Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama, Be Progressive!
Voters want you to go big and go liberal -- and not channel Clinton-style incrementalism.
"What do we do now?"
That's the question Bill McKay ponders in the classic movie "The Candidate" after he wins office promising "a better way." America will now ask Democrats the same haunting query following the historic election.
These are heady times for the party of Jefferson, Roosevelt and Obama. Only a few years ago, Democrats were almost relegated to permanent minority status by a Mission Accomplished sign and a flight suit. But since President Bush's 2004 reelection, they gained at least 50 House seats, 12 Senate seats, seven state legislatures and seven governorships. As Republicans used "socialism" attacks to make the election a referendum on conservatism, Democrats also registered their biggest presidential triumph since 1964.
So, while the president-elect talks of forming a bipartisan Cabinet, his victory wasn't the public's cry for milquetoast government by blue-ribbon commission. As Deepak Bhargava of the Center for Community Change says, Obama's win was an ideological mandate presenting "an opening for transformational, progressive change."
Maximizing this opportunity relies on Democrats understanding the parable from Spider-Man comics -- the one about great power coming with "great responsibility." In politics, that latter phrase is a euphemism for high expectations.
What the party gains in strength, it loses in a Republican scapegoat that previously justified inaction. On huge issues -- whether re-regulating Wall Street, reforming trade, solving the healthcare emergency, or ending the Iraq war -- America envisages enormous progress in the months ahead, and Democrats will have no one to blame for failure but themselves. After all, with more than 360 electoral votes, President Obama cannot credibly claim he lacks the political capital to legislatively steamroll a humiliated GOP and its remaining senators. The same goes for Democrats everywhere. Meeting expectations requires championing far-reaching -- even radical -- initiatives.
That was always 2008's theme. Amid lipsticked pigs, Joe the Plumber and Super Bowl-size candidate events, the election became a choice between continued conservative rule and a progressive agenda as far-reaching as the current crises. And as the defeated John McCain said, "The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly."
To meet the challenge, Democrats have to abandon their worst habits.
They must, for instance, acknowledge their progressive mandate, rather than denying it as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did on Tuesday. "This is not a mandate for a political party or an ideology," he fearfully told reporters.
They should also retire the Innocent Bystander fable about being powerless onlookers. Democrats first cited this myth as reason the Iraq war continued during their congressional majority -- expecting the country to forget that Congress can halt war funding. Today, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said that "there's not much we can do" to amend the sputtering bank bailout. In 2009, such mendacity will metastasize from banal dishonesty into grist for scathing comedy-show punch lines.
Democrats need to discard other lies, too -- especially those about Bill Clinton. To hear the pundits tell it, Clinton's first-term pitfalls underscore why the next administration should avoid "governing in a way that is, or seems, skewed to the left," as the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus most recently asserted. History, of course, proves the opposite. Recounting Clinton's early years to Politico, a lobbyist correctly noted that the new president didn't move left -- he pushed conservative policies like NAFTA, thereby demoralizing his base and helping Republicans take Congress.
Obama rose on a promise to eschew those triangulations, and he won because America realized invertebracy and sail trimming will not solve problems. Voters rejected Clinton-style incrementalism in the primary, then scorned conservatism in the general election, meaning that the Democrats' best response to Bill McKay's "What do we do now?" question is a two-word answer: Go big.
That is not merely the better way -- it is the only way.
- Posted in
84 Comments so far
Show AllIndeed.
When I mentioned to a British friend that Obama's only chance of getting anywhere near being elected - in a country that's been pushed so far to the right throughout the past decades - was probably to try to be seen as centrist, but that he then hopefully would push the country more to the left again once president, she just said: "That's what we had been hoping Tony Blair would do when he finally ended the long Tory rule. But look what happened."
I hope that she is wrong. And I hope that the absence of any union leader in his entourage - but tons of CEOs - at his press conference weren't a sign of another round of Clintonesque politics.
Because then I wouldn't know why he wanted to defeat Hillary.
Obama strikes me as Bill Clinton 2.0-- all of the centrist, neo-liberal, Wall-Street cozy, military-friendly exceptionalism great taste, but none of the lecherous carnal calories.
But I've also noticed the parallel with Tony Blair, which is even stronger.
I think that is pretty much what we are going to have to expect. I think though that he is pretty diciplined compared to Bill. Also remember that he supports Israel 100% which is a bitter pill for some here to swallow. I don't think we are going to get that many changes with him.
Sioux Rose
Little Brother: Another analogy is that both Clinton and Obama are LEO men. And Leos love show-biz, and ARE actors at heart. The question of greater significance is that coming from the sign realm OF the heart, will they be moved by Love, the "greatest of these," or ego/fear/domination/divisiveness. THAT is yet to be seen.
Was the withdrawal from Iraq and shift to Afghanistan, FISA, Wall St. Bail Out, support of Israel, "clean" coal/nuclear/wildlife refuge drilling, anti gay marriage, support of NAFTA/CAFTA, pro death penalty, all an act?
As a Leo man, I sure hope so.
Tony Blair reacted to the situation during his tenure. He either went against the most powerful country on earth and lost his share of Middle East oil, or he went with it and shared the crumbs.
The situation is now different for Obama. He has a clean slate and can do whatever he wants to, enjoying worldwide popular support.
The only real reason Obama would want to be a Clinton clone is to stop conservatives from killing him.
He wanted to defeat Hillary because his ego knows no bounds.
Obama, Be Progressive!
_________________________________
Why does this make me want to sing, "Luck, Be a Lady Tonight"?
Because you like Marlon Brando?
We also need to keep pushing for health care reform. We must encourage our democrats to support the infrastructure needed in the health care industry. Rather than continuing to give billions and trillions to the failed and corrupt corporations that got us into this mess, lets Build new hospital and factories to build the modern health instruments, this would bring the cost down and we could supply the world with first class equipment , train more doctors, nurses, and health care workers. This will be needed for our univeral health care plan anyway, seems like a nobrainer.
Lets keep the momentum going.
Yesss! This election was a landslide for a progressive mandate.
Rethuglican pundits are trying to give the power back to and credit the Rethuglicans, turn things around and are saying Obama and the rest of the Democrats who won, won because they "acted like Republicans." Their lies never cease.
"The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly."
We will see how clearly we have spoken and how clearly we were heard.
"Action talks, while bullshit walks"
would you leftists really rather have mcCain?
kman2 November 8th, 2008 5:33 pm
"would you leftists really rather have mcCain?"
What I would really rather is that people vote for who they really want and agree on the issues with and then let the election results fall where they may.
Lobo Gris
Frankly, yes. Specially if he dies and Sarah takes over. Then, maybe, the world will unite to put the US in its place. This empire must end. Sarah , for sure, would end it.................lizard
Reid and Pelosi got to where they are by giving the Repug majority most of what they wanted.
It's a new game and Democrats don't need their ilk any more.
If Dems could learn anything from the Bush years, it's that they have to be the opposition party, not the bend over party.
I don't expect dick from Obama when it comes to foreign policy... save him being a little more nuanced in how he goes about executing our imperialistic agenda.
However, I do have hope in regards to environmental initiatives... but we need to keep up the pressure. Green is everywhere now. On the right and the left. We need to keep the pressure up on this vital issue... if America leads the way on recognizing the current ecological crisis stuff could really change.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
perceptionexperiment November 8th, 2008 5:10 pm
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus"
It is said that God gave man free will. If he prevented all evil then it wouldn't really be free will would it.
Lobo Gris
The free will clause that attempts to absolve God falls on its face because of the existance of diseases. Disease, specially in animals, cannot be explained as free will. ......................lizard
javier November 9th, 2008 2:19 am
"The free will clause that attempts to absolve God falls on its face because of the existance of diseases. Disease, specially in animals, cannot be explained as free will"
Disease is not evil which was what the first post and my reply addressed. Therefore IMO my explanation about free will still stands.
