Obama To Nominate Kathleen Sebelius For HHS

The Washington Post, as well as other news sources, are reporting that Kansas Governor, Kathleen Sebelius has accepted President Obama's invitation to be nominated as Secretary of Health and Human Services. In many ways, Sebelius is an attractive and compelling figure. A reformer from a conservative state, with family ties to both parties and a reputation for facilitating bipartisan consensus to enact progressive change. Sebelius was an early Obama supporter during the 2008 primary season and is eminently qualified for the position.

She's no Howard Dean, whom netroots liberals like myself prefer, conservatives loath and White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel despises. Thankfully however, she's also nothing like Tennessee Governor, Phil Bredesen, who is opposed to meaningful healthcare reform. Liberals of all stripes, including me, would have revolted had Obama nominated Bredesen instead.

Nonetheless, I disagree with picking Sebelius because she also happens to be the only Kansas Democrat with a chance of winning a senate seat in 2010. Republican incumbent Sam Brownback had previously announced he wouldn't seek re-election. A Democrat of Sebelius's stature could have a real chance to win this open seat.

As we have already seen with the stimulus debate, it is imperative that Democrats achieve a filibuster proof majority of sixty seats. Hence, Sebelius would better serve the cause of healthcare reform by staying home and campaigning for Brownback's open seat. I have to believe there were choices other than Sebelius, who support meaningful healthcare reform without being politically radioactive like Howard Dean.

The cause of healthcare reform is ill served by removing candidates who can pickup red states. Democrats may regret this pick if Obama's coattails are diminished during the midterm elections next year.

Reflections Eight Days Later

Since the election I've opted to breathe, reflect and contemplate our country's new political order. I've forced myself not to post online in recent days and decompress after a frenetic pace of activism as well as three years of blogging in opposition to America's corporatist theocracy. Was it really two years ago that I phone-banked in October 2006 with a sore throat in desperation to retake congress? Only a few months ago I anguished over which of the Democratic candidates to support during the primaries. Thankfully, my preferred candidate John Edwards did not get the nomination.

Like many of you I responded to Howard Dean's clarion call in his magnificent March 2003 "What I want to Know" speech. Eight days after electing our first black president Dean's closing paragraph seems especially poignant:

"I want my country back! We want our country back! I am tired of being divided! I don't want to listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore! I want America to look like America, where we are all included, hand in hand. We have dream. We can only reach the dream if we are all together - black and white, gay and straight, man and woman. America! The Democratic Party! We are going to win in 2004! Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Stand up for America, Stand up for America, Stand up for America!!"

One of the first things I did the morning after Obama's election was re-read the entire text of that speech. Howard Dean started the fire that achieved critical mass with Barack Obama's candidacy. He would make an ideal choice to be Secretary of Health and Human Services and Obama should pick him over anyone else.

Four years ago while phone-banking for John Kerry I realized Democrats were in trouble when speaking to an out of work laborer who claimed he preferred Bush because Kerry wanted to "take my gun." Several weeks ago I felt a spark of hope when calling a blue collar man in Ohio who observed that "Maybe I have more in common with blacks who know something about hardship than those fat cats on Wall Street."

Shamefully, even as we elected our first black President the electorate displayed intense homophobia with numerous ugly state ballot propositions as was the case in California. Gay rights are human rights and we can't ignore the dignity of homosexual Americans while celebrating Obama's achievement. I suspect President Obama will not want to expend political capital on the cause of gay rights while dealing with the economy. Hence, the human rights of our fellow citizens will have to be taken up on the grass roots level to facilitate change.

Overall, we progressive/liberal activists must remain vigilant. Already the corporatist theocratic vultures are circling and claiming Obama doesn't have a mandate for anything beyond being different than George W. Bush. We must not let them get away with it. Now is not the time to go wobbly and accept "half a loaf" while millions don't have health insurance, wage earners and small business entrepreneurs are under siege, people in poverty are ignored and America's infrastructure is crumbling. Now is not the time to become hesitant while our planet is faced with the calamity of global warming and America's military continues to occupy two countries. Now is not the time for caution while America is competing in a global economy with a second rate education system.

It is up to us to embolden President Obama, congressional Democrats as well as governors and state legislatures when they're addressing the moral center of economic and social justice, civil liberties and transitioning America from an empire culture to become better global citizens. In doing so they will be virulently attacked by elements of the old order such as the corporatist media, economic predators and religious zealots.

Equally important though is that we never neglect our roles as truth tellers when progressive core values are compromised for expediency. The first step was winning on November 4th. However, there remain plenty of Democrats who supported torture and looked the other way during the worst excesses of the Bush Administration. We should seize opportunities to challenge them in upcoming primaries as a reminder that we have long memories and have taken names.

The years ahead will be lean thanks the mess left behind by the conservative nomenklatura. Municipalities and industries nationwide are severely strapped as multiple sectors of our economy are in a crisis mode. Geopolitically, the world is not only confronted with global warming but the economic collateral damage of globalization.

