“young people” in this case could be as old as 35. which isn’t really young, it’s just too young to run for president, which is what I think the rule is related to.

Well, 35 seems to be a culturally agreed-on cutoff point for “young adult.” I think the YRs cut off at 35, too. And that’s when they kick you out of the Jaycees, too.

Or haven’t you ever seen Smile?

Big Bob Freelander: “A guy turns 35.” That’s really what’s buggin’ you, isn’t it? That you’re about to turn 35.
Andy DiCarlo: Maybe. Maybe. Or maybe I don’t see what’s fun about kissing a dead chicken’s ass.
Big Bob Freelander: Well that’s ‘cause you haven’t tried it.

So yeah.

I so hope that you’re right that the Obama campaign (and the DNC under Dean) has realized what a missed opportunity the youth vote is and they are genuinely cultivating a strong base for Democrats. Even though now I’m old and I should be shaking my cane at them and telling them to get off my lawn.

Worst case is he never gives you more… No, worst case is that you, your organization and anybody in it of any significance is marked down as a lying little bastard who is finished in the party because:
(a) The people that you screwed over have long memories and a revenge streak a mile wide. Any Clinton loyalist in the party — and there are many — will ensure that you never get above stuffing envelopes.
(b) The people that you supported don’t trust you because:
(b1) you’ve established that [by the odd rules of legal corruption] you can’t be trusted, and
(b2) you’ve shown that you’ll take the money to work against them, so they can safely rely on the fact that later on somebody will find the price at which you will promise to betray them and actually do so.

They know when a threat is being implied.

I wish someone would threaten me with a million dollars.

It’s only a threat if you look at it from the position that all political donations require 100% compliance to the donor’s wishes and/or all of one’s sources of funding must be 100% ideologically scrubbed. We make such a big deal about not taking money from lobbyists and giving back money received from people or groups that do or say something stupid. If I were in charge of an advocacy group or running for office I’d take anyone’s money, and you know why? Because I would use that money to further my own cause, not theirs. There is no law on the books that says accepting donations requires agreement with the donor’s agenda or compliance with their demands; the only reason that works is when you want to have that donor give you more money later. Donors only have power to the extent that recipients grant it to them. These kids should have taken Saban’s money and then immediately announced that their superdelegates would vote for Obama, if that was their organization’s intent. In any case, take the money! Worst case is he never gives you more, in which case it’s all good because he never would have given it to you anyway.

I take it “liberal” in “liberalrob” and “progressive” are at odds here, just as they are throughout “liberally” mass-backward-chusetts.

I hope they are not at odds, because that would mean that progressivism is just as blinkered and parochial as conservatism has proven to be, and that would be a great tragedy in my eyes.

This is true in so many ways, and it really makes me angry. You know those Obama fellows that the campaign has made so much of are NOT BEING PAID. I was part of a campaign which promised supporter housing to its staff and then when they all moved out to work they couldn’t find enough supporter housing. So they just left them on their own to rent a place.

It’s impossible to work on most campaigns unless you are rich and have parents to bankroll you. Otherwise it is just not financially sustainable (until you get up to campaign manager or field/finance/etc. director level but not everyone can do that, obviously). And most campaigns don’t provide health insurance.

So they’ve got people working for poverty wages — $200/week is pretty standard from what I’ve seen, occasionally you may get more — required to have their own car to use, sometimes their own cell phone which they pay for — it’s just exploitative and bad, bad, bad.

Oh and then there was a time I was injured working for a campaign and they paid my workers’ comp but then treated me like shit until I quit.

Not that I’m bitter, or anything.

This statement doesn’t make sense whatsoever from blogging point of view.

1. The point of democracy is distributed decision making. And the blog is at best when doing analysis against public opinion.

2. If it is stupid, and one knows it is stupid, should he say something if not fix it? Letting it continues to be stupid seems rather dubious.

3. Want to fight patriarchy ? Well, analysis and method of analysis are the very core of changing social perception. (Gotta show up when things matters. When deep analytical thinking on contentious political issues are needed.)