I personally agree with all your stated positions on the issues, oleeb, and I'm glad to learn that you weren't just making empty condemnations of Clinton and Obama. But I also agee with the post of hoppycalif2, who cautions that one's personal and specific sense of liberal outrage isn't necessarily shared by a majority of voters.

There may be many reasons that Kucinich's campaign in the last two elections--or McGovern's in 1972--didn't attract a majority of voters, and some of those reasons may have little to do with the actual merits and appeal of his ideas. Maybe the mainstream media just didn't take him seriously enough, or maybe he just didn't "look presidential enough" (though do Hillary or Obama, by any traditional standard?). But I think it's also worth considering the very real possibility that the public in general just isn't at this point nearly as liberal or progressive or whatever as you or I, so the public didn't like Kucinich on the issues. If that's the case, then the possibility of a Clinton or Obama presidency is, given the Republican alternative, something to be welomed rather than dismissed.

Sometimes recently when I hear my leftist friends and leftist blog commenters talk about how disgusted they are with the centrism of the major Democratic candidates, I'm seeing a kind of solipsism in their outlook that I find disturbing and, yes, terribly impractical.

Personally, I'm especially encouraged by the Obama candidacy because 1) he's relatively progressive on the issues, 2) he has the kind of personal background that encourages me to believe that he does understand the plight of this country's growing underclass, and 3) a growing number of people find him exciting. That last matter is important, because popular appeal and personal charisma count for a lot in politics.

Posted at February 19, 2008 8:40 PM in response to Obama and Clinton’s Economic Populism Is As It Should Be

Okay, oleeb, I'll bite. You say that Obama and Clinton are recommending only half measures, and you deride them personally as "Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee," but you don't provide any indication of what "full measures" you advocate. So what exactly do you want? And assuming no one has been advocating the measures you have in mind, what makes you think those measures would be so popular with voters that a winning presidential campaign could be based on them?

I, too, would like to see a radical shift from the United States' present course, internationally and domestically. But given the state of our country now, I don't see Obama's and Clinton's proposals as either inconsequential or contemptible. Ending the war in Iraq, moving toward univeral health care, re-tilting the tax code to benefit the poor and middle class, taking our share of the responsibility for the environmental health of the planet--these would be significant steps toward a more just and humane America. And both Obama and Clinton promote these and other progressive causes.

Posted at February 19, 2008 5:35 PM in response to Obama and Clinton’s Economic Populism Is As It Should Be