoing all the damage they have wrought. That will take all of us.

I just hope Obama is up to the job and want to actually stand for something and not just talk about it in lofty tones. we have to keep him to his promises. Maybe Edwards and Dodd can help. Clinton can in the senate if that's where she remains.

Apologies if you don't like plural pronouns.

[susankh4]

16. "We" is the operative word now....

It will take all of "us" to beat McCain.

And, whoever gets the Dem nomination needs to make the best possible decisions for the party. Not for his or her segment of the party. But for the whole of us.

[yourguide]

43. The best decision for the party

is to remove negative campaining and walk by candidate who thinks stealing pledged delegates is OK.

[yourguide]

22. I dont want her in the VP slot

jesus, after the nasty attacks in the last 48 hours leading into wisconsin, I dont even want her as my senator any longer.

[susankh4]

24. Well, if you don't like it....

you can always vote "present."

Or, god forbid, for McCain.

[yourguide]

26. Nope

Voting for my candidate, Obama. Do you live in NY? Do you have any idea what she has/or has not done for this state?

Do you consider HRC camps negative attacks, and yesterday's pathetic floated idea of going after pledged delegates as a good thing for the party?

Why in Gods name would Obama either want or need her? He's doing just fine without her.

You on the other hand, could vote present or for Mccain.

[susankh4]

29. We'll have to wait and see who ends up on the ticket

won't we?

I am sure Obama won't call you, or me, to ask who his VP should be.

I would hope that he will look at the numbers and realize that he, like his moniker JFK, will have much to gain by supporting the other 49% of the party. (Just as JFK did with LBJ.)

[yourguide]

32. I'm quite sure he wont be calling you

but you said "And there will be no better way..than for us to make it clear that we want Hill in the VP slot."

Many of the "we" you are talking about HAVE voted and have shown Barack to be their preference. Wisconsin showed us yesterday they are REJECTING Penn and Wolfson's dirty tricks from the 48 hours prior.

Sorry, Hillary is indeed the same old politics and Barack has NOTHING to gain by adding HRC to the ticket.

So dont pretend to speak for me, other DUers, or other voters by saying WE. It's pretty clear based on the recent blow outs that most of Edwards voters went to Barack, if they wanted Hil they would have voted for her.

[susankh4]

35. Again.

We shall see who we get to vote for in November.

At least half of the Dem party is behind HRC. I am sure Obama knows that. And I think he is politically mature enough to make the right decision.

I'll vote for him, as long as he has *someone* on the ticket as VP that can hold his feet to the fire on:
* Choice for women
* Civil Rights for ALL (including non-heterosexuals)
* Health Care for every American

[yourguide]

37. First off I am a woman

and all of my female friends are for Barack. And Barack is pro choice.

um, hello - have you looked at baracks voting record and experience in general? He has been VERY active in civil rights.

health care for every american my tuckus. she had 8 years as first lady to get it done, she didnt.

Sorry my friend, WE dont feel the same way as YOU do. Had they not gone negative, had they not started a dirty campaign, I would have been fine with it. Your candidate made her choices, it's up to the voters to make theirs and they are speaking, in large numbers.

[susankh4]

38. Again.

We shall see who we get a chance to vote for this fall.

[yourguide]

40. and again...

WE dont all share YOUR opinion.

[miceelf]

44. Well,

I disagree with how desirable Clinton would on the ticket, either to keep progressive issues on the forefront (I don't see how a running mate who is less liberal than he is will keep him focused on our issues), or electorally (she'd turn off any potential crossovers, is my fear, leaving us with the dems who are probably going to vote for the nominee no matter what and little else).

But that's a side issue. Do you think she'd take the job? I would think she'd be more effective (AND have a higher profile and more influence) as Senate leader. First female senate leader is a pretty big deal and with the bigger senate majority that Obama would bring, she'd have the power to really enact liberal changes (assuming you're right and I am wrong about her politics). She'd have much more real power as senate leader than as the largely nominal title of vice president.

I think a good idea would be to have someone who was a Clinton SUPPORTER on the ticket, who would: a) actually want the job, and b) complement Obama's weaknesses. I am thinking Wes Clark. He'd beef up the foreign policy stuff, and also has the advantage of being at least as liberal as Clinton if not more so.

Do you really think Clinton would WANT to be VP?

[susankh4]

51. It's really hard to say.

I believe, tho, that she will do what is best for her party. And her country.

I thought of Wes as well. But, will Obama go for him since he has been such a vocal supporter of Clinton? Who knows.

One would hope that, in the end... all of them will do what's best for "we the people."

[miceelf]

53. Well

I am glad we're at least in the same ballpark with Clark. But if Obama won't take him because he supported Clinton, it's unlikely he'd take Clinton herself.

I really don't think the opportunity to be senate leader should be denigrated and if Clinton loses (I say if because it's still early), I suspect she may see that as more desirable than veep. it might also be better for the party to have her in the senate and Clark on the ticket. So in my view what's best for Clinton and what's best for the party in that scenario fit pretty closely.

[Zodiak]

56. Not to mention

that many of us here are tired of the DLC, and her injection into the ticket pretty much means that the DLC albatross comes with it.

[miceelf]

42. Oh good grief

The Clintons invented triangulation. Aside from her being a polarizing figure, she's NOT the vessel of progressive hopes. Remember how Bill advised John Kerry to throw gay people under the bus? (more than kerry was already doing). Is THAT what you want for our 08 campaign as well???

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. Questions...

If he wins with crossovers and republicans will he blow the best chance of a generation?

1) Name one President who has won without crossovers from the other party.

2) Did the existence of that creature known as the "Reagan Democrat" really hinder Reagan all that much in his push to implement his agenda?

[JoFerret]

13. No. those Reagan "democrats"

...went over to the dark side and stayed there.If they are wobbling now they will turn to McCain in November.

[cali]

18. DUers should really stop with the faux oracle thing.

They just look silly.

[RestoreGore]

20. Then his supporters should stop putting up "messiah" websites

They then make him look bad.

[cali]

21. lol

red herring deluxe. That has zip to do with what I said, and for the record I was not only talking about Hillary supporters. Try again, maybe you have something germane to add.

[Occam Bandage]

23. So being progressive means we're against faith and families? Way to buy into the RW frame.

[susankh4]

25. Being Progressive means....

we believe in the separation of church and state.

That separation is something that Obama is really having a bit of a difficulty with right now. Maybe not of his doing... but becasue of the desire of his followers to brand him some kind of saviour.

We need to help him walk this line. Yes... we can be for "family values" as long as we don't define "family" or "values" by our own narrow experience.

[Occam Bandage]

27. And the SCS doesn't at all mean

that candidates are not allowed to be religious, nor does it mean that they cannot be in favor of families, nor that they cannot have strong values. By rejecting those words, you're rejecting the framework by which most Americans live their lives. Do not concede that territory.

Obama's genius is in demonstrating that liberalism and progressivism can indeed--and, in fact, should--be part of the framework of faith and family. Frankly, we've run enough Dukakis campaigns; I think it's time we take back faith and take back families.

[TwilightGardener]

28. Agreed--well-said. I think the Democratic Party might not be God's Own Party, but

there's no reason why Dems shouldn't grasp the title of the family-values party, in terms of all the support that the Dem party gives to family-friendly policies in its platform. We shouldn't cede an inch to Repubs when it comes to family and moral values.

[Occam Bandage]

30. Absolutely. You want to talk family values?

We value keeping children healthy. We value assistance to keep impoverished families intact. We value keeping jobs in America--jobs that feed families. We value protecting the planet for our children. I think those are some pretty fucking great family values. What family values do they have in comparison--hating your gay son?

We value loving your neighbor. We value protecting the poor, sick, and elderly. We value peace on Earth. We value responsible stewardship of God's creation. What faith do they have in comparison? Fear of gays, fear of stem-cell research?

We are the party of faith and family. They're the party of greed and fear.

[TwilightGardener]

34. Yep. You said it.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. If the Obama campaign

Spoke like Occam speaks, I'd be mailing them money.
I am still waiting to know that I am allowed to define my family, not the Fundies. It is pretty simple. This is not an area where I hand out benefit of the doubt. There must be clarity.

[susankh4]

31. I agree...

as long as we don't get "moral values" mixed up with "Christian values."

I think Barack is smart enough to know the difference. Do you?

[TwilightGardener]

33. Of course! I'm not talking overturning Roe v Wade, religion, etc. I'm talking

about the things that REALLY help strengthen families, like Occam Bandage says above.

[susankh4]

36. Things like ....

*Health Care for every family, regardless of income.

and

*Equal rights for all families, regardless of sexual orientation.


I think Obama *can* come on board with these basic democratic principles. Don't you?

[TwilightGardener]

39. I have no doubt he'll do his best.

[miceelf]

48. "Can"???

He HAS. you could possibly make the argument that Clinton's plan is more universal than Obama's (I would disagree, but I could at least see the argument). But I don't see how Obama will be any worse (and I think he will be better) on gay rights than Clinton.

[susankh4]

50. I hope that is right

I know alot of gay supporters that are very nervous about his affliliation with McClurkin. As the mom of a gay son, it makes me kind of nervous too.

But... I think he can overcome it... if he gets the right VP and cabinet with him.

[miceelf]

54. I guess

it comes down to how much weight you put on the McClurkin incident- was it a boneheaded stumble or did it reveal the "real Obama"?- versus his stated positions, and his history of talking about gay rights in hostile environments, like those same churches (which I haven't seen Sen. Clinton do- would be glad to hear if she has).

I guess I can see why some would be nervous about Obama on this issue, but I am not sure that Sen. Clinton is a lot stronger on it.

[miceelf]

47. yes

He's definitely smart enough to know the difference. So we agree. I'm not sure what the problem is?

[susankh4]

52. I did not say there is a problem.

I'll be very happy with a BHO/HRC ticket. I can see alot of strength in such a ticket, in fact.

[miceelf]

55. Okay

It certainly wouldn't be the worst ticket in the world, but I suspect that she wouldn't take it if offered, for the reasons noted above.

Can I assume you'd also be comfortable with an HRC/BHO ticket if things turn around?

[susankh4]

60. You betcha!

I was pulling for that months ago.

But... now I am seeing some value in a BHO/HRC ticket. For many, many reasons... I don't want to get into here.

Suffice to say, I believe they are a winning team any way you slice 'em.

[miceelf]

46. Good googly

Where has Obama argued against separation of church and state?

You seem like a reasonable and intelligent person, so I am assuming you got this impression from somewhere- can you give a sense of how you arrived at the conclusion that he's soft on separation of church and state?

[miceelf]

41. he's been clear

His platform is every bit as progressive (a little more, actually) as Clinton's on every social and economic issue. it always helps to apply pressure, but Clinton would need more to get stuff done than he would.

I don't get why it's such a bad thing that he will win with crossovers and some liberal republicans, rather than losing without them.

Why is it such a foreign concept that we might have a presidential candidate who could actually CONVINCE people in the middle that we're right, instead of one who just hopes they don't vote?

[octobit]

45. Not just Obama

This should be done for EVERY politician. Without doing this a political victory is meaningless. 2006 is a great example.

[Barack_America]

57. Exactly. Excellent post.

:thumbsup:

[rug]

58. It's too late. After inauguration he will turn into Clinton circa 1994.

[NastyRiffraff]

59. Absolutely and I for one intend to.

Obama is not my first or second choice. He's at best a centrist politically, and I can't trust him to push progressive legislation. I'm downloading his entire web site, so I'll have a record of what he's promising today, and intend to consistently try to hold him to those promises. I doubt he'll keep all, or even most, of them, but I have to try to push him. I don't hold out much hope for women's issues, but women really do need to push him on those. Yes, he's nominally "pro-choice," but "morally" against abortion. I don't see him fighting hard for women; so far he's given lip service, but that's about it.