After the Primaries, A United Progressive America

The Democratic presidential campaign began with remarkable unity from the candidates regarding what needs to be done to revitalize the economy and restore America's moral authority -- and their populist themes even spilled over into the Republican primary.

That does not simply speak to the candidates' position papers and records. It reflects a broad mandate from the public for fundamental progressive change, breaking from the failed conservatism of the Bush Era.

After all the histrionic punditfying throughout the campaign, after all the trivial media distractions over surrogates who blurt out mean things, after all the phony guilt-by-association attacks, the public unity around a progressive vision remains: an economy that works for everyone, health care for all, a clean energy future, affordable education and the end of the Iraq occupation.

The minor dispute over health insurance mandates did not change that most voters want their government to guarantee quality affordable health plan choices for everyone -- not trash employer benefits and force workers to bow down to insurance companies and pay thousands more for health care.

The minor dispute over the gas tax did not change that most voters want bold investment in renewable energy and energy-efficiency -- not more misguided foreign occupations in oil-soaked countries that destabilize the globe and keep us at the mercy of price spikes.

The back-and-forth over trade only has reinforced that the public wants an end to unfair trade deals and a new economic strategy for the global economy of the 21st century that lifts up workers and protects the planet -- not a continuation of rules rigged for multinational corporations.

The Democratic primary race produced no division within the party over the big issues, and no rift with self-described moderate independent voters who want the same things. The unity over substance extends beyond party lines. That means the Democratic nominee, widely presumed to be Sen. Barack Obama at this point, does not need to overhaul his message and platform to appeal to swing voters in the general election.

The Republican primary race, on the other hand, was wracked with internal division, still not fully resolved, as the party grapples with how to deal with seven years of complete conservative failure in Washington. On the issues, the conservative base of the party is completely out of sync with swing voters. Sen. John McCain has no choice but to revamp his campaign strategy to be competitive in the fall.

But McCain's initial attempts to bridge that wide gulf -- clumsily offering red meat for conservatives and populist rhetoric for independents at the same time -- have produced policies and statements that risk being seen by voters as not just out-of-touch, but disturbingly detached from reality. Not just a Bush third term, but a Bush third term on crack.

The public is united on issues. The mandate for progressive change is being built. Conservative dead-enders are increasingly marginalized. Pity the poor candidate that can't deal with that reality.

Originally posted at the Campaign for America's Future blog.

Comments

[Nonamnesiac]

The United Democratic Party of Barack Obama opposes single-payer, universal health care, supports NAFTA-like trade agreements (he just supported the labor-opposed Peru Free Trade Agreement a couple of months ago) and opposes immediate, safe withdrawal of all US troops and contractors from Iraq, claiming we must keep an indefinite number of troops there for an undefined period of time guaranteeing more killings and maimings to advance the interests of Iran against US interests.

I agree most Democrats buy the above positions. But there are large numbers of progressives who don't and will not support Obama as a result -- and we don't care if some two-bit Nader-baiting Democratic Party sycophant screams at us while s/he votes to support candidates who continue killing and maiming our young and Iraqis because that candidate has a "D" label instead of an "R" label.

In this world of inaccurate Conventional Wisdom (CW), where so-called players think they can intimidate or ignore dissenters into silence or non-existence, there will be a much larger number of voters supporting McKinney or Nader in the fall than CW predicts.

Out now safely or don't expect our votes. You want me to vote to kill or maim some of my family against the interests of the United States by voting "D" or "R". I ain't gonna do it nor will millions of others like me.

[Sundialsvc4]

Don't get your hopes up, pardner.

All of these "so-called candidates," swirling through the rapids on a raft of just-right poll numbers and shining ribbons of polished words, are sitting United States Senators. Their every public move is a matter of public record thanks to the Librarians of Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov.

"By their fruits shall ye know them," y'know. The Good Book's right. If they are spouting these glossy words now, and actually mean it, then they would have been saying those same words in the Senate committees three, four, five years ago ... and ... you can "ask Thomas" ... they were not.

Here's the catch: nor were they divided. You find public record of votes taken literally in the middle of the night that were virtually unanimous. For war. You see financial reports being presented and they're not even bothering to try.

You want to know how we got here? Two words: "House" and "Senate." Nope... no primary-colors here... "House" and "Senate."

[meanguy]

actually the analusis assumes that the american electorate will do what we have never done before-entrust the whiote house to the far left

[SteveClements]

We need to continue with Change We Can Believe In. We need a VP who will be in line with Obama, who has been on his side, who strengthens us with real executive experience, real domestic experience, who will help us win over Hillary's hard core women supporters, who will help us win traditionally red states. In other words, we need Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, daughter of former governor of Ohio, catholic, Democrat who wins in Kansas!

[Sundialsvc4]

Good grief, such polished words. Ahem, who do you work for, Steve? No, no, I do not know you, sir, and I am not here to make fun at your expense. But I am quite taken-aback by the flower of such rhetoric; and its ... how shall I say it ... "laxative smoothness."

("Goes down easy, tastes good, but you will not like what happens next...")

When you're stressed as a nation because you see what's happening to you and you know it's happening to you ... and someone smiles and throws a brightly-colored object to you ... you grab it. And that paragraph is positively loaded with brightly-colored objects. Let me challenge those words: what "executive experience" is proved here? If you saw a "hard-core woman" walking down ... no, no, let's not go THERE ... walking down the street on a bright summer's day with a real briefcase in her hand ... how would you know? I've driven through lots of states and I've only seen brown dirt.

This political game is no game, not when we could be a few votes away from World War Three. These cats are interviewing for Chief Executive Officer of the US Government. We don't need to be following Peter Piper Pollsters. We need someone from Missouri to weigh in: "Show Me."

I say again: I'm not sniping you, Steve, oh stranger. But, read that glossy .. sophistry .. again. These are dark times for our nation... wrapped in brightly-colored packages.

[Countess]

This analysis assumes that Clinton still has progressive supporters left after her neocon rantings and her utter contempt for liberal democrats. I'm afraid this is a misreading of her loyal followers who are very right wing and anti-black.