> If I were to give a serious answer to Charles's question it'd be to
> organize around specific issues, like single-payer health care, both
> to achieve the specific goal and to build a movement, and forget (for
> now) the presidency. The president of the U.S. is, as the Sparts like
> to say, the chief executive of the world bourgeoisie. That's not an
> office we should be focusing on
But the people who demand specific solutions, like single-payer health care, don't seem to think so. People for single-payer health care may *not* want to forget the presidency. They may want both and. If so, then they are likely to be part of the coalition around Obama or Clinton or both (hedging until a clear nominee emerges is not such a terrible thing). One of the most effective advocates or agitators for health care reform (Michael Moore) ended up endorsing Obama. It was the Clintons' attitude towards Rev. Wright's media scandal and racial issues that tipped him.
People need a congress and a president willing to implement the reforms, not to resist them and sabotage them. Isn't this a clear lesson of 7 years of antiwar struggle? You can protest all you want, but that doesn't ensure that policy will change. You need sufficient political representation and you need to exercise it. At the very least, you need a congress and a president willing or somewhat obliged to yield to popular demands. If they don't, then you need to pull the political trigger, remove them from office, and elect others.
I don't understand this pitting organizing around specific issues against the electoral struggle for the presidency (or for congress or for local representation). They are not mutually exclusive or substitutes. They complement and reinforce each other.