Democrats Do Not Need to Become More "Moderate" to Win in 2010 - Robert Creamer, HuffPo:

[highplainsdem]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/democrats-do-not-need-to_b_404798.html

Robert Creamer
Political organier, strategist and author

Posted: December 28, 2009 09:35 AM

Democrats Do Not Need to Become More "Moderate" to Win in 2010 - Four Rules for Victory in November

No one should be surprised that fundamental change does not come easily. The massive array of forces with vested interests in the status quo will bite, kick, poke out eyes, lie, threaten, bully and do pretty much everything else within their power to stop fundamental change. Frederick Douglass was right: "Power surrenders nothing without a struggle, it never has, it never will."

That means we might not win everything we want every time we enter the arena of battle. But to be successful in next fall's elections and increase our odds of long-term victory we must do four things:

1). Democrats need to demonstrate to the voters that we are fighting tooth and nail for the goals they support. This is critically important to keep the base of the Party engaged and energized. But it is also important to continually remind swing voters that we have not forgotten our mandate for change.

-snip-

2). Democrats need to deliver. When you're in power, fighting is not enough. The President and Democratic Congress have to deliver concrete measurable results. That is what the voters think they hire leaders to do. Voters not only want leaders who are on their side. They also want strong, effective leaders who can turn goals in to reality.

-snip-

3). Not only do we need to forcefully rein in the power of Wall Street and the Big Banks -- we need to frame the political dialogue in decidedly populist terms. Voters are angry -- as they should be. We can't be talking about financial regulatory reform in cold, clinical economic terms. We need to make the issues that brought our economy to a standstill very personal. We don't need "moderate" language here. The debate needs to be cast in moral terms -- in the terms of right and wrong. That's how the voters see it.

-snip-

4). We must continue to forcefully and proudly stand up for progressive values. And we must, in particular, contrast those values to the values of greed and division that lead us down the path to economic failure only a year ago.

-snip-

[DFW]

1. Exactly! Every time we try that, we lose!

Obama's election victory was because he promised to be Republican lite, or because he promised NOT to, hmmm?

*edited due to lack of sleep garbling my reading of the OP!

[Winterblues]

8. It was for "Change"

Change from what? What ran our Government for the last Decade? It certainly was not for more "Tax Cuts" for the wealthy...or the foreign policies of the Republicans.. Sometimes Change is not so severe as some would like but it is still change...That is something Democrats can campaign on. republicans have absolutely zero to campaign on. ZERO.. All they have is their intense desire to have Obama Fail..If he does not Fail it undermines their entire way of thinking about how Whites are Superior and the ONLY ones that can run our country..

[Echo In Light]

12. Always be wary & skeptical of those who push for this bullshit, counterproductive move!

[NorthCarolina]

2. It's the Democratic Right-of-Center *Moderates* that are the problem. nt

[mopinko]

3. you go bob.

very true. now spread that around there in d.c.

[xchrom]

4. Recommend

[highplainsdem]

13. Thanks!

[BeFree]

5. Good stuff

In short, here is a digest:

Democrats need to demonstrate we have not forgotten our mandate for change.

Be strong, effective leaders who can turn goals in to reality.

The debate needs to be cast in moral terms -- in the terms of right and wrong

Stand up for progressive values. And contrast those values to the values of greed and division

[BeFree]

7. 4 items applied to HCR

We need to demonstrate that HCR is change.

The dems were strong and united to bring forth HCR.

It is the right thing to do, this HCR.

We all need to stand up for the progressive value of HCR.

[highplainsdem]

10. Oh, how I wish it could be that easy, but the problem is the HCR bill.

That badly flawed, staggeringly compromised bill.

It doesn't represent enough change.

The "unity" was achieved by stripping out the most progressive elements and cutting deals with conservatives.

It was the right thing to do, in principle, but the reality is a mess.

And while there are some good points to the bill, too much of it will be hard for progressives to defend to anyone - especially other progressives.

What Creamer said about the HCR bill is particularly relevant here...and he's being kind to Obama:

I do not personally believe, as some Progressives do, that we would be in a better position to get a strong public option as part of this round of health care reform had President Obama been a more ardent advocate. (I do, by the way, think that a public option -- which continues to have overwhelming public support -- will be approved before many of the provisions of the health care reform bill go into effect.) But I do believe that President Obama would have stronger political support among base and independent voters had he been a more forceful public option advocate. People want to see their leaders fighting for the things they support, even if in the end they are not entirely successful.

Obama said entirely too much about the importance of a strong public option to be credible when he tries to convince people later that he didn't campaign on the public option, or that it was mostly "symbolic." Minus the public option, it's hard to convince people who agreed with his earlier statements that the gutted, compromised bill Obama is touting now is a good piece of legislation, let alone the greatest since Social Security.

I believe Obama would have more credibility with both independents and progressive Democrats, and Democrats in general, if he'd fought harder for a public option and if he were willing to admit that the bill that currently exists, especially the Senate version that's most likely to be the final bill, is flawed and inadequate.

And if he made it clear that he will continue to work to offer a public option (which Creamer seems to believe will still be approved before parts of the HCR bill go into effect).

But there's no sign that Obama is still interested in a public option. He seems more interested in trying to rewrite history and glorify a bill that doesn't include the element he once said was necessary. And more and more stories are coming out suggesting the White House was actively working against the public option behind the scenes.

THAT is what will make this HCR bill hard to sell in terms of its "progressive value."

BeFree, I wish so much this weren't the situation we're dealing with now. I had such hopes for getting a decent health care reform bill passed, with Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate and a Democratic president.

I like your synopsis of Creamer's advice in the earlier message. And if this HCR bill weren't so flawed, and so different from what Obama himself had previously said was important, I'd agree completely with your application of the advice to the HCR bill.

[bvar22]

6. Democrats need to become more moderate?

Great!
I would welcome this move back to the Left after all the Hard Right Conservative Policy they have crammed down America's throat over the last year.

[omega minimo]

9. Democrats "becoming more moderate to win" for 30 years is why we're in this mess.

I don't understand the call for #3. The Banksters have just been handed the key to the commonwealth by the current administration. That is a big reason that many voters will be discouraged and disengaged. Isn't it a bit late to be talking about the "need to forcefully rein in the power of Wall Street and the Big Banks"?

:shrug:

[Zenlitened]

11. K&R (n/t)

[highplainsdem]

14. Thanks, Zenlitened!

[JoeyT]

15. We need to be a lot more moderate.

Of course the party would have to take several long steps to the left to even be standing in the center.