Truckin'

by Jerome Armstrong, Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 03:15:35 AM EDT

I'm not going to be posting or blogging here any longer while working campaigns. There's no upside and the downside of posting personal opinions, where it's easy to mark it as a political ploy by the opposition, is plenty. If you do see me blogging, it will be with the campaigns or committees sites or blogs I'm working.

And for the umpteenth time. None of the political consulting I do is associated with Markos, which we stopped with the end of the '04 cycle. I'm still working campaigns, with a contracting staff of usually 6 others, at least into '08. Though I thought I could personally blog my opinions while openly disclosing my work-related interests, that seems unrealistic given the competitive situation. So, see you on down the road.

Tags: Misc (all tags)

Comments

106 Comments

Shadow_head_small
official statements
If you work on campaigns that have blogs I think it would be appropriate if you contributed there as part of your "official" duties. And, unless you are trying to stay invisible it would also be OK to post a message here as well. Something to the effect:
"I working for X now and you can read some our issue postings at our site here".

Sorry to see you go...

by rdf 2005-10-26 05:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Driving the Bus
I personally am sorry that this all got so ugly so fast. This was the big thing that I was afraid of from this primary fight. Hopefully we can reduce the heat a little bit. I will certainly try.

This post over @ DKos expresses my opinion of the matter:

First off, I want to say that I don't agree with any personal attacks or questions of character against ANYONE in the blogosphere. It is wrong. Daily Kos (and MyDD) has been a HUGE friend to Paul Hackett and I have nothing but love for everyone involved.

BUT, These blog portals have HUGE influence over Democratic politics. As such when people who have higher levels of control over these sites express opinions people react to them, and often in paranoid ways.

Right now we have a problem in that the people driving the liberal blogospher bus are also trying to dictate which way the bus goes. People are going to react that that, and often it isn't going to be pretty.

There are two incidents that come to mind.

Vote Fraud in Ohio

Right after the election was over just about every major liberal blogger was telling us that we were crazy to question the election results in Ohio. Many didn't take kindly to that. It came off as if our friends in the blogosphere has suddenly adopted the right's talking points.

It would have been better if the leaders of the fight had not spoken so soon and instead waited to hear from people who actually lived in Ohio.

Sherrod Brown for Senate

As soon as Sherrod Brown started talking about running for senate front page posts on DKos, myDD, and David Sirota's blog started talking about how Paul Hackett should step down from running for Senate. None of these people were from Ohio. Several of them have relationships with Sherrod Brown.

Many reacted very poorly to that. Many people said some very stupid things. Given that you have not set up any ethical guidelines you've got to anticipate that some people will assume the worst. Rather than playing the pure victim perhaps it is time to take a step back and decide how these sorts of things can be avoided.

At some point the blogosphere is going to realise that we can't have our bus drivers telling us where we want to go. Our pundit/bus driver/consultants need to decide if they want to drive the bus or plan it's route. You can't do both at the same time and expect to avoid some serious problems from your passengers.

by ignatzmouse 2005-10-26 05:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Driving the Bus
BTW, you action addresses the matter. Thank you.
by ignatzmouse 2005-10-26 05:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Driving the Bus
You hit the problem in a nutshell. I think the problem is this idea that blogs are divorced from the real world.  There are people who sincerely believe that there are no ethical or conflict of interest problems that arise from being both consultants and running blogs that are vehicles for political journal writing, fundraising, organization and several other key functions. Disclosure is a good first step, but there are limits to how much even disclosure can fully protect against the inherit conflicts.
by bruh21 2005-10-26 05:53AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Driving the Bus
There are no conflicts that are not solved by disclosure.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-10-26 06:11AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Driving the Bus
This is untrue. Ethics requirements in other areas always say that disclosure is not always enough. I think people want to reduce it to rules of legal requirements, but it's not that simple. I am working right now so it's hard for me to explain, but to sum it up even with disclosure there can be conflicts that are created that can not be resolved simply by disclosing. ie, here when it comes to the net effect of him expousing for a certain candidate. he will effectively draw people here to that candidate even if he discloses that he is doing so. the damage is already done. people certainly have the right to choose, but the issue is that it creates undue influence on the decision making process. That's unavoidable due to his capacity to exert editorial controls here.
by bruh21 2005-10-26 06:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Driving the Bus
Ethics requirements in other areas always say that disclosure is not always enough.

Provide details or STFU.

he will effectively draw people here to that candidate even if he discloses that he is doing so.

So what? Your complaint is that other people are influenced by Jerome's opinion. That goes without saying and is not a problem. It is a fact of life.

the damage is already done.

Specifiy the damage. The harm is a complete illusion created out of whole cloth.

the issue is that it creates undue influence on the decision making process. That's unavoidable due to his capacity to exert editorial controls here.

So your complaint is against every newspaper and news network. By your reasoning every news source in the world should not be allowed to express an opinion or report the news because there is an "inherent conflict."

Your arguments are 100% bullshit.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-10-26 08:02AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Driving the Bus
Disclosure often is considered insufficient where consumers/the public lack sufficient knowledge or power to assess the scope of the conflict.  Ethical canons in the legal profession sometimes cannot be evaded by disclosure, nor by a client's acknowledgement of the conflict and willingness to continue the representation (such as where a criminal lawyer represents two defendants and the defense of one is predicated on assigning blame to the other, or where the lawyer has a commercial interest in her client's failure; in the context of judicial ethics, judges are required to avoid both actual conflicts and the appearanc of such conflicts, whether or not they actually exist).  Congress has also found that disclosure is not enough in the context of federal electoral contributions (for-profit corporations must submit disclosure reports to the FEC and additionally maintain a heavily-regulated PAC if they wish to contribute to federal elections).  

All of that said, I wouldn't see why Jerome wouldn't still be able to blog about issues that are unrelated to his other business ventures, so perhaps all of this hand-wringing is misplaced.

by rfahey22 2005-10-26 08:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
how does it create undue influence?
i have been trying to get someone to answer that question for days.

who is being influenced?  blog readers?  casual readers?  political junkies?  political operatives?  

i think that your statement implies that the audience has a lack of critical thinking skills, that somehow the audience lacks the ability to analyse and think for themselves when they have all the data.  

it seems to me that we should give people more credit.  the majority of blog readers are not dumbasses.  maybe i'm optimistic, but i think that we all possess plenty of critical thinking skills.  we can all gather and analyse data and form our own opinions.  nobody tells us how to think, and if they try to we generally reject it.  that's the nature of the lefty blogosphere.  

i just don't think that argument has any weight, but if you can explain it then feel free.  

by annatopia 2005-10-26 08:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: how does it create undue influence?
I think that your response shows a lack of awareness of how social networks work. The diaries on MyDD and Kos are powerful connectors. Their words resonate very quickly. They have much more power then they are often willing to admit publically.
by ignatzmouse 2005-10-26 08:50AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
excuse me?
dude, i am trying to get a serious answer here, and all you do in response is call me ignorant in not so many words.  

