In my weekly email, I described an increasing sense of unease. Chris Hedges' words are rolling around my skull like bad speed deja vu. "Obama lies as cravenly, if not as crudely, as George W. Bush."

The folks at Adbusters and OCCUPY seem to be feeling it too: "

"Will you allow Occupy to become a project of the old left, the same cabal of old world thinkers who have blunted the possibility of revolution for decades? Will you allow MoveOn, The Nation and Ben & Jerry to put the brakes on our Spring Offensive and turn our struggle into a “99% Spring” reelection campaign for President Obama?

We are now in a battle for the soul of Occupy… a fight to the finish between the impotent old left and the new vibrant, horizontal left who launched Occupy Wall Street from the bottom-up and who dreams of real democracy and another world.

Last week, Robert Reich, a guy who has an occasional flash of brilliance, reminded me, once again, that he is part of the cabal of old world liberal thinkers: "We need to do everything we can to make sure Barack Obama is reelected president...We need to fuel a movement to take back our economy and our democracy." I'm sorry, but this is liberal schizophrenia at it's mush-headed, Nattering Nabob worst. Why should anyone who is truly committed to real change, real revolution, spend a second of time or a single dollar to support a president who, just last week, touted and signed a "JOBS" act that doesn't create a single job?

Two weeks ago, Robert Scheer, a TruthDig.com columnist who often has many insightful things to say, wrote a convincing post, Obama by Default, "The Republicans are a sick joke, and their narrow ideological stupidity has left rational voters no choice in the coming presidential election but Barack Obama." I say convincing, but only if one believes that the current two party system can address or incorporate the ideals of a movement like OCCUPY--a movement that correctly points to the cynicism of that path.

Mr. Sheer doesn't get it:

They [Republicans] obviously learned nothing from the disasters of Bush the Second, who hijacked the tragedy of 9/11 to launch the most wasteful orgy of military spending in U.S. history in his failed effort to take out an al-Qaida enemy that had no significant military arsenal.

What did Democrats learn? Mr. Obama's budgets have never called for a decrease in military spending.

Chris Hedges, another TruthDig.com columnist does get it:

The liberal class has ossified. It has become a part of the system that it once tried to reform. It continues to speak in the language of technical jargon and tepid political reform, even though the corporate state has long since gutted the mechanisms for real reform.

Bill Maher pointed out last night, as a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama said his administration would not interfere with state medical marijuana laws. Mr. Obama also said that raiding patients who use marijuana for medicinal purposes "makes no sense" and that the Justice Department's prosecution of medical marijuana users was "not a good use of our resources."

Mr. Obama flat out lied. The April 2, 2012 high profile raid of Oaksterdam University is a recent case in point. We know now that the number of the current administration's pot prosecutions will surpass those of the Bush administration.

Read more.

Why are some of the vocal people on the left who are against Obama so binary about voting? I've met so many anarchists who are against voting, and while I can appreciate their desire for purity, I think it's self-defeating.

Consider the contemporary Reps. It's been partially co-opted by the Tea Party, which itself was co-opted. But the net result of the party-within-a-party has been that Rick Santorum almost became a viable political candidate, and Ron Paul has seen gains like never before.

When GW Bush ran, he ran to the left of Romney. Think about that one.

The teabaggers have moved Obama to the right, as well, on healthcare reform, immigration, and a lot of other things.

The reason why isn't because they have big demos, or get way more media coverage than they deserve. That's part of it, but the teabaggers are a strong voting bloc. They show up and vote. They volunteer on campaigns, etc. etc. etc.

They are way far to the right of the Rep Party, but they participate.

The way they participate is also important: they run specific candidates. Usually, these are "loser" candidates within the Republican Party who aren't up to snuff, but they vote for them anyway.

This strategy works because the candidates is in contact with the more moderate candidate. It worked for anti-war liberals with Kucinich. The gains were small and incremental, but they were still gains.

It works because it shows a few things; 1. these people will vote, so are political capital, 2. they will campaign, so they are a real threat to victory, 3. they raise money, so threaten mainstream fundraising, 4. they may win some small seats, and make life difficult for the mainstream, especially if they get onto a committee.

The reason why Obama shifted right is because the left eased up on their pressure. Occupy happened in 2011, not in 2009. If it happened in 2009 it would have been different.

Don't misunderstand - I'm on indymedia, and I know that activist groups were pushing Occupy's agenda back before Occupy existed. They were doing tent cities. They were fighting foreclosures. They were demonstrating, but it wasn't getting in the mainstream media, and it wasn't attracting people on the internet.

Now the pressure is on. Occupy should not go along with this 99% Spring nonsense. Fuck using the energy to get out the vote - walking for candidates and making phone calls sucks - just don't say voting is useless. It's not useless. It's one tool among many, and the point is to demonstrate the "many" part - to use action as a tool to organize, to create a threat on the street, and to create a media threat.

If Obama wins, and he probably will, keep up the protests. They must not stop.