(reposted from a comment on Avedon’s blog)
How can leverage be built, or used, without the threat of a negative outcome?
If votes from Clinton supporters are desired, doesn’t someone have to ask for them?
Doesn’t someone have to stop insulting them by continually saying their opinions are invalid, that their power is either illusory or unimportant, or that they are delusional for wanting to wield that power in the first place?
Since there are no third parties worth even that much of a damn to consistently field downticket candidates in every state, how else should Clinton supporters — who have been called everything from bitches, dried-up divorcees, to racists — behave, but to offer their votes to the McCain campaign if their policy concerns are not discussed with respect?
If a putative candidate does not reach out to potential voters with reasonable issues to discuss (such as universal healthcare, recession and mortgage relief, and equitable taxation), then how else do they get their attention — by offering to vote for him, if he does nothing for them?
I understand why Clinton supporters (especially those PUMA broads) would rather choose to weather a McCain presidency with a Democratic Congress. A Republican Congress would be the point of failure of our government, but if the posts I’ve read represent a trend, most PUMAs will vote Democrat, downticket. The complacency that would result with a Democratic, officially non-partisan Congress and Obama as President would give the GOP the upper hand with successful obstructionist tactics. So far, even the Dems running for re-election have said nothing else but vague ’change’, in concert with Obama.
Let the Democrat congressional incumbents and challengers insist on prosecution of this Administration for the crimes they have already admitted committing, and then I’ll trust them with a president that is diametrically opposed for real justice to preserve our Constitution, but will do so with a (D) beside his name. Sorry — looking over signing statements is not enough, not when the Bill of Rights is in jeopardy.
Front page
anglachel-"it is all on Obama's head"-
http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/06/f… — “… it is all on Obama’s head. If he fails to heed her advice and pledge himself to fighting for the concrete material needs of Democratic constituencies, he will lose. If he tries to appease the Right rather than support the Left, he will lose. If he continues to disdain the messy, contradictory, not sufficiently PC particularity of the Democratic base, he will lose. And, should he fail, she will, without rancor and without revenge, pick up the pieces, go on with the fight and never surrender to the foes of democracy. She will always be on the front lines.
All of which is a very long way of getting to the point of this post. In the arguments about “unity”, the question, united to what end?, does not get addressed. Or, rather, it is answered in one way only - that Hillary and her supporters need to stop their opposition and get behind Da Winnah.
… Hillary’s calls for unity are for our sakes, to achieve specific things that make our lives demonstrably better, from equal rights for all to economic sanity to sustainable energy. …
With Hillary, unity of the party is for the sake of the constituents, the power to act on behalf of and in the interests others in very concrete ways. Her laundry list of objectives and initiatives so ridiculed by the press corps got people’s attention because it addressed their needs and fears. …”
We need a bright new Tee
Something like “I’m one of 18 million proud voters!”
Leverage is what it's all about
but Dem voter groups don’t seem to understand that.
Lambert’s question yesterday: what do we get?
What do you ever get from the Democratic party?
You get to work for free to nominate your fave candidate because you want the feeling that your team has won.
You get to vote for whoever the Dem is, even if they ignore your policy concerns, because the alternative is stupid corrupt Republicans.
This is not a third-party rant.
Just a rant against activists that get so caught up in winning elections for politicians that they are willing to concede on policy.
Corporate lobbying operations insist on results and use their leverage to get them. Citizen interest groups do not. We should be working to change that.
Totally Agree on Pushing Policy Not Candidates
Yesterday, I had the fun of unsubscribing to DSCC email and DNC email, a small act of protest admittedly, but an act nonetheless. When the DNC asked me why I was unsubscribing, I told them that I would not financially support a party that did not reflect my values and examples of that was sitting silent in the face of spewing misogyny from the media, which hurts all women, not just Hillary Clinton, the reassignment of votes from Clinton to Obama which I see as vote theft, and I also referenced the recent cave in on FISA. I made a point of saying that this is not about Hillary Clinton or even the outcome of the nomination process. It’s about the party’s failures to stand up for principles.
Again, a small act of defiance, but I want them to understand that it really isn’t about Obama. I could’ve been okay with him as the nominee, it’s the principles that got left in shreds by the PARTY, which did nothing in the face of it, that I’m choking on.
As for using leverage generally, the problem is that citizen’s groups are always afraid of losing the next election. They never do what neo-cons and companies do, which is take the longer view. Instead, out of fear that the Democrats will lose this year (whatever year it is, I don’t mean necessarily 2008), I must always cave or else disaster will strike.
So we cave and disaster never strikes. Instead we simply slide a little bit further each year towards disaster and wonder why the Democrats aren’t doing more to stop it. Never realizing that the folks on the other side are not giving up their leverage so whenever we do, they win. Even if it’s not that year’s election.
Yeah, let's see how Obama's friends and associates fare...
“My (Unpleasant) Encounter with an Honest-to-God Radical 60’s Professor Whom I Finally Got to SHUT UP…”
Sorry about the broken link….repost:
“My (Unpleasant) Encounter with an Honest-to-God Radical 60’s Professor Whom I Finally Got to SHUT UP…”
http://tinyurl.com/4lz39d
You know the type…the ones who want to “destroy America” like Rev. Wright…The guys who really understood the 60’s better than anyone (at least according to this guy…”
A story of triumph!!!
so, shutting up a professor is OK?
Using the GOP meme of DFH
academics is OK?
Fine. Just keeping up with the new rules.
cg.eye, 'shutting up' anybody is ok now -- haven't you heard?
It’s the new Obamanation rule!
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
yup-we end up enabling & approving
of their behavior and actions, when what’s needed is for them to do what we want, and not what their funders or GOP or media want.