Chris Bowers describes Barack Obama’s main potential problem perfectly at Open Left: “Obama’s message of bipartisanship means different things to different people. Media elites see it as a sign that he will regularly engage in fights that will anger the progressive activist base of the party. By contrast, many progressive activists see it as simply stating that he intends to build a large, “bipartisan” majority in Congress that will pass a progressive agenda. If, when he becomes President, Obama breaks in one direction or the other, one of these groups will probably end up pretty angry at him.”

Activists might wonder where their progressive governing majority is, while media elites might wonder what happened to the restoration of High Broderism in the federal government. It is in this sense that Obama’s dueling dogwhistles leave a huge question mark as to how his governing mandate will be perceived, and indeed to how he will govern at all.

Of course he hasn’t governed before, so we have to look at other things than “dogwhistles” if we want to know how he will government, Bowers explains. What? How?

Obama’s Vice-Presidential choice now strikes me as extremely key to defining his governing mandate before he takes office. A progressive fighter like Sherrod Brown, Barbara Boxer, Chris Dodd or Russ Feingold would indicate that he does intend to govern as a progressive. (Now, I know there are quibbles with classifying one or all of those people as progressive fighters, but please don’t let the flaws of any of the specific examples take away from the larger point.) By contrast, picking a center-right or Bush Dog type Democrat would send an entirely opposite message. It is in this way that a campaign for a progressive Vice-President under Obama might become one of, if not the, most important fights for progressives between now and August. Obama’s running mate could settle this dog whistle discrepancy once and for all, and help define how he will (hopefully) govern over the next four years.
Look to Obama’s appointments and advisors as the best indications of how he will govern. And then, put pressure on him to pick progressives for those positions. Defining Obama’s mandate as a progressive one could be the biggest fight we face over the next few months, and could make our governing work from 2009 on all easier.

It’s true, and this could indeed become a very serious problem for Obama. Progressive activists won’t like it if Obama governs like a bipartisan president. Centrists and moderates and so on, meanwhile, won’t continue to support Obama if he governs like a true liberal. Style is important, but so are policies.

As such, it seems to me that those who do want Obama to govern like a moderate should try to pressure him into choosing a center-right or centrist running mate. I’d say: let centrist and moderate blogs put some pressure on the Obama campaign by suggesting particular individuals. If they don’t do this, they’ll be sorely disappointed.