It's never been easy being a radical, but I see little difference in who occupies the White House, other than in the amount of disempowering reactionary protests that leftists put on (such as ANSWER/IAC's serial protests against Bush). Ironically, I think being a radical is easier since 2000, but that is due to the "Seattle effect," more people holding radical views, and years of hard organizing work.
I think that it really shallow to tie the fortunes of activism to who sits in the White House. That kind of fatalistic thinking disempowers people and gets them to think that HISTORY determines what they can do, rather THEY being active agents in making change happen.
That being said, I'm guessing that many radicals noticed in the mid 1990s how much of the left went into hibernation after Clinton was elected. I don't remember the mainstream left being all that critical of Clinton, yet his adminsitration laid the groundwork for much of the shit that Bush and his cronies get away with today.
I will make this simple prediction about the 2004 presidential elections: the winner will be pro-war and a friend of corporate America.
Chuck0