As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the times. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues. [...] Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.

The shrewd pol recognizes the difference between her role and that of activists. In 2009, Chris Bowers discussed this Left Flank role with Bill Clinton:

President Clinton told the assembled bloggers that one of the best things they could do for elected Democrats is to function as a "countervailing" source of progressive pressure. That is, he encouraged us to offer left-wing criticism of Democrats on key policy areas, and that we should urge our leaders and elected officials to favor further reaching, more community-focused public policy. In fact, he indicated that he would have wanted more such progressive media pushing him during his time in office.

Like the Daily Kos commenter though, many want the Occupy Movement to be "shrewd" and "understand" that electing Democrats has to be the key goal for all progressive activists. For me and others like me, this may seem true. As Bowers wrote, Clinton wanted that type of "shrewd" activist:

President Clinton told the assembled bloggers that they should focus their pressure in a "sophisticated" pattern, focusing specifically on members of Congress who could be the most influenced. By this, he meant Democrats in safe blue districts afraid of primary challenges, and members of both parties in districts that could be swung in the next general election.

With due respect to President Clinton, not every activist can or should be "shrewd" in this way. It takes a "village" of societal forces to bring progressive change. In my first essay as a Featured Writer at Daily Kos, Frederick-Douglass: The activist who would not grow up, I wrote:

Frederick Douglass, the indefatigable activist, judging Abraham Lincoln, the politician and statesman. The activist does not "grow up," is not "reasonable," and does not justify political compromise. The politician does. Sometimes more than he should, for his own political sake. But the activist does not judge his success by the political fortune of the politician, but on the success of his activism. Frederick Douglass fought for emancipation, liberty and equality. He achieved success in his activism. In the light of history, he can judge the politician fairly. But in the moment of activism it is not his or her place to stop to consider the judgment of history on the politician. That task remains to others.

And yet, not every activist need be rigid or uncompromising. There is room for the "electoral" activist—the "shrewd" activist, fully engaged in the electoral process and ready to shift gears into "election" mode. For a time, I rejected this distinction:

MoveOn and many of the leading left-wing blogs have become nothing but appendages of the Democratic party - defending every initiative, no matter how wrong-headed, cowardly and obviously ineffective. And since the Iraq supplemental fight, where the netroots did such a horrible job, the discussions of what congress should do to end the Iraq debacle are practically nonexistent in the leading left blogs. They have seemed intent on confirming Bai's view that the netroots are more interested in being kingmakers than in dealing with the issues. A review of the leading Left blogs shows very little coverage of Iraq issues and what congress should be doing. Instead, they are obsessed with 2008 presidential horserace blogging.

I'm not sure I was wrong in my assessment at the time, but I also have added nuance to my views. Part of the reason why is that there is now new space being opened by forces other than the Left blogs. Spaces that are frankly to the left of the progressive blogosphere. Perhaps blogs like Daily Kos need not be primarily concerned with widening the political space on the Left. Perhaps now, with the emergence of the Occupy Movement, the blogosphere is no longer our left flank:

[W]hen they get trounced in elections, the Right Wing activists wield more power than the Progressive activists. And the reason is, in my opinion, Right Wing activists put their issues first, their pols second. They remember what elections and politics are actually about - what the policy looks like in the end.

The Occupy Movement makes this less true than before. As Judis noted:

Without leftwing ferment from below, liberalism becomes powerless in the face of business and the organized right. That happened in the 1920s and the 1980s and in the early part of this century—and it threatens to happen again now. [...] The Occupy Wall Street movements [...] along with Elizabeth Warren’s fledgling Senate campaign in Massachusetts and the continuing protest against autocratic government in Ohio and Wisconsin, they represent a genuine spark of grassroots political action—a chance, finally, to redeem the promise of Obama’s 2008 campaign. We have to make sure we don’t squander it.

The Occupy Movement is quickly becoming an essential component of the progressive Village. But it takes more than a grassroots movement. It takes electoral activism and, yes, responsive politicians.

For years, the blogs, like Daily Kos, have provided electoral activism. The pols have been a bit slow on the response, to say the least. Maybe what they needed to see was a grassroots movement. Enter the Occupy Movement.

The makings of a functional progressive village seems to be, possibly, in our future.