Glen Greenwald over at Salon is also "staying on the case."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Nonetheless, it does seem that increased unionization will help fortify some aspects of the progressive agenda, especially a more inclusive health care regime and living wages. Given recent trends, I worry that many of our representatives will seek new and clever ways to dump new health care or other burdens on struggling Americans, instead of creating policies that ensure that the profiteers are willing and able to take on their fair share of the burden. (one step forward, two steps back)

When predicting how unions will vote, it also seems important to note that labor organizations have also worked closely with conservatives in support of jobs via drilling in the Artic Wildlife Refuge, opening Yucca mountain and on other issues.

Many of your points are strong and I intend to factor them into my future views. I maintain that legalizing any significant number of undocumented workers should only be based upon a careful, long-term analysis of the big picture (many issues) that shows this move would serve the greater good.

Tell me you meant that as a joke, Nathan. That suggestion reminds me of Bush and crew who are busy rapidly dismantling what's left of any good policies on their way out the door. I've seldom heard a suggestion so narrow and random and shortsighted. It sounds as though you don't believe the progressive agenda has merit on its own that some education will make more clear to the voters we've already got.

Let's base legalization of a particular group on the way they are likely to vote on one issue?

Legalization of undocumented immigrants should be done in a thoughtful way that is fair Americans and to those legalized. We should not legalize anybody just for some additional votes on one issue. And who can predict how any one group will vote on all the other important issues. More than anything, progressives need a well informed electorate.

I can't even read the rest of your post right now and will have to come back to it. That is a pity because sometimes you make some really brilliant points.

I believe there were other foreign articles at the same site that raised these questions long before the NYT decided to join in. I also recall a congressional hearing in which Ron Paul questioned the official US version of this story.

I won't! And no "yes we can" believers will tell you that, either. Who ever accomplished anything with an "oh, we hit a challenge, so we can't do that now" attitude?

I'm sure all critical thinking Americans will confront the "lower your expectations" nonsense that is peddled by media pundits and others with a "yes we can," "who says we can't?" and "how else might we accomplish that?"

I'm sure when we were on our way to the moon, a million excuses could have been made for why we could not do it. Bill Gates was told nobody would ever want a computer in their home, too.

People can always find excuses not to meet challenges if that's what they are looking for, but the people of this country spoke loudly and clearly when they chose a leader who says "yes we can."

Great post, Oleeb. I sincerely hope Obama does everything in his power to ensure that nobody dumbs down the unprecedented potential of his presidency.

This overused pattern of media and various spokespersons raising the expectations of Americans to get something through, then immediately try to lower those expectations once they've got what they want, is getting old. Your quote above strikes me as a similar dynamic to the one we just witnessed with respect to the bailout. The pundits and anchors first were all on the same page, busy warning Americans that if the bailout to "save main street" didn't pass, they would not get their paychecks and the banks wouldn't make loans to your average Joe. Immediately after bailout passed, the pundits then began saying that it would take time and maybe more would be needed. No big surprise, but last I heard, the banks weren't lending to many and we've had many more job losses despite the bailout.

It is especially ironic that the bailout is now being held up as the reason people should lower their expectations as if there is only one way to do everything. Here's hoping the Obama administration finds creative ways to make great strides on the most pressing issues and to bring along the Democrats and some Republicans with him. After all, that's why they were elected.

If more funding is needed, an Obama administration could start by hiring a few hundred IRS workers to collect the estimated hundreds of billions in taxes owed by Americans who hide their money in offshore bank accounts to avoid paying their share of the taxes. I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas they could consider as well.

You said: "Let us hope that he does not just...ignore the broad social movement of activists and involved citizens across all the states that helped him win the election."

I believe it is up to the citizens to refuse to be ignored and until American citizens understand this once again, they will continue to be ignored.

You said: "...citizens should be engaged when the inevitable legislative choices are made."

I agree and believe that citizens should make sure of this and not count on anybody else to make it happen for them.

You said: "Each area of policy should be fashioned with measures that engage and empower the groups and voters that will build a sustained Obama and Dem/Indep majority for the future."

I agree and even believe that Obama is even in a position to convert many Republicans to his team if the citizens ensure that he delivers the changes he has promised. I believe this because there are so many things the majority of both Democrats and Republicans agree we need to change (e.g. a stronger middle class, health care, peace, competitive education, etc.) But I also believe that citizens must only count on themselves. We must empower ourselves and engage on our own and raise our voices together. If Obama or any other representative helps with that, even better. If they don't, at least we will not wait any longer for an invitation to be heard in our own government of the people.

The nominations said it all about what a majority of Americans want: Obama, the change candidate, and McCain the maverick won the nominations. Against all odds, Obama beat status quo Hillary and her machine. And maverick McCain beat out the more traditional Republican candidates-- with little help from the Republican leadership until it was clear he was going to win the nomination.

A majority of Americans can agree on quality and reasonable health care that is not rigged against people when they get sick or rigged with above market drug prices. A majority agree we need top notch education to compete in a globalized world. A majority want unnecessary wars ended. A majority want a strong middle class and to end the growing income gap.

That's where I'd start if I were the Democrats.

You note this: "There's been much discussion as to whether Obama's decisive victory constitutes a mandate."

Despite how the pundits and others try to spin it, I think it is clear that the whole 2008 election--especially the party nominations-- were a mandate from both parties for major change. Here is why:

Obama, the change candidate, and McCain the maverick won the nominations. Against all odds, Obama beat status quo Hillary and her machine. And maverick McCain beat out the more traditional Republican candidates with little help from the Republican leadership until it was clear he was going to win the nomination.

The nominations alone were a clear sign that a majority of Americans from both parties seek major change. For this reason, the Democrats will do well in the future if they work on the areas where both Republicans and Democrats agree to promptly deliver substantial results.

A majority of Americans can agree on quality and reasonable health care that is not rigged against people when they get sick or rigged with above market drug prices. A majority agree we need top notch education to compete in a globalized world. A majority want unnecessary wars ended. A majority want a strong middle class and to end the growing income gap.

That's where I'd start if I were the Democrats.

Forget about just Democrats, the majority of Americans have many interests in common that they do agree upon and it is wrong to suggest otherwise. The way to productively pressure Obama for the common good is to drive clear priorities where there is consensus and continue debate on the issues we have yet to agree upon.
Just a couple of examples where there is consensus:

Most Americans want economic and tax policy that favors working Americans and small business over the short term interests of international corporations or others with no allegiance to the United States.

Most Americans would prefer to protect our national security by using a broader array of instruments than just military power. (military power as last resort)

To the extent government intervenes in health care, most Americans want that health care to be fair, quality with competitively priced procedures and drugs and not rigged against those unfortunate enough to get sick. (I recently read that Yale New Haven Hospital has been working with their local police and jailing people who could not afford their bills. And those who can't afford health insurance are often randomly charged 10+ times the price that those with insurance pay for the exact same procedures)

I also think few Americans would disagree about the need to ensure our k-12 education is taken off the third-rate list and put on the first-rate list so our country is more competitive in the future. I'd wager most Americans would be willing to take back some of the oil subsidies they've been paying out with their hard-earned tax dollars and put that money toward better education for a stronger country and renewable energy development.

Of course all Democrats and Americans don't have all the same priorities on all issues. But the education, open debate and compromise our system of government was based upon will eventually lead to good policy in the areas where consensus is elusive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUS49XSN6Zs

That quote is so on point. If the electorate wants change the electorate has to change and start holding leaders in Congress and the Whitehouse accountable. The way to help Obama fulfill his potential to be great it is to keep the pressure on him and everyone in Congress so that he has leverage with those trying to replace what's best for the American people with their own narrow agendas. He and Congress members have got to be able to say, "look at the numbers, we'll all get voted out if we don't do what is in the best interest of the country this time."

Rotwang, Great post.

Absolutely! We will get the positive change we fully back up and nothing more. And if we are looking past the lawmakers in Congress to President elect Obama, we are missing the change boat. We must pay much much closer attention to each and every lawmaker in Congress.

Most who understand the sorry state of American governance today would expect this.

One would think Americans would understand by now that voting was just the beginning of any hope for change. One would hope it is finally understood that we must participate more, keep a very watchful eye on Congress, and promptly replace leaders (especially leaders in Congress where the laws are made) who show they can not or will not get together and make the substantial changes we need and want.

No President can make positive changes that represent the people's interests unless the people are right there to raise their voices and back their own interests. If the public is silent, the voices of small groups will continue to be what is heard echoing in the halls of Congress and the Oval Office.

Our form of government necessitates that for good governance we must participate as well as remove and hold bad leaders accountable. If we don't hold one leader accountable, why on earth would the next leader care what the public things or worry about doing a good, honorable job?

A majority of today's leaders protect the status quo of no accountability to such an extreme extent that they don't even want the public to discuss holding Bush accountable, much less will they take steps to do so themselves.

For sure Obama has shown he has the potential to be a great president by the fact that he ran a spectacular campaign. It is still important to note that Obama's campaign was under his full control, whereas the government he will head has three branches and is under the control of various influences, including the influence of the American people should they choose to participate in their own government much more than they have done in the past.

In order for Obama to fulfill his potential to be a great president, he will need Americans to help him by staying engaged and holding each member of Congress accountable if they fail to implement the changes Obama has been talking about.

With Obama as president and Democrats in Congress having taken so many seats, it is doubtful that Americans will accept any more excuses for continued ineffective governance by Democrats. Soon we will know whether the Democrats sitting in Congress right now have been sincere about what they want to do. We will also see whether they are competent enough to get it done.

Until then, you have made a big assumption that has yet to be proven.

But I don't feel relived yet. Obama exudes a vibrant decency I think American's long to see more of in what has become a dismal government that no longer resembles its exceptional promise. But I believe other factors--especially dedicated and sustained participation by Americans--will have much to do with whether the Obama presidency is able to fulfill its highest potential.

I don't believe Obama's battle has been mostly about race, though I think many tried in vain to make it so. He and most Americans casually brushed the baiters off like flies. I do believe he had a harder battle than McCain and his primary contenders because he ran on a platform of change and some status quo lovers were uncertain of how compliant he would be once in office.

My relief will come when we give him the help and support he needs to fulfill his huge potential to one day take his place beside the greatest leaders in our history. My relief will come when we hold his feet to the fire to support and to ensure he fulfills his potential for greatness. My relief will come when we help him push back against those who will want to dim his bright light and replace the people's agenda with their own. My relief will come when I can say President Obama went a long way toward restoring decency to the American government...he helped us to help him do what was in the best interest of all Americans and the world at large. My relief will come when he steers this country back on the track laid down by the founders.

Until then, I cant say I'm relieved, beyond knowing that Americans finally showed some common sense and picked the person with the most potential, intelligence and heart for the difficult job of president.

I see this as the first step of a long journey that no rational or honest person would dare pretend to know for certain where it will lead.

Absolutely.

There surely are a variety of destructive interests that have already been working out how they will neuter Obama, dumb him down and ensure he does not become the great president he is capable of becoming.

And Obama was advised to not run until he had more experience. He was right not to wait then, and I think you are right that he should go full steam ahead to make any changes he's hoping to make.

Hopefully, in a short 36 (?) hours, Americans will begin a new journey that warrants a restoration of the lost faith that seems to be everywhere these days.

I might have confused the issues with the quote. Wolf's question and some responses to her question brought to mind the Patrick Henry quote. My point was to note that some-- myself included--believe it's important to vigilantly guard liberty if you want to keep it. (i.e. I think questions like Wolf's are important ones to raise and process) I went on to point to a dubious (repealed) amendment as an example of why I believe it is important to pay attention, ask questions, explore and learn

If Wolf's question turns out to have been unnecessary, I will still be glad—if unpleasantly pained--that she asked the question. I think many Americans are highly skeptical these days. It's hard to escape the fact that if Americans had been a bit more skeptical in the recent past, we might have had the chance to prevent some of the destruction and duplicity of the last eight years before it was too late.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”
Patrick Henry

Any activity that involves the use of the military on US soil is a red flag we should all pay attention to.

If you doubt that, go take a look at the 2006 section 333 changes that Congress made to the Insurrection law that governs the president's ability to deploy the military in the US. The 333 additions were repealed in 2008. Nonetheless, the fact that the section 333 amendment was EVER slipped into a defense appropriations bill and passed into law by our Congress should clue all Americans into the importance of carefully monitoring all activity in this arena. Here is a user-friendly version of the amendment that bolds the changes so it's easy to understand—just scroll down to section 333 on the chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

The words "incident or other condition" under 333A is lawyer-speak for "it's okay to fill in the blank with anything you like and we'll call it 'legal'." This amendment also gave the president the power to use the military in the US without further Congressional approval.

Me too, Oleeb. Unfortunately, a majority of the electorate will not understand your point until they begin looking to the hard evidence when they draw conclusions about any representative: results.

If only the electorate would judge representatives in Congress and the Executive branch by taking a hard look at their own lives and asking basic questions. Has our health care substantially improved and is it on a better track? Is there any hard evidence that middle and working classes are stronger? Is our environment any cleaner? Are we are a more peaceful and respected nation?

If the electorate looked to evidence, and a President Obama delivered only shallow results for show, then he would be promptly be held accountable and out of a job in four years.

Things will only get worse if people continue to outsource their thinking rather than looking to evidence. Things will only get worse if people continue to believe what they want to believe and what the corporate media and any status quo reps in Congress want them to believe.

The (oversimplified) fact is that a generation or so ago, one parent could work, come home at a reasonable hour, take care of a family, have a pension and send their children to college. Now it is common that both parents must work, almost all the profits from their labor goes to CEO's and investors and none to the workers, there is no pension, they pay through the nose for health insurance but the insurance often doesn't pay when they get sick, the dollars they do make are worth much less and college costs have gone through the roof. That's what good old hard work leads to today for the average person.

The transfer of wealth from the workers to the banks, corporations and executives has been astronomical and is headed toward a new and different version of slavery. Unfortunately, a majority of citizens have stood by paralyzed and allowed their representatives in Congress to facilitate the whole thing.