Yet I am cautiously optimistic we'll dig our way through. Necessity is a mother to invention and even following the dark legacy of predatory conservatism I still believe we can achieve a society based upon liberty and justice for all.

Wanted: A Presidential Candidate With Foresight

The silly season of presidential politics is here. Posturing, fundraising and repositioning to simultaneously win support from party activists and independent voters that decide general elections. A candidate that can thread the needle with their party’s base and remain viable to the center has achieved a sublime nexus.

In our current culture a candidate must demonstrate fidelity to their party’s core principles and a maverick streak of independence. They must project manliness (or in Hillary Clinton’s case toughness) with a soft side of empathy. After six years of Bush’s insipid rule a winning candidate will also need to project gravitas but not appear above us. As women are burdened with a double standard Hillary Clinton will have to demonstrate firmness without coming off as shrill. Most importantly a winning candidate better have terrific hair.

We expect too much and too little from presidential candidates. Al Gore partly lost in 2000 (even though he really won) because he couldn’t pass the “beer test” while George W. Bush deceived voters into believing he was a “regular guy.” Abraham Lincoln wouldn’t stand a chance today but Arnold Schwarzenegger could win in a landslide if the Constitution permitted him to run. Hence, the realities of our culture require a measure of compromise when deciding upon a winning horse during the Democratic Party’s primary season. With 2008 on the horizon there is one trait I’m not willing to compromise about during the primary season: foresight.

Among the definitions listed online for foresight is,

“knowledge or insight gained by or as by looking forward; a view of the future.”

Yesterday, the Democrat's 2004 Vice Presidential nominee, John Edwards declared his candidacy. There is much to like about Edwards. He’s a self-made man who remembers where he came from and cares deeply for people struggling to survive in our treadmill economy. Conservatives denigrate trial lawyers such as Edwards but I rather like somebody who earned a fortune by defending the little guy against corporate interests.

Both Edwards and his wife Elizabeth appear to be talented and down to Earth. They lost a teenage son and Elizabeth recently endured the scare of breast cancer. These are people who can empathize with the struggles of others.

John Edwards is also an attractive, articulate man and can effectively advocate the progressive cause in our soundbite culture. Unlike Barack Obama however Edwards doesn’t speak in platitudes and takes firm stands. Edwards also appears to be embracing the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and not running from it like Hillary Clinton. So in many ways Edwards is easy for me to like. We sure as hell could do a lot worse and have.

However, his support for the Iraq War while in the Senate is like a worm in my brain. I appreciate his apology for supporting it and hope he’s sincere. We all make mistakes. I’m certainly not perfect. Nevertheless I wonder if his initial support for the Iraq War was about political expediency. Is it possible his apologizing for the Iraq War is also about political expediency? This troubles me. Politics requires a measure of expediency on a broad range of issues but matters such as war and peace should be about one’s conscious.

Admittedly, Hillary Clinton’s stubbornness on the issue also troubles me. I acknowledge the inconsistency in my reaction to both of them. There is a criticism one can fairly level at Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and John Kerry: a lack of foresight. Many of us protested the Iraq War in 2002-2003 and predicted the civil war taking place today. I’m not surprised Iraq has gone to hell and a hand basket and partly marched because I had no faith in our ability to manage the post Saddam era.

There were also public figures at the time that demonstrated foresight and courage such as Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich and Paul Wellstone. Barack Obama partly propelled his candidacy for the Senate by opposing the neocons folly. Alas, Wellstone is dead and Feingold has opted not to seek the presidency. Dean is also not a candidate for 2008. As for Kucinich, I admire his commitment to peace but his overall record troubles me and I don’t believe he can win.

Obama is flirting with the presidency and has generated much attention. I suspect the Hillary Clinton political machine will dissect him and force Obama from his zone of comfortable platitudes to actually defending positions she will distort. The junior Ilinois Senator will come away bloodied.

Also, what kind of president would Obama be? My intuitive sense is Obama is a bit too corporatist and tolerant of religious intolerance. I reserve the right to change my mind as I learn more about him. Perhaps Obama will win me over but I doubt it.

Al Gore made a courageous stand against the war while contemplating the 2004 campaign. Gore also had to think about a general election dynamic at the time because he would’ve been the front-runner for the nomination. Many Democrats feared appearing weak on national security after opposing the Gulf War in 1991. Taking the stand Gore did was courageous and right. He showed principle, foresight and courage in doing so. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards demonstrated neither at the time and Obama doesn’t have the same track record of foresight as Al Gore who warned about global warming before it was cool to do so.

Gore is the one prospective candidate that can knit the Democratic Party's disparate coalitions into a coherent whole and compete effectively in the general election. Admittedly Gore has flaws such as an expanding waistline and thinning hair.

Right now Clinton, Edwards and Obama are regarded as the "big three" in the Democratic Party for 2008. Gore is head and shoulders above all of them. I hope he runs. Nobody else in the Democratic Party possesses his track record of foresight and can compete with the big three.
*****************************************************************************
ADDENDUM: My thanks to The Nation (CLICK HERE) for linking the above topic on their website's homepage under their "Newsfeed: important articles from around the web section." I can only hope Al Gore reads it and takes the hint! Also, a crossposting on Daily Kos (CLICK HERE) provoked interesting commentary - much of it critical of my post but worth reviewing.

Wanted: An Atheist Candidate For President

I was raised Jewish but my personal beliefs are agnostic. I’m not so arrogant to reject the concept of a higher power. I don’t claim to know what the divine truth is and reserve the right to have a deathbed conversion when I reach old age.

For the time being I’m inclined to believe a higher power is really a more evolved life form that doesn’t respond to prayer or monitor my personal morality meter. In my opinion John Lennon put it best:

“God is a concept by which we measure our pain.”

However, I respect religious people. Furthermore I believe it makes sense for Democrats to persuade those motivated by the social responsibility component of religion to be part of a progressive coalition. It’s always better to add members to a coalition and not subtract. We progressives need all the numbers we can get.

Individuals motivated to promote social justice because of their religion are natural allies for the progressive movement. Those of us on the left who snicker at religious individuals should take a hard look in the mirror: many religious people travel to dangerous hot spots to save lives because of their faith based moral compass. How many of us are feeding impoverished people in Sudan?

While phone banking prior to the mid term elections I met a fellow volunteer studying to be a minister and angered by the Christian Right’s homophobia. He explained that part of his motivation to get out the vote was reclaiming a piece of the national conversation for the religious left. I respect that.

That said I believe too many religious people don’t respect secular individuals such as myself. Sadly, if you believe the polls, many religious people in America will not cast their vote for a secular minded person regardless of their other virtues. This is a taboo that must be addressed head on.

Consequently I would like to see an atheist emerge as a national candidate in 2008. Who that could be I have no idea. Nor do I expect such a candidate to prevail. It is my hope that an eminently respectable citizen with stature would illustrate that non-religious people have values and can be entrusted with power. A vital contribution would be made to our society if such a candidate emerged.

How about an old fashioned conservative who believes in personal responsibility, fiscal discipline and civil liberties running in the Republican Party? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if an attractive atheist candidate with a photogenic family took on the GOP's radical Christians? I suspect many secular minded civil libertarians would be both relieved and appreciative.

How about a Democratic candidate that aggressively courts civil libertarians who have traditionally supported the Republican Party? Perhaps many of these libertarians might give the Democratic Party another look if an avowed atheist championed the banner that Americans don’t require a morality police regulating personal choices.

Among the more painful memories I have from 2004 was Howard Dean attempting to appeal to religious voters and misquoting the New Testament. Dean who otherwise was refreshingly authentic appeared to be a fish out of water. How terrible that preserving the viability of his candidacy required not appearing overly secular.

Again, I respect religious people and have no problem with candidates articulating how their faith motivates them to achieve social justice. Nevertheless, secular people are also moral, have families and should not be embarrassed by what they are. Put another way: I’ll compare my morals with Pat Robertson’s anytime.

If neither party welcomes an atheist candidacy than a sensible self-financing independent might be what is needed. Typically, I am an advocate of a strong publicly financed campaign system. However, any independent candidacy that hopes to make a statement about atheists having a place in the national conversation will require funding outside of public financing.

Barriers of race, gender, minority religions and sexual orientations are finally being tackled in our politics. Hillary Clinton is considered the presumptive frontrunner for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2008. Barack Obama is also considering a run for higher office and could have a realistic shot at the nomination. Several years ago President Clinton appointed the first female Secretary of State in Madeline Albright. In 2000 Al Gore had a Jewish running mate.

President Bush’s first Secretary of State was a black man and currently a black woman fills the position. Minnesota just elected the first Muslim congressman in Keith Ellison. Congressman Barney Frank, a homosexual is about to assume the chairmanship of the House Financial Services Committee.

Regardless of how you feel about any of the names referenced above their symbolism is important. For example I’ve heard Keith Ellison say he hopes to be viewed as a congressman who happens to be Muslim instead of a Muslim congressman. By breaking a barrier he makes it possible for other Muslim citizens to be accepted as candidates. Hopefully future Muslim candidates will be voted up or down because of their credentials, character and experience instead of their religion.

Every time I read a poll that says candidates must be people of faith to be considered viable by religious voters I cringe. It shouldn’t be that way. First we need to break a barrier and have an atheist throw their hat in the ring. Hopefully a courageous trailblazer will enable the public to perceive future individuals as candidates who happen to be atheists instead of an “atheist candidate.” And that will be better for everyone.
************************************************************
ADDENDUM: Cross postings for this topic on several community blogs provoked lively commentary and discussion. Special thanks to Gottlieb for frontpaging this topic on My Left Wing. Click Here to review comments from that community. Interesting responses can also be reviewed at cross postings on The Forvm (Click Here), Talking Points Memo (Click Here), Booman Tribune (Click Here), MyDD (Click Here), Swords Cross (Click Here) and Daily Kos (Click Here). And for a European perspective I also crossposted on European Tribune (Click Here) and their point of view is worth reading.