It is a lot more than progressive just being pissed off.

The question is how to translate the emotions into something productive and constructive, such as a "Democratic contract with America".

"WE MEN, AND YES, WE ARE HETEROSEXUAL MEN, REFUSE TO HAVE WOMEN OR AMBIGUOUSLY GENDERED PEOPLE TELL US WHAT THEY BELIEVE."

We men, and yes, we are (mostly) heterosexual men, refuse to have anybody talk down to us and go parading around trumpeting their own perceived superiority. I have a feeling women and the GLBT community feel the same way. Bloody hell, most people here have no idea what your gender is. I don't think most people here care. All that matters is that your tone is condescending and pompous, and that's nobody's fault but yours.

If you want to communicate effectively, you need to work on your writing style and your interpersonal skills, not go running to management or posting caps-locked rants about phallic symbols and male domination. It's been said over and over again in any number of ways, but you refuse to have heterosexual men suggest you're anything but the epitome of eloquence and genius. Your sheer f@cking arrogance is the only thing that's kept you from being accepted here. That and your own self-aggrandizement, which is neither masculine nor feminine, simply obnoxious.

If all you want is for people to obey your rules, you should at least spell them out beforehand. You should also go start your own damn blog. I'll link to it. Hell, I'll even set it up for you. (Seriously.) You won't have the audience you get here, but you're not an entertainer, right? You could care less.

Sigh . . .

I thought you said that you "died."

"THEY ARE TOO ARROGANT TO ADMIT PROBLEMS MAY EXIST ON THEIR BLOG."  

"I believe someone such as myself with a BA in Rhetoric from Berkeley, an MA in Art History from The University of Chicago, and a PhD to come in Art History from The University of Chicago knows the definition of hubris."
---Metonym PhD-to-be

"I am not interested in self-aggrandizing rhetoric."
---Metonym PhD-to-be

"I have posted many diaries on Landrieu. I will refer you to the many who have lauded some of my diaries. My diaries are rigorous. Please reference my diary on the Petten Sea Wall. My diary on Hastert's bulldozer already discussed Hastert's resistance to the idea that New Orleans should be rebuilt.  And I compare this statement to the Dutch government's response to similar threats and problems in a diary entitled "The Dutch Model."  Both diaries can be found on the right margin of the opening page.  I do not find these conversations epistemologically interesting or intellectual.  I would rather focus your thoughts on my recent diaries.  I sincerely believe we should remain focused, read my incisive diaries, and discuss my ideas in an amicable and a productive manner. I just do not understand why people who claim to have a genuine concern about our political situation are not reading and responding to my diaries.  I am beginning to think that everyone here has very bad intentions, for if they were political, they would be engaging with me and my ideas. I really believe we need to focus on those things that are truly important: my diaries.  Read my diaries, get informed, be edified, learn what I think should be discussed, and know what it means to be an intelligent Democrat.  This is what I prescribe. Again, I posted information not discussed by anyone on the blog. Now read my penetrating diaries.  The diaries I posted contained information not considered by others. I find my diaries very exciting, and I think you should read a few of them and use them as models. My diary provides a roll call and quotations for a US Senator about the White House's opposition to funding for Louisiana's coasts.  I recommend everyone READ and RESPOND TO my rigorous presentation.  It is really impressive. I recommend you read my diary entry on Vitter. I provide a list of Senators who voted against an amendment propsed on 23 JUNE 2005 in a diary I posted yesterday.  I am shocked many of not responded to my diary.  I recommend you read and respond to my rigorous and very thoughtful diary. I notice I have this remarkable ability to analyze polls and election returns, and I can synthesize and streamline this information almost effortlessly.  This may explain why you have not responded to my diaries. Perhaps reading my diary entitled The McCaskill Strategy will help answer a few questions.  I posted it last night, and I believe one can find it in the right column on the main page.  I recommend you read it. It is also a particularly important time for readers to focus on my diaries.  I wonder if I should even bother."
"Please don't quote my writings without permission"
Metonym PhD-to-be

This, in a nutshell, shows why you are having problems. You show no respect to the community.

When we had 3 networks and cable was just starting, everyone predicted the demise of the networks (or the failure of cable).  Both thrived and, by feeding off of one another and generating press for one another in the form of popular shows, they actually grew their audiences in tandem.

Same thing with movies, various music formats, radio, books, etc.  The recent decline in movie attendance is actually being blamed on the quality of movies.  I say actually because I'm amazed to see an entertainment industry take an honest look at its problems rather than just blaming file sharing networks.

Just on the web, viewership to major news sites has not decreased as a result of the increase in blogs.  (I'm a prime example of that, rather than cutting one or the other, I just spend twice as much time reading online now...)

Another factor to consider is that the web is still growing.  We haven't approached a ceiling on viewership yet. :)

You're right about posting on little known sites though: nobody is reading what I'm writing.  That's why I'm over here, so I can at least participate in a conversation (still waiting for my week to be up on Kos).

OK, that last part was just a shameless plug.

So they'll ignore it, instead.

Who ever controls the pipes controls the Internet. I think the cable operators would like to take us back to the world where Prodigy, Compuserve and AOL could not talk to each other.

Note, many media organizations, TimeWarner, NewsCorp, Washington Post and other are also cable operators. I don't think FCC regulation is going to be covered in a very detailed way.

But yeah, the community nature of the site assuredly inflates the number of pageviews compared to single-page, no-comment conservative sites. That's self-evident. How significant that is will be up to the blog scholars like Chris and Matt Stoller.

Yes.  You measure unique visitors instead of 'hits' (individual files sent to the browser, including graphics, external CSS and javascript files, etc.) or pageviews.  It's the best metric for comparing site traffic since it measures, well, site traffic.

However, it still is not useful as a scientific indicator.  Why?  Because a lot of people will receive content from cache servers.  Especially more static content.  Really dynamic content (content that changes, such as with comments) is less likely to be served from a cache server.

What that means is that sites with lower traffic, or no comments, will be sorely under-represented when using this metric.  Which is actually another defect in the statistical method behind this post. ;)

PS I'm a Texas Dem too.  In Austin.

Moreover at some point the logic of the market will assert itself. If we want WETA to replace Jim Lehrer with Robert Parry, we simply need to keep linking to Parry until market forces assert themselves.=