Meta

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- 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.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Meta | 188 comments (188 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It really should be an interesting panel... (5.00 / 7) (#27)
by p lukasiak on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:12:32 PM EST

once it starts.

Bowers' OpenLeft blog has been running a series of "guestposts" ostensibly on the topic "feminist and womanist perspectives on Hillary Clinton's withdrawal from the race -- and why this matters to progressives"

except that except for the initial post by Melissa McEwan, none of the posts have taken a feminist perspective at all -- instead, it has been a series of post that basically say that women should get over it, and worry about all the racial stuff. Its so utterly devoid of a feminist perspective on the primary that Clinton and the sexism that she has been subjected to have become an afterthough -- to the point where rikyrah asks the question, "What is it about this woman that evokes this vehemence against her?" but her question isn't about Clinton, its about Michele Obama, and her answer is "Because she's black" -- completely ignoring the fact that strong independent WOMEN get attacked regardless of their race.

I took the lead in pointing out that the Obamaboiz were ignoring the feminist perspective (see my comments in the rikyrah thread(-- and now Jon Pincus has just put up a post to discuss the guest posts 'at the half-way point, and has the nerve to criticize me for "confused by the unannounced broadening of the topic."

It turns out that three of the women who had agreed to do guests posts wanted 'to broaden the topic' (i.e. NOT talk about "feminist and womanist perspectives on Hillary Clinton's withdrawal from the race -- and why this matters to progressives", but about anything BUT that topic.

needless to say, I'm annoyed, both personally, and as someone who thinks that its crucial that the Obots recognize the legitimacy of the feminist/woman critique of the primaries...

Why isn't Liss on this panel? (5.00 / 3) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:21:12 PM EST

Parent

Wow... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Radiowalla on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:36:44 PM EST

What a missed opportunity.

The healing is not likely to begin anytime soon.

Parent

I don't know what's more annoying.... (5.00 / 7) (#131)
by p lukasiak on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:25:05 PM EST

the eagerness of the panel to discuss anything BUT the topic under discussion, or what they say when they do finally get around to the topic...

Parent

It's what they weren't saying. (5.00 / 3) (#161)
by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:06:31 PM EST

There's a bunch of things I'd love to have discussed.

The "hostile take overs" of blogs by Obama supporters. (Is there a better description?)

The use of certain memes that had little relevance like "dynasty" and various attacks on Bill Clinton. Not what he has done, but what he might do!

Parent

: Hostile takeover of liberal blogs (none / 0) (#191)
by Miri on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:18:21 PM EST

I don't think it was a "hostile takeover".
In many cases the blog owners encouraged demonization of Hillary and actively purged Hillary supporters from their blogs.
But that is OK because Internet is a free medium and you will see a counter weight to the Kossacks rising in the blogosphere. You will see Democrats who will not support Obama building their own niche.
Hillary supporters will build their own blog communities. This is not like "old media". We don't have to go to Daily Kos because we have no choice.

Parent

I can't even begin (5.00 / 9) (#159)
by MichaelGale on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:53:38 PM EST

to describe how angry this makes me. One of the reasons I refuse to vote for Obama is his behavior in the campaign and his apparent lack of sensitivity to the sexist behavior, (this includes Michelle Obama also).

This decision is not taken lightly. It is painful for any of us to watch while a party and peers completely dismiss the damage done.

This is not about Clinton. This is about humanity and inclusiveness. Right now, I deplore the Netroots and will do everything I can to get even. Seriously.

Parent

Will transcriptions be available... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by EL seattle on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:26:50 PM EST

Of these discussions? Video is nice and immediate, but for long term discussion and reference, nothing beats an accurate text document.

Self-congratulation is the order of the day (5.00 / 4) (#49)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:50:38 PM EST

Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#51)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:51:16 PM EST

That is the Bowers motif almost always.

Parent

This is incredibly (5.00 / 3) (#53)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:52:16 PM EST

pompous and boring.

Self reflection is NOT the order of the day.

Here is a panel that I would point to as showing everything that is wrong with the Netroots.

Parent

I was going to say (5.00 / 3) (#59)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:55:56 PM EST

that it's like bad C-SPAN.

Parent

Really bad C-Span (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:56:50 PM EST

Let's see what happens. I give it 5 more minutes.

Parent

Bowers is just incredibly annoying (none / 0) (#64)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:57:54 PM EST

He talks like he writes for sure.

This is awful. I mean even for what the what it to be, this is awful.

Parent

Jinx (5.00 / 2) (#66)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:59:08 PM EST

I just said that he talks like he writes.

People who speak in paragraphs need a fast-forward button.

Ooh, they are going to discuss meta now, but NO CLINTON BLOGGERS.

Parent

these people are annoying and substanceless (5.00 / 2) (#73)
by Valhalla on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:06:24 PM EST

I started to listen realizing I have a bias against this panel without Clinton bloggers anyway and trying to keep myself from overreacting.

But this is substanceless and meandering.

this panel short: nothing is our fault, it's all external circumstances. Yaay! We don't have to change a thing, we're still great!

