Display:
Context, Bruce.  You'd have a point if I'd only made one comment.  As it is, you jumped into an argument and 'explained' something I've been saying over and over.

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

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 2nd, 2010 at 12:06:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Which is it? Inspire? Enlighten? Or take cheap shots?

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.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Sep 2nd, 2010 at 12:38:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If I've understood you correctly, you consider expressing disillusionment with Obama as not legitimate.

Is that a fair summary?

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Thu Sep 2nd, 2010 at 10:41:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
no.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 2nd, 2010 at 06:59:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series