Would you consider that maybe “endorsing” was the chosen weapon of a couple of days ago?
Well said, although I thought you went downstream towards the end, but my sentiments in your words. I agree that our reliance on top down solutions is a smokescreen, and that Obama is simply the better of two bad choices. Mitt Romney and the GOP seem to think that a return to the Gilded Age is the penultimate answer.
This distinction between “endorsing” Obama and calling on people to vote for him tomorrow but “not endorsing” is a red herring at best.
Part of the reason that the Left always loses is that there’s so much ideologically-driven in-fighting as opposed to pragmatically-driven cooperation.
We want the same outcome tomorrow. Let’s unite on that for the moment and go back to the bigger picture, but less immediately relevant debates after the election is over.
I think you’re actually just straight up wrong here.
1. We are suggesting people vote for Obama.
2. We think asking people to endorse Obama limits the myriad of reasons and positions a person can take and still vote for Obama.
As far as “uniting,” I do believe it was you who just wrote about not hiding behind the talk of “unity.” We want Obama to win. But we ain’t wanting it under the careless stock-language you suggest.
As for the “Left” always losing… What the hell are you even talking about? There’s about 756 “Lefts” and maybe 832 “Rights.”
Also, your position of “go back to the bigger picture, but less immediately relevant debates after the election is over” is entirely dismissive and is basically founded on the premise that Remski’s “endorsement” idea came first. Like, let’s all rally around that and worry about the rest later. Sorry. What we’re saying is, let’s all vote for Obama (if that’s your prerogative), and leave the approval-endorsment-fest for when its deserved. We think our position is more inclusive, that’s all.
Act strategically. Act with your brain. Give the heart a rest. You all and us are hitting the same target form different angles. Don’t be so upset about it. It’s a good thing. If Occupy/WTO/et al. were manifestations of one single approach and ideology, well, we wouldn’t really have Occupy and WTO now would we.
VOTE for Obama. IGNORE the endorsements and group think.
PS- As a matter of fact, why don’t you come and jump on our train, instead. Our victory after parties are ridiculous!
Babarazzi just gave me a mindgazm. Still Baba, you have to admit things are pretty bad when the 3rd party debate is on RUSSIAN times. How long before it’s in spanish on Ecuadorian TV? I think the best idea is to vote 3rd party in non-swing states, and Obama in swing states.
Thanks for the party invite. If I was in the NYC area, I’d love to come!
And on that note, I’m going to go for unity anyway despite your huffiness – we’re advocating for the same outcome tomorrow and that’s what I’m concerned about at the moment.
Carol! We like unity too! We’re lovers! We can differ openly and move toward the same thing more or less.
You went a little downstream toward the end, but very well said, nevertheless, my sentiments in your words. Obama and our fascination with top down change is problematic, but voting against a return to the Gilded Age is no problem, at all.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 310 other followers