Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

aka, brit on MyDD (full user rights restored, lol), has penned an excellent 'down the rabbit hole we go' account of the MyDD-DailyKos primary wars battle, which he fully participated within-- to an extent that surpassed my knowledge of the inner-workings of the matter.

It's a great article, written from the perspective of a pro-Obama supporter in the primaries, so go and read it all: This year's Democratic primaries weren't just fought on the hustings and in the television studios. Some of the fiercest battles took place in the blogosphere.

Its a compelling account, but I've a few inside-baseball quibbles that I'll point out. They don't point out flaws in the article, but just a different point of view (and if there were 10,0000 participants we'd have 10,000 pov's too).

First, I make it a point to distribute a majority of the income from ads on this site to other writers, and after the overhead and platform investment's I make, this has never been a profitable venture that I depend upon for revenue (which is how I'll always keep it too). I point that out, because there's a bit of 'finding the real reason' angle in the article that assumes MyDD was trying to be a haven for Clinton supporters against Obama for financial reasons. Peter joined the site in early March, but as all the users that had been here previous than that know, its was a site where the mission was to make all voices heard, and that was reflected with the Clinton-Obama debate as well. Even at the height of Clintonista support on this blog, there were still more Obama supporters that were welcome, and represented on the frontpage. This faulty suggestion was also made by the infamous fact-deprived Bob Johnson, which brings me to the second point. The reason why the diaries by Johnson were demoted was because he repeatedly, despite warning, wouldn't "refrain from diaries with inflammatory headlines", including 'racist connotations' which is clearly written in the guidelines to avoid. I think Peter and I came down on the same side of this issue, that labeling the Clinton's as racist, in any fashion, covert or overt, was not just counter-productive but a real affront to Democratic partisans (Obama did himself a great injustice by not being the one to take on that ugliness displayed by a few of his zealous supporters but that's another story). And as Peter notes, there were plenty of supporters of Clinton that went overboard and were banned, sometimes in groups as well. I will admit that the whole ratings flame-war was a issue that there was just no fair way to handle (and there still isn't). I participated on the edges of a massive building of the strongest blogging platform used on the web right now (for's blogs), and even though we pulled the best of the best from all blogs, we couldn't figure out a way to incorporate ratings, even though I believe that sort of community moderation is vital for the place to be less of a hierarchy and more of a community. Whatever editorial moderation's we attempted here with trying to limit the pile-on gang-ratings failed or at best just caused a meta-uproar. But, like all things, the primary came to and end and we found a way to restore those privileges to everyone that stayed to fight the next battle.

But anyway, go read the article, you'll love it as an insider to this world of political junkies.

Tags: 2008 (all tags)



Talk about echochamer

As I come to this site so often, you can't imagine how bizarre it is to find myself the subject of a Jerome frontpager. Now I know what they mean by echo chamber.

I never thought I would say this, but kudos to you Jerome for reading the flamewars piece, promoting it, and responding to some of the points it made. As you know, I've often been critical about the way things were run round here.  But you've taken your time out to explain how revenues fund other writers and your struggles with the moderation system. That's pretty transparent and accountable.

One teeny misunderstanding. I actually joined MYDD four years ago, and it's good to be back in my old identity here without having to use my samizdhat self of duende (I think you might have clipped its wings earlier this week).  

But come to think of it - haven't you just outed me Jerome? Haven't you just revealed my true real life identity, and thereby broken the site guidelines?

Shouldn't I now be removing your rec and ratings powers?

Oh the injustice of it all.

by brit 2008-09-26 02:39AM | 0 recs
by Blog Surrogate 57 2008-09-26 03:58AM | 0 recs
Re: slight typo

Tell me about it - the one I can't forgive is the editors rewriting LOLZCATS

My name is now mud here

by brit 2008-09-26 04:44AM | 0 recs
that's forgivable

... so long as it wasn't your doing ;-)

we expect you to know better! ;-)

by Blog Surrogate 57 2008-09-26 04:50AM | 0 recs
your writing on the subject is really good

very engaging.

But trolls date back to usenet (where I'm sure the term was coined), and that started in 1980. Man, the internets is old!

by Blog Surrogate 57 2008-09-26 04:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Talk about echochamer
Shouldn't I now be removing your rec and ratings powers?

At My Direct Dictatorship?  Who are you kidding?
by username 2008-09-26 04:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Talk about echochamer

Great article!  

by Blue Neponset 2008-09-26 05:09AM | 0 recs
That's total bullshit

I didn't even get a shoutout to my awesomeness, and yet Alegre gets like a paragraph?

Where's the justice?  Must one suck to get their props around here?  Wait, don't answer that.


Anyway, fun article, brit.  I noticed a few errors from my perspective, but unlike Jerome, I feel no need to editorialize o'ermuch.

Wait, did I just editorialize by flaming Jerome for editorializing?

Oh screw it.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-26 05:49AM | 0 recs
Re: That's total bullshit

A lot of shoutouts were lost in the edit, and the UK publishers found the names confusing (I mean WTF is a dramomicron).

Truth be told, this subject deserves a whole BOOK, or perhaps a screenplay. Like the Matrix, only darker

by brit 2008-09-26 06:09AM | 0 recs
Like the Matrix, but without the BS ending

Because there ain't no ending in sight.

Anyway, I formulated some more siginficant commentary below... and don't sweat any of the shout-outs.  They're essentially mindless ego-stroking anyway. :P

by Dracomicron 2008-09-26 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: That's total bullshit

If there is a movie, I want Lukas Haas to play me.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-09-26 06:12AM | 0 recs
I want Samuel Jackson to play me

Get these mothafukin trolls!

Off this mothafukin blog!

by spacemanspiff 2008-09-26 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: I want Samuel Jackson to play me

Is that your keyboard?  The one that says "Bad Motherfucker" on it?

by fogiv 2008-09-26 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: That's total bullshit

You should post the un-edited one here.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-26 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: That's total bullshit

That's an idea. But it's another 1000 words longer. Would I get a frontpage?

by brit 2008-09-26 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

meh, i totally joined mydd with the intent to troll clinton supporters, and i did in fact troll clinton supporters, and i was permabanned for said trolling.

and it was fun.
 but then again, i am a internet troll first, obama supporter second.

bottom line was i didn't like clinton because she insulted me ny trying to censor gta 3 for stupid, transparently political reasons, and i just don't like that at all.
politically motivated censorship goes heavily against my social libertarian ideology

by theninjagoddess 2008-09-26 02:57AM | 0 recs
trolls suck.

should I look forward to your long and involved rant on internet webcomics next, or will it be startrek versus starwars?

I too dislike censorship -- but competency first! We need it, and how!

by Blog Surrogate 57 2008-09-26 03:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

Heh.  Our barrel here may have fewer fish these days, but they're just as run to shoot.  And it's as bad an idea as ever to draw the attention of Censorship Barbie.

by username 2008-09-26 04:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

As droll an account as that was what good is served by reopening the wounds of that painful period?  Are we so far down the road that this schism among supporters is now resolved and the vicious enmity of that time truly healed?  I wonder.  I have tried to honour the spirit of chivalry and collective Democratic aspirations, and enthusiastically welcomed any number of former Hillary supporters to our common cause, but just reading of it raises my hackles again in spite of a conscious commitment to unity and collegial good-will.

There are still plenty of bad memories lingering just under the surface, speaking for myself, and blogging here was a continuous test of patience and forbearance for months on end.  I take brit's point about the lessons in polemics and argument but sometimes these long-standing, oppressive experiences breed a resolve which can live in hollow darkness for a long time.  Revenge, as they say in NY, is a dish best served cold but is nonetheless a long anticipated feast.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-09-26 03:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

Unfortunately, as you know, people only want to publish things that are relatively current. Though it was edited down, the most impressive phase of it all as far as I was concerned was the unity moment, my getting to know and admire Clintonistas, and realising how the frame of online debate - especially over identity politics - makes you see offence where none is intended.

I don't look back on those days with anger - at least not against others - and unless it's already there and ready to flare anyway, I don't think this piece should reignite any flame wars.

by brit 2008-09-26 03:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

No, and your point is well taken.  The unity part however was a short and sweet denouement to what was, for me, the longest period of my life where I had sustained such continual and unremitting abuse amid frustrating intellectual conflict.  There are many Hillary advocates whom I liked and respected, but some of it was just plain nasty and bereft of content.  It's very personal, to be sure, and as you point out the anger must be present to be triggered.  Obviously in my case it is and while I have set aside any number of personal feelings in the interest of supporting Obama's candidacy in keeping with the ethos of his campaign, yet it's pretty clear there have arisen, for me, some unresolved political enmities that I will have to deal with at the appropriate time further down the track.

I've never participated in such a long, complex political process before, using my own thoughts and words to try and advance a candidacy or ideal, and it has been a very rewarding experience, but reading your piece with interest I realise it apparently has had, for me, a dark side too.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-09-26 03:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

Shaun I agree with every word you say. However, much of that darkness was already there, and on issues of identity bigotry, especially race, I do believe that for all the venom, it was the beginning of a new conversation. Hard words are still better than unexposed resentment and unconscious prejudices. It was very painful, but we all woke up in some way.

At least for Dems, I'm beginning to hope the whole process, although tragic in some ways, was also cathartic

But I am an irrepressible optimist.

by brit 2008-09-26 04:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

Me too.  I think all Obama supporters are, in some ways.  Maybe all bloggers if you cast a wider net, though that is harder to credit sometimes.

I guess all I'm saying is that your retrospective made me realise that for all the intellectual stimulation and sense of engagement I have received from my experience blogging here that there is, again for me, an emotional tariff that has been levied that is just as likely to motivate me to become in future an activist against some political 'identities' as I was originally an advocate for something which I found inspiring.  Maybe it is just a defect in my character which I should be concerned about but it seems more like an unanticipated consequence of my experience.  I agree that a thick skin is a necessary quality for a habitual blogger but there still seems to be a subtle transformation that occurs slowly within when one engages one's mind and feelings in such a bitter and antagonistic debate for a long period of time.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-09-26 04:18AM | 0 recs
"Thick skin" is really only another way

of saying "being able to work through your emotions".  It doesn't mean you don't have them, it doesn't mean you can't be hurt, it just means that you are able to ratchet them down over time and not allow them to master you.

All of us here are human.  All of us get "hurt" by the negativity directed at us by others.  I would be dishonest to say that I have enjoyed running the gamut of emotions during this season (and I, too, have never gotten this involved in a political contest before) - but I am glad that I did (and glad a lot of it is over ;~).  

Misfortune is fortunate in it's own way, it makes stronger and more interesting individuals out of all of us.


by chrisblask 2008-09-26 04:31AM | 0 recs
Well said blask

congrats Brit for getting this piece up.

I'd like to add, that the flame wars were fucking epic and I'd
like to thank Jerome for giving us a place to engage in strong debate.

You were fair in your article Brit and god knows how hard that would of been for many of us. Jerome is a class act even if he was overly harsh to many of us during the primary wars.

Kudos all around and see you in the troll diaries and on the Motley Moose!

by spacemanspiff 2008-09-26 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"
Good one Shaun.  The emotional tariff for a great many of us was the jaw-dropping display of intellectual dishonesty and sports fan grade rooting and general unfairness on prominent rec list display in these and other pages.   I've certainly never experienced anything like it from my own side in my 60 years.  Numerous and vocal Democrats turned out to be very nearly as bankrupt as the repugs in that regard, and it was not a pretty sight.
  Thank heavens it's all behind us now, right?
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-09-26 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

Yeah, um, thank heavens...

by Shaun Appleby 2008-09-26 01:25PM | 0 recs
Mojo for irrepresible optimism !~)

This is the point.

Hard words are still better than unexposed resentment and unconscious prejudices. It was very painful, but we all woke up in some way.

Over the years, on the Intertoobs, talk radio and just in physical public gatherings (they still have those, too), I have accumulated a barnacular encrustation of comments from others about how they "could never do that".  "What if I say somethings stupid?  What if I'm wrong?"

Be wrong.  Early and often.

For the same reason that we need to allow the stupidest amongst us (White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, etc) to speak, we must each take the tiny risk of discomfort and say our own imperfect piece.  Let Ahmadinnerjacket speak at Columbia, how else can you let the world see an auditorium-full of people laugh until they cry at a Feared World Leader ("We don't have homosexuals in Iran" [the crowd goes wild] "What?")?

This is what humans do that cattle do not: we communicate.  None of the commons sources of fear can rob us of our humanity, only our silence can.


by chrisblask 2008-09-26 04:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Mojo for irrepresible optimism !~)

Knowing lots of American dems, in fact having been married to one, I was always amazed how they more than most would skirt over issues like race and religion, almost as if by not talking about them, the tensions would go away.

It's one of the few areas of public life in the US where you guys are more English than the English and buttoned up.

I'm graced with a racially very mixed family, so it's easier for me, and of course the history here is very different.

But despite the angst and the upset, I wouldn't have been anywhere else in the world during the first half of the year: these were vital conversations. And yes, though belligerently, snarkily, often contemptuously, we carried on talking.

That is a major victory

by brit 2008-09-26 04:48AM | 0 recs
maybe you're as white as snow

but I'm not! And, remembering that helps me remember that people got heated. I take my commitment and refocus it through a Clintonista's mind, and I see what kind of blinding rage the slow defeat would have caused.

Especially when they were so alike on positions.

To me, it all comes down to understanding "they didn't mean it". They didn't mean to offend (didja guys? amiwrong?). They were simply standing up for what they believed, and some did it entirely too emphatically -- which I did myself, occasionally.

I think back to the man going to a Howard Ford, Jr. Rally, and saying "I ain't never voted for no n-- black man before." He was willing to do something new, and to remember that some words are probably best not used at a Democratic rally.

I think back to an old busdriver that I met, who had once thrown a brick into a Jewish store. He told me that was the worst thing he had ever done, and how he regretted it sorely (being a kid, he couldn't have paid back the window even then...).

People can change, and sometimes people do things that aren't exactly them at their best. Do not believe that when you do something wrong, it was a bad day for you -- and refuse to give someone else the same benefit of the doubt! (most people do this. standard sociopsychology).

by Blog Surrogate 57 2008-09-26 04:14AM | 0 recs
Re: maybe you're as white as snow

Yeah, I always tried to keep it clean though couldn't resist sniping sometimes, but that's not the point.  Perhaps too personal a subject for these boards but while I bear no enmity to individual posters for very long I have noticed an underlying bitterness which time has not effaced.  We'll see, it may just be post-primary ennui.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-09-26 04:24AM | 0 recs
Re: maybe you're as white as snow

All too true Blogsurrogate. And it was all too easy to assume the worst of someone because they didn't support Obama in those days. I look on shame at SOME of my assumptions now - it must have been horrible to have been considered a racist just because you didn't support Obama. That might have been true of some dems, but not many.

by brit 2008-09-26 04:40AM | 0 recs
Re: maybe you're as white as snow

Did Clintonistas "mean it?"  A few probably did.  I agree that some were republicans trying to keep the fight going for obvious reasons.  And some were long time party members and activists who feel dismissed and devalued by the party they thought shared their principles.  They aren't sore losers or whackos, they are reasonable people who feel they have legitimate grievances.  

I believe that as a party, we will learn from this election and improve.  Maybe we have already learned.  I've noticed that our candidates and their surrogates are being fairly careful in their handling of Sarah Palin.  Perhaps they now recognize that attacks perceived as "sexist" can have unwanted repercussions.  I like to think they are taking the lessons of this divisive primary to heart.


by half nelson 2008-09-26 05:08AM | 0 recs
here's the thing:

they didn't mean all the unwarranted attacks, etc. Neither did I (and I called Obama a coward more than once!).

Legit grievances still need to be dealt with. Democrats will get a lot more mileage by talking and being more aware of each other. But thanks! You've just given me my firstish diary (err... first on this account).

by Blog Surrogate 57 2008-09-26 05:31AM | 0 recs
Yes, but Dear Shaun

You kept coming back, didn't you?  It was a painful addiction. ;)

by GFORD 2008-09-26 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, but Dear Shaun

I'm still here.  But there's a coiled spring inside of me just waiting for 2012.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-09-26 12:33PM | 0 recs
Except me, apparently.

Jerome, can you please restore priviledges to RisingTide? That's my first account here, and I'd luv to have it back.

by Blog Surrogate 57 2008-09-26 03:53AM | 0 recs
That's you?

Hey man! Nice seeing you around.

by spacemanspiff 2008-09-26 05:23AM | 0 recs

my other name was BlogSurrogate57. ;-)

Yep, i'm up to three. Maybe if they'd tell me why I got banned, I'd go away.

by Blog Surrogate 57 2008-09-26 05:27AM | 0 recs
Blog Surrogate is one of the best handles eva

Spacemanspiff is not my first handle and for the sake of peace I won't divulge my origial name. That dude is dead and spaceman has only had 2 warnings and full rec rate.

by spacemanspiff 2008-09-26 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Blog Surrogate is one of the best handles eva

Warnings?  This is by no means my first account, but I've seen only one warning for something stupid I did a long time ago.  I guess that's one of the things that gets me -- when the Eye of Sauron catches you and either silences you or takes away your rec/rate, there's never an explanation, or even an indication of what has just happened.  But hey, it's the adversity and arbitrary "justice" that keep me coming back here.

by username 2008-09-26 06:32AM | 0 recs
blog surrogate was a cool thing to choose

when i had just been banned.

It's kinda sad that people think it means that I'm 57 == it's a ref to Pittsburgh, btw.

by Blog Surrogate 57 2008-09-26 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: ayup.

I don't think you were banned. The account slipped into the black hole "anonymous" user group. Thats just some scoop glitch that happens once in a while.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-26 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: ayup.

People get disappeared "randomly", huh?

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-09-26 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Except me, apparently.


by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-26 08:38AM | 0 recs
Hey, Jerome...


by sricki 2008-09-26 04:11AM | 0 recs
The Evolution of the Public Forum

The moderation of Internet blogs is an interesting conundrum, and one that imo needs to be resolved to take the value of these forums to the next - and crucial - level. Being an Internet Security Geek and sociology junky, this has been on my mind for decades and I think we can begin to see the Promised Land dimly in the distance.

"How do online forums become the place where society communicates amongst itself, develops solutions and creates public policy?"

First USENET flourished and was effectively destroyed by emergent SPAM.  Then the blogs came along and provided a richer matrix of discussion, but even now the flaws in that diamond are demonstrating their weaknesses.

even though we pulled the best of the best from all blogs, we couldn't figure out a way to incorporate ratings, even though I believe that sort of community moderation is vital for the place to be less of a hierarchy and more of a community

I have my own thoughts on how this might be accomplished and will do my part to try them out as it is possible to implement them.  However it is done it will be interesting to see how all of this plays out, because if we are to realize the necessary maturation of the public forum as touched on in Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game.

As you know, some of us have launched down the path trod by many before us by founding yet another MyDD-descended progressive blog (Motley Moose), which however it turns out will play yet another part in searching for that ultimate moment when not only the technical and political junkies argue but politics itself occurs.  As Sean Tevis and many others have noted, the communication of our elected (and hired) officials must be visible to the entire population, and the ultimate expression of that will become real when these conversations are not just copied into the public medium but actually occur here.

I commend you for addressing Peter's article head-on and providing credit and commentary where you feel it is due.  Also for doing all you have done, for better or worse, to nurse the tottering tyke of Public Discourse forward.  Moreover, I commend you for doing so in your own name and taking the hits that come with that, I hope more of the commenters in these public forums take a hint from that.  We may not always (or even often ;~) agree with each other, but that isn't a requirement of discourse: engagement is.

