Ames Progressive

Michael Moore just formally endorsed Barack Obama for president, and his reasoning is pretty spot-on. This paragraph in particular echoes what I see as the greatest potential of an Obama presidency:

There are those who say Obama isn’t ready, or he’s voted wrong on this or that. But that’s looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

Many have pointed out the similarities in the platforms of the two remaining Democratic candidates, but I’m convinced there would be profound differences, both electorally and politically, come November and beyond depending on who tops the ticket.

At this point, I don’t see much use in offering an in-depth analysis of the Obama-Clinton skirmish. Obama is the all-but-assured nominee of the party; now it’s just a matter of time before either the Clintons realize inflated egos and senses of entitlement don’t win campaigns or the hard truth of the delegate count (or maybe mounting campaign debt) forces Hillary out.

That Obama embodies a profound movement for change is undeniable. Even until the night of the Iowa caucuses, most seemed to think Hillary couldn’t be stopped, so great are the Clintons’ connections within the party. But Obama, the freshman senator with little more than a fairly brief history of public service and the gift of gab, has far out-fundraised Hillary’s PAC-heavy campaign treasury with more than a million individual contributions. He’s gotten thousands of youth out to vote, and he’s had a direct impact on the skyrocketing Democratic and Independent voter rolls that have left the Republicans’ in the dust.

Although Obama’s platform may compare closely to Hillary’s, Obama is now the only realistic progressive choice for November because of what his campaign represents, and that, clichéd though it may be, is change. What his change would come to be is a wild card, sure, but there’s no doubt the progressive movement in America favors him over his opponent. Not only does he have the potential to win overwhelmingly against John McCain, but his coattails could very well usher in a fresh wave of progressives into Congress who would better represent their constituents over the influence of big money that has corrupted both major parties.

Hillary, on the other hand, is the anti-progressive. She’s a primary example of the Democratic Leadership Council’s politics of corporate conservativism masked by the guise of “centrism” that her husband embraced as president. Obama has the potential to take the Democratic Party in a desperately needed new direction, and after eight years of Bush it’s an opportunity that might not come along again for some time. Hillary’s platform is far better than McCain’s, but a Hillary presidency — and the transition from neocon to DLC politics — could conceivably cause more long term damage to the progressive movement than four years of McCain.

Hillary’s chances for success are rapidly approaching zero, but instead of dropping out for the good of the party she so claims to love she’s brought out the “kitchen sink,” desperately grasping at anything that might hurt her primary rival’s reputation and restore her aura of inevitability.

The Huffington Post displayed one of many of these telling examples the other day, and it’s as good as any I’ve seen that shows just how negative an impact her presidency could have on progressive politics. After Super Tuesday, she criticized the “activist base” — and particularly fundraising powerhouse MoveOn.org — for intimidating Clinton supporters at the caucuses.

A couple final considerations. First, I know “progressive” is a rather fluid term, but for the sake of this post let’s consider it to mean reform-based, people-over-corporations grassroots politics.

Finally, there was some interesting discussion of minor party candidates in this post on our website. I’ll gladly admit that Obama is by no means an ideal candidate for progressives, but assuming he wins his party’s nomination his presidency would have far more potential to enact meaningful reform than, for example, a vote for Ralph Nader or the Green Party, which has minimal political foundation. It would be great to see a viable third party shake up the two-party system, but aside from maybe Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, I don’t see this happening, and even then it’s a long shot. In other words, the potential of Obama, after eight years of Bush and taking into consideration the realities of our political system, outweighs his less desirable characteristics. Gradual progression > regression.

Michael Moore’s take:

I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That’s why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters — that big “D” on the ballot.

Don’t get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

It’s foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that’ll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.