This is the best reason I can think of to vote for Barack Obama: only he can create a true, progressive majority. A progressive majority will effectively move a progressive agenda.
Great article by Christopher Hayes in The Nation:
The question of who can best build popular support for a progressive governing agenda is related to, but distinct from, the question of electability. Given a certain ceiling on Clinton's appeal (due largely to years of unhinged attacks from the "vast right-wing conspiracy"), her campaign seems well prepared to run a 50 percent + 1 campaign, a rerun of 2004 but with a state or two switching columns: Florida, maybe, or Ohio. Obama is aiming for something bigger: a landmark sea-change election, with the kind of high favorability and approval ratings that can drive an agenda forward. (emphasis added)
The article is not one-sided. Hayes points out Barack's negatives as well has his positives.
However, ultimately, we have to ask - who will be the most effective and successful leader for the progressive movement?
...Their political identities were formed in the crucible of crisis, from the Gingrich insurgency to the Ken Starr inquisition. The overriding imperative was survival against massive odds, often with a hostile public, press or both. Like an animal caught in a trap that chews off its leg to wriggle away, the Clinton crew by the end of its tenure had hardly any limbs left to propel an agenda. The benefit of this experience, much touted by the Clintons, is that they know how to fight and how to survive. But the cost has been high: those who lived through those years are habituated to playing defense and fighting rear-guard actions. We know how progressives fared under Clintonism: they were the bloodied limbs left in the trap. Clintonism, in other words, is the devil we know.
No limbs left to propel an agenda.
The bloodied limbs left in the trap - that is spot-on analysis. That is also how our current Congressional Democrats have treated us.
A President cannot build a movement, but he can be its messenger, as was Reagan.
...
Obama makes a distinction between bad-faith, implacable enemies (lobbyists, entrenched interests, "operatives") and good-faith ideological opponents (Republicans, independents and conservatives of good conscience). He wants to court the latter and use their support to vanquish the former. This may be improbable, but it crucially allows former Republicans (Obama Republicans?) to cross over without guilt or self-loathing. They are not asked to renounce, only to join.
...
The short answer is that Obama is simply one of the most talented and appealing politicians in recent memory. Perhaps the most. Pollster.com shows a series of polls taken in the Democratic campaign. The graphs plotting national polling numbers as well as those in the first four states show a remarkably consistent pattern. Hillary Clinton starts out with either a modest or, more commonly, a massive lead, owing to her superior name recognition and the popularity of the Clinton brand. As the campaign goes forward Clinton's support either climbs slowly, plateaus or dips. But as the actual contest approaches, and voters start paying attention, Obama's support suddenly begins to grow exponentially.
In addition to persuading those who already vote, Obama has also delivered on one of the hoariest promises in politics: to bring in new voters (especially the young). It's a phenomenon that, if it were to continue with him as nominee, could completely alter the electoral math. Young people are by far the most progressive voters of any age cohort, and they overwhelmingly favor Barack Obama by stunning margins. Their enthusiasm has translated into massive increases in youth turnout in the early contests.
I've seen some of you deride Obama's unity message with the retort that "I don't want to get along with Republicans. I want to crush them." Honestly, so do I. And when Barack Obama effectively creates a progressive majority that actually passes our agenda into law - we will.
Hillary cannot get this done. She is too divisive and stubborn. She lacks vision. "I'm the boss now. Do it my way." In my mind, forcing her will on the process is more important to her than the substance itself. Does this ever work in an office? No. Will it work for Hillary? No. (Yes, it worked for Bush. It won't work for us. Dems don't have the balls to be bastards like Boehner and McConnell.) Sure, she thinks it will. But it won't. Hillary's belief that it will, her unwillingness to look outside herself and her own experiences, shows me that she has boxed herself in from the start. It's selfish. It's a loser. It's not presidential thinking. It is not transcendent. If you think that you are disappointed now with the Dems in Congress after 2006, wait until you've had a year of President Hillary Clinton.
Hillary's overt antagonism and focus on negative engagement will also bring out the opposition vote in force. It's a dream come true for Karl Rove. This will be bad for down-ticket races. Barack will bring out the youth vote. This will be great for down-ticket races and measures.
For me, it's simple. Hillary is the past. Barack is the future. I'm voting for the future.