"100,000 Strong Against Evan Bayh for VP" Off To Good Start--You Can Help

by: Paul Rosenberg

Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 21:53


If you didn't already know them, you've seen the reasons why Evan Bayh would be a bad choice for VP.  Now you can registiter your opposition.  The Facebook group "100,000 Strong Against Evan Bayh for VP" is less than a day old, and growing quickly.  The following message was recently sent out to its members:

Subject: 1,000 down, 99,000 to go

It's been 17 hours or so since the birth of this group and we're off to an amazing start. We outnumber every one of Bayh's groups on Facebook and are growing at the rate of about 8 people per minute right now.

I would love to say that if everyone invited 10 of their friends we would hit our goal, but unfortunately I set the bar very high last night when I, quite unslept, put that extra zero on the group name. Hence, that has to happen TWICE.

So please - If you have time, take a moment to click the "Invite People to Join" button on the right hand side of the group page, perhaps with a note to your friends with a short explanation why you personally think that Evan Bayh is not our guy.

Barack Obama has made history in this campaign by using new communication tools to build a better and stronger base. It is in the very spirit of this campaign that we are using these tools to help him build a better and stronger ticket.

Thank you all for being a part of this!

That was a couple of hours ago.  It's now up to 1366.  Facebook members join here.

Paul Rosenberg :: "100,000 Strong Against Evan Bayh for VP" Off To Good Start--You Can Help

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
"100,000 Strong Against Evan Bayh for VP" Off To Good Start--You Can Help | 74 comments
Opinions are like... (4.00 / 1)
On the Discussion Board the question is asked, So if not Evan Bayh, who is your #1 choice?

Out of seventy-seven posts offered by the 51 individuals, I counted twenty (20) different suggestions.

It looks like a lot of people are going to be disappointed no matter who Obama chooses to be his VP.  Since it's apparent that Obama can't please everyone, maybe it would be wise if we allowed Obama to make the pick on his own.  At some point, people are going to have to put their trust in Barack Obama to make the right decisions.  Perhaps now would be a good time to start.  

I'm starting to think he should base it on.... (0.00 / 0)
...pure, nut-cutting politics and nothing else.

Just win baby!

[ Parent ]
Yes, (4.00 / 5)
alienating and demoralizing your own base is a great way to win!

Not.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
As well as ceding the Iraq AND the anti-corporate messages to McCain! (4.00 / 2)
Victory here we come!  Republican blurring has never worked before, right?
[ Parent ]
really? (4.00 / 7)
I mean why do I ever have to trust my leaders to make good decisions without grassroots pressure?  Do I think Obama will make a better president than McCain?  Without a doubt.  Do I think Obama will make bad decisions without some serious pressure from progressive activists?  Without a doubt.  FISA proved that.  While I accept that I may not be pleased with Obama's VP choice, there are a couple of the short list choices that I just find complete unacceptable.  (The other one is Kaine)  If Obama choices Bayh as his running mate, he's shooting himself in the foot on everything relating to the Iraq war (amongst other issues).  

I'm glad it's done
[ Parent ]
Pure authoritarian bullshit (4.00 / 3)
The argument that "because Obama can't please anybody, I shouldn't be allowed to give my opinion" is laughable.

Obama's the best candidate for president running, but he isn't Jesus. He will make mistakes and he will do things we disagree with. If he wants to retain supporter enthusiasm, he needs to know what his supporters want. And we accomplish that by telling him.

Besides, trusting congressional leaders has worked out brilliantly over the last decade, hasn't it?

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
An Educated Pick (0.00 / 0)
Who says that you shouldn't be allowed to give your opinion?  Barack Obama has encouraged voters to offer their opinions on any topic of concern.

The point is that no matter who Obama selects as his VP, there are going to be some who are disappointed in the selection.  So by all means voice your opinion, but ultimately Obama needs to pick someone who he feels comfortable in working with and that will be an asset to his administration in getting things done.  

Finally, there is a reason why there's a vetting process of the VP candidates.  As we have seen over the years, public perception of a politician is oftentimes inaccurate.  Someone considered the ideal politician may in fact not be the ideal running mate.  Personally, I believe Obama has far more information on all the possible VP candidates than any of us can gather, thus he has a more educated understanding of which individual fits his needs.

