I used to have the same objections to Obama, but I (and others apparently) have concluded that his 'unity and reconciliation' rhetoric is at least partly tactical. That's how he won so many independents and Republican crossover votes in Iowa, even though he's easily the most liberal candidate apart from Kucinich. Obama knows how to talk to and persuade moderate and conservative voters- and I'm fully convinced he'll be able to implement serious progressive reforms by appealing to them in that fashion. He nearly said as much in one recent speech, where he pointed out that those themes about hope and bipartisanship aren't about holding hands and playing nice so much as they're a strategy for gaining a working majority in Congress.

Maybe this is excitement from tonight talking, but if Obama wins the presidency, I think we could seriously see a major leftward realignment of the entire country-- if not in name, then in practice.

Also, one thing I'd be interested to hear the SFBG comment on is Newsom's endorsement of Hillary. My pet theory is that he's hitching his wagon to the Dem establishment to shore up support for a future run for higher office, though it's just a hunch at this point.

Exactly, Greg. I posted this last night on The Daly Blog...

Clinton a Loser for Newsom, Obama for President!

A single day after the close of the filing period for Mayor, Gavin Newsom did what establishment Democrats are supposed to do. He endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. Back when the threat of a progressive campaign loomed, Newsom considered supporting Barack Obama to deflect the challenge from the left. But with the Mayor’s race secure, Newsom looked to build his own fortunes in national political circles as an establishment Democrat.

With Clinton up 20 points in national polls (and with polls even showing her leading Iowa) Newsom jumped at the opportunity to affix his star to hers. Certainly being an early endorser of the next President could only help one with his own Presidential ambitions.

No matter that Hillary’s out of step with San Francisco voters on the big issues, especially the war in Iraq. Gavin’s never been there either. Considering Newsom’s opposition to grassroots efforts to impeach Bush and Cheney and his total lack of support for measures to call for withdrawal of troops from Iraq and military recruiters from our schools, Clinton really was the best match for him.

In the past month, Newsom really played up his role in the Clinton campaign with two trips to the Hawkeye State. Showcasing his own small town mettle, Newsom “charged from tiny middle school theater to weather-beaten Elks Club, from local bar to coffee art house, from Cedar Rapids to Fairfield to Solon, working phone parties and home gatherings, in the space of a few hours.” He even bragged about spending an hour and a half wooing one difficult Iowa voter. Funny how Newsom hasn’t been able to make it down the hall to a San Francisco Board of Supervisors meeting.

Newsom and the Democratic establishment had their fortunes dashed tonight as Barack Obama’s sea of change swept through Iowa. Momentum from the win in Iowa, and a very strong speech at his victory celebration, should be enough to catapult him into the lead for the New Hampshire Primary and on to South Carolina. An Obama sweep of the first three states puts the Junior Senator from Illinois into frontrunner position going into California’s primary on Super Duper Tuesday in February. Clearly, this is not what Newsom and the rest of the Democratic establishment had in mind.

My interest was certainly piqued by John Edwards’ anti-corporate, populist message in Iowa. However, with the Democratic race now all but narrowed to a 2-person contest, it’s time to rally support for the upstart progressive against the status quo.

Sorry, Gavin. Barack Obama for President!

Not that I think Clinton is a "progressive" or necessarily the best candidate for president, but I really do not understand the appeal of Obama to "progressives," other than that he supposedly is not a member of the "political establishment" (even though being an upper-middle class member of the U.S. Senate would qualify one as part of the "establishment" in my book).

Obama's political plank doesn't seem very "progressive": He is opposed to gay marriage, he has spouted the same line all the Democratic candidates have said about eliminating most (but not all) of Bush's tax cuts (and remember these cuts were partially blunted by the AMT system, so eliminating them will not bring in quite as much revenue as some might think) but he hasn't spoken a word about really making the wealthiest pay their fair share of taxes in order to properly fund vital domestic programs, his environmental "initiative" consists mainly of a market-based cap and trade carbon emission system (which seems similar to the cap and trade system Bush supports) and vague promises to invest billions in renewable energy research (no word on how he would pay for this--like taxing Big Oil), and he calls for a phased withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq over 16 months (that's a year and half more AFTER he takes office for a war that has already gone on for nearly 5 years) AND he has said he will keep some troops in Iraq.

Quite simply, Obama is not a "progressive" candidate, unless being a "progressive" simply means you are a moderate Democrat with a cooler sounding label. It is quite astonishing to me how many members of the so-called "progressive" movement (Chris Daly included) are willing to engage in outrageous self-delusion.

Lest we forget:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/S4IL00180

I'll concede that his position on gay marriage isn't as courageous as one would hope, but he supports repealing DOMA, which I think would effectively pave the way for gay marriage at a point when the public gets over their collective myopia on the issue. I'd really like to believe that this country is capable of electing a pro-gay marriage black liberal as president, but we're already pushing it with the latter two qualities, and America's religiosity is likely going to delay any progress for quite a while.

He has said that right now, it's more important to focus on winning equal rights for gay couples on a par with marriage, which isn't as immediate as I'd like but seems like a pragmatic way to move forward without forgetting the overall goal.

On your Iraq point: I think Obama genuinely believes that 16 months is the quickest we can get the troops out without creating any added danger or instability. Sure, I'd like them home now, but I'm not exactly a foreign policy expert, and I doubt you or anyone else on the anti-war left are either. Call me naive, but everything I've read about Obama indicates that this is a man to whom we can safely give the benefit of the doubt on issues where we don't see eye-to-eye. In many respects we have the same goals in mind, but he believes a more gradualist approach is the best way to get there.

As for taxing rich people, here you go:
"Obama proposes increasing Social Security tax on wealthy" - http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/28/obama_proposes_increasing_social_security_tax_on_wealthy/
"Obama Would Shift Tax Burden to Wealthy" - http://www.nysun.com/article/62908

I never claimed he was perfect on every issue, but like I said, for all his middle-of-the-road rhetoric, he's the most progressive Dem. candidate apart from Kucinich, and would likely be the most liberal Democratic nominee in decades. And, on top of that, he can almost certainly win against any of the Republicans. So, Chris (not Daly), who do you think is better?

And, expatriate, you might be interested to know that Obama is the reason you can access that list online so readily.

Expat should provide Hillary's link as well...

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/P00003392

From all reports that I’ve heard, the pay-to-play of Clinton is hardcore. With the strength of Obama’s netroots fundraising, he has more of an opportunity to break from the traditional money game.

Uhhh... Supervisor Daly - aren't you a Green party member? I figured Cynthia McKinney would be far more closely aligned with your political philosophy than Obama.

I'm a registered Democrat, Shane. And while I probably most identify with the policy positions of Kucinich and the rhetoric of Edwards, Obama is the now the best candidate for progressives.

I do agree that his policy positions could be stronger, but he's got some of the best stuff on urban poverty of any candidate.

And the overriding factor here is political alignment. With most of the establishment with Clinton and the youth and internet fundraising with Obama, there's a chance for a political shift.

Greg,

I understand your point that you believe Obama is the most progressive of the viable Democratic candidates. However, I am not sure why that means progressives should simply shrug off his short-comings and rally around him--shouldn't progressives at least press him on important issues and make him work for their endorsement? We all know what happens when you simply trust that a charismatic candidate will support your agenda once in office.

You state that you believe Obama is simply being "tactical" by appealing to moderate and conservative voters, and he fully intends to push progressive reforms once in office? Why do you believe this? What evidence do you have this--aside from a few vague quotes from a campaign speech? Even if you do believe Obama plans to further a progressive agenda, how exactly do you think he will work to do this? Will he work on consensus building through measured statesmenship blended with charismatic leadership? Or do you just have this notion that once in office he will prove to be the progressives' "guy." I ask this because your comment about how Obama knows how to "talk" to conservates and moderates to get a "working majority" for his "tactical" advantage seems to suggest that you think Obama is just telling moderates and conversatives what they want to hear so he can get elected, but that once in office he will simply follow a progressive agenda. Don't you think that moderates and conservatives that support him are also overlooking what they perceive as shortcomings and assuming he will lean moderate to more conservative once he is in office? Wouldn't it be a shame if you all end up being disappointed? As recent political leaders have proven, it is always very risky to assume without concrete supporting evidence that a candidate will further the political agenda you endorse once in office. There are no guarantees in life, but I believe the decision to support a candidate should be based on more than vague campaign speeches and promises. Moreover, I am not even sure if Obama is the most "progressive" leading Democratic candidate, at least on some issues, Edwards seems more progressive.

Finally, regarding Obama's proposed tax policy: I reviewed the links you referenced to the Boston Globe and the New York Sun, but they don't quite support your argument that Obama will work to implement a truly progressive reform of the income tax. The Boston Globe article reports that Obama has stated he will "consider" elminating the income cap on the Social Security tax, which currently only taxes the first $102,000 (for 2008) of earned income--with some sort of "buffer" for individuals making more than the current cap but less than some to be determined amount. While Obama's position may be better than Clinton's completely noncommittal stance on the issue, it is certainly not as concrete on Edwards promise to actually raise the Social Security tax income cap--with a "buffer" for those making more than the current cap, but less than $200,000. Granted, Edwards' position is not particularly bold (Why should there be a "buffer" for upper-middle class wage earners? Why shouldn't wealthier individuals pay a higher tax rate?), but at least it is a firm promise to do something more than merely "consider" raising the income cap. The New York Sun article you cite, says Obama wants to raise (to some undetermined amount) the capital gains tax rate (currently set at a preferential 15%), get rid of tax loopholes for hedge fund managers, and eliminate tax breaks for oil companies. Yes, these changes are all things that should be implemented, but even conservative Democrats and many moderate Republicans agree on these tax reforms. Moreover, while these changes would elminate a few of the inequities in our current tax system, these changes don't do anything to raise income tax rates to ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share of taxes. Closing a couple of tax loop holes and ending a few unfair tax breaks is not true progressive tax reform. It's worth noting that as recently as 1986 (when Reagan was in the middle of his second term), the highest marginal tax rate was 50%, much higher than the 39.6% tax rate (which is somewhat higher than the current top tax bracket of 35%) Obama currently proposes to revert back to by eliminating Bush's tax cuts.

Your points are all well-taken. I never thought we should just sit back and let Obama do whatever, though-- we should never stop pressuring him to do the right thing, but at the same time, I would never expect him to do anything colossally horrible on a par with Clinton's NAFTA, welfare reform, telecom deregulation, etc. etc. etc, and I think he will surprise many of us with a number of good policies.

You mentioned Edwards, and if my choice were based purely on campaign rhetoric, he'd probably be my top choice. But if you look at his record in the Senate and how he ran in 2004, it's a little hard to buy him as a committed populist reformer, since he was basically a centrist on everything except a few economic issues until recently. There's also the other matter that he not only voted for the Iraq war, but he was a co-sponsor of the resolution. He says he knows it was wrong now, and I want to believe he's being honest, but you can't fuck up something that important and make me believe that you can trust his judgment completely.

In this respect, Obama was extraordinarily prescient-- he didn't just oppose the war, but if you go back and read interviews he did in '02 and '03 he pretty accurately predicted how it would turn out as a prolonged, violent occupation. That's a large part of why I feel comfortable supporting him.