What is 'change you can believe in'?
It's really not that hard to define. Change is an alternative to...
Big Business driving economic policy at the expense of workers & small businesses.
Big Banks manipulating our financial system at the expense of the consumer.
Big Health profiting from public research while suppressing competitive pressure.
Big Education protecting poor teachers rather than enriching students.
Big Energy controlling our environmental policy & burdening our foreign policy.
Big Defense driving our foreign relations.
So how have Obama & Dems addressed the above items?
The commonality in the change list is 'Big', which is just another post-60's way of saying 'Establishment'. There is a real sense in America that our government is ruled by puppet masters, and the playing field is tilted against the 'little person'. With every passing month of No Real Change, history merely repeats itself.
Fortunately, Obama and the Dems are getting a taste of what will occur should they continue a No Real Change agenda. One can only imagine that the Democratic leadership is not liking this state of affairs: A Democratic stronghold is not accepting their version of change.
Or is it so upsetting?
Are Dems really that upset at the prospect of a loss?
Perhaps the Dems are perfectly fine with the status quo of jerking the same strings. After all, politics is a never-ending race, so perhaps it's ok to hand the baton back-and-forth with the only other runner in the game. As my prior post cynically states, in politics everyone wins (and sometimes the 'loser' wins more). Not getting anything done in Washington actually ensures that the same base can be motivated by the same old issues. For a politician, beating the same dead horse is easy money (and cushy post-government jobs!)
If you're looking for optimism, it's not far-fetched to see that a Dem loss in MA could truly be a win-win situation for progressives.
If the Dems are real about change, then a MA loss will motivate them like never before to articulate that change and act on it. They will put forward bills which are so soundly in the public good that even a cynical public will waken to the fact that government can really work for 'the common good'. Every Republican fillibuster will only reveal the GOP as being the 'anti-change' party. In the wake of public backlash against an obstructionist policy, no doubt a few of the GOP members will cross party lines to protect themselves (a la a certain PA senator) and perhaps even simply be motivated by voting for a good bill.
If the Democratic 'powers-that-be' are apathetic about real change, then a MA loss could bring change to the Progressives. A big loss could be the eye-opener for Progressives and expose how voters view Democratic 'change' prospects. A big Democratic loss could be the straw that breaks the mules back and causes progressives to look for an alternative to the Democratic party. Rather than being held back by the unions and all the Democratic anchors, Practical & Principled Progressives (PPP) can field candidates that articulate change without the Democratic monkey label on their backs. No more archaic primary rules, no more skeletal special interests.
For progressives, it all begins by retaining credibility and that means standing against the No Real Change agenda and weak 'Establishment' candidates. By nature, Progressives are the ultimate change engine, and if they refuse to back No Real Change, they can assume the position of being the arbiters of change. Perhaps like no other time, there is room for a 3rd political party.
For progressives, MA could again start a revolution. Yes, it could be seen as a loss, but only as Bunker Hill was a loss.
Note: This is not a heartfelt plea from a progressive. This is a cerebral plea from someone who sees little logic in our current state of affairs.