[ Parent ]
The Idea of Picking Someone Comfortable Is Actually Quite New (0.00 / 0)
I just feel that's important to realize that this notion:

ultimately Obama needs to pick someone who he feels comfortable in working with and that will be an asset to his administration in getting things done.

is not at all as obvious and self-evident as many people seem to assume.  In fact, historically, this is not how VPs have been selected.  VPs have generally not been deeply involved in the administrations they are a part of, but rather have served largely ceremonial functions. LBJ was steamed to no end because of this, for example, and Eisenhower was stumped when asked to say what key initiatives Nixon had been deeply involved with.  This peripheral ceremonial role has not required any special sort of rapport, and indeed there very little love lost between either JFK and LBJ or Eisenhower and Nixon.

Arguably, only two VPs have been selected on such a basis: Gore and Cheney.  And Cheney, of course, was the one who made the call on the latter choice. So the record on taking this approach is not exactly a good one.  The fact that people simply take this framing of the VP choice for granted, and thus conclude that it's Obama's intuition alone that must decide, is profoundly ahistorical, and reflects a very troubling acceptance of quite arbitrary decision making.

This is not to say that this sort of decision-making process is necessarily wrong.  It is one way to go, and it worked pretty well for Clinton and Gore.  But the Bush/Cheney disaster shows quite well why we should not simply accept it as the normal, unquestionable way things are done.  It is one option among many with its own strengths and weaknesses.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Done and done. (4.00 / 2)
Meanwhile, did anyone check out the "Wow, I am a huge fan of future VP Evan Bayh" page?

It has a whopping FOUR members.


Montani semper liberi

did you notice... (4.00 / 1)
it doesn't even have any admins.  Apparently Bayh brings a massive base of support with him.

I'm glad it's done
[ Parent ]
Well that's gonna (0.00 / 0)
help win the election for sure!

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
This sounds productive. (4.00 / 3)
And, of course, we all know Obama is going to consult Facebook before he makes this important decision.
Give me a break... (4.00 / 3)
Bayh's not my first choice, but this hatred of him is bordering on lunacy. Some of you would rather Obama pick Edwards, even after the scandal, than someone like Bayh. It's all about political purity and personal pride over actually winning. Obama is a politician (sorry to let some worshipers down) and he will pick the person who will help him win--that's the bottom line. If that's Bayh, fine. If it's not Bayh, even better. But, I do agree that some of this seems to be hurt feelings over the egg still remaining on some faces from the Edwards "man crushes" that were so pervasive on this site.  

Demockracy.com

I gotta hand it to you Paul... (4.00 / 5)
you sure did bring out the concern trolls with this post.  I'm quite impressed.

I'm glad it's done
[ Parent ]
Wrong (4.00 / 1)
Paul is a concern troll.  This response is not "concern trolling" at all.

Need to look up the definition of that.

[ Parent ]
Nope. You're The One Who's Wrong (3.00 / 4)
Urban dictionary:

1. concern troll

A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending.

A concern troll on a progressive blog might write, "I don't think it's wise to say things like that because you might get in trouble with the government." Or, "This controversy is making your side look disorganized."



"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
The Urban Dictionary? (0.00 / 0)
Seriously:

"Urban Dictionary is the slang dictionary you wrote. Define your world."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/

Look at the entries for "Christmas" or "Conan O'Brien."  Look at any entry, really.

Quoting the urban dictionary as if it were some sort of definitive outline of any term is almost as ludricrous  
as promoting a facebook page to try to influence a VP pick.  

[ Parent ]
You win. (4.00 / 3)
Please share with us Webster's definition of "concern troll," then. Or the OED. Because those esteemed authorities have definitions of all the latest internet slang terms, right?

I mean the last place you want to look for the definition of an internet slang term is an internet slang dictionary. Duh.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
"Dictionary" (0.00 / 0)
I can put my "definition" in the urban dictionary.  It isn't even systematically edited by other users, like wikipedia.  I can post my personal, unique "definition" of a term - like "Christian" or "Conan O'Brien"  - those entries in the urban dictionary don't even purport to be definitions.

It isn't a dictionary.  It's basically a message board, like this.  Duh.

[ Parent ]
The definitions are rated (4.00 / 1)
The one Paul used gets almost unanimous thumbs up. So it seems fairly accepted to me.