And thank you, Peter, for providing another paving stone in the pathway leading to evolved and interactive Democracy.  There are still only Zero of us out here, and educating the Unwashed is more  productive than preaching to our Choirs.


by chrisblask 2008-09-26 04:14AM | 0 recs
do check out \b\ on 4chan

internet, it's now a language!

by Blog Surrogate 57 2008-09-26 04:18AM | 0 recs
Re: do check out \b\ on 4chan


by chrisblask 2008-09-26 04:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

Same here, I was member of mydd since 2004, though I was an infrequent user, as the site was pretty small (basically, the size openleft is right now, but with even less frontpage diaries).  However, I starting participating more actively here with the primaries, mainly because of the sheer filth against Obama being promoted without punishment here.  This was before Wright, before Ohio and Texas, before "bitter-gate".  Back in February, when Obama came out of Super Tuesday with more delegates than Clinton, people like Larry Johnson were already going crazy.  He wrote a particularly nasty piece on dailykos which mocked Obama on a racial level and he was banned from the site as a result.  On mydd, the very same diary stayed at the top of the rec list.

Sometimes, the diaries were so spectacularly awful (one with a video of 9/11 footage mixed with Reverend Wright comes to mind) that the only thing we could do was spam the comment section with cat pics and mess with the tags.

A lot of people would rather not talk about the primary any more.  I for one actually look back on it as a tremendous learning experience.  When the next contested Democratic nomination comes, I think all of us who made it through these trying months will be able to approach it with far more rationality and reason than the newly registered masses.  And maybe, just maybe we won't flip out and go crazy over the small things...

by Skaje 2008-09-26 04:17AM | 0 recs

Are we going to get T-Shirts?

"I survived the 2008 primary flamewars"

by zonk 2008-09-26 04:24AM | 0 recs
I'd buy one.

by chrisblask 2008-09-26 04:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

That was awesome.  Thanks for posting it.

by juliewolf 2008-09-26 04:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"


With all due respect;

Even it this retrospective you display serious bias.  

You say Obama did himself a injustice by not "taking on" the displayed ugliness yet absolve Clinton (by contrast)from the same responsibilities.  

Obama is/was no more responsible for his over zealous supporters than Sen. Clinton is for Texas Darlin & Alegre, Flowbee or the true racist who supported her candidacy, some of these people she actually new and had contact with.  

Until you can find a way to discuss these topics with a more even handed way it's difficult to appreciate your post as anything other than a attempt to re-write history.

by nextgen 2008-09-26 04:27AM | 0 recs
Clinton's issue

And now we see that Bill Clinton is subversively working to torpedo the Obama campaign.

Look at his recent stint on Letterman praising McCain while barely mentioning Obama, followed by his lovefest of Palin on the view and then his 100% defense of McCain's crazy decision to 'suspend' the campaign on Wednesday.

I do not see how anyone can now argue that Clinton is now working against Obama.  He still wants Obama to lose.   His feelings were hurt and now he is going to be as petulant as McCain.

This is exacly why I was against Hillary.  Not because of her, but because of Bill.  I am sorry, he had his 8 years and now it is time for him to be off the stage.

The Democratic Party is not his party, it is a party that he is a member of.

by gavoter 2008-09-26 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's issue

Since former presidents are supposed to be somewhat nonpartisan, I cut him some slack on this.  He's clearly still bitter that Hillary didn't get her turn -- and maybe still sleeping on the couch -- but as long as he's no worse than neutral, it's fine by me.

by username 2008-09-26 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

He really is re-writing history.  The fact is, Jerome blatantly supported Hillary via all sorts of ethically challenged means, all the while exclaiming "Who, me?"  

There were ample warnings along the way from intelligent folks on both sides that his lack of leadership was hurting this site.  And his front page articles were most often troll quality screeds, nothing more.

Up until a week or so ago, and a few days after I pointed it out, the primary delegate counter was still on the front page.  What possible purpose could that have had after the convention?

No, rather than this type of post, Jerome really owes the people here who make (and have made) this site what it is for a long time, an unqualified apology.  The tactics he used against people who all along were just here to advance the candidacy of Obama have left a stain that won't be scrubbed clean by his mere reference to someone else's explanation of who it all went down.  He owes it to us, and himself, to do some work looking inside his own head and putting forth an effort here in a true mea culpa piece.

And let's never forget that all along, Jerome backed the losing horse and supported the idea that the rules needed changing in the middle of the game.  Not that this is an indictment, lots of people are wrong about a lot of things, but it does taint his status as "guru" here, doesn't it?  And the changing of the rules issue, to me, calls into question his honesty and character.

I don't post here very often any more.  Kos covers it for me and I don't have to deal with the trolls.  I wish you all well and I can't help but check in on occasion...  But I doubt this site will ever be to me, what it once was (before my original username was banned.)

by SpanishFly 2008-09-26 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"



by nextgen 2008-09-26 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

I always thought "Great Orange Satan" was coined by Atrios or someone like that in reference to the blogroll spat.  Is it really an artifact of this primary?  Because, to be honest, it doesn't sound like a term that actual critics of Daily Kos would come up with, it sounds like a term someone would come up with to mock those critics.

by Steve M 2008-09-26 05:23AM | 0 recs
i thought that was oreilley's doing

... but i am tvless, so can someone corroborate?

by Blog Surrogate 57 2008-09-26 05:28AM | 0 recs
I think it was O'Lielly.

He didn't use that phrase but he said something on his show about DailyKos being evil.

by GFORD 2008-09-26 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: I think it was O'Lielly.

If I remember correctly, it was Atrios (or somebody equally snarky), who came up with it in response to a spate of over-the-top anti-DailyKos stories in the traditional media a few years ago.  And you're right; that string of stories was sparked by O'Reilly's attacks.

Which is why I found it so odd that some people here were using the phrase "Great Orange Satan" to actually attack DailyKos, when that particular appellation was created to make fun of attacking DailyKos!

by Balloonz 2008-09-26 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

Well done Jerome on being big enough to feature this article. While you begin to explain your attitude towards the primary and the flame wars here, I hope that when this is all over you will sit down and write a diary that explains in more detail your position on the primary and why supported Hillary Clinton so strongly.

by wasder 2008-09-26 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

by alyssa chaos 2008-09-26 06:07AM | 0 recs

I came here from the Penny Arcade primary politics thread because my company's firewall descended to cover "video game" sites, blogs, and webforums (though to say that Penny Arcade is just a video game or webforum site is doing it a disservice: video gamers can be some of the smartest and best informed people online), but still let me go to political news sites, which is how MyDD and Kos are catagorized, despite their open-source blogging forum-like nature.

I came here instead of Kos for a similar reason to brit; this is where the real action was.  This is where the debate was.  This is where the misconceptions and flat-out lies (on both... or should I say 'all three' sides, if we're counting the wingnut trolls and their sockpuppets, which probably rivaled the number of authentic posters at one time) were, the things that needed to be debunked with a quickness, because it became increasingly obvious to me that the television media illuminati couldn't tie their shoes without checking the blogs first; if we were reporting lies without contest, of course the TV was going to spout those same lies.  

The sieves of information through which the networks distributed information to the masses had become small cups that scooped information out of the vast sea of the internet; not only was there concern over what they scooped out, but also how much (more appropriately: how little).  

So we here, and the other websites with simliar missions, have carved out an important piece of history.  If Obama wins, we will be able to claim a significant amount of credit... and also blame if Obama does not.  Regardless, our importance to future politics cannot and will not be denied.

Kudos to Brit, and Jerome for reporting on the piece.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-26 06:10AM | 0 recs

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Oh wait...

Seriously, this belongs to us all and I do think it's part of a historic shift.

And looking at what's happening today, for all our public quarrels, it seems to be the real civil war, a deadly silent lethal civil war, has actually been happening among republicans

by brit 2008-09-26 06:32AM | 0 recs
The silence is deafening

The Republicans have been teetering on the brink of losing their mismatched coalition for some time now... More than anything, the Sarah Palin selection was about re-securing the evangelical base that have been the Republican foot soldiers for decades despite getting nothing out of the deal except empty promises.

When Democrats fight, especially now in the era of blogging and candidates that understand meta-commentary ("No Drama Obama"), it tends to be a big knockdown dragout.  When Republicans fight, most everyone toes the party line in public and express misgivings behind the scenes.  Which is healthier?

by Dracomicron 2008-09-26 07:25AM | 0 recs

So they say -
Is the root of all evil today
But if you ask for a ride
you'll find its no surprise
they're giving none away


The article correctly documents that Jerome Armstrong banned diarists who were writing, essentially factually correct articles , simply
because he was trying to lower the signal to noise
ratio of hillary vs. obama supporters.

The article states, without disagreement from
Jerome  here, that this was a decision motivated
by commercial considerations.

Funny thing. The article cites wikipedia as an example of a successful model where bloggers and writers contribute, but he failed to mention the fact that no reader would ever take seriously an encyclopedia entry where the moderator of the site deleted opposing points of view and ensured only a certain class of encyclopedia entry was published, to accomplish an advertising agenda.

Writing as a former front page myDD'er who was posting in favor of Obama, then subsequently banned from the front page.

But in the end. The specific post that got me banned from the front page, was a very telling one. Hillary wanted to meet John McCain on economic grounds - giving people a tax rebate for gas.  Obama opposed it. He said it wouldn't work. And now is not the time for half measures.

And so, the same is true for the blogosphere.
Did you know you can write blog posts on your own blog, about products - and the advertisers will pay you for them? Lamest articles you've ever seen.

The yardstick I use here at myDD is the quality of writing, which has improved marginally since the end of the Clinton campaign. A true sign that moderation of any blog - is a delicate art that requires objectivity over commercial gain.

by Trey Rentz 2008-09-26 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Money


Whats really going on, in fact, with simpler sites like google and wikipedia - is this: the average internet end user is now capable of building models for themselves. google , like wikipedia - are providing structured data for models that are built statistically, not theoretically, by the end user.  We can dive in as deep as we want to on a particular issue.
The clarity of being able to find an exception that proves the rule - gives average people - who are not political junkies, but simply, people who can build their own conclusions if given correct data - is what lessens the confusion of the commenters.

I remember when the diary the author wrote of, was banned.  I was writing for a long while about how google realized, hey - we just give statistical models instead of theoretical ones, and in that one simple action - completely changed the world of advertising.

mydd is a pretty cool place to be. Sometimes.
but remember. our country won their independence because an average citizen understood this simple concept, and acted upon it:

No taxation without representation.

never underestimate the comments section. its usually better than the post.

by Trey Rentz 2008-09-26 06:55AM | 0 recs
Agree about the comments section.

Sometimes when I had something I thought particularly insightful to say, I would keep waiting for an open thread to appear.  I'm sure others were doing that too.

by GFORD 2008-09-26 07:07AM | 0 recs
Comments section

Most comments sections on news sites are such cesspools of racism, sexism, and banal talking points that they're not worth reading; we can be pretty bad here, but I think that it's important to make sure that a diary's debate is immediately framed by the comments, because otherwise we get myopic and don't take more than one side into account.

I actually got an account on Politico, because, while I don't intend to sit around reading the comments section on a right-wing site compulsively, when I do check out a story there (and they are pretty good, if right-leaning), I can't let some of the lies in the comment section stand without being called out at least once by someone rational and balanced.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-26 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

"Even at the height of Clintonista support on this blog, there were still more Obama supporters that were welcome, and represented on the frontpage."

Whaaat? Singer was Obama, you were hard not-Obama, Beeton was soft Clinton. Everyone else was an irregular front-pager.

by MNPundit 2008-09-26 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

Let's all gather around for the MyDD circle-jerk!

by UMassforObama 2008-09-26 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

Interesting read. I pretty much stopped coming by during the months long period between when Hillary lost and when she finally conceded. Hopefully Obama will win and we will never have to go through another Clinton primary (except settling scores in the Virginia gubernatorial primary).

by Bob Brigham 2008-09-26 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

Funny that I'll be on the side against McAuliffe too.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-26 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Peter Jukes: "Flaming for Obama"

I see some folks still can't let some things go. I wish you folks good luck and much valium on November 4th.

by Iceblinkjm 2008-09-26 09:05AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads