I'm writing to pass along the question--is Barack Obama progressive enough. I look at the question as you might a peach cobbler pie; it can be broken down into fruity chunks.
Certainly MoveOn.org's support (the online member vote gave Senator Obama the golden goose when compared to Senator Clinton, 70.4% to 29.6%) carries some weight on the issue.
Obama's response to the support of 70% of the 3.2 million members nationawide who voted?
"In just a few years, the members of MoveOn have once again demonstrated that real change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. From their principled opposition to the Iraq war - a war I also opposed from the start - to their strong support for a number of progressive causes, MoveOn shows what Americans can achieve when we come together in a grassroots movement for change. I thank them for their support and look forward to working with their members in the weeks and months ahead."
His motivation is sincere and it sounds like he has an incling to proceed with MoveOn's issues. But will he? And what role will his rhetoric about 'changing the system' play in this discussion? If he is sincere in this right, MoveOn's members could really look at their pie and eat the crust, too! Brilliant thoughts like "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek" could transform his ambiguity into something I could really embrace. But this would take some civic action on my part, a bit of trust and perhaps god's will (wink).
I can't help but feel naive. And so I build my trust on the pie metaphor. MoveOn.org contributes to my decision, but I have a large appetite and one piece isn't going to cut it. Discussing Barack Obama's thrashing of Paul Krugman this year should be a clue about the candidate's progressive colours.
When Paul Krugman dared to question Obama's healthcare plan (and praise it for its well-founded spirit), calling it the timidity of hope, Obama has what the Huffington Post calls the audacity to smear Krugman. Krugman knocked Obama down a peg... Obama returned the favor.
The story goes: after Krugman asked Alex Cutler, a Harvard economist, about Obama's healthcare plan (which he helped construct), he was not impressed. He wrote:
On the whole, the Obama plan is better than I feared but not as comprehensive as I would have liked. It doesn’t quell my worries that Mr. Obama’s dislike of “bitter and partisan” politics makes him too cautious. But at least he’s come out with a plan.
According to Marsh, "the only goal is to cannibalize a progressive who dares rebut Obama's health care spin with the truth. Obama puts himself above a progressive with unquestioned liberal bona fides; someone who stands alone in the rhetorical world. It's not like we have a lot of op-ed contributors taking up the progressive cause in newspapers across this country. To attack a leading liberal economic writer from The New York Times makes it worse."
Marsh holds him accountable. However, she doesn't deserve a full slice yet. I found her next comment more interesting: "He doesn't react reflexively." This is where I have my doubts about Obama and the progressive movement. If Marsh is right, and Obama "only reacts after it's found to be politically advantageous", he may well adopt the policies that MoveOn.org pushes for. (This plays into an arguement later in this post)
In any case, Marsh's analysis benefits our democracy in the long run; we should be dating Obama (not ready to take him home yet), and unwilling to commit to his spirit or the man himself. It's important to challenge them. And so I don't think Rush Limbaugh is far off when he calls for the continue of the soap opera--Hillary should stay in the race.
Limbaugh is limited to one slice of cake, however, for two reasons: 1) I don't believe clarity and policy specifics are counter-productive outcomes like he would have us believe and 2) two pies would eliminate the progress he's made on his diet. It's productive because the country does not know the party's future. It's not only a battle for the Democratic nomination-- it's a battle for the Democratic Party.
On a side note:Just how bad do things have to get in this country when populist policies are 'viable'?
