Having Lessig in Congress may be a good idea from one perspective: discovering it isn't an episode of The West Wing and actually having to play the role himself instead of having a professional do it.

Otherwise... I think this movement is in for some seriously heartbreaking surprises. On the other hand, it is about time your generation learned what mine did from Jimmy Carter. Then you will understand why the boomers are shrugging their shoulders.

What I don't like is it means if you fail, and there is a very high probability of that based on the agendas, it means another 12 years of right wing executives and Bush gets away with what he and his did cleanly because Obama and those that go in on his coattails will take the penalties when the cows come home on his watch. Try not to mess it up too badly or when you do, try to keep smiling instead of beating the mean drum. It won't help.

You will discover as we did, the cumulative memory of an electorate is extremely short. It takes many millions to keep refreshing it and it doesn't cache. Blaming the last guy in office is no defense when the bumper stickers saying "Don't Blame Me! I Voted for the Other Minority" start appearing.

@len,

I believe there is a very important difference between the time of Jimmy Carter and today: Mass communication between the masses runs rampant and the ability to participate in the process is possible. That's what this movement represents. If we fail, we pick up again and keep going.

The people will win. Helping people understand what and why this movement is important will help ensure that when they do win, the prize is what they believed it would be.

Populist appeals are very workable in campaigns. George Wallace was an example. George W. Bush is an example. An 'empower the people' speech is always thrilling, but it conveys the idea that they are not empowered already, that they do not participate already, that they are not heard.

We elected George W. Bush not once but twice.

The people did speak. They always do.

This is not about an election where one candidate speaks for the people and the other does not. It is not about populism or a movement. It is about governing the country well and for the best benefit of the people so governed. Yes, the will of the people to participate is strong and vital, but the needs of governance are the means and audacity to fight for what is right and to know exactly how to take that fight to Washington in a way that will succeed.

Populists elected Carter. Populists elected Wallace. Populists want to elect Obama, to send populist figures to Washington such as Lessig. Populism can elect a President.

But the buck stops at the Oval Office. It is a real job not a movement. It takes a skilled fighter and one who's heart is as strong as the head. It takes a lifetime of commitment. It takes leadership, but David, leaders are not reflectors. Ultimately we elect our leaders to make decisions that may not be popular. We do not elect them to reflect our will but to govern us and to provide by the power we entrust to them, the protection of the opportunities of liberty and justice.

I've seen what Hillary Clinton can do. I like it. For me, that's what this is about: the only choice I have is to pick the candidate I believe can do the best job and that I trust to do it.

I've seen how hard she fights for her family and her country. I've seen what a woman can do when everything she values is threatened. She prevails. She preserves. She advances.

I trust her.

... And she's sexier. :-)

>> ... And she's sexier. :-)

I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth. ;-)

On a slightly more serious note, have you seen Obama Girl > http://www.obamagirl.com/ ?

And on a completely serious note, there are people who believe wholeheartedly that it is because Obama is likely to be our next president that Lessig *should not* run, instead looking to gain a spot somewhere within Obama's administration or being appointed as a judge.

But we're talking about two different races here: This isn't about Obama + Lessig, this is about Lessig for Congress. Whether or not Lessig wins this election (if he decides to run) will have no effect on whether or not Obama wins the election, and vice versa. What *WILL* have an effect is the open debate and the grassroots effort that is taking place to bring transparency to the process never before seen in any election. This, I believe, will have a profound effect on the races taking place between now and November.

I can only see positive things taking place as a result, regardless of who ultimately takes over GeorgeW's spot in the Oval Office.

Welcome to the generational thing. To someone my age, she is.

If Lessig is riding the coat tails of a movement, the coat tails should be long enough and of the right cut. Do go on. You need to do this. I'm saying, don't get too angry or cynical when it doesn't work yourself or those as well as you expect. Post-election paybacks tend to narrow out the selfless interests because they sacrificed and gave instead of proposing and bargaining.

Lessig is a man who preaches a philosophy the outcome of which for me personally that there are now web sites selling my demos as completed songs without my permission or having even bothered to ask while I work long hours to secure my family's future. It is a philosophy of theft by the elite, and like it or not, David, that is exactly what Bush was about. You will say it is different, but that is only like Bush's friends, you can benefit from that philosophy. So in the end, you are the same.