Obama is the best we're going to be able to do. Other forces are in control.

I'm not happy with how he has managed his presidency so far. While he may be intellectually smart in many ways, I think that he's also a naive and somewhat shallow thinker -- too easily buying into conventional narratives, too easily swayed by smooth-talking advisors and "experts", because he lacks any fundamental passionate ideological vision.

From the time that he disavowed Rev. Wright in order to improve his political prospects, it was clear to me that Obama was more focused on his own political future than in any sort of over-arching vision of social justice. The invitation to that prick Rick Warren to offer the invocation at his inauguration only cemented this impression.

So, yeah, for these and so many other reasons, I find myself rather unimpressed with Obama, to say the least. I've come to see the whole "hope and change" thing from his campaign as nothing more than a cynical -- yet highly effective -- ad campaign. The appeal to emotion, purposely bypassing critical thinking -- well, it worked, didn't it?

All those people in Grant Park, in tears, on the night of the election victory -- all those people so hungry for a savior, for someone who would put things right and bring them hope of a better future, a new direction.

Well, what those people hadn't reckoned with -- and what maybe Obama himself hadn't reckoned with -- was the inertia of the permanent shadow government of the entrenched powers of the MIC, the financial sector, the corporate powers who buy the legislation they want in order to maintain power.

And Obama, himself a naif and a marked outsider to the real power brokers in DC, was ill-equipped to make any concerted challenge to those who really control the levers of power. In his naivity and essential lack of a passionate ideology for challenging the status quo he found himself at their mercy and chose the path of appeasement in hopes that they could be reasoned with.

As maddening as this is, it is the best we can hope for out of our current political system. It's utterly ridiculous to hope for a hypothetical "more progressive" president. No such person would ever be allowed to attain that office.

The office of the President of the United States is nothing more than the head PR guy for the policies that are decided beyond his actual control. If, by some massive fluke, a true opponent of TPTB got elected, their presidency would be strangled in the crib -- witness the fate of President Carter. And even Carter allowed the massacre of East Timor to happen under his watch.

I think that Obama is a good-hearted man who genuinely wants to improve things, but he will always be hemmed in by the permanent shadow government and isn't really philosophically inclined to draw a line in the sand against the entrenched power blocs. It simply isn't in his nature to challenge conventional wisdom overmuch.

Anyway, I don't think it's worth much to rag on Obaman. He's as trapped as all of us are. I think our only way out of the trap is to stop worrying about judging Obama and start building a movement outside of electoral politics.

Yes, get out there and vote for Dems -- that's our holding action and it's important. But, beyond that, we really MUST work on a different level. Nothing is going to change from the top down, the real change must happen from the bottom up. And it has very little to do with who wins elections, and has everything to do with building pressure among the masses to reject the agendas of the entrenched powers who would disempower us.

sw

Obama is caught in the net. Railing against him is pointless. He's just one nexus point in the whole paradigm that's disempowering us.

sw

reject agendas of entrenched powers who would disempower us'.

We're talking about changing agendas of the majority of the country. How do you think that might happen with the teabaggers who are batshit crazy to begin with, and entrenched republicans/rich folks who vote for their best interests and not those of the country as a whole?

I have no idea.

Maybe in 20 years when a lot of the racists are dead, we'll see more people coming together for the common good. And maybe not if the republicans and the rich get the agenda they're after.

Instead of dividing into camps of "bashers" and "cheerleaders" and attacking each other, focus instead on pulling together to fight the entrenched powers who hold everyone hostage -- Obama included.

I'm sick and tired of people who feel they have to defend Obama and make excuses for him. I want them to stop making it about Obama and start fighting the whole system.

I'm also sick and tired of people blaming Obama for not making things better. I don't think he can -- he's not cut out for it, plus he's out-gunned. I want them to also stop making it about Obama.

The journey of a thousand miles starts with one step.

sw

The problem is the system. He's either the best guy on earth and a victim of the system, or he's a part of the system. Either way, he's a pretty irrelevant protagonist. The protagonists here are: the masses and the capitalists/their media/the state that serves them. They will instrumentalize fascists (which is why tea party gatherings of 400 make the news for days when labor rallies of 10,000 hardly get an AP photo. Irony is, if the fascists gain power they will instrumentalize them.

and as SW stated "building a movement outside of electoral politics"

Not quite sure how we're going to do it, but it starts with us finding each other and talking about how to do it.

Babylonsister, the 'tea party' movement was not a groundswell movement. It was astroturfed by the likes of Dick Armey, Neil Cavuto, Glenn Beck and others. Fox News actually sponsored those rallies and 'spread the message.'

I never used to think we needed a 'Fairness Doctrine.' I think we might, now.

"The office of the President of the United States is nothing more than the head PR guy for the policies that are decided beyond his actual control."

The President of the US has more power than that Madam.

.. but only if he uses it. Obama is not going to use it, he's a giant milquetoast.

I do have a few comments. My comments might actually be agreeing with you or even repeating your post but with a slightly different angle.

We can't marginalize the distinct difference between Obama's campaign and his governing style. We all can agree (as you have stated) that the fervor during the campaign almost took on a life of its own. Those people in the park that night were convinced that "our" time has come. This raised expectations to unreasonable levels. Many even put aside their cynicism and said...Okay...one more time. I'm going to attach my star to this man. It was nearly out of control.

With that in mind, it was going to impossible to meet the expectation of the people. The result is some of the dissatisfaction we read about here. A dissatisfaction that is pervasive in me as well.

All of this is to defend what Obama not only had to face but that he would never rise to the expectations of those that "believed" in him.

I hear you say that our government is so entrenched that NO ONE could rise above the stranglehold that corporate America has on our country. It almost appears to be a "shadow government."

I tend to believe that the powers of corporate America can (and must) be defeated in favor of the people. I think that we are still searching for how this can be done. It isn't easy, but it is possible.

Since setting up shop in the Oval Office, President Obama has demonstrated what many of us would call a certain naivety in the arena of politics. Can someone tell me why he didn't take complete advantage of the historic mandate given him since day one? Why didn't he (or his advisors) frame the arguments? One of the basic (almost elementary) rules of politics is that you control the message. It is beyond me why he didn't jump on this from day one.

I guess I could go on and on. I'll just stop here.

-PLA

I think it was probably unavoidable for people to not "attach my star to this man" -- the hunger for change was so vast and deep.

Yes, we are still searching for "how this can be done" -- the defeat of "the powers of corporate America".

What I'm proposing is that the less we look to electoral politics -- except as recognizing it as a necessary holding action -- the closer we will move to a real solution.

sw

And that will only happen if we get smart enough to start doing a lot of educating, instead of spending our energy moaning about Faux news.

There are many other ways of reaching people, and I am working on a couple of those things, but others don't want to hear about it.

In my dirtyhippiecommiepinkobum days, we were very creative about converting people. We have stunted our growth in that way, and need to start thinking again.

Also in those days we were doing a hell of a lot better in our relationships with each other. The ways we failed was because we were naive, and lacked the knowledge that is now available, but that we aren't willing to avail ourselves of.

This is up to us.

Are we mature enough to turn this country around?

and as soon as he was elected, he never went to his base again. remember those house parties? what happened to them?

"all those people so hungry for a savior"

religion not a substitute for real politics, which is about power.

Are we going to demand power or not? Not through a proxy/figurehead/messiah -- but for ourselves by ourselves.

sw

That explains a lot.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835


but the coalition behind him = chicago capital

The Pukes are the "Raw Material Extraction, Fossil Fuel, and Big Ag" faction.

My opinion is that Obama won because the Hi-Tech and Finance people were getting sick of Bush's favoritism to Big Oil and it's denial of Climate Change.

. . . pushed his rhetoric over the edge.

I don't know how any of our progressive ideals manage to advance in our political system without some vehicle like our party, our majority and our Democratic President provide. We got as far as we could with the election of this President. After his next term, we can aspire to do better, but right now we are challenged to work within this political environment we've affected with our votes to influence our Democratic majority legislators and the WH to represent our many diverse and, sometimes, disparate concerns of our Democratic community in their bills and initiatives.

I don't believe the narrative that this President is 'weak' or ideologically-challenged. You'd have to discount literally hundreds of appointments and decisions he's made in office so far. Two years in, such a static and definitive judgment of the integrity and performance of this presidency is institutionally premature and dismissive of the negative influences from the very forces you admit are ultimately 'in control'.

I'm not defending what Rev. Wright did in reaction to Obama's willingness to discount the whole of what Rev. Wright was about. Ego is ego, and it gets in the way of truth. Wright was blinded by his need for affirmation.



No progressive advances have happened in our country absent massive pressure from the people on the ground. The Civil Rights movement didn't wait for elections to provide them with sympathic officials in Washington to advance their agenda. The movement depended on the people on the ground to DEMAND that their agenda be heard.

We need to break free of the idea that the only way forward is through electoral politics. Elected officials are the LAST stop on the road to reform, NEVER the leading edge.

The demands of the People are the leading edge -- always!

sw

I appreciate the 'pressure' . . . even some of the stuff I might complain is over the top. Nothing changes without outside pressure.

Still, many of our protests assume that the legislative process is the dominion of the opposition, and that compromise in the system can only mean a sacrifice of principle or belief. But, our political institutions are designed for both argument and compromise. There is little room in our democracy to dictate one view or the other. While our legislators may come to office with similar goals, like ending the Iraq occupation, they, nonetheless, come to office with a myriad of ideas and approaches to achieve those goals. Those different views and approaches must be reconciled if legislation is to move out of their respective chambers and up the legislative ladder.

Achieving legislative solutions which will adequately advance our progressive agenda will take time. That effort will also, more than likely, take even more activism and advocacy. But as long as we keep our legislative goals at the head of our protests, and form the necessary coalitions of support to advance those legislative efforts within the system, we can assume the necessary responsibility for the consequences of our actions and transform the direction of our movements from agitation to action.

You got yourself a bumpersticker there!

:applause:

Obama only dropped him after Wright started calling him a sell-out.

I don't think you're correct, but WOW nonetheless.

If I can't convince, at least I can dazzle. :D

sw

up"

Because I live in a nation of Rugged Individualists, and because poverty is the stepchild of any activism in this country, I pretty much work alone. But, I will do that as long as I can.

I also said long ago that our main problem is that we no longer know how to *really* work together, to form communities that sustain people for the long haul. We have bought into the individualism at a deeper level than we realize.

I will say it again.. the most radical thing we can all do (and almost none are interested in) is to LEARN listening skills... REAL LISTENING, and begin breaking down barriers by actually HEARING each other, and practicing empathy with each other. That is the radical step that the powers on top do NOT want us to do, and for that very reason, we should rebel and begin studying listening skills, and community building.

Once we do that, we will be stronger, and able to support each other in the hard work ahead.

But, sadly, I know that this won't happen until the pain level is much deeper than it is now.

Both the problem and the solutions are proposed here. It is exactly as has been in my mind. And perfectly stated.

We've been looking at the carrot. As in FOX news and the commercial media. But we need to focus on the real goal.

We could all argue about the details. But the bottom line, despite having chosen to surround himself with less than desirable staff, is that he is only a small amount of momentum in comparison to that of the machine which he is representing.

FCC rule changes, election funding, voting method, military funding, and a whole host of things must be changed.

This is actually about survival. We've been lulled into thinking we're getting a free ride, via energy dense petroleum. And that is what helped to fuel our ultra individualist culture. It's ugly and unhealthy. You're so right. We are all in this together. Those who love Glen Beck as well as us who thrive off of the clarity of Rachel Maddow. This is the mirage of it all. That we're divided. Wait 'til the waters start to rise. That's what I've been thinking. And I took off from this forum a half year ago. I said the hell with it all. Nobody is doing shit about the real problem. Let's keep our eyes on the target. And it doesn't make things easier that each of us not only can help solve the trouble we're in, but is also part of the problem. We almost literally have to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. And that is impossible physics. It's time to find an alternative solution.

Although it is true that some of them could have been reached had we made the effort, rather than self-righteously calling them names and ridiculing them.

But what I am referring to here is US. Dems. "Progressives". "Liberals". We don't know how to come together. We don't know how to be there for each other in the hard times. If someone is having a tough patch, they withdraw until it is better. We expect them to "take some time off and come back when you are doing better."

That is SICK.

We cannot build a community for the long haul when we withdraw during hard times, or close people out when they are hurting. It is ridiculous to even think in that way. And then to laugh at the RW for *their* shortsightedness.

We have lost our humanity. We have lost any real compassion.

