http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08292008/transcript1.html
The interview meanders a lot, but I think the central questions Reed and Vanden Heuvel were asking, were how to find something positive in Obama's probable election. How to push his presidency into a more liberal direction? Their answers tended to see that political presure in terms of an external mobilization.
But as I was reading, it occurred to me there is a possibly more effective and direct route using the `progressive' members in the House and Senate. In my case that means Lee and Boxer. Boxer's weak points are foriegn policy and immigration---but never mind for now. The more than rhetorical linkage against the Iraq war and the War on Terror is certainly there in Lee's case. Beside Lee, there is also the Black Caucus and various white liberals, Kucinich, Frank, et al... In the Senate there's Kennedy, Boxer, Sanders... I realize all these elected officials depend on their own versions of deluding their liberal constituents into believing they are more liberal than they are... (But let's forget that too, for a few minutes.) And just as an historical note, JFK was elected on a wave of public delusion that he was more liberal than he pretended. So was Johnson. In that sense then Obamaism is standard liberal Democratic ware.)
But I am trying to find some light here. The assumption that Obama is more liberal than he pretends, might be delusional, but that delusion also offers political support for House and Senate members who are more liberal than either Obama or the leadership under Reid and Pelosi. And in turn their public support is enhanced by Obama's election. Which can then be turned into political pressure on the House and Senate members from the so-called Left---as their concerned constituents, i.e. grassroots groups.
So, that's how I can see (dreaming again) how to move a mania to an ism and then into some concrete policy changes in a vaguely left direction...
CG