I think the idea of building and looking toward 2010 is a good one. Not only will this allow you to have an effect on the candidates in the present, by potentially making them fear what might happen in the next election, but it also gives your project plenty of time to anticipate counter-moves and efforts, and to more wisely raise and expend money where it will be most effective.

A possible theme that might harmonize with your cause is the inevitable post-2008 media narrative wondering "Will There Be A Backlash Against Democrats?" As you know, they love those kinds of angles, anything to make everything constantly "equal" among Democrats and Republicans (but only when Democrats are ascendant). While 2008 is really just a Democratic juggernaut year in which even their best efforts to lose would fail, 2010 will be chock full of this Republican-counterstrike theme, and depending on the two years in between, there may be other points of frustration with the Democrats.

This will, in turn, make many incumbents nervous, giving your campaign an added pressure point. True, many will probably revert to the lizard-brained default of "moving to the center" when afraid, but I'm guessing that dissatisfaction with congressional Democrats in 2010 will come largely from their inability or reluctance to push forward left-leaning policies and reforms.

As others have said, Democrats in Congress, doing what they do best, will eventually feel compelled to show their "courage" by standing up to their fellow Democrat, President Obama. This will likely piss people off to no end, and you may be able to exploit the angle that, look, we've got a Democratic President and a huge Democratic majority in Congress, so what gives with these Blue Dogs and others obstructing our agenda?

In terms of politics, this is all very long-term guesswork on my part, but I think it's a fairly safe bet. Applying your efforts with an eye toward 2010 strikes me as very innovative and promising.

Cheers.

Judging from many comments here and elsewhere, I see there's just no getting away from the childish Obama-can-do-no-wrong vs. Obama-sucks-completely dichotomy.

To discuss politics at any length, one has to have an exceedingly high tolerance for simple-mindedness.

Mr. Craig's response is representative of the larger thematic transformation of the Obama campaign. He and his advisors paper/talk over previous substantive distinctions and truths in favor of perceived political expediency. The contradiction is irrelevant in the eyes of the advocates of this futile task because their goal is no longer to be principled or right on the subject, but simply to broadcast a generic wavelength of "centrism" through standardized, Republican-sympathetic talking points.

This is the politics (ham-handed at that) beginning to trump the actual good. My sincere belief is that this craven abandonment of principle for predictably misperceived expediency angers the unwashed base and bloggers on a far deeper level than the substance of the new position taken.

Certainly this is true for me, at least. Not the Change I was looking for.

The mythic "center" strikes again. Yet again, it bears a striking resemblance to unadulterated Republican policies and objectives.

Only Democrats need to "move to the middle." Republicans are permitted by the media (and their own party) to act "on principle" and give the finger to Democratic goals as much as they like.

Of course.

I'm sorry, but in Obama I see a cunning character in a sharp suit. With worn out knees. You gotta kneel when you beg . . .

Oh you're so right, he's no better than McCain. And I can see no better way to ensure good outcomes than by condemning the Democratic candidate for president as hardly different than his opponent, now that the Democratic primaries are over and the Republican candidate looks like Bush on amphetamines with regard to national security issues.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. I'm a fool for thinking that elected Democrats were anything more than Republicans in cheap suits with a slightly kinder (sounding) bent.

I think this is very easy to overstate. While of course I agree that Democrats have been entirely too willing to roll over or actively enable pernicious Republican policies, no one can fairly say that there is no real difference between our choices for President.

The congressional experience is different - the inherent bargaining and group diffusion of responsibility of the legislature allows for greater abandonment of principles on a wider array of issues. While Obama may not be doing enough on the FISA issue (for whatever reasons) there's absolutely no question in my mind that he would not be "same as the old boss" - not even same as the potential new Republican boss, McCain.

Due to districting and general state dynamics, Congressional Democrats can be targeted in primaries without necessarily threatening the eventual Democratic candidate's chances in the general election. Moreover, even if the Democratic candidate loses to the Republican, the effect of losing a single representative pales in comparison to losing a presidential election. Even the primary dynamics of presidential versus congressional races are different, with congressional races being far more responsive to issue-based challenges and pressure.

This is not to say that Obama should not be pressured into putting his finger on the till regarding FISA. This is, however, to say that we must keep strongly in mind that there are immense differences between him and McCain - differences that more than justify voting/donating even if you are dissatisfied with his activism on FISA.