Skip to main content

View Diary: "Internet candidates" (204 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In her own way she is an extremist (none)
    She's extremely careful. And extremely insincere.
    •  Insincerity (4.00)
      This is IMO one of the reasons we lose. We are so incredibly quick to criticize our own. Hillary is not my first choice for our candidate. It isn't because I believe her insincere though or that I've seen insincerity on her part. It's because I believe she is a "Washington insider" that knows how to get corporate interests attention. She is able to capture cash from corporate interests that think they can influence her with said cash. That said, she didn't vote for the bankruptcy bill(called it the abomination it was), she hesitantly supported voting no on cloture, and has stood on our side on many issues. I'm not quite ready to paint her with the same brush as GOP(the folks I believe truly believe our government away piece by piece for cash). I do want a leader this next time around though that isn't collecting big dollars from big business. It's time we get our government back and let it start legislating things like enviornmental control instead of personal decisions like marriage, family planning, and when a person has a right to die with dignity.
      •  Why do we lose? (none)
        We lose because our votes have been allowed to be stolen. That's why we lose. Not becuase of our agenda. I hate it when people pretend that our agenda is not by far the agenda of the majority of the population, because, in reality, it is. Just take a glance at polls. We've been in the majority since before the 2,000 election. We - and the democratic process of the United States - are being systematically robbed. To say otherwise is just one more way of trying to brainwash the populace into to being discouraged and allowing the theft to continue without a full blown battle.
    •  how do you know she's insincere (none)
      for instance.

      you sound insincere to me.  just my opinion.  

      i can deal with extremely careful.

      but my post did not intend to start another hillary thread.

      the point is, imo, only an extremist calls hillary some of the things i see here.

      •  I read her body language (none)
        including her voice. Anyone can.
      •  SIncerity is Not the Issue (none)
        Is she a sincere warmonger, or just someone who is willing to pander to militarists?

        Is she sincerely opposed to equal rights for gays and lesbians, or does her position reflect a mere political calculation?

        Does she really believe in disparaging the First Amendment, or is her push for a flag burning amendment just a cheap attempt to get votes?

        Who cares.  The problem with Hillary Clinton is her positions, not whether or not she holds them sincerely.

        And, if one were at all interested in seeing her become president, the second problem with her is that half the country thinks she's Madame Mao.  She manages to combine center-right positions with a far left image. Her candidacy is the perfect storm for the Democratic Party. The only thing that can be said in its favor is that it would do wonders for the Greens.

        First they came for the human-animal hybrids...

        by GreenSooner on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 01:26:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  calling hillary a warmonger (none)
          that is extreme.

          just my opinion.

          that's exactly what i was talking about.

          she's not a warmonger.

          she would not have started the iraq war.  she may believe in authority granted to a president to a fault, and i would agree with that it is a fault.

          but she's not a warmonger.

          antiwar.com.

          didn't they call feingold a warmonger for voting for the 85 billion or whatever it was.

          i know some green party website did.

          •  don't you get it? (none)
            these people are off their rockers. it really is like reading the inverse of FreeRepublic-- completely void of logic or moderation and ignorant of actual information.  

            I don't know why kos gets so worked about the traditional media labeling bloggers extreme. compared to almost any other media bloggers ARE extreme.  embrace it, baby.

            would a level-headed, moderate, well-adjusted political player waste prime real estate bitchin and moanin about a fund raising email from a politician?  of course not.  unless, of course, they just wanted to get a rise out of their extreme base.

            Reclaiming America One Blog At A Time - www.ornerydem.blogspot.com

            by BRockNYLA on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 02:22:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Really? (none)
              There are piles and piles of informative posts here.  Look at any number of science-based posts on the front page by DarkSyde or Plutonium Page, just to name a couple of easy examples.

              Sure, there's plenty of noise too, just like on every Internet forum I've ever seen.  Are you only reading the Hillary diaries or something?

              •  I was (none)
                specifically talking about the Hillary hatred and kos's post from yesterday.  

                clearly there are many other informative posts or else i wouldn't be around.

                Reclaiming America One Blog At A Time - www.ornerydem.blogspot.com

                by BRockNYLA on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 02:28:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  I think you must be thinking of Kucinich (none)
          he voted for the ammendment against flag burning. Clinton just supported some legislation. I don't believer that it was an ammendment.
      •  See below (none)
        but you nailed it with your first line:

        how do you know she's insincere

        I don't.

        No one does... but that's the point.

        Maybe I missed it -- but she has done zilch to "get in touch" with us... a bunch of spam fundraising e-mails don't cut it.

        From Howard Dean to Russ Feingold to Paul Hackett to Ciro Rodriguez to John Tester to Governor Schweitzer to Louise Slaughter to you-name-the-'netroots'-star of the day....

        Lay them side by side - and you'll probably see a whole heap of differences.

        What they all have in common -- and what Hillary has completely lacked to date -- is any kind of communication and engagement with the community.

        I don't need a candidate to come here and kiss my (or Kos's or Armando's or anyone's) ass and prostrate themselves in some show of fealty to the netroots -- but you know what?

        Talking to us might help.  Engaging us might help.

        We've had 6 years of My-way-or-the-highway, the answers are secret, I'll only talk to pre-screened and selected audiences George W. Bush.

        I'll not trade one beltway elitist for another just because 'another' is pro-choice.

        I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

        by zonk on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 01:37:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  that is SO true (none)
          she has done NOTHING at all to address the netroots.

          that's obvious.  and a damn shame.

          but it doesn't mean she isn't sincere.

          it just means she is choosing a different audience to address when she says what she says.  and does what she does.

          trent reznor won't be playing "truckin'".

          though maybe he should.

        •  I actually live in New York (none)
          and have been to several of her events.  I find her incredibly sincere in those settings.  I don't need or expect a politician to come on to DailyKos or any other "netroots" outfit.  Everything that comes this way from a professional politcian is sure to screened and rescreened.  there is no sincerity in having a staffer make a post on your behalf.  that's just silly really.

          Reclaiming America One Blog At A Time - www.ornerydem.blogspot.com

          by BRockNYLA on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 02:36:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't doubt (none)
            It may usually be staffers posting -- but then, both Feingold and Schweitzer certainly have personally contributed via Q&As with Kos, Jerome (or Tester with Chris Bowers.... or what have you).

            You say you found her sincere- so be it.

            But let's recognize the difference between when a politician talks AT you, and when they talk with you... and even if it's just staffer posting, and even if that poster doesn't contribue in the discussion thread, I very highly doubt it's a post-and-run situation.  If they took the time to post - I'd bet someone also took the time to read the discussion, and the candidates that have made the "best" use of Dailykos (or whatever) have certainly taken something away from the experience.

            I don't know if you were involved in the Dean campaign or not -- but that's EXACTLY how it worked on the old DFA.  If you were involved - you saw it firsthand, and if you weren't -- I guarantee that you'd be astounded how often ideas, policy discussions, strategy, and the like bubbled  up from simple blog posts into real action and policy.

            As I posted below -- I don't expect some show of fealty at the throne of the blogosphere... but writing a big check to attend a fundraiser shouldn't be a prerequisite for getting my voice heard by my elected officials.

            I don't mean this as a slam -- but I don't look for candidates that match some set of policy criteria then support accordingly, after applying some charisma or sincerity filter.

            I would much prefer a candidate that engages me, or "us"... because when a candidate does that -- even if we don't agree on much, I sleep better knowing said candidate has kept sight of the whole raison d'etre of their job.

            I want elected officials -- from my President to my Senators to my Congressman to my State Reps to my alderman -- to recognize they work for ME.  For my friends.  For my family.  For my co-workers... even for those that don't share my policy POVs.

            ...and I'm  sorry -- but there's no way in hell you can recognize and fulfill that duty effectively without engagement without cover charge, without some level of unstructured communication.

            Until there's a better way than a blog post -- it's all we've got.

            I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

            by zonk on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 03:07:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  seems like (none)
              talking WITH you means telling you what you want to hear??

              and talking AT you means telling other people what they want to hear??

              •  Not at all (none)
                For example --

                I didn't agree Feingold when he posted regarding the issue with regulating the blogosphere and its role in campaign finance... but I respect that he took the time to engage.

                I don't personally share Howard Dean's deficit hawk tendencies -- I'm no supply-sider, but the need for a balanced budget falls rather low on my priorities (for example -- when it comes down to Stafford/educational loans/GRANTS vs. the deficit, gimme me more money for education... or prescription drugs for seniors... or you name it).  I wouldn't recklessly discard fiscal sanity like this administration, nor would I necessarily call myself a tax and spender... but a balanced budget isn't a requirement for my support.

                I also recognize my OWN fallibility.  I don't own a gun, I personally have no desire to own a gun... but I'll tell you what, I've come around to a Hackett-esque view that criminals and existing gun law enforcement is the problem and answer... NOT gun control.

                I'm saying precisely the opposite.  ENGAGE me.

                Don't feed me platitudes and slogans.  Speeches and scripted events are all sizzle -- it's the discussion and engagement that is the steak for me.

                I'm just tired of triangulation... of 'whispers' to assuage the base.  It's been posted by many people, time and time again --- it's the liberal stands that sink a candidate, it's the democratic inability to take a stand.  You can bob and weave with a speech... but you can't do that to the same degree when you engage your constituents.

                It's about trust.  TRUST that we, the American people, have the intelligence and capability to understand issues can be complex.  Few people are absolutists - show them you hear them, you'll continue to listen, but even if you ulitmately disagree -- they'll support that.

                I'm really not as anti-Hillary as I probably seem to be... but going all hawky on the Iraq war, then relying on cocktail party rumors to assure me it's just triangulation ain't gonna work.  I don't want my government -- or my elected officials to work that way.

                If Hillary... or a Hillary staffer posted here about the Iraq war, even a dyed-in-the-wool "It was the right thing to do" post, I can respect that.  Although I didn't support the action at the time, although I feel we've been lied to, although I think we need to get out now -- it wasn't then nor is it that simple now for me.  I recognize there were valid reasons for going after Saddam - even minus the WMDs.  

                It's the old Hawthorne quote from the Scarlet Letter -- "No man can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude without finally getting bewildered as to which may be true".

                It's politics -- and political engagement -- that requires something written, something presented, something 'real'.  Dress it up, filter it, have a staffer post it?  

                Fine.  But it's on record - and like I said, if that's all you do -- it won't buy you much 'round these parts.   When you go a step further -- as Dean has done, as Feingold has done, as Hackett did, as Rodriguez does... and so on --

                ...well you get the point.

                I recognize this a Republic.  I recognize that with over 300 million people - we have to rely on 535 men and women in congress and one man or woman in the White House to implement our laws, safeguard us, provide our safety nets, and the whatnot, but if you're not engaging the American people -- how in the world can you represent us?

                Our views change.  Our needs change.  No politician, however insightful or sincere, can fulfull the needs of those changes without engaging us.

                I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

                by zonk on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 04:31:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  To tell you the truth (none)
              Hillary may not have done much with internet outreach to date, but most observers seem to agree that she has done a superb job of reaching out to her constituents in New York and addressing their kitchen-table concerns.  She traveled the state, listened to local voters, came up with federal dollars and solutions to their issues.

              I happen to think this is retail politics that doesn't really translate to a national campaign, since you don't have time to travel the whole country and genuinely listen to everyone's concerns.  But on a local level, she certainly has shown the qualities you mention as important.  Given the level of out-and-out hatred for her in some quarters, I'm frankly surprised she has been able to win over so many of her detractors here in New York, including folks like the NYC firefighters.

              I remain skeptical concerning her chances for 2008 and she's not my horse of choice, but I don't think anyone should underestimate her political skills.  She's not just an empty suit carrying the Clinton name.

              •  Point taken (none)
                I'm an Illinois resident, not a NY resident, so I'll admit that I can't speak with anything approaching authority on the level of engagement she's had with the citizens of New York.

                I will say this, though -- you can satisfy a constituency without necessarily being a man/woman of the people... If you need proof, let me introduce you to this Daley fella I know ;-)

                I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

                by zonk on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 04:35:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site