The Obama Movement


Sean Wilentz discusses how Obama sowed the seeds of his own destruction:

The dream of the Obama presidency based on a movement model of politics was devised by Marshall Ganz, a veteran union organizer and lecturer at Harvard’s Kennedy School, hired as an Obama campaign official and charged with training Obama volunteers—and articulated by Ganz’s ally, Peter Dreier, also an Obama adviser, a member of Progressives for Obama, and a politics professor at Occidental College. Ganz was both the theorist and practitioner of the Obama-as-movement-leader notion while Dreier played the role of publicist, heralding the new age in articles in The Huffington Post, The American Prospect, and Dissent. Ganz’s projection of the Obama presidency gained its prestige from the hallowed memories of the civil rights and farmworker union movements, imbued with high moral as well as political purposes. He posed it against the threadbare, craven horse-trading and maneuvering of parties and all previous presidential politics, which Ganz believes were “practiced to maintain, rather than change, the status quo.” The Obama experiment, a movement that arose from the grassroots apart from the Democratic Party, would usher in a purer moral and more effective leadership to the White House. Obama would not merely alter government policy but also transform the very sum and substance of the political system.

As its advocates were thrilled to point out in the aftermath of the 2008 election, their own work had ensured that Obama and his presidential campaign embodied the social movement model—and they insisted that the model was what elected him. The “real key” to Obama’s victory, Dreier wrote, was not the meltdown of the financial system in 2008, the military stalemate in Iraq, George W. Bush’s unpopularity, or even Obama’s then much celebrated charisma. The victory was owed, Dreier wrote, to “grassroots organizing.” For the first time ever, Dreier exulted, Americans had “elected a former community organizer as their President.” And just as the insurgent campaign had been transformative, so would the Obama presidency. As organizer-in-chief, President Obama would rely upon the movement that had elected him in order to reform health care, end global warming, and restore economic prosperity. Freed from the constraints of the status quo by this new political idea, the White House would be able to orchestrate through the movement and inspired through Obama’s oratory the much vaunted “change we can believe in.”

That sure sounds pretty neat, doesn’t it? So what went wrong?

Two years after touting the movement model of politics, its advocates now have found a culprit for its failure—not the Republican Party, not the filibuster, and certainly not their own notion of “post-partisan” Nirvana, but the once worshipped Barack Obama. Immediately after the midterm elections, Ganz leaped forward to charge that in office the president had lost his organizer’s fire and neglected to deliver the wonderful speeches that would frame the political discourse for the movement. Instead, Obama lamely sought reform, in Ganz’s words, “inside a system structured to resist change,” ignoring and even scorning liberal and leftist advocacy groups. He demobilized the networks generated by MyBarackObama.com that Ganz and Dreier claimed had helped win the Democratic nomination and then the White House. He became “transactional” instead of “transformational.”

Wilentz goes on to discuss why social movements make a bad governing model. But the real problem with the Obama movement is that unlike the Abolition, Women’s Suffrage and Civil Rights movements, the Obama movement was formed for the purpose of advancing a politician and not a political policy.

There is a term for a political movement centered around a person rather than a goal: a cult of personality.

Remember those stories about the “Cult of Obama?” They started because of something called “Camp Obama.”

Most of the six regional Camp Obamas held so far have been lead by Harvard Professor Marshall Ganz. Coincidentally, Ganz began his political career 43 years earlier at a seminary right across the street from the weekend’s training. He and fellow Harvard undergraduates had driven from Boston to join Freedom Summer. Expecting to find a late night strategy session in progress when they arrived, they instead walked in on a raucous “preach off” among young civil rights activists. And so began a lifelong career in applying story telling, emotion and faith to politics.

[...]

“Where does your hope come from?” he asked the audience.

After several adequate answers, he finally got one he especially liked: “Faith.”

“Exactly. That’s why faith movements and social movements have so much to do with each other,” Ganz expanded.

But one final audience member gave him the answer that perfectly set up the rest of the weekend: “I get hope from stories. Obama’s story that he told at the convention–that gave me hope.”

“Yes! ‘To inspire’–it literally means to breathe life into each other,” Ganz replied, “And we can do that by telling our stories to each other. That’s what Barack did for us when he told his story. And that’s what we can do for others when we tell them our stories.”

[...]

The purpose of this weekend training, Ganz explained, was not only to learn skills, form teams and get organized–but much more importantly, to learn how to tell our own stories, how to “put into words why you’re called, and why we’ve been called, to change the way the world works.”

A summer camp for young adults where they sat around campfires sipping Kool-aid and chanting “Fired up! Ready to go!” and “O-bama! O-bama! O-bama!

Okay, there were no campfires because the “camps” were held in office buildings and auditoriums, but the principle is the same. Read up on Camp Obama and you might notice a dearth of policy discussions.

It was all about the O

That “telling stories” stuff? The Christian fundamentalists call it “witnessing.”

The story telling exercises are the foundation of the model being used at Camp Obama. But they are not the end goal of the training. After a day of story telling, then came the nuts and bolts: training and exercises on how to function as an effective team, skills training for volunteer recruitment and voter contact and review and explanations of field plans for Georgia, South Carolina and the rest of the South.

The teams, which were organized by Congressional districts, were guided through a process of setting goals and making a plan to achieve them. While still at the training, thirteen different teams scheduled thirteen different volunteer recruitment meetings back in the districts–and picked up their cell phones to get 284 commitments to attend from friends and neighbors. Getting those immediate results fired everyone up and the closing ceremony, in which every participant received a certificate, was incredibly high-energy and emotional.

Have any of you been to a church camp or revival meetings? They are “high-energy and emotional” too. People at those meetings become “overcome with the Spirit” and pass out, just like they did at Obama rallies.



I think Riverdaughter is on to something about why some of us seem immune to the lure of the Kool-aid Kult. We went to fundamentalist churches when we were growing up and it inoculated us from the emotional manipulation used by the Obama campaign.

But the Camp Obama experience was only the beginning:

This handful of Camp Obama teams are supposed to be just the beginning of the Obama organization in their Congressional districts. The goal they are carrying back with them is to establish parallel teams of five to eight people to be responsible for cities and neighborhoods all the way down to the precinct level.

[...]

Its easier to see this kind of model working in relatively small states such as New Hampshire, Iowa or even South Carolina–where the model is already far more progressed–than across the vast half of the country that votes on February 5.

We know now that it worked pretty good in the caucus states where turnout was low and organization was the key to victory. I’m not saying there was any cheating involved but the Camp Obama model didn’t do nearly as well in places where they held primaries with secret ballots.

Obama won 13 out of 14 caucuses but only 18 out of 39 primaries. Of those 18, he only won 9 in the general election along with 7 of the 13 caucuses. The caucus states provided 3% of the Democratic votes but 15% of the delegates. Hillary won by a landslide in 13 of the 15 biggest primary states, losing in Illinois and winning narrowly in the Texas primary (but somehow losing the Texas caucus the same day.)



Obama gets $99 million dollars in 2007 from Wall Street, health insurance executives and oil companies. He uses that money to organize Cult Camp Obama. He wins in the red states and caucus states but loses almost all of the big states and swing states.

So the media and the Democratic leadership drag him across the finish line and declare him the winner anyway despite the fact that Hillary got more votes.

Then once he’s in office he immediately starts dismantling the very organizations that helped him get there. and co-opts or “vertically integrates” all the left-wing activist groups within the Democratic party.

He even arranges for the Democratic party headquarters to be relocated to Chicago.

It sounds to me like he knew his followers were gonna be really disappointed and he didn’t want to leave them anywhere else to go. I guess it never occurred to him they might just stay home.




About these ads

92 Responses

  1. Very nice analysis, myiq. You definitely show your legal background.

    • Brilliant.

      I tried to have this very conversation with a friend of mine (without all the footnotes, of course). The shocking thing was how similar it was to talking to a religious fundamentalist-Bushie-wacko.
      It was impossible. I could make no headway against her “hopeium”. She found my wish that Hillary run “offensive”.

      There is an interview with Sean Wilentz discussing his article on the November 9 edition of the radio show Daily Briefing on KPFK. It begins at minute 38:54.

      At one point just after both Clinton and Obama had declared their candidacies I remember convincing a different friend of mine away from Clinton to Obama, and then being unable to convince her back to Hillary in the middle of the primaries.

  2. Toooootally.

  3. Very nice myiq — but I don’t think it is just those who grew up with religious fundamentalists that are immune to the kool-aid — I think everyone with any REAL purpose (spiritual or otherwise) in their lives are immune to it.. It is those whose lives are empty of real meaning that are easy prey.

  4. Great post!!

    djmm

    • Great post!

