I'm just pointing out that nothing would've been gained by having the election result be(as a lot of them would have preferred) McCain 46%, Obama 40%, Nader 14%. Why would anyone think that that result would put us in any better situation for creating change?
At this point, a Republican victory in the near term is inevitable. For most Americans, the only people giving voice to the frustration and confusion in these difficult times is the Tea Party movement. So you have the swing voters, who were repulsed by Bush and critical in Obama's victory, swinging back the other way as their own situation doesn't improve. More ominously, the American public has increasingly lost faith in its government institutions, and those who are hurting most are dropping out. They don't care who gets in, things won't change for them either way, and they certainly aren't receptive to anything you or I have to say about the lesser of two evils.
President Obama has SAID he wants people to be active, to mobilize, to try and shape the debate from below. Why not take that as a window of opportunity, rather than wasting time on pointless griping about how the election actually came out.
And yet when the Democrats won Congress in 2006, they stifled the very anti-war activism Obama said is important. There's a good reason why [url=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/28/12530/1525]Cindy Sheehan[/url] gave up on the Democrats and why she challenged Speaker Pelosi.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I think Obama is far more dangerous than Bush. Bush was so hated and reviled that people would have run for cover if he said the sky was blue. Obama has a wide appeal to people, and he can (and in fact actually is) use this appeal to advance the same policies that Bush favoured.
Face it, the Dems and Republicans are in the back pockets of the same wealthy special interests, and neither party will advance any public policy that's in the interest of a majority of Americans.
