This is my first diary and I look forward to reading everyone's thoughts.
Why Hillary Should be our Choice: An Open Letter to Progressives,
There is one thing that we as progressives should all agree on: after eight miserable years of George Bush we cannot lose in November, the stakes are too high. There is a war that needs to end in Iraq, a recession that must be dealt with, and the possibility of two or even three Supreme Court nominees looming in the next four years. Not only do I believe that Hillary has the best shot at beating John McCain, I would like to state my case for why Hillary deserves the support of progressives at this crucial stage.
Why does Hillary deserve our support?
The fact is, whether we are talking about healthcare or the bread and butter economic issues that will make a difference in the lives of millions her proposals shine above his. Let’s begin by looking at healthcare. I know I would be preaching to the choir to point out that the United States stands alone in the industrialized world in its lack of universal healthcare. I’m also sure that most of you support the concept of a "single payer" system. Well, unfortunately, neither Hillary nor Barack are pushing Medicare for All. But, without question, Hillary’s plan stands much closer to what we are looking for than Barack’s does.
Simply stated, her plan covers everyone and his does not. His plan is more of a band-aid because it lacks a mandate and would leave out at least 15 million people. As Paul Krugman and many other independent experts point out, a mandate is absolutely necessary for a universal healthcare plan to succeed. I don’t know how Senator Obama has convinced so many people that the lack of a mandate is a positive aspect of his plan because it is a critical flaw. If a voluntary plan is better than one with a mandate then why were we opposed to Bush’s Social Security reform plan? After all, at its core the plan simply wanted to eliminate the "mandate" that everyone participate in Social Security. It is because everyone has a stake in Social Security and Medicare that those programs have survived decades of ring-wing assaults.
As important as the mandate is, that is not the best part of her plan. The best part is that her plan, like the one John Edwards put forward, has the option for anyone to buy into a public plan based on Medicare. This would be a revolutionary change in the healthcare system. For the first time people would have a public option instead of being forced to buy private insurance. I agree with Senator Edwards that if people prefer the public plan (which I believe they will) it could eventually lead to a single payer system. Mr. Obama’s plan falls far short...the public plan he proposes would not be open to everyone. It would only be available to those who do not currently have insurance. My question is: what about those who are underinsured? There are millions of people who are "insured" but whose plans are basically worthless. What happens to them? Please look into the differences in these plans because they are drastic.
Healthcare is not the only core issue where Clinton and Obama differ. She is also proposing the expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act to include 13 million people who are not currently covered. In addition, under her planned expansion of FMLA, all workers would be guaranteed seven paid sick days per year. Think about it, for the first time people won’t have to choose between calling in sick and paying the electric bill.
It doesn’t end there. She is also proposing universal pre-kindergarten, raising the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour, and a five year rate freeze on sub-prime adjustable loans. The fact is, if you go on their websites and compare issue after issue you will find that she stands much closer to John Edwards and the values that we hold as progressives than Barack Obama does.
Why aren’t more progressives supporting Hillary?
Although many progressives are supporting Hillary, there has been a vocal chorus from the beginning claiming that Hillary Clinton does not deserve our vote. From the DailyKos to the Huffington Post, the support for Senator Obama is loud and forceful. I have noticed that the arguments usually center around three main points. The first is what I will label the "Michael Moore reasoning." It follows that since Senator Clinton voted for the war it would be "immoral" for us to cast our vote for her. The second is what I will label the "Larry David reasoning" who famously said "aren’t you tired of all these Bushies and Clintons?" Finally, we are told that the inspiration Mr. Obama brings to the table is reason enough to vote for him; this is the "Ted Kennedy reasoning".
I am in complete agreement with Mr. Moore that this war has been a complete tragedy for the United States and especially for Iraq. Thousands of American soldiers are dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted, and our image in the world has been shattered. This is the reality we face as a nation and it is all because George W. Bush made the decision to go to war.
I was one of the hundreds of thousands of people marching against this war back in 2002 and I commend Barack Obama for speaking out when he did! That being said, I do not blame John Edwards, John Kerry, or Hillary Clinton for what has happened. I believe that when they voted in favor of that resolution back in 2002, they all did so believing it was the right thing to do. All have said that if they knew then what they know now they would not have voted the same way. This begs the question: why have John Kerry and John Edwards been given a pass while Hillary Clinton has not? It seems it is due to her refusal to "apologize" for her past errors. Well, on this note I commend her. I am not looking for a repeat of the Moscow show trials here and I don’t need Hillary Clinton to confess her sins to the party. I feel very strongly about this and I hope she continues to stand her ground. There is one person to blame for this catastrophe and his name is George W. Bush.
The fact is that Barack Obama’s anti-war activities took a hiatus right after the war started. The same weekend he spoke at the Democratic convention in 2004 he told the Chicago Tribune "there is not much difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage." Remember, this is after George Bush escalated the war with his horrific attack on Fallujah. Ironically, except for one vote on the promotion of a general, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have the exact same voting records on the war! It is safe to say that over the past few years neither one has been a lightening rod for the anti-war movement.
That is why the issue in front of us today should not be who has or has not apologized for what they thought at the time. Even Obama once said "I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence." The issue in front of us now is: how do we get our troops home as quickly and safely as possible? Hillary’s position today is to start bringing them home within 60 days of taking office. I find it interesting that General Wesley Clark (Michael Moore’s original choice back in 2004) is one of Hillary Clinton’s strongest supporters while Barack is advised by Zbiginew Brzezinsky, one the architects behind arming the folks who later turned into the Taliban. Look, as a progressive I am interested in ending this war and if the best person to do that originally voted to authorize it...so be it. I don’t see Senator Obama complaining about John Kerry’s vote.
Next up is the "dynasty" argument. Larry, I’m sorry but on this one I choose Ted and Mary (Hillary supporters). First of all, there is a gigantic difference between "the Bushies and the Clintons" and as Hillary famously said "it took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, it may take a Clinton to clean up after the second." In all seriousness, if progressives back in 1928 were worried about seeing a familiar name on the ballot (and it was the fourth time in 28 years the Roosevelt family was on the ballot) we just might have missed out on a gentleman with the initials FDR.
The final argument is one of "inspiration" and "change". Personally, I think that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both incredibly inspiring individuals. 43 people have been elected President of the United States and all 43 have been white males. The election of either one would be historic and bring about change. But Obama supporters claim he is more than just something new, they believe his election would be a rejection of the status quo. But one look at Mr. Obama’s advisors will tell you there is not much "new" here. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Paul Volcker...this list of Washington insiders goes on and on. Honestly, is he really an "anti-establishment" candidate?
Barack Obama eloquently calls for a return to "bi-partisanship" to get things done in Washington. This is at the core of the "change" he seeks. He thinks the Republicans and Democrats can come together and agree on the issues that polarize us. This is why it makes perfect sense to me that his mentor in the Senate was Joe Lieberman. I respectfully disagree with this call to work things out with those who fundamentally disagree with us. The vast majority of the Republicans in Congress carry a very different philosophy than we do. They view government as the enemy and their goal is to dismantle the "great society" programs of the 60s and ultimately the New Deal as well.
Why we need a Fighter!
I don’t believe that the Republicans in Congress are going to be won over by a great speech. The battles ahead are not going to be easy and if we’re going to succeed we need a fighter in the White House. FDR didn’t reach out to Republicans in the 30s; he steamrolled the New Deal through Congress and we are better off for it. I’ll never understand why we fail to learn our lesson on this. We’re talking about the party of Gingrich and Delay. Have we forgotten Florida, Impeachment, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, and the Contract with America? Do we really believe that Karl Rove has retired? Why are we following the Lieberman model when we need to be following the Roosevelt model? Believe me, when the Republicans try to get rid of Medicare and Social Security it’s not because they think Democrats aren’t nice people. Sometimes there’s a reason partisanship exists! The fact is if we really want universal healthcare it will take a fighter to make it a reality.
No matter who is elected President in November there will be "change". The question is what kind of change are we looking for? I want to elect a President who will fight for real universal healthcare, someone who will fight to guarantee paid sick days for millions who don’t currently have it, and someone who knows that the Republicans aren’t looking to play nice. If you agree go to hillaryclinton.com and get involved because March 4th is only a few days away.