Moving On

LOL, OpenLeft gives the Open Diss to MyDD by not including this website in their blogroll, but I'm glad that Chris was able to come on MyDD to tout the launch. As Ari Melber writes, it's a partnership between someone that's been a player in the more traditional liberal groups, Mike Lux, and Bowers and Stoller, coming out of the blogosphere. As long as Stoller can self-edit himself of name-calling; the blog can resist ideological purity rants that claim moral authority; and PFAW will financially support it; it will be successful.

It seems that Lux is enaged in a bit of revisionist history, in claiming that the "birth of a movement" one which blogs like MyDD and DailyKos are involved in, actually has it's roots in the 1990's effort Lux and his "colleagues at PFAW and a few Clintonites like Carville and Stan Greenberg" were doing. Who knew!

The notion that Moveon's petition is the birth, which Stoller has also voiced, is less suspect, but needs a clarification and historical education. I  was online at the time, and remember the online petiton. It was decidingly non-partisan, as was the original slogan to "Censure and Moveon". It was presented with web pages that had moderate Republicans partnering with the effort. The Moveon that has evolved out of that time is a very different language.

The general gist of this, of people-powered politics and organizing outside of the traditional political structure, is much more accurate while talked about in 'waves' of involvement, rather than a birth. And each wave has things that were not involved previously.

I tire of all this "movement" language altogether; besides, move over, we are all beached; Obama owns the movement now.

Tags: Open Left (all tags)



Re: Moving On

Hmm, strange oversight - I'm sure this will get fixed, at least I will be disappointed if it doesn't.

I can understand a bit why they are leaving - they should should honor their roots.

by jc 2007-07-09 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Moving On
...besides, move over, we are all beached; Obama owns the movement now.

Ouch. That left a mark.
by Michael Bersin 2007-07-09 09:48AM | 0 recs
Don't tell momma

But there is no movement.

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-09 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Moving On

On who-- Jerome, or the co-bloggers who got sick of it?

by jforshaw 2007-07-09 10:08AM | 0 recs

Jerome's obsession with Obama finds its way into seemingly unrelated posts.  We get it.  You don't like the guy.  Move on indeed.

by dansac 2007-07-09 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Moving On

This all sounds rather pissy.

I would hope that you all can work on this behind the scenes and spare us readers the details. Self-editing might be appropriate all around.

by lisa 2007-07-09 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Moving On

It does.

I call MyDD my home, but I came here for Chris and Matt. I don't like when the parents fight.

by msnook 2007-07-09 02:48PM | 0 recs
Christ man.

Give up your constant Obama attacks already.

by lovingj 2007-07-09 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Christ man.

Why is it an attack? If you don't appreciate the humor, just ignore it.

by areyouready 2007-07-09 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Christ man.

One person's attack is another person's humor.  But, good to know that you're on the case of what someone is allowed to comment on or not.  

by dansac 2007-07-09 10:10AM | 0 recs
What Humor?

I find Jerome humorless and his narrow point of view disheartening.  I do appreciate all the wonderful diarists and posters.  A sadder, more cynical frontpager, is hard to find.  Some may say I'm harsh, but I say it's part of the kharmic wheel.

by pamelabrown 2007-07-09 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: What Humor?

that is funny. Please elaborate on his narrow point of view as I have no idea what you're talking about.

by Texas Nate 2007-07-09 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Christ man.

Why work on building a permanent Democratic majority when you can spend every single post you make attacking one of the Democratic candidates instead?    Even when the post has nothing to do with him like this one?  

by dansac 2007-07-09 10:09AM | 0 recs
All hail the Obama


I think Jerome blasphemed the name of Barack.

Too much hero worship for me in that "movement."  A movement transcends leaders.  This one is all about Barack Obama.  There is no movement, just followers of the person of Barack Obama.   No issues, just hero worship.  

by littafi 2007-07-09 10:20AM | 0 recs

"No issues, just hero worship."

Been there, debunked that.  Same old blogosphere meme.  Empty as always.

by dansac 2007-07-09 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Moving On

Looks like they tried but failed to fix the oversight.  It's a busted link right now.

by juls 2007-07-09 10:06AM | 0 recs
MyDD is on the blogroll now. I've been up for 36 hours putting this altogether, and different people are working on different parts. I wasn't working on the blogroll.

Speaking of parts, I threw every last part of my being into this website over the past three years, and it certainly felt like a movement to me when I did it. Maybe it is simply because I have always admired the avant-garde, and as such wished to be involved in something similar myself.

If anything, the movement is actually smaller than the wide waves of progressive change that are happening in America. These days, it feels more like a broad cultural shift than a movement.
by Chris Bowers 2007-07-09 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Blogroll

If anything, the movement is actually smaller than the wide waves of progressive change that are happening in America. These days, it feels more like a broad cultural shift than a movement.

I completely agree. I hope whoever our candidate is can harness that cultural shift and turn it into longterm dominance, the way Reagan did in the 80s.

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-09 10:09AM | 0 recs
Reagan should not be our model.

Look forward, not backward.

by littafi 2007-07-09 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Reagan should not be our model.

I believe it was written about a certain war that "those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it"

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-09 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Reagan should not be our model.

And remember Marx's coda to that (one of the few actually funny things he ever wrote)..."what they do not tell you is that the first time is tragedy, the second time farce," or something to that effect.

by Jay R 2007-07-09 11:33AM | 0 recs

very nice

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-09 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Blogroll

Can we please get over Reagan.  There was a great diary on Dkos - Reversing the Reagan Canonization.  Reagan was a puppet only slightly more presentable than the current one.

The Republicans had the greatest PR campaign to roll back the cultural shifts supported by progressives and democrats - civil rights, women's rights, anti-war movements, environmental concerns, etc.  the American public was mesmerized by the advertisements for a me-me-me culture.  The awakening is happening.  The great cultural shifts are led by Democrats.

by pioneer111 2007-07-09 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Blogroll

The Republicans had the greatest PR campaign to roll back the cultural shifts supported by progressives and democrats - civil rights, women's rights, anti-war movements, environmental concerns, etc.  the American public was mesmerized by the advertisements for a me-me-me culture.  The awakening is happening.  The great cultural shifts are led by Democrats.

I totally agree, but I think it's undeniable that Reagan keyed into the resentments that many "Reagan Democrats" (there's a reason they use that label) felt regarding taxes and affirmative actions, and manipulated them in a way that set the model for Gingrich and the 1994 take over as well as the second Bush Administration.

Like it or not, he was a successful politician, and the Lee Atwaters of the era were successful operatives.

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-09 11:17AM | 0 recs
You're avant-garde???


Sorry Chris, but we'll see yet if you haven't been completely co-opted instead.

by andgarden 2007-07-09 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Blogroll

Hey there,

The link to MyDD isn't working on Open Left - take a look.


by jc 2007-07-09 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Blogroll

Cool - fixed now.

by jc 2007-07-09 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Blogroll

When you say MyDD is on the blogroll, do you mean someone's payroll for blogging because that's I question I've begun to wonder about.

by DD2 2007-07-09 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Blogroll

chris, you are one classy guy.  this used to be a fun place to hang out. best of luck to openleft.

by aiko 2007-07-09 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Blogroll

That's exactly what it is- a cultural shift. Just don't be rigid or else it can shift again.

by bruh21 2007-07-09 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Moving On

I just looked, it's fixed.

by del 2007-07-09 10:14AM | 0 recs

Seriously. This reads like an incoherent rant by a madman. No one who has not been reading MyDD nearly daily for months would have even the foggiest idea what one single word of this post is about; and even having, as I do, a relatively good grasp of recent MyDD's evolution and drama, much of the post is almost totally opaque in meaning. Parts of the post almost seem to be inside references that you don't even expect anyone except Chris Bowers to understand.

Given that this is apparently the kind of content MyDD has to look forward to in future, I am baffled why OpenLeft or anyone else would include MyDD on a blogroll.

by Silent sound 2007-07-09 11:10AM | 0 recs

Obama has never claimed to own the netroots or the progressive movement.

All his campaign has tried to do is portray itself as a movement for change. I don't know why this has drawn so much resentment from some bloggers and from supporters of his opponents.

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-09 11:24AM | 0 recs

it's not exclusive. I'd have no problem with Edwards or Kucinich portraying themselves as leaders of a movement for change

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-09 11:34AM | 0 recs

It has nothing to do with netroots, it's Jerome's personal opinion and dis-taste of Obama's campaign.  He doesn't like movement talk surrounding it and takes every opportunity to point it out.  He just doesn't like the guy.  Why else would he bother making a dig like that in an unrelated post?

by dansac 2007-07-09 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: also

I don't think that Edwards (certainly not Kucinich, at least seriously) is claiming to be the leader of a movement.  I think that the campaign can certainly stake a claim to evolving out of the nascent progressive movement.  I think Obama's can too.

But the difference is that what are the logical conclusions to what their campaigns are about.  

by Peter from WI 2007-07-09 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

I think part of the problem-- though note, I'm not accusing Jerome specifically of this kind of thinking-- is that there are a decent number of people who've somehow got the idea in their head that there can only be one movement at a time.

I think both Obama and Edwards, and also Gore for that matter, are right now leading movements for change, and I think all three of those movements are very positive developments. I also think that none of these three are the same movement. There's some overlap in people, goals, and ideals, but they don't any of the three have the same focus and they're not the same movement.

But let's hypothetically say that you're someone who for whatever reason is working on the assumption that there can only be one Progressive Movement at a time, and it doesn't make sense to talk about several interconnected movements which each have the quality of being progressive. And you run into someone who is a member of a different "progressive movement" than you are. How do you react?

Well, one way you might react is to just look at this person, and conclude that their goals are different from yours and therefore they aren't a member of the "progressive movement". That would be the simplistic way to react-- I'm progressive and this person is not like me, therefore this person is not progressive.

Another way you might react though is to notice that not only are this person's goals not precisely yours, but this person also does in fact appear to be part of a movement full of people whose goals are like his. And this movement is, you cannot help but notice, identifying itself as "progressive". At this point panic sets in. If there can only be one progressive movement, then any progressive movement that isn't your own is competition. You find yourself forced to view those other progressive movements as the enemy, because you're competing with them for the same limited mindshare resources-- the way you look at things, if their movement survives, then yours can't.

Now, there is some kind of validity to this way of looking at things, since to an extent the different progressive movements are competing-- certainly between the Edwards and Obama movements there is real competition, since only one of these two people can actually become President. And in the specific context of the presidential race this fracturing of the progressive movement might be a real problem, since it's possible Obama and Edwards could split the progressive vote and let Clinton win.

In general though I don't think the different progressive sub-movements are meaningfully competing with one another, and I think the competitive mindset that some people are bringing to all of this is causing real harm. We need to figure out ways that the progressive movement can remain fractured in such a way that the different fragments still support each other...

by Silent sound 2007-07-09 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

[quote]I think part of the problem-- though note, I'm not accusing Jerome specifically of this kind of thinking-- is that there are a decent number of people who've somehow got the idea in their head that there can only be one movement at a time.[/quote]

I also think there's an infatuation with "movements" period, as if a "movement" has some sort of a priori elevated status.  It's a religious belief as much as a political one.   Bowels have movements...look at the results.

Movements are a tool, nothing else, and like all tools, the result of using them can be good, bad, or utterly indifferent.  Yet "being part of a movement" seems to gratify many people intrinsically.  

N.B., fwiw, Obama is one of my top two choices at the moment, but I view him from totally outside "movement" lenses.

by InigoMontoya 2007-07-09 09:04PM | 0 recs
Tiring of movement language?

"Whether the stagnant establishment wants it or not, the new progressive populist movement will reclaim the Democratic Party as the party of the people...We need an authentic and populist democratic movement to crash the gate and save the nation."

Crashing the Gate, page 3.

Myself, I rather enjoy the 'movement' language--it's part of why I love CTG so much. :)

by Jay R 2007-07-09 11:32AM | 0 recs
he has

you should check out his diaries--he's had some good ones (or she... don't want to be exclusive w/ the pronouns)

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-09 11:38AM | 0 recs

martyrdom seems to be the theme with a number of candidate diaries around here (think of the "corporate media conspiracy")

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-09 11:39AM | 0 recs

You make good points, but I don't think he was attempting to win converts to Obama.  I also criticized Jerome's post, and others, but I'm not yet a committed Obama supporter.

His point wasn't to use martyrdom as a means to recruit, but to express exasperation about Jerome's posts.  They are so relentlessly full of unnecessary attacks on Obama, that it's making Jerome out to be a less and less serious commentator.  We could ignore them, which is fine, but some feel the need to point it out in the comments, which is also fine.

But when I point it out, I'm not trying to persuade or dissuade anyone from supporting him or anyone else.  It's more about Jerome.

by dansac 2007-07-09 11:52AM | 0 recs
gratitude towards the blogfather

Jerome seems to be upset that I did not put MyDD under open left groups of OpenLeft, and I feel terrible about that.  My intent with that blogroll was to list a sampling of institutions, not a list of blogs.  I included FDL, Dailykos, and Boingboing because they are institutions, and I also included Google and Avaaz.

For the record, OpenLeft is not funded by PFAW.  I have nothing but respect for Jerome and his time letting me explore the blog medium on his site.  I wish him well, and I have found his writing exceptionally useful.

by Matt Stoller 2007-07-09 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Moving On


This post is a 99 on the scale of lame.

by BooMan 2007-07-09 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Moving On

Is that on the metric, richter, or some other proprietary scale?

by Alex Urevick 2007-07-09 02:10PM | 0 recs
I agree.

A private email about the omission would have sufficed, and I am sure Chris would have immediately corrected it.  

The airing of dirty laundry is not what I like to see.  

As for Obama, Jerome can like, or not like, whomever he wants.  Doesn't matter to me.  

by Delaware Dem 2007-07-10 03:43AM | 0 recs
Origins and Genealogies

The feminist methodology generally admonishes us to seek not single points of origin, but genealogies, sequences of intertwining events which neither can nor should be entirely disentangled.

We should start at 2007 and work backwards as far as we find meaning. When we stop finding meaning, that point is not the "origin," but the farthest reach of our institutional history.

by msnook 2007-07-09 02:50PM | 0 recs
Stoller somewhere else...

...I am happy for him and happy for me.

by MNPundit 2007-07-09 05:21PM | 0 recs
as a Minnesotan

I liked his "blogging of the President" thing for MPR

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-09 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Moving On

Jerome is who drew me to this blog.  I still find it much more user-friendly and just better than DailyKos.

by Vox Populi 2007-07-10 05:46AM | 0 recs

A meaningless post from a nonentity who managed to hire two bloggers whose work actually meant something, and then drove them away through his incoherent rants.

Whatever -- enjoy your falling traffic, dude.

by Nonpartisan 2007-07-10 10:11PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads