Creative Class Activists Move to Obama

by: Matt Stoller

Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:40


It's entirely unclear who the Edwards voters are going to turn to, but we do know that Clinton picked up no activist support in the blogosphere.  Obama has fully consolidated the netroots, from last month when there was a split with Edwards.

I expect to see internal pressure from heavily creative class dominated institutions who emerged from 1998-2006 to move into Obama's camp.

Matt Stoller :: Creative Class Activists Move to Obama

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

What does this mean? (0.00 / 0)
"heavily creative class dominated institutions who emerged from 1998-2006 to move into Obama's camp.

Sheesh, can you be more obtuse? Also, re-read your post. There was no split with Edwards, better re-write to be clear. That doesn't mean Obama has "consolidated" the netroots at all. Let's see what Edwards does re. an endorsement. Right now, he's seeing how the two move forward on his issues. Clinton is better on health care than Obama, frankly.

This is hardly worth posting unless you are going to make a clear argument that we can discuss.


Relax. Don't Do It. When You Wanna Sock To It. (4.00 / 5)
He didn't say anything about whose health care plan is better, or who is cooler, or who is better looking, or who smells better. He said that the creative class just lurched towards Obama, and he's right.

Please don't assume that every comment someone else makes is a slight against the candidate you prefer. Let's not let this site turn into MYDD.


[ Parent ]
Re: Not MyDD (4.00 / 4)
Agreed. While the main posts are excellent, it is not even worth it reading the comments or diaries anymore. The vitriol is to a degree unheard of, and I have just stopped trying to even read them.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

[ Parent ]
Eh (4.00 / 3)
I was finally turned off to MYDD once and for all when they started posted the delegate counts including Michigan.

They're a little too Fair And Balanced over there for my tastes.


[ Parent ]
Arkansas polls (0.00 / 0)
Using Arkansas state polls to show how well Clinton did against Republicans vs Obama was pretty sad, too.

[ Parent ]
He wasn't being obtuse, he was being delicate. (4.00 / 2)
He means Open Left.  And Daily Kos.  And maybe MoveOn.  And all the other netroots/newpolitics/highlyprogressive/creativeclass dominated institutions, that generally aren't wild about Clintonism, and that have been torn down the middle by the Edwards/Obama phenomenon.

Now that it's down to a Clinton and a not-Clinton, certain kinds of groups face fundamentally different calculi than they did.  And they're not necessarily happy about it either.  Markos, after all, has been "having so much more fun" being neutral. 

Fortunately for all of them, with only a week to go, there's hardly anything they could do anyway, so I don't think the pressure on them is going to be that great.  I could be wrong though, about the nothing-they-could-do or about the pressure, or both.


[ Parent ]
You... (0.00 / 0)
..are defining it as a Clinton and a non-clinton. Many of us see it as a Clinton vs. Obama thing. Clinton doesn't represent this whole political universe that has to have an equally competing non-clinton universe to keep it in check.


[ Parent ]
Time to Unite behind a canddiate (4.00 / 4)
I'm going to donate to Barack Obama for the first time. And I am going to work phone banks on his behalf this weekend. Now all I need is a bumper sticker (well, and a car I suppose).

As sad as I am to see Edwards leave the race, I am relieved that I can now firmly support one candidate. I was always torn between the two. But from this day forward, I am all Obama.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra


Ha! I just got back from donating to Obama for the first time. (4.00 / 1)
I'd thought about it before, and I've always preferred Obama, but I never felt right donating to him while Edwards was in the field.  I thought about donating equally to both, but that just felt silly.

Now that he's out, I can donate to Obama with a clean conscience, and just did.

(I'd already given a small symbolic donation to Dodd during the December FISAbuster.)

Donated to Pera and Donna Edwards while I was at it (in fact, my policy all season has been, whenever I feel like donating to a presidential, donate to them instead).  I felt dumb, because it's probably too late for money to Pera to really do any good, but I did it anyway.


[ Parent ]
Consider the Obamathon (0.00 / 0)
Sorry for a totally shamless plug but I've started a netroots fundraising for Obama so he knows were it's coming from called the Obamathon. I figure when we show our power to the campaigns we have more influence. It's raised over 25k

http://my.barackobam...

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


[ Parent ]
Yep... (0.00 / 0)
I have been recommending your MyDD diaries... unfortunately, it seems supporters of other candidates are much more active in promoting anti-obama diaries and thus they never seem to make the list... There aren't as many active Obama supporters over there it seems to move items on the list.

[ Parent ]
Nope (0.00 / 0)
I will not give one thin dime to Obama.  My support isn't easily purchased and he still hasn't earned it.

[ Parent ]
The Elites love Obama (2.00 / 2)
The working class loves Hillary.

We will now find out who Edwards supporters really were.


Cool!!! (4.00 / 6)
I've finally made it.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, all those elite students (4.00 / 6)
And their elite student debt at their elite state universities sure do love Obama. Fucking elitists.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
What's Wrong With These Elitists? (2.00 / 2)
Thinking that their ideas are somehow better than the ideas of the average every-day American, simply because they "went to college" and they "read books" and don't "watch Days Of Our Lives."

[ Parent ]
Of course! (0.00 / 0)
The Elites, Humans, and Sentinels love Obama.

The Jackals, Grunts, Brutes, and Prophets love Clinton.

Is that what you're saying? I wonder where the Flood stands in this race.


[ Parent ]
OMG (0.00 / 0)
ROTFLMAO

Nice! 

So who does Cortana endorse?


[ Parent ]
She's already making campaign stops on Obama's behalf (0.00 / 0)
She's helping him capture the all-important AI vote.

[ Parent ]
Great fricking speech. (4.00 / 1)


I didn't realize (0.00 / 0)
that the site is rated PG. =)

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
Obama (4.00 / 1)
He's definitely picked up this former Edwards' supporter (my  new found indecision as a result of the Primary so far has been made impossible since my other choice has dropped out). Nonetheless, I still have reservations about Obama I didn't have about Edwards, and as a result, he is basically to me the better of three evils (with any of the Republican candidates being the third evil in this case, over whom I would vote and Clinton and Obama, being the other two evils, any day of the week).

