Whether or not Clinton ever had any intention of pursuing a "progressive agenda" the important question is why Clinton, and other new Dems, gets "bashed" from the right when he moves left, but escapes bashing from the left when he moves right. I think the answer has to do with
1) his success in co-opting progressive leadership by giving them a token amount of "access"
2) the campaign of demonization waged by organs like the Nation which attempt to potray centrist repugs as wolves in moderate sheeps clothing. (They're at it again, as I mentioned in a previous posting.)
3) the willingness of liberals to excuse Clintons most egregious sell-outs based on 1) and also a religious faith (which some of us seem to share) in Clinton's "core" progressive values which will flower after he gets a democratic congress, wait no, after he mollifies the military, wait no, after he gets re-elected. . .
4) the inability of the left to impose punishment when Clinton triangulates us into insignificance.
I'm sure others can add to the list. In any case, I think the lesson is clear-we have to be able to demonstrate that this sort of double dealing has consequences, which is why we all need to be in Los Angeles this summer-on the outside of the convention center, not on the inside- with gasmasks at the ready.
I know I'll be there (maybe with the Santa brigade)-partly as penance for having missed Seattle-as most of us did, it appears-partly to demonstrate to myself that my committment to "revolutionary praxis" isn't just theoretical. Look forward to seeing you there.
It would also be nice to have some discussion about how this event could be organized for maximum effectiveness, hopefully including some of the folks who brought us Seattle.
Merry Christmas,
John