WE are the problem we need to solve.

WE need to get busy and get to the real issue of why we are so isolated.

Your message is brilliant. It inspired me to think of including those who seem to be completely out of our realm.

I just don't want to wait until it's impossible. We're moving toward that. I'm not sure what it is going to take for people to realize that we had better start working together.

It's complex. And you broke it down simply.

Yeah, we can mouth all the politically correct "compassionate" stuff, but we don't really want to get down to putting it into action.

"Just tell me where to donate my money" -- that's about it. We really don't want to identify with the outsiders to the System -- we're superstitious about it. If we think about "them" as really being "us" we'll be losers. And America hates losers.

We are the winners, the victors. Just ask the American Indians.

sw

angry with being handed off uncaringly.

"We really don't want to identify with the outsiders to the System -- we're superstitious about it. If we think about "them" as really being "us" we'll be losers."

Damned if you're not right again! It could very well be catching!

I learned that when my son was kidnapped.. "What kind of mother are you to let such a thing happen?" Gotta get in there with the blame, lest the same thing happen to YOU. We're a people who are very good at that... very accomplished with the defensive blame.

I wrote about this elsewhere..... another issue that is building in this country..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8985194&mesg_id=8987276

Another case in point...we are failing in the basics...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8987151#8987223

(Coming off Skinner's thread, I'm seeing America more and more as one big junior high school.)

I've been guilty of it, too. I used to feel terrible when the bullies in my junior high school tormented the kids who were different in any way, but did I go befriend the tormented kids, even though I was often on the receiving end of bullying? No, because I didn't want to be associated with my fellow victims.

I'm currently reading a novel that takes place in Stalinist Russia, and it reminds me of something Solzhenitsyn said about that era, that the terror succeeded partly because no one would stick up for anyone else. In the first Gulag Archipelago book, he imagines what would have happened if, when the secret police came for someone in the middle of the night, they were met by neighbors who, instead of cowering in their beds, came out of their apartments armed with kitchen knives, frying pans, and pieces of furniture.

In fact, that kind of occurrence is why Mao reined in the Red Guards during the Chinese Cultural Revolution. After years of dozens or hundreds of people at a time trembling before a handful of fanatical teenagers, some factory workers fought back when the Red Guards started ordering them around and beating up anyone who refused.

When Mao heard about this, he was savvy enough to realize that if the notion of not submitting to bullying ever took hold, his system would be finished, so he called in the leaders of the Red Guards and told them to lay off.

America is still at the junior high school level in so many respects. People don't know much, and worse, don't care that they don't know about anything outside their own little sphere. They obsess over the lives of celebrities or the latest gadgets or the latest fashions or the fortunes of their favorite sports team. Many still treat 9/11 as the greatest tragedy in the history of the world and justification for any war-mongering act on the part of the U.S., even though many European and Asian cities suffered the equivalent of several 9/11s repeatedly during World War II. (Three thousand Americans killed on 9/11? Huge obsession. Pakistan devastated by floods? Where's Pakistan? Yawn.)

America needs to grow up.

"but did I go befriend the tormented kids, even though I was often on the receiving end of bullying? No, because I didn't want to be associated with my fellow victims."

Thank you very much for this, and it fits in with something I have been writing. This is one facet of homelessness..... not wanting "be associated with my fellow victims." After all, besides the victimization, it might be contagious. Think what would happen if everytime a homeless person was arrested for sleeping in pubic, or beaten for being homeless, there were crowds of people who weret there with the proverbial pitchforks! This could actually be organized. What if everytime a public housing building was torn down, there were crowds of angry people standing in the way of the bulldozers! This is really an important observation, and I am very grateful you brought it up!

About the Red Guard ---- When I was in Berkeley in my dirtyhippiecommiepinkobum days, when the second wave of feminism began, there was a group of righteous women in San Francisco called The Red Stalkings. We were all fighting the sexist clods of the time, and of course the abusers and rapists, but this group took matters into their own hands. If there was a sexist boss making life miserable for women employees, or a spouseabuser or even a rapist, the Red Stalkings would abduct him and take him to "an undisclosed location", and when he returned, he was chasened. We never did know what the Stalkings did to them, because the men never talked about it. But whatever it was, it was highly effective!

"the notion of not submitting..." That's what Gandhi was about -- teaching people to stop submitting to injustice, non-cooperation with their own oppression.

Here we are so well-trained to cooperate with our disempowerment, the notion of not submitting seems to have been completely bred out of us.

sw

Which can only be done in community.

Isolated individuals doing this will only bring further suffering and probably death.

Which brings us right back to the question.... are we ready to actually deal with our own buying into Rugged individualism?

Are we finally ready to do the hard work of breaking through our own walls and learning how to relate in support?

Maturity is realizing that the rest of your life will be just like junior high.

:applause:

can begin forming communities?

"From the time that he disavowed Rev. Wright in order to improve his political prospects, it was clear to me that Obama was more focused on his own political future than in any sort of over-arching vision of social justice."

Wright was actively being a douche. You don't remember that insane press conference Wright gave? Wright deserved to get thrown under the bus and then backed over again.

to what Wright was saying all those years that Obama sat in that pew?

Did any of it really *touch* him?

I readily acknowlege that Wright went off the rails. On the other hand, what was going on Obama's heart all those years prior? Was he just hanging out letting nothing actually touch him?

And how could the choice of Rick Warren for the inauguration be anything BUT a political calculation? Unless you'd prefer to believe that Obman found Warren's brand of chrisitianism compelling...

I don't totally agree, but what love relationship is perfect? <grin>

Not only is the ship of state humongous and takes years to turn, peacefully, it has engineers below decks throwing monkey wrenches around like fireworks.

Obama is out on a limb. Ever been out on a limb? You move with great caution.

In his second term, he'll have much less to lose and methinks, hopes and prays, the engineers below deck will be loyal, the repukes will be minimized, and the people rise up to take back what is, as Americans, rightfully theirs!!

Ok. We need 65 dem senators and 300 dem reps. People need to see what we know: Put the Dems in control and the country improves.

I am calling a personal truce on attacking dems until November.

"in line".

I doubt they will honor your "truce"


Good luck with that.

The 'new voters' are a big problem. I have had many that worked in the campaign tell me they were disillusioned. Basically, I told them what SW did here: He has his hands tied. They agreed.

it is the logic of empire. And I don't care who ends up in that office, until the empire falls... this will continue. And yes, they are willing participants in it.

