Edwards wrapping up the left blogsphere & Obama's got the Millennial's

Aaron Myers's spams me from the info@edwards.com email addy to inform me about: "...two new additions to the John Edwards for President campaign team. Amanda Marcotte.. as our Blogmaster.... Melissa McEwan as the campaign's Netroots Coordinator."

Amanda Marcotte blogs on Pandagon about becoming a Edwards staffer.

Melissa McEwan blogs on Shakespeare's Sister about her move to Edwards.

This is a interesting angle of hires from the netroots for Edwards. Shakespeare's Sister and Pandagon are blogs that I think would be characterized as 'ideologically-centered' as oppossed to being 'big-tent' democratic blogs.

This is actually the first move by the Edwards campaign in the netroots that I find ground-breaking. Similar to the work that we were doing on Mark Warner's PAC, with the tech and gaming blogosphere. If they look at the blogrolls of Amanda on Pandagon, and the "blog props" of Shakespeare's Sister, maybe Danny Glover and Conn Carroll will be able to tell the DC bubble that a whole new blogosphere exists on the left that engages politics.

Some of them consist of the bloggers that vehemently disagreed with the Crashing The Gate statement that single-issue groups need to put aside their pet issues to work toward the cause of a Democratic majority (the recipe for the success of '06). That said, this move by both Amanda and Melissa represents the sort of pragmatism necessary to actually work in politics.

It's also a great move at mobilizing feminist and women bloggers behind Edwards instead of Hillary Clinton. Sure, that doesn't matter much in the early states of IA, NV, NH, SC, where organizing is king, but it will with fundraising and organizing beyond the first tier of presidential contests. But most of all, it's a move on the issues to the liberal side of the spectrum.  

What this move symbolizes in the blogosphere is that Edwards team understands how to move to the left on the issues. The early move by Edwards to consolidate the liberal wing of the Democratic party at the beginning is very smart. It's how McGovern won the 1972 Democratic primary (I've been reading Gary Hart's "Right from the Start"). As Hart described McGovern's tactic:

He would provide a legitamate candidacy for the disenchanted but was clearly committed to the Democatic Party... his ability to reconcile dissident and regular elements in the party. From this, all present concurred in the so-called left-centrist strategy: co-opt the left, precluding the possibility of other liberal candidates, and at the same time, make the campaign open and acceptable to party regulars. The issues, together with early organizational activity, would help nail down the left, but the most convincing argument for the party regulars, the center, would be orgainzational strength-- visctories in the middle and later primaries and superior numbers of people in the caucuses in the non-primary states.
For Edwards, that show of "organizational strength" means wins in both Iowa and Nevada.

There's also an interesting article out on Barack Obama by DC's CW, Harold Fineman, Is Obama Losing Web War? It seems to confirm the grumble I've heard about his lacking active organizing in the early states and their teams non-understanding of the netroots. That's not to say they won't come to the table and compete within the next 6 months (I think with regards to early state organizing that they will), but with Edwards staking out the ideological left, and Obama stalking a more non-partisan position, Obama could lose the competitive advantage that he gained in street cred from his uber-left stand against the Iraq invasion in 2002. His team's tactical planning, nail down the big money first and organize later, doesn't understand the way that they net has transformed presidential politics.

But there's also an argument to be made, on Obama's behalf, that he's endeavoring on an internet strategy that targets youth as his added-value to the turnout model. On Friday, he's attending a "Students For Barack Obama" Facebook rally. Obama is lucky to have this happening on his behalf, but he's smart to embrace and encourage the effort. Now, I've seen the extra-youth turnout models fall flat on their face in Iowa (with Dean), but Obama's appeal to the Millennial generation, as oppossed to Edwards appeal to the ideological left of older more traditionally politically active generations, is unique and full of possibilities in the big-state primaries.

I'm attending the DNC winter meetings on Friday and Saturday, so I'll hopefully be blogging alot more about the presidential candidates.



Display:


Edwards (3.00 / 1)

Has Edwards explained the Iran comments? I was getting ready to support him but those shook me badly and made all the old suspicions flare up again.