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

As an Edwards supporter ... (4.00 / 2)
... I feel quite the same as you do, Jake.  I'm predisposed to Obama as a "change" candidate.  But then again, there are positions and approaches that Hillary has that I also very much like.  She seems to me better than Obama on many of the kitchen-table issues.

I think the debate this week will have some real significance - for Edwards supporters, as well as Feb 5 voters just tuning in.  Which of the two remaining candidates will better make the case to us?

Very odd for me to suddenly be thrust into the "undecided" category.

Heck, I might just vote for Edwards anyway.

my web log.


[ Parent ]
Re: Vote for Edwards Anyway (4.00 / 1)
I'd recommend against this, as it literally will mean nothing. There are still slight differences between the Obama and Clinton campaigns, so why would you throw your vote away (and that is all it is, since he just plain isn't running anymore)? It would be like voting for Nader, if not worse, since at least Nader was actually running.

Personally, I'd argue for Obama, simply because he HAS been a more Progressive senator than Clinton (no DLC associations being a big plus for me). His post-partisan pandering pisses me off a lot as well, as well as his not supporting mandated coverage, but the fact is, he is going to surround himself with more Progressive people than the corporates of Clinton's campaign (Obama haters can say all they want, and I admit he has more insider types than Edwards did, but honestly, you can't get more insider than Union Busters and heads of the openly pro-Corporate DLC). I have some vague hope (though it is based on nothing) that if he wins the nomination, and more Progressives support him, he may change at least the mandated coverage, perhaps at the prodding of the Democratic Party at the Convention (which by and large supports mandated coverage). Nonetheless, this is an assumption, and so I don't assume it to be true, so my only real hard reasoning for supporting him despite my reservations is that he has shown himself to be quite liberal (and despite his Unity calls, he would support very Liberal policies), and the fact that he won't be surrounded by such pro-Corporate advisors. Hell, even Edwards said some time back that he prefers this guy over Clinton, so I have to say, I feel confident in my choice.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008


[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.00 / 1)
I agree with JewishJake. I think there's no point in voting for Edwards. And I'm a two time Nader voter who would do it again in a heartbeat.

Your vote for Edwards will not be registered as a protest vote, or as an indictment of the system. It will be registered as someone who didn't realize that Edwards has quit.


[ Parent ]
The first stage of grief is denial (0.00 / 0)
Ha!  I love that: "registered as someone who didn't know Edwards quit."  It'll be a denial vote akin to the first stage of grief, right?

I suppose, then, I will have to pick one of the two.  Let's see how the debate goes ...

my web log.


[ Parent ]
Check out Sen. Obama's SC victory speech (4.00 / 1)
About a dozen lines in when he brings up the first issue discussed in the speech, it's about reducing the power of lobbyists.  THAT is one of the big issues where John Edwards and Sen. Obama share common goals.  Sen. Clinton is in a whole different world on this issue.

[ Parent ]
Obama's lobbyist problem's (4.00 / 2)
Which is why Congressman Bonior called Obama a"corporate sellout"

You can't reduce the power of lobbyists by making them state and national co-chair's. And really, anyone who really buy's Obama's "well state lobbyists are different" bs doesn't understand lobbying at all. Lobbying is about building relationships. I know I'm just a silly Clinton supporter, but if I'm an Edward's supporter who is worried about the influence of lobbyists, I'm MORE worried about state lobbyists who are eager to establish ties to the new president rather than a current federal lobbyists who already has connections.


[ Parent ]
If I were an Edwards supporter (0.00 / 0)
(and he has been my second choice) I would be concerned about this:

Just days after the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Hillary Clinton and several Democratic lawmakers will be getting uncomfortably cozy with moneyed interests who have stood to reap billions in post-9/11 homeland security spending, watchdog groups say.

http://blogs.abcnews...


[ Parent ]
Saying Hillary, too, doesn't change anything; and (0.00 / 0)
Hillary is NOT the change candidate.  This should default to Obama, but I don't think he's a fit.  Right now, I have three people choose from (Hillary, Obama, McCain), and I don't want any of them.  I think we need a closed primary system in this party.  The way it works now, Republicans and Independents get to choose the Republican nominee and the Democratic nominee.  They can't lose, and Democrats can't win.  It is no wonder that this party has moved so far right as to be unrecognizable.  It is no wonder that Pelosi and Reid are unresponsive and that core Democrats no longer have a party. 

[ Parent ]
Open primaries cut both ways (0.00 / 0)
just as easy to undercut the republican nomination

[ Parent ]
"fully consolidated?" (0.00 / 0)
Hmmm, I don't feel "fully consolidated" behind Obama.  More like fully committed to never voting for him (again)...

I really think that's a stretch... (0.00 / 0)
...to say he fully consolidated netroots support.  I mean, it's been like less than a day since edwards' announcement.

And who is the nebulous netroots you speak of? The frontpagers of the main blogs? Or all the individuals who make up the blogosphere's reaership and comments?

I'd say it's elitist to think a few frontpagers determine how  the entire netroots community feels towards obama.

 


Umm, click on the link (4.00 / 1)
"consolidated the netroots" links to the DailyKos straw poll that shows Obama up 76-11. He wasn't referring to a few frontpagers, he was referring to the DailyKos readership.

Leftmost Bit

[ Parent ]
oooh.... (0.00 / 0)
...a DKOS poll. That sure tells me alot. Very scientific.

[ Parent ]
Understandable reaction (4.00 / 1)
What do you think is the best way to measure Netroots support?

Leftmost Bit

[ Parent ]
Thank you (0.00 / 0)
For your interesting and constructive comment.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
There are 16 million people who visit DKOS (0.00 / 0)
...a month. One poll like that doesn't show a whole lot.
Less than 10,00 voted in that poll. That's the source of the sarcasm.