Parent

: heh (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:07:39 PM EST

sounds like Bowers.

Parent

maybe it's because i'm relatively (5.00 / 5) (#141)
by Dr Molly on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:38:24 PM EST

new to blogworld (a few years), or maybe because of my age, but I have to say that I find MOST of it pompous, boring, and self-aggrandizing.

Parent

: Don't forget ... (5.00 / 2) (#169)
by santarita on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:38:35 PM EST

Poorly written as well.
There must be an on-line class in how to write long and convoluted sentences while avoiding the active voice at all costs.

Parent

Heh (5.00 / 2) (#67)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:01:14 PM EST

This is truly funny.

Self reflection NOT the order of the day. Amanda is upset that people were mean to her because she endorsed Obama.

: Totally backwards to real life on the blogs. (5.00 / 4) (#68)
by Teresa on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:02:33 PM EST

She should try being a Clinton supporter if she thinks she had it bad.

Parent
: This will NOT be the definitive (5.00 / 4) (#69)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:02:50 PM EST

post mortem on the blogs' performance in the Democratic primaries.
They should have skipped this one.

Parent
: Amanda has lost all credibility (none / 0) (#76)
by Valhalla on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:07:57 PM EST

and not because she endorsed Obama.

Parent

Blame the media! (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:03:27 PM EST

Chris and Dave discover that we are people! (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:04:15 PM EST

Okay (5.00 / 2) (#77)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:08:09 PM EST

Does the fact they have no Clinton bloggers on this panel and I imagine in attendance it is sparse, have no effect on them?

This was certainly NOT a discussion of the blogs during the Clinton/Obama primaries.

Maybe some day they will discuss this honestly.

Parent

Doubt it (5.00 / 3) (#79)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:08:54 PM EST

Out of site, out of mind.

Parent

: I hope that pun was intentional.... (none / 0) (#102)
by p lukasiak on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:16:14 PM EST

this is really embarrassing --- none of these people have the slightest clue...

Parent

IACF. Here come the racist charges. (5.00 / 3) (#80)
by Teresa on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:09:26 PM EST

Clinton is STILL a racist (5.00 / 6) (#81)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:09:33 PM EST

Give Jill Tubman her due - she is not backing off one bit.

Now, any COUNTERPOINT?

Seriously (5.00 / 3) (#83)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:10:13 PM EST

That can not go unchallenged can it?

Parent

I am sure it will (5.00 / 2) (#87)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:11:37 PM EST

Parent

: apparently so (none / 0) (#90)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:11:55 PM EST

Parent

It's funny (5.00 / 6) (#85)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:11:00 PM EST

This is exactly like one of those one-sided Israel-Palestine discussions on public access TV.

Parent

I do not know (5.00 / 2) (#89)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:11:42 PM EST

But it makes me laugh that this gets to be said and treated as a gospel truth. Pretty funny.

Parent

: I guess it's (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by weltec2 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:18:02 PM EST

laugh or scream, huh? And since screaming only raises the blood pressure...

Parent

No Gender Wiki for Jill Tubman (none / 0) (#86)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:11:07 PM EST

Parent

This woman is disgusting n/t (5.00 / 2) (#84)
by Coldblue on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:10:20 PM EST

: I wonder how this schpiel is going to help (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:12:32 PM EST

her little business venture.
I think she did not think this one through.

Parent
: She is pretty funny though (none / 0) (#93)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:13:30 PM EST

She is definitely the entertainment.

Parent

Ooh, Clinton supporters are OLD observers (5.00 / 6) (#92)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:13:07 PM EST

They are NOT creative.

Good stuff (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:13:59 PM EST

It is very funny.

Parent

: Phrase of the day from her (5.00 / 2) (#101)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:15:49 PM EST

"people are refusing to dialogue."
Who moved my cheese?

Parent

Don't tell my clients (5.00 / 6) (#111)
by nycstray on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:18:22 PM EST

I'm not creative. I would hate for them to find out I've been faking it for the past 20yrs, lol!~ ;)

This bunch has totally destroyed the word "creative".

Parent

Ok, now Cheryl is discussing how (5.00 / 10) (#94)
by Valhalla on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:13:40 PM EST

horrible her relationship with her mother is because of Clinton's massive ruthlessness.

The vitriol was all Clinton supporters' fault for adulating her ruthlessness.

All the sexism was in the media. No bloggers involved, Clinton supporters were just confused. Poor Clinton supporters, they can't help being so sad and dumb. (I'm paraphrasing).

It's not Obama's fault, his supporters are savvy internet users. They are young and hip. Clinton's supporters are old and useless with all this hip new technology.

Excuse me while I go vomit.

I said I was paraphrasing (5.00 / 8) (#132)
by Valhalla on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:25:08 PM EST

Clinton supporters are older, they can't social network, they can't upload videos, they failed to join viral campaigning, they remain 'observers' only to the great and moving creativity of the creative classes.

I know truly understand how "we are the change we've been waiting for" was so appealing to this crowd.

Parent

She left out (5.00 / 5) (#158)
by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:48:46 PM EST

"..but they vote.".

