> And I'm wondering if Chuck thinks it makes absolutely no difference to
> his work who's in the White House? The Clinton years were pretty good
> for movement-building, weren't they?
No, the Clinton years were not good for movement building, especially if you look at the decrease in left activism after he was elected.
It's an old wives tale that our ability to build a movement, or engage in activism, depends on the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. I know the American left likes to blame its effectiveness on the occupant of the White House, but real organizers and activists struggle on despite who the president is.
Seattle and the anti-globalization movement happened because lots of us spent many years doing unglamourous organizing shitwork. It also happened because alot of the new activism happened outside of the controlling, recuperating hands of the sectarian leftists. While the sectarian leftists were fighting over the Free Mumis movement in the mid to late 90s, there was lots of grassroots organizing going on that helped set the table for Seattle.
Personally, I don't recall making any decisions as an activist based on the fact that Bill Clinton was in the White House. From my experience, you go out and MAKE stuff happen. If I wanted to base my activism on nonsense like predetermined historical conditions, I'd go back to being a Lutheran. ;-)
Chuck0