There are many reasons. First is that during the Bush administration, which has run roughshod over the rights of Americans and citizens of the world, there was really no sense of hope. People organized and spoke out, but in the end we still had to endure 8 years of awful, and all it may have done was ensure that Bush goes out with a dismal approval rating. Now with Obama, however, there is that inkling of hope, that possibility that the world could really change for the best. The bad thing about this, though, is that should the change we want fail to come, then it will be that much more painful because we dared to hope.

Second is that Obama has consistently moved towards the political “center”, against the ideology of many of the people who supported him, to maximize his electability. From a purely political standpoint I understand it, but I can only hope that he returns to his liberal roots. Furthermore, as many progressive commentators have observed, Obama got the vote of the left by default. He did not have to work for it, and so he was not held accountable BY the left.

Just because it was the people in the center – those ever hard to define “independents” – who may have pushed Obama over the line, he would not have even been a contender were it not for the the people on the left who voted for him in huge numbers. The left MUST hold him accountable after he has taken office, MUST have his ear more than the lobbyists.

The economic and political climate changed dramatically during the Presidential campaign, and in a way that no doubt gave Obama the edge where he previously might not have had it. Because of that, we can expect him not to be able to deliver on all of his campaign promises. There is one promise that he MUST keep, however, and it is one of his first – to not succumb to “special interest groups”.

As of now, I am concerned about his choice of Rahm Emmanuel for chief of staff, given that man’s background and history as not only a quintessential Washington insider, but a member of the pro-Israel lobby. While I am not someone who thinks that “pro-Israel” always has to mean “anti-Palestinian” or “anti-justice” – I’d like to see peace for all people in that region – that is what it has amounted to historically. The choice of Emmanuel represents – especially to the people of the Middle East – a maintenance of the status quo instead of any real “change”.

I acknowledge now that I cannot pin all my hopes on that expectation, nor on one man, since unlike Bush thinks, the POTUS is not an all-powerful dictator. Thus he alone does not have the power to institute the kind of “CHANGE” that he preaches. You’ll notice that in my endorsement of Obama, I recognize that I am voting more for an ideal than for a man. I have become skeptical of Obama in recent weeks, but I will still vote for him as the best viable option, since third party candidates – by virtue of their non-presence in the mass media – have no chance in hell.

It is my wish, though, to start some kind of accountability movement – a conceivable slogan being “We Voted For You, Now Listen To Us”. But how exactly does one go about starting such a movement? There are so many millions of people in this country, and most are predisposed to maintaining the status quo, even where it clearly is in their best interests to change things. I suspect most people don’t know the power we have as a citizenry, and those amongst us who do, are either too lazy or “don’t have time” to do anything substantial.

I subscribe to a fair amount of newsletters and blogs, like Taxpayers for Common Sense, Project on Government Oversight, Corpwatch, and others, but while they keep me apprised of what’s happening in government, they don’t really tell me what I can or am supposed to do about it, other than to donate and keep their sites running.

The internet has given even the average joe the unprecedented ability to mass-communicate, but at the same time it has lessened the impact of every message put out there for that same reason. Why should anyone listen to Average Joe? He might be just another “liberal” or “right-wing” crack-job.

So what’s to get anyone to listen to me or any organization I create? Those of us who have the desire to move, to hold an Obama (or god forbid McCain) Presidency accountable to all the campaign rhetoric and likely-empty promises are few and far between. What is their incentive to mobilize, aside from the infeasible prospect of actually having an impact? And how do we even go about doing so in any meaningful way?

I think this is the problem that a lot of would-be activists face – or maybe I’m just speaking for myself. I look at a guy like Dennis Kucinich, who aligns with me on nearly every issue, who is actually IN the House and thus should have their ears, but even he is mostly ineffectual in bringing about any real change. So what are the rest of us – who have much smaller voices – to do?

Andrew Gebhardt of Counterpunch, who in a recent post mentioned the same kind of progressive action I’d like to initiate, responded to my question personally by suggesting I get involved with any number of grassroots community groups particular to the issue or issues I care most about. While I think this would give me some sense of purpose or of making even a small difference, it is not a small difference that I wish to make.

Furthermore, while I recognize the differences made “on the ground” by various organizations, it is pushing for action by people “on the hill” that interests me. I can’t help but feel that no matter what actions we take on a local or smaller level, those efforts stand to be undermined by the sweeping policies of those in Washington. For example, joining a pro-choice group to help escort women safely across angry picket lines would instantly become meaningless if Roe v. Wade was overturned.

I want to do more. I know there are others like me out there, but I have no idea how to reach out to them, or how to get them to unite for this particular cause. For now I wait with bated breath for the outcome of tomorrow’s election. I am certain I will have more to say on Wednesday, pending the results.

So that we’re clear, that would be communism. And it is even further from what Obama is proposing than libertarian free-market capitalism. One need look no further than Obama’s surrogates (a practice the right is obsessed with when it suits their agenda) to determine whether or not his economic policies evoke communism. Cue Warren Buffett, currently the richest man on the planet Earth, and one of Obama’s campaign advisors. Buffett would have more to lose than anyone were the United States to somehow become communist, so I doubt that he would support a candidate running on such a platform.

In my view, there is at least one vein of socialism which is appealing, and that is one where all citizens are entitled to a basic level of fundamental services (food, shelter, medical care) – something that out of necessity would require government intervention. The downside, of course, is that the taxes would be crushing by comparison to our current system, but when you consider that the money lost in taxes is going to paying for the things you’d spend it on, anyway, it doesn’t seem so bad.

But what’s important to note is that in such a system, there would not be any cap on income potential, meaning that after the baseline was established for all citizens, any individual could be expected to make income above and beyond the baseline for any additional comforts or flat-out indulgences they see fit. In other words, socialism in this sense would be just like capitalism, except that everyone would be taken care of at least on the most basic level.

I understand the arguments of people who don’t want their money going into a pool that benefits people they deem lazy – including people who are actually lazy, but here I would appeal to their better natures, and point out that where society is better as a whole, we can strive to be better as individuals. In the current system, you may deny the lazy man the food for his table while you splurge on a new car to keep up with Mr. and Mrs. Jones, but that lazy man may then be desperate enough to shoot you and steal your new car. Now that is not to say that there is a cause and effect relationship between poverty and crime, but there are certainly strong correlations.

Anyway, I’m not about to go into any more detail about the prospective ideals of this brand of socialism. What’s important to point out, though, is that what Barack Obama is proposing is nare a degree closer to socialism in any form than the system we currently have in place. And so, were I a socialist (the jury is out as I continue to investigate the pros and cons), Barack Obama would not be my candidate.