The point was that Gore was losing by far more than Kerry or Clinton. Just because all x, y and z are les than a, does not mean that x, y and z are all the same size. Is that so hard to figure out?
"This is framing. I don't expect you not to take offense, but it's something Democrats need to do more often."
Ok, fine. I wasn't aware that framing meant that you were allowed to just be a jackass to whoever you liked, but since it does, here goes: --I find your entire argument baseless and utterly pitiful, supported only by your repeated contraictions of yourself, and the absurd notion that the netroots are somehow going to draft or recruit Gore into the race, and the teenage tendency to capitlize words as a substitute for actual articulation.
Did I frame the argument correctly? Am I doing it like more Democrats should now? And if this discussion is a waste of time, why don't you delete this diary?
It doesn't matter much when Gore is behind by 7 points and Clinton, the best performing Democrat, is behind Giuliani by 11. And this doesn't take into account any campaigning done by Gore, while Clinton has been running a campaign for image for the last four years--I would naturally expect her to have an image advantage. If anything, this poll shows that Kerry has terrible numbers.
"Ok, fine. I wasn't aware that framing meant that you were allowed to just be a jackass to whoever you liked, but since it does, here goes: --I find your entire argument baseless and utterly pitiful, supported only by your repeated contraictions of yourself, and the absurd notion that the netroots are somehow going to draft or recruit Gore into the race, and the teenage tendency to capitlize words as a substitute for actual articulation."
Oh boo hoo. Speaking of articulation, what contradicitions are you talking about? I'm honestly interested since I'd love to improve my argument for the next time around. I'm also interested because most of the feedback I've gotten has been very positive.
And I don't back away from calling your argument pitiful, because it is. I don't understand how you can read Gore's mind and speak so matter-of-factly about his decisions when he's done nothing more than what any politician would do when faced with the same question. But what's more pitiful is that you argue that a netroots campaign can't have some effect on promoting candidacies, which is one of the most fallacious and self-contradicting things I've ever seen you say. Do you truly believe that all these people have no collective impact on the way a politician thinks? You surely can't be serious. There wouldn't BE a "netroots" if that were true.
I think this discussion is very important, but this is the wrong time for it to happen. I won't delete this diary because I stand by what I said. I believe we should move on to issues that need to be addressed and come back to this when it's appropriate--at no point did I suggest forgetting the issue of 2008.
We've all got a lot of respect for you, and you really don't have to go all attack dog on this guy to keep that respect.
Beneath the empricism lurks something or other.
Chris had lost his temper in this thread, and I was commenting on that. It was obvious to me that that was the case, perhaps not so much to you. It surprised me, because it's not the mode I expect from him.
Please notice that I was talking about the respect I and so many readers have for him when I mentioned his attack dogginess. I just felt like his anger got the best of him in responding to some of the static he was getting.
Chris wrote just the other day about how far we are from having a mature blogosphere. And he's so right about this. And it seems to me that one of the little details that keep us immature is the speed that discussions become heated and accusatory, names get thrown around and low ratings get delivered before we're even sure what the hell anyone is really talking about. Anyone can fall into this, but I think the established bloggers and the front-pagers could help matters if they weren't the first to get defensive and overly "robust."
It's no sign of the end times if Chris Bowers loses his temper in a Gore/Clinton thread. I'm just saying that he looks like the bigger man if he saves some of that temper for the people who are really asking for it.
In other news: you rule Gary, and a 1 rating from you is like a 3 from someone else.
In yet other news: Just look at the attack dog comment as robust disagreement.
Hugs and kisses.
