home

Meta

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:22:23 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Update [2008-7-19 18:18:24 by Big Tent Democrat]: A classic example of the "Creative Class" in action. Truly a funny panel, not intentionally of course.

Here is an interesting panel discussion at Netroots Nation:

Meta

Saturday, July 19th 4:30 PM - 5:45 PM

In this blogosphere-focused panel, moderator Chris Bowers will pose two questions—one about the Obama/Clinton conflict in the blogosphere community and the second looking at how blogs compare with other forms of social media. After a panel discussion, audience members will be given a chance to ask additional questions.

More . .

PANELISTS: Chris Bowers, Cheryl Contee, Raf Noboa, Amanda Marcotte, David Waldman, James Rucker

I am not sure but I do not know any of these panelists as pro-Clinton bloggers or even bloggers who challenged the Media on the anti-Hillary bias that was demonstrated. I am going to watch to hear what they say.

< ABC Journalist Faces 20 Yrs and Caning For One Gram of Meth | Gore: No Formal Role in Next Administration, Will Keep His Focus on Climate Change >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Meta | 189 comments (189 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    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 ]
    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 (4.76 / 13) (#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
    DK

    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 ]
    It really should be an interesting panel... (4.62 / 8) (#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 ]

    I think (3.50 / 2) (#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 / 1) (#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 ]

    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 ]
    If it involves Markos or Josh Marshall ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:10:30 PM EST
    ... then they mean Howdy Doody Time.

    But to be perfectly frank, I'll no longer give either of them or their respective blogs the time of day. With their all-too-obvious disdain for honest differences of opinion that might otherwise undermine or threaten their agenda(s), both Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo proved to be the liberals' parallel universe to the equally pretentious yahoos at FreeRepublic.com and No Quarter.

    [ 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