I agree with you about the point of Obama's campaign. The problem is he fails miserably at it. Hillary Clinton is persuading working class people that progressive solutions are better, and that is why she wins working class whites, Hispanics and Asians.
Obama wins nearly all African Americans because he may be the best president for African Americans, not through an appeal to progressive issues.
That is another reason I prefer Hillary Clinton, she articulates the progressive stand on issues in a way that persuades swing voters. That is what we have to do to achieve a progressive long-range political vision.
I hear you.
I think the biggest difference is tactics. Clinton (like the last four presidents) has to--to some degree--"con" those voters into supporting progressive values with gimmicks and distractions. An example of that would be the gas tax holiday.
Obama's alternative--walking us carefully through the nuances of a problem and taking note of the required sacrifice--is tricky. It doesn't lead to catchy soundbites. And it may be too hard of a sell for the majority of the working class.
I certainly hope otherwise.
(And in case you're wondering, I don't let Obama off the hook completely. His refusal to support gay marriage is a political gimmick and a real disappointment.)
BTW, thanks for replying in a respectfully disagreeing kind of way. Appreciate it.
