What David Sirota said

On having no place to go:

[Democrats] believe that most "progressive movement" activists will actually do what they did during the last election - berate anyone who floats the idea that movement organizing and carrot-and-stick treatment of the Democratic Party during election time is actually a good thing. They believe, in short, that come 2010, we'll all fall in line and be an ATM machine of partisan campaign contributions and candidate volunteer time because we are still very much organized as a party, not a movement.

And here's the thing: Except for a few fleeting primaries, most of recent history suggests their calculation is right.

If we want to avoid this kind of thing in the future, we better understand why this happened. Because if we don't, and somehow still expect "change we can believe in," we're epitomizing Albert Einstein's "definition of insanity" - we're "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Geez, David, trying to learn lessons from recent history makes one a loathsome dead-ender. It's OK for us worst- bloggers-on-the-internet types, sure, but do you really want to recommend such behavior to polite company?

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

WaPo via another Sirota post

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia...

Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: "The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes."

Curses! Foiled again.

I can see why this a**hat would want a backstabbing traitor like Lieberputz in the party though. Don't you? And besides, some of the dems backed his opponent in the CT primary. The noive of them! Thank goodness, Harry Reid finally got the memo.

Revenge is a dish best served cold. The temperature's dropping.

it wasn't Reid-- it was Obama --

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/11/18... -- Dean: Obama Wanted Lieberman In

I know.

Harry had the meeting with Lieberman telling him he was on the outs, supposedly, and then got the directive from Obama about keeping him in.

Lieberman will, no doubt, be sniffng at his master's shoes from now on.

no, he won't--

his masters are the GOP (and AIPAC).

they just went out of their way to tell him that there's no price to pay for his votes with them, and doing nothing with his committees all this time.

They all serve the same masters

What else could "post-partisan" possibly mean?

Only tyrants rig elections.

Hey, it's party invariate

What's not to like?

MoveON

Remember the vote to censure MoveON? Remember how Obama voted in support of it and Hillary voted against it? Remember how MoveOn endorsed Obama?

You know why politicians don't respect the left? Because the left does not respect itself.

Ouch! Linky Goodness, DCblogger?

I honestly don't remember hearing about that. I'd be interested to see how it all unfolded.

And, I'm with Pie on this one. It seems as if it's almost daily, now, that they are giving us reasons to seek electoral revenge on their asses. I'm about at the point where I wish the party would split into fragments, and we all have a all-out power brawl.

Hawk Dweeberman gets kicked off some environmental committee, but gets to keep his HS chairmanship?! All the damned gall. That isn't his fault; that is the fault of his powerful enablers.

But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...

That's why I voted McCain: To take revenge in advance.

After all, Obama pretty much told us what he'd do.

JFK has been shot, we miss him a lot
He always knew what to do

-- Philly Cream