dagblog - Comments for "My Goodness"

I'd agree, Mr. Smith. I just

we are stardust — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:04:23 +0000

I'd agree, Mr. Smith. I just flipped through five or six pages of my blogs, and they are incredibly varied. Some are news of events, and sometimes due to thenature of the news they do question Obama policies strongly, but they are news, not just commentary or opinion. That does rile some people, but they are free to respond, and often do. And not always as politely as some on this thread would care to see. ;o)

You don't need to understand

Ramona — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:01:15 +0000

In reply to Ramona. I am first going to

You don't need to understand how I feel, Quinn. Any more than I need to understand how you feel. It's not about our feelings, it's about the general feel of dag.

It's not about Obama, either, even though 80% of the comments are about Obama. It could be that "bullying" is the wrong word here. Whatever it is, some of us don't like the direction the comments are taking all too often. It's a turn-off to some people and they're saying so. If it's a turn-on to other people, fine and dandy. But when a good number of people are leaving here, all related to the feel of dag, it's time to figure out why that is and what to do about it.

I guarantee that nobody is leaving because they got their feelings hurt over Obama.

Brew, I think I'm on your

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:50:17 +0000

In reply to Cheap, lame analysis. You

Brew, I think I'm on your side of this argument most often, but I'm surprised you can't appreciate the depth and subtlety of what Quinn is saying. There's a lot there to chew on.

You may be right that those who post the most on Obama are the ones least likely to defend him. You'd have to count 'em up and see.

But at some level, who cares? Moderating these discussions would be insane.

I have a certain scorn and anger toward those who seem to threaten to sit it out or put in a weak effort. I think back to how folks said there was no difference between Gore and Bush. We'll never know what President Gore would have done--but it's hard to imagine him going into Iraq the way Bush did. In short, there IS an important difference between centrists and their parties.

So I'm with you on all that. But I really think you should re-read Quinn's post. It's important.

As you and Dick and Dan and

quinn esq — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:49:23 +0000

In reply to This is very good, Quinn, and

As you and Dick and Dan and others have said, the Dems and Obama need some better ideas, or a primary challenge, or something if Obama is to win. Sure, he can win if the Republican completely screw themselves over. I'm not inclined to bet that they do, however.

Which means, Obama's gonna need some major juice, excitement and electricity, to get people organizing, and get people turned out in his favour. Right now, I'm feeling as though he - and his team - can't see their way clear to strong, exciting, game-winning stances.

Like Afghanistan. Seriously, after taking out Osama, the door was wide open to a Nobel Prize winner to announce a rapid, strong, withdrawal of troops... AND to combine that with a strong new job creation strategy with the savings... or SOMETHING that would at least excite his base.

Instead, in 2012, we will have as many troops there as when he came into office.

As though Osama's death isn't even being used as a strategic turning point.

This just strikes me as bad politics, if nothing else.

Not sure what the flap is

we are stardust — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:48:47 +0000

In reply to You have no right, to insist

Not sure what the flap is about, but were the author here, I'm sure he would claim it; I think he even got thanked by the man he made it to. It was on these boards; not some email or something private.

And the purpose of this

Ramona — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:46:49 +0000

In reply to When you were asked to

And the purpose of this was...? She has a right to her opinion and she didn't direct any of it at any one person. You did. In short, you just directed a personal attack at T. So where does that leave you? And how does it negate anything she just said?

This is very good, Quinn, and

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:43:05 +0000

In reply to Ramona. I am first going to

This is very good, Quinn, and illuminating. I think your analysis is right. Supporters of Obama are in a tough place right now. We're getting it from both, or all, sides. Obama himself is in a tough spot. I'm not sure I have any arguments for Obama that haven't been made a hundred times already.

For me, bottom line, I don't want "the Republican" to win and I'll do what I can to prevent that. Plus, in my heart, I still believe in Obama and I think he has moved the ball forward in some important ways. But all of this has been said and chewed over many times. I think these are excellent arguments, but they only convince folks who...are convinced by them.

I think Dan makes a good point that primarying Obama would add some excitement and news value to the campaign, which is important in and of itself. But s/he'd have to be a serious contender, i.e., not Kucinich. Feingold, though an equally remote chance, would be more interesting. And I think the "hope" and "change" brand of idealism has been tarnished a bit, at least for now. So I'm not sure that "2008 Obama" could beat "2012 Obama."

Have it your way, Resistance.

Ramona — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:35:53 +0000

In reply to You have no right, to insist

Have it your way, Resistance. But I didn't see anything in that quote that would require heavy questioning. Otherwise I might have insisted.

OK, folks. I'm cutting off

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:17:00 +0000

In reply to My Goodness

OK, folks. I'm cutting off the meta at 6:00pm ET, so get your last licks in if you're into that sort of thing.

Dear Lis, I realize that your intentions are good, but I think that you misunderstand one of the fundamental premises of dagblog.com: Blogging is not a team sport. There are no good guys or bad guys or us vs. them at dagblog, just individuals exchanging words and ideas and barbs and banter.

Your blog post attempts to frame the debates at dag as zero sum competitions between two teams. It says in short, "What a shame it is that the other team has taken over the blog."

Naturally, those who view the blog this way have risen to the occasion, and an angry debate between proud team players ensued--as always happens on meta posts that smell like team spirit.

And that sucks. It sucks away mutual respect. It sucks away contentful discussions. It sucks away the free exchange of ideas. It sucks away the pleasure of blogging.

So while we always encourage and invite a diversity of ideas, we do not believe in shutting down a perceived faction for being too strong or vocal.

Some on this thread have complained about a "gang" mentality, one of the never-ending refrains from TPM Cafe. I understand that lopsided debates can make people uncomfortable, and I would ask people involved in discussions to be mindful of overwhelming someone--even (especially) if they disagree strongly with them. I include in this point the mocking banter among friends that can sometimes make people feel like the butt of a group joke.

That said, we're not going to monitor threads to the point that we tell people to back off because there are too many strong opinions on one side or the other. What we will do, as we have always done, is to discourage personal attacks the best that we can.

Ultimately, it all works out a heck of a lot better if you don't see yourself as representing one side or the other. There was a brief golden era back at TPM Cafe after the 2008 primaries ended, when all of a sudden, people realized that the folks they had been screaming at for months weren't actually that bad.

At dagblog, we've tried to maintain that kind of mutual respect. We haven't always been successful, but we're still trying.

When you were asked to

Resistance — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:15:42 +0000

In reply to @Dan K You wrote:But

When you were asked to provide the proof, the traitor label was explicitly applied to you.

You instead acted butthurt, like brew did above about brains.

YOU WANTED TO TAKE OFFENSE,

You became vicious in your attacks.

You like the victim card and you'll play it all the time

Only fool would stick around to subject themselves to that kind of treatment.

TM's leaving; and if you (the other readers) dont go, your fools

Hows that that communications skill working for you TM?

I should have told you, what you just told all of us

I am not particularly interested in engaging individuals who view me as being worthy of abuse and unworthy of participation.

Shorter: If you dont follow TM you are fools.

You are cute though.