Attn: Obama supporters (mojo party).

I appreciate the support, but this is just a meta diary. PLEASE UN-REC THIS DIARY AND REC THESE EXCELLENT DIARIES INSTEAD:

The math: Obama has the better GE viability by TCQuad

Chairman of the TDP Endorses Obama by nklein

I think it's great that there're still enough of us to compete on the Rec List, but TCQuad and Nklein put far more effort into their diaries than I did for this one.

To preface:  I totally support Jerome revoking the ratings access of those who hide-rated (0-rated) Alegre's recent "is this snark, serious question" line.  If you zero-rated that remark, you undeniably violated the Trusted User guidelines.  Now I don't think he was right revoking the access of those who simply down-rated (1-rated) the comment, but what's done is done.

Yes, certain Clinton supporters (assuming they're genuine Clinton supporters) are getting away with outlandish ratings abuse, personal attacks ("cultists"/"boyz"), and McCain advocacy right now.  Yes, the application of these ratings suspensions appears a bit capricious, uneven, and generally lacking in due diligence when it comes to policing.  Adapt and deal with it, but don't throw your ratings access down the drain with stupid, futile gestures of frustration. If you must, just avoid rating anything contentious until the primaries're over (which they almost are).

Things'll improve dramatically once the nomination is settled (in t-minus five days), but I'm betting this site'll need all the janitors it can manage to sweep out the trolling that follows.  You think the McCain advocacy popping up now is bad?  Imagine how it'll be once Republicans come a-courtin' for disgruntled Hillary supporters.  Remember, McCain is already directing his supporters to start astroturfing progressive web sites.

That said, could Obama supporters who still have their ratings/rec access sound off in the comments?  I'm not sure who all got tazed in the most recent purge of privileges, and I'd like to share some mojo with those who remain.

There's more...

Symposium 1001: a beginners guide to spot McBloggers, freepers, Paulites and other trolls. Updated.

Redacted (once again I am too toxic to be a upright member of this blog)

So, that 'Pyro' troll was banned (ratings privileges).

It's good that the blatant Republican troll who spammed nothing but copy-pastes of Obama religion/family smear emails yesterday was banned.  Their comments occupied the entire first page of the Hidden Comments section, and I'm glad to see they were all deleted.  They were disgusting.

Contrary to current popular belief among Obama supporters, I don't consider MyDD an unfair forum for expression.  I've been here since the 2004 primaries, and still prefer MyDD to Daily Kos despite being an Obama supporter (indeed, those who consider Markos Moulitsas the new leader of the "Obamasphere" clearly don't remember the Daily Kos' own anti-Obama streak while John Edwards was still in the race).  Jerome's current biases don't overshadow the fairness of the other front-pagers, and pro-Obama diaries still make the rec list regularly (and while you still have to compete for the slot, it's no more difficult than making Kos' rec list while Edwards was still in).

But if Pyro's comments were disgusting enough to warrant a ban and deletion, why does the MyDD user who ran around uprating all of them yesterday still have ratings/rec access?  I won't call them out by name, but they're easy to spot.  Find any random personal attack against an Obama supporter in the Hidden Comments section and you're almost guaranteed to find their name next to a "2" uprating.

After seeing someone get away scratch-free after repeatedly uprating a banned right-wing email copy-pasting troll yesterday, I'm starting to wonder if it's much easier for Obama supporters to lose their rec/ratings access nowadays than Clinton supporters.  And I'm an older MyDD user who wasn't previously sympathetic to such suspicions. It's starting to feel as if every Obama supporter's privileges are hanging by a thread, while Clinton supporters' abuses have to be extensively documented and prosecuted via email.

There's more...

Can you rec/rate?

Lots of people have lost rec/rating privileges without any explanation. This diary serves a simple purpose - catalogue those who have/have-not lost rec/rate privileges, along with their candidate affiliation.

Vote in the poll, and leave comments about your experience on MyDD.

There's more...

"Unfortunate"-Gate and the Alleged Swiftboating of Hillary Clinton

There has been an interesting claim floating around MyDD lately, that the Barack Obama campaign is Swiftboating Hillary by putting out the following statement in response to her remarks about RFK's assassination:

"Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign."

Let this sink in.  The claim here is that calling such a remark "unfortunate," and pointing out that gratuitous references to assassination have no place in a presidential campaign somehow rises to the level of what Bush/Rove & co. did to John Kerry in 2004.  The most prominent incarnation of this silliness can be found in this diary by linfar (The first half of the diary is actually pretty good, and very moving.  But then it makes a sharp turn to...well, let's say it starts to become less moving).

Swiftboating clearly is not what it used to be.  You no longer need to form a 527. The million dollar ad campaign is no longer required.  Hell, you don't even have to lie anymore.  Now apparently all you need to do is wait for a candidate to say something thoughtless and then respond by expressing a tepid opinion of disapproval.

While we're here chatting amongst ourselves, sipping our latte or kool-aid, or slugging a beer or taking a shot with hard working white people (what's the deal with politics and beverages?), let's examine this tepid response from Obama's campaign.

Anyone who follows politics with any regularity quickly becomes familiar with political-speak, and the rhetorical devices that these fascinating and unusual creatures we elect to public office use.  So I ask those of you who are politically astute, what does it generally signify when a politician uses a soft and tepid term of disapproval like "unfortunate" or "inappropriate?" Refer to the following example for guidance...

Several days after 9/11, the very Reverend Jerry Falwell and the equally pious Pat Robertson had the following conversation,  

"God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve," said Falwell, appearing yesterday on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club," hosted by Robertson.

"Jerry, that's my feeling," Robertson responded. "I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population."

Falwell said the American Civil Liberties Union has "got to take a lot of blame for this," again winning Robertson's agreement: "Well, yes."

Interestingly, I don't remember O'Reilly ever grouping either of these two gentlemen in his esteemed "blame America first" crowd. But I digress.

Our dignified and heroic president responded to these outrageous remarks thusly,

A White House official called the remarks "inappropriate" and added, "The president does not share those views."

Inappropriate?  How about irresponsible?  How about despicable?  How about batshit crazy?  But no, Bush decided to call the remarks "Inappropriate."

Inappropriate.  Unfortunate.  These are the kinds of terms that politicians use when one of their political allies say something so completely ridiculously off the wall and provocative that they need to respond with some show of disapproval - just enough to distance themselves from it, but not so much that it pisses off their base (who might agree with aforementioned batshit).

Obama's campaign put out a press release calling Hillary's gratuitous reference to RFK's assassination "unfortunate." Swiftboating?  Hardly.  Those of us who speak politicseese understand that this is actually closer to an expression of friendship than a hostile rebuke.

So, uh...can't we all just get along? <Donning flame-proof vest and goggles>

There's more...


Advertise Blogads