home

Friday Night Blog Fights

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 11:43:37 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

We haven't had one of these for a while in the blogosphere, but our bloggers' lunch with Bill Clinton seems to have brought out the worst in a lot of people.

Tonight, it's Ann Althouse and her second attack on Jessica of Feministing. Jessica responds here. Read all the comments, too. And this post at Salon. I'm firmly with Jessica on this one.

Jessica's sin, according to Althouse: She is posing in the picture, you can see she has breasts, and she resembles a rather famous intern who became rather famously involved with Bill Clinton.

I was there. I think Jessica turned sideways because we were packed in like sardines. At one point I was right on top of Chris Bowers -- he had to ask me to move forward -- when I did, I probably bumped into Jessica. But even if Jessica did turn to show a flattering pose, so what? Why is Ann being so catty about it? I sat across from Jessica at the roundtable. She did absolutely nothing to call attention to herself. She was sitting directly opposite President Clinton. She did nothing flirtatious, nothing to try and grab his attention, she was just like all of us, engrossed in the conversation.

Now, on to the next blogfight which is taking place in the comments at Steve Gilliards' NewsBlog, to his post asking why there weren't any minority bloggers at the lunch. In his post, Steve, a journalist, says he wouldn't have gone even if he had been invited. Reporters don't do these kind of events. Fair enough, I'm not an impartial journalist and don't have that training, so I'll take him at his word. Liza at Culture Kitchen (whom I really like and have sincere respect for, we spent an evening together at a club in Amsterdam) is even more upset about the lack of minority bloggers. She wrote Peter Daou about it and received this response. I'll agree. There should have been a greater attempt made to include minority bloggers. But I think it was unintentional. I will bet that when there's another such event, and there will be, whether it's by President Clinton or another Democrat, there will be a greater effort to include a more diverse group of bloggers.

I posted this comment in response to Steve over at his blog, and it generated a very apt response from one of his commenters and another from Steve:

My comment:

First of all, there were 14 bloggers at the conference (and my son, who is a non-blogging law student who was not invited but whom they graciously allowed to accompany me.)

Markos, who is Latino, was invited, but chose not to attend.

Only the beginning of the meeting, which lasted 2 /12 hours, was off the record. The rest was on the record and we were free to write what we wanted.

Most of us have no problem with commenting on politicians as well as writing to help some get elected. There was no quid pro quo for attending. I don't even recall Hillary Clinton's name being mentioned.

This was about outreach, about communication, about how to strengthen the blogoshphere.

I'm sorry you didn't get an invite. If it had been up to me, I would have invited you.

If there are candidates you genuinely support, there's nothing wrong with blogging that. You can also comment negatively about the system and those you don't like. I don't see why one precludes the other.

I doubt there was anyone in the room who hasn't written a negative piece on one of the Clintons. I don't think that was the criterion for an invite, but I wasn't part of the inviting process so I can't say for sure.

It was an exhiliarating afternoon, and one I will always remember. Usually we get to hear politicians give speeches and answer our questions. This was a real conversation, a true roundtable.

Please don't judge the meeting, and us bloggers, so harshly.

Steve's commenter joejoejoe responded:

TalkLeft - Jeralyn, do you do any fundraising on your blog? I don't remember you doing any unofficial fundraising for pols like FDL or Daily Kos. I've seen praise and criticism of pols ON THE ISSUES but not the kind of strategic political calculating that some other blogs do.

I didn't see what was critical about blogs or the meeting in Steve's post other than it could have been a bit more inclusive. In a lot of ways TalkLeft is similar to The News Blog in discussing the day's events mixed with the authors intersts and expertise. But TalkLeft and The News Blog aren't becoming defacto party infrastructure like Daily Kos and FDL.

Advocating for an idea and advocating for a candidate are two different things. When you are advocating for a candidate sometimes you hold your tongue when discussing uncomfortable ideas, at least that is how I read Steve's post. I don't expect to see that at either TalkLeft or The News Blog but it's only reasonable that partisans on FDL and Daily Kos don't trouble themselves with making the oppositions job any easier. Primary debates are chaotic at Daily Kos but the general elecition runs are usually very unified, beat the other side, issues be damned.

If a hypothetical terrorism death penalty case arose a month the '04 election arose and John Kerry pandered on it I suspect you would cover it in full detail on TalkLeft. I don't suspect it would get much coverage on the front page of Daily Kos. Both decisions would be OK with me.

Fair enough. And it's true I am not a fundraiser. I've had my ActBlue page up for months, there have been two contributors for a grand total of $135.00. I am a Democrat, sometimes to the point of being a cheerleader for the party and I want the Democrats to win, but I'm only an activist on criminal justice issues and no one seeks me out for money. I've publicized all over that my maximum campaign contribution (unless I know them personally and have found them responsive or there's a concert involved headlined by one of my favorite bands) is $25.00. I've also been quite critical of plenty of Democrats for their positions on criminal justice issues, including Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry. But I don't understand why Bill or Hillary Clinton should not reach out to bloggers. We're an increasing voice on the political landscape and we have readers. We can reach people they may not be able to. What's wrong with some synergy? Synergy is not back-scratching, it's networking. I'm used to combining forces with strange bedfellows when it serves our mutual purposes, such as when the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation joined forces with criminal defense lawyers to acheive forfeiture reform and oppose Newt Gingrich's proposal in his Contract on America to legalize good-faith warrantless searches.

Steve Gilliard responded to my comment:

TalkLeft,

I was trained as a newspaper reporter. I don't do those things, period and have never done them working as a reporter.

Liza's judgements are her's solely. The reason I posted it was that she had a legitimate beef which deserved to be seen.

Me? Pete would have wasted his time inviting me. Because I don't go to meetings with politicians. I didn't go to Yearly Kos for the same reason. I'm just not interested in having people be nice only to have to feel bad when I say not nice things about them.

I'm extremely uncomfortable when politicans try to "reach out" to me. Because then I'm being bullsh**ted.

I don't need a discussion, just answer the questions for the record.

As I said earlier, Steve is a journalist, with journalism training which I don't have. I'm not a neutral reporter but an opinion reporter. I report the news and then give my anything but neutral view on it, which is clearly stated on the "about page" of TalkLeft. I agree Steve the journalist might not have wanted to attend, but I wonder why Steve the blogger wouldn't want to attend. He's never shy about voicing his opinion. Later in the comments, he says if the entire meeting had been on the record, he might have attended.

The lunch is also featured at Danny Glover's Beltway Blogroll at the National Journal. Pam Spaulding of Pandagon weighs in here. The Guardian has this article about it in tomorrow's paper.

So of all the blog posts I've read, the only one I take issue with is Ann Althouse's. Particularly coming from a woman of stature, a law professor with a unique blog voice who often writes intersesting pop culture, and travel posts, and who I think I would like if I ever met her, this one struck out with me.

Update: Now there's a third catfight going on between Liza and Firedoglake. Apparently, Liza has previously attacked Jane. Let me be perfectly clear on this one: Jane Hamsher and Christy Hardin Smith (and all the FDL contributors) are outstanding. We all owe them a debt of gratitude for their contribution to the blogosphere and the cause of progressive candidates. This one isn't even close to me. I enjoyed being with Liza one night in Amsterdam, but FDL is family -- one that believes what I believe and has the courage and ability to express it, day after day.

Update: Edited to correct that Danny Glover writes at the non-partisan National Journal.

