that's why there's so much anger about this election for many-- the guy who won is bad on the policies, ran against the team's longstanding policies and goals and ideals, and seems like he should not be leading the team or even be a star player on it.

Political "teams" = policies and priorities that members/supporters agree with and want pushed--otherwise there's no reason to be on the team at all.

There was a lot of this kind of talk at Emily's List as a way to try to unify the party around Obama. We got a lot of help Democrats win! and beat John McCain! (We especially got a lot of the latter, apparently they've decided in the short term it's better to talk about how much McCain sucks instead of how great Obama is, which makes sense because well, McCain does suck.)

Fortunately, there was also talk, although not as much as I would've liked, about how to build a progressive movement in the longer term. The idea is to "win today, build for tomorrow." The build part is, IMO, the important part because it's the best way to ensure that progressive causes and policies aren't dependent on any one candidate winning or even winning at any particular level. I found the discussion of the state races to be, in some ways, more important than the federal races.

But I thank you for this post because I'm trying to digest everything I've heard over the past two days and this framing is something very helpful to add to the mix. So, thanks!

support as an individual: i expect *nothing* from the pols i support, nothing personally. i hope the ones i get behind will occasionally do the right thing, that is, vote against killing innocent children, fund a regulatory agency, not take a bribe. i expect that in the vast majority of their actions, they will work to make me more poor, less powerful, more controlled and less free. i'm speaking of dems here, as well as rethugs. i'll be brutal: i believe i am much smarter, more educated, and more compassionate than the vast majority of people who are allowed to win high office. i perceive our system to be so corrupt, so controlled by corporate powers, that anyone like me will only rarely get there, and even when they do, they must mask those qualities or be removed from office.

so why do i write about and work in politics then? if i'm so 'bitter' and cynical? mostly, because to me, it's like teevee and sports are to other people. everyone has to have a pastime, right? i find the Game of politics more interesting than any pro sport, and the Drama of politics more compelling than any show. do i expect to "change" anything? meh. it feels great when i can point to a concrete example of when that happens, but that is so rarely that i take it when it comes, like catching a fly ball in the stands. yeah!

political organizations: again, meh. at this point, so few are uncorrupted, i hardly expect anything to come from them except the flow of the money their members donate into party planner's coffers. there are stellar exceptions. the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and a not inconsiderable number of 'local' and 'community' orgs that don't have too-lofty goals and who perceive the most effective way to help a small number of people by pressuring a small number of local pols. again, it's great when "political organizations" accomplish something, such as getting a dem majority to pass a bill that an organization has drafted and lobbied for, but the ones i like do this so rarely i never hold my breath for such. most national level political organizations are little more than social clubs for wealthy, "concerned" people who want to be close to power. they are great at hosting fundraising parties and dinners, as well as an excellent source of nookie if you're queer. also: a great place to go for Drama and Gossip. again, yeah!

history is replete with moments in apathy, if you're speaking of the Little People. snobby historians will call them "lazy" and "uninformed," but i don't think that's the reason for their lack of political participation. i think it's because most realize that it's a complete waste of time, for a person without great wealth and power, to invest deeply in the political process. as you say, politicians return so little, in exchange for an individual's investment. most people make the intelligent choice: take that 10hrs of week of free time, and spend it with people who love you. who are actually accomplishing something in your home area. who are playing sports you enjoy, singing or dancing or whatever makes you happy. the internets have changed the nature of political participation quite a bit; people can now devote equal time to pr0n and politics, and to mostly the same result (money leaves your wallet, you get some fleeting happiness).

i really don't mean to sound ubercynical. people should "care about politics," and keep up with political events. but imho, they shouldn't fool themselves into thinking they can "do" much, affect much. haven't i been saying it over and over and over until i'm blue in the face? ~700 people picked the dem nom, via backroom dealing over priorities and payments we will never know anything about until much later, if ever. 8+ years of blogging about the lies of the SCLM has exactly no effect upon the lying corporate media. i predict that this election will be hardly different than most others, and that roughly half of the electorate will not bother to vote.

the only thing i try to do is plant the seeds. seeds of....well, i guess i won't even try to put a name to it. i like blogging, mainly because it gives me a chance to test my ideas, and engage people critically. that's 'fun' to me. if occasionally, i "influence an influential," that's great too. but i don't expect to do so very often. without money behind what i'm saying, it's mostly pissing in the wind. imnsho.