From the Naomi Klein article referenced by Lambert earlier today:

Many argue otherwise. They say that if we want to end the war, we should simply pick a candidate who is not John McCain and help them win: We'll sort out the details after the Republicans are evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Some of the most prominent anti-war voices--from MoveOn.org to the magazine we write for, The Nation--have gone this route, throwing their weight behind the Obama campaign.

This is a serious strategic mistake. It is during a hotly contested campaign that anti-war forces have the power to actually sway U. S. policy. As soon as we pick sides, we relegate ourselves to mere cheerleaders.

It's not just a mistake in this election, it's always a mistake for citizens that want policies that benefit them.

Politicians are experts at getting you to work your ass off to get what they want (win elected office) while they neglect to fight for what you want (single payer health care, ending the war, etc.).

Once politicians get what they want, the things you want are "complicated" and "unrealistic". As we saw after the 2006 elections, it's not a very good bargain for us.

In the 2008 election cycle, rather than making the candidates earn their support by insisting on specific policy pledges, the blogosphere and other activist groups volunteered to become cheerleaders for one candidate or the other.

Cheerleaders are more willing to forgive their chosen politician's failure to fully and specifically embrace necessary policies because cheerleaders have bought into the idea that the primary objective is "victory" and all other goals are secondary.

By doing this, activists have forfeited the only leverage they have: their vote and their ability to influence other citizens' votes.

Players understand that the real contest is for leverage over politicians. The other team is composed of corporations and super-rich individuals. The prize is enacted, enforced US government policy.

Policy translates into dollars, life and death.

So which side can bring the most pain, pleasure, pressure to bear on a politician?

What can progressive activists do that will have more leverage than hundreds of millions of dollars in legalized bribes (also known as campaign contributions)?

Lambert says that "protests don't work". So far, blog posts haven't either.

Both tactics are working towards the same goal: changing mass public opinion to such an extent that politicians will have to act accordingly or face losing their next election. But this will not work if we give away our support and our vote - our only bargaining chips - without demanding anything in return.