- Digby: The question for all progressives remains what it always has been, in my view, from before and during the primary season and beyond. To the extent the American two party system allows, assuming we can get the most liberal politician available elected to the white house, what do we plan to do to make him actually govern progressively?
- Hayden: I first endorsed Obama because of the nature of the movement supporting him, not his particular stands on issues. The excitement among African-Americans and young people, the audacity of their hope, still holds the promise of a new era of social activism. The force of their rising expectations, I believe, could pressure a President Obama in a progressive direction and also energize a new wave of social movements.
- Davidson: But the critical one is would you rather mobilize people to end this horrible war against an Obama White House or a McCain White House? We'll have to do one or the other, but its a no-brainer for me.
But, I thought Obama was "progressive" or a "change" to the current establishment. And by establishment I do not mean Bush but Washington (Digby again):
The rationale for his campaign is almost entirely based on the message of change...But here is Lessig pointing out how much of an idiot I was for thinking so:
You can't read Obama's books, watch how he behaved in the Illinois Senate, and watched how he voted in the US Senate, and believe he is a Bernie Sanders liberal.If this is so, I am less inclined to want to vote for him as I do not believe he will be that influence-able by me or "progressives" once in power. Too much Silber I guess:
As is true of Democrats generally, they both support an authoritarian-corporatist state at home and aggressive interventionism abroad.