< TNR Shrill? Urges Dem Partisanship | Iraqi President: U.S. Needed One More Year >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Night Blog Fights | 36 comments (36 topical)
    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 10:44:13 PM EST
    why wasn't there more attempts made to include bloggers named after famous 60's kangaroos? that's what i want to know.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 11:12:00 PM EST
    "friday night blog fights"... well, you missed one. The racist screed that was posted on FDL in response to Liza's post. The scream of primal white privilege, i think it should be titled. I think in one way that it's a good thing that politicians are reaching out to bloggers... I also think that to participate in these sorts of events (and avoid a certain level of cynicism among the readers) that there should be a lot of transparency. Which there seems to be less and less of among the "A List Bloggers", as things progress. I found it interesting that, while most everyone whose post I read mentioned Peter Daou, no one mentioned that he works for Hillary. There is nothing wrong with his doing so, and it could just be an oversight, or assumption that people already remember that... except that the fact that none of the participants mentioned it seems a tad odd. On the whiteness of the participants, this was probably a bigger mistake than it at first seems. Nothing happens in a vacuum, as they say. If this was the only such incident involving the liberal blogosphere and its lack of inclusion of non white participants in events (whether through inattention or just not seeing it or whatever), then the old standard "well, we invited some (or at least one) but they couldn't/didn't make it" would probably be looked on with a bit more favor.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 11:56:22 PM EST
    a couple of comments: 1. last time i checked, and for pretty much most of my 50 years, women have had breasts, absent some unfortunate event. it's kind of the way they're made, or so rumor has it. why, i believe you have them too! what an idiotic issue to whine about. 2. if steve gilliard is really a journalist, he must be a piss poor one. clearly, he missed the class where they taught you to get a meeting whenever the opportunity presents itself, absent some clear conflict of interest. perhaps this explains his glaring absence from the public eye. i know a couple of journalists, they'd have killed for the chance to have a sit down with fmr. pres. clinton, regardless of the subject matter. i didn't get the impression you were required to talk or agree with everything discussed. to not attend, based on some weird sense of ethics would, it seems to me, be a foolish thing for any journalist to do. 3. though i suspect mr. clinton's staff is more aware than i, i normally haven't a clue the ethnic persuasion of most bloggers, absent a pic or something on their blog. had i not seen a pic of you some time ago, i'd have no idea what race you are, or gender (yeah, i know, the "jeralyn" should have been a dead giveaway..........), for that matter. i don't claim any higher level of social consciousness, far from it. actually, it's merely a manifestation of my normal state of obliviousness of things that matter very little to me. just ask my wife! perhaps, this might well explain some of the lack of minority representation: they're reading the blog, not checking skin tone. some time ago, i was posting on a current events bulletin board. i had an ongoing conversation with one particular fellow poster, for probably a year or so. it wasn't until he identified himself, as both a he and african american, that i had any idea; i just had never thought about it. my comment at that point was, "so what?" interestingly, that was pretty much the concensus among everyone else too. ok, ok, so it was 3 comments!

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 12:17:43 AM EST
    no, no nanette! sorry dear, i would have to vigorously disagree with your assessment of FDL's post, re: liza's rant. that is, unless you define any negative comment, by any white male, towards anyone of another ethnicity, as de facto racist. catty? yeah, it was a bit, i'll grant you that. but (and forgive my sin of stereotype), consider the source. that said, i still think he was pretty much on target, though some of the sarcasm could have been done away with, and the point still made. by your "logic", only a black female (and no, i've not a clue of your ethnicity, nor do i much care) can legitimately criticize another black female, without accusations of racism flying. hogwash! frankly, if that's all she, or you, have, than perhaps you all shouldn't be in the game. there's enough vacuity in the world, no need to unnecessarily add to it.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#5)
    by roxtar on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 02:08:01 AM EST
    cpinva: Assuming for the sake of argument that the folks who threw this shindig were unaware of the racial/gender identity of the "A list bloggers", this is a separate problem. Those relationships should be much further along by now. By way of comparison, don't you suppose politicos know the racial/gender identity of their major financial contributors? I promise you that they do, along with their hobbies, the names of their children and where they go to school ("Is Jason settling in at Exeter?"). It would take one person one month to prepare sufficient background on prominent bloggers to make them feel like members of the team, as opposed to a bunch of slack-jawed yokels being herded through for a grip 'n' grin. And those whose jaws were slackened in the presence of the Great Man know who they are.....

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 05:47:22 AM EST
    Maybe the Clinton team is past looking at colors and quotas (just breasts, Har, Har!). I really kill myself. Maybe they just invited the best. Ummm, I guess not, that would not make him a good liberal. The whole breast issue is funny. Of course any guy in the room at are casting side glances at the mams the whole time each on thinking the same thoughts. Are those real? Did she wear that to show off those puppies? I can only imagine what was rattlin around in former Pres. Clinton's noggin.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 06:41:39 AM EST
    et al - As an elderly gentleman of Irsh-Scott background who is past the point of immediately noticing the breasts of every woman he meets, I can only grin at the fuss and note that old saw, the smaller the subject, the nastier the fight. ;-)

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:17:59 AM EST
    It's impossible to please everyone.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:17:59 AM EST
    Beltway Blogroll is a product of the nonpartisan NationalJournal.com out of Washington, not the conservative National Review. I cover and critique blogs from left, right and all points in between, as regular readers surely know. In fact, in the post about the Clinton lunch, I link to an article ("The Courtship of the Blogosphere") from early this year where I was even more critical of Republican bloggers for allowing themselves to be wooed by the Bush administration during the confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:17:59 AM EST
    Maybe they just invited the best. Ummm, I guess not, that would not make him a good liberal.
    In other words, white is best. Your true colors showing once again.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:17:59 AM EST
    Minor correction: Beltway Blogroll is a National Journal blog, not associated with the National Review.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#15)
    by Tom Maguire on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:17:59 AM EST
    There should have been a greater attempt made to include minority bloggers. But I think it was unintentional. I will bet that when there's another such event, and there will be, whether it's by President Clinton or another Democrat, there will be a greater effort to include a more diverse group of bloggers. Of course there will be. But this situation is covered by the general admonition that character is what you display when you *don't* think people are paying attention. I'm just delighted that the next time (if ever) we see a group photo of a bunch of righty bloggers we won't have to listen to how the photo looks just like America - if America had been occupied by the Nazis. But I bet we will, anyway, although not at this site specifically, of course.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#16)
    by Bob on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:17:59 AM EST
    I imagine the photo shattered a couple myths. Myth #1: All feminists are ugly and can't get a date if they wanted to. Myth #2: All feminists may not be ugly, but they all hate men and for that reason forfeit the right to titillate them.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:17:59 AM EST
    no, no nanette! sorry dear, i would have to vigorously disagree with your assessment of FDL's post, re: liza's rant. that is, unless you define any negative comment, by any white male, towards anyone of another ethnicity, as de facto racist. cpinva, no... there are actually many ways to have not only conversations but heated disagreements between white males (or females) and people of other ethnicities without being racist. Happens all the time. What also happens all the time is (1) black (or latino or whatever) person brings up an issue or a observation related to white privilege or racism (2) discussions often result, in which some people (of any color or gender) understand the point being made and focus on that, whether they agree with it or not. (3) invariably, though (especially if we are speaking of black/white), there will be those who, in addition to not conceding the original points (and remember, disagreement is fine), also decide that the best way to rebut is to point out, with great sarcasm, the grammatical and spelling errors (or speech, if in person) made by the person of color - oddly, even if it's just one, it seems important to some to find that one and highlight it as part of their argument. Maybe sort of like this:
    So, Liza, dear, before you go assailing your betters and making Jane stand in for every blond white woman who ever pissed you off, maybe you should head back to eighth grade English and, you know, learn to spell and to write in a linear fashion. Although judging from your other posts that I read, mediocrity may be a chronic condition for you.
    Mind you, very few I've seen/heard (in recent times, at least), go so far as to attack black folks for "assailing their betters" outright (plenty of it in code speak), but maybe this will open up a an (old) new era of cross cultural communications. Perception, though. All the "dear"s and "honey"s are just an added topping. That screed actually has little to do with the Clinton bloggers. It seems Liza's main offense was pointing out that Hamsher was phenomenally stupid (or, as she puts it, an "idiot") and arrogant for putting up that blackface picture of Lieberman. There actually may be some that think it was a good idea for a white woman (one, by the way, attached like a limpet to an ongoing, longshot campaign) to include in her article, in a widely read publication, a mockup of two white guys, one in blackface ... even though the picture had absolutely no relation to the article in question. Hopefully, they are few and far between. But then I noticed in the comments there (at FDL) that disagreement with the main is considered "sowing dissent" and dissent is considered trea... I mean trolling. So perhaps that explains the reaction to someone not viewing all actions taken by certain people as brilliant and incisive satire or something. There are plenty of issues to be discussed regarding the Clinton bloggers, race, visibility and access in the leftish blogosphere, coalition politics - even accuracy and fact checking when talking about the actions of another blogger/activist, and how to deal with that. I stand by my original view of the TRex FDL post though... Liza got uppity and this racist screed was the result.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:23:22 AM EST
    Comment by Larisa of Raw Story:
    I am amazed that with all of the things going on in the world, Althouse would focus on someone who happens to have breasts, as women tend to do and that while posing with others in a tight group, those breasts happen to be in the picture, since most women cannot remove them. Shame on Althouse and Ann, who needs to take a closer look at herself and ask what she really is reacting to. I know Jessica and she is no Monica Lewinsky. I don't know Ann, but it is clear that she is not an intelligence or honest woman, which is a shame. We as women have many adversaries, including our own kind. It is sad to see yet another such adversary added simply because breasts are more important to her mind than the wonderful work Jessica has been doing. Shame on you Ann. You owe Jessica an apology.