Sure, Obama may have gotten the social networks all atwitter and cashed in at the networks' ATMs - but that wasn't everything.

There was also the Media Darling status, which quite a lot of Obama supporters deny. The social networks and the netroots had little to do with that.

Parent

she also left out - "they have money" (none / 0) (#162)
by Josey on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:10:57 PM EST

Did you see the email from the SC chair, Don Fowler, telling Hillary supporters to "get over it"?
Donna Brazile told us we're not needed in the Dem Party, but apparently they do want our money.
And they may get some from me when Obama and his campaign acknowledge their silence and involvement spreading the meme that the Clintons were "racists."

Parent

: I found Jilll a bit (5.00 / 9) (#168)
by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:27:29 PM EST

self indulgent and self congratulatory.
And if I had been reading her blog during the primary, I doubt I would have liked it. She reminded me too much of the predictable Obama supporters that I learned to "turn the page" on as quickly as possible.
I did find her comment about Obama supporters generating "content" interesting. She never discussed the purpose of the "content" or the quality of the "content". Blog swarming, blog spamming and now "blog clogging" are all means of shutting down substantial discussions.

Parent

To clarify, not paraphrasing at all now (5.00 / 6) (#160)
by Valhalla on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:57:49 PM EST

after a 2-3 minutes monologue detailing the 'documented' incidents of Clinton's racism (without every giving an example) she said that "some Obama supporters used the word b*tch"...in some places.

Then explained that Clinton supporters conflated this with sexism.

This was after her 2-3 minute monologue about how Clinton supporters admiration of Clinton's absolute ruthlessness blinded them to her scorched earth tactics. The word 'ruthless' or variations thereon were used at least 3 times in that 2-3 minutes.

The comments about some Obama supporters were weak in comparison (and weak is the most her statement was, personally I think pathetic is more accurate).

Parent

: That makes (none / 0) (#165)
by cal1942 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:19:14 PM EST

Bowers and his gang both self-absorbed and stupid.
Gee what a bonus.

Parent

She should apologize (none / 0) (#180)
by kredwyn on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 09:58:19 PM EST

to her mother.

For crying out loud...I didn't even watch it, but that sounds like the most whiny brat-like thing to say.

Parent

Bowers just sounds clueless (5.00 / 6) (#95)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:13:54 PM EST

"How do we get past this?" he whines?

Beyond parody is right.

"It's documented, it's factual" (5.00 / 7) (#98)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:15:12 PM EST

And Obama did not do anything wrong. Hilarious.

She is too good. She really is.

Parent

No, she mentioned 'some' (5.00 / 7) (#110)
by Valhalla on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:18:19 PM EST

misguided Obama supporters may have used the word b*tch. And Clinton supporters overreacted and were confused, not realizing that the Obama campaigns purity.

This all a giant circle jerk. Paradigmatic intellectual masturbation.

Sorry, I don't usually use that kind of imagery but I can't think of any other way to describe it accurately.

Parent

: that is AWESOME! (none / 0) (#164)
by txpolitico67 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:14:33 PM EST

clusterf*ck circle jerk. what else can u expect in this day and age from self-important muckrackers???

Parent

Making me mad, just reading the comments. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
by oculus on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:18:05 PM EST

Parent

Can I smack her now?!? (5.00 / 3) (#100)
by nycstray on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:15:31 PM EST

O.M.G. She needs to lay off the KA

I'm healing!! Aren't you? (5.00 / 10) (#104)
by Teresa on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:17:39 PM EST

Parent

Now that IS funny... (5.00 / 7) (#126)
by weltec2 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:23:27 PM EST

They really DO want unity. Close your eyes and say that over three times.

Parent

: don't forget to click your heels... (none / 0) (#184)
by maladroit on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:15:37 AM EST

Parent

I was until I stopped by here! (5.00 / 7) (#130)
by nycstray on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:24:42 PM EST

I just came back to get the seeds for my herb garden and decided to see what they were saying! Ruined the glow I had from planting veggies.

These people are NUTS I tell ya!!

Parent

Didn't you know? (5.00 / 6) (#149)
by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:05:01 PM EST

Everyone thinks like they do! Except for the bitter, clinging, unrepentant dead enders...oh, and everyone who is PO'd about FISA.

Parent

: Symptomatic (none / 0) (#167)
by cal1942 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:24:09 PM EST

of very seriously spoiled children. Cannot imagine there could possibly be another viewpoint.

Parent

I think (5.00 / 1) (#112)
by ajain on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:18:22 PM EST

We have to create a wiki of Sexist attacks by Obama and his campaign. I can think of at least 3-4 things Obama himself said that were pointedly sexist and were directed towards Hillary Clinton.
That's beside what his supporters said what the media did.

Then lets send it to Jill and show her some facts (2.00 / 0) (#119)
by ajain on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:21:10 PM EST

She is crazy

Parent

: Not crazy, just hopelessly biased. (none / 0) (#128)
by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:23:41 PM EST

A very, very common primary phenomena.
Wonder if they had profanity rules on her Jack and Jill blog.

Parent

Already been done (none / 0) (#120)
by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:21:30 PM EST

but not as a wiki.

There were plenty of blatantly sexist remarks. I think my (least) favorite had to be the Fatal Attraction comments. Fortunately, Obama himself never joined in that cr@p.

Parent

Someone pass the LSD (5.00 / 13) (#118)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:21:04 PM EST

LOL! (5.00 / 3) (#123)
by Coldblue on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:21:51 PM EST

Parent

Where is kdog when we need him? (5.00 / 1) (#127)
by Teresa on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:23:35 PM EST

Parent

What? (5.00 / 2) (#138)
by p lukasiak on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:34:06 PM EST

you mean that I not hallucinating already? That these people are this clueless?

Parent

: They sure sound like they're on drugs (5.00 / 5) (#139)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:34:36 PM EST

Parent

Sure, but (none / 0) (#186)
by Ben Masel on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:57:31 AM EST

no-one on the panel accepted. </snark>

Parent

Ok (5.00 / 7) (#122)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:21:47 PM EST

I gotta go because I have to but I would not have missed the rest of this for the world.

I am laughing like I have not laughed in a long time.

: ME too (5.00 / 8) (#124)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:22:27 PM EST

We're bigger than the Gutenberg bible!

Parent
: thanks for the heads up, it was really funny (5.00 / 1) (#129)
by DandyTIger on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:24:37 PM EST

I hope they will have an archive of this for future generations. :-)

Parent
: Thank you for watching it (5.00 / 1) (#153)
by ruffian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:18:17 PM EST

you guys. Made my day.

Parent

Who is this lady with guts to ask a good (5.00 / 1) (#133)
by Teresa on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:26:04 PM EST

question?

: Good question (5.00 / 2) (#134)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:27:26 PM EST

but whatshername from Jack and Jill politics stole the floor again to blather about racism. Not a satisfactory discussion, and anyway the question was really an indictment of moderator Bowers.

Parent
: Natasha Chart (none / 0) (#187)
by Ben Masel on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:58:30 AM EST

Parent

Ooh, Bowers says that he wishes there were (5.00 / 3) (#135)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:27:51 PM EST

Clinton supporters.

: He would ban them (5.00 / 8) (#143)
by Coldblue on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:45:41 PM EST

if there were.
This was my comment in this thread that got me banned at 'Open' Left.
I've never been an activist (4.00 / 2)
but the 'consolidated' netroots has me volunteering for a candidate for the first time in my life: Hillary.

Parent

So that not all my comments today are (5.00 / 3) (#144)
by Valhalla on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:47:40 PM EST

relentlessly negative, for folks who might have missed it, the PB2.0 conversation over at Corrente, moderated by BTD was excellent. Similar topic but drastically less bloviating.

It is a model of what this NN panel should have been.

My understanding is that Corrente will be having more PB2.0 conversations as well (maybe BTD will correct me if that's wrong).

I look forward to them.

What? No Clinton backer on the panel? (5.00 / 2) (#145)
by wasabi on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:51:54 PM EST

Audience member asks - Where are the Clinton backers on the panel?

Bowers responds: Well... it was a last minute thing, and...

Oh h*ll, I don't really associate with those Clinton folks. My bad.

Appologies all around. Let's all hold hands and forget about all this nastiness of the primary.

What a waste of bandwidth.

Clinton and the "meta" question (5.00 / 12) (#150)
by p lukasiak on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:06:22 PM EST

What I find interesting is that Bowers didn't see the need for a Clinton supporter when the only "question" was the "meta" nonsense. One of the most interesting "meta" issues for the blogosphere was the creation of the "split".... and the creation of a brand new "social network" centered upon support for Clinton.

To me, in terms of "meta" issues, that was THE most interesting aspect of the last year -- the way in which the "takeover" of most of the progressive blogosphere by Obots created a need for a separate and distinct "pro-Hillary" blogosphere, and how rapidly and successfully that need was met.

The fact that Bowers did not recognize the significance of that in terms of his "non-Clinton" question speaks volumes.

Parent

Excellent point. (5.00 / 3) (#157)
by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:45:14 PM EST

Also most disheartening was not only the formation of Hillary and Obama forums (however it happened) but the eventual near vanishing of any place for both supporters to talk to each other.

That should be a serious danger signal. As the panel pointed out, just because we don't talk about taboo topics doesn't mean they've gone away, or aren't relevant or significant.

Parent

The formation of Clinton blogs was just a matter (5.00 / 5) (#179)
by bridget on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 09:57:36 PM EST

of time and the best thing that happened on the internet. It was long overdue because the communication had been completely onesided and unfair for the Clinton people.

I started to read dkos on a regular basis after ykos 06 (maybe a couple times a week at first), I was absolutely amazed at the Hillary Clinton bashing over there. And Obama was not much of a subject then.

