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

[BUSHsurvivor]

Movement? There are good movements and there are bad movements.

[Kundera]

I recommend a colonic.

[OroLee]

The menu at the cannibal diner:

Local . . . . . . . . . . $20.00
Tourist . . . . . . . . $25.00
Missionary . . . . . $30.00
Politician . . . . . . . $100.00 (cost of cleaning -- thy're full of crap).

This nation needs a colonic.

[trevor01]

Fundamental change is the result of incremental successes. Anything that promises a quick fix will suffer a quick demise as the entrenched interests and inertial forces have to be dealt with deftly and with patience. I respect your legitimate effort to change the system but disagree with your methodology.

[OroLee]

Au contraire, per Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine; or, perhaps a modification: "Fundamental change is the result of incremental successes at strategic junctions.­"

[bellecloche]

Thanks for that wonderful article, Mr. Creamer! I think the American people (the Democrats especially) deserve to know why universal healthcare didn't work on the first try.

[k6007]

Because Hill was locked in the back room with special interest.


and, of course, Republicans hate her.

[mikekev58]

I don't know what history you've been reading, but it was precisely because Hillary kept certain special interests, viz. the health insurance industry, at bay. Harry and Louise were not launched because Hillary was catering to special interests; Harry and Louise are the evil spawn OF special interests.
And while universal health care was not passed during Bill Clinton's terms, there were significant changes in the law regarding health insurance. Mrs. Clinton herself has acknowledged that her plan was too sweeping and too complex. But if failing at an effort is a reason to exclude someone from the Presidency, what kind of person WILL we want leading the country? Failure only occurs when people try things, and through failure people learn to adjust and seek accomplishments in ways that are inclusive and that have realistic goals.
God forbid that we don't allow our leaders the room to have made mistakes, to have had failures, and to have failures as they attempt to move our country in the direction of the promise that is at the heart of the United States.

[seepee]

We should be careful what we wish for –
The Iranian’s wanted that in the 70’s – look what they got

Vote with your heads not with your hearts

[nippersdad]

They overthrew a brutal dictator put into power and kept there by the United States after we destabilized their popularly elected Democracy in the fifties. What is your point?

[mouselion]

Exactly. A little history lesson is order for the guy who wants to vote with his head.

Vote with your head AND your heart.

And, speaking of Iran -- the way we meddled in their politics to scam their oil is at the very root of global terrorism and W's war. . .

[mikekev58]

I think his point is that what replaced the Shah has been no better than the Shah, and is in fact a greater danger to the world than Iran under the Shah ever was. That the Iranian "revolution" was in part due to American interference in Iran is undeniable. That the current theocracy is little better than what the CIA helped but in place is a fact of life in this world.

[Liberal2]

Thne Iranians, in the '50s, wanted their own government, Eisenhower decided, after helping win the war to allow European countries to have their own governments, not to allow the Iranians to have their own government.

In the '70s, tired of a Saddam-like US-supported king, the Iranians were willing to accept any change.

So, you're right, but neither party is now offering an acceptable option.

[Merlin7]

I agree completely, but I can't help but remember that in 2004 a sizable majority of U.S. voters flocked to the polls to vote for . . . George W. Bush. It was unbelievable, mind-boggling. It was as if a great stupid animal woke up briefly, belched, scratched itself, voted Republican and then rolled over and went back to sleep. And we were hip deep in a brutal war. (This was three years before Maqtada al Sadr declared a unilateral ceasefire to consolidate power in the Iraqi government, allowing U.S. officials to claim that their troop surge had somehow defeated all those insurgents. )
Obama does offer considerable hope for change, but we mustn't underestimate the electorate's penchant for making bad choices. All it would take would be another carefully orchestrated "crisis", especially one involving potential terrorism, to send voters scurrying to the polls to vote for McCain. Shall we run down the Bushies' menu? Israel attacks Iran; U.S. attacks Lebanon or Syria; U.S. attacks Iran; U.S. ships battle Iranian gunboats near oil terminals; U.S. attacks Serbia; U.S. moves troops to Poland or Czech Republic; etc., etc.

[PioneerKing]

Sen. Clinton couldn't even stand up for a strong education bill so how is she going to do better than G.W. Bush? The most telling vote of Sen. Clinton's career, other than her Iraq vote, is her vote for No Child Left Behind. Sen. Clinton fails to mention that she voted for No Child Left Behind.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00371

[mikekev58]

That would be the No Child Left Behind bill that Ted Kennedy had a very significant hand in crafting? You know, Ted Kennedy, Lion of the Senate, support of Barack H. Obama?

[MIHOP]

Since this is written by a man, I assume I can post here.

Anyway, great article.

Change is more than a word.

[USVeteran]

I am proud that the Dems have so many good people running for Pres. I am supporting Obama because he will be a president for all americans. I don't think he communicates that enough. I like Hilary alot, but I can not go through another primary with her and Bill running against the Darkside.
We will relive every lie and hear new lies that we heard before. then if she wins we will relive 4 years of charges and new false investigations, another 50 million more dollors will be spent by the darkside.
NOTHING will get done for 4 more years. This country can not survive that. We need to break away from all incumbents that have been there for more than 1 turm. Please tell me. am I wrong

[lisakaz]

Indeed. The obstructionism of the past will continue as much as Rethugs can do so. Dems will need supermajorities to do anything.

[mikekev58]

"We will relive every lie and hear new lies that we heard before." I won't bother to point out the obvious problem with the second part of the sentence, but my question is: if they are lies, and they are, why would you not be able to dismiss them out of hand? Do you think that there will be no lies told about Obama? And if the 8 years of Bill Clinton and the "Darkside" efforts to bring him down are any indication of what will happen during a Hillary Clinton presidency, then we can look forward to a time when the nation will be prosperous, American military power used judiciously, and the world once again will look at the US with respect. Some people can walk and chew gum at the same time, you know.

[scandinavian]

well written. the more concrete examples and explanations the better because this time the inspiring movement really provides possibilities for true change.

[Herrington]

Creamer, exactly my argument for months now. Now will follow a stream of cynicism by people who have never seen what public participation in government can do. A movement like Civil Rights is a history lesson for most. The Vietnam Era protests are faded pictures in a parents album.

I’d like to remind the class though, that Russia was reborn out of the Soviet Union, the most repressive authoritarian of governments, because of popular political uprising. Lech Walesa led a challenge to Soviet power that rocked and inspired the communist world, and eventually caused the fall of the Berlin Wall. FDR did not sail into the White House on the power of his own ideas, he led a movement to break the grip of exploitation of the population by the rich. Labor law, Social Security and a host of New Deal changes were driven by the people, from their Hooverville shanties.

What works is what always worked, an informed and involved electorate. And as you say Creamer, the place to start is with your local representative. Do what we want or be gone is the most effective policy tool of all.

[naugiedoggie]

There is ZERO chance that Barack Obama will have any impact relating to those described here.

Most importantly, because he is merely a politician. He is not a civil rights leader, he leads no movement. Movements can be created by politicians demagoging on an issue, like George Wallace on segregation. They do this because they track a single issue, such as integration. Lech Walesa was not a politician, he was a long time (decades) activist who actually led a movement into the political arena and as a result, gained some political power at the end of the movement uprising. He actually proved to be pretty poor at governing and got booted out, an ignominious end to an important career.

You should also note that politically, Barack Obama is center-right, and a big element of his political agenda is "empowering the individual" -- borrowed more or less wholesale from Ronald Reagan, along with the accompanying themes of minimal government. Why on earth would anyone attempt to tag as "progressive" someone who wants to reduce the involvement of the government and push the discredited mantra of "personal responsibility"?

It's a mystery until you remember that Obama supporters don't actually care what his programs are, or even if they get implemented. They just come for the speeches.

Thanks.

mp

[Herrington]

There are no leaders that create movements. Movements select leaders. George Wallace did not create a movement, he was selected to lead it. Segregation was the popular antithesis of de-segregation in the south. McCarthy didn't even create the Red Scare, he took advantage of it. Reagan exploited the undeveloped ethics of the evangelical right which gave the appearance of a movement, a fact the he probably did not understand, and so in truth, they selected him.

What is your actual point? I ask because the argument you make is so clearly vacant of any support.

If you have an alternate to Obama in mind, why do you not suggest one? Perhaps McCain? Maybe Nader?

[lisakaz]

We get it. You don't like him. Why don't you tell us why Hillary is soooo much better?

[abot]

Please mp aka naugiedoogie

List HRC's accomplish­ments....S­ince you have done so much research I expect to see some good info from you.

Thx mp

[mikekev58]

I lived during the Civil Rights era and it was a STRUGGLE, not merely a "movement" nor a lot of protests. People put lives on the line, they were beaten, police dogs were loosed on them, and some were murdered. Martin Luther King was not just an eloquent speaker; he was a man of action who spent time in jail, was stabbed, and ultimately assassinated. The Vietnam protests of the 60s and early 70s were proud moments, but in the early 70s, it is also true that a majority of Americans still supported the war. It's really hard to say what role the protests played in ending our involvement in Vietnam.
I simply do not see how this time in history is anything like the Great Depression, or the Civil Rights era, or even the Vietnam War era. I don't know toward what ends this current "movement" is heading. I do know we need to get some things done in this country, and I believe that Senator Clinton is the person to do that.

[dana94591]

I haven't been this fired up since Bobby Kennedy!!!!

[mikekev58]

Yeah...Bob­by Kennedy...­the guy who jumped in the race once he saw that Gene McCarthy had shaken up LBJ in New Hampshire. I guess we'll never know what RFK would have done had he lived; we do know some of what he did while he was alive, which included approving the bugging of MLK. Even the icons have feet of clay.

[tester]

Fired up, but are you ready to go?

[dana94591]

Yeah! This is it exactly. Within the Beltway players are not going to truly change the structures as they stand today. Barack Obama wants to change the paradigm and the procedures in Washington in order to get the people what they need: health care, education, improve the economy and create jobs for people, protect Americans as well as the world! We need this change!! The last seven years have been a nightmare. Hillary will not bring us relief from the horror of these disastrous years. She is in the pockets of the very people who control Washington now. How is she going to use "her experience" to change the way things are being done there when she is part of the problem. I just don't see how she can really inspire people to see her as an agent of change when she is such a "changing personality". She doesn't seem truthful! She will do anything to be elected. I don't see that as attractive or desirable at this juncture in our history. We need CHANGE!

[naugiedoggie]

As the old saying goes, "Take the log out of your own eye before looking for the mote in your brother's.­"

I'm pretty weary, at this point, of ignorant and lazy Obama supporters declaiming "we need change" when what they really mean is, "we want someone to change things for us." You've had election after election over the past decades, and did nothing. Now, all of a sudden you're going to do a 180 and "demand change." Sure, you are. Then pigs will fly and cows jump over the moon.

You may indeed succeed in propelling Barack Obama into the Presidency. What then? Why, you'll do what you've done after every other election ... nothing. Hey, you elected him to do the work for you, didn't you?

Thanks.

mp

[indie17]

Methinks you've become too cynical. Would be better to give a new movement a chance. Many others here truly are intelligent and thoughful folks, also.

Have you read the 'Historians for Obama' article? You might find it interesting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-pollack/yes-obama-has-substance-_b_87126.html

[IdahoBert]

Excellent and insightful article. And the beauty of it is that when Obama started out against Clinton he was 20 points plus in the hole. He hasn't even started campaigning against McCain and he already has a lead. This is a movement that can really make a difference. It is frightening in some respects that it is so dependent on one person, but that will change with time. The genie of hope has escaped from the bottle and it will be hard to make it return.

[mikekev58]

Your point that HRC had a 20 point lead on Obama, which he erased, should be a cautionary tale regarding any lead Obama currently has over Senator Mc Cain.

[MrMac]

Great post Robert... I agree totally. This is the reason that I support Obama. Clinton promises that she will do this and she will do that, and that she will fight for what America needs. Then when it doesn't get done, she blames everyone else. For example she promised more jobs for upstate New York when running for the Senate, but when that didn't pan out, she says it was because George Bush won the White House instead of Al Gore. That's the problem, she could promise the world, but the truth is she can't do it alone. I believe a Clinton presidency would result in more of the same... a lot of debate, but not much action.

Obama takes a different approach. He talks about the things WE can do to improve America if we unite and work together to get it done. If the movement driving Obama into the White House sticks together and continues to mobilize for candidates and causes at all levels - local, state & federal, we will certainly see the changes that America needs. I believe that Obama's campaign proves that he can unite people against overwhelming odds. Not many people thought this race would still competitive at this point. The reason it is still competitive, with the momentum behind Obama, is because of his ability to unit Americans from all walks of life together for change. The fact that he is likely to win shows that hope is not about campaign promises and experience, but about vision. It is a precursor to action. Mobilizing Americans to get involved and take control of their government is what it is going to take to change Washington.

[PracticalMagic]

OMG - don't you realize that Obama is telling you what you want to hear? I hope what I fear does not come true, but if he can't deliver, all the dreamers out there will be sorely disappointed. I just want a Democratic President in November, but I'm afraid Obama's weaknesses will show before November, and we may get McCain. Remember, in the primaries people vote their heart - all in the same party basically. In the General Election in November, people will vote their head. Obama might loste Hillary will not. h

[lisakaz]

Polling doesn't reflect this view.

[MrMac]

That's right... Obama is telling me what I want to hear, and telling America what they NEED to hear... that it's up to US to change things. He's said "We are the ones we've been waiting for", and I think that's true. We need to stop waiting for someone to come along and change things, and get active ourselves for real change. If he doesn't deliver because of gridlock it will partially be our own fault, because we need to get out there, be involved in the process and elect people that truly reflect the will of the people. There are a number of incumbent Congressmen retiring this year, getting out and electing good replacements is a start.

I can't blame you for supporting your candidate if you are a Clinton supporter, she is a better choice than any of the Republicans this year. I just don't believe that she is the BEST choice to really help bring about change in Washington. if Hillary won, would that really change anything? 20+ years of Bush/Clinton/Bush in the White House and are we supposed to believe that another Clinton would be real change? it would just be more debate, more inaction, more of the same in my opinion. I agree with you about one thing though, if Obama doesn't win, more dreamers will become cynics, and that doesn't bode well for the future of American politics. If he does beat Hillary, I hope you will join the movement to make sure that doesn't happen.

[seepee]

We should be careful what we wish for –
The Iranian’s wanted 'a movement' in the 70’s – look what they got

No matter whose your candidate Vote with your heads not with your hearts

[grendl]

Barack Obama may well be an instrument for change in Washington, but he is also the beneficiary of one of those insider deals you mentioned: he's a superdelegate.

You remember the unfair vote, the Bill Clinton told a voter counted five times as much as his. Well, Barack wields that power. It's not his fault really, he didn't apply for it, or lobby for it, its just an undemocratic honor bestowed on a bunch of politicians, activists, and 22 year olds occasionally to ensure party survival.

Of course its unfair, but pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, the huge talking head is telling us about change. Well, Mr. Obama how do you intend to change the system of superdelegacy. (I use that term unsure of whether or not its a term at all. These bizarre little creations seem to have their own set of rules, theres no reference material regarding the appropriate terminolog­y.)

As long as any fellow American citizen, ( and thats how Barack refers to me ) walks around with a disproportionately heavy vote something is wrong with the system. To me its profoundly more important than universal health care on strictly a philosophical basis, because it goes to the heart of why this country was founded. Equality.

I hope Barack does win the presidency, but I won't feel comfortable with him moving into the Oval office if the word "superdelegate" is not on the docket. And right now I don't feel comfortable with the lack of courage both candidates show in their skirting the issue, strictly because they need those undemocratic votes to win the race.

It's all rather suspect to me.

[naugiedoggie]

You appear to not know how the superdelegate category came about, or why it exists. You should research the topic before talking on it.

It's ironical that, by getting rid of this delegate category, you would be walking back important reforms in the candidate selection process, and inviting the return of the back room deal as a mechanism of selecting the nominee.

FYI: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgnews/Features/opeds/021408_kamarck.htm

You would also be getting rid of the main mechanism that prevents a party takeover such as that experienced in the Republican Party, when it was taken over by the extremist evangelican Christians. You would, apparently, prefer that the party be at the mercy of stacked and manipulated delegate teams that could push unacceptable candidates onto the stage. I'm not down with that.

Thanks.

mp

[grendl]

Uhm first off there's no such word as "ironical" so already your opinion is rather suspect.

Secondly I will quote C.S. Lewis once again . Google him if you need to.

" An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason."

You are merely telling( or linking to ) how an undemocratic system came about, not justifying how it is any way shape or form democratic. Do you understand the difference?

Why should a 22 year old kids vote count five times as much as yours? Tell me that.

Don't link. In your own words tell me how thats fair in a democracy?