Here are some progressive things that Barack Obama has promised to do. Ever hear of the Freedom of Choice Act?

The bill is described by NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan as a bill to “codify Roe v. Wade” which would “repeal the Bush-backed Federal Abortion Ban,” referring to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, “and other federal restrictions,” [1]. Similarly, opponents of the bill assert that[2] it would, if passed, invalidate every restriction on an abortion before the stage of viability, even those previously found consistent with Roe v. Wade by the United States Supreme Court, such as parental notification laws, waiting periods, requirements of full disclosure of the physical and emotional risks inherent in abortion, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

What has Obama said about this bill?

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the Democratic President-Elect, became a co-sponsor of the 2007 Senate version of the bill (S. 1173). Responding to a question regarding how he would preserve reproductive rights in a speech given to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, he declared “The first thing I’d do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing that I’d do.”[4]

Can the bill get past a Senate filibuster? You’ll have to talk to Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter, because Ben Nelson and Bob Casey Jr. will never go for it. (Lieberman is a co-sponsor, BTW). It looks like we might just be able to squeeze this bill through to Obama’s desk, but there isn’t much wiggle room.

How about the Employee Free Choice Act?

President-elect Barack Obama supports the Bill. An original cosponsor of the EFCA, Senator Obama urged his colleagues to pass the bill during a 2007 motion to proceed:

“I support this bill because in order to restore a sense of shared prosperity and security, we need to help working Americans exercise their right to organize under a fair and free process and bargain for their fair share of the wealth our country creates.

The current process for organizing a workplace denies too many workers the ability to do so. The Employee Free Choice Act offers to make binding an alternative process under which a majority of employees can sign up to join a union. Currently, employers can choose to accept–but are not bound by law to accept–the signed decision of a majority of workers. That choice should be left up to workers and workers alone.[12]

You know, that sounds progressive to me. I wonder who he’ll pick to be Secretary of Labor? And, what about federal funding for stem-cell research? Here’s what he said back in April of 2007.

“I stand in full support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act as I did when this bill was introduced and sent to the President’s desk in the 109th Congress. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill.

I am frustrated by the opposition this bill has generated and saddened that we are preventing the advancement of important science that could potentially impact millions of suffering Americans. The study of stem cells holds enormous promise for the treatment of debilitating and life-threatening diseases. However, in order to reach this level of medical achievement, much more research is necessary to understand, and eventually harness, the amazing potential of stem cells. Instead of creating roadblocks, we must all work together to expand federal funding of stem cell research and continue moving forward in our fight against disease by advancing our knowledge through science and medicine.

Hmmm. I’m beginning to see a trend here. Pro-choice, pro-labor, pro-science. How about anti-torture?

Some officials in the formative administration of US President-elect Barack Obama [transition website] have said they support the creation of a bipartisan congressional commission to investigate potentially abusive US counter-terrorism policies, according to a Newsweek report [text] Saturday. The officials have suggested that such an investigation should be similar to the 9/11 Commission [official website], with a focus on making public the details surrounding the development and authorization of harsh interrogation techniques and other counter-terrorism policies, rather than incriminating those involved. Both Obama and his aides have said previously said that his administration is not likely to prosecute [JURIST report] those who approved or carried out the torture or other harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects, and will instead focus on the creation of new anti-torture laws.

I’m whole-heartedly supportive of prosecuting people (at the top) who authorized torture, but I have to concede that the above plan (while not going as far as justice demands) is affirmatively anti-torture.

Perhaps it is Obama’s plan to create universally available health care coverage that marks him as a centrist opponent of progressives. After all, his plan doesn’t call for a single-payer system. Yet, insuring over 40 million people with health coverage just doesn’t strike me as some horrible centrist policy. If he gets it done it will be the most significant progressive legislation since the Great Society.

Maybe it’s Obama’s plan to create a green economy that is making people see him as an unprogressive sell-out. Imagine spending billions on bridges, smart energy meters, solar panels, wind mills, and alternative energy…it’s a Blue Dog’s wet dream. Right?

I’m sure that the economic hardship the world is going through is going to result in massive shortfalls in federal revenue, and that will require Obama to trim back on some of his campaign promises. But I’m not seeing the ‘centrism’.

It seems to me that there are some people that will call anyone that doesn’t immediately end the war on drugs, shutter all our military bases abroad, and wholeheartedly embrace the cause of the Palestinians, a ‘centrist’ and an enemy of progressives. I think people need a better definition of the ‘Left’ than:

[In this post generally, by “Left” I really mean those who are dissatisfied with the bipartisan Beltway establishment and Democratic Party leadership — prevailing Beltway orthodoxies — rather than merely opposed to Republicans and supportive of anyone with a “D” after their name].

Who the fuck is satisfied with the bipartisan Beltway establishment and Democratic Party leadership? Look at the goddamn state of the country and the world! No one is happy…right, left, or center. Opposition to the establishment in DC is a given. But I’d sure like to know how enacting the Freedom of Choice Act, the Employee Free Choice Act, providing funding for Stem-Cell Research, ordering an investigation into counter-terrorism policy, enacting universal health care, and launching a stimulus plan to grow a new green economy are Beltway orthodoxies!

It’s embarrassing to see how unrealistic and unappreciative people are. Do you even begin to understand what we’ve accomplished (and what we averted)?