Count me in for Thursday. I get everything interesting in my week done by Thursday afternoon.

As an Obama supporter, I have to admit I was a little hurt/angered by the comments you made in the "Movement" post. While I can see the points about movements happening outside of campaigns, I think that is something that is in fact happening, though it is hard for many to see since it is not occurring in the "netroots" blogs.

One place it is happening is on campuses. The hundreds "Students for Barack Obama" groups popping up across the nation seem to be relatively sophisticated, at least at this early stage. Each group has its own President, communications director, and several other organizational officers. I guess time will tell what kind of impact these groups will have as far as getting out the vote in the primaries, but I can tell you that Obama is the only candidate that's generating palpable excitement on college campuses across the nation.

Another place Obama's candidacy is really taking movement form is within minority communities, particularly black communities. Many of the canvassing events were held in urban areas, and Obama volunteer events are incredibly diverse gatherings. The (lack of) poll evidence Rosenberg speaks of may indeed be coming to fruition within these communities, as evidenced by Obama's recent movement in South Carolina and among black voters nationally.

Obama's campaign is not a movement in the form of the Dean campaign. But I think he is actually learning from the Dean mistakes--he has incorporated online organizing onto his website, folding it into the campaign while allowing it to grow organically. This will hopefully help to avoid the organizational mistakes that sunk Dean in Iowa last time around. But just because Obama isn't Dean doesn't mean that he doesn't have a movement--movements are often times hard to spot when you are outside of them, and his may be no exception. The test of its mettle will come in the  primaries.

I like the idea of putting "everyday" bloggers on the front page. Partisans are great, as long as they are respectful. I really appreciated the promotion to the front page during the 2006 IL-06 primary. It was a big help, and made this site something I felt at home on.

My suggestion for topics would be to chose hard ones for partisans to answer - specific liabilities of a candidate. For example, in the '06 primary I was a Cegelis partisan. One of the hardest questions to answer for me was how to respond to her fundraising issues. When forced to do this, it required that I really dig into the subject and work hard to address the issue, doing research and relevant comparisons. I'd like to see similarly difficult topics for partisans to answer, such as the discussions raised by bored now regarding Clinton. Basically, rather than just provide the free megaphone, require the partisan to provide the batteries.

I'm thrilled to be a part of the team!

All for it. This sound a pretty cool way to let people make their case. And there are some excellent spokespersons here. I can't wait to see them on prime time.

In addition to the community of each candidate getting a front page spot, could the Anyone But Hillary community get a spot?

It is obviously the largest, smartest, and most critical campaign in the 2008 primaries. And judging by the online polls, the community is so large that it could conceivably deserve a spot every single evening (I mean, it isn't like Penn isn't providing plenty of material to work with).

I'm not the most active participant on this site by any means, but have been an avid reader for the last four years.

I have to say though that I've stopped even reading the diaries since 90% of them appear to be Obama and Edwards partisans.  I would be extremely dissappointed if your front page devolved into the fracus that is the recommended list.

It doesn't make any sense to turn the front page into what you propose.  If I wanted to read cheerleading diaries for candidates then I would go directly to their sites.  

FWIW

:) What an amazing idea. As a usual reader of mydd, I am worried about the future of this site, so I welcome all new idea, but this idea in particular will keep me hooked on mydd for the forseeable future.

I like the idea. Although I haven't seen that many diaries for Richardson, so I'm not necessarily sure his partisans could manage to keep it up for an entire day each week. Maybe they should share the day with another interest group. How about a slot for those who are uncommitted?

Of course, you'd have to do something to make sure that we don't have a situation where both the front page and the recommended diaries are full of presidential stuff. There needs to be a venue for material with a wider range. Otherwise the site will be awfully quiet come February 6th 2008.

Also, you'd need to establish a few conditions to having front page privileges. No criticising Democrats using Republican frames, no attacks for things which the candidate can't do anything about, no threatening to vote for a Republican instead, the usual caveats.

I think this is a fantastic idea.  I'm not committed to any one Dem candidate yet (run Al, run!), but I really don't have a problem with any of them.  Years of listing to Biden talk isn't so appealing, but I can deal with it!

I really enjoyed a conversation a while ago about WHY everyone is supporting their candiate.  I came out of reading that believing that, no matter who the nominee is, we're going to have a good next President.  I want to see more of that.

My main hope is that the tone is positive.  I'm okay with any candidate, so I'd hate to see a months-long discussion about why Sen. Clinton sucks or why Richardson is stupid and hopeless.

The other thing I'd like to see is some policy analysis, and some contrasts with other candidates.  I'm a big dork, and I love that kind of stuff - and it's what I'll base my pick on.

The things I value most from MyDD are:

1. Analysis of local races where my small contributions can make an impact
   
2. Holding ALL high profile Dems accountable on progressive Dem values
   
3. Thoughtful pieces on progressive framing and movement history / sociology

In short, it is the presentation of new facts combined with context and reasoned analysis that makes MyDD valuable to me.

There is certainly a need to convert supporters into activists and get them motivated. But unlike 2003 there is no shortage of places on the web for partisans to be heard and meet like-minded individuals.

I could see setting up an area on MyDD for the chauvinists to tout their candidate -- and inevitably trade barbs -- if it takes some of the pressure off the comments, but front-paging them just seems like it will turn up the volume.

If MyDD goes to a candidate du jour format, I'll certainly give it a chance, but I suspect it will quickly segment the readership and reduce the proportion of information I find valuable.

Perhaps Bowers and Stoller will take the analytical role on their site and MyDD will evolve into the partisan hothouse.

Not sure there really is a community of supporters that is in a position to nominate the writers for some of the candidates. I guess there could be a self nomination thread for each candidate where people could make the argument for themselves.

The Edwards people are the only consistent blog touters.

Just not sure how you envision it working.

I've always loved MyDD. I started reading back in the early days with the Dean campaign and I would be dishonest to say that back in Texas with the Burnt Orange Report we clearly look to MyDD as a model of activism and writing for a state level blog. The past 2 days of stories have been fascinating on here and I'm glad to see that even with the departure and changing of the guard, that that focus will remain.

If you think that ActBlue should be a part of that discussion (though I imagine we are much more irregular) let me know (kt@actblue.com). I'm sure we could have some series or ideas that fit in very well with the site moving forward.

JEROME:"don't see all that much happening through decentralized activity on the Obama website, in fact it's been less each month that I've been tracking it."

Howie: Out here in Washington state, there is a lot of volunteer activity, several websites and a completely volunteer run and supported office in downtown Seattle that we just moved into today. Unlike the Dean campaign, I think there is less formal connection to the Obama campaign, at least in the non-critical primary states like Washington. I remember people saying "Don't wait for Burlington" to do something and this year people aren't waiting for Chicago, either. So much of this activity, here at least, is under the radar of the national campaign website.

JEROME: I don't doubt for a minute that Obama has the strongest support among 18-28 year-olds and among black communities throughout the states. He's got widespread appeal, and a strong national campaign. But the movement talk is all silly to me; I read ten different things about what "the movement" is from ten different Obama supporters.

Howie: Here in Seattle, Obama's support seems pretty much across the board, demographically. It's not a movment like the civil rights movement was, that's for sure. But there is a lot of connection, energy and activity that I haven't seen in many, many years.

JEROME: "The biggest difference between Obama and Dean is that the Deaniacs never talked about "Howard Dean's movement". If, when we talked about a movement, it was in the sense that there was something bigger than the candidacy of Dean, that the Dean campaign was tapping into. And maybe there's something bigger that Obama is tapping into, and I don't see it, but if that's the case, I don't see it being articulated by any Obama supporters (in any form of consensus) either."

Howie: I don't hear people talking about "Obama's movement" but rather he is functioning in some ways as a community organizer of US and helping us focus our efforts in the political arena. The one area where both the Dean and Obama campaigns found  consensus is the Iraq war and both campaigns also  
were infected with transformational thinking and a  
desire to change the direction of our country and change our political landscape.

Though, being firmly undecided, I guess I'll be in the peanut gallery, spraying soda fizz in the months to come.

It would be really great if this sort of back-and-forth actually drew the candidates out to take more progressive positions.  I say that not just because I'm a progressive myself, but because I think--as the recent decline in Congressional support indicates--that the people now want a progressive alternative more than they want a mushy "can't we all get along" centrism.

Versailles high-rollers like David Broder and Joe Klein may still believe in the tooth fairy magical moderation of the middle, but out in America, folks are might bit more skeptical, it seems to me.

If Edwards were to become less equivocal, or if Obama were to reinvent himself again as the true progressive he was before joining the Senate, I could certainly be won over.  Or if Gore were to jump in.

But for now, it's the peanut gallery for me.

If this whole argument was about semantics then I think Jerome is right: there is no 'movement' per se.

What there is is a very diverse group of people who all see vision and hope in a man of color from Kansas.

Our politics and demographics aren't necessarily similar.  That's what makes it feel different than a campaign and more like a movement. His supporters are so diverse that we can't be defined easily--what we have in common is the man.

Some folks are anti-war.
Others want change.
Some want integrity restored to government.
Some want an intellectual.
Some want diversity.
Some see a bridge builder.
Some see a progressive.
Some see a moderate.
Some see a consensus builder.
Some see an agent of change.
Some are from the facebook generation. Some are not.
Some see a Kennedy.
Some want anybody but clinton.
Some think he can bring back decency in government.
etc. etc. etc.

Neither the Republican party or the Democratic party should not forget committment the U.S made towards the U.N. Millenium Goals in 2000. According to The Borgen Project, an annual $19 billion dollars is needed to end world hunger by the year 2025. To my sense, it is almost unnaceptable to have spent so far more than $340 billion in Iraq only, when we have more than war immunities to change the world and eliminate poverty.

I've been really enjoying the coverage of policy and legislation on topics like Net Neutrality and the Farm Bill.  If that content is de-emphasized here in favor of all-electoral-all-the-time, I hope the writers find a good place to blog and will follow along there. There's a need to get candidates elected, and to watch and influence what they do once they get elected.    It's of course up to the proprietors of this blog to choose what to focus on here.