Big Think

Katrina vanden Heuvel and Lawrence Korb Debate Military Escalation in Afghanistan

As we mark Obama's first 100 Days, there is much to celebrate--from repeal of the global gag rule to the passage of the stimulus and the Administration's pledge to close Guantanamo. The budget, a smart blueprint to build a new economy, will demand that progressives mobilize to take on well-funded lobbies intent on obstructing real reform. Yet, as I think about the most troubling aspects of these first 100 days, there are two areas which I fear could endanger the Obama Presidency: the bank bailouts and military escalation in Afghanistan. Americans deserve a real national debate about the Administration's plans in Afghanistan--its ends and means and exits--before undertaking such a major military commitment. That's why Brave New Foundation's work is so essential: with its new documentary Rethink Afghanistan and online debates such as the one CAP's Lawrence Korb and I had last week, BNF is fostering the kind of discussion, debate and dissent that Obama has said he welcomes. BNF's work--along with a network of bloggers, progressive leaders, magazines like The Nation, peace and justice groups--is launching much-needed Congressional hearings on vital areas such as the role and goals of the US military in Afghanistan, oversight of contractors, transparent budgeting and clear metrics to measure progress toward a defined exit strategy. What's key at this pivotal moment is increasing the pressure for constructive, smart, effective non-military solutions to stabilize Afghanistan--and strengthen Pakistan's fragile democratic government. As I argued in the debate with Korb, I believe the more responsible and effective strategy moving forward is to take US-led military escalation off the table, begin to withdraw US troops and support a regional diplomatic solution, including common-sense counterterrorist and national security measures (extensive intelligence cooperation, expert police work, effective border control) and targeted development and reconstruction assistance. The three questions Korb and I debated were tough and vital: 1) Will more US troops in Afghanistan strengthen or weaken terrorist networks? 2) Will more US troops in Afghanistan help to stabilize Pakistan or contribute to its further destabilization? 3) The third question was selected from over 460 questions that were submitted by the Rethink Afghanistan audience: What are the parallels and differences between Vietnam and Afghanistan? 1) Will more US troops in Afghanistan strengthen or weaken terrorist networks? I argued that military escalation is likely to engender more resistance. As the Carnegie Endowment's Gilles Dorronsoro argues, "The mere presence of foreign soldiers fighting a war in Afghanistan is probably the single most important factor in the Taliban's resurgence." He goes on to add that the convergence of nationalism and Jihad has aided the Taliban in extending its influence. A heavier US footprint in Afghanistan's tribal regions, for example, will help recruit fighters for the Taliban and inflame ethnic Pashtun nationalism. The extensive research done by University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape supports those who argue that more troops tend to create more terrorists. Pape's study concludes that military occupation is the principal cause of terrorism. Certainly, it's no coincidence that the governments most vulnerable to Islamic jihadism and successful terrorist recruitment are those that have had a close association with the US military or on whose soil the US military has left the heaviest military footprint. Make no mistake: The Taliban are an ugly phenomenon. They are despised in Afghanistan--with more than 90% of Afghans in a BBC poll saying they oppose the Taliban. Yet, less than half in that same poll see the US-led occupation as a positive alternative. More broadly, I can't recall when a military occupation force won the hearts and minds of any occupied people--especially one with a history of fierce independence and nationalist resistance to outside powers. There's a good reason why Afghanistan is called "the burial ground of empires." 2) Will more US troops in Afghanistan help to stabilize Pakistan or contribute to its further destabilization? In the case of Afghanistan, however, the greatest threat posed by our military occupation may not be the creation of more terrorists but the destabilization of Pakistan. The effect of military operations in Afghanistan has been to push Islamists across the border into tribal areas and Pakistan's Northwest Frontier province. It makes no sense to commit more troops and money to war and occupation in Afghanistan when Al Qaeda can operate relatively freely in parts of Pakistan. Furthermore, expanding the US occupation is likely to only deepen existing divisions in Pakistan and further weaken its fragile democratic government. (US officials told the New York Times last month that Pakistan's military intelligence agency continued to offer funds, supplies and guidance to the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan in order to counter Indian influence in that country.) Extending US military operations into Pakistan is especially destabilizing. All that is accomplishing is driving Taliban militants and Al-Qaeda deeper into the country, where they can infiltrate a heavily populated area, and prey on people are poverty-stricken and neglected by their government. The CIA's use of pilotless drones to kill