Open lines of communication: Now, even with the first point in mind, criticism must take place with open lines of communication. There need to be regular access points for the progressive left within the administration. Possibilities include press credentials, blogger conference call gaggles, White House staff that both understand and have roots in the online progressive community, and legislation needs to be posted online. Preferably, all of this will happen to varying degrees. If we can't talk to each other, than we are going to stop understanding each other, and then each side is just going to think the other groups are a bunch of idiots.

His point about "access points" within the administration is key. In other words, it's important for any advocacy group to have a voice amongst the policymakers. And there are multiple ways to do that. The groups that do this sort of thing are quite savvy about it and have developed their "place at the table" with careful planning.

I've been using the term "stakeholders." It's a term that's used around the beltway for various representatives that have an interest in any given policy issue. If those people are not given the opportunity to weigh in as decisions are made and policies are formulated, the agencies hear about it and their jobs are made extremely difficult. Of course, that doesn't mean that they are necessarily satisfied with the outcomes of decisions along the way, but they are provided with ongoing opportunities for input and are included in the processes. Often not to the extent that they would like. But, the tension between our Federal government and these private and state or local stakeholders is an important part of accountability as policies are formulated and implemented.

But, for us as constituents, the problem is how we get our government to function as we believe it should. And I think, certainly, putting all of our hopes and dreams and faith in Obama giving us everything we'd hope for is not the way to go. Whatever his own positions may be on various issues, there will be factors that will compete with our own agenda, and those factors may rule the day and win out. That's the downside of pragmatism over ideology. Of course, we also have to recognize that policymaking does not rest in the hands of the executive alone, but on many of the most critical issues, he will take the lead.

I agree to a large extent with your point about the Progressive moniker, FDR. Mainly because it can mean almost anything - loosely, it seems to mean not conservative, but not quite liberal. Liberal, but not in the dirty 60's hippie sense, but more in a cool, educated, hip 21st century sort of way. Whatever. I actually find that where I am on the political spectrum will vary to some extent depending on the issue. I'm hard to pin down that way. That's why I'm not a Democrat, sometimes I find that I strongly disagree with the Democrats' positions. When I lived in Arizona in the 1990's, I was sometimes more comfortable with the Republicans. I'm more comfortable remaining as an Independent, although in my State that means I can't participate in the primaries.

Empowerment.

The devil, of course, on all of those issues is in the details. What will all of this look like once it's implemented, if it gets implemented at all? That's why the people that are being put in charge of these agencies are so important. There is much that is yet to be defined, but if there are particular issues on the table that you have fought hard for, you should be out there now, listening carefully to what is and is not being said by the developing administration around those issues, and generating discussion about how you think those policies ought to be taking shape.

Something that gets lost in these discussions is that when an advocacy group adopts a position and pushes hard for legislation, it's not necessarily antagonistic, even when it appears that the sitting President or Congress are not actively supporting you.

Chris Bowers shares here (http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10159 an anecdote from Bill Clinton where he told Bernie Sanders that he'd hoped he would have fought harder for the left in the 1993 budget battles:

Can't stop pushing from the left: I recently heard an interesting anecdote about the 1993 budget fight. While it is probably the most progressive piece of sizable legislation to pass into law in two decades, it was a grueling fight--passing both branches of Congress by a single vote--and it still could have been better. At the signing ceremony, President Clinton found then Representative Bernie Sanders, and told Sanders that he, Sanders, should have made a much bigger public display of how he, Clinton, wasn't giving enough to liberals in the new budget. Such a public display would have provided Clinton more room to maneuver on the left.

The moral of the story is that if no one is criticizing a Democratic administration from the left, then there is no rationale or political space for that Democratic administration to operate on the left. Such criticism is thus even useful to, and desired by, a Democratic administration. If the left stays quiet, it will not be relevant.

It is, indeed, the squeaky wheel that gets the grease, and nothing is given away out of simple benevolence - victories are always, always hard fought.

