"It can be credibly argued that great change over a wide policy swath is impossible, no person or country is capable of it, so the small moves of incremental change are what one should expect".
Yes! To that end, a President Obama would have to be able to 'reach across the aisle'. Although it goes against my (partisan) grain a bit, Obama's stated interest in a Lincolnesque "cabinet of rivals" may be what is necessary to asure even incremental change.
As Democrats, we have to 'get over ourselves', recognize that this is a pivotal time in the brief history of our world, and work our hardest to achieve a significant majority in Congress.
Posted by pragmaticprogressive at May 24, 2008 07:38 AMI really detest socialism. Why preach something that takes away a persons ambition to do the work on their own. People should take care of people. Not the Government. All charities report a slowdown in bodies needed to perform the work. We have taught our children to let the Government take care of people and that it is not their responsibility to help a fellow man. Sad, sad, sad.
Posted by richnj at May 24, 2008 07:51 AMAll charities report a slowdown in bodies needed to perform the work.
Working 60 hours a week to make ends meet (and maybe pay for a little health care on the side) really cuts into a person's ability to do charity work.
Posted by Sharon at May 24, 2008 08:14 AMA hypothetical President Obama trying to "reach across the aisle"? Maybe he could start by reaching out to the Clinton supporters that he and his supporters have done their best to alienate? But he and his supporters have shown no interest in doing that.
Posted by jwrjr at May 24, 2008 08:22 AMThe last optimistic Democratic president who wanted to work with all parties was villified by the Republicans and the media. Everyone talks about working with the other side, but moderates have not been in charge of the Republican party for a long time. Republicans have no intention of working with Democrats, and their idea of compromise is agreement with their views. President Clinton tried at first and got eight years of pile on by the media and a witch-hunt by the Republicans. Interesting that a number of bloggers enamored of bipartisanship are former Republicans.
Posted by formerhoosier at May 24, 2008 08:24 AMAnd rich, all the schools in this area have been requiring community service for a decade at least. It's probably the same in your area, too; just look around for children planting flowers at the nursing home and teenagers helping out in soup kitchens.
I'm pretty old, and I don't remember a time when people helped out people in need any more than now. And like Sharon said, a lot of us, including me, are working longer and harder just to keep up with those ever-increasing bills.
Posted by Joyful Alternative at May 24, 2008 08:31 AM"With a ludicrous American political propaganda corps obsessed with hair and preachers, a careful, optimistic Democratic candidate and a 2009 Congressional majority that hasn’t been set yet it’s finally dawned on me that my expectations for the American electoral process remain absurdly high, faith will have to do that policy directions in Iraq, healthcare, global warming and inequality will be aggressively reversed by Senator Obama’s☼ 2009 presidential term."
Amen. Neither Obama nor Clinton are liberal enough to suit me. The only encouraging thought I have is FDR didn't campaign on the New Deal; he campaigned on "bold,persistent experimentation" and we at least got Social Security and the SEC out of the deal. I hope Obama, like FDR, will be open to a progressive agenda if it comes with enough political support. Not an exact quote, but FDR once met with some people pushing a progressive initiative and said: "OK, I agree with you: now go out there and make me do it."
Posted by Tom in Seattle at May 24, 2008 08:42 AM"Interesting that a number of bloggers enamored of bipartisanship are former Republicans."
formerhoosier-
Not sure to whom you speak on this blog, unless it is Republican TROLL. I for one have always been a Democrat. Some of us just want something to happen in our screwed up, elitist, non-representative 'democracy'. We've been called 'Obamabots', delusional, naive, etc. on Left Coaster - take your best shot.
Posted by pragmaticprogressive at May 24, 2008 08:47 AM"A hypothetical President Obama trying to "reach across the aisle"? Maybe he could start by reaching out to the Clinton supporters that he and his supporters have done their best to alienate? But he and his supporters have shown no interest in doing that."
jwrjr,
Ah, maybe Clinton should first, stop suggesting that she is waiting for Obama's assassination; and decond, gracefully concede before the convention...
Posted by pragmaticprogressive at May 24, 2008 08:53 AMFirst Paradox, you're so happy about another blue dog from Mississippi?!? Sure wouldn't place much in that win...he won't win in that state.
Then your first priority is medical pot followed by sex ed. How telling is that....priorities.
And now you're all about incrementalism. Couldn't try that last year...all or nothing. I mentioned here in December, 2006, that it took 33 different pieces of legislation to get us out of Vietnam. Y'all wouldn't have it. Shame your friends in Congress couldn't have tried that last year instead of wasting the entire year trying to get dates certain. Last spring several Republicans would have been open for such an approach ... increments. Oh well, the surge happened and Iraq is better for it.
An Obama presidency will be no better than Carter's. President Carter...the guy who signed global cooling legislation into law from a Democratic Congress. Wasn't it now sainted Senator Kennedy, an Obama supporter that caused Carter's failure in the 1980 election because he contested Carter's re-election?
Anyway, we don't need another Carter...
Pp: RFK Jr. doesn't think that she was calling for any assination. Where do you get off claiming that? Secondly, why should she concede? "Delegates" is the only metric in which she isn't leading. (Don't give me any crap about the FL and MI popular votes not counting. The DNC Rules committee never said that. Just the delegates. And that is being appealed, to be decided 5/31.)
Posted by jwrjr at May 24, 2008 11:16 AMYou cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
-William J. H. Boetcker
Hey Bags,
How many in Boetcker's list did Buschco violate? To me, it looks like every one of them.
You got more popcorn?
Posted by phidipides at May 24, 2008 04:05 PMpoor pants pissing peter, the ReThugs lose 3 special elections in a row in heavily red districts
how's the air in the bunker? ROFLOL
and bagley bagley, get a fucking clue
Posted by gay veteran at May 24, 2008 07:53 PMIt's simple, we are NOT geting out of Iraq. B. Hussein Obama realizes that we MUST stay in Iraq for security. If he doesn't, he is a fool and a liar.
Congressman Kanjorski, Democrat from Pennysylvania stated flately that Democrats had lied in order so seduce the Liberals. At the end of that part of his townmeeting he stated: "They (Democrats and Liberals) really ate it up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72rHL1Yu3jI
“Now anybody was a good student of Government,” said Kanjorski, “would know that wasn’t true [that they “could stop the war”].” Fortunately for those Democrats who campaigned, and were elected, based on their war-ending promises, their hardcore supporters, their activists, and their base of voters, are all made up of people who are, by Mr. Kanjorski’s reckoning, very, very poor students of Government.
But all of that was justified to these incumbents and first-time candidates. Taking advantage of poor, uneducated rubes? Abusing trust, and leaving those who offered it stranded along the way? All acceptable — because, again by Mr. Kanjorski’s own description, of “the temptation to want to win back the Congress.”
Seems to me that what Liberals are really looking for is a candidate who is so inexperienced and so gullible that the Liberals can convince him that the right thing to do is to get us out of Iraq and go on to leave us denfenseless.
B. Hussein Obama is a danger to your childrens lives.
Have you seen the latest push-back against abstinence-only education? It's Abstinence... the condom. Their tagline is "We're Ready When You Are"
Now when you tell your kids to choose Abstinence, it is about make a safe choice.
Check out their web-site at: www.abstinencethecondom.com
Posted by Peter B at May 26, 2008 01:45 PM