Because if the GOAL is progressive change (rather than the scorched-earth, bring on the revolution sentiment), then someone needs to explain to me how 'sniping from the sidelines' as Helen put it, helps anything.
See the difference? The question has nothing to do with whether Obama is or is not a liar/progressive/stalking-horse/corporate shill/savior/hedge-fund-manager-in sheeps clothing/etc. Excuse my tone, but having you patiently explain a distinction to me that I've been making, to no avail apparently, since fucking yesterday is causing my temper to flare. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
It just said,
ight - it'll be good to get those straight-talking republicans back in power...
Refusing to understand that Obama is an obstacle to progressive change will not get more progressives elected in the midterms. So what is the relevance of "ooh, the Republicans are even worse than Obama".
Ignorance of the strategic terrain is not a benefit going into or in the middle of a fight. What progressives win this fall will be in spite of and not because of the White House, and if progressives go into the final months banking on some kind of friendly covering fire from the White House ... which is, after all, on the sidelines, not in the trenches ... that won't be a benefit to anybody.
In the end, I don't get your framing. What good does sniping at people in the fight on behalf of the White House on the sidelines do? I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
You don't get my framing and I don't get yours. That's why I asked the question. So far, Helen is the only one who's actually addressed it.
And for the record -- I'm not sniping at people 'on behalf of the White House." I asked what the point is in repeating what I see as negative, destructive 'points' that don't enlighten or inspire anyone and then got swamped with bullshit.
SO FAR, no one has explained to me how this helps anyone in any way. We haven't even GOTTEN to 'ignorance of the strategic terrain' yet.
So go ahead and call Obama an obstacle to progressive change. It's very inspiring. I can totally see how left-wing name-calling is superior to right-wing name-calling. I'm sure that liberals everywhere will hear that and be galvanized to volunteer for worthy causes.
This tactic of repeatedly pointing out how lousy Dem leaders are is tried and true -- look at Carter and Gore! -- I'm sure if you just keep pointing out what an obstacle the Democrats are to progressive change, that progressives will rush to the polls to elect more Democrats. Let me know how that strategic terrain works out for ya. I'm done. Carry on. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
In the context of your argument, that comment undermined the argument that you are seeking either inspiration or enlightenment, and makes it seem that what you are looking for is a quarrel built on cheap shots.
It is of course not possible to both enlighten and inspire when working through why it is that the standard bearer of a campaign that aggressively stoked people's hopes was never going to work to satisfy those hopes, and why those who's hopes were dashed should stay involved.
The inspiration lays in conning those who were previously taken in into believing beyond grounds for belief, hoping beyond basis for hope.
The enlightenment, for those who were previously taken in, is to understand that it takes a movement to provide basis for hope, not a campaign. Not to vote in the hopes that someone else will then take care of everything, but to vote as one weapon in the armory in fighting the ongoing fight. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Is that a fair summary? The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
Lincoln faced a challenge from the Lt. Gov., Bill Halter who was heavily supported by unions and other out of state interests for her opposition to the public option. I was suspicious of Halter for his championing of a state lottery, the beneficial proceeds of which go to college scholarships. A Lincoln's campaign operative called to ask about how I intended to vote in the primaries back just after the Medicare vote. I told them I was very disturbed by her position on the public option but that if she took on the financial industry and was effective I would probably vote for her. She did and I did. Not a cause and effect relationship, but she probably got similar results from other more left leaning constituents.
Be glad if you have genuine progressives that you have the privilege of supporting. The best I can hope for is that some of my moderates might do the right thing on important votes on important issues. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
How is that supposed to work, exactly?
Its Boehner or Pelosi, that's the contest, a far less photogenic one, and so the press covers a contest that is not there. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
When people were sick of Bush in 2006 they voted in the Dems for change - not because the Dems were saying or doing anything interesting, but because Bush wasn't.
Elections are mostly lost, not won.
Obama's lack of interest in setting any kind of agenda beyond a rhetorical meeja one is doing huge damage to the Dem brand.
Gut punching people who point this out - like Izzy is trying to do - is just shooting the messenger.
'But Palin would be worse' isn't an argument for anything much, except failure.
Obama's lack of interest in setting any kind of agenda beyond a rhetorical meeja one is doing huge damage to the Dem brand. Gut punching people who point this out - like Izzy is trying to do - is just shooting the messenger. 'But Palin would be worse' isn't an argument for anything much, except failure.
And likewise in the Democrat's interest to make it a referendum on the leadership of the Do-Nothing Republicans in the Senate versus the Do-Something Democrats in the House. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
If people get what they wanted from a leader they're happy, and a warm halo of approval envelops his (her) lucky party.
If not - they're angry and they want revenge.
This isn't a very sophisticated world view, but it's how voting seems to work empirically.
Selling Senate/House issues is always harder than picking on the leader.
The percentage of voters who have never heard of Boehner isn't going to be small. The percentage who have any idea what his record isn't going to be much smaller.
Most people know who the president is, and have an opinion on the president.
But minority leaders? Not so much, I think.
then someone needs to explain to me how 'sniping from the sidelines' as Helen put it, helps anything.
In the words of FDR:
Leadership Quotes
I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it. Franklin D. Roosevelt
I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
If you view politicians as trapped within a political power structures, the only way to get change is to apply enough pressure - or sniping - so that the cost of doing wrong, and the benefit of doing right increases. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
