We Don't Just Need A Democratic President. We Need a Movement to Change Washington.

Hillary Clinton would make a competent, solid, predictable, progressive president -- and would be a welcome contrast to the dark years of the Bush presidency.

But in 2008, America needs more than a competent, progressive chief executive. We need a movement to fundamentally change how things are done in Washington. That's why we need Barack Obama.

Barack Obama's campaign has demonstrated clearly his ability to inspire and lead a movement of millions of average Americans. The Clinton's eight years in the White House showed just as clearly that leading a movement is not what Hillary Clinton is cut out to do.

For almost four decades I have worked as an organizer and strategist in progressive battles aimed at changing policy in Washington. I believe that the history of the last 40 years has taught us one critical lesson: fundamental change in Washington happens only in response to mass movements made up of millions of mobilized Americans.

Whether it was the civil rights movement; the successful battle to stop the privatization of Social Security; the fight for a cleaner environment; the 1993 battle for universal health care; the years long struggle to end the war in Vietnam; or the current battle to end the war in Iraq -- our experience has shown us that fundamental changes never come from inside Washington. They always come from all over America.

They are never the product of competent, experienced leaders. They are always the result of motivated, mobilized Americans.

And we've learned something else. People don't get mobilized and organized spontaneously. They may get angry. They may become cynical. But organizers and leaders must arise among them to light the spark of possibility -- the belief that, together they can win; to convert fear and anger into energy and hope.

Progressives have plenty of wonderful policies and programs. We know what should be done. What we lack is the mobilized political movement that is required to turn those policies and programs into the future of our world.

The fight over the 1993 Clinton universal health care plan was a case study in the failure of the inside game to make fundamental change. Hillary Clinton negotiated behind the scenes to buy-in health insurers. She created a complicated, Rube Goldberg health care plan that tried to accommodate the health insurance industry. But as soon as the insurance gang wrung out all the concessions they could, they savaged the plan. They convinced Americans it was complicated, risky, unfamiliar and down right un-American. The insurance companies stopped universal health care dead in its tracks, even though we had a Democratic president, a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate.

The 2009 edition of the battle to pass universal health care will involve reshaping one sixth of the American economy. It will affect some of the most formidable and well financed inside players around. Universal health care simply isn't going to happen as a result of tough presidential talk, or hard negotiations. It's only going to happen if millions of mobilized voters make it clear to their Members of Congress that if they don't come home from Washington with guaranteed, affordable health care for all, they won't be returning to Washington in the next election.

The same goes for pubic financing of elections, labor law reform, restructuring the tax laws to benefit the middle class instead of the richest people in the land, climate change, energy independence, universal access to pre-school and higher education. The same is certainly true of trade policies and the outsourcing of American jobs.

Victory in these struggles to fundamentally change the politics and economy of our country requires more than a competent president and Democratic Congress. It requires a movement.

Barack Obama has the capacity to lead that kind of movement -- to barnstorm the country mobilizing Americans to demand Congress pass universal health care; inspiring Americans to join "Health Care We Can Count On" committees in every small town and big-city neighborhood.

America is familiar with the kind of competent, incremental leadership that the Clinton's provided in the 1990's. It was night and day better than either George Bush -- but it did not involve leading a movement for fundamental change

In 2008 Americans aren't interested in triangulation. They don't want insider deals. They don't want small incremental successes. They want fundamental change.

Barack Obama has demonstrated his ability to inspire -- to call on Americans to a higher, common purpose - to create political engagement, energy and excitement like no other candidate since Robert Kennedy.

We may not know how well Barack Obama will make the trains run on time (although based on the precise execution of his campaign for president, I'd bet he does that pretty well too.) But we do know that he has the ability to lead and organize a movement. That's the kind of president America needs to lead our country into the second decade of the 21st Century.

Comments

[MsTruth2Power]

Bob, as a Chicagoan in your wife's district, I find it odd that you are claiming to be some bastion of progressive politics. You are a lobbyist, and have been convicted of bank fraud. You floated checks for your own $100,000/ year salary. You supported another lobbyist, Larry Suffredin, to be in charge of the 2nd largest justice system in the country while he lobbied against a smoking ban, safer drunk driving laws, and the release of a convicted cop killer. Special interests are what's wrong with this country, what have kept it from truly serving all it's people, and you are member. While I do support Obama, how on earth can you rationalize your own hypocrisy?

[coloradogirl73]

Excellent! Perhaps when Obama is elected President he can tighten the laws regarding income tax evasion. He can also champion law to stop the use of people's intimate connection to member's of Congress to do things like obtain lucrative contracts from the Democratic Party and to negotiate plea bargains and reduced sentences for felonies committed. Maybe Mr. Creamer could use his 4 decades of experience advocating for "change" to help the future President Obama with these issue.

[aurelio23]

Do We Really Need These Elections?

If I remember correctly, the Founding Fathers, who also included a few rich merchants and slave owners that worried more about their fleets of wagon trains, their seed depots and their lines of plowing implements, never envisioned that the republic they had been so busy building, would turn out to be a sad imitation of the enlightened democracy they had in mind.
No doubt that some of the initial wisdom and good intentions did create one of the finest civilizations in many centuries. But, like all the others, it began to crumble at the seams and, we fear, dissolve into a messy pantomime of uneducated, ignorant masses and greedy merchants.
The present elections – more of an auction – for the presidency, is perhaps the clearest proof that we are about to croak as a nation. To quote a clever sentence in a recent book, “they will turn to dust while looking at their gold Rolex wristwatches, fondle their silicone-challenged women and look with greedy eyes at their multimillion dollar retirement bonuses as they sink into oblivion!”

[Groobiecat]

Excellent post. "It's only going to happen if millions of mobilized voters make it clear to their Members of Congress that if they don't come home from Washington with guaranteed, affordable health care for all, they won't be returning to Washington in the next election."

This is the point that sooooo many people are missing. I was a legislative aide on Capitol Hill for over 10 years. And the way it works is this: if you don't have all the right pieces to the puzzle, and have a grassroots campaign mobilized to ensure that the public's interests are taken into account, the special interests will have their way. This is a critical component of Obama's campaign that, frankly, he should have reinforced more--this is key to the "details" behind the speech-ifying about change in Washington, DC.

I'm glad that someone finally took the time to outline that fact. The fact that there are less than 200 comments here, however, indicates what a snoozer of an issue this is. Why? It's not sexy. It takes a little more imagination and understanding of *how* change comes about. If you want to shine a light into the corridors of power, that's going to take a mobilized, engaged populace that demands *transparency* in government (which, hopefully, will become the watchword of 2009).

Unfortunately, so few people know how "the process works" that they can't envision how to get from there to here, so to speak. Your article is a good step in that direction....

[KimFromPittsburghPA]

EXCELLENT ARTICLE!! You articulated so well what I have been trying to explain and express to friends and family ever since these primaries began....the time for this movement is long overdue and necessary to get some real progressive changes made so we can take our government back and hold our elected officials accountable to "we the people" -- who they are supposed to be working for....

[jacobomorales]

What you want will not be achieved by republicans ...

[bauersox]

"Barack Obama's campaign has demonstrated clearly his ability to inspire and lead a movement of millions of average Americans"

That should read "below-average Americans." Anybody who would vote for a President who preaches the gospel of "dreams" and "inspiration" really needs to get his head examined. It's no better than choosing a chief executive on the basis of astrology -- which, if I'm not mistaken, Huffington invites her readers to do elsewhere on this page.

[Montanamotor]

I bet you have no faith, have you...? Faith is able to move mountains. This time, it's the faith in Barack Obama's movement, that will move those mountains of s**t piled up in Washington. Cynics and, defeatists need not apply.

[KimFromPittsburghPA]

No, you need to study and understand political history and stop just repeating the sound bites you get from the Clinton campaign and the Rethugs -- 'cause you clearly aren't as bright as you think you are. So by your own "objective" judgement, you are "above average" and the millions of Obama supporters are stupid and "below average" for recognizing how important it is for a true leader to mobilize and inspire the people to demand change? Past history and the founding fathers would strongly disagree with you. So you think we might as well pick our President based on astrology? I for one don't appreciate some egomaniac cynic talking down to me and all of Obama's supporters in such a patronizing way. After I "go get my head examined", I'm going to do everything I can to get Obama elected and to do my part in getting our government "of the people, by the people" back. It requires a revolution, a movement -- to get significant change to happen in government. That's a fact. A revolution of the middle class and poor of this nation (98% of the country's citiizens) is long overdue! You can go sit in your bubble with your other cynical friends and watch your lives improve because of Obama's leadership and the work and political involvement of us empty-headed, naive people.....

Your simplistic, patronizing, narrow-minded view makes me both sick and sad.

[mikey683]

Obama has yet to win a single large state. Of the big states democrats NEED to win in November, he's won...oh ...let's see, NONE!

[bauersox]

If he is the nominee, he's going to lose in November, as sure as eggs is eggs. The "big wins" out of which his so-called "momentum" was constructed, were in Republican states that use the caucus format -- which is a hinky way to run an election , to put it mildly.

[Montanamotor]

You are in a deep state of denial, methinks. Stop drinking kool-aid, and start thinking, Hillary-supporter. You are MILES beyond reason with your assessment. In national polls, Obama leads Clinton 50 vs. 40 percent. In a Democrats vs. Republican scenario, Obama ias equally ahead against McCain, while Clinton is BEHIND McCain. Spin as you like - but dont publish. It's nauseating to see you mimicking republican tactics.

[Democrab]

We already have "change" in Washington. It's called Bush in Washington.

[Wigglesworth]

Poster Retarius used a great word in making a series of interesting observations, but he didn't include the definition for this word he used:
KAKISTOCRA­CY--Govern­ment by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.

[retarius]

I agree that we need Obama....but sorry, I don't see that Hillary would be a competent, solid, progressive leader...she's up to her eyeballs in debt to corporate entities that have funded her...she has to pay these folk back in the time honored tradition of the US bribe-based political system (oops! campaign contributions). Hillary is soiled goods....if you want more less favorable legislation for CEOs and hedge fund managers then vote for Hillary....if you want a shot at something for the working man or the middle class, give Obama your vote....he may not prevail against the forces of evil (Washington corporate lobbyists) but I'm sure he'll give it a shot.

[Montanamotor]

I tip my (virtual) bowler to that!

[Macready]

Great blog . . . thank you so much for posting . . . Obama means change and if the Democratic Party is to survive and change is to happen then hillary and her dlc buddies have to go . .. hillary, feinstein, schumer, pelosi, reid . . . . have all kow-towed to the bushies . .. we need a big change in leadership if change is to happen and Obama is the one who can bring it about.

[Montanamotor]

You are absolutely right - and if I had faith, I'd constantly pray for that to happen. But I am worried that, Obama might find his name on the same list as JFK, MLK and RK did, as soon as he'll be the DNC's official nominee. Stay alert and have a good look for rascals, I say. There are people out there who are willing to risk anything, in order to avoid losing everything they have accumulated while cooperating with corporate America during the last 20 years - and not only those on the other side of the aisle...

[BBackSoon]

“They”, whomever They are, will risk nothing. The assignation will take place quickly and there will be some kind of a Shakespearian flawed fall guy that will never see trial. It will be blamed on a White supremest that everyone can distance himself or herself from. The coup will truly be complete and McCain will win easily because we will need a Hard Leader.

Viva la Revolution.

[LoveFreedom]

If you want change in Washington, then support RON PAUL! He's the only presidential candidate who will restore America to her place in this world as a Strong & Free Nation. Ron Paul can't be bought. He's frugal. He honors his oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. He's a man of honor, integrity, & character! Wow, how about that change in DC?! He's been doing it for 20 years now as a congressman. He's getting it right. Wake up America! McCain - CFR, Huckabee - CFR, Obama - CFR, Clinton - CFR, Bush - CFR, different faces - same agenda, you can bet on that! A vote for McCain, Huckabee, Obama, or Clinton is a vote for Bush! a vote for big govt! a vote for abolishing your rights as an American citizen! a vote for the NAU! a vote for NAFTA! a vote for the UN! & on & on...If Ron Paul got as much air time as the other candidates, America would be reclaiming itself already. As it is, MSM prevents you from hearing him. Turn off the TV, go to the internet or your library to learn factual information. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

[LBKN]

..."But in 2008, America needs more than a competent, progressive chief executive. We need a movement to fundamentally change how things are done in Washington."...

That's the condensed version... and I wholly agree.

There are no guarantees... but if that is the stated goal... (AKA-Change)... then it should be obvious to any level-headed voter that Obama is the most likely change agent.

Any other voting gesture is a plea for "likely status quo".

----------­----------­------

I don't even know if it is possible to do this... but a particular 'vision' is important right now...
Not a vision from the candidates or elected representatives... but from the constituents.

This is a "Jurassic" focal point... a moment in the manifestation of what will be history. The question is whether a dinosaur can be encouraged to see beyond their habits and self-serving agendas to allow for evolution...

Does a dinosaur have the ability to see the pivotal moment in time?

I have no concerns that the "New Generation of Americans" are about to save the boomers from themselves... but the question is, "Will they ever know that they have been dragged... kicking, screaming, and pouting into the next epoch.?"

I assume they will just pout... and wait for the inadequate gene-pool to dissipate through the life and death process.

Sad that we are likely creating a herd of angry old folks... who will never cross the bridge and appreciate the 'Brave New World'.

Welcome the new flock of 'Pattus Buchananisaurus Rex'.
We will do our best to be patient.

[PacificGatePost]

Sure there is a movement. For good reason....
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-social-phenomenon.html

It is very much rooted in the broad middle class and its disconnection to those in charge. The "hope" is understandable and movements look for leaders. And, no, we do NOT know if Obama can be the leader and neither of course can the other candidates. Therein lies the rub.