i am well aware that dkos and mydd have huge readerships and that those sites are used to connect activists from across the country. i am also well aware of the "power of blogs" but what i do not understand is why you seem to believe that the rules of real-world social networking also apply to this medium.  to some extent they do (in that people of similar interests will naturally group together), but you have got to admit that the social mores of the real world don't neccessarily apply to cyberspace.

plus you give so little credit to the audience.  just because jerome says he thinks brown would be a better pick, that does not mean that his audience will agree with him or support that statement.  in fact, the very nature of blogging means that such statements will be subject to instant feedback, criticism, and discussion.  to imply that markos or jerome's posts are like the word of god or something is just silly!  that implies that the audience is nothing but a flock of sheep, unable to think critically or analyse.  and perhaps i give the redership more credit than you do, but i don't see any dumbasses hanging out around here.

by annatopia 2005-10-26 09:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: excuse me?
You're right. I apologize if that came out wrong.
by ignatzmouse 2005-10-26 09:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
apology graciously accepted
do you understand where i'm coming from with my statements?  i get where you're coming from, i just don't think that the same rules apply.
by annatopia 2005-10-26 10:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: apology graciously accepted
I don't think that the same rules apply, but I do feel that there are rules. Perhaps we don't know what they are yet. We'd better figure out fast.
by ignatzmouse 2005-10-26 11:02AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: apology graciously accepted
Well one thing you have to say about ignatzmouse... at least with all his arguing he is able to pimp his own blog all over MYDD.  There is probably a good ethics argument in there as well.
by yitbos96bb 2005-10-26 11:28AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: apology graciously accepted
Interesting. I wasn't aware that having a signature was an ethical issue. If it is I would suggest
that the people who run this site disable the feature. Also if arguing over things is something unethical, I would suggest that the people who run this site disable that feature as well.

Maybe you should bring these points up with them.

by ignatzmouse 2005-10-26 11:53AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: apology graciously accepted
I never said arguing was unethical.  I simply asked if it was ethical for someone to pimp their blog and piggy back off another person's success without paying for the right to do so.  Just because something has a signature option does not mean one needs to pimp their blog.  A quote of the day or a biography could easily be put in a signature line.  So yeah, an ethics debate could be had over the practice.  Of course if you or any of the other people who pimp their blogs are paying MYDD for the right to do so, I apologize in advance.
by yitbos96bb 2005-10-26 12:09PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: apology graciously accepted
Again, if you have a problem with the feature, bring it up with the people who run the site.
by ignatzmouse 2005-10-26 12:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: apology graciously accepted
Its a public forum.  So I have.
by yitbos96bb 2005-10-26 03:57PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: apology graciously accepted
Is this the point in the conversation where I tell you to go fuck yourself?
by ignatzmouse 2005-10-26 06:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: apology graciously accepted
Such an intelligent response.  You really do a great job in making your arguement.  
by yitbos96bb 2005-10-26 07:24PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: apology graciously accepted
It's at the level that this conversation merits.

Seriously, if there's some problem with signatures including your blog I've never heard of it before. If it's some sort of MyDD etiquette no no than say so instead of insulting me by saying that I'm pimping my blog. Over on Kos it's very common. I can find you plenty of examples. (Tim Tagaris promoting Sherrod Brown's Grow Ohio for example.)

To be honest I don't give a shit about promoting my blog. I don't have advertisements and I reach the people that I am trying to reach (newsflash Einstein: they don't read MyDD)

But you're not really interested in any of that, are you? You're just an insulting dick incapable of having an intelligent discussion about the topic at hand, so... bringing it back to the issue at hand: fuck you.  

by ignatzmouse 2005-10-26 08:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Driving the Bus
No, that's not true. This is why Judge's and others recuse themselves from some of their normal decision making processes. The fact that they disclose their conflicting relationships does not necessarily remove the conflict. Jerome in essence is recusing himself here. I haven't followed all the conflict but have commented in one here and one over at Booman Tribune.

It would be my hope that folks like Jerome could do their consulting work and continue to blog here. This would require consideration on his part and on the part of readers here. Perhaps the ethical guideline in regard to such conflicts of interest would be that folks in his situation would blog about unrelated items but not the specific campaigns they are working.

These are not really new situations... just a new application of old ethical conflict resolutions.

by Andrew C White 2005-10-26 07:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Driving the Bus
At some point the blogosphere is going to realise that we can't have our bus drivers telling us where we want to go. Our pundit/bus driver/consultants need to decide if they want to drive the bus or plan it's route. You can't do both at the same time and expect to avoid some serious problems from your passengers.

That is a ridiculous analogy. If the passengers don't like where the bus is going, they are free to get off and catch another bus. Since when did the passengers decide the bus route? If the riders are too stupid to read the bus schedule, maybe they should call a cab and tell the driver where they want to go.

How about Amtrak? Do passengers get to vote on which direction the train goes? What if passengers on a Merry-go-Round don't like the scenery? Can riders on the Ferris Wheel complain about going around in circles?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-10-26 06:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Driving the Bus
Don't catch an attitude, but do you work in a profession that requires that you operate by a canon of strictly enforced ethics where there are concerns over public good of individual actions?
by bruh21 2005-10-26 06:28AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Driving the Bus
Don't try and get uppity with me pal. Your arrogance and conceit are already tedious to the extreme. You have no "special" inisights into ethical conflicts.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-10-26 08:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Driving the Bus
I wasn't getting uppidy with you. But, ethics as it relates to conduct isn't just something to be intuited by who you consider to be your friend. I am a guy who supports Hackett. If I were on his pay roll, and exerted editorial control, I would reframe from talking about him. The special insights I have about ethics is because I work in a profession that has forced me to think about all the ways that these issues come up. Rather than getting angry, and thinking someone is miss treating Jerome, why don't you actually read what I have said throughout the thread. So far, you have called me stuff like asshole which is okay because I have been called worse, but the truth is I am wondering if you are understanding that I am not attacking Jerome. It's about general principles of ethics that are accepted in other areas, and figuring out in this new permutation in the form of blogs, what those standards should be. The statement that disclosure is enough simply isn't true because it ignores the power that Jerome possesses with his editorial control. Anyway, please read my other comments- I am repeating my points and there is no reason to do that.
by bruh21 2005-10-26 09:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Driving the Bus
I think you're conflating your day job with blogging. There's no National Association of Bloggers Code of Ethics. There's no exam to take in order to become a blogger, and there's state licensing apparatus to take away your blogging license if you don't toe the line. And I say thank god for that! Blogging is the democratic babble at its most chaotic; it's the 21st century agora. It sure as hell doesn't need to be turned into another rigid, elite, micro-managed institution with built-in bars to entry.

(Let me anticipate your next argument by saying that, sure, we do need to license and regulate a number of professions, where public safety and welfare are involved. Does blogging rise to the level of requiring exercise of police power? Not in my mind.)

And maybe you think that bloggers are journalists (and thus subject to that field's informal ethical standards). I don't think of bloggers that way (maybe with an exception for Josh Marshall). When I think of Jerome or Chris or Markos, they are posting as citizens and as advocates, not as journalists... the same as me or anyone else here in the peanut galley (they just have louder bullhorns). The blogosphere is just a big old op-ed page, and while I find stuff that's well-thought-out and properly-sourced to be more convincing, it's all good, and we're all free to ignore or respond furiously to whatever we find, or to grab our own bullhorns and start our own blogs.

Nobody should take anything said by any one particular blogger as gospel, without any grains of salt, regardless of whether or not that blogger controls the front page, and I think just about every blog reader knows that. We all have multitudinous things (professionally, personally, whatever) that shape our particular agendas, and it's overkill to think that we all need to disclose them as part of every post... in order to make things transparent for the odd person stumbling across the blogosphere who doesn't somehow realize that everything posted in the blogosphere is one woman or man's opinion.

by Crazy Vaclav 2005-10-26 08:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Driving the Bus
My point is only related to those who exert editorial control over a particular blog. Editorial control is one of the standard bearers for questions related to online activities. As I have said, this isn't a new question. Just coming up in a new permutation.  My views about editorial control and conflicts of interests are limited to the context in which they are being employed for a particular candidate or campaign, and the person exerting editorial control are speaking about that candidate or campaign in that capacity. I think Jerome is going overboard with the no blogging. He simply needed to do a Chinese wall where ever as in with Brown where there was a clear conflict between his two functions. The reason why these situations are applicable is that there is too much chance of conflicts that even disclosure can't eliminate.  It's applicable to promote trust in what people are saying. There's no legal reasons like I have to deal with for doing this. But, in terms of having him as a trusted commenator, it's a useful way to frame the discussion. He and Kos and those like him in their position trade on their opinions being trusted, and untained. My suggestions are meant to help rather than hurt him.  For example, and this is an example and not necessarily Jerome's reality: He is exerting editorial control where by he is endorsing a candidate on the front page, and then people are contributing money to that candidate because of his endorsement. The conflict exist because his endorsement can be read as arising out him trying through his editorial to increase money for his own reward or in ethical parlance this would be probably called self dealing. It doesn't matter if that's not his intent. There will always be people who aren't his friends (since he's in the public sphere) who will misconscrue or misunderstand or simply not accept the situation because they feel he's exerting undue influence based on the privilege of his editorial control. For the trust factor reasons, it's not good for him to allow this to happen. It certainly doesn't  mean that he can not talk on his own blog about all sorts of races or candidates or campaigns or general principles, but that with a chinese wall he wouldn't talk specifically about Brown v. Hackett.

As the guy who is dogging me on here shows there are some people who will trust no matter what, but for a new avenue of communications such as this you want to keep people trusting in the process.  

by bruh21 2005-10-26 09:02AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
dude it IS framed
ok, i get where you are coming from, but can i just say that from day one it's been framed?  jerome has always disclosed his employers.  he has always framed it.  he has always been upfront with his readership.  so i do not get why so many people think that still needs to be done in the context of his blogging?  anyone who can read and who visits this site has always known who he has worked for.  they've always had the frame.  and for someone to just come along and claim that he's not already done that, well, that's crazy talk.
by annatopia 2005-10-26 09:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: dude it IS framed
disclosure doesn't fully address the trust factor issue that arises that he would have to face. and disclosure also doesn't address concepts such as self dealing. look at this way, he has competing goals and like everyone else he has to decide which of the competing goals are the most important one. i ask him specifically is his goal to reform the party and help with democrats in general or to build his consulstancy. those are each fine goals that can help but they are also in conflict that cant be ignored due to editorial control that he exerts. i think he can still blog. all i ahve said is that he needs a chinese wall where he is working for the candidate. that's all.
by bruh21 2005-10-26 09:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Driving the Bus
Hmm. I definitely understand the "self dealing" point; that's an excellent way of phrasing the problem. And I agree with you that Jerome sure doesn't need to quit altogether; building the firewall would be the prudent thing to do. (Idealistically, I don't think he even needs the firewall, but pragmatically, I understand that if he didn't take that step or the bigger step of withdrawing he'd be spending his whole online day dealing with angry blowback, so it kind of makes sense.)

Nevertheless, I think we're all involved in a little self-dealing in the blogosphere. I'm middle-class, and I know I'd reap real financial benefits from a regime where there would be universal health care, expanded college grants, better regulation of the energy market, bla bla bla, so when online I'll agitate for Democratic candidates and progressive ideals. (And if I were fabulously wealthy, I'd probably be doing the same thing for Republican candidates and regressive ideals.) I guess the money trail's a lot clearer with Jerome, but in the end, we're all blogging with our pocketbooks in mind.

by Crazy Vaclav 2005-10-26 09:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Driving the Bus
you are abstracting out soemthing that isn't that far removed. he's directly finiancially gaining from a brown. my points are limited only to brown and people he directly financially gains money from and/or support
by bruh21 2005-10-26 09:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Driving the Bus
I think part of the issue is that Jerome's soapbox happens to be myDD.

I don't think political consultants or campaign workers have to refrain from blogging except in official capacities (campaign blogs, or posts by the campaign to Kos or whatever).

I also don't think there is anything wrong with them shilling for the canidate they are working for on their own blog as long as they make their relationship clear.

The problems with the specific situation of myDD and Jerome were that this is a group blog to some extent and a good sized hunk of the user community here supports his canidate's opponent for one reason or another.

Still people need to grow up and simply take someone like Jerome with a grain of salt when they speak about issues having something to do with one of their employers.

Over time this is going to continue to be more and more of a problem and I certainly hope the default expectation won't be for anyone working for a campaign to refrain from any sort of political blogging except in an offical capacity.

OTOH I do hope that the expectation is that any relationships are disclosed or at least the fact the blogger might have a relationship with some of the campaigns he or she posts about.

by ces 2005-10-26 10:57AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Driving the Bus
no the default position isn't that a campaign worker can not talk about it. i think people are taking what is a specific idea (at least by me) and broadening it larger than the scope. the only idea i was putting forward was generally disclosure, but in the case of where someone is exerting editorical control over a site that influence as this oen does things such as ACt Blue funding- then a chinese wall to separate out activities. It's a pretty narrowly tailored idea. It's not an fit all every situations ethical standard, but is specific to af ew people like jerome who are really in a different place than even most bloggers
by bruh21 2005-10-26 11:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
This is a loss for the MyDD community
I understand your decision, but regret the loss of your insights and analysis. My personal opinion is fuck the ignorant putzes who don't think your disclosures are sufficient. If Judy Miller had been even a fraction as forthcoming as you, Chris and Markos have been, The New York Pravda would not be in the ethical and legal quagmire that she dragged them in to.

That said, I understand the distraction to your official paid consulting position as well as to the political dialogue here at MyDD and respect your decision. My fondest wish is that the blogosphere will mature to the point where this type of false ethical dilemma is written off for the sour grapes and witch hunt that it really is.

Good night and good luck. I'll be looking forward to your return.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-10-26 05:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is a loss for the MyDD community
I think that the problem only really manifests itself during primaries and recounts. Then people have to watch out.

As an Ohio voter that's been told I was crazy by my friends in the liberal blogosphere I just ask that they acknowledge that we may know a little bit more about our state than they do and maybe wait until the dust settles a bit before pontificating.

Personally, I want to spend my time focused on defeating Republicans. These days it feels like I'm fighting a rear guard action against some of the most powerful voices in the liberal blogosphere.

by ignatzmouse 2005-10-26 05:53AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is a loss for the MyDD community
"As an Ohio voter that's been told I was crazy by my friends in the liberal blogosphere I just ask that they acknowledge that we may know a little bit more about our state than they do and maybe wait until the dust settles a bit before pontificating."

this statement is very true.  as a texan, i think i have a much better grasp of issues in my state and district.  same goes for anyone living anywhere else.  if there's one thing i learned during the iowa caucuses, it's that locals trust locals.  they aren't going to listen to "outsiders" who come in and tell them how to vote.  it's like that everywhere.  we should definitely listen to the locals and give their opinions the weight they deserve.  but i also think that folks should realise that outside perspectives can also be helpful, but only after taking the local perspective into consideration.

by annatopia 2005-10-26 08:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is a loss for the MyDD community
Agreed, locals know the local political landscape best.

Though you can get trapped a bit by local myopia. For example here in Seattle the Washington State political landscape looks different than it does in Spokane, Everett, or even Bellevue.

by ces 2005-10-26 10:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is a loss for the MyDD community
It is a loss.  Hope to keep in touch with Jerome down the line.

I'm forever grateful for the opportunity to get to know him through the blog and the short time he linked to the Kentucky Democrat (which has gotten much praise from the party here as well as party staffers).

Thanks for the memories.  You are welcome to comment any time at my blog.

by kydem 2005-10-26 11:30AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Law of Unintended Consequences
I understand why you felt you had to take this action given the viciousness of the attacks you've been weathering lately. Personally, I'm very sorry to hear that your voice has been silenced here on MyDD.

I suppose it's inevitable that opponents feel they must diminish all who speak against their candidate, but in the case of a primary what is good for a given candidate may very well be harmful to the party. IMHO, that's exactly what we have here. In their eagerness to diminish the impact of well-known bloggers supporting Hackett, Hackett supporters have attacked these bloggers even though they are assets to the Democratic Party. Armstrong, Kos, and Sirota, to name a few, have had their name dragged through the mud.

As a Democrat I'm appalled.

by Curt Matlock 2005-10-26 05:50AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Happy trails, Jerome
No long piece here.  I will miss you.  You always had a point of view and generally expressed it clearly and logically.  Definitely more light than heat.
by David Kowalski 2005-10-26 05:53AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Reconsider?
Sums it up for me as well.  Actually, I wish you'd reconsider.
by InigoMontoya 2005-10-26 06:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Reconsider?
Ditto.  Why is it that we ASK campaigns to blog here and there and everywhere, then bitch when one does?  I missed the whole fight, I've been busy, seems .... 1980s of us Democrats.
by Robert P 2005-10-26 06:57AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
appropriate move
Protect your clients, always.
by Happy Talker 2005-10-26 05:53AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Happy Trails
While I can't say that I've always been happy with the opinions and stances you've posted Jerome, you have brought an insightful and lively discussion with you.

Thanks for your work! We'll see you back here (hopefully) after '06.

All the best.

by BlueCollarBaby 2005-10-26 05:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
um
Changing your mind is not against the law, and, I hope you do at some point.  

The idea that you cannot give analysis or opinion on the website that you created seems pretty chilling.

by DanielUA 2005-10-26 06:00AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: um
True.

What's the best way to avoid the kinds of conflicts that arose over this? This isn't just a blog, it's a community. There have to be responsibilities that are greater than that of just a simple blog. What are they?

I think the smartest thing to do is for us to set up the guidelines ourselves. You've got to expect these sorts of attacks to happen in the future.

by ignatzmouse 2005-10-26 06:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: um
There would be nothing wrong with Jerome commenting on races with which he isn't involved, but I absolutely believe that avoiding comment on Ohio is appropriate.
by Adam B 2005-10-26 06:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It's a necessary step
I know a lot of people think attacks on you were mean or unnecessary. However, the truth is, given the conflicts in the roles you were taking on, the criticisms were inevitable. In any other area of life, conflicts such as those that you were facing are often met with the same sort of feelings and arguments. It doesn't matter what your intent is or whether there is any actual rigging of the system, or not. The perception will be there and corrupt the debate.
by bruh21 2005-10-26 06:07AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You are an asshole
MyDD would be better off if you and the other knuckle dragging bawl babies STFU. I'd much rather read Jerome's analysis, opinions and insights than yours. If you don't like Jerome's participation, find another blog or start your own.

I am baffled why Jereome gives a fairies fart what you or any other bonehead thinks about his imaginary conflicts of interest.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-10-26 06:20AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You are an asshole
it's called ethics- go look it up and read about them. despite what you say, he's getting what those terms mean. concepts of ethics haven't been rewritten simply because you dont like them. now i got to go back to work. peace
by bruh21 2005-10-26 06:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You are an asshole
It's called an illusion created out of whole cloth. There is no conflict in this situation that is not completely addressed and solved by disclosure.

Your tedious repetitive insistence that there is a conflict or harm is meaningless and totally lacking in substance. The devil is in the details and you have been unable to provide any details that make Jerome's illusory "conflict" any different from any other paid political operative.

By your reasoning every single person who appears on cable talk shows would not be allowed to express an opinion if they hold or have ever held a paid position in any campaign or administration.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-10-26 08:07AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You are an asshole
There's a difference between the people appearing on talk shows and those running the networks. Kos and MyDD are the liberal blogosphere's key access points for information.
by ignatzmouse 2005-10-26 08:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You are an asshole
it's about who exerts editorial control, and my reasoning is limited to where that editorial control conflicts with a specific incident. it's not a general point that he can't talka bout anything, but where he talks about brown v hacket because of his editorial control, and that is in conflict with him being paid by hackett, there are issues that arise that will hurt his credibility. despite what you think, i am saying these things to him to help and to frame the discussion so that people can understand issues of ethics a little better. for example, when i talk about the trust issue, that's the biggest reason why lawyers (the profession i am in) have ethics. it's certainly not because we are all honest. it's because we want to public to trust in what we are doing for them. the chinese wall point i make to jerome is designed to make a similar comparision but would not say influence what he could say about corizine who he may not be working for or against.
by bruh21 2005-10-26 09:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
What's Jerome's duty?
Self-dealing makes no sense in the absence of any particular duty.  Lawyers have a duty to their client.  Editors have a duty to their readers.  Doctors have a duty to their patients.  CEOs have a duty to the stock-holders.

What duty does Jerome have towards us other than being forthright?  You say he has editorial control, what editorial control?  He has the editorial control of the host of a dinner party.

You speak as a lawyer, and I respect that lawyers have certain procedures and protocols to deal with their particular ethical issues.  But I don't understand why you think it's appropriate to infer anything about blogger ethics from the specific professional ethical code of lawyers.  By what criteria is it appropriate to decide that one code of professional ethics is applicable to another profession?      

Lastly, you need to understand that despite your professed intentions about helping Jerome, you actually harm him by validating the concerns of those who question his integrity.  The point is not that, given a set of background assumptions, the concerns are unreasonable.  The point is that the background assumptions themselves are unreasonable.

It is not up to us to decide the direction of MyDD.  Jerome created it and the direction is his to decide.  He doesn't get control over the entire lefty blogosphere, but we have no business coming into his house and telling him how to run things.  That's the long and the short of it.  If people want unbiased appraisal of political activity, they can try their luck with any number of journals, newspapers, or other blogs.  We are his guests here at this site.  That gives him not only the ability, but the right to say whatever the hell he wants to say.  So the burden is upon you to show why this right should be abridged.  IMHO the discussion about self-dealing doesn't come close to cutting it.                      

by Matt Lockshin 2005-10-26 10:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What's Jerome's duty?
I am making an analogy to explain the situation. The analogy isn't going to be perfect because that's the nature of analogies. He doesn't have to do anything I am suggesting. Indeed, he took a totally different route which I also disagree with it. I don't think it does anyone any good for him to totally withdraw from the process. However, the suggestions I am making are about the overall issues of how to produce trust. And, as to you last point, I disagree. The purpose for setting up clear standard by which one operates is to avoid these arguments. Your route will foster the arguments because they will simply become a means by which people distrust what he is saying even if they don't say it. My way, he gets to say what he wants to say on most issues and decrease the instances in which mistrust can be formented. It also assumes human nature- that even the most well meaning person can not separate out the types of conflicts we are talking about. That's why I keep saying blogs are nothing new. These issues of how to build relationships (which is what blogs are???) aren't something that started with blogs. THey are pretty old. The things I am suggesting are ideaas for how to address these relationship issues that don't pretend they aren't issues, and goes a long way toward making these things non issues.
by bruh21 2005-10-26 11:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Timmeh!
Obviously Tim Russert needs to immediately convene a conference on blogger ethics so that he can explain it all to us.
by Michael Bersin 2005-10-26 06:14AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
This sucks
A big FUCK YOU to the people attacked Jerome.

This is a sad day.

I hope you'll reconsider.

by blogswarm 2005-10-26 06:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Not Sure
Not sure that there is a happy ending here for everyone.

The thing about MyDD is that it is influential in shaping opinions among Netroots folks.  It might not get as many readers as Daily Kos, but ideas often start and germinate here -- as with other blogs like Swing State Project -- before they hit the mega-channels blogs with huge pools of readers.

If MyDD wants to maintain that role, there has to be some sort of transparency on the part of the site administrators or people will start balking and things posted hereabouts are going to be viewed with distrust.

It's about trust, relationships and reputation.

If Jerome wants to continue to grow his consulting business, more power to him!  Obviously, he has a tremendous amount to offer candidates who are looking to do Netroots outreach.  The question is whether he can do that without impacting the perceived "trustability" of MyDD.

I think, sadly, the answer is no, unless he wants to offer up transparency regarding who he works for and what he's doing for them.

And I totally understand that he might not want to do that, for reasons related to his business.

And that seems to be the core of it to me.

I know that there are a lot of accusations flying around, but the facts are neutral here and I think that Jerome's conclusion was a logical one.

by bink 2005-10-26 04:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I think that is a terrible turn and example
for the 'professional' blogger, Jerome. There will be more talk soon and I hope you change your mind. You personal views are valuable and always worthwhile. You views within a campaign are always marked as such as like any professional writer there are times when you write for money and times you write for yourself or in your owned media.

This is a decision to be revisited.

with respect....

by BigDog 2005-10-26 06:42AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Typical
This move is typical of people who are paid to consult. It attempts to sell us two separate ideas.

  1. Those who would aspire to become consultants should put away their sword and lay down weapon.

  2. Being silent, for example, as Karl Rove is silent and behind the scenes - is an example way to help form and shape policy.

  3. What I call the 'racist' clause: people are just sheep, and no-one can separate jeromes personal ideas from that of his candidate - they are all smeared together and if any GOP or Karl rove type operation gets ahold of them, the public mind will become blurred as to who's who.

Lets focus on the last one, because America has done so much to destroy itself - this one is the best one. Visualize Jerome Armstrong talking with his friends about this at the whomever-whatever campaign hq.

"Jerome, the GOP is going to run an attack ad saying that the campaign guy of so and so will be talking about you."

"Thats not good. They will use you to scumboat so-and-so".

"You have to throw in the towel"

GedankenExperiment: Go back in Time. Harriet Tubman is running for president. Now, she says something in the paper. Who cares if her campaign manager is Horace Greeley?

The implicit thing is very serious and it is a hidden thing - and one of those things that, like Jerome may have tried to sell us other things -

I am not buying it. For the record, anyone who operates like Karl Rove, or tries to legitimize anything Rove does - including "making sure we can  not get scumboated" is just helping to legitimize the abuse that Rove has mastered. It places whatever candidate Armstrong is backing into an automatic second place behind Rove.

And for those of you that don't think Rove is a factor, watch what happens this week.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-26 06:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Typical
And for the record, yes, I can count. It is three. The fight back goes like this.

  1. Don't stop posting whoever you are.
  2. Don't fake your posts or only post for the campaign. Post for yourself.
  3. Don't let abusers win.

An abusive person will want to legitimize what they are doing. They will want to blame the victim.

Right now, they are blaming you. You are a poor idiot that deserves this kind of treatment. We should shut up and all sign loyalty oaths .

No thanks.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-26 06:46AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It may be Fitzmas
But in the history of the blogosphere, this will be the most important thing to happen today.

A sad day indeed.

by Chris Bowers 2005-10-26 06:46AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I started to reply
but I think I'll write a diary instead.
by Andrew C White 2005-10-26 08:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
speaking of diaries
Why don't you post diaries instead of main-page stuff, Jerome? That way we can all still read your stuff, if we want, but you are no higher than any other poster on the food chain, so to speak. Hell, Hackett's or Brown's campaign manager can post a diary, what's the harm in you doing it to?

I missed the full attacks that seem to have prompted this, but I think you don't need to go this far ...

by BriVT 2005-10-26 09:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Sad, sad, sad...
I hope people regret their attacks on Jerome.  
Plain and simple-- this sucks and Democrats have lost another good voice.

Way to eat your young, guys!

by midwestdemocrat 2005-10-26 06:54AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Sad, sad, sad...
Although I am sad to see Jerome go, one could also look at this as him teaching and lending his blogging skills to current and future Democrats in the fight to secure a Democratic majority.  Those candidates can only benefit from someone of Jerome's skill working for them.  It is sad we won't have his insight any more, but don't view it as Democrats losing a voice.  View it as a strong voice fighting harder to get Democrats elected.  

You will be missed Jerome.  God Speed on you efforts and here is a hope that all your candidates win.

by yitbos96bb 2005-10-26 07:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Hackett's Anti-Blogger Slime Brigade
Well Hackett's folks are at it again. Sliming Sirota and Armstrong this time.

Sirota Caught Lying About Paul Hackett

Down in the comments, PhoenixWoman, the author, has this to say:

There's fighting fair... (none / 0)

...and then there's pulling this RNC-type crap that Sirota and Armstrong are doing.

I've seen a few fair-minded Brown backers, mostly right here at dKos, who are willing to discuss, in a logical way, why they think that Brown's the better choice.  But the public faces of Brown's campaign are people like Sirota and Jerome Armstrong.  

(Oh, and Sirota's been sliming Hackett for quite a while.  Go check out his previous blog posts -- and more importantly, the comments debunking them in the Working Assets comments threads for those posts.)

Mercury Rising: http://phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

by Phoenix Woman on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 09:44:56 AM EST

by Curt Matlock 2005-10-26 07:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hackett's Anti-Blogger Slime Brigade
Sirota is lying. He's quoting Hackett saying something in an article that isn't there. He's been shown how he was wrong and he hasn't corrected it. I don't agree with attacks against Armstrong, but the intial charge against Sirota is spot on.
by ignatzmouse 2005-10-26 07:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hackett's Anti-Blogger Slime Brigade
From my vantage point it looks to me as if Sirota is just pissing off Hackett's folks because he is supporting Brown and is part of the blogging "conspiracy". The ease with which the word "lie" is being thrown around is ridiculous. As Sirota notes, it's hardly a secret that Hackett is using the word "liberal" as a pejorative in this race and has been portraying Brown as "very liberal" as if that makes him unfit to be Senator.

Here's what Sirota has to say in his defense:

Some have accused me of "lying" about Hackett's attacks on Sherrod Brown for Brown's progressive convictions because I put "too liberal" in quotes in this previous post - that's really hilarious. I mean, come on folks - this is getting ridiculous and you look REALLY desperate. First and foremost, the quotes quoted a story in the Toledo Blade, and provided a link to it. If I was trying to "trick" people or "lie," I wouldn't have included a link - and that's what you do when you cite a publication - you quote it. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, let's remember - this isn't the first time Hackett has attacked Brown for being "liberal."

You may recall that in the first week of the primary campaign, Hackett attacked Brown's candidacy in Mother Jones, saying Brown is a "very liberal Democrat" - it was Hackett's desperate attempt to say Brown supposedly wasn't a viable candidate, even though Brown has won two statewide races. So please Hackett folks - let's get real. Your guy is running a Democratic primary attacking Democrats and progressives. There's no two ways around that. So stop your crying. Paraphrasing Harry Truman, "I don't give 'em hell - I just tell the truth and they call it hell."

by Curt Matlock 2005-10-26 07:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hackett's Anti-Blogger Slime Brigade
He quoted Hackett saying something that he didn't say. He's been called on it and not corrected it. That's a lie.

Don't quote Hackett saying something that he didn't say. Hackett said that Brown was "very liberal".  That's the proper quote. Use it.

He's citing a source in error. He needs to correct himself if he wants to be taken seriously, not just dodge around the issue.

Reporters paraphrasing isn't a quote. Does Sirota wants his guy to be held to the same standard?

by ignatzmouse 2005-10-26 08:04AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hackett's Anti-Blogger Slime Brigade
Also, he should use the quote in proper context, as Bob Brigham has pointed out.
by ignatzmouse 2005-10-26 08:06AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hackett's Anti-Blogger Slime Brigade
I'm willing to believe the quote Sirota put out was wrong. But it was certainly dead-on in the spirit of the talking points coming out of the Hackett camp.

Did you not read the crap that PhoenixWoman is saying? You really think this minor matter deserved a flame diary?

Is anyone surprised at the cesspool a diary like that creates in the comments? Take a look if you dare, it ain't pretty.

Apparently, for the good of Paul Hackett, Sirota (and Armstrong) must be brought down and humbled.

by Curt Matlock 2005-10-26 08:14AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hackett's Anti-Blogger Slime Brigade
The key work is "attack" that Sirota is using. Attacking Brown for being too liberal. Sirota has dug up one line where Hackett talks about the election landscape the same way as thousands of other residents of Ohio and said that it's an attack.

His making up quotes and then taking a different quote out of context to to drum up an attack against Hackeet. It's Faux News at it's best.

Do I think that it deserves a diary. ABSOLUTELY. As I've said many times, Brown supporters should tell Sirota to shut the fuck up. He's doing nothing but damage to both sides. Instead I see his crap bouncing all over the blogosphere. Is game on? Are we in full out war mode? Let me know and I'll start throwing punches. I'd much rather save them for DeWine but this is bullshit.

by ignatzmouse 2005-10-26 08:21AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hackett's Anti-Blogger Slime Brigade
I don't agree with you at all about the nature of Sirota's writings but there isn't any doubt he is backing Brown.

I'm not the guy to ask about war mode. From what I see out there right now, the answer is 'yes', the gloves are off. People on both sides, and people in the middle, are having their buttons pushed and are reacting by attacking.

Once again, I'll be happy if either man makes it to the Senate but this trashing of reputations has got to stop. Not that you personally are guilty of this ignatz. From what I've seen you've been a restrained partisan and have spent most of your time building up Hackett.

If there is a bright side I suppose it is that we know for sure whoever gets the nomination will play hardball in the general.

by Curt Matlock 2005-10-26 09:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
sad day
I, for one, am not reading this site to learn about the ins and outs of Ohio politics or to figure out how to vote in its primary.  Jerome has a lot to say regardless of who he works for.  His departure is a regrettable loss. Please reconsider.
by history prof 2005-10-26 07:27AM | 0 recs
Kombiz_twitter
A Decesion I hope you'll reconsider
This is a monumentually bad sign for the online progressive community. The people who've attacked Jerome are short sighted cowards - What you've done is say that the activist community should have no place in the future of the Democratic party. We can bitch about Washington or politics, we can applaud from afar when an elected does something right but so that you can feel better about your infatuation with one candidate the netroots should permanately be removed from the actual practice of helping Democrats get elected.

There are a ton of commited people who worked field, finance, and press in the last election. Some of them would be great bloggers, and bring a fresh perspective to our little fight against the far right. But the message here is that we'll fuck you if you do, especially if you dare work against someone I want to be an activist for in a primary.  

I second Bob's big Fuck you to the people who had nothing better to say than attack Jerome, considerig he went out of his way to announce that he was working for Brown. And a bigger fuck you to the guy who until two weeks ago was giving hand jobs to Glenn Reynolds for hits!

by Kombiz Lavasany 2005-10-26 07:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
absoletly agree
by Tom Kertes 2005-10-26 10:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Jerome, please reconsider
You are one of the most valuable members of the lefty blogosphere, so this is certainly a big loss.  Hopefully those who've been attacking you will stop their bullshit and you'll reconsider.
by Fran for Dean 2005-10-26 07:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Eyes on the Prize, folks
The last two times DeWine ran for Senate, he faced Joel Hyatt (1994) and Richard Celeste (2000). Ohio's already got two better candidates, in Brown and Hackett.

I'm drawn to Hackett for the time being, but I can't wait to support Sherrod Brown, should he win the primary.

by bobestes 2005-10-26 08:06AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Eyes on the Prize, folks
Umm...that wasn't Richard Celeste--it was his brother Ted, who's major claim to fame was that he's Richard's brother. Had Richard Celeste run, he would have given DeWine a heck of a race.
by Arkhangel 2005-10-26 09:11AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Eyes on the Prize, folks
Dang. Sorry.
by bobestes 2005-10-26 11:00AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Posting on races you're not associated with?
What about just posting on races you're not associated with?
by Fran for Dean 2005-10-26 08:23AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
This is the best idea
Whenever he posted something on the Ohio Senate primary, of course people were going to attack him as biased-because he is.  But on things that he has no personal stake into, the only bias should be pro-Democrat.
by Geotpf 2005-10-26 01:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
this is bullshit
look, i have absolute confidence that chris, laddy, and scott can keep the main page kickin' while jerome is gone, and i have faith that this community will remain strong... but this is bullshit!!!

jerome has been extremely upfront about the candidates he works for.  we all have known from day one that he worked for sherrod; it's never been some big secret.  it's been right there, right out in the open since day freakin' one.

it has been very hard for me to watch the personal attacks that have been hurled at jerome over the past few weeks.  especially that whole "armstrong williams" bullshit some commenters at dkos hurled. let me just say something to all those people - and i KNOW you are reading this.  you don't know jerome. you don't know his heart.  you don't know how many hours of his own time he has sacrificed, how many nights he spent away from his beautiful family, how much of his own money went into trying to help candidates who want to reform washington.  yet you think it's perfectly acceptable to pass judgement on someone who helped blaze the trail for all of us.  you think it's perfectly acceptable to smear and slime a GOOD MAN.  shame on all of you!!

jerome, it really hurts my heart to think that these personal attacks have contributed to this decision you've made.  you know i have always looked to you as a big brother, someone whom i respect and trust and who's opinion i value.  just know that your real friends are not abandoning you, we know the truth, and i for one will continue to defend you in the face of lies and smears by self-righteous assholes who have no idea who you really are or what is really going on.  

now i have also been privy to an email thread discussing this hiatus this morning, and the consensus seems to be that you are doing the right thing by stepping away.  it completely and utterly negates the so-called ethical questions.

but i want to say that i do not like the precedent being set here.  the implications for other bloggers could be bad.  if you're getting paid by campaigns, i can see stepping away. but what about those of us who do unpaid work?  are we going to be tainted by the same ethical questions?  do my posts about david harris somehow come into question because i choose to volunteer for him? i mean jesus christ, if we all just put down our blogs while we're working or volunteering for campaigns, well there won't be a lefty blogosphere!  

if this is what one primary is going to do to the blogosphere i shudder to think what will happen in 08 when the primaries roll around. i beg everyone to remember, please for the love of god and the good of our country, we are all on the same side here!  we're all progressives and this infighting shit has got to stop NOW.  stop smearing each other.  stop tearing people down.  get a grip!!

by annatopia 2005-10-26 08:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: this is bullshit
agreed.  I never doubted that Jerome was working for candidates.  And it really didn't matter to me.  The ideas are what matter, not the motives behind them.  I am not going to be swayed by anyone's bs or ideas not in line with my values.  
by Tom Kertes 2005-10-26 10:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Agree
This is bullshit. And I'm really tired of the "consultant" crap. Would it be better if all bloggers couldn't make a living in politics, didn't associate with any campaigns, and just sat around in their cardboard boxes down by the river (next to a Starbucks for WiFi) and blogged their completely uninformed opinions?

Give me a break.

What the fuck is wrong with being a consultant? Are the people jealous or something that someone with the talent and insight that Jerome has is actually sought out by campaigns? Shit, I wish I was that lucky.

I wish I had the kind of inside contacts Jerome has made. I wish I had the kind of knowledge base he has. What, do you idiots think that isn't valuable? Do you think if he gets paid he's going to get all fat and happy and move out of his box down by the river while you site there rightously in yours? Does his success make you feel small?

Get over it.

Being a consultant isn't selling your soul. It isn't evil. And belive it or not, you don't drink Magic Kool-Aide that makes you lose your fucking mind. There is not contract signed in blood that makes you suddenly forget what matters. I can still have an opinion about the candidates I work for, and will work more closely with candidates that resonate with my thinking. AND GUESS WHAT? By working closely with candidates I get insights on what makes them tick that are valuable to share on a blog.

I'm rambling, but this is like the Grinch who stole Fitzmas here. If anyone wants to question Jerome's ethics, then we might as well all go and hold hands and sing Kum-Bay-Ah in a little circle around the campfire outside our boxes down by the river while we free associate on the concept of "blogger ethics."

by michael in chicago 2005-10-26 01:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Good Luck Jerome...
...And go get 'em.

Larry

by lhuynh 2005-10-26 09:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You're better than this
Jerome - you're one of the blogosphere's greatest assets. I thought you would have developed a thick enough skin by now, but apparently people can always be bigger assholes than you can anticipate. Put down another tick mark under the "I hope you'll reconsider" column. At the very least, give it another shot after the primary.

When good bloggers leave, the terrorists win...Stay the course, Jermome.

by jmelli 2005-10-26 09:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Don't let this be the end
I know that this is a personal decision for you, but I would like to offer two points that I hope you will consider.  

Think of the precedent that you are setting.

The blogosphere looks to you for direction and guidance.  Imagine the state of the netroots if the best and brightest among us begin to abstain from the political discourse.  If we loose the founders of this movement a great void will be created that will undoubtedly harm our great party at a time when we have such great potential.  Those attempting to tear you down are simply orchestrating covert power-grabs by positioning themselves to capture your online influence. Please don't let this happen.  

There are far more of us who stand with you than against you.

Don't let the lies from your critics eclipse the truth from your supporters.  The netroots is at a critical juncture right now and we need you now more than ever.  

by fightingdemocrat 2005-10-26 09:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Jerome, I feel like you have been Swift-boated...
...and it just pisses me off.

The blogosphere has become the sow that eats its own farrow.    

I will be poorer by your absence not only as a member of this community, but as a citizen.  

Please reconsider.
   

by Matt Lockshin 2005-10-26 10:09AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Jerome, I feel like you have been Swift-boated
yes, no need to worry about saving face.  Just ignore this crap.  It's silly and meaningless and petty and they can go on worrying and complaining and while we keep learning and talking and thinking together.
by Tom Kertes 2005-10-26 10:57AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
the standard to which you are applying yourself
is stupid, and is being pushed for narrow political interests.  It is the lowest form of discourse to charge a political specialist that the only reason you are doing something is for the money.  It is an insulting charge, and for most specialists in mainstream politics not true.  Even the most creepy of neocon hacks believe what they are doing.

And besides, it doesn't matter.  If some gets paid to produce bullshit, it remains bullshit.

I like going to myDD because its front pagers have inside political connections - it is how I learn from you what you all think about and do.  It is a shame to lose this kind of meta-political outlet.  A real shame.

by Tom Kertes 2005-10-26 10:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
recusal
Yet another two cents: It's not enough that, say, a Supreme Court justice acknowledges a conflict of interest or a bias in a particular case; he also has to recuse himself in that case.

(And I know, I know -- this isn't the Supreme Court. But we all do similarly care about justice and fairness here, right?)

Similarly, Jerome, why not just recuse yourself from posting on races where you have a horse running? No muss, no fuss -- problem solved.

I was disturbed by your Ohio Senate race postings. They didn't seem right, even if everybody knows where you stand. But I just don't get why it has to be all or nothing.

I hope you reconsider.

by cgeiger 2005-10-26 11:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Short Time Poster's Appreciation
I've only been posting on this blog for about two months and have come to appreciate your insight. While your reason for leaving is admirable, I would be surprised if anyone who posts here gives a damn about what some neocon might think of you continuing to do so.  
by blogus 2005-10-26 11:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The Mydd.com will miss you ..
good luck in Ohio and in the Presidential.
by marsblog 2005-10-26 11:50AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
WTF
That's too bad. You have the experience that can teach many of us a great deal.

I'm glad your consulting is going well, and your are booked through 2008, but you'll be missed around here.

Fuck the morons who want to take cheap shots. At least you are above board about what you are doing. What's those idiots on the Moronosphere's excuse for the water they so obviously carry?

by michael in chicago 2005-10-26 01:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Thanks Jerome
I will probably get eaten alive but I think Jerome is doing the right thing.

The blogosphere is having a huge and mostly positive influence on the future of the Democratic Party.  The 2006 primaries and the 08 presidential primaries are opportunties for us to fight amongst ourselves, test out our power and influence on voters/elections and craft messages.  This is our time to define what it means to be a progressive politician and progressive voter citizen.

As bloggers become influential they have a choice--go on and become a political strategist or stay here and keep the conversation going.  Doing both dirties the water.  I don't think it is a good idea.  I think Jerome did the right thing.  Maybe as this medium matures and as the progressive movement takes hold--maybe then a compromise position would work but we are not there yet.

by aiko 2005-10-26 02:56PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Jerome's Problem
This whole thing wouldn't be a big deal if bloggers were to practice a tiny bit of self-reflexiveness. The problem is when you have Jerome who is being paid by Sherrod going on dkos and slamming ruthlessly on Paul Hackett's diary.  I read them and found them simply abhorrent to the cohesive nature of the community we are trying to establish.

We can't allow, for the supposed freedom of expression, the progressive blogosphere to be controlled and dictated by bloggers who act like hegemonic demagogues.  If we are establishing a community it shouldn't be used for one faction to choose sides and then supress a candidate from our own party, just because your paid and its your job to do it.  If Brown weren't in the race would you be saying the same things about Hackett or is this motivated by your job.

I think this is a wake up call to the entire progressive netroots and an opportunity for some serious introspective reflection.

by burroughs 2005-10-26 04:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Jerome's Problem
You realize that this is HIS site right?  You realize that you're able to post your thoughts here because of Jerome's hard work?  You realize there wouldn't be ANY COMMUNITY if he didn't allow us all to be one, here, in his house?  

Furthermore I am appalled by your suggestion that Jerome is a "hegemonic demagogue" who doesn't "practice [even] a tiny bit of self-reflectiveness."  Agree or disagree with him, he has always been honest, thoughtful, and very aware of the complexities of his situation.  

All this moralizing BS ought to stop.  On this site, Jerome has a right to say whatever the fuck he wants to say to whomever he wants to say it.  Period.  If others can't be bothered to listen to his views critically, then they don't belong on the internet.              

by Matt Lockshin 2005-10-26 06:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Jerome's Problem
What about when he goes on to dkos where Paul Hackett has posted and sits there ripping into whatever he says. I understand this is his site and he can say whatever he wants and so can I, right? The problem is when money or some position from outside screws that up. If this site is a pro-Brown site then lets just openly say it--no one has a problem with that. What is the big deal about disclosing, no one cares other than to know where someone is coming from on top of their regular blogging. I think thats just good form.
by burroughs 2005-10-27 06:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Well this is good news for the Warner 08 Campaign.
And that in the end is what really matters.  I can't help but laugh at people taking these things so seriously. Anyway it will not effect this website very much because as far as I can tell Mr Bowers is it's heart and soul.  

Mark Warner for President 2008, Renewing the Promise of America.  Join the cause at www.draftmarkwarner.com

by strrbr 2005-10-26 06:26PM | 0 recs
4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal
Re: Well this is good news for the Warner 08 Campa
Right on.
by Jerome Armstrong 2005-10-27 05:12PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Thank You
There's no sense in repeating all the above in which I concur.

I just wanted to say "Thank You" for introducing me to Howard Dean. I'll miss your insight terribly.

by antiHyde 2005-10-27 03:46PM | 0 recs
4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal
Re: Thank You
You are welcome.
by Jerome Armstrong 2005-10-27 05:12PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------