      But also look to cognitive linguist George Lakoff (UC Berkeley) and his think tank Rockridge Institute (from 2003 to April 30th, 2008) for laying the discursive ground for a political figure such as Obama. Ostensibly, founded to counter the Right’s use of framing public discourse (e.g. Frank’s Luntz’s work), it looks to me like this Institute was perhaps established to make progressives more open to a cult of personality.

      In interviews, Lakoff often expressed that the Left lacked the emotionally fervor for politics and candidates that the Right always seemed to have. As such, he criticized the Left for relying too much on reasoned thought when trying to sway the public toward liberal policies. The public, he argued, would have a better chance of connecting with progressivism through visceral appeals rather than dry reasoning. Based on it’s short existence (notice the above dates of its founding and closing) could the Rockridge Institute have been involved or responsible in some measure for Obama’s rise through the Dem Party ranks and than onto the national stage? Makes me wonder who might have funded Lakoff’s Rockridge Institute. Soros, perhaps?

      **************
      About the Institute:

      “The Rockridge Institute sought to raise consciousness about manipulative framing and to propose progressive frames on a wide range of issues, including the economy, immigration, religion, and the environment” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff).

  5. Bravo! Elmer Gantry, indeed. (ugh)

    And I beg to differ—there WAS cheating in the caucuses.

    And frankly, I consider super delegates whose voters wanted Hillary (literally won primaries), but those super delegates went with The One instead—-that’s cheating too, in my world.

    Great post!

    • I didn’t say there WASN’T cheating, nor did I say there was.

      I wasn’t there, so I have no personal knowledge either way.

      Pacific John was there, and he says there was lots of cheating.

      • Well, I can’t prove that any of the 128 Obama supporters who showed up in the caucus for my precinct of ~200 registered Dems were there under false pretenses, because they basically overran the voter validation station at our multi-precinct caucus supersite. But let’s just say that in ~12 years of GOTV in this precinct I’d only seen one or two of them before. And I haven’t seen any of them since, either.

        • That gives a whole new meaning to “Democrat for a day” doesn’t it?

        • They tried to do it at my caucus too. I was the chair of the credentials committee and at one point, I came to the check-in desk and one of your voter lists was gone. I asked the volunteer whose list it was what happened and he said the Obama Volunteer (from out of state) took it.

          !!!! Took our credentials list — can you believe that?

          And she tried to argue with me over it.

          We’ve never had over 100 people at a caucus but we had over 3,000 at this one. We had to run 12 caucuses because the meeting room was so small. It lasted paste midnight.

          What a nightmare!

  6. …some of us seem immune to the lure of the Kool-aid Kult. We went to fundamentalist churches when we were going [sic] up and it inoculated us from the emotional manipulation used by the Obama campaign.

    And some of us may have taught speech communicaitons as well & not about to be swept away by speechifying.

    I always think I see the Obama logo out of the corner of my eye when passing Pepsi trucks. This campaign was a complete bamboozelement of the TV educated.& those old enough to know better.

  7. I said it before and I’ll say it again. Myiq, you are a thespian, and officer and a clown!! Forward this post to every news agency on earth!!

    Hillary 2012

  8. Great post. Koolaid zombies. This country really does not need that kind of mind control and dependent thinking in its political sphere. We have enough of it in our religious sphere. What’s ironic is that the latest meme being promoted by these zombies is that they are the Smart Ones who must prvail over the Dumb Ones, the stupid and ignorant ones. It’s sickening and frankly frightening, the degree of indoctrination that has apparently taken place. This is not rebellious youthful thinking…it’s plain old cultish mind control.

  9. I think it’s time for a round of W.O.R.M..

    Followed by a round of Obama Golf!

  10. I’m not sure we Hillary supporters were uniquely mature or immunized by virtue of biography. My own feeling is that our resistance to this “movement” comes from two basic things:

    First, it was obvious that this wasn’t, in fact, a movement, it just played one on TV and the Intertubes. The fact that it wasn’t a movement is now self-evident to almost everyone. For this Ganz guy to blame it on Obama himself is perfect. If it was really grassroots, it wouldn’t have needed a continuing stream of life support from the Great Teleprompter. There’s no normal English definition of the word “movement” that fits that picture.

    Second, even if there were a serious, widespread proto-movement here, it wouldn’t have been ours, wouldn’t have been for the Boomers. In fact, I always felt that the real energy behind Obama was from two sources: African Americans and Millennials. The first is admirable and legit (though he was an unfortunate inheritor of a heroic legacy). The second was potentially legit, but half-baked. It was our children telling us to move aside, already. We were the hate- (or at least annoyance-) object of this feeling. Not only weren’t we invited to join this march, we were the ones they’d been waiting to superannuate.

    • Great points.
      The so called movement wasn’t powered so much by adoration for Obama as by hatred. Boomers, Hillary, women, poor people, less-than creative class – it was arrogance, hubris and resentment.
      When they were saying “let’s change the world” no one had in mind a more just society. They just wanted their enemies to die. Or at least be severely humiliated.

      • Amen Sister. The religion of hate.

      • Yep, powered by hate. Before the admins banned me from Kos — literally, I mocked the Unity Pony one too many times — this was the sig I used, distilled from the essence of literally hundreds of OFB comments;

        OFB PROPHLACTIC Yes, I am paid by the Hillary campaign. Yes, I hope to get a job in Hillary’s administration. Yes, I am a shill. Yes, I am a hack. Yes, I am a liar. Yes, I am a racist. Yes, I am a purist. Yes, I am a troll. Yes, I am ignorant. Yes, I hate Obama. Yes, I ignore all facts that don’t square with my [lying|racist|purist|shilling|hackish|trollish] preconceptions of Obama. Yes, my reading comprehension is poor. Yes, I have a hidden agenda: I hope that the Democrats lose, and to that end I support [not Obama]. Yes, I could be older than you. Yes, I think all young people are stupid. Did I mention I’m a shill and a hack? Good. Anything else?

        Of course, as to policy, they had nothing. Other than “check the website” [guffaw]

    • Yup, I remember so many saying how they were convinced to vote for Obama because their grandkids
      would have been so disappointed if they didn’t.

    • Au contraire…. I can think of at least one English phrase including the word “movement” that fits the picture perfectly.

      • Oh, yes. When I say the title of this post, I thought, “Obama’s movement, how gross. The dirty mind of a pediatrician no doubt.

      • Believe me, I thought of it. But I strive to keep my puns on the, er, windward side of Chaucerian.

        Now, if we get to talking about vowels…

    • “It was our children telling us to move aside, already. We were the hate- (or at least annoyance-) object of this feeling. Not only weren’t we invited to join this march, we were the ones they’d been waiting to superannuate.”

      Absolutely!

  11. Designer movements – or McMovements…
    Very disheartening. And true.

  12. The Obama Movement: They tuned in hoping to hear a concerto, but all they got was a catchy madison avenue commercial jingle.

  13. So Ganz and Dreier believed their own bullshit and now want to want to wiggle out of it? How typical.

  14. Perhaps we didn’t fall for it because we just didn’t believe all the crap:

  15. Myiq, thank you. Your recap helps me understand what happened. “Hope-change-unity” wasn’t enough to get me fired up and ready to go. I supported Hillary and was neutral on Obama, until the race card was pulled on Bill Clinton. That’s when I turned against the Chosen One, but it turned personal when the race card was pulled on me. Two weeks ago I was told that the only reason I would not support the Democrats in Washington is because I must be racist. :)

  16. I never understood the so-called “movement.” I never saw anything exceptional in Obama and frankly, anyone doing their homework on the man’s history would have known the campaign was pure marketing hype.

    And yet still we saw millions go glassy-eyed over the man.

    Btw, I love the “bowling-off’ clip from Hillary in the vid above. I’d forgotten all about that.

    There’s no doubt there was “cult of personality,” the whole celebrity phenom working overtime. I hope we’ve learned from the disaster. But I fear we haven’t. I wouldn’t be surprised to see someone else try the same schtick–here comes the Savior. When times get rough, many voters will grab at anything. Even thin air.

    Good essay!

  17. Jeebus jumpers are familiar with conversion narratives:

    I have, in sorrow, come to the conclusion that should Hillary Clinton be the Democratic nominee, I will not cast a vote for president. I live in Virginia, which she has no realistic chance of carrying, so perhaps it takes little courage for me to make that decision, should it be necessary. But given that I am politically active, that I teach government to adolescents, that I encourage them to participate, it is truly in sorrow that I find I must make this decision.

    I will try to explain, if you care to keep reading, why I have made this decision.
    This is personal statement. No one else has read it. My wife is out of town, and will neither read nor recommend it. Were she to read it, she might disagree on some details, but she is so angry at the Clinton campaign right now that she might well append comments with language and expressions far stronger than those I am using.

    And I realize that in posting this I may sunder some friendships. There will be those who accuse me of various transgressions.

    I have to live with my conscience. For months I have at times sought to put the best case on things that bothered others. No longer.

    Let me be blunt. As I look at the campaign run by Hillary Clinton, not just the words and actions of her surrogates and employees, but her own words and actions, I have regrettably come to the conclusion that based on that campaign, and in light of that campaign her record as a Senator, that she is morally unfit to be President of the United States. Thus I cannot and will not support her, should she achieve the nomination of the Democratic party.

    Because, IN SORROW, I have come to this conclusion, for the duration of this election season I am likely to write about things others than the presidential contest, I will not be completely silent. I will comment on stories and diaries by others. I will devote my own efforts to things like house and senate races, or policy matters like education.

    IN SORROW. At some point I may have to explain to my students why I have made this decision. At least two of my current students read all of my diaries, and are likely to ask me about it in class. I will be challenged on the apparent contradiction between this decision and my pointing out to them that if one does not participate in a political contest then one acquiesces in the outcome. It is a sign of my sorrow that I being to see on too many things that matter to me insufficient difference between Hillary Clinton and John McCain to be able to justify voting for one or against the other.

    • It’s so funny because as we knew, there was little difference between McCain and Obama. In fact, I’d say Obama is much more of Bush III than McCain would have been. What an idiot. What a total fool this person shows himself to be.

      I wonder if he’s embarrassed by that yet.

    • It’s not nice to make fun of Teacherken.
      Yes, during the Rec List Hostage Crisis, there were dozens of conversion diaries a day. One person, I think it was icebergslim, became very popular and a frequent Rec List diarist. She was constantly on our cases but ts me that if I ever wanted to be popular again at DailyKos, I should embrace Obama. As soon ad you do that, you’re golden.
      Actually, I think I went about this all wrong. I should have pretended to drink the kool aid but secretly spit it out. Then, I could have written a really good conversion diary and a couple of followups before I wrote a series of “Hey, guys, I just noticed something…” posts.
      Of course, I would have had to give out major mojo and live bombed other converts. I don’t know if I could stand it without major doses of Valium. Would it have been worth it? Maybe. Getting inside their heads is the easy part. Turning off the religion is much harder.

      • Somebody named “Goldberry” dropped this bomb:

        Obamaphiles carry out Jihad on DailyKos

        What ever happened to her anyway?

      • Teacherken? That Teacherken? He of the longwinded, preeny, pious dirges? Yes, that Teacherken.

        • So, you are familiar with Teacherken. I confess I never was a reader. {{gag!}}. But he had quite devoted following of “Leave Teacherken Alone!!” fans. I would have preferred to dope slap the guy.
          But I did sing along when he lead a Jewish song during the ecumenical service at YearlyKos 2007. I miss Pastordan.

          • As long as we’re sitting round the campfire… Remember Kid Oakland?? He of the “casual poetry” of the Obama campaign?

            BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!

          • I met him in Las Vegas. He had that cool, retro, beatnik vibe going. He wore cool sunglasses and looked poetic in a “I take myself seriously” kind of way. I think he thought he was the next Hunter Thompson. Guerilla poetry.
            What dud I ever see in those people?

          • Kid Oakland came over here one night in April 08, I think. He wrote these long passionate comments and didn’t listen to a thing we said.

            It was like we were supposed to be so in awe of his wisdom, we’d bow down and switch allegiance.

          • He was passionately sincere in a cynically calculating way.
            He was one of the better trolls. After he failed to seduce us, he trashed us and pretty much called us stupid idiots.
            Like we would never see that comment on another blog.
            Maybe he thought we were part of the “internets is a set of tubez” demographic.

      • Things have changed over there – lots of angry people now. It took a while, but it’s happening.

        • They’re welcome to join us. As soon as they admit they were suckered and drop the CDS.
          It’s hard to have a conversation with Obama supporters who still get reflexively apoplectic over the DLC and NAFTA. Theyre still so invested in the idea that Bill Clinton sold them out that they fail to realize that NAFTA is peanuts compared to Asia and the DLC is a harmless boogiemen during an economic crisis like this one.
          Oh, and they have to stop holding Hillary exclusively responsible for the Iraq War. That shit’s gotta stop.
          The rest of the world lives her and she might have been running things if not for a bunch of gullible “progressive” puritans.

      • You had the same enemies I did. That makes me feel really good because I’m in excellent company and so are you!

