Matt:

As a longtime reader I've enjoyed this site a lot. As a tech industry flunky, I finally have to weigh in and tell you you're completely full of shit on net neutrality. I've thought this for awhile, but now there is finally proof. Because I've just seen your pathetic Yearly Kos performance on YouTube, and so should everyone else. I can hardly believe the things you say, and not just because you need to look at your stupid notes every ten seconds. You say:

    "This fight is fun."

If you choose your political issues on what's "fun," that says a lot. No wonder I never see you rarely talk about labor issues. Or the minimum wage. Politics is FUN! But organizing? Caring about issues that Northeastern preppies don't care about? I guess not.

    "I have the advantage that I don't know anything... These people know things... I don't know anything... They know how telecommunications policy works.  I don't."

This says a lot more. Not only are you wrong on net neutrality, you wouldn't even know why if I explained it to you.

    "Vilifying Mike McCurry is really important."

That's more "fun" than learning about the finer points of this country's telecommunications structure, I'm sure. And it weakens your arguments. Sure, keep beating up Mike McCurry - Clinton defender and PRO BONO Kerry spokesperson that he is - and wondering why you fail to add any substance to this discussion.

Did it ever occur to you that EVERY single network engineer who has blogged about this disagrees with you completely. And your pal Vint Cerf is as much of a shill as "net chick" and her ilk. Guess nobody briefed Ned Lamont that what seemed like common fucking sense to him was something so bad everyone here had to pretend he never said it.

    "What I'm starting to do ... is make this a voting issue."

So you say you like to win. Running on net neutrality is NOT EXACTLY an issue that will set the electorate on fire. Are we going to spend all fall educating voters on this issue, when even YOU ADMIT you don't understand it? Count me out of that. Let's run against the war how about it. Just like telling us that Bilbray won because he "ran as a progressive" and then suggesting that our candidates should run on net neutrality is political MALPRACTICE. Did you know that Joe LIEBERMAN of all people is in favor of net neutrality? Dude, where's your purity?

This video is MUST-see video for anyone who has been following Matt Stoller's ongoing net neutrality crusade. Matt, in this video you are self-discrediting. You practically admit that no one should listen to you. And assuming that's what you were telegraphing, then on that you are actually right.

Why don't Hillary just run on the GOP ticket? She could move the GOP toward the center instead of moving the The Dem party further to the right.

But then, she'd just get booed there too.

But it is what it is, and it means that she has exceptionally bad judgment.

That doesn't necessarily follow from the bubble argument, unless you're arguing that she's exercising bad judgment in maintaining the bubble. If you're getting bad information with which to make your decisions, you're going to make bad decisions even with the best judgment in the world.

And I agree that she's making some spectacularly bad decisions if she's at all serious about running in 2008.

HA! HA!
http://z.about.com/d/animatedtv/1/0/c/A/ nelson.jpg

She has lived in a bubble of Democratic power,a nd personal success, for so long that she fails to ralize that there are new centers of progressive power that she has to take seriously. As far as she is concerned, because Bill won in '92 and 96, and because she won in 2000, everything is hunk dory. Continue business as usual. The massive losses suffered by Dmecorats and progressive elsewhere mean nothing.

"The massive losses suffered by Dmecorats (sic) and progressive elsewhere mean nothing."

I would add - just like her husband.  Who has ever done more for the modern Republican Party than one William Jefferson Clinton???  

i'd suggest you write a diary STD (wow, did you realise that's the acronym for your handle?).  i'm downrating it because you hijacked the thread with a personal attack.  rest assured this isn't censorship on behalf of the site owners; i'm a trusted user so i'm pretty sure when i zero rate your comment it's gonna go bye-bye.

you points further downthread were legit, so please take it to a diary.  this post is about hillary, not net neutrality.

thanks.

I would not make excuses for Hillary-it is up to her to be aware what the "middle class" and ordinary Americans are thinking.  I have the feeling that she is just part of the group that did well for Bill and she just cannot accept the fact that it is not the same now.

Taking responsibility for her votes,speeches and moves to the right is something yet to come...  Excuses-none!

Hillary may be a very smart women, but she voted dumb!

You and I are responsible for their actions and speech-no less for Hillary.

I am leaning for a Gore/Warner idea-whata ya think?

11.  I figured it out before the invasion as did millions of others around the world.  

it's not really her fault.  she lives in a bubble.  anyone in her position would have to do so, or risk going insane.  but it is what it is, and it means that she has exceptionally bad judgment.

no.  it's her fault.

If she does become president I hope she's not as bad as Bill.  Repealing the Glass-Steagall act was bad for our democracy.

She belongs to that class of presidential contenders who feel they have achieved national security credibility by having been wrong on Iraq, the biggest mistake this country has ever made.

If I didn't need to work, I would have liked to have gone to TBA (I live in the DC area), and believe me I would've helped heap some abuse on Hillary and any other DLC shills that try to pass themselves off as progressive.

Warner is just another DLC shill and Gore had his one chance (no more second runs at the Presidency for Dems. since Stevenson please!).  I'm high on Feingold so far (the only Senator to vote against both the war and the Patriot Act (TWICE!).  I think Feingold is the next Dean.  How about a Feingold/Sanders unity ticket (Dem/Ind.) in '08.  The so-called "pros" have been getting it wrong for years playing it safe.  We need a progressive red meat version of that shrew Ann Coulter to bait the GOP where they live.

As for Ohio, even if Strickland and Brown are ahead by 10 points on election day they don't have a chance as long as Ken Blackwell controls the election machinery (see RFK Jr.'s article in the latest Rolling Stone).  BTW, am I the only one who thinks Blackwell looks like Eddie Murphy's "Nutty Professor"?  

Let me say that I am very undecided about Hillary as a presidential candidate. I prefer someone like Wes Clark, John Edwards, or maybe Mark Warner, because I am convinced that a Southerner has a better chance of winning the presidency than a Senator from N.Y. That being said, I find the reports of Hillary's political demise, as it relates to running for president, a bit premature. To my knowledge, no Democratic voters have yet had the opportunity to cast a vote for president in 2008. When they do, we shall see what happens. Maybe she wins, maybe she loses, or maybe she doesn't run, but in any event, until the votes start coming in, there is no way of knowing what will happen.

not their intentions or whatever.

She had the celebrity status and the intelligience to make "a village" and chose power. I am glad that she is getting what she deserves. Too bad so sad.

People are dying in Iraq.

Truthteller, Strickland is 16 points ahead of Blackwell and not one single poll has shown Blackwell in the lead. That's no excuse for complacency -- I'd like to see us set a goal of making Strickland's margin of victory one of the highest in Ohio history. But I'm tired of all this despairing, let's-quit-because -it's-just- so-hopeless stuff about blackwell inevitably winning because he's going to steal the election. It's going to be very, very difficult for him to do it this time because he's going to be watched and we're onto him. He's going to need a much tighter margin of victory to pull it off, which he won't get if he keeps flip-flopping on, well, everything.

Brown is a whole other kettle of fish, and I certainly would NOT put him in the win column yet, but not because Blackwell is going to steal the election for DeWine (why?). Brown needs to completely revamp the way he shapes his message so he can reach someone, anyone, outside his hardcore base.