November 2006: Democrats across the country rejoice as the results begin pouring in and it becomes clear that voters have not just soured on the Republicans, but have served up a full-fledged beatdown, tossing control of both chambers to the Democrats - in the case of the House, with a margin that is likely to sustain control for a decade. With such a slim margin in the Senate, and with the ever-present possibility of the presidential veto, sweeping legislative change is an impossibility, but other avenues - potential impeachment hearings, Conyers and his oversight mandates, the ability to at least force Republicans into embarassing filibusters - portend other equally important changes.
Well, they got Gonzalez. The House has given a few headaches to Senators who would pass the Republican FISA bill. Really, the only change of true import was that the corporate media by and large stopped carrying the GOP's water for them. By virtually any pre-election progressive benchmark, the 110th has been a dead letter.
But this time, it is said, we will have true change, for we will have not just the waning legislative arms of governance, but the be-all-end-all of American power - the presidency.
What's alarming, however, is just how little the candidates seem to be getting drawn out into fully articulating what sort of change a new Democratic presidency would entail. Obama gives us hope, Clinton empowerment and experience. This is not to say one can't head over to one of the two campaign websites and harvest some policy positions. But, beyond health care coverage, which both candidates would like to expand, and withdrawl from Iraq, which behind-the-scenes revelations and common sense indicate may be more rhetoric than committment, policy positions have not really driven the narrative of the campaigns.
To some extent inevitable; no one wins the presidency on meat and potatoes. But this extends down to the supporters. Why such enmity between the Obama and Clinton camps? Process. Clinton doesn't play nice. She runs an establishment campaign. Obama condescends. Etc.
Does it change in the general? At this point we get a long dialogue on whether we're in Iraq indefinitely, or withdrawing sometime a bit sooner. A crucial topic, for sure, but the rest of the menu of would-be progressive possibilities takes a sideline.
So now is the time to figure out what exactly you want to see from the next Democratic administration and to commit it to memory. What is the benchmark? There was once a lot of talk of Overton windows on this site, and a citizenry that infers good governance from party labels or personal attachments can have its frames adjusted at will.
So I'm curious. What is the minimum your preferred candidate would have to accomplish in the first term to be successful in your eyes?