I have not been able to find his elaboration on those comments.


by MNPundit on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:30:18 AM EST

Re: Edwards (3.00 / 3)

This has been his position throughout.

...The international community must confront Iran with a clear choice, give up your  nuclear ambitions or suffer the consequences. Right now this means UN Security Council actions to impose sanctions.

But we have more options than doing nothing or using force. That's a false choice. We have many more diplomatic tools to use and we already use every single one of them. For the United States, this means more active and creative diplomacy, including a willingness to engage the Iranian leadership directly.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:59:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards (none / 0)

I'm sure he'll apologize and many will forgive and forget he made them... like they forgive and forget the fact he sponsored the war legislation, spoke in favor of the bill, voted yes to the original patriot act, didn't comeout against the war in 2004 and only waited to apologize when the national polls showed that the country was against it and, if you believe Bob Graham, knew the info used to go to war was BS, as Graham claims everyone in the Senate Intelligence committee did in a WaPo Op ed piece that came out a week after Edward's apology.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:00:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards (none / 0)

Hence why I said "old suspicions" as all the things you have done made me extremely wary of him and it was only in the last couple months that I was starting to warm to him--because he HAS gone out there are worked since 2004.


by MNPundit on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards (none / 0)

Things I did?  I assume you meant he did.

He has worked, I agree.  He is a good person.  But this whole... OH HE HAS BALLS OF STEEL AND IS SO BRAVE that some people on MyDD are trying to sell is BS and really starting to annoy...  The fact that he apologized does impress me more than Hillary, but the fact he didn't apologize during the 2004 campaign and didn't apologize until polls showed a majority of American's opposing the war says a lot to me.  I love his views on UHC (which Obama shares) and his views on poverty, and part of me is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, another part of me wonders if these views are just him blowing smoke up my ass, since I don't trust him with all the Iraq stuff... I really wish I had a way to know if the Graham stuff is true... I tend to believe it, but I don't know 100%... maybe if a transcript is found... But if Graham is right and the entire Senate Intelligence committee knew that Bush's reasons were BS... Then Edward's apology was a political lie to gain favor with the growing antiwar people.  Don't know if it was, but the more I have been looking into Edward's the more I am doubting him even as a second choice candidate...


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:30:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards (2.00 / 2)

I agree, we should not forgive any candidate that votes against the best interests, or THE interests of the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party.  Even if they come to realize those votes were a mistake and have learned from them.

Obama also is a Harvard-educated lawyer...He has cast hundreds of votes, but not all of them conventionally liberal:
  • He supported the Republicans' welfare reform in 1997
  • voted "present" on a ban of partial-birth abortions
  • voted "present" on reducing the first-violation carrying of a handgun from a felony to a misdemeanor
  • opposed dockside gambling and supported Governor George Ryan's "Illinois FIRST" program, including tax hikes
  • he voted "present" on a bill to prohibit the carrying of a concealed firearm
  • voted "present" on a requirement to give notice of a minor's abortion to parents
  • and supported charter schools.

Obama took predictably Democratic positions in the primary campaign, supporting abortion rights, gun control, affirmative action and gay rights and opposing the Bush tax cuts. He opposed any constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but he does not support allowing such marriages, favoring instead the legalization of same-sex unions.

So, regardless of whether or not a candidate has come to recognize their vote, or spineless lack of a vote in this case, we should not forgive them.

I think that leaves us with...Kucinich.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:23:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards (none / 0)

1) Find me a real source, not a hack lawyer's blog.  And just a point of reference, Several Dems supported the welfare reform, including Clinton who signed it into law, Edwards holds the same view of Gay Marriage... or at least that is what he said during his last campaign.

2) I didn't say that candidates can't be forgiven... I said that the Meme on MyDD that Edwards is courageous for his apology and has balls of steel is a big amount of Bullshit.  And if Graham is telling the truth, then Edwards knew all along and still authorized the war which to me would be unforgivable.  Supporting bad policy is one thing, voting to send kids to their deaths if you knew the info was BS is something else.  

