Crossposted at hikava
A little hyperbolic title, perhaps, but there is a point I think many of my fellow Obama supporters and not Obama supporters would do well to understand. Think about what you've stood for and the policy positions of Senator Clinton, Senator Edwards, and Senator Obama. In matters of health care especially, all three are basically 'moderate' - it means they don't deny health care is a problem, don't advocate in a silly scheme of tax cuts to fix it, but don't have the vision to fundamentally overhaul for-profit health care in our country.
So instead of the discourse being about what health care should look like in this country - who should be benefiting, who should be distributing and who should pick up the costs - the discourse has settled on a largely annoying debate on mandates. So instead of the progressive debate we should be having, we have now 'given up' on single payer health care. Among progressive circles, we are advocating for candidates based on which of their plans will have the best shot of being a transition to single payer.
I believe that this gives us a false option. You are now either voting for Obama's health care plan or Clinton's health care plan, and you don't have a choice of "neither". Because the reality is, for all of those who are advocating for either Obama's or Clinton's plan as the best phase-in to single payer (and let us ignore political feasibility for the purposes of this diary): how do you know that either of them want to go to single payer in the long run?
You don't - neither of them will say such a thing in public, at any rate. But voting for an Obama health care plan or a Clinton health care plan doesn't necessarily mean defeat for single payer.
What we are voting for in [insert candidate here], is an opportunity for citizen involvement - and that means grassroots muscle - in government. In other words - just because our three (now two) frontrunners have given up on single payer doesn't mean that progressives have to be resigned to accept what they have presented us. We have a another option: the constant thud of grassroots activism to push the goal of a single payer health care plan.
Now, I've used health care as an example because it's been beaten to death, and the wide consensus among both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters, and progressive economists and health care professionals is that single payer health care would be the best thing to happen to this country since FDR.
And so here's the point I want to make:
Obama will not be a good President unless the grassroots are in a constant dynamic with him. We must support him against the VRWC, you all know that - but what I'm not seeing from site members is the recognition that we must also push a President Obama to be the best President he can be. That means not only defending him from right wing attacks, but constantly pushing the agenda that we want passed, against Obama if need be! And this constant pushing of a President Obama at a grassroots level, challenging him to exceed even the high expectations he has set for himself, will enshrine for him a great place in history.
The moral of the story: when we win in November, take a day off, celebrate, and enjoy the hard fought victory. And then prepare to get right back to work, pushing our Democratic president to become a legendary progressive president.
Update[February 28th, 2008, 1:32 AM EST]: Thanks for reading and for comments. I'm off to bed.