Category Archives: blogging

Cogito, Ergo Blog

Posted on by

Adam Nagourney:

As became clear from the rather large and diverse crowd here, the blogosphere has become for the left what talk radio has been for the right: a way of organizing and communicating to supporters. Blogging is nowhere near the force among Republicans as it is among Democrats, and talk radio is a much more effective tool for Republicans.

“We don’t spend a lot of time in cars, but we do spend a lot of time on the Internet,” said Jerome Armstrong, a blogging pioneer and a senior adviser to Mr. Warner, who has been the most aggressive among the prospective 2008 candidates in courting this community.

Hmm, could that be because righties like to be told what to think, while we lefties like to express what we think?

On the whole, the crowd here is older than I had expected it to be, which certainly cheered me up. I was afraid I’d be the only matronly lady in a sea of twenty-somethings. I’m guessing the average age is 40-ish, and there are plenty of gray heads in the crowd. It’s an earnest and sometimes rowdy group, and I believe most of the people who came to the conference actually, you know, attended the conference and didn’t get sidetracked into the casinos.

Shorter Hot Air: “I came to Las Vegas to ridicule the straw man liberal who lives in my head.” Really, dear, if you came to make fun of figments of your own imagination you could’ve saved yourself the plane fare. Next time just sit in front of a mirror and pretend you’re interviewing a liberal; you and your readers will be no less enlightened than you all are now.

I like this part:

The mole sent this along last night after returning from the big nutroots celebrity blogger panel, but he couldn’t chat long: “I’m going to a Mark Warner party at nine o’clock at the Stratosphere. It’ll be fun to see progressives swishing around in swanky settings, compalining about the minimum wage.”

I went to the Mark Warner party, which was held at the top of a tower that resembles the Seattle Space Needle. The event was considerably less swanky but a bit more rowdy than most company Christmas parties I’ve been to. I was in awe of the view of the Las Vegas lights and of such culinary delights as mashed potato martinis and a chocolate fountain that served as a fancy-schmancy fondue. But if drinking fruity drinks out of plastic cups and eating cheese cubes off paper plates is one’s idea of “swank,”perhaps one should spend more time outside the Stix. I assume the writer missed Bush’s second inauguration:

Dallas businesswoman Jeanne Johnson Phillips is proud of the work she is doing as chair of the 55th Presidential Inaugural Committee. “We know the world will be watching,” she said.

Yes, they will, and I suspect the world will be disgusted.

Usually, inaugurations for a second term are toned down a bit from the first term. But not for George W. Bush. The upcoming four-day celebration promises to be the most expensive inaugural in U.S. history.

Maureen Fan of the Washington Post interviewed the head concierge at the Hay-Adams Hotel. “We’re not calling it an inauguration,” he said. “Because the president’s supporters believe he has a mandate, there’s going to be, in effect, a coronation.”

“People are coming from all over the world for the world’s biggest prom,” said the concierge for the Ritz-Carlton. “It’s like a prom gone crazy.”

According to the events calendar, there will be nine official balls. There will be three official candlelight dinners. Plus a Chairman’s Breakfast, a Youth Concert the traditional parade, and a couple of “salutes” and “celebrations.”

I bet every ice sculpture artiste in America has been called upon to do his bit.

And I bet those Republicans swished up a storm.

Today, the tsunami death toll approaches 150,000. Today, U.S. military fatalities in Iraq, a war most Americans now believe is a mistake, total 1,333. Today, a Staff Sargeant injured in Iraq in 2003 is still waiting for surgery. He has been waiting for 18 months. Yesterday, insurgents killed 17 Iraqi police and National Guards.

But a triumphant George W. Bush plans to party. And, contrary to what the Bushies tell their critics, historically presidential inaugurations held during times of war or disaster have been muted, solemn affairs.

Elisabeth Bumiller writes in today’s New York Times,

    … last week two pockets of the capital were humming: the State Department, where officials were trying to coordinate aid to the tsunami victims in Asia, and the fifth floor of the old Department of Education building on C Street, headquarters of the inaugural committee, where 450 paid staff members and volunteers buzzed about concerts and balls.