[ Parent ]
Yes, but... (0.00 / 0)
DKos is widely considered the unofficial 'core' of the lefty blogosphere, and has the largest readership/membership base - so if one wishes to easily gauge blogosphere support, DKos is the best place to look. Straw polls are one indicator, but I think that general candidate preferences can also be understood by browsing the diary list/comment threads.
It is hard to deny that this entire primary season DKos (and most other lefty blogs I frequent) tend to follow the Edwards 1st, Obama close 2nd, Hillary distant 3rd model of support.
So it is not some blind leap of faith that most of the support now falls to Obama. And yes, it is profoundly unscientific. 

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
.... (0.00 / 1)

I won't deny that yes, maybe a good large number of the DKOS readership swung Obama's way on the poll. But reading through a lot of the diaries on there you also see a sentiment of frustration with Obama because of his policies. There have been many interesting debates on how Clinton's and Edwards' positions on their economic stimulus and healthcare plans endeared Edwards' supporters to Hillary.

where the activist base lands is far from decided.


[ Parent ]
.... (0.00 / 1)

I won't deny that yes, maybe a good large number of the DKOS readership swung Obama's way on the poll. But reading through a lot of the diaries on there you also see a sentiment of frustration with Obama because of his policies. There have been many interesting debates on how Clinton's and Edwards' positions on their economic stimulus and healthcare plans endeared Edwards' supporters to Hillary.

where the activist base lands is far from decided.


[ Parent ]
Re: Diaries (0.00 / 0)
Diaries don't mean much. Not everyone writes diaries, nor reads them. Just because some of the most vocal ones write many diaries on this subject does not mean they represent the majority of DKos readers. As well, some people can have reservations while still supporting Obama (like myself). At the end of the day, it's not the most intense voters who matter, but the ones who vote.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

[ Parent ]
No they don't... (0.00 / 0)
....which is part of the snark of my comment. Yet some people want to use diaries as if they definitively mean something.

[ Parent ]
DKos is a cesspool (4.00 / 1)
and has been for most of the last year.

[ Parent ]
A "cesspool" that's helped organize (4.00 / 1)
thousands of calls, emails and letters to members of congress on a variety of political actions, including the latest effort to kill retroactive telcom amnesty. I gladly swim laps in such a "cesspool" while others sit idly by feeling superior.

Elitism and stereotyping are inherently anti-progressive. Think about that.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
dkos has become just like the open primaries (4.00 / 1)
There are so many "new" people that it is hard to tell which end is up and who is who.  In 04, people who flocked in to support Dean were party reformers, "I want my party/country back".  Given the notoriety of dk today, the site could be full of Bill Press/Paul Begala/James Carville clones who only feel like they are reformers because they are on those radical new fangled tubes. 

What I see remaining is a choice between two insider sitting Senators who vote alike and love trade.  Consequently, this former Edwards netroots supporter hasn't consolidated behind anybody; and I don't intend to for quite awhile.  I am going to sit back and enjoy the show.  Pass the pop corn, please. All I ask for now is that WWWW and boxing stay the hell out of comments and off my tubes.


[ Parent ]
As of right now, 17,600 people have voted, (4.00 / 2)
and it's 76% Obama, 11% Clinton.

I don't know if Clinton has ever broken 15% in a DKos poll ever.  Obama and Edwards have tended to run between 30 and 40% each.  In last week's poll, they each had 40% almost exactly.

Given how many of these polls have been run and for how long, you shouldn't argue they're meaningless unless you have a better metric to offer.  They're a hell of a lot more meaningful than no-data-no-conclusion, which given the way the available data runs, is probably the outcome you'd prefer.


[ Parent ]
AmericaBlog's poll (0.00 / 0)
75% Obama
25% Clinton

Are there any other polls out there.  I'm sure Talk Left and MyDD would have different results.

John McCain won't insure children


[ Parent ]
Re: DKos Activists (0.00 / 0)
Yes, it does. He said that Progressive Activists are supporting Obama. Daily Kos is a center to many Progressive Activists in the USA, and the site's Straw Poll (he never called it scientific) is significant in that it shows, of over 10,000 Progressive Activists, over 3/4 support Obama, about half of them being previous Edwards supporters. Are they all Progressive activists? No, but they sure are a hell of a lot, and thus do represent the group to a major extent.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

[ Parent ]
No... (4.00 / 2)
...it represents those who were around at the time to vote.
  Nobody really has used the DKOS poll before as some serious indicator for good reason: it's easily jacked.

[ Parent ]
The sample size is so big (0.00 / 0)
Method doesn't really matter.

[ Parent ]
how could the DailyKos straw poll (0.00 / 0)
mean anything if delegates weren't involved?

[ Parent ]
The anti-Hillary coalition (4.00 / 1)
It's composed of progressives who don't think that HRC is liberal enough and moderate/conservative types who think that she is too liberal, strange as that may seem.  So, perhaps Obama needs to figure out how to go after the latter without pissing off the former, especially since Edwards voters seemed to come mostly from the more conservative wing of the Democratic Party.  Can "creative class activists" tolerate attempts to court these voters, or does triangulation prove to be a useful electoral strategy that divides opposition?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

Not Triangulation (0.00 / 0)
Triangulation is the Clintonian attempt to forge a message that appears neither liberal nor conservative, and yet appeals to both.

What's happening here is some old The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend.


[ Parent ]
How is Obama anymore liberal than Clinton? (3.00 / 4)
I mean really...they are of the same ilk for the most part but obama's policies tend more towards the right.

[ Parent ]
How so? (0.00 / 0)
How do Obama's policies tend more towards the right?
And I don't see how they are of the same ilk. Hillary has rested comfortably at the top of the DC food chain for fifteen years, whereas Obama just burst onto the national scene a scant three years ago.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Since When (4.00 / 1)
does how long you've been in D.C. have anything to do with how liberal or conservative you are?  Just because Clinton's been there a long time doesn't inherently mean she's more conservative.  Just because Obama is new doesn't inherently mean he's more liberal. 

As for who is more liberal or conservative, their voting records are almost indistinguishable. 


[ Parent ]
I wasn't referring to left/right (0.00 / 0)
I was referring to apolitik's comment that they are "of the same ilk". I find that a hard to defend statement.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
I guess the of the same ilk... (0.00 / 0)
...statement should be clarified. That is more of a personal perception. The debate during and after the SC candidate debate really changed my opinion on Obama. It's when I got to see him as a politician just like anyone else who happened to hit on the right message for the right time.

[ Parent ]
Let there be no doubt (0.00 / 0)
Obama is first and foremost a politician, and like all politicians, is concerned first and foremost with winning elections. This is painfully clear from his support of "clean" coal and continued funding of the war, to name just two capitulations.

Edwards was too. And Clinton is one of the best. So what differentiates them? A lot - and it is in that differentiation  that I find my reasons to support Obama.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra


[ Parent ]
let's see... (3.00 / 4)
Let's see....his healthcare plan is more to the right. His economic stimulus plan was more to the right. The Nation did interesting piece recently about how Obama's economic advisers lean fairly hard to the right. That's just off the top of my head.

Prove me wrong otherwise or take off the candidate blinders.


[ Parent ]
Obama is further to the right... (0.00 / 0)
...than a WalMart director?  That's frightening. Someone please tell Corporate America that they're supporting the wrong candidate.

[ Parent ]
Give me a break... (4.00 / 2)
She was a Wal-Mart director about 15 or 20 years ago.  That was a whole different time.  I dare say that ALL OF US were still shopping there when she was a director!

Also, why did you TR someone just because you disagree with them?  That's not cool.


[ Parent ]
I said nothing about where she was "shopping" (0.00 / 0)
Throughout the mid/late eighties she was a Director of the biggest union-busting corporation in the last half a century.  It was a no-vacancy directorship.

People equate that to "shopping"?  Oh boy.... maybe this country deserves her...



[ Parent ]
I didn't say anything about where.. (0.00 / 0)
she was shopping.  I said that back in the 80s, WalMart was seen as the "buy American" company.  It was the place where working class people and those on a tight budget shopped for necessities.  I used to drive many miles to go to Walmart for baby formula and diapers.  At that time, they weren't advising employees to rely on the government for healthcare because that was back in the day when most people could afford healthcare.  I have no idea of their union policies at the time, but it was not the same world we are living in today.

[ Parent ]
You may not have been aware... (4.00 / 1)
...of WalMart's union-busting policies, but Hillary Clinton sure was.  As far as your comments on health care, I am confused.  WalMart has always gone out of its way to avoid providing health coverage.  Strangely, it is one of HRC's rare instances of consistency:  as First Lady she provided America with the exact same health coverage she provided WalMart employees as Director - none.

[ Parent ]
asdf (0.00 / 0)
http://www.nytimes.c...

On balance, not such a bad record.


[ Parent ]
Thank you for the link, (0.00 / 0)
but I still disagree.  Michael Barbaro, the reporter of the linked piece, is a "business reporter" who almost, but not quite, specializes in WalMart fluff pieces.  Just last week, he wrote a piece praising Walmart as an innovator, not just in health care, but also the environment.  He has many, many more WalMart pieces, and WalMart reads as the epitome of corporate responsibility in each of them.

I just happen to view WalMart much differently than Mr. Barbaro does.


[ Parent ]
Walmart's founder Sam Walton was alive (0.00 / 0)
when Hillary Clinton was on the board.  It was a different company than the shithole it has become now.  When the founder died, the kids brought in the professional management types who turned it into the cheap underwaear and plastic shoes from China emporium it is today.  This verion of Walmart was brought to you courtesy of the Harvard MBA program, not Sam Walton or Hillary Clinton.'

[ Parent ]
Ah, Sam Walton - American hero. (0.00 / 0)
P.T. Barnum was right.

[ Parent ]
Speaking of proving... (0.00 / 0)
Could you please explain the specific ways in which Obama's healthcare and stimulus plan are more to the right than Clinton's, including how the inclusion of an insurance mandate for all adults is a left/right issue?

[ Parent ]
Top Of The Food Chain? (0.00 / 0)
For fifteen years? Really?

When she was first lady, she did not have security clearance. She was a national spokeswoman, which is a far cry from a diplomat. You know who the national spokeswoman is for the U.K.? It's Ginger Spice. And nobody thinks of her as being at the top of any kind of civic food chain.

So really, let's not fall for the Clinton line that she's been in charge of things since 1992. She hasn't. She was the President's wife.


[ Parent ]
Well.... (0.00 / 0)
She sure would like us to believe she was more than just the President's wife.
But my point remains, she has had 15 years to develop close ties with every lobbyist, pundit and journalist in DC. Hence the commonly used phrase "establishment candidate".

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
She didn't have a security clearance? (0.00 / 0)
Really?

I'm shocked.

I don't know much about how the national security apparatus works, but still.  I thought everybody had one of those.


[ Parent ]
Re: Obama vs. Clinton (4.00 / 1)
Check any set of Progressive Interest Group rankings, he has a more liberal voting record. Plus, his election to the Senate a Progressive underdog in a tough Primary, mainly supported by liberal and netroots activists, is a lot more a Progressive beginning than Hillary's.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

[ Parent ]
... (0.00 / 1)
And tell me his policies this election around are more liberal?

Seriously, tell me that and I'll know you don't know anything about the debate at all.


[ Parent ]
The Surge Is Working! (0.00 / 0)
At the last State Of The Union, just a few days ago, Bush said that the surge is working and Hillary immediately *stood up* and clapped *hard.*

[ Parent ]
Re: Obama's policies (4.00 / 1)
Oh come one, don't try to intimidate me, that isn't going to work via the internets. The one thing you can justifiably fault him on is his lack of mandated coverage. Beyond that, their policies are pretty much identical (except for a few minor things, like Obama being more hard on Lobbyists, and Progressive on Net Neutrality). In the end, this isn't about their policies very much, but the types of people they will bring with them, and the types of politics those people will put forth (I'm not trying to sound like the Unity vs. Fighting thing here, as I WANT Obama to fight and abandon his post-partisan rhetoric. I am talking more of the DLC/Corporate baggage Clinton brings along with her).

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

[ Parent ]
I Also Want Obama To Fight (4.00 / 1)
And look at his record. He has.

He fights while talking about unity and reconciliation and bi-partisanship.

It's the formula that worked for the Republicans for the last ten years. Why can't it work for us?

I say this about every politician. Ignore what he says. Watch what he does.


[ Parent ]
Policies don't make a difference? (0.00 / 0)
You should read Krugman's essay about how Bill Clinton's policies early on doomed his presidency and the parallels between Obama and him now.

That's such a lie that gets touted around about how they aren't different really at all on policy. That's always a casual readers view.


[ Parent ]
It's not intimidation to ask you to back theings up (nt) (0.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Intimidation (0.00 / 0)
Forcefully commanding people to do things and threatening them with accusations is intimidation. As well, I have read Krugman's book, and the fact that you are trying to use him to defend Clinton, who has extremely similar policies and rhetoric to her husband is rather silly.

I will give you, though, that Krugman HAS been critical of Obama's Healthcare plan, but the fact is, that is only one issue, and as I've already discussed, I have some vague hope that the Progressives he will likely surround himself with will try to correct this. This will be especially true if he has Edwards in his cabinet, as the man has been quite forceful on this issue, and to be honest, I have a feeling he would. Nonetheless, I admit that this is still an imperfection, but in my mind, the few other things Obama is more Progressive on (Lobbyists, Net Neutrality) and the people he would bring with him to Washington, put him over the edge for me.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008


[ Parent ]
no one is frocefully commanding anything... (0.00 / 0)
...I can't make you type anything. But if you are going to argue something, I'm kind of from the school of backing it up. And asking people to back up their point is called 'SUGGESTION' to keep an argument thread strong and out of the point of rhetoric.

Krugman's columns by the way use the healthcare example as an analogy for the whole logic of the Obama campaign (see Krugman's argument on Obama being similar to Bill clinton circa 1992)


[ Parent ]
Re (4.00 / 1)
Honestly, if you can't see the difference between "I'd like to see some evidence to support that" and "tell me that and I'll know you don't know anything about the debate at all", that's cool (especially, as evidenced by your baseless ad hominem attacks below, you seem to be rather well versed in sad rhetoric).

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

[ Parent ]
His foreign policy people are considerably different, and fairly characterized as more liberal. (4.00 / 1)
Most of the pro-war foreign policy folks went to Hillary, and most of the anti-war ones went to Obama. 

[ Parent ]
Don't leave out the neocon Tony Lake? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
His policies are irrelevant (0.00 / 0)
I'm describing the orientation of voters who would make up a coalition that beats Hillary Clinton.  Obama merely needs policy positions that are palatable to both groups.  It doesn't matter if they are to the left or to the right of HRC.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
This... (1.00 / 4)
..is what I can't stand about Obama supporters. Now his policies are irrelevant after I just called you out on SPECIFIC examples of how he is more rightwing in many ways than Hillary?

And your response doesn't even have a logical thread inside of it.

Gee, talk about deifiyig your candidate, eh?

Obama supporters are partly why I hope he doesn't win the nomination. The media message would be just awful.


[ Parent ]
Re: Left/Right (0.00 / 0)
I think you are missing the point of his comment, which is to argue that there are very few policy distinctions between Obama and Clinton, and that Obama would be able to create a Progressive Movement, while Clinton would not. It's not that weird of an argument, and the owners of this blog have made pretty convincing arguments for this as well.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

[ Parent ]
Umm... (0.00 / 0)
Obama supporters are partly why I hope he doesn't win the nomination.

And I thought endorsements were important - now it seems anonymous internet commenters can sway the opinions of otherwise rational people! And they say the blogs don't have any power...

And what media message are you speaking of? Record voter turnout? Record youth turnout? Record minority turnout? God, makes me sick just thinking about it!

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra


[ Parent ]
Good Point (0.00 / 0)


Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

[ Parent ]
troll-rated (0.00 / 0)
because you are attacking someone for explaining that his comment had nothing to do with Obama's policies, which is in fact the case. 



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


[ Parent ]
So scared of a troll rating... (0.00 / 1)
....and yes the policy points DID matter. because, fi you followed along, we were talking about whether or not Obama is more liberal than Clinton. He brought up their largely indistinguishable voting record and I brought up policy positions (which say ALOT about how liberal someone is).  Then he said policy positions don't even matter.

Um...yes they do.


[ Parent ]
You're really missing the point (0.00 / 0)
I'm not discussing the merits of Obama or Clinton.  I'm discussing what sort of voters Obama needs to appeal to in order to win.  Whether Obama is to the left or to the right of Clinton does nothing to change the voters he must win over, but I think it is clear that she has sought out the center of the Democratic Party and Obama is faced with the tough task of uniting both ends against middle.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Yup, you're totally missing the point. (4.00 / 1)
Anthony is talking about the difficulty Obama is gonna face in pulling in conservative Edwards voters, and the difficulty he faces in pulling together a coalition against Hillary more generally, and off you go about "I demand you prove to me that he is to her left." 

Um, no.  Get a clue.  You are distracting from the conversation.  You are provoking a MyDD/DKos style argument-about-the-nature-of-the-candidate, of the boring has-been-hashed-out-a-billion-times type, and we don't do that here.  Folks are at Open Left partly to avoid this crap.  It's dull.


[ Parent ]
That then... (0.00 / 0)
...makes a load of sense. And you are truly right on that one.  In the case of ANTI-Clinton movement there would only need to be policy somewhere in the middle.

[ Parent ]
Edwards supporters conservative wing? (4.00 / 3)
I don't think so.  First, they are the ones wanting to flip, not just rock, the boat.  They are the only ones voting for the only viable candidate who ISN'T a beltway insider and sitting Senator.  Edwards' supporters are the only ones willing to fight and objecting to triangulation or unity (as it is called in 08) as a solution to what ails this country.  And, it isn't Edwards who got Ben Nelson's endorsement or main stream media support.

Can creative class "tolerate"? What is that suppose to mean.  Tolerate what?  The great unwashed? The great stupid?  Bad choice of words.  Creative class refers to "privilege" - being born it or being lucky enough to have achieved it.

The "Creative Class" conceptis controversial, as is Florida's methodology. He breaks the Class into two broad sections, derived from standard SOC codes data sets:

Creative Professionals: "Knowledge workers" and expanding to include lawyers and physicians.

Super-Creative Core: This comprises about twelve percent of all U.S. jobs. This group is deemed to contain a huge range of occupations (e.g. architecture, education, computer programming) with arts, design, and media workers making a small subset.

Additional to these two main groups of creative people, the usually much smaller group of Bohemians are also included in the Creative class.

People who aren't hungry or homeless (or are happy to be it) can afford more idealism and support for non-pocketbook issues such as the first black/female candidate than those who have to support themselves and their families on non-creative class wages and life styles.  Edwards voters are older and wiser.  They grew up on stories from their parents and grandparents about the "Great Depression".  They know that a two tiered society of haves and have nots is non-fiction and that history can and does repeat itself when lessons aren't learned or remembered. 


[ Parent ]
Not to be too snarky (4.00 / 2)
but I presume by "creative class activists" you mean the well-educated white boys who dominate the blogs, right?  Because talk about an insider-y post.  Personally, I had always assumed you guys would go with Obama in the end - you identify with him more than you do an older woman.  That's not a criticism, btw, identity influences all of our votes, including mine.  I'm sure part of why I like Clinton is that she's a woman.  It's just been fun watching you all twist and turn only to end up where I knew you'd end up all along, with the candidate that most reminds you of...you.

I'm sure it helps that Obama would have to depend on you to build his coalition.  Again, nothing wrong with going with the candidate who needs and wants you most, it's perfectly rational, in fact.  That's the dirty secret about identity politics, it's often rational.  One of the reasons I like Clinton is that I can see no circumstance under which she would sign legislation restricting women's rights, including to abortion.  Because that would kill her politically in a way it wouldn't a male politician since women are a large part of her base.


Yes, you are too snarky (4.00 / 2)
Wait, so you accuse Matt of being a part of identity politics, which you then attack as being "sadly" rational (as in such a horrible thing shouldn't be rational, so yes, it was a criticism to accuse him of it), and then admit to doing it yourself? Plus, this doesn't make any sense. If it were Identity politics, why wouldn't he go with the "White Candidate" (Clinton)? Oh yeah, because you're subtly accusing him of sexism without any factual basis, and trying to use "Identity politics" to cover it up. Nice job, especially since you then make the claim that Clinton would be better on Abortion rights (another nudge at the meme put forth by Clinton in New Hampshire fliers that Obama isn't good on Abortion, when he has consistently perfect records from ALL the pro-choice interest groups), without any factual basis on anything other than "She's a woman" (so men can't protect abortion rights now? Women politicians can't be bad on abortion rights? This is stereotyping and you know it). Oh, and lastly, since Stoller has been pretty opposed to what much of Obama has done, especially his rhetoric, it doesn't make sense to say Obama "depends" on Matt, since Matt would not exactly be the best ally on the planet. God, do you read this stuff before you post it?

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

[ Parent ]
No, I'm Not Accusing Him of Sexism (0.00 / 0)
I don't think he or a lot of other progressive bloggers support Obama because they are sexist.  They support him because they see themselves in him - a young(ish), smart, well-educated guy, trying to break into and change the system.  And so they trust him and identify with him more than they do Clinton.

It has nothing to do with hating Clinton or being sexist.  Just as my identifying more with Clinton has nothing to do with me hating Obama or being racist. 

I also did not say Obama isn't good on abortion rights.  He has a perfectly decent record on abortion rights.  It's just in my experience male politicians tend to see women's reproductive rights as another issue, it isn't as personal for them.  Just as I would understand if African-Americans trusted Obama more on affirmative action and civil rights issues more than they would a white politician.  That's why identity politics is often rational. 


[ Parent ]
Re: Identity politics (0.00 / 0)
The problem is, this argument then makes no rational sense. If he is fine on abortion rights, are you just assuming he will be worse simply because of a Penis? Honestly, that has no rational basis, and I am curious as to why you then support Hillary over Obama, besides "Indentity Politics", which I sadly don't find to be very rational at all.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

[ Parent ]
They love Darcy Burner for the same reason. (4.00 / 1)
because they see themselves in [her] - a young(ish), smart, well-educated [woman], trying to break into and change the system.

That knocks the implication that it's sexism leading them to Obama out of the park.  Identity is a lot more complicated than just gender, though it obviously includes that too.  The BlogPac guys love Darcy just as much as they love Obama, in fact rather more, cause her rhetoric and positioning don't suck so bad.

Identity powerfully leads the creative class to Obama, and Chris has said as much.  Edwards was a tough sell on identity, but his rhetoric was so damn good and Obama's was so damn bad that it left everybody on the fence, their head with Edwards, their heart waiting and hoping for Obama to finally make the right move.

Anyway, I'd say it's to their credit that the Open Left Boys didn't just fall for Obama.  They did constructive work with whoever would work with them (Richardson, Dodd), and then they went with their heads and Edwards, even though he was a less-than-perfectly-credible messenger for his excellent message.

And as for not liking Clinton, anyone who lived through 2002/2003 has all the excuse for not liking Clinton he or she will ever need.  If one wants to overlook all that, that is anyone's prerogative, but anyone who wants to hold that against her (or Edwards, really) forever has the perfect right to do so.


[ Parent ]
creative class? (4.00 / 1)
yes, what exactly does this mean.  Interesting that BDB thought of well-educated, white boys......I thought it meant the class that is not specifically lower or higher, a hybrid of the middle that places importance on art, creativity, and activism instead of making money or becoming part of the establishment.  But that is obviously me projecting my own situation (and my musician husband) in the phrase.

Also BDB I get so frustrated with the assumption that well-informed women will automatically go for Clinton.  I am a hardcore feminist who was for Edwards & now Obama.  Perhaps its the youth identification (I'm 36), but I really do not trust Clinton on *equality* issues because I believe she is part of the elite, insider, corporate government I am so sick of,

But I am willing to listen and change my mind.  At this point I don't need a hero - I want just the person who will do minimal damage & perhaps even do some helpful shit for once.


[ Parent ]
I think "creative class" includes what you're talking about, (0.00 / 0)
but also is meant to include "knowledge workers" more generally, folks like computer programmers, lawyers, doctors, anyone who feels like they are making their money off their brain, their independent judgment, or their creative capacity.  So your musicians, artists, writers, activists as well as more white-collar upscale professional-school types.

That's kindof an odd grouping, so I went and looked it up, but damn if I wasn't right.  Some of these people are channeling their creativity into their formal employment, while others (the Bohemians) are your bartender who's also a DJ and an artist, and so their economic situations diverge quite a bit, and probably their politics too.  But there you go.


[ Parent ]
eeeeexcellent (0.00 / 0)
thanks for doing the research!

[ Parent ]
creative class (0.00 / 0)
Ever seen Flight of the Conchords? It's the people they are parodying, only activists.

[ Parent ]
I used to like Obama... (2.00 / 2)
...before I saw the kind of people he attracted.

Same here.... (4.00 / 1)
....I think I lost my patience awhile back with them. Which is why my comments kind of took a slightly nastier turn.


[ Parent ]
What people do you mean? n/t (0.00 / 0)


"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
"People" (4.00 / 1)
Don't worry, LandStander. Vague strawmen will suffice. It makes arguments like these a whole lot easier when there are no specific names or ideas to refute.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

[ Parent ]
Not to break any OpenLeft rules... (0.00 / 0)
....but I think she meant people like you and Antony de Jesus. Who don't want to actually admit ANY weakness in their candidate and flock to him like teenage girls did to boybands.

[ Parent ]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (4.00 / 3)
Good god, are you kidding me? Did you even read my comments? I said in NUMEROUS places that I have intense reservations about Obama, and think of him as a "lesser of three evils." Seriously, it is almost laughable debating people who don't take the time to think about whether their flaming has any credible basis.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

[ Parent ]
Do we flock like fans to a boyband? (0.00 / 0)
Or do you choose to perceive Obama supports as rabid fans flocking to an idol? Deep stuff, eh?

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Heh (0.00 / 1)
I like Obama more and more as some people who annoy me get all pissy about him.  Then again, I liked his speech on religion and politics at the Call the Renewal conference.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Missing the big picture (0.00 / 0)
This sentiment is heinous.  Regardless of what candidate you're backing, you should realize that anyone taking the time to read and post on progressive sites is committed to progressive change.  The kind of people Obama is attracting are people enthused and inspired to participate in politics and work towards building a better country.  The kind of people Clinton is attracting are enthused to do the same thing.  Candidate preference shouldn't blind us to the larger truth that we're all on the same team, working for a similar goal: a more progressive country.

[ Parent ]
Matt! Everytime you or Chris use the phrase.... (0.00 / 0)

...'creative class....', which by the way I have only a vague idea of it's meaning, the thread breaks out in hysteria....

Pretty funny when you stop to think about it.

Gotta get some fun somewhere; this might be one way.

Watching the Oborg vs. The Hillbots the rest of the way is apt to get old...

Shit, who am I kidding....

It already is.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


If this blog becomes another (4.00 / 3)
Obama lovefest, then I'm finished here, not because I can't or won't support him, but because something seems to happen to those who follow him.  There is an intolerance and nastiness that isn't productive.

Yes! and it's rather ironic isn't it? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
The whole thing's gonna be over in a week or two. (0.00 / 0)
No need to get all GBCW on us.

[ Parent ]
Not really GBCW, just... (0.00 / 0)
a waste of time to be here.

[ Parent ]
Well..... (2.00 / 2)
............you know what Steve Guillard' motto was, right?

Fight Back!

I think we'll see this site move on from the Land of the Oborg soon enough.

Plenty of important things to do besides read the prattling of witless fools.

Oooops!

Duck!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
Boy, do I miss Steve... (4.00 / 3)
but I thought you were going to say "Fuck the fucking Yankees."

[ Parent ]
Also a noble sentiment...... (0.00 / 0)

....but I'm just not into pro sports anymore. Got boring.....

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
Pot versus Kettle (4.00 / 1)
I agree with a comment on another site that if anything the Clinton backers have the edge in the venom with which they are writing about Obama.  I suggest that you go to My DD if you want to hear the pro-Clintonites in full voice.

[ Parent ]
Every candidate has their own, seasoned primary warriors on the blogs (4.00 / 1)
TalkLeft has plenty of anti-Obama vitriol, if you can't get enough over at MyDD or Taylor Marsh.

Part of the reason I like this site is that while there are primary squabbles among commenters, it doesn't hit nearly the fever pitch that MyDD, TalkLeft and the Kos comments do.

Honestly, for all those who complain about Obama supporters being vicious, he doesn't have a monopoly on hyper-partisans.  It's natural in a primary for people to get attached to their particular candidate to the point of defending their every move.  I've caught myself doing it for Obama a few times.

If you're basing your support for a presidential candidate on a few commenters' posts on blogs, I think your missing the big picture, in that the food fights on blogs are really inconsequential.  If you don't support Obama, fine, but there are better reasons than, "his commenters piss me off."


[ Parent ]
Except Clinton's not running on a Unity platform (4.00 / 2)
And Obama is.

And doing that while leveraging every bit of Hillary hatred the right has propagated for the last 15 year is a really, really neat trick.


I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


[ Parent ]
yep (0.00 / 0)
my experience also.  The bitterness & viciousness of Clinton supporter's comments I was reading pushed my buttons and turned me off. 

But then I took a breathe and tried to find some rational, calm comments supporting Clinton.  Not a lot - but enough to make me think.

Obviously this campaign means a lot to people.  It tends to bring out the emotions, fear, anger, hero-worshipping, blah, blah, blah. 

Its annoying, but better then a bunch of apathetic non-voters.


[ Parent ]
I've never been an activist (4.00 / 2)
but the 'consolidated' netroots has me volunteering for a candidate for the first time in my life: Hillary.

disenchanted republican - creative class? not really (4.00 / 1)
I'm voting for Obama. It's funny to read how conservative most viewers think he is. To me, he is quite liberal. My wife is a doctor and I worry about the tinkering with medical care. Hope it does not make things worse. But I passionately despise insurance companies and we've got to do something. I don't see much difference in the health care plans, honestly. Seems like fighting over which piece of turd smells the best.

I like Obama because he was right about the war from the beginning. We should have focused on Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. We caused so much damage to the world, to our military (I served), and to our nation. I believe electing Senator Obama will have the most immediate and forceful impact on reversing that damage. Yes, by virtue of his identity certainly. But even more because of his demeanor. Whereas Bush is not, and this understates it, an aggressive thinker, Obama has an incredible, thoughtful and provocative mind.

At any rate, I want someone with good judgment as President. After eight years of Bush, I want a President who can actually lead and inspire. I want someone who can actually speak intelligently and reason with me. I can understand why those of you on the left hate Bush and do not like the post-partisan rhetoric. The man does not listen at all, nor does he reason, as far as I can tell.

Yeah, I am naive. But I want to believe that America can be great again. More than that, I look forward to having policy arguments without people on either side hating each other. My stepmom gave me good advice when I got married: don't argue to win, argue to understand. Maybe that doesn't apply with equal force in politics, but I wish it were so.

With the Clintons, I am afraid there will be a lockdown on the republican side and nothing will get done. I just can't vote for her. I don't think the Clintons will be good for the country. My very long two cents.


[ Parent ]
This "creative" individual will vote for JRE still or HRE (4.00 / 1)
(I suppose being a Drupal geek makes me creative. I dunno.)

I will still caucus for JRE. His campaign is suspended not ended, and even a small delegate count could be a force for good. If I can't support JRE, I will support HRC. See this  long post for why.

I consider Obama's vacuous Unity rhetoric and the right wing talking points far more important and dangerous than the policy papers on the web site (which nobody will remember in a year anyhow) or past performance (which as everyone knows, is no guarantee of future results.) Nor do I like his economic advisors.

Now, the OHB campaign has been brilliant, and has managed to integrate the ground game and electronic media like FaceBook and DK to an extent never before seen.

The flip side of that brilliant integration, however, is that the online face of the Obama operation is, in fact, a true face of the campaign, and fully integrated with it, and not in any exceptional or parallel.

And a more vociferous and intellectually dishonest gang of thugs I have not seen outside of Freeperville in five years of blogging and 10,000 or so posts. Here's the disclaimer I started including over at Kos; like Stan Mack's Real Life Funnies, all dialog guaranteed verbatim:


OBAMA FAN BASE DISCLAIMER Yes, I am paid by the Hillary campaign. Yes, I hope to get a job in Hillary's administration. Yes, I am a shill. Yes, I am a hack. Yes, I am a liar. Yes, I am a racist. Yes, I am a purist. Yes, I am a troll. Yes, I am ignorant. Yes, I hate Obama. Yes, I ignore all facts that don't square with my [lying|racist|purist|shilling|hackish|trollish] preconceptions of Obama. Yes, my reading comprehension is poor. Yes, I have twisted Obama's words, not only in this [post|comment], but often in the past. Yes, I have a hidden agenda: I hope that the Democrats lose, and to that end I support [not Obama]. Yes, I could be older than you. Yes, I think all young people are stupid. Did I mention I'm a shill and a hack? Good. Anything else?

Now, at one point, I felt this was OK, since when you're dealing with Republicans, you need thugs.

However -- and you heard it here first -- I don't think the thuggery will be directed against Republicans. After all, that would be "divisive." It will, of course, be directed against progressives, just as now. There's a reason why Kristol, Brooks, Sullivan, Broder and the rest of the leading lights of the Village latched onto Obama from the get-go, and what they want can't be good for progressives; never has been, never will be. They know they won't be held accountable, because that's the only way to operationalize unity. Poor old Kennedy -- wasn't his last major legislative achievement the very bipartisan NCLB? -- only got on board once the rest of the Village was already crammed onto the train.

To me it's simple: Obama started moving right in Iowa because he intends to govern from the right.

Sigh. It's going to be just like Iraq. Cassandras again. Ah well, at least we can build the record.

And I can always hope that I'm wrong.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


I think most Obama supporters see beyond his "vacuous Unity rhetoric" (0.00 / 0)
And to be honest, I prefer Obama's vacuous Unity rhetoric and right wing talking points over Hillary's rhetoric when she voted for the AUMF (or the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, whatever) and her right wing media proposals. The way you campaign isn't always the way you govern.

But let's not forget the vacuous Unity rhetoric and honest to goodness right-wing policy we've seen from the Clintons - Hillary in that Tom Brokaw book, supporting Lieberman in 2006, don't ask, don't tell, NAFTA, and welfare reform to name a few. The way you campaign isn't always the way you have governed.

That isn't to say I don't wish Obama was running as more of a progressive, or that his campaign wouldn't be better for it.


[ Parent ]
If the "netroots"like Moveon, etc endorse, are they still the netroots?? (0.00 / 0)
Their credibility with a lot of us will be destroyed.  Endorsing a corporate candidate is something to be avoided!

They should stay neutral if they want to be viewed as really wanting to "tear down the gates."

I'm afraid it's all glomming into one "mainstream media" again.....


Creative Class Activist for Hillary (4.00 / 1)
I consider myself a creative class activist. My being 62 means I have been one longer than many of you. I am not completely decided how I will vote in NY on Tuesday, but I am leaning toward Hillary. It distresses me how one-sidedly for Obama the blogosphere seems to be. I have noticed that feminist blogs seem to be the exception. Many have not endorsed either HIllary or Obama. I wonder how many political blog lurkers are too cowed to comment. 

Debate is healthy. It worries me that there almost seems to be a party line. I thought i could count on the blogosphere's realizing that a Democratic president is the major priority. 

"For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?"

 Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox