That said, I do not think it is all bad. While certainly such selections fall well below the expectations of an Obama government, I’m not really concentrating there.

Like others have mentioned, Obama has mobilized a lot of support. He got so far by embracing the progressive wing of the Democrats and by organizing grass roots support via the internet in a way which did not piss people off (unlike the Ron Paul crowd, for a contrast). The thing is, a lot of that machinery, the mechanisms used for organizing all this, are still in place and available. People are motivated and they are more engaged and perhaps that bodes well for the political culture in the country.

Now that the Republicans are engaging in a circular firing squad and Bush is on the way out, the need to get behind “the opposition” and play partisan to the Democrats may not be so vital, and we’ll see some of them breaking ranks in order to try and keep Obama on the political straight and narrow. Probably not in the Senate or administration itself, but perhaps a minority in Congress and various advocacy groups might. It will be interesting to see the Netroots reaction, especially if Obama does knife the progressives in back, as I suspect he will.

I agree with making use of the historical moment as a premise. People are charged up, they do want change and if a leader can be shown to not be providing that, then its entirely possible they will make other arragements, an endeavour I fully support.

I have more on this, but I shouldn’t type so much when still half asleep – I’ll try and come up with something more coherent later. Hopefully my point is discernable among the gibberish.

That being said, I think there’s also an opportunity to create a vast organization made up of many loosely interconnected self-organizing networks united by a common basic agreement, one that reflects and appeals to both the Comedy-Central-mainstream and the proper radical, providing common services and opportunities, much as the conservative movement has done, capitalizing on existing communities and connecting them with a common narrative.

I think the main thing behind any movement is essentially this: those in power have proven themselves too incompetent and/or evil to continue to run things. We and people who agree with us should definitely be running things instead, because we would do a substantially better job of it. Power exists, so although we want to distribute it more equally, we do still need to play the games of power in order to gain enough to ensure that we are not prevented from creating a more just world.

We should talk more seriously on the subject sometime soon.

A very worthwhile read on the topic of staying involved is here too:

http://www.htmltimes.com/how-to-make-barack-obama-keep-his-promises.php

I myself found in getting more involved with the peace movement that there is learning curve between idealized values and actually working with others and making things happen. If you work with more than 5 people, you are trying to move a many-headed monster with many legs going different directions, no matter how peaceful the intentions of individuals. Change happens slowly and in small ways. Yet some things do happen, such as a court victory that says we have a right as citizens to address our representatives, even if their offices are on private property. Dedicated activists got themselves arrested, not at all dramatically, by attempting to speak to Gordon Smith about getting out of Iraq.

If people expect dramatic change happening quickly, they are bound for disappointment.

I had more to say but I gotta go. I admire your thoughts on this and other worldly affairs and look forward to more. More commentary on your links!