    The contrast between the two sites was not lost on inaugural organizers, who have already had to justify their plans to spend as much as $40 million on partying at a time of war. Last week they came under new questions when the United States initially offered only $15 million to aid the tsunami victims, although by Friday Mr. Bush announced that the American aid would be at least $350 million for what he termed an “epic disaster.”

    In either case, the organizers were ready with an answer to critics who questioned the price tag on the merriment, which is similar to what was spent for the inaugural in 2001. A presidential inaugural, they said, has never been canceled, even during world wars. Mr. James, who has staged events for both President Bushes, went back and checked. “The celebrations went on, that’s the lesson we learned,” he said.

You can count on the Bushies to miss points. Yes, there were inaugurations during the world wars, but according to this New York Times article from 1989, “Franklin Roosevelt held no ball in 1937, 1941 and 1945 in recognition of the Depression and World War II.” Woodrow Wilson held no ball for either of his inaugurals, because he thought dancing inappropriate for a solemn occasion.

On the other hand, Richard Nixon’s Vietnam-era inaugurals were glittery and gaudy. Clearly, the Bushies prefer Nixon to Roosevelt as a role model. And what lessons, pray tell, were learned?

Bush likes to prance around in military costumes; he fancies himself to be a “war president.” He makes speeches about “resolve” and “service” and “sacrifice.” But for the Bushies, service and sacrifice are, like taxes, for the little people.

I’m exhausted and have to get up early to get to the airport, so my Las Vegas adventure is pretty much done. Tomorrow, back to New York; and then Monday, on to Washington for the Take Back America conference (help!).

Eye of the Storm II

Posted on by

Now I have more blogging time, mostly because I really, really need to rest a bit before dinner and the evening program, which will include a speech by Sen. Harry Reid. So while I’ve got a few minutes I’d like to respond to some comments by Marc Schulman left on my post from this morning.

I, too, regret the right/left war. For what’s it’s worth, it may surprise you to learn that I blame the Republicans for starting it — the Clinton impeachment was partisanship carried to an extreme. Although it’s mostly left unsaid, it seems to me that the left wing of the Democrats and those even further to the left are partially motivated by payback.

I haven’t taken a survey, but I think the Clinton impeachment is water over the bridge for most of us now. First, we progressive netroots types are hugely ambivalent about the Clinton Administration. Righties seem to think we worship the ground the Big Dog walks on; this is far from the truth. Second, we have much bigger and more dangerous problems facing us now than to spin our wheels over the Clinton impeachment.

However, most of us are angry over the way the Right has smeared, slimed, demonized, marginalized, and misrepresented liberalism over the past 25 or so years. Well, I should clarify — this goes back more than 50 years, really, to the age of Joe McCarthy. And the Nixon/Agnew administration engaged in liberal baiting as well. But it was really in the 1980s, especially after Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine, that rightwing talk radio and media like Fox News began a coordinated campaign to brainwash America about the nature of liberalism, rendering the “L” word into a pejorative, as part of their campaign to take control of the federal government.

(That and the fact that many of us believe sincerely that the Republican Party — which in my childhood was associated with the centrist Dwight Eisenhower and “Republican” cloth coats — has been taken over by an extremist, hard right faction that Eisenhower would not have associated with. We progressives are closer to the center than the so-called “conservatives” who run the Republican Party, yet somehow we’ve become the extremist and the extremists are called the center.)

Righties just love to comb through leftie blogs and commentaries and pick out insults of conservatives, so that they can whine about how mean lefties are. But I sincerely believe that the Right has us beat in the hate department tenfold. And you can’t see it. You excuse the extremism and hatespeech on your side, but pounce on every squawk from our side as justification of your hatred of us.

That said, in any group of people there will be some with bad judgment and poor impulse control who will react to insult and abuse with retaliatory insult and abuse. I think such reaction is not just misguided, but plays into the Right’s hands; the Right baits and slimes lefties until somebody reacts in anger, and then the Right can point to the reaction as an example of how angry the Left is. We talked about this in a panel discussion today. To a person, the panel counseled not taking the bait.

