The first, which might be called "the battle for the President's soul" perspective, visualizes progressives and centrists or conservatives as engaged in a permanent tug of war to win the President's support for their agenda. In this perspective, each cabinet appointment and each policy decision the President makes represents one more episode in a perpetual struggle to pull, pressure or cajole the President toward progressive approaches and solutions

For progressive Democrats who entered politics during and after the Clinton administration, this way of thinking about a new administration seems entirely natural and indeed almost completely self-evident. By late 1980's most progressive movements had become increasingly Washington-focused and political campaign-oriented, in contrast to previous eras of independent progressive grass-roots organizing and mobilization. For many younger progressives, working for political candidates and campaigns was actually their sole form of progressive activity. As such, it made sense for them to feel that a victorious campaign naturally ought to deliver a very clear and explicit ideological "payoff" to progressives after the election, one properly proportionate to the effort they invested during the campaign and the degree of their success.

But during past eras of major progressive social movements - the trade union movement of the 1930's and the civil rights movement of the 1960's -- there was a very different perspective. It could be called a "natural division of labor" point of view. A Democratic President was basically assumed to be a ruthlessly pragmatic centrist who would make all his moves and choices based on a very cold political calculus of what was necessary for his own success and survival. He might have private sympathy for some progressive point of view but there was generally no expectation among social movement progressives that he would "go out on a limb" for progressives out of a personal moral commitment to some social ideal. As a result, the most fundamental assumption of progressive political strategy was always the need to build a completely independent grass roots social movement, one that was powerful enough to make it politically expedient or simply unavoidable for the political system to accede to the movement's demands.

I really like the way that he's framed this and I see this tension playing out in our discussions on this blog and on others in recent days.  As our discussions have unfolded over Obama's recent appointments, for those of us who are not happy with one or more of those appointments, I have found myself asking, "So what should we be doing about this?"

As I noted in the comments on a thread in TPM-EC, I don't believe that it's constructive at this point to adopt a wait and see attitude.  Obama's policies are in the process of implementation right now - as he chooses the individuals that will be heading these agencies, he is defining what his policies will be and how those policies will be implemented.  If you care about any one of those policies, now is the time to respond.  The question is, how to do that effectively?

I think that if you adopt the posture of "battling for Obama's soul," you will find yourself extremely frustrated and unhappy with this administration.  I don't believe that Obama will govern in a manner that will prove wholly satisfying to many of those who hold firmly to progressive ideals.

But, I still believe that there are constructive ways, as a progressive, to work with this administration, if one follows the "division of labor" model.  I think that we need to decide which issue(s) we hold nearest and dearest and then we need to be willing to fight hard for those issues.  That requires focus, organization, commitment, and being well-informed about and current on your issue of choice.

This isn't about pragmatism vs. ideology - Obama needs to demonstrate both.  This is about where he's going with his policies in the Middle East, what he intends to do in regards to our energy policies, what he intends to do in regards to regulation for the financial industries, whether this bailout money is going to continue to flow uninterrupted and to whom - and that's just for starters.  It is not too soon to start debating these issues and asking the hard questions - and yes - challenging Obama on exactly what his positions are and what we think they ought to be. 

Centrist government may be politically safe and it may even be smart, but as constituents who care about some very specific issues, political centrism from our President is not good enough.  We need to push to have our positions on these issues heard.  It's our duty to do so.

His story includes the last video clip from one of his colleagues, an independent journalist from NY, who was gunned down while filming government forces attacking a citizen blockade. It's hard-watching, but powerful and I urge you to take a peek.

This particular incident happened in 2006.  Senator Clinton has been asked to assist in bringing justice in this case.  Their requests have been ignored.

This is not one unfortunate incident somewhere other than the U.S. that has nothing to do with us.  It's about our policies and how our economic interests pave the way for injustices beyond our borders.  Al puts it this way:

For more than a week prior to the massacre, non-governmental organizations in Chiapas, Mexico, had warned the US State Department of the impending atrocity. But the deal had already been struck with the Mexican regime that in exchange for its acquiescence to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the US would turn a blind eye to all matters of human rights in Mexican territory...

The story of Acteal is not an isolated incident nor aberration. I reported on it then and have reported too many hundreds of such stories since from Mexico and across this hemisphere. I would be happy to answer anybody's questions about it and the details of US complicity in a strategy of terror against peaceful social movements in Mexico and elsewhere that, I'm sure many will agree, has been the policy of the administration of the forty-third president George W. Bush but, as some will be reluctant to accept, was also the policy of the Clinton 42, Bush 41 and Reagan 40 administrations before it.

Yeah, yeah, but that was Bill, we're talking about Hillary, right?  Al argues that there is no indication that Hillary will truly champion human rights, and her performance as a NY Senator strongly suggests otherwise:

And if -- as the mass media seems to agree right now -- US President-elect Barack Obama is about to install someone as the next Secretary of State who has shown zero understanding of, much less passion and action for, human rights in Mexico, Colombia and elsewhere (except in isolated cases where the same mass media has turned a particular case into an international cause celébre), we're going to see more of the same terrible story happen over and over again.

If you can't get somebody to act to defend human rights when she's your own local elected representative, do you really believe that such a person would begin to do so if she suddenly represented the entire country before the world?

Contrary to what Greg seems to be trying to convey on this site, I tend not to believe that Hillary as SOS is a fait accompli.  Many over at Al's blog (http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/secretary-state-cautionary-tale#commentshttp://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/secretary-state-cautionary-tale#comments) are calling in to the transition office and talking to very receptive staff members to express their feelings about the prospects of having Hillary in the SOS position.  Others are responding to Plouffe's email that just went out asking for donations to support the transition efforts, expressing their strong apprehensions about this move.

I encourage the many posters here who have strong doubts about the wisdom of Hillary in this position to express those opinions here and directly to the Obama transition office.  And please visit Al's site, he offers a really unique perspective that is consistently independent of the mainstream - something that is increasingly difficult to find, even on the net.

Here's the full article:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603436.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Samples of the text after the jump.

Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.

Throughout the craziness of the Primaries and McCain's approach of one stunt after another, Obama presents us with intellect and rationality - in a word, Leadership.

And the sum it all up with this lovely description:

But Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.

Yeah.  That's our man.  I am realizing that this is the first time since I became eligible to vote that I felt so thoroughly proud of my selection of the individual to lead this Country.  I understand that Obama will inevitably disillusion and fail to fulfill the ideals that many of us hold for him, but isn't it nice to believe in the good that our government can achieve again?

While there was little direct talk about the presidential campaign itself, Madeleine Albright reiterated her endorsement of Barak Obama. Jim Baker expressed his support for John McCain. When asked who he is supporting, Colin Powell said he has great respect for both candidates but he's waiting to watch the debates before he makes up his mind.

But the truth is, none of these steps will come close to seriously reducing our energy dependence in the long-term. We simply cannot pretend, as Senator McCain does, that we can drill our way out of this problem. We need a much bolder and much bigger set of solutions. We have to make a serious, nationwide commitment to developing new sources of energy and we have to do it right away. Last week, Washington finally made some progress on this. A group of Democrat and Republican Senators sat down and came up with a compromise on energy that includes many of the proposals I've worked on as a Senator and many of the steps I've been calling for in this campaign. It's a plan that would invest in renewable fuels and batteries for fuel-efficient cars, help automakers re-tool, and make a real investment in renewable sources of energy. Like all compromises, this one has its drawbacks. It includes a limited amount of new offshore drilling, and while I still don't believe that's a particularly meaningful short-term or long-term solution, I am willing to consider it if it's necessary to actually pass a comprehensive plan. I am not interested in making the perfect the enemy of the good - particularly since there is so much good in this compromise that would actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil.