I will grant that you might not be a troll, but you clearly don't understand the complexity of the American electorate this year.

I'll be charitable and chalk it up to a long absence from the place of your birth and the lingering fires of a revolution that was snuffed out for many Americans in 1968. Many of those same people are just now waking up from their own long nightmare in the wilderness.

You conflate "conservatives" with neocons with a simplicity that is destructive to the dialog and our mission this year. Our country is still largely conservative in a number of ways. While they want change, it needs to be gradual. The republican party isn't going to go away because a "lefty Reagan" comes along.

Reagan won by convincing conservative democrats that he better understood their concerns than the "liberals" in charge of the democratic party. He made the term a pejorative with a slick technique that has lasted long after his national role had faded into the background hum of history. He also convinced America that he shared their values more than liberals. He then spent four years going back on his word, only to be re-elected in a landslide unmatched by anyone short of FDR. That is a freaking master politician.

To win as the "lefty Reagan" there are a few things Barack had to do.

First, he had to convince the herd of cats that is the democratic party that he would pursue an agenda that was mostly progressive, if not as radical as some might like. He did that. Hillary ran to the center to fast which is why she lost, but just barely. That proves America is still roughly divided between conservatives and liberals, regardless of party.

That is another key point you miss. That the labels democrat and republican aren't so facile as to incorporate all the various permutations of conservative and liberal thinking. You didn't see any of us youngins grow up, so you are lacking a significant amount of context with regards to anyone who isn't a Boomer. That is the majority of the country these days.

Second, Barack had to convince the moderate republicans and right-leaning independents that he better understands their concerns and has a plan to fix this country. A plan that includes them as participants and not as the objects of ridicule and derision because they let a small group of powerful men dominate them for 40 years.

The republican party is ready to be reintroduced to its roots. It is ready to look back to Teddy and Abe and Tom to take their cues for a modern restructuring of their efforts. If we can do this right, which I believe Barack is, we can change the GOP's narrative by changing their expectations of their elected officials. Barack can raise the bar for all incumbents, not just democratic ones.

This country is ready for a new narrative. The old one has worn thin. We can create an atmosphere where republicans and democrats argue over who is most progressive, even if their individual remedies are conservative or liberal in their methods.

Sorry for mistaking your intentions. I think if you could change perspective just a little bit, you'll see most Obama supporters are hardly starry-eyed kids or DLC clones. I am to the left of Kucinich on most issues. I just think that changing this country's direction in any meaningful way will need the American people to throw away labels as a first step. We can't just do this with citizens who consider themselves to be left of center.

Nor do I think we should.

No ideology is free of bad ideas. Without opposing ideals of rational conservative and liberal thought, our solutions will not be sustainable. It took both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams to give birth to this nation. That has been our problem these last 40 years and you're extended absence is why I think you are having a hard time with the distinction.

I don't feel that Barack Obama is that person. I see that more and more that feeling is shared by many.

I don't either. And if you can find such a "Reagan of the left", who has a fair chance of being elected in the United States, as opposed to Spain, do be sure to point him or her out to us.

For now, the best we can do is avoid candidates who are quite so obviously enamored of individual wealth and corporate power as those leading lights of the DLC, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

And if you think Bill Clinton, the person almost single-handedly responsible for the introduction of the term "triangulation" into our political vocabulary, was the author of a "clear agenda", you should revisit his election campaigns.

David, what a surprise :)

While I see your point I don't necessarily agree. The chances of a pure progressive getting elected in this country I think are slim to none. In fact, I don't think a pure progressive could carry the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party unlike the the Republicans is made up of way to many factions. We have social and fiscal liberals, fiscal conservatives and social liberals and all things in between. Then we have the moderate independents which the Ds need in order to win the GE.

While I lament Obama's vocal position on FISA I also know he hasn't voted yet and I don't know what he is doing behind the scenes. I also know in this day and age in the US appearing week on terror is a deal breaker... sadly. And if Obama had come stridently against FISA the Right would have painted him as weak on terror for days if not weeks. So I am holding judgement.

Death Penalty - This is a fairly consistent position. He has never been an absolutist when it comes to the death penalty.

Obama wrote in his recent memoir that he thinks the death penalty "does little to deter crime." But he supports capital punishment in cases "so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment.

Nor has he been someone who has adamantly come out against guns. http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

So in the end is he pure progressive no. However, I think anybody who thought he was is slightly delusional. Also saying we should elect McCain, but have a strong Democratic Senate and Congress, says to me you really aren't all that interested in any movement forward. This combination would maintain the status quo at best.

David Seaton wrote

......I think it migh be possible to get a progressive US Congress and Senate, not a president, not yet.

......I believe more progressive change will occur with huge, activist driven, veto overriding, Democratic majorities in both house facing a Republican president that won't be able to take a leak without permission from the Democrats, than with Obama as all thing to all men.

So Seaton openly desires a McCain victory while waiting for Conservative Democrats to be voted out and replaced by Progressives like Franken.
Franken is behind in his race against Coleman in Minn. Donna Edwards did winin Maryland, so there is one new Progressive in the House. I don't see an overnight change to multiple Progressive victories.

There is nothing Obama can do to change Seaton's point of view. How many GOP Presidents will we have to survive for Seaton's version of utopia to take place?

David, you sit there in Spain and write your little screeds, and to what end? What have you personally ever done to improve American society, with the exception of leaving the country?

I think it migh be possible to get a progressive US Congress and Senate, not a president, not yet.

When? The candidates for the November races have already been chosen, and there's no sign of them moving Congress in the progressive direction you allegedly prefer even if every single Dem were to be elected. Two-thirds of the seats in the Senate aren't even up for election this year.

So it's "not yet" possible to get the sort of progressive US Congress you allegedly prefer, any more than it is possible to get the sort of progressive President you allegedly prefer.

In the mean time, your arguments aren't about moving the Democratic party in a progressive direction, they're about tearing down Obama and trying to get McCain elected. As a side effect, if you get your wish the Democrats won't do as well in Congress as they would if there were a strong turnout for Obama.

You claim to want to see a progressive Congress and President, but your behavior is more consistent with wanting to see the GOP grow stronger, wanting to see the GOP pick the next Supreme Court justices, wanting to see neo-con foreign policy prevail in the Middle East, etc., etc.

That's why people call you a troll. Because you act like one.