It was clear that the dkos community disliked HC and enjoyed posting the nasty Hillary comments. I pointed that out in one of my first comments on that blog and was promptly trollrated by a very "famous" moderator. At the time I didn't even know what the dkos rating system was all about and when I did ask about it another "famous" poster explained the morality of the blog to me and how wrong I was blablablah ;-) - but someone else said I was correct in my statement, thanks goodness. I still have the printout before it was hidden from my eyes.

The Clinton bashing, lies and innuendos got so much worse during the primaries, Hillary supporters must felt like masochists I often thought. I just couldn't believe that Clinton supporters or any fairminded blogger could still remain on that blog and even continue to write diaries under those circumstances. I guess they had to learn life on the net the hard way. Which they did.

A forum where all supporters of Obama and Clinton and others can talk to each other clearly needs strict moderation since many posters lack discipline and manners on the blogs. So that is an easy thing to do with a bit of rules and effort. Nothing difficult at all to bring about.

I have been on the net for years and was amazed at the lack of netiquette on the liberal political blogs when I first checked them out. I used to post on sports forums in the 90s and the bad language and ad hominem attacks would have never been permitted. Also, more than 75% of the posters on dkos et al were/are male and that makes a huge difference in communication style IMHO.

Parent

: My experience similar (5.00 / 1) (#182)
by Valhalla on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:17:52 AM EST

not quite the same, but won't go into details, except I came to the political blogging scene much later.
But I did realize something watching NN today. They are Punditbabies. Like Muppetbabies. Just not nearly as cute but massively more ignorant and laughable.
Really, they are kids playing Pundit Dress-up Time.

Parent
: Agree completely (5.00 / 1) (#190)
by Miri on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:09:43 PM EST

I used to read the Daily Kos.
Until almost overnight it turned into the left wing version of Free Republic. Sexist and misogynist attacks on Hillary were shocking.
There are million of Democrats like me who do not share the views of the Daily Kos crowd. There was a vacuum in the blogosphere. I am happy to see that vacuum being filled with new and exciting new blogs. I don't need the Daily Kos anymore. I don't need to go there and get insulted. There are now dozens of blogs for Democrats like me who will not vote for Obama.

Parent

I skipped that session (5.00 / 1) (#155)
by joanneleon on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:37:14 PM EST

The last thing I want to do is talk about meta with Chris Bowers. Kagro probably did a pretty good job though. But meta is a pretty futile topic at dkos these days, IMHO. Maybe later.

Otherwise, the Pelosi session was a complete failure except when Gore showed up, and that was awesome. My son shook his hand and I got him to sign my NN book.

Hi to all at TalkLeft from Austin.

: Hi! (5.00 / 3) (#156)
by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:40:14 PM EST

Glad to know you saw Gore.
Gosh, Obama would never survive a Gore vice presidency. Can you imagine the media "And what does VP Gore have to say on that?".

Parent

More meta (not) via DK: (5.00 / 2) (#166)
by oculus on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:22:15 PM EST

Well, that letter should really help :) (5.00 / 2) (#170)
by Teresa on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:42:45 PM EST

Was Alice Germond really a Clinton supporter? Didn't seem that way at the RBC meeting.

Parent

Fowler was.... (5.00 / 9) (#172)
by p lukasiak on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 08:09:47 PM EST

but clearly, Germond is lying. She was 'uncommitted' until the very end, when she finally announced her support for Obama.

But we already know that Germond is not exactly the most honest person in the world, she flat out lied to me about the two hour behind-closed-doors meeting held in violation of DNC rules.

(Long story short, during the morning session, there were numerous mentions of extended discussion during the afternoon session -- especially when it came to staying 'on topic' and 'focussed' on the particular individual. Then a one hour lunch was announced -- and the public was told to be back in their seats in one hour. The public was there, but it was another TWO hours before any of the committee members showed up, and when they did it was obviously simply to confirm what had been decided during the three hour break. Germond told me this was within the rules.

It can't be. All DNC standing committee meetings must be public, and all votes must be taken publicly. And while its certainly within the rules for individual committee members to discuss committee business during a lunch break, the lunch break was one hour. Whatever else went on for two hours more was in violation of the RBC rules.)

Parent

: Poor service at lunch? (5.00 / 1) (#175)
by oculus on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 09:06:42 PM EST

Parent

More healing. (5.00 / 8) (#171)
by Valhalla on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:45:54 PM EST

Well, I've over it now. That was magic!

Parent

The diary was "meh" (5.00 / 2) (#173)
by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 08:38:06 PM EST

but the comments were 99% pure Unity Ambassador Talking Points.

Parent

: I didn't actually make it to the (none / 0) (#176)
by oculus on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 09:07:39 PM EST

comments. I was waiting for SNLC to post.

Parent

They have NO idea how to fix the damage done. (5.00 / 7) (#174)
by Burned on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 08:43:49 PM EST

I swear, I'm like a tide coming in and then I read something like that and it's back out to sea for me.

Parent

I think permitting a first ballot, (5.00 / 4) (#177)
by oculus on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 09:09:32 PM EST

with Clinton's pledged delegates voting for her if they wished, would be a most helpful healing device. But, doesn't look like the Obama campaign will permit that to happen.

Parent

Folks have speculated (none / 0) (#178)
by Valhalla on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 09:51:34 PM EST

that they're just plain afraid he might not win on a first ballot. The SDs' endorsements aren't binding, after all.

Whatever I would like to believe, I just don't think that is possible (ok, maybe I'd give it a .1% chance, nothing's impossible etc). So I was guessing that they are just clueless; they think fakey Unity will be better for Obama than a real vote would be. I agree with you; for those on the edge of not voting for him, a legit vote would change their minds, I think and take some wind out of critics sails.

But now I don't know. Obama's barely been polling above MOE in Ras and Gallup the last two weeks (usually within MOE), there've been several polls showing a high percent of her supporters aren't moving to Obama, and that one Ras poll showing Hillary still beats McCain by more than Obama.

Add in reports of the campaign muscling downticket campaign staffpeople aside and rumors of the campaigns tightfistedness with money: there may be some SDs who chose Obama because they thought they could ride his coattails and eat off the gravy train who are having a rethink.

A close vote on a first ballot wouldn't look so good, and a win by Clinton would be a disaster. So maybe they are plain scared.

Parent

Just supposing delegates deserted Obama (5.00 / 1) (#188)
by Ben Masel on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:02:31 AM EST

Why the assumption would they'd go to Clinton?

Parent

Super delegates don't vote until the (none / 0) (#181)
by oculus on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:13:19 PM EST

second ballot, as I recall.

Parent

just FYI.... (none / 0) (#185)
by p lukasiak on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:24:10 AM EST

SDs vote on all ballots.

Parent

: Trying to figure out why I thought (none / 0) (#189)
by oculus on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:43:53 PM EST

otherwise and assume I read it here. But, having just checked out the Dem. Nat. Convention website, I see nothing supporting my statement. Thanks for the correction.

Parent

Video seems to be a bust (none / 0) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:40:21 PM EST

At least for me.

: I tried it from here, NN and the (none / 0) (#6)
by nycstray on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:45:14 PM EST

host site. Bust on all three.
I will say, the panel looks like it could use some fresh air and sunshine, lol!~

Parent

Since I don't know what... (none / 0) (#2)
by p lukasiak on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:42:22 PM EST

Amanda or Cheryl look like, but I don't see anyone who looks like a woman on this panel -- and I do see Markos

Of course, I also don't hear them talking about what BTD is describing...is this the right link?

Is it Exhibit Hall 4? (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:46:24 PM EST

That is what I was trying to link to.

Parent

You have the right hall link (none / 0) (#10)
by nycstray on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:47:23 PM EST

Parent

you're thinking the wrong time zone... (none / 0) (#12)
by p lukasiak on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:48:35 PM EST

that is the "60/275: The Races We Aren't Watching but Should (and Those We're Watching, Too)" panel, that runs from 3:00-4:30 AUSTIN time...

Parent

: Yup, that was my guess (none / 0) (#15)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:50:09 PM EST

Parent
: So I guess I'm going to miss it. (none / 0) (#17)
by Burned on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:52:37 PM EST

Have to go to the airport at 5.I should get ready!
I trust you guys will keep up.

Parent

It's not the right panel. (none / 0) (#3)
by Burned on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:43:35 PM EST

No, it isn't. (none / 0) (#5)
by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:45:06 PM EST

Anyone have the home link for video? I think it was posted on Friday.

Parent

: Exhibit Hall 4? (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:47:36 PM EST

Parent

Right now the video is of. . .something else (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:44:36 PM EST

Perhaps they mean central time? (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:45:18 PM EST

Parent

: I think that's it (none / 0) (#13)
by Coldblue on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:48:48 PM EST

The panel on the video started at 1:30 pm central

Parent
: Good thinking! (none / 0) (#14)
by Burned on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:49:33 PM EST

Since that's where they are.

Parent

It's the right label "ballroom 4" (none / 0) (#9)
by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:46:59 PM EST

But where's the panel?

Parent

Yeah, it's the panel before... (none / 0) (#16)
by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:51:41 PM EST

I think we are early.

But at least we know the streaming works!

Parent

: OT: Paul Krugman @ NN08 (none / 0) (#19)
by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:05:02 PM EST

did a panel Friday night: How the media learned to bend over backwards for the right.
Have to look that one up when they post the video. Nothing but clips up now.

Parent

Can you hear anything? (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:00:31 PM EST

Parent

I've got sound. n/t (none / 0) (#20)
by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:05:51 PM EST

Parent

Yep (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:07:24 PM EST

Me too.

Anyway, Better early than late.

Parent

My prediction: (none / 0) (#24)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:09:46 PM EST

lots of self-congratulation and denials that anyone really did anything wrong. But I'll bet they wave the bloody shirt of Larry Johnson.

Parent

Who knows? (5.00 / 4) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:20:02 PM EST

I just think it is funny that there is not a neutral, much less a Clinton blogger on the panel.

I guess Taylor Marsh is persona non grata now. Seems like she would be a natural for this one.

