The HRC campaign needs to stop trying to put activists and workers in opposite camps.

[Ken Burch]

The young activists who back Barack Obama are passionately pro-union and pro-worker. They proved this by fighting against globalization(which HRC doesn't oppose).

There is NO divide on the issues between activists and workers. Most working-class people are against the Iraq war, as are young activists. Most young activists back single-payer health care, as most-working-class people do(and, unfortunately, as neither remaining Democrat does, to both their shames.)

There is nothing the young activists in the Obama campaign support that would harm working-class people in small towns.

Please stop the pointless division, HRC supporters.

[democrattotheend]

1. I'm a young activist who works in the labor movement

And I agree with you 100%. It is upsetting to me to see some union activists disparage people like me as "latte-sipping trust fund babies", when we are the ones who are the footsoldiers in the labor movement and the Democratic Party and we're the ones out there working our asses off for causes that we all believe in as Democrats.

[AtomicKitten]

2. A swerve off-topic a bit, but she also needs to stop trying to plant her people in Obama's camp.

from:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5485819&mesg_id=5485819

With the nomination battle as tight as it is, and with Hillary Clinton saying she will go after pledged Obama delegates to win the nomination, the Obama camp had very good reason to be paranoid. They wanted to be sure that the Obama caucuses didn’t elect a closet Clinton supporter, or else it could overturn the outcome.

In a few cases – like at least one woman in San Francisco – the Obama campaign removed people who were secretly supporting Clinton.

* snip *

People were left scratching their heads yesterday wondering why some were removed and others not. A few even cited conspiracy – a candidate from Los Angeles who’s active in the anti-war movement suggested the Obama campaign removed people who were too controversial, but a closer scrutiny of who was kept and who got booted didn’t support that theory. The state Democratic Party couldn’t answer any questions – they said they were simply delivering the bad news, and referred people to the campaigns.

* snip *

What the Obama campaign effectively said was: “we trust you, because this is your campaign.” ... It’s called democracy – and in a democracy, everyone can get a shot to win ... For months, Obama has urged his supporters to take ownership of the campaign. He has said we will never get major change in this country without a people-powered movement.”

* snip *

Incredibly, the San Francisco woman who filed to be an Obama delegate – despite being a Clinton supporter – was also reinstated with the scores of legitimate Obama supporters. Was that a risky move? Of course, but the Obama campaign decided that they trust their supporters enough to weed people like that out themselves. Not allowing everyone a chance to participate would have tainted the process and disempowered people.

[patrice]

3. Everyone needs to honestly ask him/her-self, "What are my Real priorities?"

I/me/my or We/your/our. I can well imagine that HC and supporters are thinking some such thing as "What we are doing IS about us" but the key is honesty.

One clue is, if you notice yourself getting an emotional kick, of some sort, out of your word choices you may be gratifying somekind of personal need (for vengence or for the Easter Bunndy, or for anger or for "pie in the sky" or for hate or . . .) rather than the meeting the constructive rhetorical task at hand.