alleged Al-Qaeda commanders has resulted in heavy collateral civilian casualties and the flight of tens of thousands of terrified people from the tribal areas, triggering popular outrage, revenge attacks, and acting as a recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda and militant Islamist elements. Even if US escalation in Afghanistan could achieve the limited goal of denying Al-Qaeda a presence in Afghanistan--and counterinsurgency experts like Seth Jones of the Rand Corporation argue that you'd need at least triple the number of troops now slated to arrive in the country--it could lead to the destabilization of a nuclear-armed country in a extraordinarily volatile region. By any measure, wouldn't the disintegration of nuclear Pakistan pose a much greater threat to our national security than would the continued presence of Al-Qaeda in remote border areas? Furthermore, the US occupation is already exacerbating tensions in South Asia where the Kashmir conflict and the violence in Mumbai have nuclear-armed Pakistan and India at each other's throats. We may associate Afghanistan with the terrorism of 9-11-2001 but, actually, it now poses a regional problem, not a US security threat. It is inextricably tied to the geopolitics of Central and South Asia: as a result, Afghanistan's problems must be solved by the region's powers, albeit with our diplomatic and financial assistance to development and reconstruction. Progress on stabilizing Afghanistan and strengthening Pakistan depends largely on Pakistani-Indian relations. Of course, this does not mean the US has no role in promoting security. But smart, constructive regional diplomacy and common-sense counterterrorism measures should be the priorities of an Obama Administration--not sending more young men and women to die in the mountains of Afghanistan. And, yes, involvement is also needed by countries involved in what has become known as the Contact Group, which the Obama Administration is wisely engaging--Iran, Russia and China. If we continue to escalate militarily, we will not give regional diplomacy and economic aid a real chance. 3) What are the parallels and differences between Vietnam and Afghanistan? History by analogy is often imperfect; yet it can also be useful. A few thoughts on the similarities: As in Vietnam, we may be facing a situation in which the US military wins every battle and still doesn't win the war--at least not within a timeframe and at a cost that is acceptable to the American people, especially after Iraq. Once again, we are escalating our military presence in a fiercely independent country. Doesn't history tell us that increasing troop levels to fight an insurgency is not a winning formula? The Soviet Union learned this after ten years in Afghanistan; the French learned it in Algeria and the US had its lessons in Vietnam. Government corruption is endemic and we're being tarnished by it. As in Vietnam, efforts to seal the frontiers and borders have failed. The bombing campaign--with civilian casualties--is turning the country's people against US/NATO forces--and fueling anti-Americanism. We saw this in North Vietnam. There is a danger that the costs of Afghanistan could drain the US of the resources it needs to rebuild at home. As Bob Herbert wrote in the New York Times last month, "The US is on its knees economically. As President Obama fights for his myriad domestic programs and his dream of an economic recovery, he might benefit from a look over his shoulder at the link between Vietnam and the still-smoldering ruins of Johnson's Presidency." We are back to counterinsurgency and low--intensity conflicts: As The Nation's Defense Correspondent Michael Klare argues in the latest issue of The Nation, Defense Secretary Robert Gates' new budget represents "the most dramatic shift in US military thinking since the end of the Vietnam War....The message is clear: from now on, counterinsurgency and low-intensity conflict will be the military's principal combat mission." Differences? There are many; here are a few: So far, of course, we do not have half a million troops committed to the war--as was the case in Vietnam. Obama has pledged 60,000 to Afghanistan. Yet, as we know from history, escalation is a slippery ride and though there have been only (approximately) 650 US military deaths in Afghanistan, it is important to remember that that figure is higher than the US military's death toll in Vietnam after nine years of US involvement in that country. The Taliban is not as unified as the Vietcong. But they do have a steady stream of money from a massive heroin trade. Richard Holbrooke was a junior official in the Johnson Administration; today, he is central to devising what is called Af/Pak policy. He should draw lessons from the Vietnam war; yet, in a recent New York Times article, Holbrooke seemed to discount any parallels. Moving forward, let's work to lay out non-military solutions that make sense. Let's be as clear and effective as we can in getting them out to Americans who, after Iraq, and amid a terrible economic crisis, do not seem eager to commit to another war--even one too many Democrats label "the right war." And as BNF's Robert Greenwald suggested, after a recent visit to Kabul, Afghanistan, let's explore alternatives to the militarization of that country's problems. In doing so, we will ensure the possibility that President Obama's ambitious agenda--at home and abroad--has a chance of taking root to create a more peaceful, just and secure world.