    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:31:29 AM EST
    Danny, my apologies. I corrected the post and noted the changes.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#6)
    by ding7777 on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:34:36 AM EST
    I think the number of women bloggers that were present is terrific considering that CW says most bloggers are male (see Promoting Women Bloggers).

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:34:36 AM EST
    There should have been a greater attempt made to include minority bloggers. But I think it was unintentional.
    Which is what makes this even worse ... that minority bloggers, excellent in their own right, were reduced to being invisible to the majority. The sins of omission are worse than the sins of commission here.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#8)
    by sal on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:34:36 AM EST
    I think the "non-minority" issue of this meeting is a dead issue. Outside of Oliver Willis, who has his picture up at his site, I have no idea of the race or ethnicity of most of the bloggers who's sites I visit. I've see pictures of Duncan & Jeralyn, but that's about it. I don't think Clinton has a problem with his bona fides on "minority"* relations. It's just that blogging doesn't expose, unless you choose to do so, anything about yourself. It's certainly possible to argue that x number of things suppress the number of "minority"* bloggers, such as poverty (can't blog if you don't have a computer/internet, & time not looking for work), lack of access, etc. But jeez, this was one meeting with a group of liberal bloggers. I'm liberal as they come on most issues, but for crying out loud, not everything comes down to race. Nothing against the attendees, but I don't read most of them. Not enough time in the day, with work & a family with 3 kids, housework, etc. *Don't like the connotations of the word "minority" as often used these days. It implies some kind of demand for "extra" rights & privileges (r&p) that the somehow impinge on the r&p of the statistical majority, i.e at least for now, white European descended folks (I'm one). All "minority" groups are doing is demanding the same rights as the majority has. The goal is to get rid of the label "minority", and replace it with "American". Not by assuming the goal is met and ending programs helping "minorities", but by working to make factors like race, ethnicity, religion, etc., really don't matter in our public interaction.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 10:25:37 AM EST
    Thanks for the correction, Jeralyn.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sumner on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 12:04:02 PM EST
    Breasts? What a come on, what a false Bacchanalia. But then again, "Thou art a woman; thou canst invent a hundred ways." (from Andromache, By Euripides, written 428-24 B.C.E) But then again, If you started a Bacchanalia here, could you even then reign it in? The "breast" reference was pretty clearly misogynistic, even for a female, such as Donna Lopiano used to make. The real unspoken, underlying slur was against Bill Clinton: "What, no one wore a blue dress?" "Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. Good men must not obey the laws too well. It was a high counsel that I once heard given to a young person, 'Always do what you are afraid to do'. There is properly no history; only biography. Wilt thou seal up the avenues of ill? Pay every debt as if God wrote the bill." - RALPH WALDO EMERSON Tikkun once suggested that these be included into the future Diagnostics Systems Manual: MDS: (Market Driven Selfishness) and subcategories of this pathology; SR: (Selfishness in Relationships); SFL: (Selfishness in Family Life); IENO: (Insensitivity to the Economic Needs of Others); CPSC: (Cynicism about the Possibility of Social Change). To better understand blogs as the Public Square, see Professor Perlman, ACLU v. Reno II: Where Should Cyberspace Reside in Traditional First Amendment Jurisprudence? SUN TSU tells us that that general will win whom is imbued with the moral law. ("The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by danger.") How far we have come: Back during the CLINTON administration, there was an attempt to revive the 1996 law, (struck down by a federal judge, overturning the federal law that intended to rob children of equal access to sex-oriented cable TV). It had been overturned on the grounds that it violated the free-speech rights of channels such as Playboy TV. The law had been enacted as part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, (after a Florida woman found her 7- and 8-year-old children and a playmate engrossed in watching the Spice channel, according to the government's brief). Now, these breasts in question at the Clinton-blogger conference were fully clothed, right?

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 04:46:21 PM EST
    My last word. Sounds like much ado about plenty. Good night sweet Prince.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 04:51:56 PM EST
    I like to make up my own mind. I don't relish joining a "club" where my comments may be not accepted or accepted without comment. I like to think I can make up my own mind and imo, the FDL is NOT a blog I would read. It is too much into the "community" thang. Further, Jane is screeching and in the past has had a real potty mouth as if that would give her credit. Sorry, but the club of the blogs is not to my likeing and I will not participate in rah rah, gee you are wonderful Mrs, Murgatroyd comments. How's that? Some of us are not roped in by the "community" where one must comply in their comments to the ongoing "wisdom" which we may perceive as not being very much wisdom at all. Carry on--these blogs are destroyuing the spontaneous reactions of those of us who think outside of the "club" you know. We are on your side, but your side, especially FDL, will screech if one offers one scintilla of questioning. Is this the way the blog comments will be controlled? I resist being controlled in that manner. Carry on. and you may or may not delete thuis message but I find this "cabal" of bloggers becoming a bit too restrictive. Think for yourself. Question everything and do not succumb to joining the bandwagon of anyone who think their merit, their opinions, are valedated because they met with a former president, accompanied by the hired operative, Daou, and now seek to defend their fawning over this meeting.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#24)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 06:01:47 PM EST
    I'm with cpinva. Unless the blogger posts a photo, how would anyone know the ethnicity?

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#25)
    by cpinva on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:26:39 PM EST
    et al - As an elderly gentleman of Irsh-Scott background who is past the point of immediately noticing the breasts of every woman he meets
    jim, we call those guys dead. :)
    What also happens all the time is
    nanette, let me enlighten you: there are only two absolutes in life: one is death, the other isn't. you just shot yourself in the rhetorical foot, by that statement alone. those who seek offense shall surely find it. as i noted, FDL's comments could have done without a fair amount of the sarcasm, and still easily made his point. of course, that might have cut his post in half, but who's counting? if you want to flay him on style, go for it, i got your back. the "assailing your betters" comment, in context, quite obviously referred to her, in his opinion, poor writing abilities. having read some of her stuff, i'd have to agree: she suffers delusions of mediocrity. i, as a reader, shouldn't need a rosetta stone to figure out what the heck she's talking about. that could well be said of many people, she's not special in that regard. that said, i don't know that i necessarily fully agree with his overall point, but i don't believe it was done with, or had even a color of, racist intent. to be fair, i don't know the guy personally, he may well have a hood hanging in his closet. i kind of doubt it though, all things considered. of course, if you look hard enough, at practically anything, you can find whatever you want to in it. roxtar- last time i checked, mr. clinton isn't running for any office, mrs. clinton is, and she, per jeralyn, wasn't directly involved in this meeting. as well, it was stated that some "minority" bloggers were invited, and declined to attend. frankly, it would take me less than a day, to find out the gender, ethnicity and background of every blogger in that group. so what? what does that have to do with the purpose of the meeting? nothing, near as i can tell. these people had a rare opportunity (those invited, but declined), and chose to throw it away. shame on them.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 06:15:21 AM EST
    cpinva - Well, I did say "immediately." ;-)

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#29)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 09:00:57 AM EST
    Well, I did say "immediately."
    Modern pharmaceutical science gives you 36 hours to notice.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 09:16:26 AM EST
    I'm with cpinva. Unless the blogger posts a photo, how would anyone know the ethnicity? Some bloggers maintain their anonymity but many do not and self identify as black. If Daou was serious about finding black bloggers and he didn't know any besides Oliver Willis, all he had to do was ask. I'm sure Willis could have introduced him to a few, and most anyone invited to that little shindig could have. It wasn't a priority for Daou or Clinton obviously. I guess we won't see anymore posts from any of the bloggers who were there bashing conservatives for their all white get togethers. We also won't hear anymore about how the Democratic Party allows only access to the powerful and not the little people, since one of their excuses is that they are the A-listers and the smaller blogs like minority blogs are just envious.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 09:16:26 AM EST
    Ernie: Nope not saying that at all. If TL didn't post a photo, I would have no idea (nor would I care) what ethnicity she was. I consider her the best liberal blogger I read. (Not that there is much from which to chose). My question; If there was a minority blogger out there that I knew was a minority, but I did not like their blogging, because I thought they sucked as a blogger, because of bad writing, lack of logic, ect, would that be racist?

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#31)
    by Patrick on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 09:49:21 AM EST
    I'm guessing that this is why Althouse was being so catty.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#30)
    by Patrick on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 11:06:50 AM EST
    But if it lasts more than 4 hours, see a Doctor eh Jim!

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 04:47:04 PM EST
    Uh, we're talking about a drug free environment in my world, so you guys will have to speak for yourselves... And two hours is the best I can do. You?? ;-)

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 03:14:52 PM EST
    I think the number of women bloggers that were present is terrific considering that CW says most bloggers are male (see Promoting Women Bloggers).
    That's terrific perhaps for White women. Lousy for women of color who have no representation in that group photo. So, not much to celebrate there on the gender side. There should have been a greater attempt made to include minority bloggers. But I think it was unintentional. What does this mean anyway? If "minority" bloggers were not invited or included then that was intentional. Meaning that if it was intentional to invite and include them, then that would have been done and the effort necessary to do so would have been expended. "It's impossible to please everyone" Hmm...how patronizing.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 10:01:49 AM EST
    This post's update addressing the Liza/FDL issue seems to fall in line with the pattern noted by Zuky: assuring us that those criticized are pure of heart rather than addressing the substance of the critique, i.e. "what actually happened"..

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#35)
    by aappundit on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 05:32:07 PM EST
    Racism is and always has been alive in blogsphere, as in America. Excuses, excuses, excuses. There is no excuse why African American and Latin Americans should not be invited into a meeting in Harlem. Home of Black and Spanish folks for generations. I agree with Radfem. Some of the northern redneck comments have been, let me say, patronizing, on the edge of intellectual racism. I guess the meeting in question was a meeting in which Blacks, Hispanics and of course women of color need not apply to join in. It's obvious from the tone of participants the application to attend would have been rejected. As clearly it was not "Intended" for blacks, Hispanics and other ethnic minorities to attend... particularly in Harlem of all places.

    Re: Friday Night Blog Fights (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 05:58:59 PM EST
    I am a little late to this party, but I just have to point out that a lot of the excuses I see in this comment thread as to why there wasn't one single POC at that Clinton meeting sound EXACTLY like the kind of excuses one expects to hear from conservative (read: racist) pundits.

    Friday Night Blog Fights | 36 comments (36 topical)