OBAMA = DEMOCRATIC TURNOUT
My Case for Barack Obama
The best reason for the Democratic Party to nominate Senator Barack Obama for the Presidency is that he generates extraordinary turnout at the polls among two demographic groups that have historically under-performed; youth, and African-Americans. Younger people are voting in the Democratic primaries at three times the level of prior years, and most of their support is going to Obama. The numbers for black turnout in 2008 far exceed previous years, and I think it is reasonable to expect that the participation rate of both youth and African-American voters will increase even further in the November general election if Obama is our nominee. The hotly-contested 'swing' states of Ohio and Florida both have significant concentrations of minority voters, and Obama's presence at the top of the ticket will likely put both of them in the Democratic column.
If we take the Democratic base of liberals, enviros, labor unions, and various progressives, and add in a huge youth componenent, plus millions of newly energized black voters, plus the rapidly growing Latino consituency..... Voila! We have the recipe for a tidal wave that has the potential to make the Democratic Party the dominant political institution in this country for the next century and beyond. With Obama's ability to drive voter turnout there are also favorable implications for all of our downticket races, from the White House through the Congressional contests, the Governorships, State and County officials, all the way down to local municipal races. We have seen many close elections in recent years that would have gone our way with stronger turnout.
There is no equivalent scenario on the Republican side; their 'big tent' is already in tatters, and they simply cannot produce the sort of turnout that Obama can. And whatever her other qualities might be, Hilary Clinton does not attract huge numbers of previously disenfranchised voters into the pool the way Barack Obama does. The Obama campaign raised a spectacular $32 million in the month of January alone, and he has received powerful endorsements from many of the most visible and respected Democratic politicians, which will lead to further endorsements, and an enhanced ability to raise money down the stretch. The majority of Obama's donors have given less than $100, which tells us that the Obama movment has populist roots that translate into real votes.
After eight years of Bush and Cheney, the GOP is struggling to raise money and its members are disillusioned. Many of their sitting Senators and Representatives have chosen not to run again. The prospects for a Democratic takeover of Congress are encouraging. This is not the time to do the Republicans a favor by nominating the one candidate (Hilary) who pushes their buttons and who would surely serve as a lightning rod for right wing organization and fundrasing. We should also be aware that the corporate media have a well-documented love affair with John McCain, and their bias would be a powerful weapon against us should Hilary be the nominee.
If Hilary Clinton were to be elected President and serve two terms, it would mean that the Bush and Clinton families could boast of an occupant in our White House for thirty-six consecutive years, beginning with Reagan's first term in 1980 and stretching until the year 2016. The sequence would look like this: Bush / Bush / Bush / Clinton / Clinton / Bush / Bush / Clinton / Clinton. Enough, already. We are not a 12th-century monarchy.
The end of the Bush-Cheney era will be a beautiful thing to behold, but I think we ought to aim higher and leap at the opportunity to have a transformative, once-in-a-millenium election that dramatically alters the voting dynamics in this country for the long term, and Obama offers us that chance. The Republican strategists who are looking at the electoral landscape for the coming decades ought to be shaking in their boots, and we are damn fools if we don't seize the moment and make the most of it. There is some contrast between our two candidates on the issues, but the principal difference lies in Obama's ability to dramatically expand the base demographic for the Democratic side, thus winning the general election in November and reducing the Republican Party to a quaint irrelevancy for the forseeable future.
Hillary has a much higher "never voted for Democrats before" quotient with women coming out in droves for her, plus she has a never before seen Hispanic vote on her side as well as various other constituencies that are coming out for her while breaking previous records (over 55 years of age voters.) She will have the largest share of true DEMOCRATS (a constituency Obama is seriously lacking support with.) When Hillary wins the nomination she will start off with a tremendous coalition of Democrats, and with Obama's help (and her own appeal to young voters well established) the youth vote for her in November will truly be historic. We have always had a huge share of the AA vote, and that will not change this time around, not with Hillary at the top of the ticket and Obama helping get his strongest demographic voting block excited about it.
Hillary has a much higher "never voted for Democrats before" quotient with women coming out in droves for her
Cite please?
Obama is truly gifted at attracting such modest boosters with whom one can empathize...
It used to be standard thinking in the netroots that we deplored candidates who take the Democratic base for granted in favor of playing to the center.
Now, every day I see an argument for Obama that says exactly this: we should take the Democrats for granted, as all of us will show up anyway, and focus solely on which candidate will bring in more non-Democrats.
While I'm all in favor of expanding the party, this sort of fuzzy logic inevitably leads to turning control of the party agenda over to non-members of the party. Why let Democrats determine the Democratic agenda, after all - they'll all vote for the Democrat whether they get what they want or not!
We also always criticize the DC Dems for caving in to Republicans every time there's a fight.
Obama has caved in on UHC even before there was a fight.
So has Clinton.
cite please?
If your definition of UHC is a single-payer system, then Clinton has "caved" here, 2:24. If your definition is a system in which everyone has insurance, then watch this whole part of the debate; Clinton never refutes Obama's claim that some people will ignore the mandates in Clinton's plan and end up without insurance. (Everyone acknowledges that mandates decrease the number of the uninsured, but do not decrease the number to zero.) If your definition of UHC is a system in which everyone has access to insurance, then both candidates' plans are for UHC.
So no matter how you cut it, you can't make a blanket statement that one candidate offers universal healthcare and the other doesn't. I cautiously agree that Clinton's plan would likely lead to fewer people being uninsured. But Obama has always prioritized decreasing costs over increasing coverage.
This is nitpicking. Many of the European countries have Universal Health care very similar to the system proposed, with mandates an important aspect of it. Very few fall through the cracks, and mandates are simply part of life. You appear to be making it sound as if we are talking Millions of people here when we are seeing the number of uninsureds in other countries with such a UHC system extremely low (statistically absolutely insignificant,) which would be much closer to our reality. For all intents and purposes Hillary offers UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE while Obama does not.
I define single-payer as public single payer with mandated universal coverage. In our current system everyone has access to insurance and health care, they may not be able to afford the insurance and getting health care may bankrupt them, but it is accessible.
I define UHC as either single-payer, employer mandate with public programs covering the unemployed (1994 plan), or individual mandated coverage. This is the definition commonly used before the presidential campaign. There is a qualitative difference between a system that encourages compliance and a system that requires compliance which is captured in the term "universal".
So, by definition, Obama does not propose universal coverage. Clinton's three part plan addresses cost and quality of coverage in the first two parts, and universality in the third. Obama addresses cost and quality, but does not propose universality.
Obama also caved on his nuclear spill reporting bill. And on his health care bill at the state level. And his ethics reform lost most of it's teeth in negotiation.
"The sequence would look like this: Bush / Bush / Bush / Clinton / Clinton / Bush / Bush / Clinton / Clinton. Enough, already. We are not a 12th-century monarchy."
This sequence would not be so bad if it were not for the underlying politics driving the period. A better characterization since Reagan by presidency would be: Republican / Republican / Republican Lite / Republican / Republican Lite prospectively. Harold Ford said it all last night about the DLC centrist/moderate Democratic view: it is still, steal the Republican's agenda.
And that is precisely what Hillary will do. To say that Hillary is for the poor is about the greatest bit of nonsense heard about her to date. Clintonism is not about the poor, about our traditional Democratic liberal-socialism. It is about moving away from it.
