Hillary Attacks Obama For Being Progressive

"Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress...as subjects for examination"

It's really sad to see Hillary attack Obama's progressivism. These are the very principles she gave up fighting for once she decided her Senate career was more a stepping stone to becoming president than a platform to defending her values --poll-based triangulation at it's best. The reason Obama has won over Independents and Republicans is not because he votes in favor of Bush-sponsored resolutions regarding Iran and Iraq, but because he opposes them based on progressive values. This conviction is far more convincing to those across the aisle than the political calculation that makes up Clinton's record, leaving her to exhibit conflicting values from one vote to the next. And leaving her incapable of pushing forward true progressive change.

(continued...)

In this regard, George Lakoff, the world-reknowned cognitive scientist argues that the only way a real progressive movement can take place is if progressive-Democrats articulate the values behind their voting records. He, rightfully so, finds it astonishing that Republicans always come out on top for the large group of voters who vote based on values. Values! These are Republicans were are talking about folks! If Democrats were proud of their progressivism and could articulate the values that tie the varying issues of a progressive platform together they would win infinitely more elections. Thus, instead of attacking progressivism as a platform like Hillary, they should articulate how the issues are related to their values.

Americans--red and blue states alike--are not against these values. Americans are not against shared responsibility. Americans are not against equality. Americans are not against fairness. Americans are not against accountability. And Americans are not against providing opportunities.

Thus, a progressive platform would:

- Hold corporations accountable for the way they treat the environment and their employees.

- Give equality to gay couples by giving them the freedom to marry.

- Provide an opportunity for success to those who cannot afford to pay for a university degree.

- Share the responsibility of helping those who cannot afford health care.

Unfortunately, the foreign policy debate has become one tied into a value system whereby national security is related directly to war. And Clinton has pandered to this more than any of the other Democratic candidates. The nature of the discourse has made it such that war has become the only option. This was why I was so happy to see Obama include the talk of poverty in his discussion on national security and terrorism. This is the first step in expanding the framework from which people could analyze the very concepts themselves. By continually altering the framework, a progressive candidate would not have to be ashamed of looking weak on national security just because he/she does not run around supporting war. Obama's candidacy is a step in that direction. And he's already reaping the benefits of this by attracting independents and Republicans who see the values behind his voting record.

Of course, I would be very dishonest if I didn't admit that Obama has not been without problems on this front either. For, after all, he like ALL the candidates refused to accept the ceasefire called by the international community in the Israel-Lebanon war. But given that he voted against the war, the Iran resolution, and cluster bombs, and the way he frames his desire to change our foreign policy approach, I think he'd be the only candidate with the ability to convincingly articulate a different discourse.