Diaries
Advertise Blogads
Blogroll
- Agonist
- AmericaBlog
- Atrios
- Corrente
- Crooks&Liars
- CampaignDiaries
- DailyKos
- FireDogLake
- Georgia Unfiltered
- HorsesAss
- Hullabaloo
- IanWelsh
- OpenLeft
- SeeingTheForest
- TalkLeft
- TaylorMarsh
- WashingtonNote
State Blogs
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nebraska
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Pacific Northwest
- Sunbelt
- thesidetrack Eric Cantor's FEMA hypocrisy http://bit.ly/pIdBv1 #bblue
- jeromearmstrong Osama bin Laden Killed - Awesome, the war is over! http://abcn.ws/lD9TkD #bblue
- jeromearmstrong Our Polarized and Money-Driven Congress: Created Over 25 Years By Republicans (and Quickly Imitated by Democrats http://bit.ly/ewXlXI #bblue
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
who doesn't have a dog in the Clinton-Edwards-Obama wars (being a strict Gore supporter, among other things):
* I disagree with this diary to the extent that its bottom line seems to be "MyDD is been degraded because there are too many Obama bashers here, and all of these are trolls"
* But I agree that MyDD seems to suffer more from the primary wars than other progressive/democratic forums. Why that is I'm not sure. Why can't certain people restrict themselves to promoting their candidate (if they must) and cut the nastiness against the competition? What's the big friggin' idea?
I'm not an Edwards supporter, but I find it hard to read this diary any other way than as an attempt to peddle yet again that stupid video about JE's hair (which has been going around, like, forever). There is no serious substance here. You can produce a clip like that for (i.e., against) any candidate of either party. It entertains the emotionally ten-year-olds among us for a short while. That is all.
he is an actor! There are several elements coming together:
* magical thinking - they hope that since like Reagan he's an actor they can convince themselves and everybody else (including FT) that he is the new Reagan
* image instead of ideology - since FT is an actor and lacks ideological substance, every winger can project onto him whatever ideology they seek in their candidate - allowing Thompson to paper over the ideological rifts that are tearing apart the GOP
There won't be much of a point for Gore to get into the race in case the MSM would just revive its 2000 campaign against him. I imagine that would be a very big factor. He's going to try to predict what kind of narrative the MSM will build around him, and to influence and control that narrative if possible.
that Republicans are, as Howard Dean remarked to astutely, a party of white christian males - so how is being Republican not about who they are?
First, when the MSM, organized politics, and for the most part we here around these parts talk about ideology, what we usually mean - things like liberalism and conservativism - don't really deserve that term. They're not fully-formed ideologies, and not even families of related fully-explicit ideologies, such as Marxism or Fascism. Liberalism and conservativsm are culturally stereotyped political attitudes (or habitus, or perhaps even value systems).
Secondly, I completely agree that ideology - in the true sense of the term - doesn't matter in American politics (the same is true to a somewhat lesser extent in Europe). More to the point - it matters no longer. And there is a reason for that. Ideology has been systematically sucked out of the political discourse in a decades-long process. And perhaps replaced with ideology in the common, improper, sense.
Now, how does the above relate to Chris' point? I suspect that part of the reason why we are looking in vein for a sharp ideological focus defining the currently potent electoral coalitions is that what we think of as ideology isn't actually capable of providing such a sharp focus.
I know I'm just stating the obvious, but the ultimate purpose of the media's trying to bend public perception to a narrative is self-serving - it's to perpetuate the talking heads' own influence and life style. I wonder whether there's anything we the netroots can do to force or foster an evolution of current journalism - anything we aren't doing already.
I suspect the reason Trippi wants transparency is his believe in the revolutionary power of the "bottom-up" campaign. Which, let's face it, really didn't work all that well in the case of DFA. And that model is clearly being nixed by all the campaigns in this cycle, which I think is really what Trippi is miffed about. It means, among other things, that Trippi is no longer treated as the great guru and prophet of the new age of campaigning.
Personally, I think it's worthwhile to keep searching for a formula that produces an optimal mix of top-down and bottom-up organizing structures. It's a fascinating question really - a key question of democracy.
I appreciate it
How can you claim at once that "everyone is ideological" and yet that moderates have no ideology but are merely low-information voters?
(Btw. I was really only interested in an empirical answer - speculation isn't going to solve this for me. But thanks anyway.)
that the current progressive insurgency was born during the fight against the Clinton impeachment and the election theft in Florida (and in the SCOTUS). I personally was considering myself a moderate right up until the 2000 elections. That's when I - and I think many others - realized that the conservative revolutionaries were succeeding in fundamentally transforming the political process - with the aim of ultimately changing culture and society, and of course of perpetuating their own power - and that the DLCers were only enabling them.
I like that, but I wonder whether there's evidence to back that up. Are there really measurable differences in terms of information and attention across the ideological spectrum?
I wonder what you think of Big Tent Democrat's proposal, then?
The point about the zero-sum game and Edwards and Obama not going to benefit from a consolidation of the anti-Hillary support is well taken. However, a few points about Carville, the Clintons, and talking up Gore:
(1) The version of the rumor that Carville is trying to keep the prospect of a Gore candidacy alive I know goes back to Dan Conley:
So the supposed rationale is to prevent donors, not activists, from committing to Obama.
(2) I personally profess that I'll remain tepid in my support for Obama until I've given up on Gore running. Sorry but that's just the way it is. I don't have the faintest idea how many others like me are out there.
(3) Even supposing Carville's alledged strategy made no sense whatsoever that doesn't mean it's not his strategy. The guy is hopelessly overrated - you're actually may be giving him too much credit if you're arguing he wouldn't pursue a strategy you think is dumb.