I see the wisdom of turning the other cheek, as do most of us here. Several speakers today urged the attendees not to stoop to the level of the Right, now or ever. The Republicans have been practicing Scorched Earth politics for 25 years, and it hasn’t just hurt the Democrats, it has hurt America. We’re angry, yes, but I’ve heard no one here talk about retaliation. Instead, we want it to stop. We want a politics of unity, in which people across the political spectrum understand that just because we disagree on some points of political philosophy or policy doesn’t mean we all don’t want what’s best for America. And we want political leaders mature enough to understand that compromise isn’t surrender.

I was in my 20s when the Watergate scandal broke. I was never more proud of my country than I was when I watched the Senate and congressional hearings. People of both parties put aside partisan politics and just went after the truth. No excuses, so whiny “the Dems to it too” crap that is the Right’s usual response when they’re caught doing something unethical these days. The Republicans of that time put the United States and the Constitution ahead of their party. Few Republicans seem able to do that now.

On the other hand, many of us believe the Bush Administration, or some elements thereof, have engaged in criminal activity. We think it is vitally important to thoroughly investigate this. If we are wrong, then investigation should show us we are wrong. But if we are right, this must not be buried and forgiven the way, for example, Iran Contra was buried and forgiven. This is not about retaliation; it’s about the rule of law and the integrity of government. Future administrations of either party must be put on notice that they will be held accountable for crimes.

Whatever the reasons are for the verbal civil war, I can’t help but be concerned about the reality denial and vindictiveness expressed in many of the quotes in my most recent post and earlier ones on the same topic. Using Haditha as a rationale for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq is an example.

Believe me, there’s nothing I’d like more than a meeting of the minds. If you, and others, would like to engage in a conversation to that end, count me in.

I will not engage in any such conversation until you are able to fully admit to the denial and vindictiveness of the Right. Even though I choose not to retaliate, I ain’t about to just lie down and let you kick me in the head and call it “discussion.” Especially not on my own blog.

As far as “Using Haditha as a rationale for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq is an example” — I’m not passing judgment on something I haven’t read for myself. You might want to read my take on this — the enormous pressure placed on the troops in Iraq pretty much guarantees that some will snap, and some bad judgments will be made. This, I argue, is a big reason why a military invasion was the wrong tool to use to achieve the Administration’s goals in the Middle East. It shouldn’t have been done at all, in other words. (Please read my entire argument before you try to argue with me about this; if I see you making assumptions about what I think that is not what I wrote, you will be banned from this blog.)

Eye of the Storm

Posted on by

I had about an hour of blogging time before the morning keynote breakfast (with Howard Dean!). But then I got caught up in reading about the Kos conference in other blogs. So now I’ve got 45 minutes of blogging time.

I met Skippy the Bush Kangaroo yesterday, and I see he is diligently blogging the convention. He links to this Time mag article by Anne Marie Cox that captures the ambiance pretty well. I’d only add that people here are fired up, and in a positive way. There’s some obligatory Bush bashing, of course. But to recall U.S. Grant’s famous military advice, we’ve stopped worrying about what General Lee is going to do, and instead are focused on what we’re going to do.

In some ways this conference has the feel of a retreat. The political world has collapsed into gaudy Las Vegas; whatever’s going on beyond the sober bordering mountains has faded from attention. There’s been some mention of the death of al-Zarqawi (Lindsay Beyerstein, from time to time: “Hey, is Zarqawi still dead?”), but since it’s unlikely this will make any bleeping difference to the insurgency or the activities of the Iranian-sponsored Shiite militias — whoop-dee-doo.

OK, so I’m about out of time (wasted too many minutes trying to think of a more original adjective for Las Vegas than “gaudy”). On to breakfast.

Hi Again

Posted on by

You know you’re a nerd when you go to Las Vegas and have a great time hanging out with other nerds instead of going to the casinos. I suppose I should go and look at the man casino before I leave, so I know what one looks like. But the whole Riviera Hotel is one big casino.

Hi!

Posted on by

I’m just checking in quickly between panels. This place is a HOOT!

This morning I found myself hanging around in a little group of people that INCLUDED Joe Wilson, Larry Johnson, Murray Waas, and George Lakoff. Just shootin’ the breeze with my bro’s. And I got to shake Mr. Wilson’s and Mr. Johnson’s hands and introduce myself.

That was so cool!!!!

I’ll try to blog some more later, but now the panel’s about to start. See ya.

It’s Cold Out There

Posted on by

I’m guest-posting at Unclaimed Territory, and this morning I posted a merged and condensed version of my last two religion posts. Which pissed off a lot of people who clearly didn’t read what I wrote. They just saw the word “religion” and went ballistic.

I may not have as many readers as Glenn, but y’all are way smarter.

Update: Speaking of religion, these people are just plain twisted.

Getting Real

Posted on by

According to Editor & Publisher, the upcoming Yearly Kos convention in Las Vegas (June 8-11) will be previewed in this weekend’s New York Times magazine. The preview is by Matt Bai, who will ask if bloggers can get real. [Update: Here’s a link to the article.]

Bai himself will serve on a panel covering mainstream political journalism, which he likens to “being the Dunkin’ Donuts spokesman at a cardiologists’ convention.”

Bloggers with pseudonyms—he mentions Georgia19 from Chicago–have suddenly becoming influential. Bai comments: “In this way, Daily Kos and other blogs resemble a political version of those escapist online games where anyone with a modem can disappear into an alternative society, reinventing himself among neighbors and colleagues who exist only in a virtual realm. It is not so much a blog as a travel destination….”

You might want to wear your asbestos suit to the convention, Matt.

Bai says the convention marks a unique opportunity for Democratic politicians, who are trying to get a grip on the blogosphere, to actually meet and greet the actual bloggers: “Here , at last, is the impersonal ballroom with garish lighting and folding round tables, the throng of attendees whose hands can be shaken and shoulders gripped. Here is the Netroots as just another influential lobby to be wooed and won over, like the steelworkers or the Sierra club.”

While bloggers may reject this notion, Bai comments that “the politicians may understand the real significance of this first bloggers convention of its kind better than some of the bloggers themselves, who imagine that cyberpolitics is no less than a reinvention of the public square, the harbinger of a radically different era in which politicians will connect to their constituents electronically and voters will organize in virtual communities.

Is that what we’re really about here? Some of us, maybe, but I think there’s a lot more to political blogging than virtual organizing. I think it’s more about taking political discussion away from mass media and giving it back to We, the People.

“Politicians know that politics is, by its nature, a tactile business….at the end of the day, partisans will inevitably be drawn to sit across the table from the candidate they support or oppose, just as votes will still be won and lost in banquet halls and airport hangars….That’s because politics, like dating, is as much about the experience as it is about the winning or losing.”

Sure there is still plenty of politicking going on in banquet halls and airport hangars. But these days most politics happens in media, not in the flesh. And the biggest part of that media is electronic — television and radio — with political hacks and professional insiders serving as the self-appointed proxies of We, the People.

In the mass media age political discourse devolved into something like puppet theater. We turn on the little puppet theater box in our living rooms and watch representative partisans bash each other like Punch and Judy. And we know their strings are being pulled by more powerful forces hidden behind the scenery. The performance may be entertaining, but the audience can only watch, passively. The audience has no part in the script.

Exactly how is that more “real” than the Internet?

It is telling that the artificiality of mass media politics is invisible to a mainstream political journalist like Mr. Bai. For many years professional pundits, Washington journalists, political operatives, and elected officials have been carrying on the nation’s political discourse by themselves inside the puppet theater, and the discussion reflects their perspectives, their interests, their biases. The vast and silent audience may have entirely different concerns, but the audience doesn’t get to take part in the discussion.

Last week the New York Times published a story by Patrick Healy about Bill and Hillary Clintons’ marriage. Washington Post columnist David Broder followed up —

… the very fact that the Times had sent a reporter out to interview 50 people about the state of the Clintons’ marriage and placed the story on the top of Page One was a clear signal — if any was needed — that the drama of the Clintons’ personal life would be a hot topic if she runs for president.

No, the very fact that the Times had put a reporter on the story signals that some editor at the Times thought the topic was worthy of some space in the New York regional section. The fact that puppets like Broder and Chris Matthews (who devoted the better part of two Hardballs to the topic — double entendre sort of intended) declared the Clintons’ marriage to be newsworthy is a clear signal that the insider Washington politicos are fascinated with the Clinton marriage. In the event of a Hillary presidential bid they will devote countless hours of puppet theater time to the Clinton marriage instead of telling us anything substantive about candidates’ backgrounds and positions. Whether more than three people outside the Beltway give a bleep about the Clintons’ marriage is another matter entirely.

The Blogosphere has created a place where We, the People, can bypass the media and talk to each other about what interests us. Here we decide what topics are “hot.” We decide what information we need to make informed decisions, and collectively we find that information and publish it. It’s true that only a small portion of adult Americans have become active bloggers and blog readers. So far. But I believe this portion will grow, especially as more people have access to broadband and learn that joining in the Grand Discussion is as easy as breathing. And audio-visual blogging — for those who don’t like to keyboard — is on the way.

Mass media politics is not just oblivious to the audience. It’s also expensive, and the need for politicians to raise obscene amounts of money to wage a media campaign has nearly destroyed even the pretense that our elected representatives in Washington are looking out for their constituents. No, they are looking out for their big campaign contributors. They are looking out for lobbyists that represent special interests capable of raising lots of money. The Enron story highlights the way politicians and corporations look out for each other. Enron is an exception only in the fact that the execs got caught before the Bush Administration was able to save them. Abramoff, Cunningham, DeLay, even Rupert Murdoch’s recent fundraiser for Hillary Clinton — it’s all about money, and it’s all about mass media politics.

This trend has got to stop, somehow, or we might as well dissolve Congress and hand the government over to the suits in the boardrooms. So far, the Internet seems to be our best hope of breaking the mass media monopoly on politics.

That’s what’s “real,” Mr. Bai.

Full disclosure — I’m signed up to go to Las Vegas with the Kossacks, and immediately after that I’ll be in Washington as a guest blogger at the Take Back America conference. I expect to encounter a couple of banquet halls but probably no airport hangars. Maybe I’ll get to meet Matt Bai. Heh.

The More Things Change …

Posted on by

I just clicked on Memeorandum and had a sixties flashback. Righties are linking to an internet clip of a fellow who says he was an Army Ranger in Iraq and who saw atrocities committed. I haven’t taken the time to look at the clip yet and cannot comment on its contents.

Rightie bloggers have decided the guy is a poseur. And he may be; I wouldn’t know. “The pic on his wall shows the wrong t-shirt, wrong sleeves roll, wrong flash, this boy is so many flavors of wrong I can’t keep up,” says this guy.

But then I read this comment: “Someone really should look into the background of the other IVAW members.”

Wow, does that take me back. During the Vietnam War era antiwar veterans often were accused of being poseurs. I remember allegations that some participants in the Winter Soldier hearings were not real veterans, and the allegations severely damaged the effectiveness of the hearings. And I understand it’s possible some of the participants were poseurs, in spite of the efforts of VVAW to screen out impostors, although certainly most VVAW activists were real Vietnam veterans.

I remember that every time a news story about a “fake”veteran hit the news, always someone would say “Someone really should look into the background of the other VVAW members.” And “I bet they’re all fake.” The allegations, true or not, undermined the credibility of VVAW.

The new video is being linked on sites like True Blue Liberal and Information Clearing House and is, apparently, gut wrenching. But the video is not linked on the Iraq Veterans Against the War or the Veterans Against the Iraq War sites. Before more antiwar sites link to this video I urge that questions about the speaker’s service and credentials be resolved.

Why We’re Better

Posted on by

When Republicans get caught at corruption, righties say …

Democrats do it too!
It’s liberal media bias! (And Democrats do it too!)
Leftie bloggers get a trip to Amsterdam! (I haven’t yet heard what nefarious quid pro quo was demanded by the Netherlands Board of Tourism and Conventions.)
Liberal news bias. Our guy just made a mistake.

Or, they say nothing. On several active rightie blogs I got no hits at all for “Abramoff,” “Cunningham,” or “Tom DeLay.”

When Democrats get caught in corruption, lefties say,

Looks like he’s guilty.
He’s not the only Democrat with ethical problems.
It was stupid, and he got caught. He should resign.
The guy belongs in jail.

Sorta gives you a clue which side drinks the most Kool Aid, huh?