If edwards had the balls you seem to think he does, he would have apologized for the war vote in 2004.  Frankly, he probably would have won the nomination had he done so as he could have sold himself as Dean with a lighter personality


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:44:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that's crap. (none / 0)

1.  He voted "present" on the abortion bills to protest their even being discussed (on constitutionality grounds).  Neither passed, IIRC.

2.  What's wrong with going to a (too large) elite law school (that doesn't provide as good an education at the school at which he later taught)?

3.  Opposing gambling is bad?


by Adam B on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:17:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's crap. (3.00 / 1)

I didn't highlight it Adam, I LINKED it.

He can say what he wants, but "present" is a spineless vote.  

I didn't want anyone thinking I was selectively cutting and pasting, you got the entire quote.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 09:21:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's crap. (none / 0)

"Present" isn't spineless if the thing doesn't pass, and your "quote" was from a hack source, not a primary source.  


by Adam B on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 09:40:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's crap. (none / 0)

Yeah, the problem with that?  I searched through both major Chicago papers, through the archives.  And, in neither case did I find any mention of Obama before the Senate race.

So, if you are saying he didn't vote present, then please find me the primary source and I'll be happy to quote it.  

Present on these bills is playing it safe, triangulation, it's spineless.  Don't want to rock the boat.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 09:58:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's crap. (none / 0)

Is your Google broken?  I didn't say he didn't vote present;  I said it didn't mean what you thought it did, and that your source was a hack. ChiTrib, 1/04:
Despite taking a pass on the abortion bills, abortion rights' advocates said they fully support Obama, who otherwise has voted consistently pro-abortion rights. Obama said his "present" votes came from consultation with advocates trying to strengthen the bills. But to his critics, failing to cast a "yes" or "no" vote conflicts with Obama's crusader image.

by Adam B on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:47:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So, his stance on these issues (none / 0)

1. partial-birth abortions

  1. handgun sentencing
  2. concealed firearm
  3. notice of a minor's abortion to parents

Is that NO vote is the best position?  

Good luck defending that.  One "present" vote is one present vote, it is taking a stance against a bad bill.  A pattern of voting "present" is something else.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:26:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards wrapping up the left (none / 0)

He explained some of it in Q&A at the Herzliya Conference. In the Q&A, the emphasis of "all options" shifted towards diplomatic engagement with Iran and with Russia and China. I'm definitely looking at this in the future, as my support of Edwards will not continue if he drifts hawkish or noncommittal on this issue.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:47:18 AM EST

soo... (3.00 / 2)

I'm 25, I'm hardly an old man and I have absolutely no love for baby boomers, be they democrats or not. But I trust Edwards over Obama. Edwards is a proven quality, he as proven a willingness to help others, to take strong positions that will not garner him any real support. I don't think Obama is strong enough. He's another Bill Clinton, a nice enough guy, but he is too concerned with being liked to be effective. I've said it on a great number of sites by now. You can not make progressive if you care what people think about you. Obama will back down on the exact same issues Clinton always backed down on. Gay rights, Abortion, Helping those with few resources, and confronting corporate power.

Edwards says some troubling things about Iran, but they will all have said these same things. It's an unfortunate fact that AIPAC has too much influence on our nomination process, and that won't change until the baby boomers are all dead and the commitment to Israel is no longer unconditional. Your anger and your focus should be on the Israeli lobby. They are the force behind this, not Edwards. He's just dealing with an unfortunate political fact. Until we all stop taking dishonest accusations of antisemitism seriously, then our politicians don't have a choice, and we will always be prone to military adventurism in the middle east.


by SoulTim on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:54:18 AM EST

Re: soo... (none / 0)

Which strong positions has Edwards taken Tim?


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poverty (3.00 / 3)

First person to talk about it since RFK.  And in an atmosphere where many Democrats are still pushing the Welfare "Reform"/Gutting platform.

And he came out for Withdrawal from Iraq in November 2005, around the same time as Murtha and Kerry and only about 3 months after Feingold, but before the Iraqi elections in December and before the Samara Mosque bombing.

And he introduced a bill in the senate to make sexual orientation and protected category.

I could go on if you wish.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:04:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Blogosphere blinded by the light. (3.00 / 0)

Interesting commentary but it paints the blogosphere as a kind of fickle prom queen, interested only in who flatters it, who appeals to its feelings of inferiority and insecurity.

With Iraq the key issue, the flattery turns the netroots pretty little head away from the candiate who has opposed Iraq from the beginning, when it was the hard political decision to make, in favor of a candidate who supported the war and only turned against it after the poll numbers on the war changed.

An interesting irony in that Iraq war was the key issue in the evolution of online political action (MoveOn etc.) groups yet here they are turning their back on that issue to support someone whose record on Iraq is problematic, at best, and attacking (Obama) or ignoring (Kucinich) candidates who were right about Iraq...all because they are flattered by the attention.

And we are probably talking really about the netroots cognescenti (those who spend an inordinate amount of time in online political disscussion forums) vs. the larger online populations.

As we see from the tracking of web inquiries and sites like facebook, etc., Edwards is not the favorite of other sectors of the online population, college students, etc.

With netroots main contribution to politics being money raised online, it will be interesting to compare the amounts raised onlne by the candidates as a benchmark of who "rules" the web.


by BrionLutz on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:55:38 AM EST

How hard a political decision was it to make? (3.00 / 1)

With Iraq the key issue, the flattery turns the netroots pretty little head away from the candiate who has opposed Iraq from the beginning, when it was the hard political decision to make, in favor of a candidate who supported the war and only turned against it after the poll numbers on the war changed.

Of course, the "cycnicism" hurdle in that summary is set far lower for Edwards than for Obama.

For example, its not like it was that hard a political decision to make representing the seat that he did in the Illinois State Senate, or targetting a Democratic Congressional District ... especially for someone who already had well established and substantial "bipartisanship" credentials in the Illinois State Senate.

So if the "cynicism hurdle" was placed as low for Obama as it is for Edwards above, coming out early against the war could easily be seen as a political ploy to attract support in the activist base for a Democratic primary, with the plan of falling back on the Bipartisanship credentials in the General.

And this is why a lot of people are suspicious of this kind of cheap cynicism when deployed by supporters of one candidate against another candidate ... when we fall into it, we very rarely deploy it across the board to everyone equally (and yes, I am talking to you too Biden, Clark, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich, Richardson, Sharpton and Vilsack supporters ... and Hillary supporter as well, if one accidentally wanders through).

Far better to direct it against the Republican field, where we all can be perfectly happy for the eventual nominee to come out of a bruising series of primary battles seriously injured for the General election.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:21:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How hard a political decision was it to make? (none / 0)

I can look past the IWR vote - he regrets it, fine. If he wants to get our troops home now, then he's on our side.

But it should not have been a difficult decision to make. I was a seventeen year old high school kid and I saw through the bullshit, and you're telling me a United States Senator could not? Obama was right. And it certainly was not an easy decision to be against the war back then. But if you're suggesting that he would have voted differently had he been in the Senate at the time, then you have a very cynical and simple-minded view of the Senate, one that certainly doesn't excuse Edwards' vote or his cosponsorship of the IWR in the Senate.


Further Reading
by Dave Sund on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:45:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How hard a political decision was it to make? (none / 0)

But if your point is that we shouldn't be making these cynical statements about the most prominent anti-war candidates, I agree.

I think some skepticism is reasonable though, after all, we are in a primary season.


Further Reading
by Dave Sund on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:48:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How hard a political decision was it to make? (none / 0)

The same degree of skepticism to all the candidates in the field from people who are not yet supporting a candidate ... that is very much a healthy thing. After all, independent voters in "purple" states certainly aren't going to be giving any of the ten a free ride.

I am talking about the negative electioneering commentary ... I have advised other Edwards supporters that I don't think it works, and I would give the same advice to supporters of Biden, Clark, Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, Obama, Richardson and Vilsack. Sharpton maybe? Is he running?

Mind you, I wouldn't hand the advice on to a stray supporter of Hillary. Indeed, grossly biased negative attacks on Saint Hillary are precisely what I have to be on guard against myself.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:24:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How hard a political decision was it to make? (none / 0)

Of course, you had the advantage of not being on the inside circles with respect to getting intelligence estimates, so when Bush corrupted the NIE on Iraq, you were not on the receiving end of that particular misinformation campaign.

Now, it remains true that giving the right to make a determination to the Bush regime was a mistake, no matter what. That is, not knowing what we know now, but rather knowing what we knew then about the Bush administration, it was a mistake.

Edwards admitted that it was a mistake, and Clinton refuses to do so.

However, its also the case that Obama sat on his laurels in terms of making that one right call for quite a long time ... if he had come out clearly and unambiguously for an immediate start to withdrawal a year ago, when Edwards did, it would have made a difference in the balance of power in the political fight that is going on today.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:14:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards wrapping up the left (3.00 / 3)

With netroots main contribution to politics being money raised online, it will be interesting to compare the amounts raised onlne by the candidates as a benchmark of who "rules" the web.

One more bit of evidence that you don't get the netroots, Brion.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:09:15 PM EST

Re: Amanda Marcotte (3.00 / 5)

Holy Shit. John Edwards just hired himself the new Molly Ivins. It's over.


by Sadie Baker on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:34:28 PM EST

Re: Amanda Marcotte (none / 0)

You beat me to this!  I was thinking how ironic that Amanda and Melissa were hired at JE08 just as Molly was moving on to her sis, Ann Richards.


by benny06 on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:02:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank God for Edwards (3.00 / 3)

I am all for the fact that this man has put a whole lot of faith in Women Bloggers. It seems about time that the ladies get some lead rolls. They are both great bloggers and deserve some hardline recognition by being the leaders in a National Campaign.

Go Edwards and Go Ladies!

I can't say how proud of Edwards I am for taking a lead in hiring these two greats.  

Move over guys - give the ladies some room to work, I am sure we will be hearing more.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:38:32 PM EST

Re: Do the kids actually put the mouse down and (3.00 / 2)

vote?

Not many at my college.  I tell them to register, mention deadlines, and then two months later when I tell them it's election day ... they tell me they were too busy to register.

Plus, Michigan makes it real hard for college kids to vote since you're not supposed to vote from your college address, but at your folks permanent address, so not many want to drive two hours home, vote, and drive two hours back and miss all their Tuesday classes.

Maybe the Million Kid Facebook March will work and then we'll call it genius, but I'm skeptical.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:41:32 PM EST

Re: Do the kids actually put the mouse down and (none / 0)

Do they not have absentee ballots in MI?


by Sam I Am on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:47:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do the kids actually put the mouse down and (none / 0)

Yes they do and no they don't. Need more than anecdotes to answer your question.

I recall seeing stats showing a strong and increasing youth vote. But also a lot of room for growth.

Income level and educational attainment are big factors within this cohort.

Single women also vote in disappointing numbers.

Hell, a large precentage of ALL voting age people does not exercise the franchise.

But young voters and college students are relatively highly active volunteering, phone banking, etc. once they are involved.

Bottom line guess: a small but important number of the facebookers will be active in campaigns.


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:06:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do the kids actually put the mouse down and (none / 0)

This may change, but according to The Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet, who conducted a survey of those who consider themselves daily political blog readers, the demographics line up this way:

Male: 75%
Female: 25%

18-24  7%
25-34  14%
35-54  41%
55-64  23%
65+    16%

HS Grad 3%
Some Coll 23%
Coll Grad 45%
Post-Grad %30

I'm hoping more women will get on the blogosphere daily, like the Shakes, Amandas, and Taylor (Marsh).


by benny06 on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:20:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thats a good one Benny (none / 0)

I didn't realize there was such a drop in the 55-64 group.  I guess they are enjoying retirement and ignoring the issues around them. OR they are thinking the AARP has it all covered.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:23:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do the kids actually put the mouse down and (3.00 / 1)

In primaries?


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:06:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do the kids actually put the mouse down and (3.00 / 1)

The statistics say, yes, more are voting.

Of course, the support in the Ohio law for voting from any residence that you use regularly meant that college towns were one big vote suppression target for Blackwell ... a problem we will not be having down across your southern border in '08, with Judge Brunner as Sec'y of State.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:24:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do the kids actually put the mouse down and (3.00 / 2)

Yes, we did and do turn out.  Don't trash talk the youth vote.  We're the only age demographic that voted democratic in the last two major elections.

You can read it all here.


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:25:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do the kids actually put the mouse down and (3.00 / 1)

In Oregon's 2006 primary, the average age of voters was 62 or 63.  For every 20 year old, there was a 104 year old.  Or two 83 year old folks.  And we make it real easy to register and vote.  Doesn't necessarily help.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:41:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)


by Sam I Am on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:48:21 PM EST

You... (3.00 / 1)

and your apostrophe's... I still feel sorry for your editor.


Invest in nature
by NCDem on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:02:07 PM EST

FYI (3.00 / 1)

Shakespeare's Sister and Pandagon are blogs that I think would be characterized as 'ideologically-centered' as opposed to being 'big-tent' democratic blogs.

Activist blogs are ideologically-centered.

Intellectual blogs are big-tent.


--donna darko. I don't read or respond to comments. There's too much hate and misogyny here.
by nonwhiteperson on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:32:41 PM EST

feminists (3.00 / 3)

are backing Edwards instead of Hillary cause he's the most progressive candidate on economic issues, and I supsect that, likewise, prominent African-Americans will get behind Edwards as opposed to Obama for the same reason.

A strong message of economic populism is good for women, good for blacks, good for eveyone.


by david mizner on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:53:42 PM EST

Re: How hard a political decision was it to make? (none / 0)

"For example, its not like it was that hard a political decision to make representing the seat that he did in the Illinois State Senate, or targetting a Democratic Congressional District"

Ask Edwards, Clinton, Kerry...they were afraid to oppose the war when Obama did, when it counted before Congress authorized it.

The pass that the dazzled blog queens are giving to Edwards on Iraq is more than a bit ironic considering the netroots political power was founded on opposition to the Iraq war.


by BrionLutz on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:01:12 PM EST

Re: How hard a political decision was it to make? (none / 0)

I hadn't even realized that you replied ... but then reading the reply, its clear you didn't make it all the way through my comment before answering, so you probably didn't see that "reply to" link down at the bottom.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:29:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards wrapping up the left blogsphere (3.00 / 2)

Some of them consist of the bloggers that vehemently disagreed with the Crashing The Gate statement that single-issue groups need to put aside their pet issues to work toward the cause of a Democratic majority (the recipe for the success of '06).
This is a bit circular and self-serving, isn't it? The "success" of '06 is a success only by the very definition of the goal as a Democratic majority. As we may well find out 2 years from now (and as we did in previous Democratic wins and even today in the growing laments about this Congress) the ultimate goals of the Left may not be much served at all simply by a Democratic majority (a Democratic majority, as it stands today, may not even be a necessary condition). This is almost trivially true since "a Democratic majority", not being a framework, theory or movement, is itself a "pet" single issue.

It is also arguable to attribute the results of '06 to one strategy or tactic. "Single-issue" is never really a single-issue-at-the-cost-of-other-left-i ssues, anyway (any more than the "single issue" of "a Democratic majority" has caused the netroots to truck with [ex-]Republicans at any cost) and some of it (most of it) is beneficial as a division of labour.

And finally, assuming we all share some common leftist goals and attitudes (equality, dignity, tolerance, etc), we need people working at all levels, which includes the pragmatic, the forward thinking and the utopian!
by ravi on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:09:16 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.