Just Some Guys And Gals* With Blogs

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:05:59 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

atrios liked this from Stoller:

Also, while I'm doing a bit of ranting, stupid articles on what the 'netroots' does or does not do, such as this one, or this one, to take but two examples, that ignore the fact that no top-tier Democrat differs from Clinton on Iraq, are really really stupid. . . . [T]he blogosphere is [not] some top-down organization with centralized management that controls the Democratic party leadership rather than a network of people with somewhat highly trafficked websites held in mild disdain by most Democrats on the Hill with any decision-making authority or useful information. Although to be fair to the previous two really stupid articles, the latter two stupid articles were pretty stupid.

(Emphasis supplied.)

I wrote one of the "stupid" articles referenced. I think Stoller missed my point. I could not care less if the Netroots unites behind any Presidential candidate or blasts away at Hillary. Stoller defends himself by saying Hillary should be opposed (I guess.) He may be right but that is not my beef. Indeed, my complaint has been that the Netroots spends too much time talking about the 2008 presidential election and not enough time talking about the issues of 2007. In fact, I wrote:

Today the netroots faces a new challenge of avoiding being seen as a top-down driven movement. This month is a pivotal time in the fight to end the Iraq debacle. Yet organizations like MoveOn and netroots "leaders" like Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers are more interested in launching campaigns for the 2008 elections than in organizing to pressure today's Democrat-controlled congress to do all it can to end the Iraq war now, during the Bush presidency. I think that does not reflect the views of the "people power" the netroots is said to represent. A real acid test is now before the netroots: will it be what Bai describes - a top-down group who take direction from its self-appointed leaders? Or will it be a people-powered movement, which fights for issues it cares about? September may very well tell the tale.

Now did this make the Left blogs "sucky"? On this issue, in my opinion, yes, very much so. It is quite amusing to me that blogs, so critical, and for goood reason, of the media, pols, etc., always seems to find criticism of blogs so utterly offensive.

As for my own flaws, they are legion, and are pointed out to me often - such as here.

And yes Duncan, I freely admit that my "pet issue" is ending the Iraq Debacle.

Update [2007-9-5 13:58:39 by Big Tent Democrat]: Apparently NOT just a "network of fairly well trafficked blogs" when it suits them:

So, the progressive blogosphere just played a huge role in winning a Democratic primary for US House. this is a major accomplishment. Well done and thank you to everyone who participated in the fundraiser.

I wish Stoller and Bowers and the NETROOTS could make up their minds as to whether they just "folks with blogs" or playing "huge roles."

A playful reference to Senator Clinton's "I'm your gal" line.

< Another Defense for Sen. Larry Craig? | Ala. Judge Investigated for Spanking Prisoners >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Just Some Guys And Gals* With Blogs | 29 comments (29 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I'm still reeling (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by pontificator on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:38:28 AM EST

from Stoller's brazen ad hominem attack on your integrity last weekend. It was totally without merit and, frankly, embarrassing.

That's why I used it here (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:45:21 AM EST

Of course it is off topic but any good device to win an argument.


Seriously though (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:56:49 AM EST

I do find it amazing how bloggers feel that they should be immune from criticism on what they write and do or do not do.

I really think atrios has the wrong philosophy on this.


I gather the critics weren't deterred by (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by oculus on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 12:08:09 PM EST

whether your thoughts were IN The Guardian or ON the Guardian's website.


: Heh (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 12:18:37 PM EST

Apparently not.

I would (none / 0) (#10)
by taylormattd on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:59:51 PM EST

argue there is a great difference between criticizing what a blogger writes and criticizing a blogger for failing to write about a particular issue.


Yes there is a difference (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:17:14 PM EST

but are you seriously arguing that one is legitimate and one is not?

Would you apply the same standard to the Media?

In other words, what is your point?


: well (none / 0) (#20)
by taylormattd on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:21:43 PM EST

I suppose my point is that, yes, there is are vast differences between "the Media" and "the blogs", but more importantly, there are vast differences amongst "the blogs" themselves.
In fact, you have pointed that out yourself when you talk about the "netroots establishment" vs. other, "lower profile" bloggers.
I understand the impulse to criticize high profile blogs or bloggers for "not talking about" important issues, but to me, whether the blog is high profile is not the only consideration in assessing whether the criticism is legitmate.
It seems to me that it is also important to consider the type of blog we are talking about. For example, while Atrios' site is exceedingly "high profile", it is also more of a "link with short, pithy comment" type of clearinghouse blog (as opposed to a story, diary, or essay based blog). Another example would be Huffington Post. A totally different type of site, more in the mold of a left wing Drudge, but with personal blogs and quasi-celebrity posters.
I just think it's more difficult to critize those sites for "failing to talk" about a particular issue because of the nature of the posting that goes on at those site.

You're such a lawyer ;) (none / 0) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 11:58:23 AM EST

Man. (none / 0) (#28)
by oculus on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 12:15:01 AM EST

Here here, spare us the handicapping (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Dadler on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 11:53:43 AM EST

It's a race of claimers and maidens anyway, and up to now the front-runners aren't saying anything really worth listening to, except to roll one's eyes. And the longshots are getting the miniscule press they always do, as if it's just any old time in history, no reason to equally cover the "none of the above" candidates.

I mean, sh*t, how hard would it be for the roots to organize weekly or even daily demonstrations, with drums, in every city possible? Just come out and start beating the drum and protesting. One has to think that the crowd would increase weekly, if not daily. If permits become an issue, I don't think a court would side with supressing the people's desire to peacefully and rythmically assemble in dissent of their government. Enlivening the civic arena with some beats and eloquent speaks ain't no crime. But for some reason we think it is, or is close enough to. Where art thou? All of us?

Jack Balkin would like this: (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 12:06:24 PM EST

the right of the people to

peacefully and rythmically [sic] assemble

Where art though? (none / 0) (#8)
by Peaches on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 12:14:56 PM EST

at our keyboards, some of us even raising a fuss. Supposedly, we have the ear of some important people.

Of course we are masters of information, and we are all outraged by the crackdowns on peaceful protests and the dismissal of freespeech and rights to assembly and we are voicing our opinion on it everyday - from our keyboards.

Don't we make an angry mob?

No wonder the Dems take us so seriously and have ended the war.


: Anyday now Peaches..... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by kdog on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 03:25:04 PM EST

The Dems are ready to crack...just a couple more blog posts, maybe a few more faxes and phone calls and they're gonna buckle...I can feel it.
They can't stand that type of relentless pressure much longer:)

: Of course they don't (none / 0) (#14)
by Alien Abductee on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 03:53:03 PM EST

Why would they? They know the "netroots" is all about electing Democrats anyway, no matter what they do. So why bother putting themselves out?

what I think (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Maryb2004 on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:11:50 PM EST

is that both of you (you AND Stoller) have this elitist exclusive definition of the blogosphere and netroots as just being you people who have blogs or write for blogs with somewhat heavy traffic.

Only when you find it useful do you expand your definition - but only for as long as it's useful and then it contracts again. So, for instance, Stoller wants to take credit for the participation of the non-elite non-exclusive portion of the blogosphere (i.e. all the non-exclusive people who actually gave money to Darcy ) and YOU want to talk about people-powered in the Guardian.

But I truly don't think either one of you really understands people powered and BOTH of you think the whole system is and should be top-down - meaning the exclusive A and B listers set the agenda and all the non-exclusive people give the money and do the work.

It's just a fight about who is at (or influences) the top of the top and sets the agenda.

Splutters (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:20:15 PM EST

Oh yeah? You mean I am whining because MY strategy is not being followed?

How dare you? You'll be hearing from my lawyer.

Seriously, focus is my point so I do not agree with you in toto.


focus. agenda. same thing. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Maryb2004 on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:09:48 PM EST

A little different (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:48:38 PM EST

But I must say that your comment in Stoller'sa post above is PRECISELY what I would say but I do not want to detract from Matt's point by getting into it there.

Thanks for that comment. It is THE point as I see it.


: Thanks (none / 0) (#27)
by Maryb2004 on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:45:59 PM EST

Ha. (none / 0) (#21)
by taylormattd on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:23:53 PM EST

Tracy, you crack me up.


: oops (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by taylormattd on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:24:27 PM EST

I mean Mary. Sorry about that. :(

O.K. that explains the * (none / 0) (#13)
by oculus on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 03:51:14 PM EST

Humility (none / 0) (#15)
by cmpnwtr on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 03:56:17 PM EST

Wouldn't it be refreshing to have a little humility, not just with Stoller, but all over the blogworld?

: Impossible. (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 03:59:15 PM EST

I'll second that (none / 0) (#17)
by aahpat on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:01:38 PM EST

" Indeed, my complaint has been that the Netroots spends too much time talking about the 2008 presidential election and not enough time talking about the issues of 2007."

Dead on target.

Policy not politics.

Issues not personalities.

The Democrats are issue adverse. The only reason that a politician is issue adverse is because they fear that their voters will not agree with the politicians' issues and policy solutions.

I myself will, in this election, refuse to vote for any candidate for president who does not agree with the United States Conference of Mayors 2007 declaration:

"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the United States Conference of Mayors believes the war on drugs has failed and calls for a New Bottom Line in U.S. drug policy, a public health approach that concentrates more fully on reducing the negative consequences associated with drug abuse, while ensuring that our policies do not exacerbate these problems or create new social problems of their own; establishes quantifiable, short- and long-term objectives for drug policy; saves taxpayer money; and holds state and federal agencies accountable..." SEE:U.S. mayors call for end to drug war

The anarchic violence on our streets is self-regulation of the intoxicant drug black market economy because the congress refuses to make available regulatory agencies, courts and professional association to govern the $ 400 billion market. The U.S. congress, current place of employment for most presidential candidates, is the source of the drug war policy. The current candidates who support the drug war are the problem not the solution. Supporting the drug war, by not talking about this issue, amounts to turning their backs on their responsibility to protect Americans by regulating the predatory anarchy out of the intoxicant drug free markets.

I wrote this today about Hillary Clinton's Jim Crow position. Hillary Clinton's Head Start into Hell

And this about Obama: Sen. Obama's solution for post-Katrina poverty; police oppression

I don't expect Republicans to have any humanity about the drug war. Its Jim Crow institutions help keep Republicans in office and protects their "safe dictricts". But the Democrats have a legacy of liberalism, human rights, civil liberties and social justice. The Voting Rights Act that Democrats like Clinton brag about supporting is practically irrelevant thanks to drug war criminal disenfranchisement and the dissaffections that this causes in poverty oppressed communities that Democrats used to champion.

Blop-O-Pope-ia (none / 0) (#25)
by seabos84 on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 09:32:26 PM EST

Power of Net is LOTS of people for ALL political positions.

what 80 or 90% of us give a crap about has almost NOTHING to do with what the thieves in DC are thieving, or what the sell-outs from DC are crapping their pants about what the thieves are doing.

the REAL power of the netroots is IF it makes it easier for 120 or 220 million people to more easily participate AND get better labor laws AND get better health care AND get better education AND get better transportation ...

instead of labor laws that benefit wal-mart, health 'care' that benefits high priced lawyers and consultatns, education that benefits kids over over educated over paid nit wit bureucrats & all the private sector parasites of education, transportation that benefits communities instead of bechtel ...

IF the netroot is just a new catholic church ... ooops, isn't it supposed to be a wittenburg thing? ... well, it was kind of a wittenburg thing against a huge bloated dead organization only concerned with itself, and now it is trying to turn into a 'new' different bloated top down organization.

whew.

I do love how all these big degreed big brained big mouthed Blop-O-Popes are fighting like a bunch of seventeeth century clerics over who is gonna get to collect the tithes.

yur missing da point.

rmm.

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

Actual governance (none / 0) (#26)
by Demi Moaned on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:19:48 PM EST

I very much agree with you. So many people seem to think that winning elections is the only thing that matters without any concern for the actual governance we provide.

It's become a pet rant of mine over at DailyKos. I don't seem to be alone in this sentiment.

A line of reasoning that I find particularly objectionable is the idea that Republicans being bad is actually good.

: Daily Kos (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by aahpat on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 06:56:14 AM EST

banned me from their pages during the 2004 elections because I kept bringing up John Kerry drug war support. Too many of the big groups and blogs have been absorbed into the Democratic Party machine and so are not allowed to talk about policy. MoveOn.org is the same. They take on issues that the Democratic Party wants to use to pressure the GOP. They do not take on issues because it is the right thing to do.
Speaking of policy, I spent a good deal of yesterday looking at Hillary Clinton's campaign and senate web sites. On the stump she talks of returning America to the halcyon days of her husband's world record prison population but on her sites there is no reference to criminal justice policy. She pounds her chest as being an ardent civil rights supporter while telling civil rights leaders that she is OK with criminal disenfranchisement. Of course she couches it in vague euphemisms.
"It really bothers me because what happens is they, you know, somebody in the political position of a state says, well, let's purge the voter rolls because we want to get rid of people who have moved or who may not be eligible to vote. Well, I don't disagree with that." See: Hillary Clinton's Head Start into Hell
Politicians should not have the right to purge anyone from the voting rolls. Especially not with America's Jim Crow criminal disenfranchisement legacy.
Policy issues. It bothers me that Clinton takes Rupert Murdoch's money. The politics of contradiction. It angers me that she claims America's civil rights legacy as her own while supporting policies that continue Jim Crow into 21st century America.