I have questions for those who think Obama is a moderate /centrist/ conservative.

[Radical Activist]

Have you ever knocked on doors in housing projects and impoverished neighborhoods to empower communities to work for social change and have a voice of their own?

Have you ever passed up a more lucrative job offer to be a civil rights attorney?

Have you ever ran a voter registration drive that registered over 150,000 black voters? It was credited with bringing new power to black communities in Chicago and getting Carol Mosley Braun elected to the US Senate.

Have you ever worked for an organization closely tied to a very left wing group like ACORN? Do you even know what ACORN is?

Did you give a speech at an anti-war rally opposing the Iraq War before it even began?

Have you ever passed laws to require video-taped interrogations for capital cases to reform the death penalty; reduce the influence of lobbyist money in Illinois and Washington; been named an environmental champion by LCV; or pile up an almost perfect AFL-CIO voting record?

I know people change. I know Obama will need pressure from the left once he's in office.

But I'm willing to bet the people claiming Obama is or always has been a centrist/DLC/conservative haven't done half the things Obama did to advance the progressive movement even before he got into office. They obviously don't know a thing about the man.

One or two politically realistic positions that aren't what you'd like does not mean he suddenly moved to the center or that he was always a centrist.

[onehandle]

1. He has a less liberal voting record than Hillary. Which likely makes him more electable.

I'm glad he's a Centrist. If he wasn't, he wouldn't have a chance.

He'll be Bill Clinton 2 without the yoke of a Right-Wing Congress. Thus he will be Center-Left rather than Center-Right.

No Liberal paradise is forthcoming.

[Radical Activist]

3. You, like everyone who makes these posts, offer no specifics or facts.

But since my last thread got locked for being a primary fight, I won't argue why I think claiming Hillary is more liberal is ridiculous.

[onehandle]

6. Specifics.

Progressive Punch is a site that rates the legislative records of all Senators on progressive issues. For 2007-2008, Barack Obama is the 43rd most progressive out of 100 Senators. # 44 is Joe Lieberman. After #50, they are all Republicans, except for Tim Johnson. (Overall, his ranking is 88% or 24 out of 99, possibly suggesting he has become less progressive over time in the Senate.)

Hillary Clinton is rated far more progressive for 2007-2008, at #29. Her score is 90% to Obama's 81%. Overall, she ranks 17 out of 99, with a 91% progressive voting record, to his 24 out of 99 and an 88% progressive voting record.).

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/21/133518/373

[Radical Activist]

11. Some blog?

Those ratings are very subjective How about established groups with reliable and respected rating systems? Because we know the ACLU, LCV, and AFL-CIO all give higher marks to Obama.

And I notice you still haven't named a specific vote.

[onehandle]

18. Yeah, you can't trust those Liberal blogs. LOL!

The site noted from "some blog" draws its facts from voting records.

They did the research on his votes so I don't have to do a damn thing for you.

[Radical Activist]

39. I remember when that was first posted

and I remember the flaws people found in the votes picked. As I wrote, its very subjective. The National Journal found Obama was more liberal than even Kucinich. But hey, why trust the AFL-CIO, ACLU, and LCV when you can link some guy with a blog and an agenda?

Besides, you can only make the case that they're alike if you look at two years in isolation of their entire careers and philosophy. That's very misleading. You didn't see Obama helping Monsanto poison people or serve on the corporate board of Walmart.

[demokatgurrl]

34. Try Americans for Democratic Action

they also rate voting records for a "liberal" quotient. They paint Clinton and Obama as identical.

[Radical Activist]

37. If you look at a single year or two and ignore the rest of their careers

you can make the case that they're the same. That's a very deceptive case, but one that Clinton supporters make often.

[paulk]

45. the rest of their careers?

Voting records are what matters, not the rest of their careers. It's the bottom line.

btw - you want votes, I've got two - Obama's support of the 2005 Republican tort reform bill that the majority of Dems voted against (including HRC) and Obama's "yes" vote on the Bush/Cheney energy bill where he, once again, voted in the minority of Dems. HRC voted against that bill also.

His support of the right wing Supreme Court justices (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) in the recent death penalty decision is also troubling. Wanting to expand the death penalty is not a move to the center, it's a flat out move to the right.

[Radical Activist]

49. How about Obama's entire career voting record?

People who try to equate Obama and Hillary conveniently forget to include Obama's years in the Illinois Senate, where he complied a very progressive record, including reforming the death penalty, which he would also do as President.

Yes, looking at two years in isolation of their entire careers is deceptive. And what a person does for a living, what they do to advance progressive causes outside of office like Obama did, (or work against progressive causes as Hillary did for Walmart, Monsanto and others during her legal career) does in fact matter. It says a lot about who a person is and what their priorities are when they aren't carefully compiling the right voting record two years before she runs for President.

Obama's energy policy is very progressive. You've got no argument there even if he did take a bad vote.
And if you want to define progressivism on whether someone thinks a child rapist should get the death penalty, be my guest, but don't expect it to be the universal standard others use.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. IMO, based on what I've seen of each

Obama is a centrist who is rooted in the liberal left. Hillary is a centrist who is rooted in the conservative right.

They may have similar voting records and similar stances, but they arrived at them from diametrically opposite directions.

That is, I again say, just my feeble opinion.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

35. He's "less liberal" than the Clintons? You gotta be kidding me??!?!?

[babylonsister]

2. Great post, thanks. But 'he's the biggest liberal eva!'

He's hard to pin down, and it drives the r/w crazy. Apparently it drives everyone crazy!
Who cares? He's going to win, he's moved center, as those pols do, but I don't think any
movement made equates to changing his viewpoint on stuff I care about.

He's trying to win an election; I'm going to try to help him.

[FrenchieCat]

4. You and me, my dear......and millions of others.

Yes we can.

In fact,

Yes, we must! :patriot:

[Cha]

40. Hi Frenchie, please see

post #38 if you want to see a great online video interview with Obama today in Kansas City.

[Radical Activist]

5. Community organizing does emphasize bringing people together.

You see that in Obama's political approach and people who would rather have Obama play the divisive warrior have a hard time with that.

[Radical Activist]

9. Another thought.

I keep seeing people on DU say that Obama moved to the middle. Maybe I missed a news article but I don't see it.

I know people don't like the immunity thing but that's only one issue where Obama wasn't going to make the difference anyway. If that's all there is then I don't see how he moved to the middle.

[onehandle]

10. He will win. Thank God. nt

[Cha]

38. Here's a great online video interview with

Obama in KC today. Proud2Blib posted it and it's just what I needed to give me some perspective instead getting upset(actually it was too late for that but it calmed me down a bit) 'cause of the DU attacks on Obama.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6432346

[RoyGBiv]

7. Speaking of strawmen ...

Have you heard the one about how Rosa Parks was a failure because she never even bothered to pass a law ending segregation?

That woman ... how dare she criticize those who did the real work.

[Radical Activist]

26. If Rosa Parks were alive and running for President today

there would be people on DU saying how she moved to the center and sold out. There are agendas and mentalities involved in this that have little to do with Obama and where he stands on issues.
There's no strawman in pointing out Obama's career and record. Its relevant given the accusations. Have you not seen the many threads about how Obama moved to the middle?

[RoyGBiv]

27. Oh, yes ...

And, for the record, I agree thoroughly with the point you are at least trying to make.

The way you go about making it is, however, a strawman.

No one *but* Obama can live up to the standard you set, which you implicitly declare is reason enough to absolve him of criticism from any of us peons who haven't done such things.

No, I've never passed any legislation on anything at all. That has not a single thing to do with my ideological stance on various issues, nor does it have anything to do with Obama's and how they compare. And you know it. I read your comments regularly, and you're smarter than this.

[Radical Activist]

31. The point

which I think you already get, isn't to set up a standard for others but to paint a broader picture of who Obama is and what his record is to put the recent heckling in perspective.

[Clovis Sangrail]

8. in the context of his political career he's way more center than left

he's done some great things, no doubt, but if you haven't already read his books.

He's not the fire breathing evil liberal politician that the right tries to paint him as but by the same token he's not the champion of liberal politics that some on the left would like him to be either.

His senate voting record bares this out.

[Radical Activist]

14. I've read his books and watched his career.

And I disagree with your portrayal, that like all others who make the same claim, does not includes specific examples or facts.

[midnight]

12. I want you to be right.... We can't afford any more nonsense.

[blondeatlast]

13. I know what ACORN is (I won't tell, but I worked for them) and I bet this thread

will be full of piss and vinegar or die--but it needed to be said.

Thanks, RA, for being a consistent voice of reason on DU.

