This will be short. There have been some recent diaries on DKos from people who have been involved with the Occupy Wall Street movement. To be clear from the start, I have been greatly impressed with OWS. Through their dedication to the cause of equality, they have changed the conversation in this country. What were once derided topics (income inequality, corporate welfare, etc.) are now part of the national debate. More-so, the non-violent resistance displayed by OWS activists has shown the heavy-handed and illegal police actions for what they are. All in all, OWS has been among the most important, transformative moments in progressive politics in recent years. While I have not been an active part of these protests (been a bad year personally for me, and I just couldn't do it), I have supported my local OWS with money and food.
Given the success of OWS, everybody wants to get in on the action...to take on the mantle of OWS to campaign for or against particular candidates. Obama and other Democrats have spoken of the 99%. A few Ron Paul supporters even participated in the occupations. Today on Daily Kos, a few OWS supporters and even a TV personality called on the legacy of OWS to argue against voting for Obama.
By design, however, the OWS movement never championed a single charismatic leader, put forward a candidate for any office or even endorsed any single candidate. By active choice, OWS chose to organize their protests through participative democratic principles. Each OWS had meetings and votes on the process and nature of their protests. Despite calls by some to put forward a list of demands...most OWS encampments never chose to do so.
As a result, nobody...NO INDIVIDUAL...can speak for OWS. OWS can never be used to endorse or not-endorse any single candidate. It can only be used to champion specific issues like economic inequality.
Right or wrong, good or bad, that was a decision made by the protestors at the various OWS encampments. Given the success of the movement...I believe it to have been the right decision. But what that means is that any politician, any social activist or any Daily Kos diarist who justifies their argument to specifically advocate for or against any particular candidate is violating the spirit of OWS...and speaking for nobody but themselves.
Anyone who does so diminishes the power of the OWS movement.