She suggests that progressives need to be as tough, pragmatic and clear-eyed about Obama as he is. I like that sentiment. :)

You know, increasingly, I'm coming to realize how important the public is as stakeholders in our own government. I work for the government and coordinate between various stakeholders. I think that we tend to underestimate our potential for influencing public policy, but it is certainly hard work and often extremely frustrating.

I appreciate your point about the danger of the personality focus in our discourse. There's a passivity there, where what we need is activism and ongoing personal responsibility for creating the government that we believe we need. What I enjoy about blogging when it works well is the energizing effect that can arise when passionate people come together around common ideas and values - stoking the fire in the belly and inspiring people to get out there and do something about Issue X.

I don't think that it's helpful for us to be in an attack/defend mode. It's not good to be reactive. But, we should certainly be actively evaluating what he is doing at this point - and not sitting back in a wait and see mode. The decisions that he is making during this transition is shaping his administration and those decisions will determine his policies. He needs to hear what we think about that. Every step of the way.

The people in this forum, for the most part, supported Obama's candidacy. But, there is a pretty broad spectrum of opinion here in regards to what his policies ought to be and how these appointments are impact that. We should be having some open discussion about that.

Stop and think, everyone. The feel-good moment that we've all been enjoying certainly does feel good. But, it's time for the critical thinking to kick in. What is it that we want Obama to achieve through his administration? Short-term goals, long-term goals. How are his decisions now going to impact all of that?

Yeah, he's our guy, but he's not golden.

I've been reminded of the discussion around the FISA debate during the primaries. At that time, many were saying that it wasn't the right time to challenge Obama on his positions on these issues, that he was only a Senator, that we had to get him in office first, and then hold him accountable.

Well, okay. He's in office now. Time to hold him accountable.

It's strange to me that many of his supporters are so protective of him. I fought very hard for his election. I think that because I did, I am inclined to fight just as hard to ensure that we get good government out of that investment.

I don't imagine that HRC would go rogue so much - as in, doing a Palin. I do think that she has her own mind, however, and that she will proceed as she thinks best. Is Hillary a team player? She can appear to be, but only if doing so is in her best interests. And there may certainly be times when she may conclude that it's in her best interests to push her agenda. And Obama will have his hands full.

There are those who argue that Hillary and Obama are pretty much on the same page when it comes to foreign policy. Perhaps that's true. I hope not, because I don't like what Hillary stands for - certainly not the positions that she advocated during the primaries. And yes - it may be that Obama's own positions may drift right once he's in office. I sure hope not.

We'll see. Of course, as Al Giordano continues to point out, this appointment has not even been made yet. Nevertheless, I think it's a good idea to make Obama's transition people aware of where you stand on the issue, if you have strong feelings about it.

This is a complex issue and I understand that there are some pros to choosing Hillary for this position. I just see that the arguments against it outweigh any advantages that Obama might possibly gain from the appointment. No drama, indeed...I foresee this spinning out of control. I understand the idea of not wanting to surround himself with those who think as he does, but it appears that he is stacking the deck against himself here - he's already facing huge odds, it just appears to me that he is setting his administration up for a huge fall here.

Brown begins by referring to Sundays story in the NYT suggesting that Hillary had negotiated the ability to select her own staff at State. Here's the concerns Brown raised:

Last week, I raised the question of whether this would happen and what the impact would be on both the Obama-Clinton relationship and the morale of those in the foreign policy community who chose to support Obama rather than Clinton:

"...First, the team of rivals could turn into rival fiefdoms, with Obama supporters dominating the NSC (and Defense) and Clinton supporters dominating State. Given the fact that the next Administration urgently needs to reintegrate State into existing foreign policy structures (and give it the resources both to achieve its mission and play a more robust role in intra-agency negotiations), Obama needs to end existing inter-agency rivalries, not create new ones.

Second, there was no love lost among the two camps’ advisors during the primaries. The Clintons attacked those they viewed as disloyal (such as Bill Richardson and Gregory Craig), which angered many in the Obama campaign. In addition, I heard from more than one friend that they were warned that they could forget about a role in a Clinton administration should they not support Hillary during the primaries. Given those realities, Obama risks angering those who did support him, and some of his supporters may regard Hillary’s likely selection of her loyalists to senior posts as a betrayal."