MyDD :: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government

Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government

by Steve M, Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:04:27 AM EST

On the blogs, the difference between our two candidates is generally obvious: one is good and the other evil. But out in the real world, the difference doesn't look so clear to everyone. In the debates, when the candidates are asked to talk about their differences, it's about the finer points of health care mandates and driver's licenses. It's about a vote on the war from 2002 or a vote on credit card interest from 2005.

And certainly, there is no disagreement between the candidates as to the fundamental precepts of the Democratic Party: a belief in the common good and a belief in government as a positive force in people's lives. Despite all the chatter about which of them loves Reagan more, obviously neither of our candidates would agree with Reagan's claim that government is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

But I think there is a fundamental, philosophical difference between our candidates, that was crystallized at one point in tonight's debate:

SEN. CLINTON: But, ultimately, this is really about the American people. It's about your lives. It's about your jobs, your health care, whether you can afford to send your children to college, whether you'll be able to withstand the pressure of the rising interest rates on a home foreclosure that might come your way, and whether we're going to once again be proud of our country, and our leadership, and our moral authority in the world.

And so I think that, as we look at these upcoming contests -- 22 of them now on Tuesday -- really, every voter should be looking and examining what they want out of the next president.

What are the criteria that you have for determining who you will vote for, what you think our country needs, what you and your family are really looking for? And then you evaluate the two of us, because no one else will be on the ballot.

Here, we see Hillary talking about basic problems people face: jobs, health care, college costs. And she wants us to think about which candidate would do the best job of solving those problems for us.

Obama, of course, wants to address these same problems. But he takes a different approach:

SEN. OBAMA: ...All of us have endorsers, and ultimately you've got to take a look and see: Who do you want in that White House?

I do think that there was something that happened, and we've been seeing it all across the country. We saw it at the event with Senator Kennedy. We are bringing in a whole generation of new voters, which I think is exciting. And part of the task, I believe, of leadership is the hard nuts-and-bolts of getting legislation passed and managing the bureaucracy, but part of it is also being able to call on the American people to reach higher, to say we shouldn't settle for an economy that does very well for some, but leaves millions of people behind...

So the question is -- part of the question is: Who can work the levers of power more effectively? Part of the question is also: Who can inspire the American people to get re-engaged in their government again, push back the special interests, reduce the influence of lobbyists?

Obama does not minimize the role of government as problem-solver. But he also talks about something more, the idea of getting you, the voter, involved in making change happen, building that movement that Obama supporters instinctively gravitate towards and others struggle to understand.

It's a call to service which echoes, yes, the famous words of John F. Kennedy: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

Photobucket

But I don't think it's as simple as declaring Obama the new JFK and leaving it at that. We see that both our candidates have millions of supporters. Both their messages have broad appeal.

In the online communities like Daily Kos, the vast majority of participants are drawn to Obama's message. For the most part, we are activists, and the idea of joining a movement for change feels natural to us. We see younger voters in general drawn to Obama for much the same reason; they have the energy and the passion for change and they want to be part of making it happen. They're not looking for Hillary to solve all their problems while they stand by passively.

But not everyone in the Democratic Party is looking to be part of a movement. Many traditional, mainstream Democratic voters - the working class, the elderly, the downtrodden, the single mothers - are simply looking for a hand with their problems. It's not that they want a handout. It's that they already have trouble finding enough hours in the day, and if the government can make things a little easier for them, that's what they're looking for. They have no time to join a movement.

And obviously, I'm generalizing as to both groups of people, so I hope no one takes offense. There are certainly plenty of activists who support Hillary and plenty of people working three jobs who support Obama.

When I think about my own candidate, John Edwards, no one would question that he speaks powerfully in terms of using the government to help the poor, the homeless, the struggling. But he also speaks of how important it is for regular people to become involved in the process, to take back the reins of power from the lobbyists and special interests who control them, who prevent government from working for the benefit of regular people. In a sense, he incorporates positive elements of both messages, and it's not surprising that poll numbers are inconclusive as to which candidate his supporters will gravitate towards.

My purpose in writing this diary is not to argue that one vision of government is "better" than the other, but simply to articulate the two visions and the reasons why different people might be inclined to choose one or the other.

The vision you choose depends not on which is "right," in some objective sense, but moreso on who you are, what you need, and where you have been. Both these visions, it seems to me, fit squarely within the fundamental values of the Democratic Party, and both of them stand squarely in opposition to the Republican philosophy of "every man for himself."

I believe the Democratic Party can work successfully within either framework, without abandoning its core principles one bit. Next Tuesday, roughly half the Democrats in America will have a chance to choose which vision they prefer.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 44 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (none / 0)

A very insightful diary, thank you. But which of these two visions of government is likely to deliver the most substantial Democratic win across the board in 2008? And which one is likely to have the long-term effect of bringing more voters into the party as registered Democrats?

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:22:57 AM EST

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (2.00 / 1)

Ah, many have gazed into the crystal ball of electability, but few have consistently gleaned the right answers from its murky depths.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:34:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (none / 0)

Well, no prizes for guessing my opinion, but suggest that is the right questions. We don't get chances like this very often.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:37:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

the media have built Obama up (none / 0)

and the media could tear him down. We don't know. He really doesn't do that well under unfriendly questioning.

We do know that the media have been trying to tear down Hillary for a long time, and they haven't quite succeeded yet. Those two Hillary books published last summer didn't cause any kind of stir.

Obama may have more potential upside than Hillary, but he probably has more potential downside too.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:10:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the media have built Obama up (none / 0)

Another way of framing Steve's distinction, perhaps? Obama represents a more substantial win at more risk, Hillary more modest gains but with a tangible track record? I would assert that Obama's performance in the campaign represents a very convincing rebuttal to his detractors on this point, however. He has managed the media particularly well, too. It didn't just happen.

And he framed this debate perfectly at the finish, as I see it, most voters see the presidential contests as about leadership, not just policy. He can easily shift that narrative to the general election, and not just about Iraq.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:20:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the media have built Obama up (2.00 / 2)

There is no doubt that Obama skillfully took advantage of the media fascination with his candidacy. That is not intended as a knock - he needed to take advantage wherever he found it. Where I felt he went off the track was when he began playing to the media, trying to stoke his advantage, and in the process sacrificing some core Democratic principles.

A classic example is the Social Security "crisis" flap. I don't believe for a second that Obama is a secret privatizer. But he used the word "crisis" purposefully, to play into one of the media's favorite fake tales, and curry favor with the talking heads. The second I heard that come out of his mouth, I started yelling at the tee-vee like an idiot. "We just spent a SOLID YEAR slapping that bullcrap down, and now he is reviving it?"

Remember that anti-drug commercial with the egg and the frying pan? "This is Obama ... this is Obama on media. Get the picture?"

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:54:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the media have built Obama up (2.00 / 1)

There is a real world problem with Obama's statement about Social Security.

I have a slight disagreement about why he said it. I believe he said it to attract yet more of the confused and poorly informed to his campaign. Many young people bought into the notion that there is a dire Social Security problem, that there would be no Social Security for them. It's a notion that's been pounded into them constantly. Even after the 'debate' of 2005 I still hear many younger people say that Social Security is broke, they'll never see it, etc.

I was very angry when Obama made his remarks. I regarded it as his selfish attempt to garner more support for himself at the possible risk of Social Security itself.

Bringing Social Security up again in that manner only gives conservatives another opening to make yet another assault on Social Securtity. This matter had been laid to rest after conservatives made their biggest run in 2005. The atttempt to privatize Social Security was the beginning of Bush's tumble in the polls and conservatives were reluctant to make another assault.

And now a candidate for the Democratic Party's nominee for the Presidency is giving them an opening.

It should be kept in mind that conservatives have wanted to eliminate Social Security since its inception. It is strictly ideological. They don't care about its efficacy, about its triumphant role in drastically reducing poverty among the aged.

I regard that flip statement as a terribly selfish act that had the potential to put millions of people at risk.

by cal1942 on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:55:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the media have built Obama up (2.00 / 1)

Maybe he said it for both reasons. Either way, it is hard for me to believe he chose to use the word "crisis" lightly.

> I still hear many younger people say that Social Security is broke, they'll never see it, etc.

I saw one such quoted in a news report just recently. "Joe Schmo (29) doesn't believe he will ever see any benefits from Social Security." Guess what the "reporter" forgot to mention? He forgot to tell his readers that Joe Schmo is dead wrong, that Social Security is never going to go bankrupt, that by design it cannot go bankrupt, because it operates on a pay-as-you-go basis.

The political conservatives may have put this one on the back burner for now, but their allies in the MSM will keep it simmering for them.

Clinton had the best position of the three leading candidates on this issue - no changes, not for now, we'll study it. Even that is a bit of a copout. I wanted her or Edwards to say "Social Security is not in crisis, it is not broken, there is nothing to fix, and I will veto any attempt to tamper with it."

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 04:21:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the media have built Obama up (none / 0)

Look, you are just completely wrong about this. You think you know something, but you don't.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 09:41:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the media have built Obama up (none / 0)

Maybe, maybe not. I do want to point out, that AL Gore was saying that SS needing help in 2000... its what he wanted to do with the budget surplus that Bush pissed away. While I don't think SS is in any imminent danger, it is conceivable that in a generation or two it will be in real trouble. Now, I don't think we need privatized accounts (although I wouldn't oppose privatized accounts SEPERATE from SS as another investment vehicle as long as there is a cap limit to keep the Rich GOPers from avoiding paying taxes) but I think IF WE CAN working on this sooner and making sure that SS doesn't run out of money ever, then we should. Because I don't trust the GOP to do this in the future... If we have the opportunity, we should take it and protect the system forever.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 04:05:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the media have built Obama up (none / 0)

The thing is that we can't do anything to shore up SS now because of the massive federal budget deficit. The things Bill Clinton wanted to do towards the end of his administration, the Gore "lockbox" proposal, those ideas only worked because we were moving towards a budget surplus.

Let's say we raise payroll taxes by a billion dollars tomorrow. Because we have a budget deficit, that billion dollars doesn't go into the SS trust fund at all. Instead, it instantly gets borrowed by Congress to pay for general spending measures, and the trust fund ends up holding $1 billion in treasury bonds that Congress has to repay somewhere down the road. All we've done, in reality, is make the trust fund's balance sheet look $1 billion healthier and make the general fund's balance sheet look $1 billion worse off. We've increased the long-term pressure on the general fund just to make the status of SS look better. It's an accounting trick.

If we do like Clinton did and get the budget back towards sanity, suddenly the concept of a rainy-day fund becomes much more doable. But as things stand, we'd be telling people the $1 billion is to help save social security, but we'd actually be spending the $1 billion on stuff like the war in Iraq. It doesn't help us reduce the deficit, and it would be kinda dishonest to claim that we're helping to fix SS when we're really just raising revenue to pay for general expenditures.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 04:27:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks for this comment (none / 0)

He has managed the media particularly well, too. It didn't just happen.

It has given me an idea for a diary, if I ever have time to write it.

Let's just say that in my opinion, the Obama campaign's branding/media management could never have worked if the media had at any point decided on pushing an unfavorable script about him.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 10:51:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks for this comment (none / 0)

Maybe so but he has done well with the opportunity. BTD has been talking about this obliquely for some time, you might want to have a look at some of his previous diaries. It's one of the skills of campaigning, and not just the spin, the relationship with the media.

Don't forget that Obama is the one who froze out Fox early. It hasn't hurt him though, has it?

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:46:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (2.00 / 1)

I was drawn to Edwards because of his brilliant plans and solutions - and his URGENCY for CHANGE.

Obama is all about Obama - while Hillary is more issue oriented like Edwards.

Edwards encouraged activism but let us know that HE would be leading OUR fight and we wouldn't be alone. Especially on health care.
I was thrilled with his commitment to give us the same health care provided to Congress and proposing to "take away" Congress' health care unless legislation was passed the first year.
He promised to go into every district and push for health care until the reps supported it.

But ObamaBots accused Edwards of violating the Constitution and 27th amendment - gasp! They couldn't see or didn't want to see the brilliance of Edwards strategy focused on URGENCY.

Obama merely encourages activism - rah! rah! -vote for me! - with no commitment to his activist followers.

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 08:36:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (none / 0)

Please... The Clintons are all about doing what is best for them and best for them to gain or keep power. Always have, always will.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 04:06:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wonkiness vs People Power (2.00 / 2)

It is unmistakably true that Hillary and her campaign have always felt that her big advantage over the competition is her so called experience, the ability to work the levers of the federal government, as presumably (but actually?) her husband did for eight years, to the advantage of all of us. The idea seems to be that government requires a wonky technocrat in order to make it work. We hire that technocrat, go back to our private lives, and since we hired the best, good things will happen for us in the background. Can Hillary plausibly fulfill this role? If everything works optimally, according to plan, it would seem the answer is yes.

On the other hand, if she wins the 2008 election in a squeeker election, due to a Republican electorate hopped up on demonizing her impeached husband and her, and as a result, her congressional coattails are virtually nonexistent, then she will enter the presidency with a polarized country and be virtually powerless. Of course, doesn't that essentially sound like the 1990's all over again? And some believe that worked out quite well...a divided country with a wonky president.

As for Obama, he aspires to something fundamentally different. He wants a mandate, a huge mandate, to clean things up. He plans to reach out to all Americans, Democrats, Republicans and Independents, for an electoral mandate to force change upon Washington itself. He wants to knock heads (nicely I suppose), break logjams, and bring people together to finally solve the problems as best we can.

Obama wants to derive his power to change from more than just his wonkiness, title and position as President. He wants to use the leverage of "people power" to finally disinfect Washington, and force it to bend to the ostensible goodwill of the American people.

Of course, the risk with such an approach is that if you explicitly derive the bulk of your presidential power from your standing with the American people, should you ever fall out of their favor, as can happen...the vultures in the media will happily pronounce you as impotent, finished.

Can a president sustain a honeymoon indefinitely? Even when you are taking on bruising, contentious problems that have bedeviled the American political system for decades? Hmmm...a skeptic would say no.

The idea, the aspiration for an indefinite honeymoon, through thick and thin, through good times and bad, harkens back to JFK. Bay of Pigs fiasco? Sorry about that...moving on now. Ya still love me don't you?

Some believe Obama is just such a political leader, another JFK. Many of us veterans who have watched our share of politicians...do sense it in him. It goes without saying that the youngsters sense it. And lord knows, the MSM wants to make it happen...for the good of the country?

We shall see if enough voters want it.

by Demo37 on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:02:50 AM EST

Re: Wonkiness vs People Power (none / 0)

I am not convinced that the MSM wants Obama to be President. They want him to win the nomination, sure. After that, we shall see. But remember, they have been married to McCain for a lot of years, and they still love him. Obama is just a fling, I fear.

As for ending partisanship and corruption in Washington, many have tried. I guess I am a cynic, but I would rather have a technocrat who knows where the bodies are buried.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:05:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wonkiness vs People Power (none / 0)

A most unfortunate choice of words, but your point is taken.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:59:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wonkiness vs People Power (none / 0)

Heh, well I didn't mean that literally, but maybe she does know where some bodies are buried. It could be useful information. Senator Bedfellow, I know what you did last summer. ;-)

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 04:28:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What Happens If He Doesn't Get A Huge (2.00 / 1)

mandate? What if he barely squeaks it out? You compare Obama to JFK, as an inspirational leader, but you seem to forget that he didn't receive a hugh mandate at the polls. He barely squeaked it out. Where does that leave him?

Also, what kind of mandate does he have? If he wins the nomination using right leaning talking points, then he has a right leaning mandate. If he wins using bipartisanship as his major theme, then he may be required to give up too much in order to appear bipartisan.

If you do not think that the Republicans will find ways to demonize Obama every bit as much they did Clinton, I think you are fooling yourself. I can off the top of my head think of several ways that they will be able to do so. The press has a long standing love affair with McCain and once it is between Obama and McCain, the "vultures in the media" will use all the items that were put off limits when Hillary was his opponent against Obama.

by MOBlue on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 05:56:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fair Points, But... (none / 0)

MOBlue, I agree with much of what you say. These are serious concerns, which is one of the reasons why Edwards was my first choice.

As you point out, the electoral math tends to suggest that, like Hillary, Obama would enter the presidency with a narrow win (unless Obama miraculously mobilizes ALL the youth), far short of a huge mandate.

Nevertheless, if you assume a rough equivalency in the size of their mandates, you can conclude that Obama would have an advantage over Hillary due to his lower negatives, a much friendlier press, and little or no previous history of partisan acrimony. The honeymoon, such as it would be, would probably last longer with Obama. And, if Obama pulls off a huge mandate by inspiring hundreds of thousands to vote...well, there is a tremendous potential upside.

On the issue of explicitly and loudly running with a promise to be bipartisan, as you suggest, this is really where things get problematic. If you run promising a bipartisan approach, you are giving the Republicans tremendous leverage over you, far too much in my opinion. This is so simply because at any give moment during your presidency, the Republicans can play the "well America, we tried to work with him, but he violated his promise to us and the electorate and is not working with us in good faith" card. In other words, Obama's approach provides the opposition with a poison apple, one that could be used against him...at any moment in his presidency. Not good. (On the other hand, running this way may provide Obama with a more substantial electoral win...which is certainly a good thing.)

Obama's response no doubt would be that he would take every such dispute to the American people, and trust in their ability to "see through" such political games. That is placing a tremendous amount of faith in the American people, and rather cavalierly believing that the game of politics can simply be "de-gamed" with sunshine. Can the American people really be trusted to see through the dark art of professional political gamesmanship? Have we EVER seen that before? Not very often. IMHO, Obama's only hope would be if the MSM, as never before, truly reported the truth to the American people on a consistent basis. Not likely.

As far as McCain's MSM advantage...I think that actually argues FOR Obama over Clinton. You would want to EQUALIZE that playing field, NOT concede it...as you would with Hillary.

Clearly, between Hillary and McCain, the MSM would much rather have McCain. They want to see him finally clean up earmarks, all the inane fiscal irresponsibility, and the stupid Republican party itself. They would see upside in a Republican who could force his party to reach a national consensus on global warming, and do it, all the while, with his so-called "straight talk" that gives the MSM delicious quotes to sell their media products.

More importantly for them, McCain has shown that he will ALWAYS be willing to genuflect before the MSM. Hillary has shown just the opposite. She wants, and needs them to be on a leash, a short leash. For the MSM, the choice between McCain and Hillary would be patently obvious: freedom and fun...or a choke collar.

Turning now to Obama and the MSM, he has WAY more upside for the MSM media's properties than McCain or Hillary. Obama would be MUCH better for their bottom lines. He would sell their media products like crazy to a new, younger audience (without well defined brand preferences) exactly the audience that their advertisers pay top dollar to reach.

Between Obama and McCain, the choice would have to be Obama.

Isn't our democracy wonderful?

by Demo37 on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:39:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wonkiness vs People Power (1.00 / 1)

Do you really think the Insurance industry will fall under Obama's spell - like you and other ObamaBots?

If Obama had wanted to "change Washington" he could have begun when he CAME to Washington.
But instead - he continued accepting bribes from Washington and corporate lobbyists who have FUNDED his political career.

He "officially" took a hiatus in 2007, but unofficially still accepting donations from the K Street network...

http://www.rollcall.com/politics/kstendo rsements.html

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 08:48:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for a thought provoking diary (2.00 / 2)

I was a Dodd supporter before Iowa. When it comes to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I am a single issue voter, and Dodd was the candidate who showed me the most dedication to helping us take back our rights. He continues to fight the good fight in the Senate, and I salute him for it.

After Dodd pulled out, I had three good leading candidates to choose from. All you old timers like me, stop and think when you have EVER been able to say that. Democrats are truly blessed in this election cycle. For you young folks, please stop to enjoy the luxury of actually having a real choice this year - it honestly does not happen very often.

As I thought about my choice, I realized that the three leading candidates - Edwards, Obama, Clinton, each had a rare and valuable quality to offer - passion, inspiration, know-how. Could we just please roll them all into one?

As Steve put it so well, my choice had a lot to do with who I am and where I am in life. I have seen too many inspirational candidates come and go to be as impressed with Obama as many of you are, but I can picture myself 30 years ago really getting into Obama, and that would not have been wrong for 30-years-ago me.

For awhile, I waverered between Edwards and Clinton, but I settled on Clinton because I know what an awful mess the government will be in when the next President takes office. Hillary has been there before, and she will have Bill to advise her.

I know, I know, the dreaded "Klinton machine", yada yada. But think - every regulatory agency, the DoJ, the EPA, DHS, etc. have been salted with right wing ideologues in career positions. Every one of them has a Republican Congressman or Senator on speed dial. To each one of them, the worst thing that could happen is if government actually started to work for the people. The incoming President will have to KNOW who is supposed to do what, when, and why. And she will have to be ready to kick butts and take names to make things happen.

Besides, don't you want to see Chris Matthews have to say "President Hillary Clinton" several times a week for eight years? Bwaaah-ha-ha-haa!!

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:42:37 AM EST

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (none / 0)

Nice post. I wrote about something similar a while back. In a way, I'm surprised no MSM pundits have picked this theme up, especially considering Obama has made it such an explicit part of his pitch (even the blurb at the top of his website hits the "activist" theme).

by animated on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 04:00:41 AM EST

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (none / 0)

Barack Obama's Health Care is the Same Universal Health Care offered by Hillary but with one Major Difference: You Have the Option of Choice! Do you want to be forced to pay for medical insurance like you are mandated to pay your auto insurance now? Or would you rather have the option of CHOICE --to be able to decide whether or not you want to buy your medical coverage at this time? This way Barack Obama's plan does not put another mandated cost, like auto insurance, on the backs of the people, especially the young who already have college costs to contend with. However, the coverage is always there for you, if and when you need it.

by bacalove on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 05:08:48 AM EST

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (2.00 / 1)

I worked in the insurance industry for a number of years. There is no way any insurance based plan can work without a large diverse pool. A plan that only insures people who need to use the services the most is a sure fire way to guarantee that the program will fail because it will be cost prohibited. That would guarantee that any form of universal insurance would be off the table for decades to come IMO.

by MOBlue on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 06:03:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (none / 0)

Exactly!!

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 08:51:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (none / 0)

Let's say you have no health care insurance and while working on a roof, fall off and break your neck.
Would you expect us to pay ALL your medical bills?
Or would you be expected to pay them and THEN sign up for health care?

I really detest Obama's reference to "forced to pay insurance" and negating "mandates" - because people are erroneously led to believe insurance rates would be at today's rates.
Obama's health care plan leans right - and God help us if he's elected! He's already OMITTED 15M of us BEFORE he begins his Kumbaya meetings with the Insurance industry. Since he's been so willing to eliminate 15M - they'll push for 30M.

Oh- and the Insurance industry isn't likely to fall under Obama's spell - and bow to his wishes.

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 09:00:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (none / 0)

This doesn't really have anything to do with my diary, but since you asked, I do not have any interest whatsoever in going around without health insurance. It's like you're asking me if I want the choice to be able to cut my arm off.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 09:43:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (none / 0)

Or another way to put it is we don't have to make you keep your arm. The differences are merely semantical and irrelevant to the larger issue. Rather than spending any money to make sure you keep it, the money would be better spent improving the health of your arm. By the way, how is it feeling?

by Piuma on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:20:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (none / 0)

The debate last night must have been a great performance by Obama, because I have begun to dislike him just a little bit less.

I'd even be happy to see a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Still, on the two visions, Clinton's is most effective for me. A government by the people, for the people and of the people...that's a government that makes things better for real people. Universal health care that works would be a huge change both on the visionary and practical fronts.

by Coral on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 09:50:37 AM EST

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (none / 0)

How important would an Edwards endorsement be in your final decision?

by Piuma on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:23:48 AM EST

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (none / 0)

For me, probably the deciding factor. I've already caucused, but I still have a checkbook and a cell phone.

by IowaProgressive on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:15:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't plan to donate (none / 0)

to either Clinton or Obama, and that wouldn't change if Edwards made an endorsement.

They are both getting plenty of money without me. I will save my cash for Ed Fallon and for the Democratic candidate in my state legislative district.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:11:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't plan to donate (none / 0)

Fallon, eh? I think I'm sticking with Boswell, but I live over in 2nd District now, so it's not the same for me.

by IowaProgressive on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:05:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another contrast (2.00 / 1)

The comparisons drawn in this diary and throughout the comments are excellent. But one that hasn't been mentioned is the impact of the candidates on foreign affairs other than the Iraq war. I have many friends living abroad who tell me that electing Obama would be an instant PR win in countries that have turned against us. His multiracial and multinational background, his messages of hope and unity, and his movement oriented politics all resonate powerfully in other countries throughout the world. As an Edwards supporter who logged many volunteer hours for my candidate, I tried to explain to my overseas friends the rationale for my candidate preference but they were insistent that he and Hillary, regardless of her gender, would be perceived abroad as continuations of the American "face" to the rest of the world. When asked what he would do upon being elected, Edwards stated that he would conduct a "world tour" to put a new positive moral face on American foreign policy. Obama would do that without leaving the country. I've yet to decide who I will vote for in the NC primary, but these thoughtful diaries and comments by the MyDD community are much appreciated.

McCain sides with Bush against war veterans

by jeffbinnc on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:21:59 PM EST

Good diary (none / 0)

But I submit that there is a clear choice with two important issues:

1) restraining the power of lobbyists
2) rolling back the militarism that this country is enmeshed in. (this has not been a very explicit issue in the campaign but for some progressives and independents this is big)

by Satya on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:30:54 PM EST

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (none / 0)

Great Diary Steve... This deserves front page promotion, IMHO.

The way I have always summed up Hillary and Obama's philosophical differences are that Hillary's approach is We'll (as in elected officials) help you... They won't do it FOR YOU but will help you... I see this harkening back to the FDR days where it was what Government did to help get us out of the depression and working again. They want our support, but it feels like outside of an election year, they see us as getting in the way. I think a lot of older Democrats believe that this is still possible... in a sense, THEY actually have the hope of government being able to help solve some of their problems... or to say it another way, They want government to work and to leave them the hell alone.

Obama's approach is ALL OF US need to work to change the country which goes back to his organizing days. It is movement politics. Edwards I feel also has the same approach and belief. Everything about Obama's campaign has been in getting people involved... from the social networking website to the empowerment of rally attendees doing a massive phone bank... Given the cynical beliefs of younger people who have lived through Bush, Reagan, and the GOP congress during the Clinton years fucking things up and the Democrats in congress not doing enough to counter some of these issues. So someone like Obama who wants ALL of US to change America regardless of party, race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. resonates well.

It all comes down to which approach you think works better... I think Obama's is the way to go... others think Clinton's is. Its one of the reasons I'd like to see both of them on a ticket, one can help the other and vice-versa.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:55:59 PM EST

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (none / 0)

Successful movements take a lot of time to build. People need help NOW. Problems need to be solved NOW.

A perfect example is when Obama used his movement strategy for dealing with the supplimental. He was one of the biggest proponents of the idea of the "magical September" when his Republican colleagues were going to join him in a bipartisan effort to bring an end to the occupation. Who can forget his great sound bite of "Just 16 votes to end the war." Now either Senator Obama was very naive thinking that enough of the Republicans would join him in a bipartisan effort or he was trying to look like he was doing something while kicking the can down the road.

IMO this is the reason many of us don't exactly buy into this movement scenario.

by MOBlue on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:38:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (none / 0)

There are 3.2 million members of MoveOn who do buy into this movement scenario. The "Just 16 votes to end the war" was not an appeal to bi-partisanship, but an appeal to people to start pressuring their Senators, something he made very clear in his speeches in Iowa at that time where he always brought up that there was a Senator in that State we need to move to our column.

Yes, movements take time to build which is the beauty of what he's doing with his campaign - he is accelerating movement building by attaching it to the schedule of a Presidential Race. The joining together of MoveOn and the Obama campaign can greatly increase the power of MoveOn after this one election, and greatly increase the amount of people who understand that change happens from the bottom up and how to work on that.

We need problems to be solved now. That doesn't exclude or preclude the fact we also need a large activist base.

by Piuma on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:51:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MoveOn (none / 0)

The activists involved in MoveOn already petition their Congressmen for the changes that they want. So I don't see how this changes anything. Also, while MoveOn may have 3.2 million people that at one time or other have signed on for various reasons, no where close to that number activity participate on a regular basis. Their petition to Congress urging support for an exit strategy plan with a timeline to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq garnered 400,000 or 12.5% of their stated membership.

While they do have some success and I applaud their efforts, if they only garner a small percent of their stated membership they are not going to have a major impact on getting Republicans to change their votes anytime soon. Especially since they, with the help of the Democratic Congress, have been dismissed as a undesirable fringe group.

If Obama is elected, I hope you are right and I am wrong, but I'm still not convinced.

by MOBlue on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 06:06:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (none / 0)

First of all, its post partisan, not bipartisan. As I am tired of explaining the difference to those who refuse to or just can't understand the concept, I won't do so here... please look up some of my many posts on it or others. But Obama is about combining efforts on specific issues at the same time fighting that same person on other issues... this is NOT bi-partisanship.

Second, Obama's calls AREN'T really about the politicians... its about US as dems working with republicans who want a universal system to achieve it. When I say US, I don't mean the party... I mean you, me, him, her, etc. WE have to fight for it, because the lobbyists will work to prevent it from happening.

You are also putting a lot of faith that Hillary CAN do something to solve the problems. Without congress, she can't... as was proven during her first Healthcare attempt in 1993. Getting this passed will take HARD WORK. It isn't about getting our nominee elected and then sitting back and letting them govern as Hillary wants us to do. The hard begins on Jan 20, 2009, when we need to organize and work to get healthcare and other issues passed. WE need to do it, WE need to be involved... WE need to fight.. we don't need nor want to trust a politician will do it... even if they try to do the right thing (like Obama or Hillary fighting for Healthcare), that doesn't mean others will.

THAT is what Obama wants and calls for. THAT is post partisanship (see you suckered me into a quick definition) and how we will save our country from the lobbyists, the special interests and the jackasses on both sides who care more about making money for themselves than working for the good of the country.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 04:15:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good Luck (none / 0)

The Republicans don't want anything that would prove to the American people that the Dems can succeed. The Dems can't even get members of their own party to support them half the time. Even if we increase our majorities in the House and the Senate, we will do so by increasing the number of Blue Dog and Conservative Dems. So far, the CW is that that is the best we can do.

To develop the number of regular activists that would be required to change the environment in D.C. is not going to happen overnight. Or anytime soon, IMO. Even MoveOn with a stated membership of 3.2 million, can only get about 400,000 signatures on their petitions.

While I may have used the incorrect terminology, I did understand the concept of what you believe will happen. I just don't buy into it. If you get Obama elected, I hope you are right, but I'm not convinced.

by MOBlue on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 06:35:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two Candidates, Two Visions of Government (none / 0)

by MOBlue on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 06:36:59 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.