The next addition to the Blue Majority page is a candidate returning from 2006: Eric Massa, who is running against Shotgun Randy Kuhl in the NY-29.. Please, give to Eric Massa today.

Eric is a true netroots favorite, evidenced by the tags NY-29 and Eric Massa being the most common tags for a congressional race and congressional candidate respectively, on MyDD. Eric is extremely energetic and hard working, as I have seen upclose in my visits to the district on several occasions. His energy rubs off on his grassroots supporters, who were able to close off a corporate Democratic primary challenger this past summer through relentless blog pressure, securing the support of virtually every local precinct captain in the district (including two family members of mine who joined the silent revolution in Update New York), and lots of small-donor, in-district fundraising. Now, he is set to take on Randy Kuhl who, separate occasions, has threatened both his ex-wife and his constituents with firearms, even though he claims he was just joking about the later. But he seriously doesn't like his constituents:

That is, he doesn't like his constituents unless they are Republican donors trying to build new bowling alleys in the district.

This is the "reddest" district in New York, which Bush won with about 56% of the vote in 2004. However, is it turning blue, like the rest of New York state. But Eric Massa is not your typical red-district Democrat who will let you down. As a progressive, he will fight for you, pledging to oppose FISA and watered-down withdrawal from Iraq, something few Democrats from a district this "red" have done. After losing by only 4% in 2006 despite no help from national committees, Massa is well poised to take the seat in 2008.

Support Eric Massa for Congress on Blue Majority. He is another example of more and better Democrats.

So, apparently David Mizner considers being banned from Open Left something to be proud of. He also thinks that I have "translucent skin." It is nice to read an invective against me on the front page of a blog where I still have written far more articles than anyone else, and received way, way more flack than anyone else. Mizner should have seen me cry at the death threats I received during the Googlebomb campaign that I conducted here. My skin really is pretty thin.

For the record, here are the comments that led me to ban Mizner from Open Left. First:

It's pretty amusing that you've put yourself in the positon of defending the occuption of Iraq.

Ah, I love comments like that. Nothing makes me feel better than to be told how pro-Iraq occupation I am after spending several months leading the charge online against residual forces in Iraq. Second:

Let me say...this...slowly..so..you...understan d.

I also enjoy being called an idiot.

I find weaknesses of logic and coherence, just I found weakness in Stoller's claim that Edwards is racist, and weakness in your condoning (now immediately retracted) the occupation of Iraq.

I particularly enjoy having positions attributed to me that I never supported, ever. More:

And unlike you, Chris, I don't care if Peter Daou gives me a mean look at Yearly Kos

This is another example of Mizner finding more logical holes in my arguments, I guess.

Let me say something straightforward here. One of the reasons that there have been numerous diaries on MyDD complaining about the lack of decorum here is that I am no longer banning people. I used to ban a lot of people when I was on MyDD, and I didn't feel the least bit bad about it. Calling people idiots, implying hidden agendas, attributing positions to people they don't hold and never stated, throwing charges that people are conservative or pro-Bush / occupation in some way without backing it up with quotes--these are all offensive, anti-social actions that can start flame wars on progressives websites. When Mizner engaged in them all on Open Left in one thread, I banned him, just as I banned dozens of people on MyDD for the same offensives during my time editing the blog. I did this in an attempt to reduce the flame wars as much as possible, and make certain that community remained friendly and productive.

In my experience, allowing this type of commentary, especially against front-page posters, results in a less than productive community. I was pretty lenient on bannings here in 2004 and 2005, and the comments were overrun with trolls like Parker as a result. I figured that putting up with irritating commenters was just part of being a blogger. Then, after banning a few of them, I noticed how much the comments and the diaries improved here at MyDD. So, with a new warning system in place, I began to moderate the site in a pretty strict fashion. About six months ago, I wrote a front-page piece explaining some of the many things that could lead to being banned, which is all on top of the anti-social, baiting behavior I documented above from Mizner. I tried to read every comment on the site, and follow every argument, to make sure that no one engaging in these behaviors was not first warned, and then banned if the problems continued.

Of course, MyDD is no longer my main blog home. It is not my job to moderate the community around here (although I do sometimes still go to old posts can clean out the spam robots). Jerome, Jonathan and Todd can moderate this community as they choose. I am writing this in the diaries, instead of on the front page, for that reason. However, given Mizner's latest front-page post personally attacking me on a blog that I helped build from 800,000 visitors to 28,000,000 over the course of more than three years was far too much for me to keep quiet. It also struck me as a perfect example of what many commenters are complaining about here on MyDD. Seriously, after all I have done for this site and this community, now I'm getting attacked on the front-page here? I guess no one deserves any respect here, if they cross that terrible line of not endorsing your favorite candidate.

I am upfront about have a heavy moderation style, and a quick finger when it comes to banning. Long experience with flame wars and moderation have convinced me it is better to err on the side of banning too many people than banning too few. Letting people feel insulted and pissed off by the comments on your site is a terrible way to buld a community. As such, I am acting at Open Left the same way I would have acted at MyDD, and I find nothing more tiresome than the claims about free speech and openness. Blog are not open message boards, and if they are treated as such the comments will invariably descend into utterly useless flame wars. If you hope to build an activist site, that simply is not acceptable. Maybe we should turn the DNC convention into an open forum with no moderation and a mad scramble for the podium. I'm sure that will turn out well.

Just my two cents. I wrote 3,100 articles for MyDD, presided over about 95% of the all-time traffic, links and new account sign-ups here. It still bears my name, and will always be a major part of my life. Maybe it is just because I have translucent skin, but being attacked on the front page here as part of a seemingly endless argument over 2008 candidates was extremely disappointing, and I hope is not a sign of things to come for the blog.

Update: If anyone thinks Mizner was acting in good faith, consider that what he said to me is exactly the same thing he has said about all bloggers who have not endorsed in the past. Here is one such comment:

The fence-sitting of the bloggerati smells to me like a fear of losing traffic.

And here is another one:

And if you're not doing something for fear of straining your relationships with people in power, friends or not, it's time to reevaluate your priorities.

Mizner has a history of accusing those with whom he disagrees of having hidden agendas. He isn't acting in good faith. And yes, people like that should be banned.

It is with great please that I am able to announce that the next Blue Majority endorsed candidate: Dan Maffei, from New York's 25th Congressional District.

I am particularly excited about this endorsement for several reasons. First, I am from the district, and ever since Jim Walsh originally won the seat by a few hundred votes back when I was a freshman in high school, I have been itching for someone to defeat him. Second, Dan Maffei epitomizes one of my longest-running arguments about the need to run in every district. In 2004, no Democrat ran against Walsh, but in 2006 Dan came within 1% of defeating him. Third, having met Dan Maffei, I can honestly say that there is no member of Congress, or candidate for Congress, with whom I was more personally impressed and within whom I felt more personally comfortable (there are two or three who I feel roughly the same about). When we talked for over two hours over coffee and pizza, it felt like every idea we exchanged about strategy, policy, and life really clicked (like me, he went to local public schools, and hasn't exactly made a fortune working in progressive politics). Dan is a serious, brilliant progressive, who absolutely means more and better Democrats. Please, contribute to Dan today.

Here is a video Dan put together to introduce himself and the district to the readers of Dailykos, MyDD, Open Left and Swing State Project a few days ago:



Now, some of you might ask something to the effect of "wait-he is running against Jim Walsh, the Republican who just said he was now opposed to the Iraq War? Isn't that the sort of Republican behavior we should be encouraging, rather than immediately punishing with a major counter-endorsement?" If you are asking this question, I am glad you did, because even though the Maffei endorsement was decided upon several days before Walsh's announcement, since that time it has revealed the true danger Democrats face in offering up weak, meaningless, "compromise" bills on Iraq. The NY-25 is the first case study of how Democratic weakness in the House on Iraq can allow Republican to potentially blur the difference between the two parties on Iraq, and thus wipe out virtually our entire advantage heading into the 2008 elections.

Here is the situation. Over the past nine months, Jim Walsh has said he was in favor of withdrawal, and then voted a timeline that would actually mandate withdrawal. Even in discussions with local media yesterday, and in calls I made to his staff, he refused to come out in favor of a timetable. Walsh has said that he is in favor of oversight on Iraq, and then voted against oversight. He said he was opposed to the escalation, and then refused to vote against the escalation. In May, he said he was opposed to a blank check for Bush on Iraq, and then voted to give Bush a blank check on Iraq in the capitulation bill. Everything Walsh is saying now, he ha already said before. The key difference is not hat Walsh has changed his opinion, but that Democats in Congress are changing the legislation they are trying to pass through Congress.

Back in the spring, House Democrats forced votes on stiffer legislation that required real oversight and mandated withdrawal. It only received two votes form Republicans, because the many so-called moderate Republicans who are supposedly against Bush's policy in Iraq are not willing to pass binding legislation opposing Bush's policy in Iraq. They are, however, willing to pass meaningless legislation that suggests Bush should change course, but does not actually require him to do so. For example, Walsh is a co-sponsor of the Kirk-Lipinski bill that does not mandate any troop withdrawal whatsoever, but sets it as a "goal." Compromise bills of this sort are in abundance nowadays, and I imagine Walsh will vote for all of them. However, if a bill comes up that actually mandates troops withdrawal, there is still no indication that he would vote for such a bill. Given everything he has said on the matter, I bet he won't vote for mandated troop withdrawal.

This is the crux of the problem progressives face in the 2008 elections. Bad, Bush Dog Democrats are coming up with cover your ass legislation that won't do anything to drawdown our military involvement in Iraq. Instead, the actual impact of these bills will be to allow Bush Dogs and endangered Republicans alike to appear as though they oppose Bush's policies, and thus strengthen all of their hands for re-election. In short, weak Iraq legislation in Congress will help empower Bush Dogs, and help prevent progressives like Maffei from taking over Republican seats. This is the exact opposite of the more and better Democrats refrain that has been traveling around the blogosphere. Weak Iraq legislation will allow Republicans like Walsh to blur their differences on Iraq all over the country, and the result will be fewer, and worse Democrats.

In the first major case study of this kind for the 2008 elections, we can't let this stand. Supporting Dan Maffei means opposing weak, toothless Iraq legislation in Congress. It means taking a stand against a self-defeating Democratic strategy that will not only do nothing to drawdown the Iraq war, but will also go a long way toward wiping out any chance of a second Democratic wave election. It means supporting more and better Democrats, instead of reverting to the pro-war, minority status Democratic Party of 2002-2003.

Contribute to Dan Maffei on Blue Majority. Fight Bush dogs and Republican blurring alike. This lean-Kerry district is going to be a very big race down the road, and a place where a true progressive like Maffei can hold a seat for a long time to come.

As already seen on places like Atrios and Dailykos, there is a major blogosphere fundraiser taking place now for Darcy Burner. The Republican incumbent in Darcy Burner's district, Dave Reichert, is hosting a fundraiser with George W. Bush. As such, the blogosphere is countering by raising funds for Darcy Burner, who epitomizes the phrase, "more and better Democrats." Darcy Burner has also been added to the Blue Majority page.

Darcy Burner is the anti-Bush Dog. Here she is on FISA:



And here is her Bush indebted opponent, Dave Reichert:



So, chip in some cash to Darcy. Already, more than 450 people have done so, to the tune of more than $18,000. Let's put more and better Democrats in Congress!

Update [2007-8-21 16:35:54 by Jonathan Singer]: Very exciting stuff. I just wanted to add a quick thing from my interview with Al Franken for this site earlier this summer (which you can listen to here). To the question, "What's the message that you'd like to send to the progressive blogosphere, if there's one?", Franken responded, "I'm one of you", which gets to the heart of why a lot of people are excited about his candidacy.

Today, it is with great excitement that I am able to announce that Al Franken has been added to the Blue Majority Act Blue page that is collectively maintained by Dailykos, MyDD, Swing State Project and Open Left.

Last month, in a post on Open Left, I wondered if Al Franken was the best example of a progressive movement candidate we had seen to date, given that his campaign is overwhelmingly people powered (over 45,000 donors so far), he passed the "bar fight primary" with flying colors (more than willing to take the fight to Republicans), he comfortably and repeatedly self-identifies as a progressive, and that he came into politics as an outsider, specifically from progressive media. The response I received to that post was almost universally positive, and while I don't know if he is the very best example, he clearly is an excellent case, and so I urge you to contribute to Al Franken on the Blue Majority Page. Let's build the progressive movement together by supporting a first-rate movement candidate.

Today is a particularly appropriate time for us to make this endorsement because, as Jonathan noted earlier today, George Bush is in Minnesota raising money for endangered Republican incumbent Norm Coleman.  Tying himself further to George Bush will only push Coleman's already low approval ratings in the state even lower, and make him more vulnerable than he already is. Progressives in the state are countering Bush's visit through a variety of actions, including protests coordinated by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, and by the Franken campaign itself looking to counter Coleman's big money fundraiser with small donor, people-powered energy:



Let's be a part of this effort. With his connections to George Bush, there is an opportunity to knock Coleman all but out of the race in 2007, the way Rick Santorum was all but defeated by a progressive swarm against him in 2005.

As a final note, I want to mention that while Al Franken is involved in a competitive primary in Minneosta, this endorsement comes entirely because Al is so fantastic, not because his primary opponents are clearly defective in any way. Al is a Democrat who I believe will never let us down, and always make us proud. He comes from the progressive movement, and will take the fight to Republicans. He is exactly the sort of candidate many of us have looked for these past few, and we are happy to reward that with our support in and of itself, not just relative to other candidates in the campaign. It certainly is great to make an endorsement for someone, rather than against someone else.

• Contribute to Al Franken on Blue Majority
  
• Al Franken for Senate official page
  
• Minnesota Senate race tracker wiki

So, three weeks ago, Matt and I announced we were leaving MyDD to start a new project. Today, I am pleased to announce, that after a period that feels much longer than three weeks, a $250,000,000 budget that included the construction of a full-size replica of the Titanic, dozens of script re-writes from modern super-writer Stephen Bosco, a long-awaited soundtrack by Toto that precisely captures the mood of the galaxy eight thousand years in the future, a thirteen episode reality television show hosted by Tim Gunn to find our graphic designer, twelve simulations monitored by Gary Kaspaov and Deep Blue to work out the strategic kinks, an accelerated citizenship process for our ringer, Freddy Adu, and a worldwide race to find the Ark of the Covenant before Belloch and the Nazis, the new website from executive producers Chris Bowers, Matt Stoller and Mike Lux, the Open Left, is making its public launch today!

What can you expect on Open Left? Well, overall, we are dedicated to building a sustainable, progressive governing majority, not just a Democratic one. In some ways we are quite familiar, in that you know our names and in that we run on Soapblox. In other ways, we are an experiment, trying to bring progressive activists and professionals from "inside" and "outside" the political establishment into regular, thoughtful, and active connection with one another. There will be a wide variety of progressive people and organizations posting content, some of whom will introduce themselves as we roll out many of our soon-to-be regular features this week. We have innovative new posting protocol, epitomized by the "Right To Respond", where, in the interests of openness and a desire to foster more conversation among progressives, any progressive individual or organization we blog about in a front-page post will have the opportunity to respond with a front page post of their own. With both Matt Stoller and myself, you can expect much of what we provided at MyDD, only expanded into other areas. Mike Lux will be able to provide a wealth of professional political experience and an inside viewpoint rarely seen in our previous work. Also, there will be more topics we write about both for an extended period of time and in great detail, rather than relying on singular posts and off-the-cuff analysis. We will write more about legislative policy, as well as strategy on how to pass progressive policy. Further, there will also a lot of talk about progressive culture and lifestyle, since there will never be a sustainable progressive governing majority in America unless that governing majority is accurately representing a more progressive America.

Anyway, enough talk about what we are going to do, since it is by our fruits that ye shall know us. Rather than gradually rolling out our first few articles this morning, we have instead loaded up the site of with lots of new content so you have plenty to dig through right away. Already, with much more on the way for this afternoon, you can check out the following articles and permanent pages:

• The Birth of a Movement, where Mike Lux gives an inside view of what it was like to be part of the Clinton impeachment fight. Spoiler alert: the Democratic and progressive advocacy group establishment was not very helpful.
  
  
• What Is OpenLeft.com?, where Matt Stoller offers some perspective on why we chose the name Open Left for our new website, and on where our contemporary movement of left-wing activism fits into a broader historical picture of American politics. This article will be permanently linked in our About section.
  
  
• New Establishment Rising? The End of the Flat Blogosphere, is my opening, lengthy theoretical piece for Open Left. If I may be so bold to say so, it is one of the best, if not the very best, piece I have ever written on the progressive, political blogosphere. It is also the first step in a collaborative project with JONI: Journal of Netroots ideas, which will take place over the next weeks and months on Open Left.
  
  
• Towards A Universal Neutral Internet, where Matt Stoller offers a broad perspective on the progress of the fight for Net Neutrality. It ties directly into, among other things, the primary challenge Donna Edwards is running against Al Wynn in MD-04, and to the political interplay between labor unions and the Democratic Congress.
  
  
• The Self-Identified Progressive Candidate, where I look at how often each of the eight Democratic campaigns for President use the ideological term "progressive." Content warning: this post might cause you to conjure up images of me dancing at home in my underwear.
  
  
• In the Nomination at a glance page, you can find the latest national and early state polling averages, along with fundraising numbers, primary calendar info, and general analysis, for both the Democratic and Republican nominations.

And that is just for starters--if you sign up now, you can still secure a low user ID! Not a day goes by when I don't derive a smug sense of satisfied, superiority from having user ID of 217 on MyDD, and 123 on Dailykos (I'm #9 on Open Left). Now, you too can be one of the user ID elite!

So, please, keep reading MyDD every day, but also visit Open Left. Bookmark Open Left. Tell your friends, family and co-workers about Open Left. Purchase billboard space on behalf of Open Left. Start another blog to triangulate against Open Left. Whatever you do, please stop by. I miss you guys, and it would be nice to see you all again.

Democratic Nomination, At a Glance, June 24
State polls are all May 4--June 24. Last update: June 24, 4:10 pm eastern

State	Est. Date	# Polls	Clinton	Obama	Edwards	Richardson
Net Avail Cash	Mar 31	Q1	$23.4M	$17.7M	$9.6M	$5.0M
Iowa	Jan 07	7	22.7%	19.6%	26.7%	8.0%
New Hampshire	Jan 15	5	33.6%	20.6%	16.0%	9.4%
Nevada	Jan 19	2	39.5%	16.5%	14.0%	6.5%
South Carolina	Jan 22	5	29.2%	27.6%	16.8%	--
Florida	Jan 29	7	36.9%	18.1%	16.6%	5.2%
National	Feb 05	NA	34.0%	22.1%	12.2%	3.0%

It's all about Iowa. If Clinton were to win Iowa, she will probably run the table. She probably would even be OK if she finishes in second in Iowa, as long as Obama isn't the winner. But what happens if she finishes third, or even fourth in the state? Will it be enough to wipe out her lead in New Hampshire? That is a difficult question to answer. The primary calendar remains another huge question mark. Iowa and New Hampshire might move as much as one full month before Nevada, which changes the strategic landscape entirely. Richardson's continued rise, as he now surpasses the 5% threshold even in Florida, is also interesting.

Republican Nomination, At a Glance, June 24
State polls are all May 30--June 24. Last update: June 24, 4:10 pm eastern

State	Est. Date	# Polls	Giuliani	Romney	F. Thompson	McCain
Net Avail Cash	Mar 31	Q1	$9.7M	$9.1M	--	$2.6M
Iowa	Jan 07	3	11.7%	28.3%	14.0%	8.0%
New Hampshire	Jan 15	3	17.7%	27.3%	10.7%	17.7%
Nevada	Jan 19	2	19.0%	21.5%	20.5%	12.0%
South Carolina	Jan 22	2	17.5%	13.5%	26.0%	11.0%
Florida	Jan 29	2	30.5%	10.0%	17.0%	11.5%
National	Feb 05	NA	26.3%	9.6%	17.3%	16.8%

