Monday night I decided to write a diary to address something that concerns me very much - the possibility of a fractured party no matter which democratic candidate secures the nomination.
Perhaps my concern was not misplaced!
In poll I included, which admittedly represents a small sample size (guess everyone was busy reading more divisive diaries??), which asked this question:
"Above all, I want to help establish a strong campaign to win the presidency no matter who wins the nomination, and I want to help the netroots attain a position of substanitial influence with the incoming adminstration"
...42% of respondents indicated, "No, I'm sorry I cannot see myself enthusiastically supporting anyone other than my candidate".
Wow. Just wow. Is this really true? Are 40+ percent of people frequenting this site ready to 'burn it all' down if they're chosen candidate doesn't win? I wanna try this one more time to see if that many people have really jumped the shark on being loyal to working with whichever Democrat wins the presidency.
From everything I've read and heard it appears the Democrats won big tonight.
There ARE two great candidates who are both poised to continue a rousing fight to the very end of this nomination process, and if the contemporary public mood holds - one of them will, in all probability, be the President of the in less than a year from now.
...so...
Mayyyybe, it would be a really good idea if the left-leaning blogosphere didn't risk alienating either one of the candidates - who again in all likelihood will be POTUS for at least four years - so that when we want to start influencing policy, with whom ever the Democratic president is, there is still some gas in the tank.
Back your candidate, campaign like crazy for them - but do NOT put down the other candidates. It's the more classy choice to begin with, and it's also the choice that will not leave a fragmented party come time to fight the republican's smear tactics - and it's the choice that will leave the Dailykos and it's constituency in good standing and un-radicalized.
Whether your candidate wins or not, there is a tomorrow.
Let me first say that I am by no means, per se, a Clinton supporter. My personal politics tends toward being more openly progressive. Alas, I live in the real world and have the choices I have for president, the same choices everyone else has...
With that disclaimer out of the way, and with as much detachment as I can muster, I've gotta remark that Hillary Clinton seems well positioned to win this primary race, and is seems somewhat fit to do so on the basis of a single reason.
She's the hands down the best street fighter out of the three two leading Democratic candidates left. Even her most ardent critics would not deny that she is person who has managed to survive, even progress, in a world that has specifically been trying to scalp, specifically HER, for a very long time now.
For a moment, humor me and step outside of your self and your everyday predispositions and consider the following question: What if Hillary Clinton had some real power and authority? The kind of power and authority that only comes with a presidency.
I've been a member of this site since 2003 - been through the up and downs, etc, etc, and so forth and I've gotta say - Web 2.0 is passing by the Dailykos to an extent which may eventually put this site in jeopardy, if not for it survival, for it's relevancy over the long haul. (which is NOT to say the Dailykos is irrelevant by any means! Only that it's infrastructure is showing a little age)
Briefly, without referencing some really, really boring thesis paper - Web 2.0 means community-driven, outreach and extendability via webservices/API's and such (API's are ways that people/other sites can tie into your site to publish/promote its content, etc).
At this point in the internet's life-cycle all of the above adds up to: the Dailykos needs to have more than 8 prime spots* dedicated to user driven content and needs to provide a way for other sites to hook into the Dailykos or the other way around.
(*8, of course, is the number of 'recommended dairies'. And sorry - the 'rescue rangers' while better than nothing do not suffice!)
Tonight I'm simply trying to find any positive thoughts or feelings, a single hope, that our country can right itself without (more) catastrophic consequences than it has already endured.
And then I see this...
Wherever the word 'impeach' appears on the quote below, change it to 'voting no on the Iraq war' and, quite literally, you'll have the exact same arguments from "our side" which have only assisted the travesties of the past 6+ years.
There is much news, possibly much to celebrate, and yet...
The $GOP-favoring media has already been kind enough to bait the hook in event of Dem victory. The know their prey and have calculated well. Based on previous behavior it seems like it will be a very, very tempting lure indeed.
What they're hooking (see how well this metaphor works!):
"How will a Democratic House avoid having congress become a courtroom of slash-and-burn politics?"
We are worried, nay despondent, about the state of our country and our world. Despondent for the children, our loved ones, and ourselves who will have to live with it all, come what may after November 2nd.
Simply, sincerely, and humbly we ask:
Who among you is willing to be a galvanizing figure for the Democratic Party and this country through November 2nd?
Who among you is willing to grab the banner, the drum, AND the cannon themselves and meet those who have, and would continue, to dishonor us all - with no quarter asked or given - and NO APOLOGIES made?
fas‧cism -noun
1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
The 2006 Dkos version?
fas‧cism -noun
1. a blog led by a single individual having complete power - who has not noticed or ignored - those who have delegated to themselves the duty to forcibly suppress opposition and criticism, regiment all opinions, control visibility of content and/or membership privileges, and emphasize an aggressive party affiliation / tribalism.
Agreement that Dem's aren't perfect but better than the despots is a bit of slippery slope, isn't it? I mean what happens when "better" still isn't good enough to save a country?
(cross-posted at Redstate and Dailykos, or if you prefer at Dailykos AND Redstate)
...is a false dichotomy. Or at least it is to the degree that people are willing to NOT perpetuate it.
The polarization among the left and right blogospheres has been pretty bad in the past several days, even by today's standards, to say the least. Bad enough to not miss the notice of me, a relative fly-on-the-wall.
(I am really hesitant to put this up, but after scouring Dailykos and a few other places for a one-stop-shop on the Rove debacle I discovered that there was absolutely nowhere I could find a beginning to end synopsis on exactly what was said, what it "means", and where the whole thing is going. It seems like having something which can catch someone up who doesn't live constantly on the edge of the 24 hour news cycle would be a good thing. Anyway...)
Hot on the heels of the two Scapegoat posts Billmon wrote in the last week (if you don't know who Billmon is yet check him out), no less than Karl Rove himself comes out (full text of speech) and turns the situation from an abstract conspiracy-theory to an in-your-face reality of hate speech aimed at everyday Americans like you and me. Says Rove:
Well, calling myself someone of "faith" is a bit of a stretch in any thing that resembles traditional terms, but around here I qualify, I guess. In any case, if you haven't heard we've got a new pope. This from MSNBC pretty much tells everything that needs to be told:
"Ratzinger served John Paul II since 1981 as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In that position, he has disciplined church dissidents and upheld church policy against attempts by liberals for reforms. He turned 78 on Saturday."
Darthvader (or Dick Cheney if you prefer) was just elected pope.
Wow. Wedge issue. Apparently insane bullying and threats to disregard the constitution CAN wake some people up.
I can't remeber Dan Abrams ever being on "our side" of anything (not that I pay that much attention), but in his latest MSNBC "blog" entry he sounds like he could be one of us:
Pipe Down Delay It's time for Majority Leader Tom DeLay to pipe down. I am tired of all this inflammatory rhetoric about our judges. It's shameful, dangerous and pure pandering.
In a speech yesterday, DeLay accused the judiciary of having "run amok" after it refused to intervene in the Schiavo case.
Truth is a Pathless Land - adapted by Billmonakos Eschaton
Context: The Order of the Lefty Blogosphere was founded in 2000 (give or take) to proclaim the coming of new liberal messiahs, or "World Teachers" if you will. Billmonakos Eschaton was made Head of the Order. Yesterday April 10, 2005, the opening day of the annual Lefty Jamboree at Camp Wanna-hanga-cheney, California, Billmanakos dissolved the Order before 3000 members. Below is the full text of the talk he gave.
We are going to discuss this morning the dissolution of the Order of The Lefty Blogosphere. Many people will be delighted, and others will be rather sad. It is a question neither for rejoicing nor for sadness, because it is inevitable, as I am going to explain.
I like the Dailykos a lot, on many different levels. I'm sure you do too, or else you wouldn't be here...
...all of which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject/point of this diary, which is that no matter how much we may like the Dailykos, it does not constitute (nearly) a representative population as compared to the broader U.S., world, or even Democratic Party populations, in at least one important aspect (important, in terms of how fundamentally this aspect effects a person's worldview and/or base-of-reasoning). To begin...
...when asked in this (admittedly unscientific) poll, "Do you "believe" in a God(s), a "Higher Force", a Divine Plan, etc?", and given the choice to answer "Yes" or "No" - 87 Kossacks (approx. 71%) answered "No", to only 35 Kossacks (approx 28%) who answered "Yes".
All this talk and name calling between the God and Not-God contingent is driving me CRAZZZY. I wish everyone involved could stop for one minute in time, and consider that there could be (at least) a third possibility that has received short-shrift in almost every dialog I've seen around here on the subject.
I guess it's more fun to argue and call the other guy a moron though. Anyway, here's some food for thought for anyone interested in thinking:
Deconstructing the disease, not the symptoms - atheism and theism are BOTH covering a much larger negativity, and/or negation
Not as different as you've been led to believe:
To many people the difference between atheism and theism could not be more night and day. By shared points of negation, however, these two world views are in truth only but shades apart. Importantly for humanity, both paradigms result in a fundamental lack of value/respect for "all that is, and all that is in it". This lack of respect for "all that is" runs from the top down and includes everything from broad categories of species, to specific people, places, or things.