Then there's the fact that the wikipedia entry is pretty similar, and it becomes obvious that you're just quibbling for the hell of it.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
A small point, certainly. (0.00 / 0)
But wikipedia is a decent source and urban dictionary isn't, for obvious reasons already mentioned.  The wikipedia entry isn't similar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

It appears that per wikipedia, a concern troll is someone using a "false flag pseudonym" - in other words, an identity taken by someone covertly unsympathetic or antagonistic to the groups' goals feigning identification.  I haven't seen anyone here feigning  identification for Obama, just mocking this particular exercise (or in my case, the Obama movement generally, which I frequently and openly do).  There is a secondary meaning, which essentially is "offering a poisoned apple," actively undermining a potentially successful effort by bad advice or sowing doubts.  I don't see anyone trying to undermine potentially successful efforts here - just mocking them as fairly self-evidently ridiculous.

As it stands, it isn't a very useful word.  But on this board it apparently means "someone I don't want to listen to" which is pretty much what the urban dictionary definition effectively means.

[ Parent ]
Also, (0.00 / 0)
I knew someone would probably get on my case if I used Wikipedia.  Which I think is a joke (getting on my case, that is), but I thought I'd try something different, to  see what would happen.

Now we know.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Paul is like, (4.00 / 1)
cocaine for concern trolls. They can't stay away.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
i think the addiction might be mutual (0.00 / 0)
asdf

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Lunacy? (4.00 / 4)
I think this looks pretty crazy:

You just hope that we haven't soured an entire generation on the necessity, from time to time, of using force because Iraq has been such a debacle. That would be tragic, because Iran is a grave threat. They're everything we thought Iraq was but wasn't.

That's Evan Bayh. Former President of the DLC. Former co-chair, with John McCain and Joe Lieberman, of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

The cornerstone of Obama's campaign and career is "judgement". What kind of judgement would putting this man a heartbeat away from the presidency demonstrate? If we're going to have a DLC centrist, why not just go whole hog and name Hillary Clinton?

Here's my lunatic reason for opposing Bayh: Based on an examination of his record, he's not that bright, and on foreign policy, he's flat-out stupid. I know that makes me sound like some crazy hippie personality-cultist Obama-worshipper, but waddayagonnado?

[ Parent ]
So you are accusing Obama of being a liar? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
You're missing the point (4.00 / 4)
Yes, we're against Bayh because he's a retrograde conservative politician. But we're also against him because he won't help Obama win or govern.

Conservative Democrats don't have a great election record and the path to victory is unlikely to go through Indiana (538 has it as the crucial state only 4% of the time). Bayh screws up Obama's brand and would not be an aid to forcing through progressive legislation.

If somebody will be a negligible aid to victory at best and will help to squander that victory, he's a dumb pick. It's that simple. I hope Obama realises this, but if he doesn't then we as his supporters should damn well tell him.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
This is malarkey. (0.00 / 0)
As I hardly worship Obama seeing that he was my 4th choice amongst those running, or even came close to supporting Edwards (5th choice) in favor for candidates regarded far less "pure" then them will you take my word for it that it isn't about political purity, personal pride or Edwards "man crushes"

Instead it is just about Bayh being a terrible choice that won't do anything positive for his ticket, while doing a lot of damage regarding the handicapping of the campaign messaging he brings with him, the damage he does to Obama regarding public perception and his lack of any qualities as a surrogate the campaign trail. The fact that besides all that he is the fourth most conservative Democrat of the caucus and just a few weeks ago agitated for increased hostilities with Iran is just adding insult to injury.

Instead of calling those that speak out against Bayh "worshipers" and victims of "man crushes" you'd might ask yourself why you belief that Obama will absolutely and certainly, without a doubt pick the person who will help him win. And is completely incapable of making any mistakes on this subject.

[ Parent ]
Yes, this is how things work. (4.00 / 3)
Obama: OK, then, I'll give Evan a call and make the offer...
Axelrod: Wait! Barack! Come look - on the computer!
Obama: What is it?
Axelrod: It's a Facebook group! It's called "100,000 Strong Against Evan Bayh for VP"!
Obama: Wow...they got 100,000 people to join that?
Axelrod: Well, actually there are only 1366, but still...
Obama: I'm convinced! Get me Feingold's number!
Because Mocking Those Who Do Something, However Small (4.00 / 5)
is so much cooler than getting off your butt and actually doing something.

Yeah, that's Obama's message, isn't it?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
"Actually DOING something?" Like what? (4.00 / 3)
Giving people the impression that activism comes at the click of a mouse is totally deserving of mockery.  Join all the groups you want, and pat yourself on the back. Do you honestly think it has any effect, "however small", other than smug self-satisfaction?

But I sense that Bayh is not going to be chosen anyway, which will give you a nice reason to claim that this was effective. Have fun with that. I'll be out canvassing. It's part of a little thing we call "Get Out The Vote", and it's going to win us the election, if it's at all possible to win.

[ Parent ]
As Someone Who's Walked Precincts, Done GOTV and Gone To Jail (4.00 / 5)
among other forms of activism over the past 40+ years, I'm well aware that this is not a big deal.

But neither is picking up the phone and calling your congressmember. That doesn't mean it has no effect, muich less that it's worthy of mockery. Especially when done by thousands and thousands of people.

It sounds to me like you have serious self-esteem issues.  If you really knew how important what you're doing is, and you felt secure in it, you wouldn't feel any need to denigrate others you don't even know.

Or, maybe you just had a bad day.

Hopefully the latter.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Self-esteem issues? (4.00 / 1)
There is a relationship between the amount of effort you place into a cause, and how much credibility you recive.

Joining a facebook page is no effort.  And it deserves no respect.  That doesn't mean that some of the people who join the facebook page aren't active and demonstrating their commitment in other areas.  It's just that this particular act is a waste of (very little) effort.

If you want to kill Bayh's chances, then you have to give Obama a reason or incentive that isn't already obvious to him.  Clearly, he knows plenty about Bayh, and that progressives will be unhappy.  Saying progressives hate him so much they're joining a facebook page will have no effect.

I'm struck by the odd dynamic of the Obama "movement."  If someone says they won't vote for Obama, they will be aggressively derided and reminded that the fate of abortion rights, civil liberties, Iraq, etc. lies in their hands.  Actually doing something to influence Obama or protest his actions in a meaningful way - no matter how small - is heresy.  

But joining a facebook page - an obviously futile gesture, but very visible - is a small, admirable gesture.

Is it any wonder that people think that Obama and his supporters are trendy lightweights?

[ Parent ]
By This Same Logic, You Should Never Call Your Congressmember (4.00 / 3)
And Moveon is totally ineffective.

Which is why so much energy is spent demonizing and deriding it.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Actually (0.00 / 0)
Calling your congressmember doesn't do a great deal of good, most of the time, for a number of reasons - primarily because the congressmember is going to evaluate the polling, rather than the calls of a possibly small but motivated group, and because the congressperson doesn't know whether I'm going to withhold money and votes, or whether I'm just venting.    

Moveon isn't comparable at all.  Moveon doesn't preach to the choir - it runs ads to persuade people who aren't members.  I gave a lot of money to moveon, at one time, because moveon will engage in hardhitting political activism and promotion.

[ Parent ]
Time Well Spent (4.00 / 4)
Funny how it is such a waste of time to join a Facebook group, which took me roughly 30 seconds this morning, but apparently well worth the time to write paragraph after paragraph criticizing people for joining the group.

It reminds me of someone watching someone else playing a video game and then, after an hour or so, criticizing the video game player of wasting his time.  Perhaps, sure, but not compared to the guy who didn't even play.

[ Parent ]
Wasted time (2.00 / 2)
Did I say I was engaging in activism, influencing Obama, or contributing to political discourse?

Nope.  Personally, I think that the facebook group is emblematic of the Obama campaign, and many Obama supporters.  I find it revealing and I find it amusing to discuss it.  Also, when it comes to Paul Rosenberg, it is sport in itself to pierce his microthin, pseudo-intellectual, overly earnest mental skin.  But I certainly haven't kidded myself into thinking that discussing it is "activism."

[ Parent ]
gamer activist (0.00 / 0)
And the person watching someone else play a video game never claims to be a gamer, either.  So yea, that sounds about right.

The point wasn't that you were a bad activist.  The point was you were a loser wasting your life at this site by some margin guaranteed higher than those you are making fun of.

[ Parent ]
They count phone calls. (4.00 / 3)

I repeat -- they count phone calls in Congressional offices.  During the runup to one of last fall's SCHIP votes,  Congressional staffers knew to the day how many calls they were getting, and whether they were coming in to Capitol Hill or district offices. 