Parent

and god forbid they invite vastleft or Lambert (5.00 / 4) (#33)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:22:02 PM EST

Parent

Maybe they did (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:25:32 PM EST

I have no way of knowing but I think an explanation is in order.

Parent

You want a what?!?! (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by kredwyn on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:39:03 PM EST

Surely you jest.

Seriously, in the minds of many, there is nothing to apologize for.

Parent

Oh (none / 0) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:40:45 PM EST

I am not seeking an apology but an explanation for how you expect to have a discussion about the "Clinton/Obama controversy" without any Clinton persons there.

Parent

oops... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by kredwyn on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:45:48 PM EST

take out apologize and insert explain.

Hon, since there's a big blind spot in the minds of many bloggers vis a vis the absence of pro-Clinton bloggers, you won't get an explanation either.

What you will get is the blinky look of total "innocence" with a "what are you talking about??" that is vaguely reminiscent of some movie like Total Recall.

Parent

Looks like they changed the subject (none / 0) (#60)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:56:00 PM EST

Apparently there is a "progressive uprising."

Ok.

Parent

: They are talking (none / 0) (#113)
by standingup on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:18:42 PM EST

about Chris Matthews?

Parent

Even FOX usually has at least (5.00 / 2) (#109)
by kenosharick on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:18:14 PM EST

one person during panel discussions that gives some kind of counter-balance. All one sided makes for very boring discussion.

Parent

: Haw (5.00 / 3) (#151)
by lambert on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:08:44 PM EST

These kidz will do very well in the Village. Look, they've already learned the rulez! It's cute. In a sick kind of way.

Parent

Did Digby go home after the profanity (none / 0) (#88)
by oculus on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:11:37 PM EST

panel ended?

Parent

Sound was fine for me (none / 0) (#21)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:07:09 PM EST

Parent

Can I guess what Chris Bowers will say? :-) (none / 0) (#23)
by madamab on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:09:14 PM EST

I'll bet the words "Get Over It!" will be used more than once.

BTW (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:11:10 PM EST

This is just the type of activism , the one we are seeing in this panel, that always drove me up the wall - I know that horse race matters but to the exclusion of issues? This is my major divergence with the Netroots - I do not care that much if Travis Childers wins in Mississippi.

You kept watching? (none / 0) (#28)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:13:44 PM EST

Honestly, I am interested in horserace stuff, and I would rather see Childers win than lose, but I don't think much of the punditry.

Parent

: I was checking for sound (none / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:17:19 PM EST

And when I got it working, I heard horse race stuff - which, as I say, matters but to the exclusion of issues? I can't get with that program.

Parent

I just read over at WAPO (none / 0) (#29)
by mrjerbub on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:14:40 PM EST

That Bob Barr (of all people) showed up at NN08.

Hmm (none / 0) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:38:08 PM EST

Not Swiss like precision on the schedules.

May it is really shooting for 4:45 CST.

Bowers thinks that netroots influence is rising (none / 0) (#40)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:44:24 PM EST

BZZZZT

: That's because it FEELS like it is (none / 0) (#154)
by ruffian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:19:30 PM EST

According to Ezra Klein yesterday.

Parent

Sounds like the questions was changed (none / 0) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:44:34 PM EST

I apologize for leading you astray.

I am not sure what Bowers wants to talk about, but generally, I am not a fan of his choice of topics.

But I AM pleased that he said "the rise of the Creative Class."

Cheryl Contee sounds like (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:45:48 PM EST

she is looking for business.

Parent

Does sound like a marketing pitch (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:47:27 PM EST

How do you like that she thinks that Dean and Pelosi think that they NEED to talk to NN?

Parent

: I don't know (none / 0) (#55)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:53:41 PM EST

This panel is a cliche.
I am close to turning it off.
I'll give Bowers one more chance to see if he makes this interesting.

Parent

What, did they break for lunch? (5.00 / 1) (#152)
by lambert on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:10:55 PM EST

And then come back with a different agenda?

Parent

heh (none / 0) (#42)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:45:30 PM EST

Parent

Oy (none / 0) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:46:52 PM EST

This is really going to be bad and parody proof.

Parent

It's sure not meta (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:48:09 PM EST

Parent

It sure is (none / 0) (#50)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:50:38 PM EST

well, ridiculous.

I like Kagro though. Looks like a modest shy guy.

Too bad he hates my guts on line.

I would steam roll him in person I can tell.

I am not shy or self effacing in person.

Parent

Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:55:12 PM EST

We can do meta here, at least. Some people have net personas different from what they're like in real life. I don't.

Parent

Name 3 people you wouldn't steam (5.00 / 1) (#97)
by oculus on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:14:02 PM EST

roll in person.

Parent

: His kids? (none / 0) (#103)
by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:17:06 PM EST

Wife?

Parent

Are your guts online? (5.00 / 1) (#108)
by ruffian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:18:10 PM EST

That will really foul up the intertubes.

But I'm glad to know that you are more assertive for yourself in real life than you are here. Sometimes I worry about you getting kicked around in the big bad world. :-)

Parent

: This doesn't quite jive (may I still (none / 0) (#147)
by oculus on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:57:14 PM EST

use that word) with Fabian's thoughts yesterday about all the Aspergers syndrome-afflicted denizens of the blogging world.

Parent

You're kidding BTD? You? (none / 0) (#52)
by Teresa on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:51:48 PM EST

Parent

: I thought he would be a bit more confident (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:54:54 PM EST

His writing expresses a lot of confidence.

Parent

Starbucks (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:48:10 PM EST

did well apparently - closing 600 stores.

Nice reference.

Parent

Reading the coments here: quite amusing. (none / 0) (#54)
by oculus on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:53:07 PM EST

: Much better than the other discussion. (none / 0) (#56)
by Teresa on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:54:37 PM EST

Parent
: Yes, I'm not even tempted to click the video (none / 0) (#72)
by ruffian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:06:02 PM EST

This is both amusing and enlightening.

Parent
: I know... (none / 0) (#82)
by weltec2 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:10:00 PM EST

I keep thinking... sound... white noise... dbdbdbp... this panel is a jopedbdbdbdb...
pshhhh...

Parent

Is that a cell phone in the background? (none / 0) (#61)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:56:41 PM EST

Can someone clarify what's going on? (none / 0) (#63)
by Valhalla on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:57:46 PM EST

I'm trying to watch and I've read the thread, but I'm very confused about what the topic is.

From what I've heard so far, I'm underwhelmed.

From Amanda (who was a sore disappointment this past year):

"I'm not saying there's no such thing as feminism but...."

Did Bowers just decide to write this? (none / 0) (#65)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:58:09 PM EST

It's long and boring and about nothing.

Is it nearly incomprehensible? (none / 0) (#74)
by ruffian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:07:28 PM EST

Then I expect it to appear on OL soon.

Parent

He still writes like an English grad student (none / 0) (#78)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:08:19 PM EST

Parent

: Is that what it is? (none / 0) (#99)
by ruffian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:15:16 PM EST

I truly do not find a point in half his sentences sometimes. My niece is an English grad student, and I hope and pray she is better than that!

Parent

OpenLeft (none / 0) (#183)
by gaf on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:53:21 AM EST

Quite franly, I don't find any of the OpenLeft writers worth reading. You read a couple of paragraphs & it's not even clear what is their point & what they are rambling about.
Atleast many of the dailykos writers are writers even if you don't agree with what they write.

Chris & Matt used to be a mydd, right? Any idea why they broke away?

Parent

this is great comedy (none / 0) (#105)
by DandyTIger on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:17:44 PM EST

though pretty darn boring. Someone should have had a few more rehearsals first to get the timing down better. Oh wait, it's not a comedy play? Oops.

What were you expecting? (5.00 / 5) (#114)
by ruffian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:19:21 PM EST

Something as well scripted and rehearsed as a DNC Rules and Bylaws committee meeting?

Parent

hee hee, good one. n/t (none / 0) (#117)
by DandyTIger on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:20:56 PM EST

Parent

At least that was interesting (none / 0) (#121)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:21:35 PM EST

and the speakers were reasonably balanced.

Parent

: Yes (none / 0) (#136)
by Valhalla on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:31:31 PM EST

I know have a new appreciation of the DNC's abilities to stage-manage.

Parent

Amanda says something useful (none / 0) (#115)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:19:21 PM EST

about who needs to heal.

Too bad she sounds like a parody of an NPR announcer.

Are they taking web questions?

: Did Nancy Pelosi? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
by oculus on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:22:40 PM EST

Parent

it's so mind numbingly boring now (none / 0) (#137)
by DandyTIger on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:33:05 PM EST

I have to stop watching. Jeez, these folks are, well, can't say that, they're, no can't say that either, um, ok, boring. Anyway, to save what's left of my sanity I stopped watching. It was really funny for a while though.

Ha ha ha (none / 0) (#142)
by Valhalla on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:39:49 PM EST

two funny lines.

My apologies bc my video has cut out and I can only hear what's going on. I don't know who's talking (and have no desire to find out):

V. boring guy: discusses the common person based on a conversation with a guy in a bar. Seriously.

Woman who can't stop talking about race: actually used the phrase 'low information voters'.

She's yapping more now, so I will have the pleasure of shutting her off.

This was really pathetic.

: Even funnier line (none / 0) (#148)
by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 06:00:24 PM EST

I believe it was Bowers who talked about "voters who voted based on race" without mentioning the assumption that only white voters were voting "based on race".
And Jill who was all aglow about Obama mastering the social networking technology. I wish I had the ovaries to make predictions about what percentage of the new and youth primary voters won't vote in the general. We'll see what the demographics are in November.

Parent

Yes, but Obama (none / 0) (#146)
by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:55:39 PM EST

would be minus a few more female voters if he compared her to a homicidal psychotic. Like a few of his supporters did in public.

I know what Obama said. And what he never apologized for...

Glad I had a BIG bowl of popcorn! What a night (none / 0) (#163)
by Angel on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:12:27 PM EST

at the movies, featuring absolute comedy.

Meta | 188 comments (188 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

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

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment