DETROIT (AP) — Former President Barack Obama will campaign alongside Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed in Detroit later this month, lending his support to the progressive nominee after a bruising Democratic primary exposed divisions within the party.
Obama will appear with El-Sayed at an Oct. 24 rally that will also feature other top Democratic candidates in Michigan, including Jocelyn Benson, the party’s nominee for governor. Obama is getting significantly more involved in the midterm elections, with additional campaign stops and advertisements expected to come in the closing weeks, according to plans shared first with The Associated Press.
I’ve literally never heard someone say “ex-president”. Are they paying per letter on this title?
It’s “former president” or just “president”. The title is retained. This is standard journalism.
“Ex” has a colloquial negative feeling behind it. So much so, that I actually misread the title and thought it was referring to a president of some Latin American country. Which is the only time I see the phrase. When American journalist are trying to apply negativity towards a foreign state.
Really odd.
Just about anyone who hates Obama already hates El Syed. So there’s definitely nothing to lose there. However this is going to stick badly in the crawl of many neoliberals and Neo conservatives that are currently trying to demonize him. And that’s a good thing.
I hate Obama for abandoning the movement that got him elected, and all the bombings, but he’s still better than anyone who followed him
Which is fair. But it’s also politics. Getting elected in a system like this demands compromise. Which is why we shouldn’t have systems like this.
Compromise is good and healthy, and best case you get the best of opposing views. Not sure I prefer a system where half the population gets smashed into misery.
I do get the frustration at compromising with… people with bad ideas. But they get a say as well. That’s democracy.
Edit: maybe you are referring to two party system. Which yeah isn’t great. But with multi party they still need to make deals and compromises, just at a different layer, still better though
I never said compromise was bad. I said the system that we have should not exist because of the way the compromise works out.
Compromise is fine. But not with an owned unanswerable state. Under those conditions you compromise, those that are on the state do not. And that’s not compromise.
I might not completely follow.
there is no compromising with an unmoveable apparatus?
There is certainly a tonne of inertia that is… anti human.
Compromise requires two or more groups. All accountable to each other to have any meaningful compromise. Otherwise you get what we have. The wealthy get what they want and sacrifice nothing. We sacrifice plenty and get nothing. To be clear, I’m an anarchist. I think the state should be flat and granular. Granular enough that it could operate largely via absolute consent. And compromise where required is meaningful.
agreed
Once again the auth lefty predictions were completely wrong about the democratic party.
When you bow down to the establishment so hard, Obama comes to campaign for you.
This is Obama moving leftwards, not Abdul moving rightwards. Obama is getting on the Progressive bus, not the other way around. Abdul and the larger Progressive wing is still driving the bus.
Hopefully, the Establishment Dems continue being humble and stop fighting for control of the party. I doubt it though, so it’s important for the Progressives to keep pushing.
Obama was supposed to be the anti establishment change guy before he betrayed everything he campaigned on.
Some people can truly not stop falling for it.
Nice!
