Thanks for this very on-the-mark commentary. Indeed, the distinction drawn by Hillary Clinton between herself and every other Democratic hopefulespecially but not just Obama--has been this business about her being ready for a knife fight with the GOP.

After Dubya made his absurd "appeaser" comments in front of the Israeli parliament recently, and McCain reinforced them, to then hear Barack Obama come out politely but forcefully calling them on this bullshit--WOW! That removed for me any lingering doubt that Obama would take it to the GOP in the general election campaign, as well as any lingering suspicion that somehow Clinton really had a point about being the only qualified fighter.

I still want to hear the Democrats discrediting the GOP's delusional policy prescriptions, however: talk about precisely where the GOP snake oil is screwed up, AND propose a clear alternative. NO MORE GOP LITE. NO MORE TRIANGULATION.

Jeff -- Great post. You articulate what many of us progressives are feeling. After watching the 2002 and 2004 elections, I am still a little bit "gun-shy" about our chances in November. However, the disconnect between conservative rhetoric (e.g. "efficient and limited government") and the reality of their policies, seems to have finally sunk in among many voters across the nation. Was Katrina the tipping point? Or is it consistently high gas prices combined with stagnating wages?

Whatever the cause, for the first time in a long time I'm cautiously optimistic that Obama and other national leaders can express their progressive policy visions to a receptive electorate -- rather than merely reacting to the empty talking points of the right.

That was interesting. I'd never clicked over to that site before. I like how they were less combative than many TV pundits ... yet they're bloggers! I also like that the Republican flatly stated that taxes are un-American.

Wow, though, that lipstick on our debater.

This election is not about Obama, the man, but on his insistence that we hold a dialog on the great issues we face. Indeed, whether we even can.

This is a key to the election: perhaps there isn't a majority who agree with Obama on his policies, but there is a great majority that agree with him that elections must be about something more than who is better at Swiftboating his opponent. He's be smart to keep emphasizing this.

[Off-topic comment removed. -editor.]

Good post.

I see a landslide in our near future.

Over here in Republican land, people are pretty darn tired of the same old same old. I ran into a friend I have known for about 15 years at the post office. While I'm Vice Chair of the Crook Co. Democrats, he's been Vice Chair of the Crook Co. Republicans. The only thing he could think to throw at me about the coming Presidential election (we both agree Obama is the Democratic Candidate), was that McCain had more experience that Obama, so Obama might make a mistake. He didn't know how to handle it when I threw back that we have heard a lot about McCain's temper, and he was maybe more likely to make a mistake.

He didn't throw at me ANY of those old tired talking points that you cover in your post. He was visibly just worn out with them, and knew that the last 8 years were a total disaster. He was totally out of come back lines, talking points, or anything to say to me - and he usually talks my ear off. He was a very, very sad man.

Especially after talking about the local Republicans losing about 250 registered voters and the Democrats picking up a similar number of new voters in the last few weeks of registration prior to the primary - he was very sad.

Jeff, in your post you say the only way to test things is in an actual vote. Some of the election results here, as I covered previously, point to a crisis for Republicans.

In Crook County:

Republicans have a 13% advantage in voter registration. In the Primary, 76% of Democrats voted, 60% of Republicans. In the Primary, around 15% of Repubicans showed a protest vote for McCain and Smith.

Add that all up, and in this very conservative area, the Primary election shows Democrats erasing the registration advantage of the Republicans by their protest vote, and low voter turn out. (We had some very interesting down ticket races, which would ordinarily boost voter turn out.)

To sum it up, the Repubicans are shattered and tattered. The Democrats are coming on strong. As always, its up to the Independents to call the general election, but they seem as fed up with things as the Democrats.

I'm predicting a national landslide for the Democrats, with large coattails.

"When I listen to the half-witted natterings on the right this year, I become increasingly disinterested in reaction. "

Reaction is less important than verbal judo. Like what Steve said, or my favorite story from the year we defeated Cong. Denny Smith.

Friend of Mike to Denny supporter: "I'll tell you a strength of character story about Mike, then you can tell me one about Denny, OK?"

Except there never were any strength of character stories about Denny, a GOP elected official who made Gordon Smith look good in comparison.

It's a brilliant strategy to run Pro-life, Pro-Gun Democrats in those three Congressional seats. People are sick of government spending on both sides of the isle, that's why Bushie has a lower approval rating and why the Pelosi/Reid Congress has even a lower approval rating that Bushie.

Crisis for repubs - sure. Just like the past few elections have been a crisis for Dems. As a famous former Dem governor recently said. There is no such thing as a Mandate in politics. I'd add for any party or philosophy.

Also, I need to ask. In order to be Swiftboated, don't you first need to have served in the Military? I could see McCain being Swiftboated but no Obama.

No doubt the current incarnation of the G.O.P. is on the fast track to going the way of the Dodo. I say good riddance. Big spending, war-mongering Neocons and pious hypocritical "social conservatives" need to go. However, I don't believe the average American is clamoring for "progressive" policies. I'm not. Let's be honest. Congressional approval ratings aren't a whole lot better than they are for one of the least popular presidential administrations in U.S. history. That's hardly a mandate for the Democratic majority. I also believe that registered Democrats (myself included) are doing more harm than good for the party in this primary. I cast my vote for Clinton, but don't begrudge those who voted for Obama. I'd also give odds that Obama will be the nominee and I'm cool with that. What bothers me is you people crying that Hillary should throw in the towel right now. Your cries for "unity" are code for go lockstep with Obama or else. To me that smacks of "you're either with us or against us" Republican bullshit and it sure as hell doesn't help the party. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but this is by far one of the closest primary races in history and the closest one I can recall. The Florida/Michigan debacle is a huge deal and super delegates are in no way obligated to cast their votes for the candidate with the popular edge. This isn't the general election and Democratic super delegates should not be confused with electoral votes. They can vote as they please and should in accordance with the rules. Hate to break it to you true believers on both sides (primarily Obama backers in Oregon), but neither Democratic candidates possess the messianic qualities you want to see in them. Either represents a change for the better. It's no wonder that a weakening Republican party watches with glee while the Obama and Clinton camps duke it out. If McCain wins in November, take it as factual evidence that the Democratic party is filled with dumbasses, out of touch with the majority.

I agree with most of the post, but I noted Mr. Alworth's tired demagoguing of the social security issue. You know, the people who brought us the worthless (and erroneous) catchphrase "There is no crisis?"

Social Security is fundamentally actuarially unsound. If benefits aren't cut or payroll taxes raised it will be unable to meet its obligations within our lifetimes. The honest thing for "progressives" like Mr. Alworth to propose is an increase in payroll taxes - but I suspect that a lot of that Democratic "landslide" would melt away with such honesty.

For all of Mr. Bush's failings, at least he put a proposal on the table - a proposal designed to appeal to those who think they can do a better job of investing their retirement savings than forced investments in U.S. Treasury Bonds. The basic argument the Democrats put forward in response was "people are too stupid to invest in their own retirement."

For all of Mr. Bush's failings, at least he put a proposal on the table - a proposal designed to appeal to those who think they can do a better job of investing their retirement savings than forced investments in U.S. Treasury Bonds. The basic argument the Democrats put forward in response was "people are too stupid to invest in their own retirement."

--Privatization is all about enriching the financial-services industry. --The "too stupid" claim is nonsense. --Few people have the time or knowledge to get involved in careful investment planning. That's why we have things like pension plans managed (and hopefully not MISmanaged)by professionals.

Yes Mr. Alworth, the American public is very much against privatizing social security. I'm just suggesting that as you and other Democrats play that loathing for all it's worth in this election, that perhaps you are just as politically motivated as the Republicans - because unless you are delusional you should know that the Social Security system is unsustainable and that nobody on the Democratic side of the aisle is willing to tell the Social Security Emperor (and all his elderly voting subjects) that he has no clothes.

"Obama's approach (and a lot of other Dems') is one that depends on a change in the electorate. It assumes that voters have finally seen through the GOP's empty rhetoric."

Now all voters have to see through is the Democrats' empty rhetoric, like "change" in foreign policy that means continuing militarism and support for others' militarism in the Middle East, or "change" in continuing support for bloated Pentagon spending, or "change" in continuing support for corporate health insurance, or "change" in support for centralized, corporate nuclear over decentralized solar and conservation, etc.

It never ceases to amaze me that only when Clinton or McCain mouth their insane musings on such subjects do "progressives" on BO suddenly see that the candidates are unclad.

I agree with Jeff's point that we're on the edge of a Democratic surge, if you will. But I don't agree that we are on the verge of a generational realignment. I don't think the Democratic party has yet developed the type of strong IDEAS that are necessary for such a realignment. Instead, we're benefitting from Republican incompetence, which can only get us so far.

When it comes to policy, Democrats have a lot of good ideas when it comes to the environment and sustainable energy. Outside of that, however, what do we stand for?

On education, we oppose NCLB. . .what will we replace it with? What is our plan for improving American education?

On health care, we talk about single payer but no one has a realistic plan to get us there. We have middle-ground approaches, like Wyden's (which I like), but none have yet proven to be viable. We have no plans to contain health care costs, which is what's driving millions into uninsurance.

On national security, we want to end the war in Iraq, but don't have a strategy for dealing with global terrorism. There is no overarching liberal philosophy when it comes to foreign affairs.

On the economy, we have no economic strategy for dealing with income inequality, unemployment, or stagnation.

On taxes, we're against tax cuts for the rich, but we seem to support them for the "middle class", usually defined as those up to $150,000. We never talk, as Novick did, about how important taxes are to the functioning of our modern society, which means we will continue to be vulnerable to mindless calls for tax cuts.

On crime, we seem comfortable having the highest incarceration rate in the world. We give lip service to "treatment" and "rehabilitation" but have no serious plans to fund it.

Past realignments (the Great Society, the Reagan Revolution) were preceded by years of intellectual debate that started small and grew into a national movement. I just don't see anything equivalent coming out of the left.

I just had a DNC volunteer at my door, telling me that the DNC only has $5M to spend for the entire campaign, that they need my money and that they gave money to Merkley in the primary. What? Did they really do that? Did they give money to Merkley? How can they only have $5M for the presidential campaign?

It means Americans have seen the incompetence of the GOP and is no longer buying their snake oil. It gives Dems a blank slate and the opportunity to reinvent politics in a way that aren't in reaction to Bush, Rove, and the GOP.

So far the Dems majority in the House in DC hasn't made much difference. Certainly nothing to brag about. Books have been written outlining cases for impeaching Bush and Cheney, but that Constitutional obligation remains "off the table" proving that Democrats either don't live up to their oaths to defend the Constitution or they recognize they share in the guilt for the war on Iraq.

As Walter Karp noted the Democrats and the Republicans are the two wings on the corporate bird of prey.

The only thing he could think to throw at me about the coming Presidential election (we both agree Obama is the Democratic Candidate), was that McCain had more experience that Obama, so Obama might make a mistake.

McCain certainly has lots more experience reversing positions. If the Democrats can't beat this pathetic creature in November it's time to fold the party. The hope for the Dems is that Obama is showing much more intelligence than Kerry or Gore did. This may be attributable to a lack of experience in Washington that appears to have a corrupting affect on politicians' intelligence. As for McCain's military experience it is worth considering the number of former military people who have gone on to become dictators. Probably something in the military mindset.

Jeff's post makes a good point. It's time for Democrats to stop running from the wrongheaded Republican framing that has dominated public discussion for a long time. We need to realize, though, that the success of conservative sloganeering resulted from the Alice in Wonderland nature of that public discussion. The important division of interests and values in not left-to-right but top-to-bottom. The domination of the media by wealthy corporations, both as owners and as advertisers, and the domination of our electoral system by wealthy contributors guarantees that many vital issues will not be discussed at all, and that the ones discussed will be distorted to protect the interests of the rich and powerful.

Until the Fourth Estate and our elected officials are no longer agents of elite wealth, our public discussion will remain stifled and misleading. When Democrats are ascendant the masses will suffer a bit less, but real progress will escape us so long as the system is rigged by and for the super-rich.

I would rather have Obama as president than McCain, but I shall remember that Obama will not become president unless the few people who control a large portion of our national wealth consent to that outcome.

Miles said:

(1.) "On health care, we talk about single payer but no one has a realistic plan to get us there."

How about Physicians for a National Health Program (sane physicians) or HR 676 (HR 676), sponsored by the less than radical John Conyers? Just divert your gaze from corporatists like Wyden, and you'll find your way.

(2.) "On national security, we want to end the war in Iraq, but don't have a strategy for dealing with global terrorism."

As Chomsky often says, if you want to seriously reduce the amount of terrorism in the world, stop committing it.

(3.) "I just don't see anything equivalent coming out of the left."

Maybe that's because "the left" doesn't exist in the circles in which you travel.

Chris Lowe:

Having lived in Canada for five years during years when its system was better funded, I can testify (and have, as a member of Health Care For All - California) that the Canadian system, even under-funded, is superior to ours.

I also "testified" before Nancy Pelosi with a group of like-minded activists, when she held a "town hall" on medical care that forbad the mention of single payer (We had to scream "Single Payer!" from the audience in order to be heard - Pelosi's answer was, "I was for single payer before any of you.")

Yes, a mass movement, larger than the movements with which I've been a part, is needed. But it's important to educate the public about the role of Democrat corporatists like Pelosi, Wyden and Blumenauer (and, yes, even the sainted Obamary)in maintaining our current inadequate system.

And let's be honest about the change that's possible even in a country as committed to "market forces" as Taiwan: Taiwan's Single Payer System: A Phenomenal Success!.

Your pcp Himmelstein has written extensively (with Stephanie Woolhandler) about why the "middle ground" of competition between corporate health care and Medicare-for-all is a disaster for those of us who must pay the social costs for that competition.

Competition in a publicly funded healthcare system

Single Payer Resources

Previous Studies Comparing Health Care in the U.S. Vs. Canada

The fact that polls have shown a remarkable (considering the propaganda about "socialized medicine") consistency in support for some form of government-funded health care for the past thirty years is one more nail in the coffin of the "we're not ready for anything so drastic" argument. If we don't have contempt for democracy, then we must at least entertain the notion that we've been ready for a long time. It's the corporations and their politician lackies that haven't been ready.

Chris Lowe: I think that we agree far more than we disagree. But I've been waiting all my adult life for your party to "change", especially with respect to foreign policy and corporatism, and I fail to see how support for it can result in anything other than further reducing the possibility of progress toward the goals that I think we share.

Your argument of, "Just saying HR 676 doesn't answer the question of how to get from here to there" attacks a strawman. No one is "just saying HR 676".

Woolhandler, Himmelstein, and McCanne, et al, have put a lot of effort into the dissemination of their arguments, and the problem remains: the corporate Democrats and their enablers, the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

It's not just a matter of money, as some would have it. I don't believe that Blumenauer or Wyden would become anti-corporatist if they were "paid" more by centrist progressives than by the corporations. It is an ideological matter.

This is why Ralph Nader keeps running. Washington has increasingly become corporate-occupied territory, and the institutions that Ralph helped to build are no longer viable. Peter Camejo's point (Which Side Are You On?), with which I agree, is that the Democrat Party is "the instrument that controls, channels and co-opts the forces that otherwise could challenge the rule of concentrated money." While Kucinich keeps progressives in the fold by promising to create a progressive party agenda, only to eventually betray them once the general election cycle begins, the party "leadership" viciously attacks and obstructs the electoral arm of a progressive movement.

I am not "ultra-left". I am a centrist progressive. I believe that electoral politics has value. I also believe that we must try to build movements and alternative institutions. (We can walk and chew gum at the same time.) However, the educating of Republicans and Democrats with respect to how their parties betray their own interests is part of the work that progressives must do.

Chris Lowe asked, "...are we fighting for single-payer because we want to achieve that, as the first goal, or because we expect to fail but think that doing so may be valuable in "educating" people about Republican and Democratic betrayals?"

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can fight for single-payer as a goal, and we can educate about the corporatism and hegemony that lies at the heart of the DP soul (and which obstructs our single-payer goal- rhyme unintended).

I have no interest in destroying your party merely to have done the work of Shiva. The primary reason that we don't have single-payer is Peter Camejo's point: the forces that otherwise could challenge the rule of concentrated money are being co-opted by the DP.

"...shifting the balance of forces in the DP in a better direction" is clearly a goal of yours that I do not share. I once did share that goal, but I have been disabused by history of the notion that the DP can be a positive institution. Whether or not it is "irredeemable" seems to me to be a religious question, but it is undoubtedly corrupt.

Re: "Wouldn't it merely foster the false consciousness and illusion you posit among us uneducated types" (to have a more progressive balance of forces within the DP)?

I would welcome a progressive DP. I would also welcome the tooth fairy. As for you "uneducated types", I agree with Chomsky when he says that it takes a really good education to buy into the obvious lies that Democrats and Republicans keep shoveling at us:

"...there are very serious illusions that there are major efforts to instill. And I don't think they are very hard to dismantle. Almost anything we understand about international affairs is on the level that my 10-year old grandson can figure out, if given a chance. So just give people a chance to figure it out for themselves. Everything we are talking about, for example, is completely obvious. You would see it unless you are deeply indoctrinated not to see it. Okay, just get people to question sensibly, be reasonable, and think through the obvious and so on...

But for elites, they have to believe. They are the ones who are the managers and the directors, whether it's political or economic, or doctrinal managers in universities and media and so on. They got to believe. Otherwise they can't do the job. So they have to be profoundly indoctrinated. Furthermore, it is in their interest to be indoctrinated, they are the ones who gain from these activities." On War and Activism