So it is a matter of what is best for me. A dem, generally speaking, will make the system a tad more bearable...

I'm just saying that we have to think beyond that.

We need to recognize that just electing Dems will not solve the structural problems of empire.

sw

alas I also know the end might be nearing... and that day... or week, be ready to pounce, as it were.

Empire failure tends to be more a la USSR and far less a la Rome... with England in between. I like Spain for good measure and perhaps that will be closer to the US... as structurally we are close.

time I checked, he was the one occupying the WH.

than we are.

Which is why WE must rise up.

sw

we tend to reify the power structures; we forget that men and women created them; they didn't come into existence in the manner of mountains and oceans, but rather as the choices and policies of human actors. there is nothing inexporable about them; granted, once constructed, they can reverberate and constrain our choices; but just as men and women created them, so, too, we can change them!

otherwise, while i agree with a lot of what you wrote; adam pzeworski's "capitalism and social democracy" dealt with the question of: can a leftist political leader get elected, and if elected, remain true to principles? he concluded no; yet, brazil's da silva seems a counter example. in any case, Obama was never a leftist, not even center left; i think he's in way over his head, but also think he never had progressive plans he wanted to implement; and, Obama chose his advisors, cabinet, etc. the choice revealed much concerning where we were headed.

recommended!

I agree with you 100% I've been saying this for many a years now and people don't like it. It's a huge machine and Obama had no idea what he was getting himself into.

will fix it.

sw

No Saviors.

level creating transitional communities and their initiatives that don't recognize the right/left paradigm.
That's what I'm doing in my own little part of the world and part of what i think is being suggested in
the OP.

There's nothing in the OP I don't agree with with one exception. I still believe if Obama had a powerful
contingent supporting him, DEMANDING the sweeping changes many of us want, he wouldn't be playing
it as safe as he is. There is a lack of perceived support. The Right doesn't believe for a moment that we have
his back and regardless of our personal disappointments with his presidency , we must do better
at playing this game.

We need to regroup, outline our demands, and use our leverage to take back control. We are much more
powerful than we give ourselves credit for.

use such resources to advance the corporate agenda.

He wanted to use the wave for craven purposes and it broke and crashed.

The President is part of the obstruction, by his own design or in response to unseen forces. Overwhelming support will only be brought to bear for legislation that the people are ill served by.

If Obama had fought for the people his back would have been covered. He went to the mat for the wealthy and the powerful and surrounds himself with economic royalists so now things are as we see.

When push comes to shove, most will stand with the establishment and hunt down some bone of plausible denial to excuse the wheels rolling over them.

And creating communities in which we can all have truly a voice. One person/One vote in our workplaces, our communities. I have been thinking of systems that can help people rather than just use and feed off of them. Perhaps we can take over a few blocks of Detroit or any rust belt city which has heavily lost population, create our own "corporation" only with members as shareholders. No one will lose their home d/t medical bills, foreclosure etc. Create industry/manufacturing in a cooperative structure, grow and distribute food from urban gardens. Welcome the poor, the unemployed, the disenfranchised. Culture jam the mulitnational corporations. Everyone has gold inside of them, a talent, a purpose. We should harness that to work together. Enough of the "I've got mine" mentality. Everyone pitches in, everyone has a seat at the table.

I'll exercise my right to vote and try to keep the nicest liar in office. But in my humble opinion they are all greedy m-fkrs on the take. They all have an angle and are addicted to power.

The Federal pols, the Bankstreet wizards would be wise to keep their shiny black limos in their bubbles.

edited to add: I am just tired of everyone waiting for permission. We (progressives, leftists, revolutionaries) have demonstrated amazing restraint in giving the new guard time and opportunity to make things right. They have given us their answer-- it ain't happening. Anything important, to be done right -- we will have to do ourselves. We have to stand up. Mother Theresa never waited -- she just did it. Now y'all can stand up with us or continue to be simultaneously offended and defensive of half measures and tepid inadequate legislation. If you want to live bold and yell a big "Fuck Yeah!" for the people, just do it. Don't worry, the idiots will still be dithering in Washington when we're done.

My first move: cancel cable. No more tv. Gotta deprogram.
Next-- lighten the load. Moving around is difficult if you have too much stuff. Keep what I need. I figure that the less I have the less I have to worry about losing.
Third: hang out outside, walk around the hood, approach people-- introduce myself again. walk alot. See what is going on. How often do people leave their home? Stop by with some garden excess and some fresh bread. Start another garden in my front yard. Be visible. I live in the suburbs. If I lived in the city I'd start with my building.
4th-- try to confine my shopping to the Farmer's markets and thrift stores. Take the bus more often. Try not to plan too much in one day. Meet up with local groups that have similar goals -- but serve a wider purpose (my other efforts were in my neighborhood but with a permaculture/transition initiative I can work with others to improve another neighborhood or the local city).

Here's a site you might want to check out.http://www.transitionnetwork.org/

Everything you suggest is simple and doable yet can bring about change.
People are already creating these communities and they're working. It's
not about retreating, but as you suggest no longer asking for permission
and living our lives the way we want.

Thanks for the motivation. There are few things you suggest I need to do
better at and I will. :)

where people can interact regarding transition: http://transitionus.ning.com/

I especially love what you said about not "waiting for permission".

Everything you wrote is totally right on and you have some great ideas. Thank you so much for sharing them here.

sw

I don't know if I'm willing to give Obama a pass on the ability to be effective/be a change agent. I'm also on the fence whether he sold us a bag of goods or just conned us that he was the bag of goods. After going around about it, I decided it didn't matter. We are where we are. Waiting for people like him to make it better is being passive and lazy. I'm not buying what he is selling -- frankly, I think I can make it myself. He can either help me or hinder me. When he hinders me is when I vote a third party and get tombstoned here bitching about it.

The power is just like a ball that goes from one party to the other. The Democrats are just the more benign party. The Powers That Be are behind all of it. Those powers being the Corporations, the special interest lobbyists and the very powerful industrial military complex.

on them.

a wide and attentive audience.

It is as if you have touched that place of calm resolve known to battered spouses who have finally made the decisions to leave, but who have not yet devised escape plans. Time to start hoarding spare change, gathering the phone numbers of safe havens, and looking for opportunities.

many of his campaign speeches. He is not naive, AT ALL!! His constituency, his BASE IS naive and will continue to do what they do best. Whine behind a key board.

As he is born of the game, we can't expect Obama to run the ball off field and out of the stadium.

The current political realities simply marginalize real progressives. I don't like it. But that is simply how things are at this time. We can choose either the left wing of Wall Street and the left wing of the CIA and the Pentagon or we can allow the BATSHIT CRAZY wing of Wall Street and the BASTSHIT CRAZY wing of the CIA and Pentagon to gain power.

calling the plays. He has done some good in situtations where corporations and the military aren't involved...ie pushing to extend unemployment insurance and college loans. Those funds come out of the treasury and not corporate pockets.

Indeed.
K&R
BHN

And I will do all I can to help him succeed. The thing is -- as you perfectly pointed out in your essay, scarletwoman -- Obama is about the best we will be able to do.

The reality remains: There was no legitimate or legal reason at all to invade Iraq. And now wow we are to celebrate the exit of the last combat brigade? Gimme a break, world. The remaining "non-combat" troops are combat-ready. I won't say that anyone who doesn't see the problem with that is part of the problem because I believe all people don't see things the same way because each person sees things in their own way. That's being a Democrat.

Now I will say, because I am a Democrat, that should Congress and the Executive feel the need to look back in order to see who's gotten away with what, I ask them to read up on the Bush Family Evil Empire, a collection of people, associations and actions that should, at the very least, result in prosecutions under the RICO Act:

Goldmine Sacked or The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One

Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.

Bush has Killed a Million Innocent People for Their Oil.

Scions of the Military Industrial Complex

Spawn of Wall Street and the Third Reich

Olympic Games Show Who’s Best Friends Forever with Authoritarians and Dictators

Henry Paulson, Banker to the BFEE

In the old days, they'd burn blasphemers and heretics like me. Perhaps we should expand the practice to traitors and NAZIs.

I'd like to see this investigated. Until then, may the record show my petition of grievances with the shadow government. And count me, along with everybody in Grant Park and watching on the tee vee, as one with tears in his eyes, but standing and knowing. And we are people of action, we Democrats, We the People.

Because I know you're right.

:hug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sometimes I feel like when our politicians get to the top they wake up one morning with a horse head and decide to play along.

At the same time, I also think Obama is by nature a rather conventional thinker, not a systems changer. He'd like things to work better within the established paradigm, he's not about challenging the paradigm altogether.

sw

He' guaranteed an extraordinary income for the rest of his life. He doesn't have to worry about Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. He COULD act out of principle, instead of political expediency. I don't think he's naive. I think he's just a politician. Of course he's better than the alternatives, but that's not saying much.

I think he is trapped -- hemmed in -- by the forces I refer to in my OP, the gigantic machinery of power that hums along in the shadows.

What I see as naive is his (to my view) faith in his reasoning ability to act as a sort of universal solvent.

He COULD do something if he really wanted to and was really committed to changing the status quo. He was initially wildly applauded and loved by both Americans and the rest of the world. IMHO, he has totally blown his political capital to make positive change. Maybe he's listening to the wrong advisors, but he COULD, if he wanted to, change advisors. I HOPE HE DOES.

I think we probably both agree that he never was "really committed to changing the status quo."

while still carrying out "holding actions", such as participating in electoral politics. Obama was our last best chance for real change and reform through the ballot in the United States, and I had to give it a chance. Now, I think, we should consider alternatives.

I also agree that Obama is by nature a well-intentioned man, intellectually gifted, but essentially not an unconventional thinker. He is a competent corporate lawyer, and a lawyer who operates by committee and is working for the corporations. Better than the alternatives, for sure, but many of us (and I'll count myself guilty of this to some degree) projected too much of our own hopes and aspirations of a messianic progressive leader upon him.

Part of my brain always remained cautious about Obama, convinced he was the best candidate in the field, but still aware he is not a real progressive, and no populist. I remember saying the same thing to many conservatives I met while campaigning for Obama two years ago. Reassuring them that Obama was indeed no radical Left-winger, I heard myself say, "I think a lot of liberal Democrats are going to be disappointed by President Obama." I now realize, I was trying to communicate something to myself about what I really expected to get out of the process of working for the campaign.

I am increasingly convinced that nobody who resembles me, and my friends in the progressive grassroots of the Democratic Party, will ever be allowed to be President of the United States. Dealing with that realization constructively is a hard thing to do.

Great post, SW. One of the best I've read.

I think that is absolutely the truth. That could only happen if we manage to change the system altogether. It's a daunting work, looking to break down the entrenched machinery of power, but it's really what we MUST do if we are to survive.

sw

I think that applies to politics, as well. It's not so much what end of the spectrum, or what party one belongs to, as the sincerity and the quality of the thinking that goes into it. The only thing that's intolerable is self-deception.

We all have a streak of self-deception within us. Your diary has helped me to pause and examine my view of Obama and myself, and maybe lift a layer or two from my own eyes.

Thank you for that.

Someone else behind the screen is pulling the strings...

the entrenched powers who would disembowel us.

Heard that before, all they have done is take away work and social environment. If they could do that to me, so what, it would not change anything.

And maybe they are actually doing it to themselves.


Note, that is part of African culture for reading 'signs' in some primitive tribes.


Some other interesting things.

Someone posted about that same thing, something similar happened to someone I know, although was by surgery.

Someone posted about what if everyone in the world lost thumbs, and I heard that an old neighbor cut his thumb off with an axe next day.


So what is your point? They can try to do what they want, or maybe even do what they think they can, so can anyone else. How does that correct the problem.

...than the thing it's trying to fix, even if it's moving in the right direction.

The Civil Rights movement was years in the making, so was Women's Suffrage. Yes, they were "disruptive" to the status quo, but they certainly weren't "rapid".

And were they not worth doing?

In much the same terms: she's not moving fast enough, she's not pushing hard enough, her focus is too limited, etc.

This part of your theory is illogical. Of course it is has everything to do with who wins elections. It has everything to do with how candidates are chosen to run for office. And yes we need more bottom up, thats the turnout part in the elections you seem to think are not very important.

to take. It is liberating (if painful) to climb out of the well and develop a broader vantage. "We really MUST work on a different level". On many levels within and without. I watched The Matrix again the other night and find myself pondering your post relative to its message. We're all "the one" we've been waiting for if only we will recognize it.




You might find this of interest about holistic, adaptive, cyclic, evolving natural systems that is considered to be the antethesis to our current linear, heirarchical system. And it's based on observations of a forest ecosystem but can be and has been applied to many types of systems, from anthropology to economics, global governance to climate change...all interconnected.

Here's one discussion of it and below is the author who is among the original sources for this theory:

... (Hollings) argues that no given adaptive cycle exists in isolation. Rather, it's usually sandwiched between higher and lower adaptive cycles. For instance, above the forest's cycle is the larger and slower-moving cycle of the regional ecosystem, and above that, in turn, is the even slower cycle of global biogeochemical processes, where planetary flows of materials and elements-like carbon-can be measured in time spans of years, decades, or even millennia. Below the forest's adaptive cycle, on the other hand, are the smaller and faster cycles of sub-ecosystems that encompass, for instance, particular hillsides or streams. In fact, adaptive cycles can be found all the way down to the level of bacteria in the soil, where the smallest and fastest cycles of all are found. Here things happen on a tiny scale of millimeters or even microns, and they can take place in minutes or even seconds. So the entire hierarchy of adaptive cycles-what Holling and his colleagues call a panarchy-spans a scale in space from soil bacteria to the entire planet and a scale in time from seconds to geologic epochs.

This brings us to the most important point of all for our purposes: the cycles operating above and below play an important role in the forest's own adaptive cycle. The higher and slower-moving cycles provide stability and resources that buffer the forest from shocks and help it recover from collapse. A forest may be hit by wildfire, for example, but as long as the climate pattern across the larger region that encompasses the forest remains constant and the rainfall adequate, the forest should regenerate. Meanwhile, the lower and faster-moving cycles are a source of novelty, experimentation, and information. Together, the higher and lower cycles help keep the forest's collapse, when it occurs, from being truly catastrophic. But for this healthy arrangement to work, these various adaptive cycles must be at different points along that figure-eight loop. In particular, they mustn't all peak at the top of their growth phases simultaneously. If they do-if they are "aligned at the same phase of vulnerability," to use Holling's phrase-they will together produce a much more devastating collapse, and recovery will take far longer, if it happens at all. Should a wildfire hit a forest at the same time as the regional climate cycle enters a drought phase, the forest might never regenerate.

Panarchy theory helps us understand how complex systems of all kinds, including social systems, evolve and adapt. Of course, it shares similarities with other theories of adaptation and change. Its core idea-that systems naturally grow, become more brittle, collapse, and then renew themselves in an endless cycle-recurs repeatedly in literature, philosophy, religion, and studies of human history, as well as in the natural and social sciences. But Holling has done much more than just restate this old idea. He has made it far more precise, powerful, and useful by distinguishing between potential, connectivity, and resili­ence; by identifying variations in the system's pace of change as it moves through its cycle; and by describing the roles of adjacent cycles in the grand hierarchy of cycles.

Holling embodies something truly rare: the kind of wisdom that comes when an enormously creative, perceptive, and courageous mind spends a half-century studying a phenomenon and distilling its essential patterns. In a conversation with him not long ago, I encouraged him to expand on many aspects of panarchy theory, filling gaps in my understanding and giving me nuance and perspective that only he could provide. As we came to the end of our conversation, I asked him a question that had been on my mind since our first meeting a year before, when he'd been adamant that humanity is at grave risk.

"Why do you feel the world is verging on some kind of systemic crisis?"

cont'd

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6008




Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems
By Lance H. Gunderson, C. S. Holling


The purpose for writing the book "Panarchy" was to develop an integrative theory to help us understand the source and role of change in systems- particularly kinds of changes that are transforming and take place in systems that are adaptive. Such changes comprise economic, ecological, and social systems, and they are evolutionary. They concern rapidly unfolding processes and slowly changing ones; gradual change and episodic change; and they take place and interact at many scales from local to global.

The cross-scale and dynamic nature of the theory led to the newly coined term - Panarchy. The term was created as an antethesis to the word hierarchy in its original meaning of a set of sacred rules. Panarchy is a framework of nature's rules, hinted at by the name of the Greek god of nature- Pan - whose persona also evokes an image of unpredictable change. Since the essential focus of Panarchy is to rationalize the interplay between change and persistence, between the predictable and unpredictable, Holling et al. (2002) draw on the notion of hierarchies of influences between embedded scales, that is pan-archies, to represent structures that sustain experiments, test its results and allow adaptive evolution.

cont'd
http://www.resalliance.org/593.php

Much good food for thought. Yes, I can see its relevance. I will definitely follow your links to get deeper into it.

Thank you again,
sw

I have to agree with you SW about Obama....and your OP , even though I hate to as far as O being the best we can do. *sigh*

But we are definitely in the time that WE are the ones we have been waiting for and sitting around hoping for someone else to save us, well, clearly not working out that way for, as you said, a LOT of reasons.(The main one IMO is the fact that the prez clearly does not run the show -neither do the D's or the R's - it is "higher" that that I'm afraid.)

As my sig line says...“In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete.” I think this is where we are...trying to figure just what the new model may be and how we get there.....

And Dover... I do love that panarchy theory - have thought about similar but never put a name to it....will have to dig more about that. Thanks.

:grouphug:
DR

I absolutely agree with the idea in your sig line. The first step is to de-colonize our minds, stop believing that we have no choice but the current programming.

I hope you'll read Lydia Leftcoast's post above, what she points out about not submitting.

I wish I weren't so tired right now -- I don't usually stay up this late and my poor old brain is fading out. There's so much that I'd like to say about all this. Another day, I guess.

I'm just very grateful for your contribution to this thread.

:loveya:
sw

I keep thinking of a routine by some comedian, was it Hicks or Carlin? They sit the new president down after inauguration day and tell him how it's gonna be.

And Obama looked not just tired the day after the swearing-in festivities, but stricken. I'm reading a lot into it I know, but this is certainly how things are.

I also think of the history of how blacks in our nation have had to deal with the powers that be in order to get anything accomplished--and that's from leaders themselves--it's a different ballgame altogether. as a community organizer he had the benefit of learning from decades of others' experience in getting just the decent basics from a culture that derided, loathed and stymied--even destroyed them--at every turn.

I remember Al Gore saying after the recount in 2000 that we would have to do something about it ourselves. And he left politics. I took that to mean it is so out of our hands now, and control is beautifully orchestrated and held fast-to by those few with the most money, and that money is the power that now drives our nation. The SCOTUS said as much in its recent hideous ruling regarding corporate free speech as money.

It gives me some hope that he even speaks of this as a terrible thing, and says we should be about the business of circumventing that damaging ruling.

I also believe him to be a decent person. I remember posting prior to his win that his ass would be owned, just as we are all owned in the current scheme of things. And of course, the disappointments were bound to occur. They were predicted. How many naifs are there here? I'm surprised that anyone would think it would all be torn asunder in 18 months. Every day Cheney/Bush damaged this nation in many ways. from regulation, environment, even food inspection.

So fair criticism is necessary, but I think it would be a good thing to keep in mind where America stands right now when doing so.

I'm just glad to see you are still here, I've been wondering. and while I spent the weekend screwing around on DU, i somehow missed this straight-forward and fair assessment you composed.

I can't +1 you, but I would if I could.

I love you both the most when I sort of disagree but in large part agree. Keeps me thinking.

Kisses!

:hug: Oh, who really gives a shit about politics anyway? :loveya:

I'm reconciled to my last votes, and to my next. Beyond that, there's a big world. And right now I have Lyle Lovett and John Hiatt for a soundtrack to it. Don't get no better than that. Be well, good man, be damn well.

Love you always and forever.

:loveya:
sw

I'm apparently inextricably linked with what appears to be The Dark Side now, so I don't bother boring folks with my opinions, though I have them in spades.

Love and peace back to you.

Yes, I'm still here -- I'm always here reading at least, and I comment on other people's threads now and again. It's probably been a couple months or so since I've written an OP, however.

I've been ruminating about the stuff in my OP for quite some time. One of the things I was trying to figure out was how to find some sort of middle way (yes, that's a deliberate Buddhist reference) between the warring sentiments on DU regarding Obama.

I find some of what he's done completely wrong-headed, and other things admirable. Overall, I can't help but feel some sympathy for him. I think it's useful to keep in mind that there are forces at work behind the curtains that he has no control over.

Most of all, I think that all the focus on Obama (He's horrible! He's wonderful!) is counter-productive. We need more than ever to focus on what WE ought to be doing, us little people down here on the ground with all the other little people.

Thank you again for finding my thread,
sw
:loveya:

Getting money out of politics. I think once everyone, and I mean everyone, sees clearly how it's the money, we may begin to truly reform it.

And other stuff too. Like really affordable well-tailored suits that make everyone look absolutely stunning!

please note how we both posted at exactly 1:25.

That shit is freaking me out.

:loveya:

:D

:hug:

a Jeffy samich' going on. :D

What is this, Old home week?

Where is my president? Where is Wetzelbill?! :D :loveya:

FDR was a centrist at heart, he only turned Left because he was forced to, lest the masses rise up and destroy Capitalism. the Elites only do the right thing if WE THE PEOPLE make them scared to death of a revolution happening that would damage their wealth.

which is sad but probably true...

But I'd much rather him than his opponents, and I don't see anyone better lining up for his job any time soon...


mark

During the campaign, I thought of Obama as a coffee-shop liberal. He was (once) in favor of single-payer health care and gay marriage. He talked about people clinging to guns and religion. He told the San Francisco Chronicle that his energy plan would cause coal-based electricity prices to "skyrocket". He belonged to a church that espoused very leftist views. It was the kind of stuff I've seen and heard in Berkeley and a lot of university towns like it. Places where the war was unpopular from the start, where Al Gore and John Kerry carried 80% of the vote against Bush, where cafes advertise their organic produce and shade-grown coffee. I'm not saying these viewpoints are good or bad, though I agree with a lot of them while thinking some of the others go too far. (Causing gasoline prices to spike is good for the environment and disentangles us from the Middle East, but not everyone can afford that.)

Somehow Obama is completely different now. Now he seems beholden to the status quo and the big institutions that comprise it. Now it's all about making sure the banks are healthy, that the insurance companies aren't too threatened, that whoever has voting and lobbying power is satisfied. Whether you agree with him then or now, I think you have to agree that something changed. What happened to the other Obama? When did the change happen?

The fact that so many here seem to think that (actually I am not so sure anymore if people are really posting what they think, or just what they want others to think) indicates that many members may have a complete inability or desire to understand politics. :)

There are no such things as politicans that don't have to adjust their **stated** objectives/beliefs in order to go from local politician or non-politician activist, to state or federal candidate. For the simple reason that as the constituency changes the policy expectations or popular opinion on policy can be significantly different. It is true that politicians work for us in the broadest sense, its just that *us* includes a lot of people you don't want to acknowledge.

Now it is even worse than that for the executive branch. Not only does he have to try to please a constituency that is a whole lot of different people, he also is limited by what the legislature is willing to do. You say he is beholden to the status quo. I say he is pushing the limits of the current Congress.


Please note that I never said Obama changed what he really believes/wants.

like running on "change" when you know you're going to have to govern from the center/right. That was a mistake. There are any number of abstract nouns that would have worked just as well and that wouldn't have caused so much frustration when their implied promise smacked up against the political establishment.

But that isn't even very surprising from the stand point of American presidents after Raygun, in any case.

We need to get those issue movements connected with the electoral side of things, and vice versa.

http://www.wellstone.org/our-programs/camp-wellstone/what-camp-wellstone

The three elements of the triangle are: progressive public policy, which lays out an agenda for action; grassroots community organizing, which builds a constituency to fight for change; and grassroots electoral politics, which provides tools for influencing and holding decision-makers accountable.

One of the main problems with the progressive left is that all too many issue junkies can't be bothered with electoral politics. On the other side, far too many active Dems care about elections and about nothing else. "The purpose of the Democratic Party is to elect Democrats", they always say. Well, some of us want to elect Dems period, and others want to elect Dems comma. After the comma is "because we usually get better public policy from Dems." And what if we don't? That's what primary elections are for.

So what does "start building a movement outside of electoral politics" mean?

If we can build support among the "masses" why won't "electoral politics" then be the answer?

The problem is that presently only one of ten voters is progressive. These people are not the 'masses". Either we build support among the masses or we try to rule without them.

is front row. Fuck us. Fuck the people breaking their backs everyday to make ends meet. Being negative rules us. As long as we permit that and them to be the bosses, or buy into the CNN and Fox circus show, who work so damn hard to pull the puppet strings - we are in trouble.

We can elect the smartest person on the planet and it won't make a difference until WE say "NO!" to sensationalism and decrepit media.

I wouldn't give a fuck who gave me cash. I'd do what I thought best. Yes, I'd rather do one term right.

What can Goldman Sachs do to Obama? Jack and shit. I'd run those fuckers over with regulations that would have them jumping out of windows. Show them difference between >fair< regulation and the regulation they definitely do not want.

That's the big mistake I see with Democrats. They start very low and end up with little of what they want. I'd start way up high. For instance we could have started with universal health care and ended up with strong public option.

I'd like to bring out one point about Obama that puzzles me. Why would
he keep on appeasing the Neocons, which brings him nothing but further
personal attacks, scorn and contempt; and in addition, anger and alienation
of the Democratic left? This makes no sense. Could he be obsessed with
his idea of bi-partisanship? Once a person becomes obsessed with
something, he can no longer see or think objectively.

I agree, direct confrontation with the Owner Class isn't really a possibility. However, creating alternative structures (see post #73) would be a way to reclaim our freedom.

Thanks for your post,
sw

Of course we can't engage in direct, physical confrontation with the Cabal. (That photo of the Chinese man facing down the tank is very compelling, but......)

It reminds me of a story an elderly man told me. He imigrated here from what was then Czechoslovakia, and fled when it was dominated by the Communists. They would talk with each other when they could, without being heard, and he told me what a friend of his said about fighting the occupation:

"If you kick that brick wall, you will only end up with a broken foot. But if every day, you piss on that wall......"

We gotta lotta pissin' to do!

:evilgrin:

...and will do so again. I hope that those who expected more sober up and realize how painfully incremental progressive change is in this era, take inspiration from those in who struggled for so long in movements such as civil rights and never gave up no matter how slow the wall was chipping away.

Plus, any Republican presidency or congressional majority gives the worst of the conservadems political cover to do as they please under the guise of compromising to gain concessions from the majority. We have to keep those majorities and grow them whenever possible so the DINOs are left standing in the light of clear day every time they cast a vote.

incremental or otherwise.

This is from a life long believer in such a point of view.

Everyone debates what pace is possible and/or desirable but my problem is that of the actual direction be it in giant leaps or the most tiny baby steps. 10,000 years on this course is the same place 7 or 8 thousand years of the Republican road map. We aren't chipping away but rather stacking more bricks in the wall.

Nor can all our issues be counted on to not get worse beyond hope of positive outcome. There is a such a thing as a point of no return.

Incrementalisim is not magic, it requires an endgame and steps toward it rather than an any step is a step in the correct direction mentality. It also had to be understood that every problem is not on an infinite time horizon. Time does not heal all wounds, many it deepens and takes the possibility of recovery outside of the realm of the plausible.

We don't have any hundred or two hundred years to arrest and reverse climate change or to get off of carbon. We don't have fifty years to ride out corporate capture and control, we just don't.

Some things must be fixed in the short term or at least make strides in the right direction or there will be no chance for the future to pick up the baton and advance it another bit and so on till all is well.

Progress must at minimum keep pace with entropy our the clock runs out and all is lost. Entropy does not so heavily depend on incremental tactics, it also has spurts so it is both tortoise and hare.

One size fits all solutions to holistic problems are foolhardy.

. . . in its implementation and application.

You are also quite familiar with leaps, certainly you have seen a giant change in the area of civil liberties almost overnight and the same with intervention.

There was no building evolution, the changes came with great speed and in conflict with long established bipartisan norms.

There is also the pressure of reality, if you have impending disaster then how does an incremental approach cope with such a thing?

Sometimes being too slow to react means death and extinction. Are you a dinosaur or a mammal?

We'd certainly cheer the passage of those, but it was decades later that the federal government moved to enforce them and make their practical application a reality. Health care legislation is another area where change has come in increments (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), with refinements made along the way which addressed deficiencies in application, availability, and benefits that were sorely felt before they were eventually enacted.

Pointing out the snail pace of politics isn't an endorsement, just an observation. It is mainly a consequence of the many disparate and diverse influences which are represented by our elected officials when crafting and advancing legislation into action or law.

The end result depends on what you're trying to change. We build on these compromises made by our legislators. Hopefully we build on them and don't allow the initiatives to be gutted, underfunded, or dismantled.

Limits do exist on how fast we can push political change, but I agree we are not even approaching those limits and it is a shame. Also there are a few things that are indeed fortunately inevitable but which will take too long -- like the end of genetics-based-racism, which will eventually end due to increased interbreeding. It would be a total shame if we had to wait that long.

Mainly we fail to go faster because we fail to actually win the mindshare in our own back yard, by actually engaging in serious discussion of our problems outside of the frame that politics puts things in, and teaching each other to resist that frame and act on our beliefs, mostly in nonpolitical ways but also when it comes to politics. We have to build a citizenry that is less fickle before your average non-exceptional politician will take risks... and for the most part non-exceptional politicians are what we have to work with. It's grunt work, but it has to be done. Today's culture is far too antisocial to give us fast progress in this direction, so we are currently coasting by on generational turnover. Hence we get things done very very slow.

However I do not view voting for Democrats when there is no viable third party alternative as somehow "sponsoring" them, any more than I view telling a nurse that I want my tetanus shot in the arm rather than the ass as stating that I enjoy tetanus shots in the arm. Some politicians may think I am endorsing them, true, but that's their fault and just more evidence that we need to produce better politicians.

There can be some argument made about needing to "clean house" in order to "send a message" but in the end it just does not add up. Our political system is not so broken that progressives cannot win primaries. We just need to win more, and better teach our progressive candidates how to win in the general. We'll still have to field hold-your-nose candidates for as long as we refuse to get out there, socialize, and learn to package progressive principles in bite size convincing chunks that can be conveyed in polite conversation.

(EDIT: all that and I missed a particular point: yes people accept way too much bull from DC -- they consider it broken and expect it to act that way. But do we know what direction they will break if they decide to get active? I think we see the danger of people getting "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" and simultaneously having, shall we say, less than sophisticated grasp of history or politics in the tea party. Or in other words, aim first, pull the trigger later.)