 You may have noticed that MoveOn encourages people to call.   And they don't believe in wasting people's time.



John McCain thinks we haven't spent enough time in Iraq
[ Parent ]
You really don't know how a Congresional office works .. (4.00 / 4)
they count phone calls .. and now .. phone calls and emails are better ... because postal mail is so slow .. but phone calls do work .. I guess you forget Social Security a few years ago .. even a lot of Rethugs wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole
[ Parent ]
How would you know? (4.00 / 1)
In fact, I have a pretty good idea of the limits of phone calls.  

Take a look at the Congressional Management Foundation's materials.  They have recently done a full study on improving communications between citizens and Congress.  Under item 3 "grassroots organizations should develop a better understanding of Congress:" http://www.cmfweb.org/index.ph...

is a list of the obvious limitations of phone calls - they can be effective, in a way that can't be measured, on a small number of issues, if they are from the Congressmembers' district, on an issue the member is undecided on, and if the form of communication is credible and doesn't appear to be a flash campaign from a single website or radio show.  That is, in other words, not very often.

The full report:

http://nposoapbox.s3.amazonaws...

Starting on page 17, you'll see "current communications challenges" which will pretty well lay out in even more detail why a call to your Congressmember is a remarkably weak form of advocacy.

The report has an interesting proposal for formalizing communications in a more effective format.  

But the fact that Congressional offices answer the phone and generate mail reports doesn't tell you much about phone calls.  In my view, they are used by advocacy groups to energize their members, and members of Congress as a general public relations tool (that is the member gives the appearance of being responsive, so that people who aren't happy feel they aren't ignored), rather than much of a tool that influences policy.

And I have support for my view.  Not just - "hey, they count the calls."

[ Parent ]
I think it depends on who your Congress critter is ... (4.00 / 1)
Snarlin' Arlen's people are jerks .. Little Ricky Santorum's people(the phone answerers) were actually very polite(unlike the Senator himself) .. and so you know what state I live in .. I was even called back by Feingold's office .. after I inquired about a speech he was giving in Philly .. so some are more responsive than others
[ Parent ]
Polling doesn't matter (4.00 / 3)
Most people will not vote on a particular issue. But those who ring their representative to ask them to take a position probably will. If somebody doesn't make contact, they don't care.

Besides, polling is expensive. A congressional office will not poll the public attitude to the latest farm bill. They will read reports on it, they will listen to those who contact them and they will pay not a whit of attention to anybody who says nothing on the issue, because they've given no indication that they care.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
this is a short sighted view (4.00 / 1)
your looking at organizing a group on a website in isolation. vs looking at it as a stepping stone to additional action. first people chat on a blog, then they form a group, then they invite thousands of friends to join to, perhaps the group is particularly successful and indeed gains hundreds of thousands of members, group now self organizes street actions in localities, gotv efforts, fundraising for campaigns, etc.

its easy to pick on any single political action along the food chain in isolation as ineffective or pointless, because most political activism actions in isolation produce small or negligible results. its from concerted repetitive action and incremental growth that political power and influence arise.

that said, i've often wondered if grassroots activists would do better to collectively work at just building successful businesses and a self sustainable capitalist based community, rather than spend any time on traditional politics or political machinery, and simply buy our influence.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Except (0.00 / 0)
it can't be a "stepping stone" unless there's another stone somewhere that someone is going to actually have the guts to use.

The facebook group doesn't have a next step, because they've already signed on with the Obama program.  The allegedly progressive netroots aren't going to organize protests or donate to Obama's adversaries.  They're along for the ride, for better or worse.

[ Parent ]
Organize protests? .. (4.00 / 3)
how do you know? .. I guess you forgot FDR's famous words
[ Parent ]
thats a heck of crystal ball you have (4.00 / 2)
under this thesis there is no point to supporters even discussing anything they don't like about Obama. its all a waste of time because they'll be voting for him. thats very short sighted, as if the world stops spinning after Nov.

let me add, you appear to be upset because joining a facebook group is too minimal an effort AND thus its a waste of time. but it can only be a waste of the amount of time invested. if its so minimal - two mouse clicks, 30 seconds maybe? - then it can't really be that that much of a waste of time.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the analysis! (0.00 / 0)
Straight to the ad hominen attack in only four turns! Impressive.

It sounds like you kinda realize the Facebook thing is silly now. Why don't we concentrate on things that work. Can we agree on that?

And just to be clear, I think Evan Bayh is a shape-shifting alien.

[ Parent ]
So what do you suggest? .. (4.00 / 4)
the anti-FISA group got a lot of attention .. didn't it? .. it elicited a response from the campaign after all
[ Parent ]
You Do Nothing But Mock Us Despite Rational Arguments For What We're Doing (4.00 / 2)
and then get upset when we start questioning your psychology.

I find that mildly amusing.

FYI, it's not an ad hominem attack when someone responds to irrational pig-headedness by trying to understand its source.  An ad hominem attack is when you ignore the argument and attack the person instead.

But in this case, the argument was clearly going nowhere, as you weren't the least bit interested in hearing other POVs.  Understanding why that might be going on beneath the surface was simply a logical next order of business.

As noted by others here, spending so much time and energy telling other people that they're wasting their time is not, prima facie rational behavior.  By its very nature, it invites questions as to what's really going on.  And since there's certainly a good deal of it going around, I think it's worthwhile trying to understand.

I wasn't meaning to pick on you in particular.  (And I was quite sincere in saying maybe you'd just had a bad day, and that I hoped that was the case.) I think that a lot of people are feeling ineffectual, because, in fact, it's objectively true that invididuals are less effectual than they were earlier on.  There are less people out there who are persuadable, it's harder to reach them, and at the same time, the campaign is perceptibly responding more to people that don't support it than it is to its base.  This has to take a psychological toll, particularly if one denies what is going on.  Being conscious is invariably better, as it allows for coping mechanisms.  Lashing out at others as "ineffectual" is clearly indicative of projection, and not being on top of the toll it is taking.

This is all just basic psychology, and in a reasoonably healthy society, every 10-year old would know this stuff.  But we're not a healthy society, and so we not only don't know this, but we pretend it doesn't exist, and act offended if someone starts to talk about it.  But if we don't talk about it, we'll simply keep on being needlessly blinded and crippled by our unreasolved conflicts.

Not very enlightened or progressive, IMHO.

If you can get past all that stuff, then maybe we could have a decent discussion about what forms of activism are effective and why, how one online activism can evolve, etc.   I certainly don't claim that forming a Facebook group is any sort of ultimate answer.  No one here does.  So a good discussion of what else people can do would surely be welcome.  But as long as you're mired where you are, nothing really productive can come out of any such discussion, because it's simply not going to happen.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Wow (0.00 / 0)
1. An "ad hominem" attack is exactly what you did above. Instead of responding to the argument, you stated that it sounded like I had "serious self-esteem issues".
As you would say, "Not very enlightened or progressive, IMHO." It's also what bad debaters do when they have nowhere else to go.

2. Accusing me of "getting upset" and "acting offended" and (I loved this one) "projection"...you are quite the little psychologist, Paul! Actually, this is political to me, not personal. Everything else is your reading.

3. All that aside, let me try this again, but without the mockery:
A Facebook group against a rumored VP pick (based on ONE guy's blog posting) is a silly gesture that distracts people away from real, meaningful action and only gives them the self-satisfied feeling that they have "done" something. It is pathetic, and only makes me embarrassed for "our side".

Enjoy your echo chamber.

[ Parent ]
Considering that (4.00 / 2)
the "real, meaningful action" that this facebook group is distracting me from is putting my head in the oven, out of despair and disgust that come November I have to vote YET AGAIN for another triangulating corporate centrist . . .

I'll take it.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Be Honest (0.00 / 0)
Don't you think a group called "100,000 strong" anything, if it only has two thousand members is kind of deserving of ridicule?

I understand the group's goals, and I agree with them, but really, when your bark is worse than your bite, you'll get made fun of.

[ Parent ]
Picking Bayh= Stupid (4.00 / 2)
Protesting on Facebook = Even Stupider


Noticed (4.00 / 4)
If it is noticed, it sends a message.  Will the message factor into anything?  Probably not, but who knows.  

But the reason for names to be thrown up in trial balloons is to see the reaction.  Well, here is our reaction.

[ Parent ]
And getting the New York Times to cover it is .... priceless. (4.00 / 4)

Liberal Bloggers Want to Say Bye-Bye Bayh



John McCain thinks we haven't spent enough time in Iraq
[ Parent ]
Is it just me.... (4.00 / 1)
But I really do not think BO will pick Bayh.  Never been afraid of it.  I'd be terribly disappointed if he did, but I'd be even more shocked.  I think all the huffing-and-puffing over here is a bit over the top....although I joined the Facebook group because, hell, Bayh would be an awful pick.
did you read this: (0.00 / 0)
over at the great orange satan?  I think kos might be on to something.  Move the window over by floating Bayh, then when Kaine gets picked it seems okay be comparision.  Or something.  Really they're both terrible in their own way.

I'm glad it's done
[ Parent ]
Meh (0.00 / 0)
As has been derisively pointed out by others, joining a facebook group is easy. It's worth it as an insurance option.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Is there a facebook alternative (4.00 / 1)
do we have to keep using corporate privacy invading crap like facebook? can't the facebook effort point to something larger and independent.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
Things are heading in that direction (4.00 / 1)
change.org and Avaaz provide a lot of this functionality in a way that's optimized for activists.  They don't have the size of Facebook and MySpace, but I could certainly imagine using one of them as a base and then reaching out to the Facebook/MySpace sites.

Elizabeth Stark of free-culture.org and I lead a brainstorming session on Designing Social Networking Tools for Activism at Computers, Freedom, and Privacy this year which covered some of the kinds of things that would be great to see.  It certainly would be possible to build something on top of a Joomla or Drupal base ... hopefully the flurry of social network activism we're seeing will encourage people in that direction :-)

[ Parent ]
2,000 (0.00 / 0)
by the time I went to work this morning.

Montani semper liberi
From my Junk box (4.00 / 1)
Subject: 34 hours later...

Hello everyone -

[Note: Fret not about the frequency of messages to this group, for we will hopefully soon be obsolete when Barack Obama announces someone other than Evan Bayh as his running mate.]

What a 34 hours it's been! We are now 2350 strong (yeah, we have a long way to go) but we are sending a clear message to the campaign and to the country that Evan Bayh is not the guy for us. We've been in the New York Times, The Rachel Maddow Show, Pacifica Radio, The Nation, and more. One of the first to join this group, James Boyce, will be on Mario Solis Marich's nationally syndicated radio show at 3:30 EST (streaming live at www.gotomario.com) to talk about it.

The complete lack of any opposition to this group proves the point further that voters want an inspiring and gutsy leader in the #2 spot, not a career pol whose crowning achievement has been reelection to the Senate. Indeed, the constituency that wants to balance the ticket with someone who was instrumental in helping sell the worst foreign policy error in recent history is just a figment of some consultant's imagination.

It's worth clarifying that Bayh's Iraq problem goes much further than casting the wrong vote, as many of his colleagues in the Senate did.

Ari Melber in the Washington Independent:

"Bayh not only voted for the war and embraced its neo-conservative rationale by chairing the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, as a New York Times profile noted this week.  He went further, taking the single most aggressive, pro-war position possible.  The few Democratic co-sponsors of the White House Iraq resolution provide context for the kind of senators who shared Bayh's position at the time -- they include Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn), Zell Miller (Ga.) and John Breaux (La.).

This legislative approach was not only on the far end of the pro-war spectrum, it undercut the efforts of even pro-war senators to advance alternatives pressing disarmament over invasion."

There's more, plus video of Bayh's 2002 Iraq speech at http://www.washingtonindepende... but since you're already a member of this group, you probably don't need much convincing.

Your friends on the other hand might be a different story, and may not fully realize what it is about Evan Bayh which has caused a couple thousand of us to raise our voices together to keep the Obama campaign from making a terrible mistake, and we don't have much time to let them know.

Please take a moment to invite your friends to this group. Show them Bayh's 2002 Iraq speech. Send them a note about why you personally want someone worthy of this historic campaign to be Vice President.

Thanks for all your hard work,

Max


Mark, You Fool! (4.00 / 1)
No one reads the NY Times!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 2)
I don't.  But apparently I read email in my junk folder.  Shows you were my standards are...

Hey, did you know you can buy viagra on the internet! ...

Some pretty girl wants to be my friend ... hey, pictures...

[ Parent ]
"100,000 Strong Against Evan Bayh for VP" Off To Good Start--You Can Help | 74 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox