It's Not About Us: Time for Democrats to Come Together

I once witnessed a harrowing incident in which a dazed SUV driver veered off course, smashed several parked cars, and coasted maybe 100 feet before coming to a stop on the adjoining sidewalk. Then she just sat there, red-faced and out of it, looking oddly determined. Amazingly no one was hurt. An angry crowd gathered, but an older gentleman simply walked over to her car, touched her on the shoulder, and asked "Are you all right? Let me hold your car keys." They talked quietly until paramedics came. In so many ways, Republicans have driven us off the road during these past eight years. I fear they won't yield the car keys as willingly.

Everyone recognizes the challenge Barack Obama faces. He must down-shift his inspiring message of hope and change down to a human scale and hammer the differences between Democrats and Republicans on the pocketbook issues that immediately matter to millions of people. Undecided voters care about other things, too: Iraq and Afghanistan, the Supreme Court, Katrina, AIDS, the environment. Yet when people are hurting, you must address their meat-and-potato issues before they will grant you another hearing.

This won't be easy, because the other side desperately want to avoid the straight-up comparison. They're right to worry. As a man, John McCain is more admirable than Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. As the leader of his party, however, he peddles the same supply-side economics that has broken the budget while providing irresponsible tax breaks to the wealthy. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center recently ran the numbers on the two candidates' tax plans, in consultation with the economic staffs of the Obama and McCain campaigns.

In their wonky way, the Center's dry charts and bar graphs are rather breathtaking. They show that the Obama tax plan is much more progressive and much more fiscally disciplined than Senator McCain's plan is.

It's no surprise that the Obama tax plan is more progressive, but the differences remain striking. Eighty percent of American households pay markedly lower taxes under the Obama tax plan. As the Tax Policy Center analysis describes:

The Obama plan would make the tax system significantly more progressive by providing large tax breaks to those at the bottom of the income scale and raising taxes significantly on upper-income earners. The McCain tax plan would make the tax system more regressive, even compared with a system in which the 2001-2006 tax cuts are made permanent. It would do so by providing relatively little tax relief to those at the bottom of the income scale while providing huge tax cuts to households at the very top of the income distribution.

What about the deficit? Compared with current policy, the Tax Policy Center estimates that the McCain plan would reduce federal revenues by $598 billion between 2009 and 2018. It estimates that the Obama plan would raise revenues by $778 billion over the same period. That difference, about $200 billion annually by 2018, is more than enough to finance healthcare for every uninsured American. It is almost enough to finance two Iraq wars.

Story continues below

advertisement

Again -- this isn't Democrats talking. This is the verdict of nonpartisan experts who ran the numbers provided by the McCain and Obama campaigns. Senator Obama wants to restore the same fiscal sanity that produced budget surpluses under Bill Clinton: reducing the tax burden on working people while restoring modestly higher rates on people making more than $250,000. There are no smoke or mirrors, and this is no radical scheme. Under the Obama plan, wealthy Americans would remain much better off than they were ten or fifteen years ago.

Then there is healthcare. This is a meat-and-potatoes issue, too. It's not just the 45+ million uninsured according to the latest census figures. It's the millions of others who can't afford their insurance premiums, who are under-insured, or who can't pay their medical bills. A just-released 2007 survey finds that 72 million Americans of working age had accumulated medical debts or had problems paying medical bills. An estimated 28 million had been contacted by collection agencies over unpaid medical bills. Every observed measure of medical debt and associated economic hardship really worsened between 2005 and 2007 and is probably worse today. Millions of Americans fail to get fill prescriptions or get needed preventive care because they cannot pay for it. Despite spending $2.1 trillion on healthcare, we cannot seem to treat people decently.

For reasons I don't entirely understand, many politicos regard health reform as a boutique issue for goo-goos and liberal bloggers. It's more than that. This spring, my daughter and I went canvassing in northwestern Indiana. It was a tough day in unfriendly territory. At a garage sale, we met one family who were strong Obama supporters. Over coffee, the home-owner explained that she was raising money for her son-in-law who suffers from liver disease and has huge bills.

I recently posted a HuffPo essay on Democrats' edge among the disabled and their families. The essay soon disappeared into justified oblivion. Yet as often happens when I post on such topics, I got heartbreaking comments from people with personal concerns. Here is one:

As a 50 year old woman with multiple sclerosis, I am voting for Obama. My insurance company raises my premium every 6 months. It is currently $1,300 a month. If I drop it, I will never find another carrier. Right now I am not having too many symptoms and on no meds, but they have just been raising my premiums as soon as I got the diagnosis. I am a hostage.

As Jonathan Cohn noted sometime back, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards presented and debated serious plans to help this woman. John McCain has not.

Placing himself to the right of Republican Senators Charles Grassley and Orrin Hatch, McCain wouldn't even support the bipartisan SCHIP expansion. He called President Bush's veto "the right call," going on to say, "The American people have rebelled against out of control spending. If they could find a legitimate way to pay for it, I would consider it."

Actually, the bill included all the required financing through a $0.61 cigarette tax increase -- itself an important public health measure.

It would have cost $7 billion per year to cover 3.3 million children. Senator McCain supports huge tax cuts that dwarf the cost of this measure, not to mention the Iraq war. Yet the modest amounts needed for SCHIP represent "out of control spending." The benefits are apparently not worth the cost.

Hillary Clinton noted many times that SCHIP is a centerpiece of her legacy. It is something Barack Obama and any Democratic president would strongly support. Some unknown minority of disappointed Clinton supporters are considering voting for John McCain, dragging their feet, or just staying home this November. I appreciate their disappointment, but I hope they consider the impact of this election. Barack Obama would protect and extend the Clinton legacy on many fronts: SCHIP, reproductive rights, the Supreme Court. Senator McCain would do the opposite. Rightly or wrongly, the impact on Senator Clinton's own political future will be devastating if PUMA activists are blamed for an Obama loss.

This election is not about the mojo of party activists. It's not about the egos of Obamas, Clintons, and their various retinues. It's not about John Edwards' affair. It's not even about Michelle and Barack Obama's inspiring personal story, told so beautifully last night. It's about millions of people who need real help, and are wondering whether and how Democrats would provide it.

Ted Kennedy was there to remind us that these men and women are part of a larger and longer story. He was fighting for universal health care when Hillary Clinton was still in college and Barack Obama was still in diapers. This fight won't be over soon, either.

It's time for Democrats to come together. We have our rivalries and disagreements, but we can't get derailed by them when so much is at stake. This means that Barack Obama must hone his message. He must honor and own the best parts of both Clintons' legacies. This means that Hillary Clinton must honor her promise to work as hard for Barack Obama as she did for her own candidacy. This means that Bill Clinton must get over his personal funk to reach white working-class voters as only he can do.

It's not about us. We need to act like we all understand that.

Comments

[betterus]

Thank you all! And this is not just about a better America, it is also about a better world...

[IzzyCA]

This is such a good point! In the past 4 years, I have been laid-off 4 times due to budget cuts.

I cannot afford health insurance.

My wages have gone down 24% from LAST YEAR.

Obviously, everyone's cost of living has gone up.

And I don't even have it that bad, at least I have a home (apt) and food and an old car that gets decent mileage. It could be so much worse.

I am actively volunteering for the Obama campaign, not just to make life better for myself, but also for the millions of people who are worse off than I am.

I don't have the luxury of indulging in anger, bitterness, and "it's not fair." We have work to do.

[southernsepia]

You are absolutely correct!

The media is hyping this story and the Clinons are feeding in to it for the very reasons you stated. The corporate class likes making the policies we suffer with and don't want to give it up.

[Airmid]

Oh joy..... when will you guys wake up and smell the rotting corpses?

The guy's right! It's not about egos. So get out there and meditate and think cool compassionate thoughts or whatever it takes NOT to hand the Supreme Court for the next gosh-knows-how-long to me so far to the far of right that we've seen nothing yet.

McCrutch has a worse record on women's rights that GWB and that takes some doing. He has a 0 - read that, *zero* - rating from Naral Pro-Choice America (Obama has 100% rating).

He consistently opposes fair pay for women. His health care plan is specifically designed to leave 47 million Americans uninsured.

He's a walking anachronism who will spend his entire presidency trying to prove to the ghosts of his military forebears that he is 'worthy of their name'. He will do so by sending American forces overseas at every available opportunity, and he will bankrupt the country.

Is it not worth fighting with every tooth and nail to keep him out?

[swift goat pet for truth]

For me, it is all about my kid and our future.
The GOP has spent her money, and McCain only wants to spend more and more.

The interest on the National Debt each year is over $400 bil.
All the earmarks put together that McCain wants to eliminate is less than $20 bil.

That is his plan.

It does not work for my kid.

[Harold Pollack - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for the great comments from many people. Whenever you are mad at another Democrat, imagine John McCain cabinet and Supreme Court picks.....

[teacheng]

Preach on, Mr. Pollack. We hear you.

[PumaAnn]

I think most Dems have no clue about elections. It's not the PUMAS. We're just long-time Dems who are disaffected and mad about it. We have good reason, too. And I couldn't care less if the left-wing ever recognizes that or not. I will work within to address the wrongs I saw that were obvious. My opinion is that if you didn't see the disparity or the unfairness, then I have no reason to even talk to you. It would be like talking to an alien being.

Most Dems aren't loyal Dems. They are sometimes Dems, sometimes Repubs. They aren't actually Independents. But they don't vote straight ticket.

And this year, those Dems aren't so impressed with this DNC-engineered selection. So those Dems may like Mac better.

Too bad. Dems decided to run an inexperienced guy. Great year for it, they thought. Then, oil jumped. Then, the economy tanked. Then the surge worked. Then Georgia was invaded. All of a sudden, the Dems, who have rock-bottom approval ratings, aren't sitting in the commando seat after all. They pushed/pushed/pushed for this candidate.

They will not just have to figure it out.

[jhNY]

But as Mac's answers to all the pressing problems are worse than terrible, exactly why, besides just wanting to act on resentment, could anybody who cares about the issues vote for McCain? Please consider his actual record, past all that Hotel Hanoi experience. He's in bed with polluters, lobbyists, militarists and any neocon who needs a place to lie down. I believe the low approval ratings to which you refer are for members of Congress generally, not just Democrats ensconsed therein.

[IzzyCA]

"My opinion is that if you didn't see the disparity or the unfairness..."

When you get over the notion that life is supposed to be fair, then:

Consider what you can best to for the country, for the people who are struggling, people who are too poor to afford a computer, or are too busy working more than one job to have the luxury that we do, being able to comment in this forum.

You are entitled to your opinions, and I understand if your feelings are hurt, but what's the best choice for this country?

[ProudLiberalDan]

Thank you so much for this wonderful dose of perspective.

This election was never about personalities -- Obama, Clinton, Edwards or McCain. It's about people who are suffering under conservative and neo-conservative policy failures and who need our help. It's not just about our personalities and egos. It's about the future of the country and planet and whether or not we will have one.

[djarvis]

Very well said. PUMAs need to read this post and get over their stubborn selfishness. They need to realize that they would only be hurting themselves and this country if they refuse to vote - or even worse - vote for McCain. McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time and his plans for the future look like even more of the same. Wake up, people! We need change!

[CarmanK]

Oh he is so right!!
This Democratic Party has to come together to beat the Repugs. there is no option. Obama won the battle, it is time for Democrats to win this war. Our country is at stake. The future of this nation is on the line. So many are willing to die to protect our freedoms, I think it is time for many of us to be willing to live and fight the good fight to take back America and join the world again as an inspired leader, trustworthy partner and honest broker.
Come on DEMS, can we really win this war or are we once again going to "trust" the secuity of this nation to the Repugs who have put it up for sale to the highest bidder?

[mommadona]

You are right...it is NOT about them.

And, from what I've seen so far in the convention, I think the Democratic party is on the verge of that proverbial 'snatching defeat from the jaws of victory'.

The Clintonian EGOS that beg to be salved....immature and pathetic.
The "outrage" of so-called "feminists" who can't seem to have a life of their own without a cult figure like Hillary - shame on you women. Hillary is NO feminist. Do your homework.

The PETTINESS OF THE PRESS.
The PETTINESS OF 'CAMP CLINTON'.

Pathetic.
If you keep this up, you WILL get the government you deserve - 4 more years of McCain/Bush.

[jhNY]

And yet, if you continue to deride Clinton supporters and self-identified feminists, you too will get the government you deserve- 4 more years of McCain/Bush.

I was a Clinton supporter and voted for her in my state's primary. Now I support Obama and will vote for him in November. I hope you and those of similar punitive mindset will choose to be more welcoming and inclusive of other members of the party. Or else we're all in trouble. Works both ways.

[JSM222]

How can the party come together when Obama's campaign committee, Jesse Jackson Jr. calls Democrat Women infected pus?
:
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.)

"Yes, there"s some wounds," he said. "Yes, there"s some scabs. But sometimes, underneath a scab, there"s a little bit of pus, but we have to put some disinfectant on it so we that can heal the wound and move forward. That"s what the convention is about."

[vipersdad]

When reaching for a metaphor, it's rare that PUS provides a good one.....Scabs and infections?

I wouldn't make him communications director.

Having said that - he was not calling the "Democrat Women infected pus." He was speaking to the healing process.
First off - it's not "Democrat Women" (as an aside - you are showing your George W. colors by using the phrase "Democrat Women") - it's a subset of people who supported Hillary and who are members of the Democratic Party.

Second - It's pretty typical politico-speak for you to bend it back around and personalize it. If you feel that HRC was somehow robbed, then make a cogent case and show us how that happened. If you are smarting from the results of the election, I feel for you. I'm still smarting from the results of the 2000 and 2004 elections when I worked my heart and soul out for Gore and Kerry only to have that "thing" elected and ruin the country I love so much.

If you feel that there is political gain to be derived from repeatedly asking the rest of the Democratic Party to "woo" you, then grow up. Hillary is a strong, vital, important voice in our party.

Maybe you should listen to her.

[djarvis]

Maybe it wasn't the best analogy, but Jackson wasn't literally referring to Democratic women as pus. I think people are getting a little oversensitive if that's the way they perceive his comment. He was just trying to say that these women need to get over their feeling of loss and unite behind our nominee for the good of the country.