Lobo Gris
Yes, of course, it is all in the definitions. My point, perhaps not clearly put is that the purpose of the clause is to separate god from the imperfections of life, which include disease. Disease is the logical consequence of evolution but not of God. Why would god create disease in animals. In people it is excused as a test of personality and acceptance of God's will, but in animals?.......lizard
Sioux Rose
Javier: Disease in animals may be nature's way of culling the herd to ensure enough food to go round. In people, some is the result of exposure to a wide BATTERY of toxic substances and much is also karmic. God, for want of a term broad enough to suggest the infinite, that which goes well beyond what human cognition can embrace, does not counter-act free will as another poster stated. This planet is under universal law which most call karma. There are a number of agencies that allow karma to balance the scales. Living a caring life that honors all sentient beings as the Buddhists teach is a good insurance policy both now and in any future lifetimes to come. God is not responsible for the choices persons make, or make in sum on grand collective scales. God is seen in the immutable laws that run systems on this planet, whether we have the wit or scope of vision to understand these, or otherwise. In other words, a belief in gravity is not required (to experience its impact).
javier November 9th, 2008 1:58 pm
"My point, perhaps not clearly put is that the purpose of the clause is to separate god from the imperfections of life, which include disease"
No the free will clause does not separate God from all of the imperfections of life. It separates God from the evil actions of man.
Lobo Gris
"Today, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said that "there's not much we can do" to amend the sputtering bank bailout."
What the HELL are they putting in the water in Washington DC??? Between him and Harry Reed I don't think they have enough spine to hold up a salamander.
Schumer said exactly the same thing to justify the Democrats' capitulation during the Alito and Mukasey confirmations.
For some reason, the quality of TRUST keeps forcing itself on me today.
From a professional US Senator's perch, it must seem reasonable to expect that the public will trust you the way one might trust a surgeon or even a plumber or auto mechanic-- that when the Senator emerges from the operating theater, basement, or garage and gives you his or her considered opinion, that you will graciously and gratefully accept and respect it.
Alternatively, a professional US Senator didn't just fall off the Senator truck, and knows perfectly well that many, perhaps most, citizens are so wary and suspicious of politicians that they don't believe one damn word he or she says. But that's not as much of a problem as it seems. The important thing is that on a broad social level, Senators are generally ACCORDED respect and esteem.
So when a Senator says he or she gave it their best shot, what are We the People gonna do but give him or her the benefit of the doubt?
I submit that our everyday, real-time, mundane political world is founded on a cloud of something identical to the so-called "suspension of disbelief" which allows us to enjoy a good play or film.
What else explains the ability of politicians to piss on our legs and elicit a chorus of, "Oh! It's raining!"?
It is not a lack of spine, it is a lack of decent beliefs. These are apparatchicks. They pretend to be impotent but are really furthering their agenda in the dark.Mr.Mulato president will show how irrelevant is the color of one's skin by being as disgusting as a president as any of the white men so far have been...................lizard
Just read a sobering commentary on the likely direction of the Obama administrations and the American conservative movement on Joe Bageant's site.
www.joebageant.com
As much as i like Sirota writing i think he is set for a serious fall once the real President Obama shows his hand. Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers and Robert Rubin are not what we voted for on Tuesday, but that is the garbage we are getting.
And the garbage will accumulate quickly. This Obama fellow is another of a long list of shitty American presidents with no respect for other nations. The story of the future will be about how seamlessly the Empire changed emperors without changing its ways............lizard
Joe u nailed it. Emanuel, Summers, Rubin are names that have nothing in common w/ Hope and Change; they are the old guards of the Two Party prison system we have created. Once again, Nader was right on when he said watch who Obama surrounds himself with. What we are seeing in his choices is sad yet predictable.
More than anything, more than any separate issue such as foreign policy, healthcare, whatnot, what we need is for a Progressive (I'd settle for one) who is given a voice on the national stage in order to change the paradigm, to reframe the discussions and issues.
Then maybe we can overcome BS like this 'Iraq war' paradigm. There is no 'Iraq War', and when will we get someone in power who can enunciate the real situation?
The war AGAINST Iraq ended in 2003 when we achieved our stupid war goals. The occupation of Iraq ended in 2004, according to US and UN representatives. Currently, US troops are in Iraq to provide security for the Iraqi government.
Calling the situation a 'war' only provides emotional baggage for the war-mongers (Victory around the corner!)
It would be so much easier to withdraw troops from Iraq if we talked about ending our security agreement, rather than allowing the war-mongers to frame the issue around 'winning' and 'losing' the 'Iraq War'.
Look at who Obama chooses for his government and listen to how they frame the issues. You won't hear the sound of progress.
I am going to get extremely progressive now. My battle of ideas is over, now my battle in the real, physical world begins. I have been adding my small voice of wisdom to the world of www since I realized that a neo-con was destroying my world. I have won my battle, and maybe for some, it was a small battle in the ideological war for justice, for me, it meant victory and a release from the ether to the physical world. I now hope to focus my power on the people around me, to empower them, to serve them, to try to make a better world for the people who touch my life, if you see my ideas, they will come from the physical world, the work I can give with my body and physical voice, not from an image on a screen. You have all touched my life, I don't know if it is possible to live in this world without having to put ourselves in the ethos, but I will now try, and sincerely hope all of the intelligent and wonderful people who are here and have been here will join me, leaving the ethos is up to you, some may have more work to do, for me going out and serving all of you, bringing us to the next level, that is where my truth for our success lies. Now is our time, but it is not here, it is out there, in the real world, where it really counts, let's take this new found victory and turn it to the gold that it deserves. If fortune calls for it, I will be back. My reasons have mostly to do with the fact that I have seen many well meaning movements grab hold of the power they have won through pain and hard work and have become thoroughly corrupted by it, LOTR... therefore, it is time to release that power and let it glow.
The lowest among us, he is my King, I will do what is in my power to raise him up and he will serve and honor us all richly. All you have is your neighbor, your community, your nation, your world, a person serving himself is nothing.
Good night and good luck.
P. is V.
In the end, I voted for Obama because I'm desperate, really desperate. My girl friend's four children are all exceptionally bright, decent kids, college grads, who are struggling to keep their heads above water. One lives in a windowless room the size of a closet and works in a bakery despite having a degree in classical literature. She wouldn't hurt a fly. I've been "sober" all my life but in the last eight years I've been getting stoned and lit up a lot because I couldn't deal with the daily reality of being heavily crapped on by George Wanker Bush, Cheesedick Cheney and their stupid and brutal ilk. There's a one in a million chance Obama is, in fact, an extraordinary man and a truly gifted politician. So I took it, as did a lot of other people. But if the future of this country is to be Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and the goose stepping legions of American Christian fascism . . . then let's get it over with, and the sooner the better.
MS:based on your comments for weeks, I'd never have guessed your vote.
Palin & Bachmann and Christofascism are NOT the future of the United States. And it is NOT a 'one in a million chance [taht] Obama is . . . an extraordinary man and a truly gifted politician'.
All revolutionary progress comes from BELOW, taking advantage of changing conditions.
The gay community & all who are concerned about rights are newly animated by the attempt to use the prejudices of the older & religiously bigoted segments of the population to force couples back into concealment. Prejudice always morphs -- when it finds one outlet blocked, the hatefilled fear-sellers simply target the next group.
An anti-progressive nation could never have elected Obama. A more progressive nation would have given him an even more impressive margin of victory than the one we gave him.
When we stop listening to the counsel of fear & doubt & begin to act out of certainty & hope, we will find that we are far more powerful together than we imagined we could be when we were all separated by anxieties.
.O.K. Who exactly are you and what have you done with Mordechai?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
A great comment, I find, in the British "Guardian" about why not too much will change now:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/09/barack-obama-change-liberal-radical
"Only 22% of Americans call themselves liberals.." (or so) and Obama knows that very well, I fear.
Araquin November 8th, 2008 7:54 pm
"Only 22% of Americans call themselves liberals.." (or so) and Obama knows that very well, I fear."
While only 22% may identify themselves as liberals, when polled on the issues without the labels many more agree with liberals than with other groups.
Lobo Gris
Patriotis Veritas -
You say something true and useful - and you say it beautifully.
Thanks.
I saw this coming a long time ago. However, out in TX where I could only choose among Mccain, Obama, and Barr as others were not on the ballot, I chose Obama despite my reservations. I didn't expect Obama to be much of a progressive given his prior support of the status quo but his choosing former Clinton appointees pretty much puts "hope" and "change" further out of reach. My guess is Obama will keep his two terms but by 2016, the Democratic Party will be "conservative" while the Republican Party will look "liberal" in pale comparison. I hope I'm wrong of course but all I see is FALSE "hope" and CHUMP "change" ahead !
JWVerez November 8th, 2008 8:07 pm
"I saw this coming a long time ago. However, out in TX where I could only choose among Mccain, Obama, and Barr as others were not on the ballot, I chose Obama despite my reservations."
You could have done a write in ballot, even on an electronic machine, as I did.
Lobo Gris
Write-ins? Nah, doing a write-in rarely wins anything as history has shown and it's not worth anything. The last successful write-in was Strom Thurmond in 1954 when he won the seat for South Carolina but after that, there was nothing to show for it. For what write-ins are worth, it's as good as not voting at this point. Besides, I decided to take my chances with Obama of the three because maybe we could pressure him. If he turns out to be as ignorant as Clinton and Bush, well then that's another story. Until then, somebody had to win the White House first.
JWVerez November 8th, 2008 11:26 pm
Your first post was written in such a way as to indicate to the reader that you had no choice but to vote for Obama. My point was that that was not accurate. The choice that you made and why you made it were your decision.
Lobo Gris
It looks like 2006 all over again with half of us suggesting a more progressive mandate, and the other half of us suggesting the opposite. The difference between this election cycle and the last one -for me personally- is that I became a PCP (Precinct Committee Person) for our local Democratic Party which helped bring in many new Democrats from previously republican held seats -including our newest Senator Jeff Merkley who unseated a longtime republican Senator, Gordon Smith...
I took every opportunity to let it be known to my fellow Dems -both on the streets and within the organization- that I did not come to volunteer my time lightly as but another 'moderate' voice in the Democratic Party. I came to volunteer my very valuable time as a very commited voice of progress and certainty of conviction! I reminded my fellow Dems that this was not the time to be diminutive with our liberal convictions but to lift them up strongly, convincingly for all to see!
"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal" is not a creed to be ashamed of, nor one to politically neuter, through political 'moderation'" -I stated on more than one occasion- it is also quite contrary to the social darwinism that is the hallmark of republican, conservative ideology. "We are the empathy people, and the Party of inclusiveness," I reminded my more moderate fellow Dems, and I have come to help keep our/their feet to the fire -as well as those Democrats -and Progressives- we have helped to elect!...
The reason Obama was chosen to represent the Democratic Party over Hillary Clinton is because he played to the Democratic base -which is Progressive- while Hillary simply took us for granted and was already playing to conservatives, long before she locked up the Democratic nomination itself... Oops! Bad move... Obama got to carry the torch because he stayed true to his base. The day after he got the nomination, he sounded just like Hillary did the days and weeks before, but that's politics, and we knew what he was up to. The reason we are Democrats -and not republicans- is because there is a stark difference as to how we perceive, experience, and interact in the world we inhabit. 'Moderating' such faculties can only dull those very creative faculties that we are so desperately in need of now... The Schumers' and Pelosis' and Reids' and Emanuals' of the Democratic Party must be reminded every day of just how proudly 'un-moderate' the Progressive Democratic Party really is. I believe Obama understands this reality -if not- we'll continue to remind him too...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"He who is swimming against the stream comes to the source" Gottfried Muller
lawrencer:I am a Left Dem. I think Obama's candidacy saved the Dem. party (and I've said that for awhile). In the Dem. primary, I voted for Kucinich (absentee ballot,mailed immediately and one day before Kucinich quit the race). I have kept my word, that if Hillary Clinton voted for the authorization of force, aka "for the war" before the attack on Iraq, and I wrote her before she voted (as did thousands,and more who called), that I'd never vote for her again. How do you know that l/2 Dems. are one way about how to go and l/2 the other way in re moderation and go progressive? (Thanks for your work and stance.) I do not like Schumer:I voted for him in his first election for Senate and have been sorry since. I think Reid and Pelosi are bad,too. I like your last line.
NYCartist:
I lived in NYC from 1980 to 1984, and I too am an artist. From the time I was in elementary school I was constanly reminded of just how 'different' I was from the mainstream, simply because everyone recognized me as an 'artist'. It was also in elementary school that I came to identify with the Democratic Party, as they too always seemed to be standing outside, looking in, on all things social and political. To this day I find it quite difficult to separate my political perceptions from my artistic ones. They seem to be so integrally linked as one...
I too voted (write in) for Dennis, although I wore an Obama button as I went door to door -along with my 'Merkley' button. When I went to Democratic Party meetings I always wore my Kucinich button to let them know just exactly where I was cacusing from, but I still stumped for Obama because he was our nominee and he seemed like a very galvanizing figure indeed...
As far as the 'half and half' remark, it was more rhetorical than exacting. 'Artistic license' dontcha know. :-) Although I still remember how excited I was with the 2006 election upset that changed the dynamics of Congress, and just like today how so many voices came out to try and diminish the import of what had just taken place, by also declaring it a victory for moderate politics -much to the consternation of many much more liberal voices throughout the land... The frame of 'fifty/fifty' or 'half and half' or even 'moderate' over 'progressve' is simply a linguistic, literary device that highlights a very real division or dichotomy that does indeed exist and one that cannot, or should not be easily rationalized away, any more than one can pretend that red states and blue states are nothing more than poor mythology. The division is present. It is real. And how we define that division -and work through that division- is the first line of defense in that age old metaphorical battle between the hearts and minds of man...
That last line comes from the author and Air America radio host Thom Hartmann's spiritual mentor, Herr Gottfried Muller... I think it says it all... :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------
"He who is swimming against the stream comes to the source" Gottfried Muller
lawrencer: I've always been "different",too. In part because after my WWII disabled vet dad died, I was the only kid I knew without a father. I knew I was an artist at age ten. My pals in workingclass Brooklyn thought I was weird, but loved me anyway. I was also "different" because I was gifted. I was always the youngest but now I am older. I have many comments around this site and not enough stamina to repeat them. I am not philosophical in nature. What kind of art do you do? It's one "magnificent obsession" and I'm so glad I have spent over 40 years doing it.
.We are saved!!!
I think that, rather than being "saved" the Democratic victories were merely the electorate's reaction to eight years ot the worst Presidency in American history and not any deep affection for a Democratic party that has been complicit with that administration all along. After all, with third party politics still struggling against the tide, what real choices did the voter have?
Election data in this nation shows a very cyclic swing, quite a dependable one in fact. I would suggest that, barring any unforeseen events, the GOP will take back the Legislature in due course, and probably the Presidency in four or eight years, depending upon the economy and the possible actions of Osama of course.
I am puzzled, NYCa, by your antipathy for pro war democrats and your vote for Obama who, after receiving the nomination, spoke out constantly for an expansion of that war.
I hope you accept these little critiques and queries of mine in the spirit in which they are intended. I only see a kindred spirit lost in the wilderness and seek to turn you towards the light...hee.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I am older. Seen a lot. I have read too many of your comments to do more than say, yes, I voted for Obama. I have lots of comments on many articles that outline my thoughts.
.You may be older than I, there are a scant few that are.
See ya around.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"The day after he got the nomination, he sounded just like Hillary did the days and weeks before, but that's politics, and we knew what he was up to."
Yes you knew what he was up to. Do you know what he is up to now? He's won. Does he need his base anymore? I was nauseated when I heard a black man say Obama will do what he has to to get elected and we (black people) understand that and give him a wink and a nod. Can only white people be racist?
Just what is his base? The millions who believed every word he spoke will be sorely disappointed when Obama begins his term.
And what's with the podium with "The Office of the President Elect"? The man or his handlers have no sense of decorum. Or are his followers so stupid that they have to be reminded that he's not president yet?
Those who find it convenient to blame Clinton for everything should be dismayed that Obama's cabinet will re-employe Clinton's cabinet. Yes, he's a reformer. Uh-huh, and I've got this bridge.....