[Radical Activist]

16. Wow

I think at least 1/3 of my posts are unreasonable, but thank you. :)

[blondeatlast]

19. We've argued a time or two, but your arguments are always reasonable!

That's what pisses me off so much when we disagree! :hi:

[grantcart]

17. Now see I could have saved myself a lot of effort by waiting for you to

post this much more intelligent post.

Another question

What is the highest rating by the ACLU has any successful candidate for president gotten?

Obama's is pretty high 89% lifetime 86%


http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?congress=110&repId=25424&session_num=0&page=legScore

[democrat2thecore]

20. That was very, very good

Thank you for such a well-reasoned post that puts it all in perspective.

[sandnsea]

21. Thank you

As I've said before, Kerry was more liberal than anyone who ran this time, and he was labeled a DLC centrist sell-out too. We don't live in Europe, we just don't.

[Radical Activist]

30. Its a constant thing.

There will be some people saying that no matter who the nominee is. Its frustrating.

[elocs]

22. What is important to me is that he is a Democrat.

Not "the" perfect Democrat because that differs from person to person. There is no one Democrat who is perfect for everyone, but I think Obama is the Democrat who can be perfect for some of us, near perfect for many others, and he should be damn good for most of the rest who are not caught up in some doctrinal purity, litmus test NeverNeverLand. I think it is going to be awhile before we see another candidate who generates the widespread enthusiasm that Obama does. If you are looking for any reason to critically dismiss a candidate, you will always find one.

[Riktor]

23. That is incredibly naive

We live under a two-party, winner takes all political system, so neither party can afford to be too reactionary or too radical. In order for a candidate to successfully take an election, he or she must appeal to a wider range of voters than the opposition. This is not possible if one takes up positions that are not readily embraced by the average voter.

[provis99]

24. one problem with that true statement you made

the average, or moderate voter, is the crux of the elective system. The problem is that voters who are moderate tend to be so because they are completely clueless about issues or politics, yet still vote.

Democracy is essentially rule by the stupid (moderate) voter, when it should ideally be about whose ideas are best for the nation.

[Radical Activist]

25. There are two ways to reach moderate voters.

One is to constantly moderate and shift to positions that poll at 60% or more. That's the Clinton approach that made the Democratic party the complete joke it is today.

The other method is to have a unifying message that articulates progressive ideals in a way that appeals to a majority. I think people have a hard time seeing that Obama is doing that because it hasn't happened successfully in at least a generation.

[musicblind]

28. Obama IS centrist, and DOES disagree with me on a few issues

and that's a GOOD thing, because otherwise he wouldn't be our next president. As things are going right now, he is doing what he has to do to get elected. I DO NOT agree with him on the FISA bill, and I DO NOT agree with him on the supreme court rulings... but I DO agree with getting him into the White House and that is what we (and he) is/are aiming for. I don't personally think that OBAMA agrees with these positions he's taken. Not ENTIRELY, but he knows what he has to do and he is doing the job.

[libforlife]

29. compard to the australian government, obama is way more liberal

rudd is very conservative

[wyldwolf]

32. Obama has taken the opposite side of "progressives" on several high profile issues

Including welfare reform, private social security companion accounts, teacher's merit pay, the fairness doctrine, and general DLC-style third-way policy making.

It was Bill Clinton's singular contribution that he recognized that the categories of conservative and liberal played to Republican advantage and were inadequate to address our problems.

He understood the falseness of the choices being presented to Americans. He saw that government spending and regulation could serve as vital ingredients and not inhibitors to growth, and how markets and fiscal responsibility could help promote social justice. He recognized that societal and personal responsibility were needed to combat poverty. Clinton's third way went beyond splitting the difference. It tapped into the pragmatic, nonideological attitude of Americans.

By the end of his presidency, his policies enjoyed broad support. That he failed, despite a booming economy, to translate popular policies into a governing coalition said something about the demographic difficulties Democrats were facing and the structural advantages Republicans enjoyed in the Senate.

Barack Obama, "The Audacity of Hope"

[Radical Activist]

42. That's a lot of spin.

Progressives disagree on things like merit pay and the fairness doctrine, as we've seen at DU. DLC policy is the media consolidation Bill Clinton did, not breaking it up, as Obama would do.

And since I've read Obama's book I know your out of context quote was part of a section describing political trends and doesn't necessarily imply an endorsement of those trends and ideas. Its deceptive for you to quote it as such.

I don't see anything non-progressive about that paragraph anyway. Saying government spending and regulation can contribute to growth is progressive. Progressives recognize the importance of personal responsibility. Please link a statement where Obama says he supported Clinton's welfare reform, if that's your claim.

[demokatgurrl]

33. Just check his Senate voting record.

That's who he is TODAY, not who he was 10 or 20 years ago.

[barack the house]

36. You got it, some folks are trying to rewrite history here the record stands.

[Solon]

41. What about his policy positions?

You seem to completely neglect them. From energy to "trade and cap" environmental crap, to his not so universal health care plan, etc. None of these policy positions are to the left of, for example, what the DLC advocates, and yet he's still labeled a liberal. Why is that, doesn't that make the label of liberal meaningless?

[Radical Activist]

44. Obama's energy policy is amazing.

His progressive stance on energy is one of the top reasons I support him and its far beyond the recent cap and trade system that went before Congress. To say it isn't left of what the DLC advocates is completely inaccurate. Some people claimed Edwards had the best energy plan, but I always thought Obama had a better plan for vehicles, and Obama didn't propose the Billions in yearly subsidies to the coal industry that was in the Edwards plan.

He sets a goal of reducing Carbon emissions by 80% by 2050, which is exactly what scientists tell us we need to do. The most important sticking point in a cap and trade system is that carbon credits be auctioned rather than given away. Obama supports auctioning the credits, which is exactly what major environmental groups are advocating. I think you're way, way off saying his energy plan isn't progressive.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

And I don't think its so clear cut to say that Obama's health care plan is less progressive just because it doesn't require big brother to force people into a health insurance system that they can't afford. Coming from the perspective of the anti-authoritarian left, it makes perfect sense.

[Solon]

47. The biggest problems are that he has big ideas...

and no real idea on how to implement them. First things first, clean coal is a misnomer, instead of polluting the air, it pollutes the water, its a non-starter, from an environmental standpoint. To see Obama advocate for it is like having my teeth pulled.

Cap and trade credits are fine, except for the fact that the biggest(and richest) polluters will buy them up to use, and many areas of the country will not see an improvement in air quality as a result. The only way it would work is to make each credit more expensive than what it would take to properly reduce emissions at these plants and factories.

As far as his health care plan, well, I have many of the same criticisms of it that I did of both Hillary's and Edward's, they won't work. Indeed, they seemed designed to fail from the start, they generally aren't universal, are overly-complicated without needing to be, and financing such endeavors seems to be a detail that was missing from all of their plans.

Indeed, most of my criticism of these plans, and others, is more based on practicality rather than ideology or political reality. For example, to actually reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, we would have to give up cars as our primary means of transportation, no question, this has to be done. However, you don't see Obama advocate for that. This also applies for oil independence, we don't need to replace the gasoline in cars and everything will be fine, indeed, we can't, instead we need to concentrate on how to reduce the amount of energy needed to move people, per capita. I see no politician willing to go that step, but it will be needed.

The cap and trade credits seem to be a way to create a market for clean air, this I oppose on not only ideological grounds(the air we breathe is part of the "commons" we all share) but also because it simply won't work on the local, much less national, level. A more reasonable alternative would be to give companies time to transition to low or zero emission energy production for factories and power plants, let's say a decade, and once that time is up, take punitive measures against those who haven't followed the regulations yet. I'm not talking slaps on the wrist as most "fines" are defined today, but rather make them pay more money than they make in a day, per day, until they are in compliance with the law.

As far as health care, single-payer works in most western nations, why can't we adapt that for our nation?

[crankychatter]

51. the MSM is war profiteer, megapharm, energy transnational owned

Did you just imply Obama's "an empty suit," or "all hat and no cattle?"

if you had your way Obama would be watching the debates on the couch at home, drinking beer with Kucinich and Gravel

good luck with THAT bullshit.

are you recruiting for the Green Party? Re-fighting the Primary? or simply disrupting under the "constructive criticism" clause?

[Solon]

53. No I don't think Obama is an empty suit, I just think he should employ actual scientists...

and engineers as his science, energy, and environmental advisers so that they can come up with practical solutions to the many problems we have facing us today. The fact is that a large amount of the positions he's come up with in these areas are bad ideas, most likely as a result of taking some bad advice. Its not really his fault, but really, he needs some real scientists by his side to figure out what to do, we shouldn't leave problems like this in the hands of politicians or lawyers, its out of their depth.

[Radical Activist]

55. Cap and Trade worked once before

to limit ozone emissions. To be effective, the system only has to make burning coal from old plants slightly more expensive than wind and solar. Then the market will switch over as fast as it can.

Coal power plants are a bigger source of CO2 than cars so that's where our focus needs to be. Obama's policy of building no new coal fire power plants, while investing in efficiency and renewables, is exactly the right path, and its what leading environmental groups and scientists are calling for.

Of course you don't see Obama telling everyone they have to stop driving. He wouldn't get elected dog catcher with that platform. You do see him pushing for reducing the amount of energy it takes to move people per capita through more electric cars, higher CAFE standards and more funding to public transportation.

[LWolf]

43. I haven't done the things Obama has done.

I've been other places, and done other things. I'm the one the "bootstrap" myth is written about, and let me tell you, it's a myth. While Obama was knocking on doors in impoverished neighborhoods, I was living there.

I'm the only child of a single mom who, with her high school diploma and typing skills, worked multiple jobs to raise me. Alone, with no family support system. None.

I'm a woman who was born to the working poor, who was a latch-key child before the term was coined, who lived with domestic abuse from Mom's boyfriends, and who knew what it was like to have the utilities turned off, the car run out of gas, and nothing left in the cupboard but rice.

I'm a woman who, following the path I was born to, had 2 babies and an abusive husband at the age of 19; who moved 17 times in the 10 years I was married, was homeless 3 times, and who declared independence at 27. The one who spent 15 years working jobs, raising those 2 kids without help, and going to night school to get a degree.

The one who cashed in state retirement from one job to pay the bills while I did student teaching, who passed up a more lucrative job to teach kids from neighborhoods just like mine, to give those that don't have family and community support behind them a chance.

I'm the one who's been there, and who wants HR 676, a living wage, guaranteed employment, and universal public preschool through trade school or college; because I know, intimately, what a difference it would make. Things that Obama does not support.

[Radical Activist]

46. Obama isn't a socialist

That doesn't make him a moderate. I'm not so sure about your living wage comment...

"As president, Obama will raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011 and index it to inflation so full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing – things so many people take for granted."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/

He would also make the first $4,000 per year of college free, which would at least provide for universal community college.
Plus, "Obama will quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality for both."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/

It doesn't look like there's a big gap between what you want and what Obama supports. And don't you think Obama would be the sort of President who would sign those things into law if progressives organized well enough to build mass support for them?

[Solon]

48. $9.50 an hour isn't a living wage in most large cities in this country...

the problem is that he puts a hard number on it, but instead what should be done is they should calculate LOCAL living wages based on local costs of living, and index that to inflation as well. There is no "universal" living wage in this country, a person in Kansas can live just fine off of around 10 bucks an hour, a person in New York City cannot.

[Radical Activist]

50. Then isn't it up to states to set their own

beyond the federal minimum, as many do now?

[Solon]

52. Ah, but there could be a federal living wage law...

that requires the states or(more likely) localities to come up with living wages in their respective areas. Remember, the federal minimum wage law is the bare bottom that is possible, many states don't even have a minimum wage law, and those that do HAVE to exceed the federal set wage or face a withdrawal of federal funding, etc.

As far as enforcing a federal living wage law, well the Census already collects a lot of economic data and indexes cost of living already, it should be easy to see which areas enforce the federal living wage law, and again, if they don't, they face certain consequences as a result.

[LWolf]

54. I think that there is support among the people who need them most.

The people who voices aren't heard.

There will never be support from corporatists, voters or reps. The upper middle class and above are harder sells, because they don't live the reality that the rest of us do.

I think it would be easier to build support among them if he advocated it from the presidential bully pulpit.

Is 9.50 an hour a living wage? I don't think so. Rent, clothing, food, furnishings, health care, transportation, utilities; all the things that should be part of a decent standard of living don't appear on 9.50 an hour. It's better than nothing, of course.

As is the rest. Better than nothing, but not what I'm looking for, when I want CHANGE. I was hoping, after 8 years of Bush, for something more than "better than nothing," or "better than the alternative." It's disheartening, to say the least.

btw, your response does more to make a point for Obama than throwing McCain at me, telling me that "the perfect is the enemy of the good," that Obama will act left while he talks right, or that he is some kind of incredible savior that will just inspire me with the spirit, if not the reality, of change, if I just let him.

Thanks.