I can’t believe that there is an actual possibility of having a President John McCain. I don’t think Hillary Clinton can beat him, and I’m not sure about Barack Obama.

The mainstream media, which influences most voters’ opinions on such matters, wants to get down on their knees and collectively suckle at the teat of McCain’s Straight Talk persona. No WAY that Candidate McCain gets any bad media coverage unless he flips out on camera somewhere and starts singing “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” again (although lots of nonthinking Americans who think its cool to bomb third world countries would like that), or rips the hearts out of living babies on live TV. I’d much rather see Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee in November because he seems like the ultimate empty suit to me, has done nothing BUT change his positions on virtually every issue, and could easily be defeated. Most people cannot see through McCain’s general insanity.

Hillary on the other hand automatically invites bad press coverage, the same kind of negative media saturation we experienced back in the heady days of Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones. Does anyone really believe that we will NOT hear those reruns again, ad nauseum? And do we really want another traitorous Democrat in the White House? I say traitorous because Bill Clinton, while he was a successful Democrat and did preside over eight years of peace and prosperity (no small thing, true), also dragged the Democratic party to the right politically so as to co-opt enough of the conservative-leaning voters to win elections. They are very good at that sort of thing, but that sort of thing just gives conservative policies more credence. I think that has been bad for progressive and liberal policies.

So that sort of leaves Barack Obama by default, I suppose. But I’m not sold on the guy, nor am I sold on the idea that disgruntled independent voters all across the country will let themselves vote for a black man for president. I don’t know, maybe they will. There’s no way of knowing. I saw the O-man in person back in the fall at a campaign rally in Manhattan. He is an impressive speaker, and he seems to have the potential to be a transformational figure. But I don’t feel particularly moved by his vague message of change; I wish he’d talk about the details.

The upshot of all this is that the Democrats still have the edge in the election, and at the very least, they are usually quite competent at running the government. I’ve had enough of Republicans looting the treasury for their rich corporate elite friends and themselves.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is the obvious front-runner for the Democratic nomination for President of United States. Her campaign is run by experienced professionals. She continues to amass large amounts of money with which to campaign. The media is already portraying her as the presumptive nominee. She is very smart and I have no doubt that she would be a reasonably competent steward of the Executive Branch of our government, unlike the present gang of incompetent criminals.

Yet I can never support her. And here’s why.

• She contributes a divisive presence to the national political scene. Roughly half of all Americans dislike her – they’ve already made up their minds. I don’t see her able to bring those people together in an honest and courageous way. The right-wing noise machine will continue to harass her from the sidelines, making it difficult for her to focus on the tasks at hand. Sure, they’ll harass any democrat, but they’ve already got a full arsenal of weapons at the ready for Hillary.
• She lacked the courage to vote against the Iraq War Resolution and now stubbornly refuses to admit her mistake. So much has been said about this that I cannot add anything else, except to say that if a third of Americans and the Senate knew well enough to vote against the IWR, why did she not do so? I’m an average citizen and I knew not to trust Bush’s word – you mean I have better judgment than Senator Clinton? Sorry, I want my president to be SMARTER and have better judgment than me.
• She does not inspire in me hope for the future. She brings with her all the baggage of the past – the same advisors, the same DC insiders, the same addiction to big corporate money, the same fear of challenging the status quo. I find her decidedly uninspiring.
• She tries too hard to appear “tough.” Stand up for what you believe with courage and you won’t have to TRY to appear tough. I have never the doubted the ability of a woman to be commander in chief of the military, and I think many people hold the same belief. I naturally distrust anyone who tries too hard to convince me of something. Tough would be facing down Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for their tacit (or worse) support of Islamic extremism.
• I cannot determine what she truly believes in, other than her own ambition to be president. Seriously, what are her core beliefs?
• She did not oppose the Bankruptcy Bill, which made it more difficult for the average citizen to declare bankruptcy. She conveniently did not vote at all, which to me looks like the action of a coward. Also, her failure to vigorously oppose such an obvious anti-consumer law makes me worried about which side of OTHER consumer issues she’ll come down on – will she favor other policies that help big corporations at the expense of consumers?
• She voted for the USA Patriot Act. Then she voted for the continuation of the Act. Her support of this bill further reinforces my view of her unwillingness to stand up and challenge the prevailing political winds of the day.
• I don’t want America to fall into a dynastic habit in the election of presidents. Clinton, Bush, Clinton…..Bush? Enough with the elite ruling families – we need fresh faces in the government to help bring new solutions to rapidly growing problems. Each ruling family brings with it the White House the same old gaggle of political professionals, whose past actions have helped take us to where we are now – the precipice of disaster.
• Her pandering to social conservatives by supporting flag-burning legislation and speaking out against violent video games. I believe these actions are her attempts to make herself appear less liberal and more moderate and therefore, more palatable to voters in a national election. This doesn’t say “leadership” to me. Rather it says “political calculation.” We’ve had enough of that, haven’t we?
• The Bubba distraction. Like it or not, Bill Clinton is a larger than life figure. He will continue to be a distraction from Hillary’s presidency.
• I know this may not be her own fault, but Hillary Clinton frequently uses a shrill tone when she speaks. It is off-putting to say the least. At LEAST as offensive as President George W. Bush’s inability to craft a coherent sentence.
• I don’t know where she stands on these issues, which are very important to me:
  • If elected, when and how will she end our involvement in the Iraq Civil War?
  • Will she push for Universal Health Care, which we desperately need, or will she support smaller, safer reforms that simply cover more uninsured Americans under the current broken system?
  • Will she continue to base our foreign policy on oil security or will she use the bully pulpit of the presidency to push significant investment in alternate fuels so we remove foreign oil, and by extension the Middle East, from our foreign policy calculations?
  • What specific steps will she take to fight global warming?
  • How will she global terrorism? Will she continue the Bush war on terror or will she challenge Pakistan and other Middle Eastern countries to do more to fight Islamic terrorism and, if they fail to do so, will she pledge to take strong action regardless?
  • How does she intend to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of rogue nations?
  • Will she support the rights of average citizens to challenge the power of big corporations, through the formation of labor unions and in the courts?
  • Does she support continued consolidation of the media?
  • Where does she stand on immigration reform, which is a HUGE issue for many Americans and presents a real opportunity to bring people together?

I believe many if not all of these issues are at the point of crisis and demand bold action, creative new thinking, and a national leader who can bring Americans together to support dramatic change. Senator Clinton’s divisive presence will prevent Americans from coming together. She seems more determined to act on political calculation than on serious core beliefs. Her reluctance to challenge the conventional Washington DC wisdom is alarming. It tells me that she will NOT propose and fight for bold policy changes but will tinker safely on the edges of national policy just enough to please the Democratic base and gain re-election, but the large problems facing us and our children will remain unsolved.

THAT is why I cannot support Hillary Clinton for president. Not now. Not tomorrow. Not ever. She represents the flip side of the Republican/Democratic coin – the elites who run the government and the country and couldn’t care less about the real needs of the average American. Sure she’ll be better than the current president. I’m certain she’ll eventually pull our troops out of Iraq (but whoever is elected President in 2008 will do this). I’m sure our allies around the world will look more favorably upon us if she is president (but again, anybody elected in 2008 will enjoy this response). But our problems cry out for more than just competency-by-comparison.

This is why people are supporting Barack Obama. He represents to them a fresh face, the HOPE that maybe, just maybe, here’s somebody who will at least be willing to stand and fight for the bold policy changes that we need in this country.

Why all the fuss about Joe Lieberman? Why do we progressives want to see the junior senator of Connecticut, my state by the way, go down in defeat in his upcoming primary election against businessman and politically progressive Ned Lamont?It’s not just his stubborn support of Bush’s disastrous Iraq War. Joe has a history of doing what’s best for Joe. Read on for a handy summary of Joe’s record of working for the powerful against the interests of those without power.

United We Stand – The Common Good

I was at my mother’s 80^th birthday party the other day talking to my cousin and fellow Kossak Houndcat about the problems the Democratic Party faces in trying to win national elections and my thoughts have begun to come together. You the lucky reader get to be the recipient of my mental largess.

There’s been an increasing amount of chatter in the progressive blogosphere lately about the need for the Democratic Party to come up a vision that will attract voters, and many smart people have identified “serving the common good” as that vision. I agree, but these early ruminations about a national vision do not go far enough. We need to present coherent policy goals that fit seamlessly into the theme of providing for the common good. Be patient and allow me to explain at some length. This is something that I’ve been thinking about for some time and my thoughts are beginning to cohere.

At present, there is a national perception of the Democratic Party as being a party of many conflicting narrow interests. We all know this to be true; just talk to your republican-leaning family, friends or neighbors. Democrats are seen as a collection of special interest groups, all competing for their own rights. Minority rights, women’s rights, gay rights, and so on. These are all good and worthy goals but obscure what should be the true purpose of the Democratic Party – ensuring that all Americans get a fair shake in life both socially and economically. The average Johnny Nascar voter thinks, and rightfully so, that the Democrats don’t stand for his interests. Mr. and Mrs. Nascar aren’t thrilled, and so they vote their “gut” which is often wrong.

We need to convince all the Johnny Nascars out there that we are in their corner, and that we DO have their best interests at heart. We need to stifle the cacophony of competing voices within our own party who see politics as their own private battleground. We need to bring Americans together under a vision that is both compelling and moral. Working for the common good is that vision. We need to reach these people in their gut because that is how they vote.

But how do we do this? What IS the common good? And who decides what this common good is? More liberal elitists? More environmentalists or rights activists? More Washington DC insiders who think they know what’s best? No.

Defining the Common Good

I define the common good as that which positively affects the largest number of people. I think most people believe this in their gut – after all, doesn’t everyone know the phrase “United We Stand”? We all pulled together after 9-11 – that was for the common good, wasn’t it? We need to bring people back to that most fundamental of American principles. The common good means that everyone works together toward a common goal. The common good means that we are all in this thing, this democracy, together, and if don’t work together as a nation, as a state, as a region, as a community, as a neighborhood, then we are lost. We need all the Johnny and Jane Nascars out there to believe in the country again, to believe in the power of large numbers of people working together to make things better.

We must define the common good in terms that the average voter understands. Our party shouldn’t define the common good. It should be presented as an inherent basic American value and in fact, it is. When we suffered through a protracted economic depression, it was people working together on public works projects that brought new hope. When industry forced brutal working conditions on their employees, it was people working together in labor unions that helped stopped those oppressive practices. When we faced awful enemies during WWII, it was people working and fighting together at home and abroad that defeated the forces of evil. When natural disasters strike, it is people working together that helps save families and neighborhoods and churches. And after 9-11, everyone pulled together spiritually. This is the America that the Democrats need to stand for. This is the real America. These values are part of our heritage, it’s part of us. We need to formulate policies within this moral framework. And we need to repeat it and sell it constantly. United we stand.

Policies for the Common Good

There are generally two areas of public policy that we class=”MsoNorm entrust to our national government – domestic policy and foreign policy. All policies flow from one or the other. What are the big issues that most Americans care about? The rising cost of health care. The war in Iraq. The dwindling supply of cheap energy. Job opportunity and security. Safety in a dangerous world. And most of all, a promising future for our children. I propose that the Democratic Party present comprehensive but simple to understand policies that address the largest issues in both domestic and foreign policy arenas. These are: Energy and Health Care.

Energy as Foreign Policy

Why energy? Because our entire foreign policy is and has been based on the need to control or have ready access to oil for more than half a century. We are involved in the Middle East precisely because of oil. Deny it if you will, but it is true. I imagine a foreign policy freed from the need to control Middle East oil. I imagine a world in which the most dangerous of international criminals, terror-wielding religious extremists, have no reason to attack us. They hate us because we are parked in their back yards, because our need for oil forces us to support the repressive regimes ruling their own countries. I am not advocating isolationism; I am advocating a shift in our global persona. We can be the world leader once again who can be trusted to sit down and help people work out their differences. If we get zero oil from the region, we will gain back our international credibility. This dream requires that we begin the national switch from oil to alternate fuels immediately. It means moving from driving big gas-guzzling automobiles to linking communities together by modern mass transit. It means investing in new energy technologies, which would surely create new jobs and economic opportunities. It means challenging the authority of the petrochemical and energy industries and bringing them into the discussion of the common good by offering them first dibs on these new energies.

We need to personalize this issue so Americans can understand it, believe it, and take it to heart. Tired of paying five dollars a gallon for gas? Tired of sitting in long stressful traffic jams getting to and from work? Tired of seeing our young people get blown up in some faraway desert just to secure dwindling supplies of oil? Then we must all work together to move away from an oil-based energy policy. If we do not work together, we will not be able to fix these problems that affect each and every citizen.

Health Care as Domestic Policy

Health care reform must be the centerpiece of the Democratic Party’s domestic agenda. The current system is broken, we all know it. I have a unique perspective on this as I have been both an employee of large medical insurance companies and a patient. Many of us are aware of the facts and figures – some 46+ million Americans without health insurance, whose frequent visits to emergency rooms cost many times as much as visits to personal physicians and that all insured people pay for through increasing premiums and co-pays, public health metrics that put the United States behind most other developed countries, increasing costs and decreasing access to medical care, and the power of the insurance industry to set national policy.

But why is health care the most important part of our domestic policy? Because the effects of the current broken system affect EVERYONE and continue to be an increasing drag on our national economy. Individuals rich and poor, employers large and small; states, cities and towns – all are affected negatively by the current system. We already have a working national heath care plan – Medicare. Our taxes pay for it. It is efficient. It works. Why not expand Medicare to cover all Americans? Working people already pay for their health care, either through payroll deductions for premiums, co-pays after receiving medical care, or both. And industry is increasingly hamstrung by the need to pay for their workers’ medical insurance, which drives up the costs of doing business and drives down the amount of money available to create new technologies and jobs. Everyone except the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are in favor of national health care. We need to relieve employers of the burden of providing medical insurance and convince all Americans that it is in everyone’s health and economic interest to support such a program.

Again, we need to personalize this issue. Tired of staying in bad jobs because you’re afraid of losing your health insurance? Tired of having to make difficult budget decisions due to medical problems that aren’t covered by your insurance? Tired of having NO insurance? Employers, are you tired of paying through the nose for your employees’ medical benefits? Wish you had more money to invest in your business? Doctors and hospitals, are you tired of having to navigate through a maze of complex insurance industry rules and regulations? Imagine the enormous economic boom we will experience when employers have more money to invest in job-creating business activities. National health care will solve these problems, but only if we work together toward the common good.

Taxes versus Investment

So how do get people to overcome their aversion to the idea of paying for things through taxes? By not calling them taxes. In order to work for the common good; that is, in everyone’s collective best interests, we need to convince people that part of being for the common good means investing in each other. We use taxation as the means of investing in our country’s defense, infrastructure, public education, disaster relief, and more. Most people do this willingly because they understand that defense and infrastructure and disaster relief and the like are important elements of the common good. So is health care. The Democratic Party must frame this as not simply more taxes to pay for narrow special interests, but as a way to invest in each other, in each other’s communities, in our nation. This is a positive thing I think; most voters are looking for a positive vision for our country. What could be more moral and ethical than looking out for the other guy a little? It is the basis of virtually all major religious teaching. People believed this once, they can again.

So that’s my rather lengthy and rambling take on the common good as a vision for this country. I’ll let smarter folks handle the details, which aren’t so important in the initial salesmanship of this vision. What is important is to remind Americans what we believe in, and that no matter what, United We Stand. And there’s the campaign slogan for our national TV spots.

United we stand. Divided we fall. It’s a no-brainer.