Presidential Power and Positive Change (w/poll)

We have all seen that a president can do all kinds of bad things without the support of the American people.  But to make real positive change happen a president needs to harness the power of the people.  Which candidate can bring together the most diverse coalitions to break partisan gridlock and make real positive change happen?

Hillary seems to view this race as a contest where the most experienced and hardest worker wins and gets all the power and then doles out what she sees fit to give the little people.  She doesn't seem confident in her own ability to inspire or the peoples power to make greater change happen when we are brought together.  Both Obama and Edwards show they understand that the contest is about working hard to get more people involved in the process and that the power for positive change ultimately comes from the people.

At the NH debate Edward's example of an accomplishment, the 'Patient's Bill of Rights' did not pass into law and he has little to no record of success using his approach to curb corporate influence.  Obama has a long record of reaching out and bringing people together and getting laws passed that curb corporate influence like the '1998 Illinois State Gift Ban Act' and the 'Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006'  He also proved in Iowa that he can bring together the most diverse coalitions.  Obama won among liberal Democrats as well as Independents and Republicans.  He won among women and young people, who rarely show up, especially to caucuses.  He won every demographic except women over 60 but against a Republican, I think he would win that demographic as well.

While I agree with everything Edwards says, Obama has clearly had more sucess with his approach and his entire adult life of public service shows that he is committed to positive change.  The candidates can bicker over the details of their plans and policy all they want but unless they can inspire and bring people together to break the partisan gridlock, nothing will get accomplished.  Obama has shown in Iowa and across the country, with the broadest base of support of any presidential candidate in US history, that he has the skill and charisma to bring people together in a governing coalition that can make real change happen.

•  Tips?

  Thank you

  by Todd Smyth on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:05:12 AM PDT

•  Excellent Argument

  I'm reminded of the saying: "speak softly but carry a big stick."

  In a similar vein, in terms of how to 'fight' Republicans:

  "Grab them by the constituencies, their hearts and minds will follow."

  by Carrington Ward on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:14:20 AM PDT

  •  I like the last one

    But we can bypass the GOP entirely if we have enough people on our side.  Obama is the only one now in a position to do this and he is doing it.

    by Todd Smyth on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:19:13 AM PDT

•  With all due respect...Lieberman

  said the same things Obama is now saying.  And you know how great that's turned out.

  And didn't Bush promise that he would be a uniter, not a divider?

  by ShainZona on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:23:57 AM PDT

  •  due respect

    The difference is that Obama has a history of doing it.

    Bush's experience of being a uniter in Texas was based on weak Democrats in the legislature who were in awe of the President's son.

    by royce on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:43:26 AM PDT

    •  His "present" votes reek of Bush Dogs.

      Take a stand, Barack.  Tell us what you're going to DO, not how good we're going to feel that you got elected.

      We scream around here all of the time about Reid and Pelosi and how terrible that has turned out.

      Do we want to be feeling/saying the same thing in 2012?

      by ShainZona on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:29:30 AM PDT

      •  you don't know anything about his "present" votes

        then.  Sometimes the "present’ votes were instructions from Democratic leaders or because Obama objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support.

        by MadAsHellMaddie on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:02:32 AM PDT

        •  He took "instructions" from other people?

          Well, I'm not sure you want to talk that point around a lot!

          by ShainZona on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:29:54 AM PDT

  •  Joementum?

    You're gonna throw out Joementum as a comparison to what Obama is actually doing?  You need to see a doctor.

    by Todd Smyth on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:43:40 AM PDT

    •  No - I said their speeches use the same lingo.

      Bi-partisan.  Ending the fights over policy.  Bringing Congress together.  Kumbiya.

      B.S. - IMHO.

      by ShainZona on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:30:54 AM PDT

      •  It's kumbaya by the way

        Yes every Senator from the beginning of time who dared to use the words "bi-partisan" or "bringing Congress together" are evil people.

        Give me a break.  Every Senator has used the same words at one time or another.

        We get it.  You don't like Obama.  Then don't vote for him.  At least try to be against him for a valid reason.  The "But but he uses words argument" is silly and weak.

        by MadAsHellMaddie on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:06:37 AM PDT

•  Yeah, this is what it all comes down to

  Edwards and Obama are both headed the same direction. Obama's got a better map and vehicle. I would love to see Edwards as AG.

  by pragprogress on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:12:35 AM PDT

  •  Good point

    I hadn't thought about that. AG would be great for Edwards.

    by Todd Smyth on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:14:33 AM PDT

    •  and he would be doing what he does best,

      by MadAsHellMaddie on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:10:27 AM PDT