Considering that the last major Democratic Party internal power structure was openly dedicated to pushing back the liberal / labor agenda within the party, and did so rabidly by pushing most of its major legislation through with Republican support against a majority of Congressional Democrats, does the new thing sound worse?

Realignments always center around individuals. Jackson, Lincon, Roosevelt, Reagan. They were Realignment, their ideas were mostly incidental. I know policy wonks hate admitting that, but it doesn't really make it any less true. The challenge is always about harnessing the individuals charisma and popularity so that it affects people's view of the party long after they are gone.

Smart man. That is something to worry about. Obama worries about it too. Here's what he said on the subject more than 12 years ago.

"[Harold Washington] was a classic charismatic leader," Obama said, "and when he died all of that dissipated. This potentially powerful collective spirit that went into supporting him was never translated into clear principles, or into an articulable agenda for community change. ... When Harold died, everyone claimed the mantle of his vision and went off in different directions. All that power dissipated."

Obama is more aware than anyone of the messiah complex. I recommend the entire article, which is remarkable in showing that Obama has not much changed:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/obama/951208/

So in other words it's like the last major Democratic Party alignment centering on Bill Clinton?

NS: So in other words it's like the last major Democratic Party alignment centering on Bill Clinton?

That's pretty much what Stoller wrote.

Re: Real Dangers - Any sort of 'movement' centered on an individual maintains its momentum only as long as that individual does. If Obama stumbles, then - legitimate argument or not - much of the wind is taken out of the movement's sails. Look at what the past eight years of Bush has done to strengthen the messages of conservatism.

Best thing for Obama to do is to continue making sure people understand that his campaign is not about him, but about the people who are responding to what he's saying...

...because, it really isn't about one person...

"I would amplify this and point out that it's time to get ready for a party that is being taken apart and rebuilt as the Obama movement."

Makes sense, especially with the overwhelming mandate of votes Obama has received. Oh. Wait. That's right. He hasn't. He's, ahem, "caucused." Obama's mandate is about as strong as GW's was in 2000. Glad to see it hasn't gone to his head.

Obama's faction might wind up like Clinton's faction, but there's no reason it couldn't wind up being like Dean's faction instead. After Dean for America flamed out, it transitioned pretty quickly into Democracy for America, which puts a lot of work into the 50-state strategy.

Stoller argues that Bill Clinton took control of the Democratic Party apparatus and was the center of the party. He adds that Obama is going beyond that and looking to clear the field of any group on the left that isn't Obamacentric. That is a major difference.

graped_crush needs to re-read Stoller's piece. It contradicts the idea that the "movement" isn't about Obama.

By stripping power, money and responsibility from outside groups and opponents, Obama is increasing his control of the party apparatus. He is also, however, putting everything on his own shoulders.

ginger is maryann:

Makes sense, especially with the overwhelming mandate of votes Obama has received. Oh. Wait. That's right. He hasn't.

If (increasingly when) the general election rolls around, we'll be better able to judge that.

Obama's mandate is about as strong as GW's was in 2000.

Actually, Dubya had a pretty clear majority over McCain in the Repub primary race, Ginger.

All the analysis above misses the fundamental point: pulling together a broad-based coalition is intrinsically progressive in the current political context. The conservatives and Republicans most important tactic, and I would argue fundamental campaign principle, has been to split the body politic into opposing splinters--as per the gay marriage "crisis" they ran on in 2004 and tried to run on in 2006.

Yes, I wish Obama were pushing more strongly to the left. But look at what he has to do deal with as President: health care reform, global warming, Iraq, and a weak economy. Given those challenged, I think he'll get a lot more done by having a broad base.

And it's a reasonable choice--getting more done of somewhat progressive nature, as opposed to getting less done of a more progressive nature.

It's funny that you hype the centralization of the campaign. The only thing centralized is the overall strategy and message. He farms as much of everything else out to constituent volunteers as he can.

He's creating a new political model in which his local supporters will become their own best advocates. Instead of Barack representing them, they will be lobbying him and the party as local special interests.

Early on, Stoller highlighted how 1.25 million had voted in the Democratic Primary in Indiana, over the 925,000 that voted for Kerry in last general.

Then he goes on to talk about Obama, and it's interesting stuff.

But slightly more than half of those 1.25 million turned out to vote for Hillary. But never mind.

She AND Obama are working this thing, talking about the America they want to see. And people like them both.

jake: graped_crush needs to re-read Stoller's piece. It contradicts the idea that the "movement" isn't about Obama.

Not in the snippet you cited, Jake. There's a political 'movement' and political infrastructure. While Obama may be taking control of the political infrastructure, the 'movement' aspect of it goes beyond Obama. My post makes the suggestion that movements need to be centered on the ideas, not the individual at the forefront delivering the messages...

Obama - and Clinton, belatedly - seem to have tapped into an underlying populist sentiment that existed before they began their campaigns. I don't want that good sentiment to be strongly tied to an individual, hence the "Best thing for Obama to do is to continue making sure people understand that his campaign is not about him" line.

Now, you can tell me I'm wrong and that it's all because of the Cult of Obama, but that's not really true, is it?

(lack of preview is killin' me)

"Actually, Dubya had a pretty clear majority over McCain in the Repub primary race, Ginger."

by using the same negative attacks, I'd add.

In 1936, FDR's campaign manager explicitly told campaign workers and volunteers to avoid referring to Democrats and keep the focus on Roosevelt.

Roosevelt, who presided over a major realignment of the Democratic party, made it possible by bringing dispariate new elements -- western populists like the MN Farmer-Labor party and the Wisc. Progressives, the CIO's LNPL and urban progrssives like the NYC Labor party -- who felt loyalty to him, not the Democrats.

Of course that loyalty carried on beyond FDR.

Obama is changing the Democratic Party, and creating a new, centralized power structure that's much more powerful and vibrant than anything we've seen previously, but also entirely dependent on, and controlled by, the person of Barack Obama. And it's en route to creating a majority that's centered around a particular individual in a particular moment with a particular message -- not a party.

Er.....wasn't that the way our enemies of WW II were all structured?

Gawd, the pompous hypberole of the Obamites gets further removed from reality and into the realm of Orwellian.

Stoller, like Sully and Kos, are looking for their savior.
And this line from Stoller's fantasy projections is classic and revealing in its utter shallowness and a perfect barometer for the gullible children of American Idol:

“When you disagree with Obama, you are saying to these people ‘your favorite band sucks’.”

Now that is some heavy insight. The pundits in the blogosphere are rapidly becoming the not-to-be-trusted.

becoming?

Somehow, I'm not surprised that Obama would build a movement mainly under his influence.

It's our task to build institutions that challenge concentrated power for a progressive agenda -- always has been, always will be.

That problems has always existed. Look at the empire of alexander the great. He went to great pains to install leaders that maintain his empire.. yet due to their lacking abilities the empire fell apart relatively soon after the demise of the leader himself.

Every leader has to work to insure his legacy will last after his departure, even moreso in a system where you are limited to 1 short 4-8 year stint of power.

The hard thing is in order to do that Obama doesnt just have to come up with good deputies, he would have to retrain the entire U.S. public on what it means to be a citizen. That contributing to this society doesnt meant just showing up in November, paying taxes, and then everything is taken care of. Thats an awful big order.

He has made a good start of it, because he actually takes time to answer the questions that are put to him. Watch any of his interviews, and you get more information in his answers then anyone could have expected from a politician in a long time.

He's allowing us to participate in the debate, and even disagree. Other politicians dont let you participate, because they dont allow anyone to know what their ideas really are, where the opinions are leading, or what their justifications are for decisions. Its a start, but theres a long way to go. I hope he makes it.

Thank goodness for the Green Party.

Anyone having Deja vue?

Remember the unbeatable John Kerry who was beating Bush this time in 2004?
He was just the man we needed to take on the Republicans.

Take these words for instance:

"2008 could be a decisive victory for Obama. The reason to think so is historical.... If you look at key indicators beyond the neck-and-neck support for the two candidates in the polls--such as high turnout in the early Democratic primaries and the likelihood of a high turnout in November--it seems improbable that McCain will win big. More likely, it's going to be Obama in a rout."

Of courswe those were the words of CHUCK TODD the MSNBC expert...except the names were Kerry and Bush and it was 2004. Todd was predicting a Kerry landslide:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.todd.html

High turnout in primaries, expected hgh turnout election.....Have you heard this song before??

Is this a realignment or a third party getting its start within an existing party? It isn't just the progressive policy, it's the style that's new. Perhaps Obama has figured out how, in our two-party system, to create a thrid party. And he - and his campaign - constantly emphasize that it's us, not him, who will be the change agents in Washington.

"Perhaps Obama has figured out how, in our two-party system, to create a thrid party."

If so, I'm hoping for a 4th!

It isn't just the progressive policy, it's the style that's new.

What progressive policy?

It's a good observation, and Barack's moves are portentous. In the hands of a benevolent dictator, the structure will magnify the good he can do. If he proves otherwise, then the opposite shall occur. The closest parallel I can think of is Hugo Chavez and his machine in Venezuela. Like Hugo, Barack understands that true power comes from the voice of the people...(or if you watched "Rome" on HBO...the "mob.") As for whether this is a "new" thing, hardly not. It is just that Barack has recognized the unique innovation of the modern world...the internet, and harnessed its power for his purposes. He has discarded the previous model, the bundlers and the important men who controlled access to big money that was controlled by the Clintons, and created his own self-sustaning support mechanism.

"He has discarded the previous model, the bundlers and the important men who controlled access to big money that was controlled by the Clintons, and created his own self-sustaning support mechanism."

And so the myth that was BO came to be.

Maybe they could give out clothespins as election favors: so folks won't have to hold their noses while voting for BO. LOL

Mr. Obama will win.