I have been reading front page diaries here for years and just recently dipped my toes into the water of diary writing. I have always enjoyed coming here for political "news" and the lively dialogue. I admit that I rarely read the comments and have just recently started doing so. Maybe I picked the wrong time, but it was not at all what I expected, and mostly a disappointment. So today I read (in "The Clinton civil war") that I expected the wrong thing -- that this is not a place for every type of Democrat, but one that subscribes to a particular philosophy and methodology.
(Yea, I get that most people here support a 50-state strategy, which really is great from the ground up, and is for sure Howard Dean's job, and the paramount issue for many unpledged delegates (the down ticket), but for my part I don't want a President who positions himself or herself to appeal to the lowest common denominator that is the South. I was born there, lived there, and I moved because I found it to be a place of repression.
So for now, today, I want a President who proudly and loudly espouses the Democratic (progressive) values of the Coastal West and New England, with a little bit of the Midwest thrown in to temper the result. Call that a 20-state strategy, but that's the voice I want in the bully pulpit. Heath Shuler? Glad to have him in Congress, but barely a Democrat, and not what I want my President to look like. Kos proclaims Obama's 50-state strategy, but this is the nomination process for the Democratic Party, where appealing to small enclaves in every state is relevant. That's a much different 50-state strategy than we would see in a general election. And of course I understand why Southern politicians argue for that strategy. But let's see how much time Obama spends in Oklahoma or Idaho in October, especially if he takes public financing. My guess is that, suddenly, all of these "equally important" states will somehow matter less. Fewer than 9,000 Democrats voted in the Wyoming caucus (Obama got just over 5,000 votes). As I recall, the DLC was intended exactly to have this over-arching appeal in all 50 states (to moderate the liberalism of the Democratic Party), focusing initially on electing a conservative Southern politician (I think Sam Nunn was one of their early darlings) to the Presidency. No thanks. I haven't read Crashing the Gates, but knowing Markos' opinion of the DLC, so I assume he has a different appeal in mind.)
Dailykos apparently is more like a fan club, filled mostly with cheerleaders (now, for Obama, but that's not the point). It has all the rank bias of self-interest. That's not inherently a bad thing, especially if you're a fan. God knows the hours sports fans can gladly talk about minutiae (and outrage) that would be mind-numbing to the rest of us. But then I read the open derision for those (I assume) earnest "strikers," from kos himself, among others, and I realize that this is not a clique that I'm a part of (high school memories of the tyranny of the "cool" kids, and how exclusionary they could be).
So my question is whether anyone can suggest a blog community where the analysis is a bit more objective, with a little more intellectual rigor, from the progressive perspective? I see a lot of heat here, but not so much light. As many have said these past few days, there are so many issues that would bear a thoughtful discussion (like race and gender in politics, religion and politics, caucus as methodology, unpledged delegates, on and on), and so many here capable of that discussion, but too often we get the same old spin, just from a different direction (like kos' continued use of the word "coup" to describe the result if Clinton were to win by vote of the unpledged delegates, sort of like Fox News calling suicide bombers "homicide" bombers, all to control perception, and the narrative).
Just wondering.