Have I gone through a crack in the space-time continuum that has taken me back 50 years?  “Jeff, ...it’s working in Western Europe right now.”  Replace “Western Europe” with “the Soviet Union”, and I’m in 1958.  Do you really think that it’s working in Europe?  You see, here is the problem:  In the beginning, socialism seems to work.  Especially in smaller (geographically) countries that have a larger middle and upper-class, and a highly educated workforce (i.e. Western Europe).  Note that France has taken a serious step back from socialism as they found that it wasn’t quite working as advertised.  It also doesn’t hurt that you are comparing these countries to the U.S., where the government tells the people that we have a free market, but makes them play by socialist rules.  To be fair to the U.S., however, we should probably compare entities of like scale; the EU with the U.S..  In this case the U.S. isn’t too bad, as the EU is a mess.

The bottom line is that socialism is a fatally flawed system; it is unsustainable.  There is not a single example in history of it working long-term.  There is a basic economic principle working here that was best described by French economist Frederic Bastiat, “The government can promise all the bread it wants to, but there still needs to be someone to make the bread”.

Socialism discourages productivity and ingenuity, and it places a downward pressure on the economy - the government always takes more out of the economy than it puts back in.  There are only three options to overcome this downward pressure:  1)  Continually raise taxes.  Politicians won’t do this, and, even if they would, this option eventually implodes.  2)  Print more money.  Although this may actually be a viable option with responsible monetary policy (Lincoln did it fairly well with Greenbacks), there are many examples in South America, Eastern Europe, and Africa that show the extreme risks involved.  3)  Create a positive Current Accounts balance, which basically means eliminate foreign debt and create a significant trade surplus.  The only way to do this in the U.S. is through using natural resources.  (see Venezuela) The U.S. could easily do this, but, ironically, the same people who are pushing for socialism have pretty much shut down access to our natural resources.

Someone please show me how this really works long-term.  Show me an example of how/where it has.  It sounds great in theory, but when you apply math, common sense and human nature to the theory it falls apart every single time.

Finally, apart from the fact that it doesn’t work, where does the government get the authority to play Robin Hood?

Fundamental problem with that statement, Jeff, is that it’s working in Western Europe right now. But, hey, we’re Americans, and are a completely separate breed of people, right? Never mind that we have socialized corporate welfare, socialized medicare, socialized infrastructure maintenance and social security. This is a mixed economic structure, and plenty of social programs work when we have elected officials who actually believe in good government instead of neglecting every aspect of government just to prove it doesn’t work.

“Pfft. You say socialism as if it was a derogatory term”

Only because it doesn’t work.

That’s an interesting non-concession concession. };>

To be truthful, I don’t believe a damn thing about Clinton being close to Obama on some of these issues. She’s very good with education, health care and providing equal opportunity; however, she does saber rattle to a level I’m not comfortable with, she doesn’t have any new ideas for progressive tax reform like Obama does, she has consistently defended corporate lobbyists (I’m really concerned about the similarity you supposedly see here)... There is more than a stylistic difference between the two, but there are many overlapping issues. Obama and Edwards made Hillary sound more populist, but it is really difficult for me to trust her as a candidate because of the constant double-speak, non-denial denials and her past voting record on specific issues.

New blood is needed, and that’s why the majority of Democratic Americans voted for Barack Obama. It’s also why he has far more donors than Hillary does, and why (even if lobbyist’s spouses or an otherwise individual connected thereto) most of his donors have not given anywhere near the max you are allowed to give to a candidate while Hillary’s are mostly maxed out corporate donors and public action committees. The Hillary camp conveniently forgets these facts on a consistent basis. There is a difference between the candidates, and that difference swayed America to Obama. As close as this race has been, he has won for a reason.

Pfft. You say socialism as if it was a derogatory term, and those specific parts of the agenda were not particularly different than the good government of the golden age of America after WWII. It’s just that greed has been enabled for the last thirty years.