April 20, 2009, 2:55 PM

Ask the President

Of his many promises during the 2008 Presidential campaign, one of the most appealing was Barack Obama's pledge to make his administration "the most open and transparent in history." The democratizing tools mastered at MyBarackObama.com and the inspiring grassroots enthusiasm for the Obama campaign opened the door to a presidency that -- in stark contrast to the eight years before it -- could be an honest conversation with the American people. This week we are launching a new project to continue that effort; more on that in a moment. Like many of the issues that Barack Obama now confronts as President, prioritizing his campaign promise of open government and meaningful dialogue with citizens has proved challenging. After some interesting forays into interaction at change.gov during the transition, The White House itself has not yet found it's way forward on interactivity. As newspapers struggle nationwide, and citizens demand more transparency in the wake of unprecedented government action on the economy, I believe this is a critical moment to advance participatory, bottom-up journalism and citizen engagement. Interest in our new President is at a peak, and instituting an independent and sensible way for the people to have a platform at the highest levels of government is essential to informed debate and progress on the changes many of us hope to see over the next four years. In that spirit The Nation, with several partners, is launching a new initiative, "Ask the President," to advance citizen voices and participatory media at The White House. The idea is simple: at www.communitycounts.com/Obama, anyone can submit a question for President Obama, written or by video. Site visitors then vote on the questions, with the most popular and pressing ones rising to the top. We will then send a credentialed journalist into formal Obama Administration press conferences to ask the leading citizen questions. Presently we are in conversations with the Administration about this effort. Our coalition includes new and traditional media from across the political spectrum, including: The Nation, The Washington Times, Personal Democracy Forum, Change.org, Democrats.com, Care2.com, Citizens for Civil Discourse, Craig Newmark (founder of Craigslist), Professor Larry Lessig; Professor Hugh Hewitt (HughHewitt.com); The Field Blog; Jack and Jill Politics Blog; Culture Kitchen Blog and the Smart Mobs blog, among others. So far, initial conversations about this project with The White House have been encouraging. We see this as an innovation that President Obama should welcome -- an independent, cooperative way to forward the President's promise of transparent government that empowers voices beyond Washington. You can read the proposal in more detail by checking out Ari Melber's article in the current issue of The Nation; then go and submit your questions now at Ask the President. The technology, of course, is a means to an end: an engaged and excited electorate having a spirited debate with the President. Granted, this is only one question at a semi-regular event, but as journalism transforms and technology shifts, Ask the President could help to democratize the reporting and prioritizing of political news, and encourage the Obama Administration to keep a critical promise. It's just a first step, but one that we believe is well worth taking.

March 19, 2009, 12:15 PM

Will There Be Justice in New Orleans?

This week The Nation reports on a stunning scandal in New Orleans. Our cover story, Katrina's Hidden Race War, is the result of a tireless 18-month investigation by A.C. Thompson, exposing for the first time a rash of vigilante shootings in New Orleans, as white residents in the Algiers Point neighborhood formed an ad hoc militia and opened fire on black residents fleeing the Lower Ninth Ward for the nearest rescue point. In total, our report uncovered 11 separate incidents. The investigation shows lawlessness, but also a stunning inhumanity. Thompson interviews unrepentant vigilantes, and a video accompanying the article includes footage of vigilantes joking that shooting blacks "was like pheasant season in South Dakota. If it moved, you shot it." Thompson details the suspicious death of Henry Glover, who according to eyewitnesses was shot by vigilantes and then bled to death in his car while police beat his would-be rescuer. Most troubling in all of this is the role of law enforcement, as witnesses allege that New Orleans police covered up and destroyed evidence, authorized the shootings and savagely beat witnesses. To date, not a single incident has ever been investigated. New Orleans police, Homeland Security and the State of Louisiana have refused to answer questions for over 8 months, and Thompson (with the invaluable support of the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute) had to sue to gain access to autopsy records. In total Thompson reviewed over 800 autopsies and state death reports, and amassed a pile of evidence that substantiate his report. "As a reporter who has spent more than a decade covering crime," he wrote, "I was startled to meet so many people with so much detailed information about potentially serious offenses, none of whom have ever been interviewed by police." The full extent of the disregard for poor African-Americans and the embarrassing failure of leadership laid bare by Katrina still remains unknown. New Orleans, and gulf reconstruction, were barely mentioned in the 2008 campaign, and to many the storm is something we would rather put behind us. But Thompson's investigation -- and the extent of evidence about these attacks -- offer the promise of justice for New Orleans. In an editorial accompanying Katrina's Hidden Race War, we wrote that "If we as a nation are ever truly to transcend race, tolerance for racist violence in our midst must come to an end." The Nation, and our friends at the advocacy group Color of Change, are calling for a full investigation into the vigilante attacks. We are urging Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal to appoint a multi-agency task force to find the truth, and we're encouraging Representative John Conyers and Senator Patrick Leahy to use their subpoena power to compel local law enforcement to talk. Conyers has already released a statement, declaring on Thursday that he is "deeply disturbed" by the report, particularly the possibility that local police "fueled, rather than extinguished, the violence." It would be fitting if Eric Holder, after being confirmed as Attorney General, swiftly opened an investigation at the Department of Justice. There can be justice in New Orleans. We invite everyone to read Thompson's investigation here. More importantly, we urge people of conscience everywhere to sign the petition demanding an investigation, and ensure that these brazen acts of violence do not go unsolved.

December 19, 2008, 6:01 PM

A Center-Left Agenda for the First 100 Days

At the end of this remarkable week, we're starting to look ahead to the First 100 Days of the Obama presidency. Already, we're hearing calls in the mainstream media warning the new administration "not to overreach." And working overtime, the Inside-the-Beltway Punditocracy continues to reveal its ability to ignore reality -- even while describing itself as "realist" -- with its claims that this is still a center-right nation, despite all evidence to the contrary. But as Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman writes in yesterday's New York Times, "Let's hope that Mr. Obama has the good sense to ignore this advice...this year's presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies -- and the progressive philosophy won." Obama himself his talked about needing to measure his accomplishments over the first 1,000 Days, rather than 100, given the problems he has inherited from arguably the worst president ever (my words, not Obama's). Indeed, it will take years to undo the damage of the Bush administration and the conservative ideology that has dominated this country for nearly thirty years. But the First 100 Days are still crucial -- not only in signaling to the American people and the world that the administration will take determined steps to repair this nation -- but there is a historical precedent for the need to move forward expeditiously in order to seize the moment and the mandate. President Obama will need to be bold to deal with the challenges he faces: a cratering economy, broken healthcare system, two wars, poverty and inequality, and the stained US reputation in the world. The millions who were mobilized and inspired by Obama's campaign and candidacy also have their work cut out for them -- continuing to drive a bold agenda to respond to these crises -- just as progressives have in recent years on the war, energy independence, trade, healthcare, and other issues that are defining the new "center" of American politics and hearts and minds. Here is a list of actions -- ones I care deeply about -- that President Obama can take in the First 100 Days to immediately achieve real and significant change. Some of these he can literally achieve on Day 1 with the stroke of a pen, others will demand coalition building and an inside-outside strategy to push legislation. Many of these ideas are drawn from good groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International USA, the Apollo Alliance, and Public Citizen. You may have others and I'd welcome hearing yours -- just post a comment. Bush Executive Orders: As Obama himself said of his first 100 days when campaigning in Denver, "I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution." Economic Stimulus: Stop the bleeding -- through expanded health and unemployment benefits and providing real aid to beleaguered state and local governments so they can sustain essential public services. Iraq: Present plan and hold to your timeline for withdrawal. Health Care Reform: Begin immediately by expanding health insurance to kids and passing the State Children's Health Insurance Program legislation vetoed by Bush. Women's Health and Reproductive Rights: Repeal the Global Gag Rule that requires NGOs receiving federal funding to neither promote nor perform abortions in other countries. Energy and the Economy: Announce a clean energy strategy that will reduce oil dependence, address global warming, create thousands of green jobs, and improve national security. Groups like the Apollo Alliance, Center for American Progress, and Natural Resources Defense Council have strong and concrete plans in this regard. Incorporate elements of this plan into stimulus package. Bailout for Main Street: Work to ensure that homeowners have real opportunities to renegotiate mortgages and remain in their homes. Poverty and Inequality: Appoint a Hunger Czar -- as Senator George McGovern and Congressman Jim McGovern call for in a recent op-ed -- who would "coordinate the various food, nutrition and anti-poverty programs... to increase the independence, purchasing power and food security of every human being." Announce your commitment to the goal of cutting poverty in half in ten years. Labor and Trade: Reject Colombia, Korea and Panama trade agreements as currently written and ensure future agreements promote the public interest. Work towards passage of Employee Free Choice Act. Science: Allow federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Global Warming: Reverse the Bush EPA decision and allow California to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Call for a new climate treaty and ask Al Gore to lead that effort. Guantánamo: Close it, and try people in the US or resettle in countries where they face no risk of persecution or torture. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof offers a compelling idea to "turn it into an international center for research on tropical diseases that afflict poor countries... [serving as] an example of multilateral humanitarianism." Detention: Close all CIA black sites and secret detention sites. End extraordinary rendition. Abolish preventive detention that allows people to be held indefinitely without charge. Initiate criminal investigations into programs of rendition and secret detention. End trials by military commission. End opposition to full habeas corpus hearings for detainees in Guantánamo and other similar situations. Make known the names and whereabouts of all those detained in rendition and secret detention programs. Torture: End use in court of any evidence obtained through torture. Officially reject all memos, signing statements and executive orders that justify the use of torture. Establish an independent commission of inquiry into all aspects of detention and interrogation practices in the "war on terror." Announce administration will work for redress and remedy for victims of human rights violations for which US authorities are found to be responsible. Protect Dissent: Ensure that the FBI adheres to surveillance guidelines. Open Justice Department investigation into surveillance related misconduct. Pledge to end all secret surveillance programs not reviewed by courts or congressional committees. Limit State Secrets Privilege: Issue new Executive Orders that reverse the expansion of state secrets privilege and the over-classification of documents. Pass legislation making it clear that military contractors are accountable for abuses. Roll Back Executive Power: Repudiate unitary presidency. Renounce use of signing statements as a tool for altering legislation. Pledge to abide by the War Powers Act and end abuse of Authorization to Use Military Force. (Or as Bruce Fein -- a key player in the Reagan Justice Department -- said, "Renounce presidential power to initiate war anywhere on the planet, including Iran.") These are doable, and by taking these steps -- with deliberate haste -- President Obama would get a real start on repairing our nation and people's lives.

November 9, 2008, 2:58 PM

A Transformational Presidency?

Four years ago we gathered at The Nation to watch the election returns. Around midnight we began to weep. But we had to put out an issue the next day. So, through the grim night and bleak day after, as the Election 2004 verdict became clear, we held our emotions in check and worked to make sense of the disaster that had befallen the country. The cover of our issue that week was of a black sky, dark clouds obscuring a slim and crestfallen moon, with a simple headline: "Four More Years." Four years later, our offices are filled with editors, writers, interns, and colleagues -- some crying, this time with joy -- all jubilant about the new era of possibility opened up by Barack Obama's victory. We know there is work ahead to build a politics of sanity and justice and peace. But tonight we simply celebrate. Obama's election marks a remarkable moment in our country's history -- a milestone in America's scarred racial landscape and a victory for the forces of decency, diversity and tolerance. As our editorial board member Roger Wilkins reminded us on the eve of the election, Obama's win "doesn't turn a switch that eradicates our whole national history and culture." But "win or lose, Obama has already made this a better country, made your children's future better." This long and winding campaign has been marked by highs and lows, necessary and unnecessary divisions, indelible characters and high drama. For the first time in decades, electoral politics became a vehicle for raising expectations and spreading hope -- bringing in millions of new voters. The Obama team's respect for the core decency, dignity and intelligence of the American people was reflected in the campaign's organizing mantra -- "Respect-Empower-Include." In contrast, the McCain campaign chose to denigrate voters' intelligence, spread the smears and mock the dignity of work with its cynical celebration of a plumber who wasn't really a plumber. Grassroots engagement and record-shattering turnout contributed mightily to Obama's decisive victory. Moving forward, this small-d democratic movement -- broad-based and energized -- will be critical in overcoming the timid incrementalists, the forces of money and establishment power, that are obstacles to meaningful change. And it will be needed to forge the fate and fortune of a bold progressive agenda. Already we hear calls that the new Democratic majority must not "overreach." That is code for "do not use your mandate." Ignore those calls -- this election was a referendum on conservatism that has guided American politics since 1980. Indeed, future historians may well view Barack Obama's victory as the end of the age of Reagan and the beginning of something substantially new. And progressives can justifiably claim that the election outcome was a clear repudiation of conservative economic ideas and absurd claims that a more egalitarian approach to growth constitutes "socialism." This ideological rejection, the sharp failures of the Bush Administration and, perhaps most important, the shifts in public views on the economy and the war have led to this watershed moment -- a historic opportunity for a progressive governing agenda and a mandate for bold action. The great challenge for The Nation and other independent and progressive forces is whether we can harness the energy and idealism unleashed by Obama's candidacy -- and the collapse of conservatism-- to expand the limits of the current debate. The Nation, unmortgaged to any economic interest or political power, will continue to challenge our downsized politics of excluded alternatives, propose bold ideas, ferret out the truth, expose corruption and abuse of power, and hold our politicians accountable. We will work with grounded realism and determined idealism to broadly reimagine the future. For the first time in close to a decade, there will be sympathetic allies on the inside of the Executive Branch, and we will need to pepper them with smart and strategic ideas and offer clear alternatives. And working with allies -- activists, thinkers, scholars, progressive members of Congress, the netroots, engaged citizens --The Nation will drive not-yet-ready-for-prime time ideas into the political arena and reset the valence of our politics. We know the Democratic Party is not the only vehicle for change. Historically, the party's finest moments have come when it was pushed into action from the outside by popular social movements. That same pressure is needed now. Retreat and timidity are losing strategies for addressing economic crisis, a shredded social compact, two wars which must be ended, and a damaged reputation abroad -- especially with stronger majorities in Congress and a new president who has raised expectations and promised real change. After years of playing defense, it is time to unshackle our imaginations, build coalitions and craft creative strategies that will move, persuade and push President Obama and a new Congress to seize the mandate they have been offered. We are not naive. We know there are formidable obstacles ahead. Without organizing and grassroots pressure, the corporate power over both parties will continue to suffocate possibilities. And despite the metastasizing financial crisis, the conservative assault on government still cripples our sense of what is fully possible. With the country at an ideological watershed, Obama has a historic opportunity to reshape the ruling paradigm of American politics. The old order that has ruled for nearly thirty years has imploded. Building a new order will require continued mobilization and strategic creativity. It will be vital to sustain a reform politics and movement independent of the administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress. Progressives in the Senate and the House, many grouped around the Progressive Caucus, can provide both leadership and a public forum for new ideas. Cutting-edge and independent organizations like the Apollo Alliance, the Campaign for America's Future, the Institute for Policy Studies and the Economic Policy Institute can help us think outside the establishment box. Independent media, new and old -- and, as in the case of The Nation, new/old -- can track the limits of the debate and give new ideas greater visibility. Reform leaders at the state and local levels can champion legislation that will be a model for the national agenda. And the emerging grassroots movements, supported by the idealism, energy and civic spirit of the young, will be crucial to tap and channel into post-electoral organizing work. History tells us how Franklin Delano Roosevelt was compelled to abandon caution because of the great traumas of his day. The Great Depression gave him little choice but to be bold. But it was popular social movements working outside the administration and empowered unions of that time that put strong pressure on FDR to carry out bolder reforms. That outside force was disciplined, strategic and focused, and it made the FDR years much better than if people had just sat back and let the President fend for himself against special interests. There's a powerful lesson in there for the movements of our times. Likewise, our hard times may push Obama to become a more boldly reformist President than he had envisioned -- one who really does rearrange power on behalf of the people. But as we know from history and these last years -- as progressives have driven the agenda on war, a green economy, trade and energy independence -- Obama will need to hear from (and listen to) the millions of grassroots activists he has inspired if he is to overcome establishment power and well-funded lobbies. I believe the fate of Obama's presidency will be determined by how bold he chooses to be. We may not agree with everything he will do, but he has a historic opportunity to be a truly transformative president and lead the country in a new direction. He has run a brilliant campaign in which he has spoken eloquently of the power and promise of "change from below." Will that understanding lead him to re-envision a government that truly reorders America's priorities and values, and reconnects with the needs of people? After all, isn't it long past time to confront neglected social needs, tackle the deep corruption in our financial system and corporations, restore our civil liberties and respect for human rights, enact universal health care, protect a worker's right to organize, invest in renewable energy and a green economy, end the endless wars, and regain America's standing in the world? Today we celebrate. Tomorrow we begin our work -- with passion, conviction, hope, and determination. Read more reaction from HuffPost bloggers to Barack Obama's victory in the 2008 presidential election

November 5, 2008, 11:50 AM