For Republicans, I have removed all state polls that were conducted before Thompson's announcement. His entrance represents a major watershed in the Republican nomination campaign that renders all pre-Thompson polls meaningless. As far as the horserace goes, I know I have already written it several times, but since it feels so good, I'll write it again anyway: McCain is finished. His best showing is a tie for second in New Hampshire, where he trails Romney by almost ten points. The other three, Giuliani, Romney and Thompson, are very difficult to separate right now, although neither the trends nor the early state polls favor Giuliani. Can Giuliani survive poor early state showings and still do well in both Florida and on February 5th,, or will he goes the way of McCain, simply with more lag time? Can Romney translate strong early state showings into big time results on February 5th, or will he start to fade now that Thompson is a real competitor for the anti-McCain / Giuliani vote? Will Thompson continue to rise, and eventually wipe the other candidates away, or will he stagnate in the early states, and remain a regional (Southern and Mountain West) candidate? Right now, this is one helluva horserace, with far more twists and turns than the Democratic side of the campaign.

I'm a big fan of Pollster.com, and so when they finally released graphs and trendlines on the 2008 early states back on Monday, I couldn't let my hiatus from blogging stand in the way. Here are my Democratic and Republican Nomination "at a glance" tables, entirely utilizing Pollster.com estimated polling trends (for some background on the Pollster.com trends, see here and here):

Democratic Nomination, At a Glance, June 21
Polling estimates taken from Pollster.com

State	Est. Date	Clinton	Obama	Edwards	Richardson
Net Avail Cash	Mar 31	$23.4M	$17.7M	$9.6M	$5.0M
Iowa	Jan 07	21.0%	19.1%	25.0%	10.8%
New Hampshire	Jan 15	33.4%	19.3%	16.4%	9.1%
Nevada	Jan 19	36.0%	16.5%	14.0%	5.5%
South Carolina	Jan 22	26.7%	32.0%	11.9%	1.3%
Florida	Jan 29	37.9%	18.7%	13.3%	3.9%
National	Feb 05	34.0%	22.1%	12.2%	3.0%

The most interesting graph for Democrats is in Iowa, which shows Edwards, Clinton and Obama all slightly, and slowly, trending down. The big beneficiary is obviously Richardson, who clearly seems to be a player in Iowa now. I still have to wonder what will happen to the campaign if Clinton finishes in third, or even fourth, in Iowa. Will it be enough to eliminate her advantage in New Hampshire, Nevada, or national polls? I honestly have no idea, which is why Iowa remains the most interesting element of the Democratic horserace right now.

Republican Nomination, At a Glance, June 21
Polling estimates taken from Pollster.com

State	Est. Date	Giuliani	Romney	F. Thompson	McCain
Net Avail Cash	Mar 31	$9.7M	$9.1M	NA	$2.6M
Iowa	Jan 07	12.3%	25.8%	16.8%	9.4%
New Hampshire	Jan 15	17.6%	27.9%	10.9%	20.9%
Nevada	Jan 19	32.5%	15.0%	13.0%	18.5%
South Carolina	Jan 22	19.1%	12.1%	24.7%	7.6%
Florida	Jan 29	29.6%	7.7%	21.1%	12.3%
National	Feb 05	26.3%	9.6%	17.3%	16.8%

Giuliani's advantage in Nevada is overstated largely due to the small number of polls in the state, as the two most recent polls out of Nevada actually average to a slight advantage for Romney. Also, as McCain craters in Iowa and South Carolina, as he falls behind Fred Thompson nationally, and as his monetary woes continue, I have dropped him to fourth place in the Republican nomination contest. He really seems to be finished. Also, while the top three on the Republican side, Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson, are difficult to separate at this point, it probably won't be long before Giuliani drops into third place. If Fred Thompson can get a nice monetary haul, and also move up in New Hampshire polls, the Republican nomination will rather surprisingly become a battle between Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. Notably, every Democrat leads both Thompson and Romney in head-to-head poll averages, although Clinton's leads are considerably narrower than Edwards' and Obama's. Also, Thompson keeps all Dems under 50%.