Progressivism is not something new either. The progressive movement started early 19th century. It’s part of Americanism. Don’t you forget our country was founded to make a more perfect UNION. No one said anything about a more perfect enterprise system. Unregulated market forces cause poverty epidemics, war and corruption.

I’m not sure what corner I’ve turned, but if appearing to do so offers you any relief, I’m all for it! It’s been a long and grueling several months. We could all use some relief.

So basically your “Progressive Movement” is just a new name for socialism.  Kind of like “climate change” is the new global warming.

Well, Aegrus, we could argue this ‘til we’re blue in the face (if you’ll pardon the pun), but it won’t get far. Your “centrist” may well be my “progressive.” What does “centrist” really mean, anyway? Is there some halfway point between a “true” progressive position and a conservative one on every issue? Or is a centrist one who takes some progressive positions and some conservative ones?

Anyway, here is my take on each of your progressive agenda items, for what it’s worth:

1)Diminishing corporate influence in Washington. Obama and Clinton are virtually identical on this; I guarantee you that you will see no differrence in how their presidency plays out in tems of corporate influence. 
2)Ending drug war and reducing America’s use of military force. This is an odd combination of things to include in one agenda item. Ending the drug war is more a libertarian than a progressive agenda, but I can’t say it’s not a good idea. At to military force, if not so sure either Clinton or Obama is ever going to meet the peace movement progressive’s ideal for reduced militarism, but Obama may be a little more likely to be less trigger happy. I hope.
3)Common sense laws instead of arbitrary punishment of citizens. Not sure what you mean here, so I can’t comment.
4)Single-payer, government-sponsored health insurance. Neither candidate offers this, of course, but most people agree that Clinton’s plan, with its mandates, would get us there faster than Obama’s. Not a big difference, but this one actually tilts Clinton’s way.
5)Strong diplomacy backed with fair trade agreements. “We’d obliterate them” not withstanding, B & H are tied on this score.
6)Strengthening regulations and regulatory agencies with regard to sustainable environment, agriculture end energy. Both candidates are genuinely progressive on this, I think.
7)Enabling equal opportunity for all American citizens. See #6
8)Revamping and properly paying for education for all American Citizens. Is there a tangible difference here, either? Both would probably fall short of progressive ideals but both would be far better than any Republican.

The only significant difference between the two is that Obama would be far better at using the office as a bully pulpit for selling the country and the world on progressive issues; while Clinton might be more effective in the trenches of hammering out policy. Which is why I think they’d make a hell of a ticket, particularly Obama/Clinton as P/VP.

The bottom line: we can heap all kinds of rationalizations on our choice of candidate, but it really boils down to taste more than substance. Which means you won but I didn’t lose.

tdbach, no real liberal considers the Clinton’s anything but centrists. Hillary is slightly to the left of Bill, but it’s not enough to say she is progressive. She isn’t at all affiliated with the progressive movement.

Votes for unnecessary military action and defense of corporate lobbyists is centrist triangulation, which is far from the progressive agenda of:

1)Diminishing corporate influence in Washington.
2)Ending drug war and reducing America’s use of military force.
3)Common sense laws instead of arbitrary punishment of citizens.
4)Single-payer, government-sponsored health insurance.
5)Strong diplomacy backed with fair trade agreements.
6)Strengthening regulations and regulatory agencies with regard to sustainable environment, agriculture end energy.
7)Enabling equal opportunity for all American citizens.
8)Revamping and properly paying for education for all American Citizens.

There are other policy ideas, but these are some of the main progressive initiatives on the agenda. Clearly, there is no viable candidate running who embodies true progressivism, but Obama is closer to the goal than Hillary.

Well, I’m half-relieved to see you start to turn the corner, but I’ll remind you again how many of our elected presidents with the least amount of experience became the best known and most revered.

Include that information in your daily meditation.

Hillary Rodham Clinton should be,“Ticketed,” not for VP but for speeding with her campaigning mouth.

I’ve been looking at the same woman as you, Cyrena. And if you’ve read any of my comments you’d know that my progressive, liberal bona fides are in incontestable. But I never bought into the vast rightwing conservative caricature of Hillary that you and so many others bought, so I don’t look at everything she does through that prism.

Look, the “liberal blogosphere” is made up mostly of young (or young at heart, in your and my case), college-educated rpofessionals - the core constituency of Obama. That I and a few others here don’t fall squarely in line with our demographic in terms of candidate is a statistical quirk. What you have to understand is that even among our demographic, and even among Obama’s supporters, the “liberal blogosphere” is hardly representative of even a majority of liberal ideas. Sure, we share most of the core principles, but this insular world revs up some of the tangential stuff, like Hillary hating, to wildly out-of-proportion levels. But since this is where we “see” most opinions and ideas expressed, we’re inclined to think the world at large is like this, too. But it ain’t.

Most liberals don’t actually think Hillary is a “Repuglican” in drag, but rather see her as a progressive liberal who is also a pragmatic realist and a clever political operative who will make calculated co-opting moves to disarm conservatives, while pushing progressive agenda where it matters and where success is possible. Many still may not like her and still may think she compromises too much, but they don’t think she’s the devil incarnate either. That you and others here see her political maneuvers as utter sell out and a Darth Vader-like leap to the dark side is indicative of your extremes, not hers.

I don’t know tdbach…I’m thinking you might not be seeing the same Hillary we’ve been seeing for the past 20 or so years. Remember Travel Gate and Vince Foster? Maggie Thatcher ain’t got nothin’ on Hillary.

It’s odd though (or maybe not) that you mention this description of Clinton-as-evil-witch as tittilating the LIBERAL blogosphere!

Doesn’t that sound a bit ironic? I mean, isn’t Hillary supposed to represent the ‘liberal’ political mindset, and wouldn’t that description seem more appropriate coming from that ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ that she’s been seeing over her shoulder for the past 20 years? The ones that were all ganging up on her and stuff?

I mean, I can’t imagine why the ‘liberal’ blogosphere would be suggesting such a thing, unless maybe Hillary was actually far more Repuglican conservative in her own views and actions. And YES…this IS a liberal leaning forum.

Actually, the fellow from the PDA broke this down pretty well for the purposes of simplicity. The Dems are still in major transition, (which was clearly evident in this primary election) and there is this internal struggle between the Corporate Democrats and the Progressive Democrats.

The Corporate Democrats are represented by the Clinton’s, and they are simply indistinguishable at this point, from the Repugs. But, even the old Democrats have always been associated with liberal principles. So, why would you expect that mostly Democrats, on a mostly liberal- leaning forum, would not be ‘less than enamored” with a candidate that is as close (or closer) to the conservative Repuglicans than even some repuglicans?

Anyway, I only said that to point out that for the most part, this is a liberal forum, and in all honesty, Hillary Clinton is far better ‘situated’ in the Repuglican mindset of old. I wouldn’t go so far as to put her in the same jug as the neo-cons, but then in her original form as a Goldwater Girl, those repuglicans weren’t of the neo-con type either. Even Pappa Bush doesn’t like THEM!

So it sounds like you and many others that have seemingly supported Hillary in this long drawn out ordeal were actually demanding that we democrats/liberals simply give up selecting a liberal/progressive candidate to run against the repugs in November, and be forced to select between two McSame repuglicans. One male tyrant and one female tyrant.

Now how fair is that?

You are such a dreamer, Cyrena! Honest to God, it is a wonder to behold. Somehow, you have planted Hillary in the “same old stuff” category and left Biden and Dodd and Edwards et al out. Who do you think has been in Washington longer, Biden, Dodd or Clinton. Take your time.

But what really puts you in the land of Nod is the believe that Obama is somehow above and apart from the politics of Washington. There is NOTHING in his record to base this notion on, only his rhetoric puts him there. As Grace Anderson says, Judge them by their actions. The irony in all this is that, if Obama was indeed as free of Washington political taint as your REM sleep would have it, he would be a guaranteed failure, a completely disfunctional, impotent president. But he’s not. So there is hope…

Rumor indeed, and one that fits nicely with the Clinton-as-evil-witch meme that so tittilates the liberal blogosphere.

As if Clinton has the power to dictate his choice of running mate, even if she were so inclined….

In related news, rumor has it that the Clinton camp has told Obama that he is not to choose any other woman as his running mate.

See, this isn’t about women and power…this is about a woman and power.

Having Clinton on the ballot would be a big and costly mistake. If Obama can’t stand up to her pressure inside the Democratic party it would demonstrate his weakness. The weight of that along with her baggage would lose him the selection or at least make it easier for the repugs to steal.

If Obama is as intelligent as he seems, he will pick a running mate that has the experience that he lacks like Sen. Biden or Sen Dodd, or he could choose Sen. Boxer to keep the appeal to female voters as well. It’s time for the Clintons to leave the stage.

Clinton, a New York senator, said she was willing to become Obama’s vice presidential nominee if it would help Democrats win the White House.

Well, contrary to what Nydia Velazquez has suggested, (and where is she a ‘rep’ from anyway)..the deal is that Hillary on the VP ticket would NOT help the democrats win the white house!!

Because, with Barack Obama as the Democrat Party nominee, the Democrats are gonna win the White House ANYWAY!

Besides, it’s less about ‘the democrats’ winning than it is about AMERICANS winning! Americans of all shapes, sizes, colors, classes, and political affiliations. That’s US folks!!!

This old ‘party’ stuff is DEAD! There was a time when it mattered, because party affiliations represented principles and values. The old Repuglican Party was highjacked long ago, and the old Democratic Party was as well. Those remaining, (like Hillary and McCain) are of the same old Corporate America elite that have, for the past 4 decades, gradually undermined any real democracy in the system.

Now this is a new dawn, and a new day, and we need to get on with the new, and toss the old.

Hillary belongs to an old system that has proven to be disastrous. So does McSame.

There are dozens of people that can join this ticket with Barack Obama, some of them females, and some of them even republicans. (Mary Miller suggested Chuck Hagel) Yeah..he’d be fine as well.

The democrats began this campaign season with SEVERAL excellent candidates, for the first time in my own memory. In my opinon at the time, HRC was the LEAST desirable among them!

The repuglicans offered ZIP! Nada! Not even a remote choice of anything that would not have continued the destruction, even if it was not immediately recognized as such. (like those who saw Ron Paul as a viable option because of his anti-war stance, and never paid any attention to the other evils lurking in his authoritarian intent).

So, we didn’t start this thing out with this much political capital, (a nation totally disgusted by anything remotely ‘Dick Bushish’) and this much talent and progressive mindsets, only to wind up with an element of the same old stuff still in a position to continue to wreck the havoc of the Oligarchy that has already brought us to the brink and even beyond.

If we’re gonna renovate the House, from the foundation up, we don’t leave a huge pile of rotting mass sitting in the living room!

So hear us Billary, and hear us well. We don’t need you! Take the money. Go on a long, long, long, cruise and see the world. Enjoy life, and we will get the work done.

But where’s the CHANGE in Hillary Clinton?

This would be a disasterous choice. For every disgruntled Hillary supporter she delivers, there’s five Obama voters that leave the country. And, even if electability weren’t an issue, what about governing?

Obama would have to form a whole commission just to deal with the Clinton scandal threats. (code: orange is for bimbo eruptions)

This is tricky, but, it may be the most important test Obama ever faces. If he can’t deal with Hillary, now, in time to let the healing begin, it may bring into question his executive skills.

I’m hoping that Hillary refused to concede the nomination tonight so she can bargain for Obama paying down her debt.

Memo to David Plouff: You have my permission to USE MY DONATIONS, please.

Having her as VP is like having a time bomb.

Consider my ass. “If it will help the party” is not a consideration. It’s a concession. It’s pretty apparent she isn’t big on that particular word. I’d vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket, though. Better than McCain.

Howard Zinn made a fine point recently when he spoke about voting not always being essential to democracy, but sometimes it is important to vote just to prevent something much worse. This is one of those elections.