        Yes the level of hate was something else again. I went out hard too.

        • Welcome to the deep end of the pool!
          Yes, we were flayed, waterboarded and mutilated. I actually loved taking those assholes on and getting under their skins. The bigger the ping, the bigger the response.
          Katiebird also has a fondness for ruthless troll squashing.
          We fight back.

  18. Nice! It’s hard to see how this changes as long as the deluded continue to cling to Obama. At this point, their support for him is based on faith and there doesn’t seen to be anything we can say that will change their minds about Hillary.
    She’s going to be president of Australia before she’s president here.

    • You know, there’s an idea. What if they were open to that, and she did, and all the working class who weren’t taken in by Obama or Bush or Reagan, all moved. Those left could either worship Obama or Perry or whomever.

  19. Good post.

  20. My favorite Obama photo from 2008:

    In case the html doesn’t work:
    http://makethemaccountable.com/images/0808/ObamaHurdle.jpg

    Carolyn Kay
    MakeThemAccountable.com

  21. a very nice essay. and yes, it’s right to point out how very, very flawed the dem primary was, in addition to other things about O that no one wanted to hear at the time. i’m annoyed by the newer narrative from (mostly white) people that says, “he fooled me! he lied to me!” no, he didn’t. you just didn’t want to listen to his critics at the time because you confused defending a black man with noble, truth-based causes of justice. because, well, you’re racist. (speaking of his supporters, i mean)

  22. Elmer Gantry is exactly who he reminded me of! at the time, during the Primary

  23. What is still astounding to me and perhaps it shouldn’t have been, is that all that cheating went on and yet we had democrats perfectly okay with it. These certainly were not the same people who were p/o’d about Bush/Gore for eight years… I was in three states. I saw it. I talked to Dr. Dean for half an hour about it at the end of the primary. I let him have it. I wanted to know if he thought people who had their vote stolen or manipulated were going to just forget about it? What they missed was that election was important for “historical” reasons to more than one group of voters. it was important to the entire country….I woke up that year to have to acknowledge that women as human beings with rights mean very little to “the party of women” when you get right down to it. So much corruption and money going into coffers in a back room deal finally. Pelosi strong arming supers, and everyone else! Gah! Who the hell are these people? I still don’t know but, they fully had to have intended to marginalize, silence and divide liberals.

    They like us for donating, making calls, going door to door but, damn don’t ask for fairness or rights or any of those pesky things. They were about to crown their corporate king by any means necessary and that was all that mattered.

    • What did Dr. Dean say to your confrontation? Did he acknowledge any of the abuses?

      • Dean went under the bus and didn’t seem to mind it down there. So much for him too.

        I was fooled but now am not. Not ever again either. If Foucault had crossed my path earlier I wouldn’t have been.

  24. Katiebird, he sat in utter silence. He seemed almost…..ashamed. He let me have my say, I had been trying to get directly in contact with him for weeks. It was two weeks before he came out and made those public statements, something to the effect that I think some people, especially women might feel upset with the party…something like that I wasn’t paying too close attention to him at that time as I was livid. He apologized in a back handed way when I was done talking and I said “So what are you going to do about this?” and he said they were going to “look into the caucuses and see if they could address the situation better in the future.” He wasn’t with the party long after that and I never trusted he was going to do a thing anyway.

    He didn’t deny or admit anything but, he did acknowledge the thousands of affidavits filed from all over the country especially from Texas. He did say they were “aware there had been some problems” At least he didn’t go into utter denial with me. He couldn’t really because I had my facts straight.

    It all ended up with promises being made. “We are forming a committee to look into it.” I did say “Well, please don’t put everyone responsible for ignoring this for a whole year on that committee.” I also told him he’d have to forgive me but, it would be a cold day in hell before I voted for another democrat till this was fully addressed, after all what would be the point since my vote can be stolen and gamed and the party just ignores voting rights now.” Oddest conversation of my life.

    All in all? His whole attitude was apologetic. That alone was telling to me. When he came out after that to make a statement I thought maybe he was going to finally say something because so many people had complained. Nope, he stumbled along to say that people were “disappointed” in some things and there “might have been” sexism. What a let down.

  25. lol sorry, he wasn’t head of the party long after that!

  26. [...] Myiq2xu’s post about Obama’s movement made me reflect about what hope and change meant for the Os When they were saying “let’s change [...]

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 414 other followers

%d bloggers like this: