An Open Letter on NARAL, Message, and Polarization

Update [2008-5-15 15:44:38 by Falsehood]: - There is a controversy in the comments on if this violates the site rules:
*Users who are bashing or attacking any other user on the site, including authors of diaries and frontpage postings, will be banned. *Titles of diaries should not be inflammatory, call out other users or the site, and will be deleted if not edited out, and the user banned.
I don't think I'm calling out Alegre in the way the rules describe, nor do I think I am attacking Alegre. This diary is, in essence, a giant comment. However, I can understand that interpretation of the title rules, so I've changed the name. /Update [2008-5-15 15:44:38 by Falsehood]:

Dear Alegre,

As I write this, your diary "Tell NARAL They're Wrong," 41/858 is coming down off of the rec list, where many of your diaries reach. I certainly haven't been blogging here for a while, and I'll be the first to say that I don't have any progressive blog "cred," but I hope my comments and thoughts over the past few days have shown me to be someone who is approaching you honestly, without looking to disrespect or troll.

I'm also male. I don't have a sense the way you do of many of these issues, and I don't have the same experiences for you. I don't know what it's like to be forced against brick while standing in a line, protecting a clinic. I don't have much choice cred either, and I'm not going to pretend that I know more about this issue then you do.

But even with those caveats, I don't understand how your stories of trial justify your feelings of outrage and betrayal NARAL's endorsement. I hear you that Clinton has done hard work to support choice, and that you value that, especially given your own experiences. However, NARAL's goal and purpose is to defend abortion rights - and they endorsed the candidate they felt would do that best.

You wrote that you weren't sure why the national PAC made the call on their own. Don't most national PAC's make a solo call? Aren't individual states groups free to make their own statements, like Chicago NOW? You would have had a problem with this decision even if NARAL had reached out to state groups, because you are a supporter of Clinton.

You wrote that you felt NARAL betrayed you by endorsing a well qualified woman's opponent in the race. My sense is that there's a compounding factor here for you - that NARAL, a group formed to support womens' rights, endorsed the woman's opponent. Alegre, NARAL isn't a group advocating for women - it advocates a right that applies only to women. In this way, it is extremely different from the national organization for WOMEN, the WOMEN'S campaign forum, and the Women's political committee. Yes, these groups share goals, but should a pro choice organization support a candidate based on sex? If an anti-choice woman runs against a pro-choice man, should the woman get NARAL's endorsement?

Alegre, you went further in pushing the idea that Obama has been weak on choice at any point in his career. I know you support Hillary, but that doesn't mean that you can say such things, because they are FLAT OUT NOT TRUE. Remember Lorna Brett Howard, the former president of Chicago NOW, who endorsed Obama because of the very same claims you are making, and did it in January? Remember the quotes from Planned Parenthood, who coordinated strategy with Obama, and defended him against those same allegations you still push, months ago?

There are plenty of justified concerns to have about Barack Obama, but any weakness on choice is not among them. Supporting Clinton doesn't give you the right to selectively ignore that those "present" votes, (which have the same weight as no votes), were coordinated with Chicago pro-choice groups!

When you paint with such a broad brush, and pick facts in this way, you make it really, really hard for Obama supporters to not do the same. You don't help a productive conversation - when you introduce such nonsense that Obama was weak on choice, you stifle the dialog that we need so badly on real problems he has, like your diary on the way he's blamed his staff several times.

Who wrote that Obama's nomination means that McCain will enter the White House. In fact, you said that I could "bet my @ss" on it. That is an opinion that you can hold - but it is a polarized one. It is one that says: "A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for John McCain," and I'm darned certain of it. Do you really think that he stands no chance? I don't think so.

Alegre, this polarization is everywhere, and goes far beyond any conversation between us. It is the polarization that Karl Rove marketed so effectively in 2004 as to create a giant gap in the country - but one where Bush has 51% of the territory. The Rove comparison is not an accurate one, and I do not mean to imply that you are following his example in any way, but you are using the same concept: You are for Hillary, or you are for McCain!

I reject that. I reject any and all attempts to draw lines and declare an "us or them" approach. We are not a country of us and them. We are a country where there are people on all sorts of sides, and just as many in the middle. We're a country where I can sit down with two extremely pro-life friends, and have a long conversation without screaming and shouting. We're a country where the process is built for conflict AND a productive resolution.

This polarity of for women or against women, for Hillary or for McCain, for good or not for good, cannot continue. Please consider this a plea not to change your opinions, but rather the way that you express them. Words and phrasings matter - and "WTF" isn't going to get a Democrat in the White House, though I recognize that you're angry, and that you have the right to express yourself as you choose.

Thank you for your time and dedication to your candidate. You are a model for the kind of positive diaries that help everyone out, and you are a "hero" to many bloggers who support Clinton. I hope you can use your hard-earned status to model a discussion that bridges gaps instead of creating them. That is what I seek to do at MyDD (though I'm certainly not perfect), and I hope that you see this as a critique of your methods instead of an attack on your beliefs.

With great sincerity and humility,

PS: If this dairy receives no recognition from Alegre or "major" Clinton supporters, I ask that Obama supporters refrain from baseless accusations of cowardice or anything of that sort. Thsi diary uses Alegre's name, but it doesn't require a response from her (though I would appreciate it.) No one is under any obligation to answer this - I'm not looking to persoanlly capitalize off of someone else's name.

References: s/statements/obama.html

"Criticizing Obama on the basis of `present' votes indicates you don't have a great understanding of the process," said Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.

Or you are willing to pretend you don't to score cheap political points.

There's dirt here all right. It's all over the hands of those pointing the finger. umnists_ezorn/2007/12/ ml

Pam Sutherland, president of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said Mr. Obama was one of the senators with a strong stand for abortion rights whom the organization approached about using the strategy. Ms. Sutherland said the Republicans were trying to force Democrats from conservative districts to register politically controversial no votes.

Ms. Sutherland said Mr. Obama had initially resisted the strategy because he wanted to vote against the anti-abortion measures.

"He said, `I'm opposed to this,'" she recalled.

But the organization argued that a present vote would be difficult for Republicans to use in campaign literature against Democrats from moderate and conservative districts who favored abortion rights.

Lisa Madigan, the Illinois attorney general who was in the Illinois Senate with Mr. Obama from 1998 through 2002, said she and Mr. Obama voted present on the anti-abortion bills.

"It's just plain wrong to imply that voting present reflected a lack of leadership," Ms. Madigan said. "In fact, it was the exact opposite." itics/20obama.html?_r=3&hp=&adxn nl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=prin t&adxnnlx=1210871130-/EwkR1wRh0jR4LJ SmyReWg

Thank you so much for helping to make the 2006 EMILY's List Majority Council Conference such a great success. Our Majority Council members told me again and again how energized they were to hear directly from you and how much they appreciated your spending time with us. You truly inspired our members and reminded them why they support our work to elect dynamic pro-choice Democratic women - especially after hearing you speak about how you're fighting to make change happen. I appreciate your commitment to EMILY's List.
Letter From Ellen Malcolm To Barack Obama, 5/18/06

"I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton and an EMILY's List donor, but this line of attack is unacceptable. While I was the president of Chicago National Organization for Women, Senator Obama worked closely with us, could not have been more supportive of a woman's right to choose, and there was no bigger champion in Illinois on our issues. What's important is that the candidates do not cannibalize each other on issues we all agree about because we need to win in November."
-Lorna Brett, former president of Chicago NOW
More recent Youtube video: Js

"During his years in the state legislature, Barack Obama was a strong and consistent supporter of women's reproductive rights. He worked hand-in-hand with Planned Parenthood in developing and executing strategies to make sure that women had access to reproductive health care. I also want to thank him for standing up with us in the effort to open the Aurora clinic and for his introduction of legislation guaranteeing access to low-cost birth control. Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area has proudly endorsed Barack throughout his entire political career."
-Steve Trombley, CEO & President, Planned Parenthood/Chicago Action

Tags: Alegre, clinton, letter, meta, obama (all tags)



Re: An Open Letter to Alegre
Call out diaries are just plan wrong and against the policies.
If you have a complaint e-mail the AD or take it up in a diary post to her.
by J Rae 2008-05-15 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

no no no,  not when Jerome breaks site rules ALL THE TIME!

So please,

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

My Mama taught a tough rule......

"Them that makes the rules can break the rules and that would not be you missy"

by J Rae 2008-05-15 09:44AM | 0 recs
God forbid Alegre should engage in dialog....

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-05-15 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: God forbid

Has not happened yet, as near as I can tell.

by deminva 2008-05-15 11:01AM | 0 recs
awww... she used to talk all the time!

by RisingTide 2008-05-15 11:22AM | 0 recs
Did your mama send you to school with welts

just in time for gym class?

Some rules shouldn't be broken.

by RisingTide 2008-05-15 11:21AM | 0 recs

He does own the site.

And would his "rule" breaking be similar to Kos breaking the rules at Dkos?

yep... I would say it is.

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 11:11AM | 0 recs
what rules has kos broken?

.curious here.

by RisingTide 2008-05-15 11:21AM | 0 recs
Are you serious?

He breaks the rules of how to write a diary on Dkos ALL the time.

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you serious?

Every single "Breaking" diary does as well - yet, I still see them everywhere, not just Kos.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you serious?

I agree with this comment.

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 12:08PM | 0 recs
Care to deal with the substance...

...of the post?

by Lieber 2008-05-15 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Care to deal with the substance...

No, I would not care to put myself in the middle of the poster argument with another poster.

by J Rae 2008-05-15 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Care to deal with the substance...

I will and I am new and I don't know either the diarist or the target.  I did a control F search in this diary and when I put in Alito, I came up with no hits.

How could NARAL support the guy who snubbed the filibuster of Alito.  The same way Bush would never be removed from office, he should have been impeached.  That filibuster of Alito should have happened and it should have appeared everywhere on the news whether or not it would have survived cloture.  Obama walked away from it because he never really takes a stand.  Amazing how you can be for change but never change anything.

by allend 2008-05-15 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Care to deal with the substance...

Those decisions are mostly made in regards to the court of public opinion. See here: /30/102745/165/500/153069

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 03:45PM | 0 recs
You already did

by filling in as the proxy schoolmarm. No sense in playing coy now.

by bookish 2008-05-15 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Care to deal with the substance...

Well, I think my diary is about more than a single diary - its about a general tone. I didn't make it public to embarrass Alegre, I write it publically because I felt it substantively addressed issues in a way a "normal" diary would.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Care to deal with the substance...

If you are looking to discuss substance than take the other posters name out of the title.

As long as it's there it's just a call out diary.

by J Rae 2008-05-15 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Care to deal with the substance...

Is that a promise?  If he changes it to "Dear X" will you then debate the merits of his point?

by quixote27 2008-05-15 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Care to deal with the substance...

Done. I'd welcome any other thoughts.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Care to deal with the substance...

You can still comment on the nature of Obama's pro-choice positions, the role of polarity, or anything you think I got wrong.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 03:47PM | 0 recs
I finally got around to buying

leaving kansas. Woooohoooo

by lizardbox 2008-05-15 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

exactly.  you are breaking site rules here.

by canadian gal 2008-05-15 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

And thats fine,  because Jerome isn't banning people.

He took away REC rights from 200 members just to protect people like Alegre.

Jerome broke the rule of law by being "dictator" of this site, trying to control it, and failing in that attempt.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Is this true?

by astoria gooner 2008-05-15 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Of course it is: 20/180

look at the poll, thats just people who ARE STILL HERE.

newest thread: 15/703

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

I was wondering why it happened to me as well. I figured it was just a bug.

ah well.

by astoria gooner 2008-05-15 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

No bug.

by Veteran75 2008-05-15 11:31AM | 0 recs
Blog owners

are free to do as they wish.

Anyone who has been around DKOS for a while and remembers Mary Scott and Armando knows this.

by fladem 2008-05-15 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Blog owners

True - and people are also free to raise Cain about it. Which I trust them to do. I ain't banned yet, and I did change the name.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Did my changes suffice?

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

I agree. I hate this kind of diary. Not recommended.

Furthermore, clearly this diarist doesn't realize that this dog won't hunt:

"...the organization argued that a present vote would be difficult for Republicans to use in campaign literature against Democrats from moderate and conservative districts who favored abortion rights."

Barack Obama was a Senator representing a Democratic bastion. He certainly wasn't threatened by voting his principles.

by Tennessean 2008-05-15 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

He wasn't threatened. Which is why he voted present. To give dems in purple districts cover.

Btw, lets apply that same test to HRC with regards to the AUMF.

Hillary Clinton was a Sen representing a Dem bastion. She wasn't threatened by her voting principles...yet she voted for the war.

by astoria gooner 2008-05-15 10:14AM | 0 recs

his vote gave no one cover except himself and his desire for higher office.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-15 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: bullshit

I don't mean to let my facts interfere with your opinion, but if the claim is that his votes help downticket dems in purple and red areas, and then Travis Childers wins a Mississippi district that's been republican for a generation when the entire GOP strategy revolved around tying him to Obama (and the boogeyman Wright) and Childers wins...Isn't it pretty justified to say Obama's done well for dowticket dems?

by Djo 2008-05-15 11:29AM | 0 recs
Bullshit to you as well

Hillary's gas tax is pandering for a higher office.

Hillary's lies about sniper fire were lies to justify her "experience"

Who's the sanctimonious one now?

by Regenman 2008-05-15 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: bullshit

How woud that vote give him cover for higher office? It was part of a pro-choice strategy.

I'm confused on how you think this was a sign of weakness.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 03:48PM | 0 recs
Not Proven!
... some days I like my Senator! ;-)
(reference to ol' Arlen's vote on impeachement, and not terribly relevant exceptin' that it's also obscure parlimentary trickery)
by RisingTide 2008-05-15 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

True, but the idea was to get a big block of legislators, to give the ones that were at risk cover.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

When every piece of ahem writing she does gets recced up, she really does become more than the average user.  Like it or not, by her prevalence on this site, she is accountable for what she writes.

Personally, I cannot fathom why this person's diaries are so widely followed and recced.  Most of them are pretty lame.

Yes, I'll get flamed for this, but I guess I just don't understand her appeal.

by masterxi43 2008-05-15 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

It's astroturfing by the Hillaryis44 and Taylormarsh crowd.  The site moderators here have also become complicit by removing rec privileges from Obama supporters so Alegre and the other's diaries can more easily make the list.

by catalysis 2008-05-15 11:03AM | 0 recs
This is BS

The reason her diaries are rec'd is because of what she writes and how she writes.

I have never gone to H44 and I have only checked out TM's site maybe... 3 times.

So once again, I call Bullshit on your comment.

I really wonder if any of you O supporters realize what really happens at Dkos. The thing is, that you may not notice the abuse the admins do because the audience is much larger then here at MyDD. Plus you are on the same "side" as kos in who you support and who you attack.

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: This is BS

Sorry, Linfar was TOTALLY BUSTED today and last week.

you want links?

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: This is BS

What did she do this time?

by Veteran75 2008-05-15 11:33AM | 0 recs
She calls for people on HillIs44

to come over here and rec her diaries.  IndyDem99 does it as well.  Kind of sad.

by JJE 2008-05-15 11:39AM | 0 recs
You mean like this?:

Messages requesting recs like the following go out pretty much each time one of the 'prominent' MYDD Rec listers put a diary up.

Guys in all the time I've been on the blog no one has EVER gone in and
> deleted sections of my diary or deleted my post. Not even at
> DailyKos. I included a brief reference to those 400 bloggers BO's
> supposedly hired and the bots bitched up a blue streak to Johnathan
> Singer - admin. at MyDD. So they warned me and then deleted the first
> chunk of my diary tonight.
> I just thought I'd mention this in case you're wondering why my diary
> looks like it starts in the middle. Do me a favor and go rec my diary
> up - get it onto the rec list ok? Thanks.
> --- In, "hillarysbloggers"
> <hillarysbloggers@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Bots are swarming folks - I need help!
> > 20/424
> > <;
> >
> > Thanks! Alegre :)

If this comment somehow breaks site rules....feel free to hide hard feelings.  ;)

by Kysen 2008-05-16 03:24AM | 0 recs
Who cares

The same happens at Kos. The same happens at Kos for people to come here. The same happens all over the blogosphere.

wes Clark and John Edwards supporters did that all the time. There is nothing wrong with saying... "hey, there is a good XYZ candidate diary at blogX, please give it some help".

Obama people do it too.

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 11:43AM | 0 recs
Google &quot;tu quoque&quot;

so you can understand why your constant refrain of "Kos does it too!!" is extremely unpersuasive.

by JJE 2008-05-15 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Google &quot;tu quoque&quot;

My "constant" refrain?

No... it is a reminder to all of the O supporters to look within and at Dkos before bashing MyDD and Jerome.


by kevin22262 2008-05-15 12:26PM | 0 recs
I should add

not just Jerome but also before bashing other diarist such as Alegre

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Google &quot;tu quoque&quot;

yes, it is a classic tu quoque.  Did you google it?  

If someone says "Person A is doing X, and X is bad."  Responding with "But B does X too!  What about B?" does absolutely nothing to rebut the proposition that X is bad.   That's why nobody is persuaded when you use Kos to deflect criticism of posters here.

by JJE 2008-05-15 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Google &quot;tu quoque&quot;

You don't get it. I am not trying to persuade anyone.

I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of trying to call out MyDD, Jerome and some of the Hillary Clinton supporters.

I am not trying to say that some of these arguments are not valid. BUT as you point out these arguments fall on deaf ears and people are not persuaded because of the greater hypocrisy of Dkos, other places and other bloggers. (greater, because they are MUCH bigger)

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 12:46PM | 0 recs

but people shouldn't be gaming the rec list, either here or at Kos.  Can you agree on that?

by JJE 2008-05-15 12:53PM | 0 recs

kind of.

But it will continue to happen. I have a feeling this diary got on the list because a call was put out to get it there.

There have been pro Obama diaries that have never made it to the the rec list but this diary that calls out a fellow blogger gets on the rec list with a huge amount of recs.

Kudos for getting it there but....

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: hmmm

Nope. The only people who saw this diary did it because they clicked the link. I didn't alert anyone - however, some of the rec list diaries were fading, so that probably helped.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 03:53PM | 0 recs
well, I used to think that

ages ago, when the kozzacks would do it.

but when she alleges that Obama would be stealing Indiana if he wins... well, that's not someone I would want on the rec list. It's called a loose cannon, and I wouldn't want to see that person up there every single day.

by RisingTide 2008-05-15 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: well, I used to think that

It's not about the person. It's about the diaries.

Names are good for getting clicks, but they don't (or shouldn't) get recs.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: This is BS

This isn't dkos for the 1000th time...

by hootie4170 2008-05-15 11:29AM | 0 recs
No fucking DUH

Do you not get it for the 100th time?

Some of you O people come here and COMPLAIN away about a diary, diarist or the admins but you seem to be BLIND to what happens at the BIGGEST blog of the all. Dkos.

get it?


by kevin22262 2008-05-15 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: No fucking DUH

I'm not a member at are.  And for someone who talks shit about it all the time, you seem to be over there quite a bit...

by hootie4170 2008-05-15 11:54AM | 0 recs
And you know

this how?

I have been on Dkos since 2003 or 04.. I don't really remember.

Now if you are not a "member" at dkos, then how do you know what I do at dkos?

Also... the amount that I use Dkos is about 5% of what it used to be simply because of what happened over there. I have the bruises and scars to prove it.

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: And you know

Ok. I don't know what you did at D Kos, but that still doesn't legitimize citing their actions to justify someone else's.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: No &lt;bleep&gt; DUH

Ahhh, such nice manners here at MyDD.  Such understanding.  Such patience.

Let she/he who is without sin cast the first stone.  

That would work, except that many of the more vocal H supporters on this site consider themselves to be without sin - just like they consider their candidate to be without sin.

I seem to recall this somewhere:

* Post as many comments as you like, but users that post comments that do nothing but name-call, denigrate the site users, or make inflammatory remarks will either be warned, or outright banned.

* Do not troll rate (rating as 0) another user's comment unless it is a comment that is an attack on another user. Abusing this privilege will result in all your ratings being erased and/or getting a warning, or being banned.

But, then you've troll-rated non-attack comments of mine before, for no reason, and you haven't been banned from MyDD.

So, I guess all's fair...

If DKos does it, then many of the H supporters feel justified that MyDD does it.

I've been away from MyDD for months, since I was improperly banned.  I shouldn't have come back.  It's worse now.

by Sully Fick 2008-05-15 12:26PM | 0 recs

Now let me take your words and spin them.

"So, I guess all's fair...

If MyDD does it, then many of the O supporters feel justified that Dkos does it.

I've been away from Dkos for months, since I was improperly banned.  I shouldn't have come back.  It's worse now."

Do you get my point?

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 12:40PM | 0 recs
Thank you, kevin22262!!!

I have seen the light!  I see your point!!

Thank you for clearly pointing out to me what I have been missing all of this time.

You feel justified in improperly troll-rating users of MyDD because you were improperly troll-rated by people at Dkos.

And, you feel justified that I should have been improperly banned at MyDD because you were improperly banned at DKos.

Even though I did not troll-rate you at DKos or improperly ban you at Dkos, it is still appropriate for you (and the Admins) to do those things to me, because then justice is served in this surreal Intertube-world.

Thanks for clearing this up for me, kevin22262.  It makes so much more sense now.

I take it that I'm now permanently banished from MyDD forever, and should hang my head in shame, and never post here again?

Ok.  Such is life.  Tu quoque.

Longos imitaris, kevin22262.

by Sully Fick 2008-05-15 01:03PM | 0 recs

for proving my feelings about some of the O kids.

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: thanks

Thanks for proving my point about you troll-rating my posts improperly, for which you won't get warned or banned.

And, sorry to disprove your feelings.....I'm not one of the O kids.

I was, and am still, an Edwards adult.  And a woman.

Don't patronize me.

by Sully Fick 2008-05-15 01:15PM | 0 recs
Well then

don't act like an O kid. Or a child.

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Well then

How exactly do you survive in the wild and wooly world of the unstable intertubes with a skin so thin?

Does sarcasm bite you so deeply?

Which part did you feel was acting like an "O kid" and which part was acting like "a child"?

Snark?  Quoting scripture?  Sarcasm?  Quoting user rules?  Publicly talking about your tendency to HR and TR without cause?  Quoting Latin?

Or is your fallback position just to call someone names?

Not only shouldn't I have come back here, I also shouldn't have bothered posting anything.

I'll let you have the last words, kevin22262.

Make them good ones.

by Sully Fick 2008-05-15 01:34PM | 0 recs
You continue

to prove that you act like a child.

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: You continue

And you continue to engage. If she's so immature, don't giveher your attention.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:03PM | 0 recs

Nullane res potuit crudelis flectere mentis consilium? Tibi nulla fuit clementia praesto, immite ut nostri vellet miserescere pectus?

- Gaius Valerius Catullus - LXIV

You're right, don't give her [me] your attention, if I'm so immature!

As to the human race. There are many pretty and winning things about the human race. It is perhaps the poorest of all the inventions of all the gods but it has never suspected it once. There is nothing prettier than its naive and complacent appreciation of itself. It comes out frankly and proclaims without bashfulness or any sign of a blush that it is the noblest work of God. It has had a billion opportunities to know better, but all signs fail with this ass. I could say harsh things about it but I cannot bring myself to do it - it is like hitting a child.

- Mark Twain, Autobiographical dictation

by Sully Fick 2008-05-15 06:22PM | 0 recs
oh my

and this person continues to engage but in doing so also throws shit around.


by kevin22262 2008-05-15 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you, kevin22262!!!

I hate to bring this up, but a lot of the troll-rate abuse I have seen on this site comes from one side... Clinton supporters who do not like what they have read... no personal attacks... no inappropriate comments... just divergent opinions.

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-15 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: hmm

You can't HR sarcasm.  My God.

by The Distillery 2008-05-15 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: hmm

Thank you for noticing the HR, and uprating.

by Sully Fick 2008-05-15 01:22PM | 0 recs

at me.

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: hmm

Why do you lie??  You aren't banned from Dkos, you just wrote a diary yesterday and have commented for the last week...Instead of bringing your complaints to Dkos you come over here so you can be surrounded by your "buddies" and then you throw your insults...can't do it at Dkos can ya??

by hootie4170 2008-05-15 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: This is BS

Actually I've noticed it's pretty civil overthere with the exception of the occasional asshole, but if you can find a blog that doesn't have a few hanging around, let me know where that's at!

Kos has great issue and down ticket coverage, I think people forget that sometimes through all of the outlandish and inflammatory diaries that get posted over here to prove a point. I saw one that had two people rec it, most of the commenters said it was crappy, and yet still it was posted here because it fanned the flames of a blog war. Let's grow up a little!

by Djo 2008-05-15 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: This is BS

How long have you been at Dkos?

I sometimes wonder if some of you O supporters are blind to what goes on over at Dkos because most of the diaries support O or bash Clinton.

The numbers of users and posters at Dkos greatly outnumbers MyDD, so you will see more variety and maybe not notice a diary hanging around as long. This is a fact that seem to allude many of you.

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: This is BS

Since long before this primary season. One of the reasons I started coming on this site was because it did get nasty over there for awhile. But it's really died down since then. If you find yourself being the target of attacks over there, it may be because of the tone of argument you are using. I haven't seen anyone bash another for a well-informed civil disagreement and if they do, there are others who are willing to step in defense.

Alot of people need to come off their high horses and admit the dialogue's gotten just as muddy on this site.

by Djo 2008-05-15 01:11PM | 0 recs
I never said

it has not gotten bad here.

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I never said

sure, whatever you say :\

by Djo 2008-05-15 01:37PM | 0 recs
Show me

then... ok?


by kevin22262 2008-05-15 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Show me

I really don't want to get in a pissing contest with a skunk. But I've been accused of following a cult of personality, drinking the "Koolaid", taking Obama pills, being "one of the creepy crawly things", and these are the comments that come from trying to put level headed facts into the arguments. And that is the most alarming thing about it.

Not to say I've never said something stupid on this blog, but when I do, there are usually people there to point that out. But when people respond to me with insults when I'm trying to point out facts, it reminds me alot of when people used to call me a terrorist for not supporting the Iraq war. Me and my stupid facts...

by Djo 2008-05-15 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Show me

First off... with a skunk?

Second... I have NEVER said those things to anyone!


by kevin22262 2008-05-15 09:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Show me

Sorry, the skunk comment didn't come out right. In no way did I mean to put you in the lot with that dastardly Pepe le Pew.

And you may not have said those things. But those are just a few of my reasons that I think the dialogue in this site is just as bad as it ever was on Kos

by Djo 2008-05-16 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Show me

What was your point in posting this?

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:05PM | 0 recs

Post what? My last comment?

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 09:33PM | 0 recs
Re: huh?

Yep. Seemed like a fairly pointless comment to make; I wondered why you posted it.

by Falsehood 2008-05-16 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

What total bs. Alegre is known and recommended because she speaks for many of us who are party activists who support Hillary.  She has no special connection to the administrators and certainly not to the "crowd" you refernece. She made her bones at DKos and led us away  from that rotten orange when it became a Hillary-hate site.  

As for the diarist, he said it all up front.  He's a guy.  He doesn't get it. And he's taken a lot of space to ask women to explain it all to him or shut up.  I won't do either.

I'll just say when you attack Alegre or Hillary you attack me and millions of women.  It's personal.

by Tolstoy 2008-05-15 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

I fail to see any attack.

But women can be wrong, you know.

Just like men.

by DeskHack 2008-05-15 11:35AM | 0 recs
You don't speak for &quot;millions of women&quot;

and neither does anyone else.  Get over yourself.

by JJE 2008-05-15 11:38AM | 0 recs
White women versus Black women eh?

So in supporting women, you attack black women?  Fan fracking tastic...


Most of all, I remembered reading Steinem's line that gender was the most restricting force in America today and laughing aloud, because I was so sure that what she meant to say was that gender is the most restricting force in America today--if you happen to be white and middle-class. Having spent some time that week at a Boston public school that is visibly and painfully segregated--segregated and restricted by race and economic status and parental educational attainment and maybe some other things but certainly not by gender

by Regenman 2008-05-15 11:46AM | 0 recs
That last line ...(lol)

Wow. Are you serious? A little melodramatic don't you think.

Some of these posts...are just...plain bizarre.

by april34fff 2008-05-15 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

I tried and got trolled.  I think sometimes when people say they don't understand, they really mean they don't agree, and that the call for an explanation only  means they want a chance to tr your dissenting opinion.  Have you noticed that the closer we get to a nom and the more Barack is seen as unstoppable, the meaner his supporters get?  it's weird.  It's tired.  

by anna shane 2008-05-15 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

I'm sorry you feel that Obama supporters are being mean. I'm trying to work against that.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:06PM | 0 recs
I'm a woman who is against propaganda

no matter what form it takes and who it comes from.  Allegre's diaries are completely without substance, over-emotional copy and paste jobs.  

I'm so sick of the second-wave feminist BS.  The philosphy being:  The only way to fit in with the status quo is to become the status quo.  So women are supposed to pick up what some consider to be the worst aspects of "maleness" in order to fit into a man's world.

So now all of us must suffer:
the hawkish(the commander and chief threshold)
war-mongering (I was for the Iraq war before I was against it, but I didn't know what I was voting for)
tough as nails(I will eat any Republican or fellow Democrat who stands in my way)  
never listen to reason (no economist agrees with my gas tax holiday, but I won't let that stand in my way)
a man could never understand the plight of women (Obama is 100% with women on all issues)

Some of the best feminists I know are men, and some of the worst feminists I know are women.  And I'm sure the majority of women between the ages of 20-30 could say the same thing. And it is a new generation after all.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-15 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm a woman who is against propaganda

That's fairly far reaching. Care to back that up?

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

I disagree. There is some stuff I don't have in my memory, but that doesn't invalidate my point. Rather, its something to consider along with it.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

I've seen Linfar do this - not Alegre.

She just writes great diaries, and has name recognition for them. Which means more people read, more people recommend, etc, etc.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 12:19PM | 0 recs
I'm a Clinton supporter who agrees with you

I don't ever read her diaries because they are just nonstop propaganda.  I was wondering how each of them manages to get into the rec list even though each of us could probably predict the content of each of them.  One of the posters to this entry provides a plausible explanation.  

by lombard 2008-05-15 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm a Clinton supporter who agrees with you

OMG. I agree with you, lombard.


I'm dumbstruck.

Thank you.

I yet see a glimmer of hope for reconciliation.

by bookish 2008-05-15 11:49AM | 0 recs

But, alas, my reasonableness is likely only temporary!

by lombard 2008-05-15 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks!

But I'll carry it with me forevah. ;)

by bookish 2008-05-15 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm a Clinton supporter who agrees with you

If I could rec, I would, but this will have to suffice

:invisible 2-rate:

by bookish 2008-05-15 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

I like her diaries, especially the positive ones. Part of leadership is rallying the troops - and Alegre is extremely good at that.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Her positive diaries are fine.  However, maybe it's just me, but I don't see how they are so great as to make the rec list for every single one.

Her negative diaries are atrocious and usually completely uncalled for.  These diaries sit on the rec list far longer.  This is what bothers me about her and this site.

by masterxi43 2008-05-15 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Its a snowball effect - name recognition means that more write/read, and I do think her diaries are good.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 12:20PM | 0 recs
Pardon me if I butt in here...

It would be my observation, having lurked here for some time and posted few comments, that whenever Alegre is called out in a professional manner with facts in her own diaries, she either refuses to answer or uses childish retorts that do nothing to foster creative debate and/or criticism.

So in an atmosphere where she consistently has recommended diaries, makes various claims that don't always hold up to a microscope and yet fails to respond or childishly responds to some of the more non-hostile criticisms, you expect either the Admin to do something or for her to reply, in a private email, that doesn't allow anyone else to have their say either in the public forum?

Please. This Open Letter diary was reasonable, well formed, thought-out, polite, had substance, and has an acceptable grievance.

If Alegra can't handle this kind of heat, maybe she should get out of the kitchen.

by phillybits 2008-05-15 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I completely agree

My favorite was her Indiana primary diary, which she updated by decrying all the "rude and crowing" Obama supporters.  When I read through the thread, the comment that stood out was hers, wherein she claimed that, if Obama won Indiana, it would be because the mayor of Gary committed vote fraud.

by deminva 2008-05-15 11:10AM | 0 recs
patronage ain't illegal

it's still skullduggery.

by RisingTide 2008-05-15 11:26AM | 0 recs
The Indiana Accusation

was outrageous.

by fladem 2008-05-15 11:29AM | 0 recs
And if you recall....

she called all Obama supporters boys while referring to Hillary supporters as ladies.

Her ego is so huge she can't imagine another woman disagreeing with her.  Then she throws out the word "boys" in such a denigrating way, as if being a man was some sort of handicap.

As a woman, I found it unforgivably rude and disgusting.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-15 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: And if you recall....

I feel like its in the same sense that Southerners will say Yankee - it's not so much an insult as it is dividing lines - in the (women) club and not.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: And if you recall....

Yes, another word for them.

by deminva 2008-05-15 05:45PM | 0 recs
pardon me yourself

just because someone posts a question or comment doesn't mean someone else has to answer them.  

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-15 11:16AM | 0 recs
&quot;Just because...&quot;

The way you make it sound, Alegre is a little known, seldom heard voice in this corner of Blogatopia who makes infrequent comments, posts even less frequently than she comments, and otherwise doesn't hit on the controversial topics... me...

However, we're not talking about one comment or one question, but a slew, a repetition, a continuation of talking points, bulletins, and attacks.

If I were consistently having diaries on the rec list and was an overpowering voice for one political site, I would feel it to be, in fact, my responsibility to answer as many questions as I can.

And especially when writing on controversial topics, if I were so sure of everything I put into a post and believed in whole-heartedly and 100%, if someone challenged me on the information, I would respond.

And not only would I respond, I would respond with class and facts, not childish remarks like:

Tell us again... what's your guy offering up this summer?

Yeah - didn't think so.

Furthermore, I don't think Alegre needs anyone speaking for her or in her defense. She's a big girl, made clear by her pull on this site and amongst her supporters.

If she wants to be an overpowering voice on this or any other site, then she leaves herself (fairly) open to criticism and if she chooses not to respond, it speaks even more volumes about her than anything else.

I'm sure if she turned around and wrote a post condemning a woman's right to choose, you and countless others would be first in line demanding answers.

What a shame it would be if she never got back to you...

by phillybits 2008-05-15 11:32AM | 0 recs
Just because you don't understand

Phillybits' point doesn't mean you're obliged to issue a non sequitur in response.

by JJE 2008-05-15 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: pardon me yourself

A point I made in the diary, but you're correct. I was wary of using her name given that I didn't want to capitalize on it, but I changed the name due to the comment controversy on/over it.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Pardon me if I butt in here...

haha, she posted a diary about FL and MI and I posted a comment brought up my cousins in FL who chose to go to their mission in Haiti instead of voting for their candidate (O'bama) because they were told their votes didn't count. I asked if their votes should be count or if they should be penalized for (quoting her words from the diary) "following the rules the DNC sorted out".

She took the time to use my comment to lambest an Obama supporter saying "I didn't ask him" but failed to address the concern I was addressing with her.

by Djo 2008-05-15 11:47AM | 0 recs

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

My complaint wasn't about site policies - e-mailing the AD isn't really applicable here. I did think about a comment, but I felt a diary was merited.

"An Open Letter to Alegre," doesn't count as a call-out, I think. I think I'm in the grey area, but my post is about the nature of our communication on this site. I used Alegre as my example, but I felt I was engaging ISSUES enough to merit the post.

This isn't about Alegre, or me. However, Alegre is a leader, so in some ways, I was engaging all Hillary supporters. At this point, I think I've crossed into semi-spin, so I'll shut up.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 11:29AM | 0 recs
This diary could have been titled

"An open letter to Clinton Supporters" and accomplished the same thing.

And on substance I agree with much of it.

But I don't like seeing user names in diary titles.

by fladem 2008-05-15 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: This diary could have been titled

I disagree. A majority of the clinton supporters on this site are very civil and open to intelligent discourse. They are willing to listen to facts, base opinions on those facts and reanalyze their opinions based on facts and new information as it comes out.

I think this diary was not intended just for Alegre, but she is one of the most vocal of a faction of Clinton supporters who selectively choose their facts, often times failing to support their facts (unless an unnamed pollster on Hill44 is "verifying your facts") and, while refusing to participate in the kind of civil two way dialogue that blogs are supposed to be about often times get dragged into mudslinging contests against other dems. Those are the members this is addressed to. Her name gets their attention.

by Djo 2008-05-15 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: This diary could have been titled

I got rid of it, thanks to comments like this one.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:10PM | 0 recs
Indeed. But....

whenever anyone posts a lengthy, substantive comment in one of Allegre's diaries her only response is "Get your own diary!"

This diarist has chosen to do just that, and he's accomplished it with a profoundly simple and respectful tone.  

Recommended whole-heartedly!

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-15 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Indeed. But....

Thank you - I've never seen such a comment from Alegre, but I felt that with the sources, I was better off with a diary.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre
Following are excerpts from MyDD's Community Guidelines:
  • Users who are bashing or attacking any other user on the site, including authors of diaries and frontpage postings, will be banned. Candidates and politicians are fair game (but that doesn't mean you can use inflammatory language against candidates).
  • Titles of diaries should not be inflammatory, call out other users or the site, and will be deleted if not edited out, and the user banned.
This diary should be taken down or banned.
by zenful6219 2008-05-15 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

This has never followed any rules.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

You should take her name out of the title though.

by The Distillery 2008-05-15 10:16AM | 0 recs
I agree with the diarist

She is not like other posters.  Her diaries are little more than nonstop predictable propaganda yet they are always recommended.  I think she is entitled to be called out on comments.

by lombard 2008-05-15 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

its not attacking, bashing demeaning her in any way. Its pretty thoughtful.

by IowaMike 2008-05-15 10:10AM | 0 recs
well, we'll see if I still have rec priviledges

by the end of the day.

by RisingTide 2008-05-15 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: well, we'll see if I still have rec priviledge

I do, so I think you'll be alright :D

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:23PM | 0 recs
nope, apparently.

Is there any way to contact admin?

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-19 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Excellent Diary.

If I retained the ability to recommend, I would.  

Please consider this post a a recommendation in spirit!

by nextgen 2008-05-15 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

I hope this gets deleted.  Call out diaries are not allowed here, as far as I know.  If you feel that NARAL is justified in their action, make your arguments on that basis, but you have no reason to publish "open letters" to other bloggers here.

By the way, on the issue involved, I think was bad politics for NARAL and bad for the Obama campaign.  I'll leave the argument on this to the very astute and talented Obama-supporter, Poblano, who even before this endorsement was made, argued that this was a particularly bad time for Obama to be releasing a major "in your face" endorsement.

And that's what the NARAL endorsement was.  I have absolutely no idea what either NARAL or Obama thought would be achieved by releasing the endorsement at this time.  If NARAL thought that Obama was better all along, they should have endorsed him earlier.  If they merely wanted to endorse the winner between the two, they could have waited a few weeks and, at that time, helped bring the party together.

by markjay 2008-05-15 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Here's Poblano's argument, which he made before Edwards' endorsement was announced: ultiple-choice.html

I have no idea whether it's John Edwards. But remember the two contradictory viewpoints that I expressed last night. On the one hand, the Obama campaign knows that the 48 hours following West Virginia were going to be the most vulnerable time in the remainder of the primary cycle for them. So it would be a good time to hijack a media cycle. But, on the other hand, it would be a little awkward to roll out an "in your face" sort of endorsement the day after Clinton won a primary by 40 points. If, I don't know, Dianne Feinstein flipped to Obama, that might trigger exactly the opposite of its intended effect amongst her supporters (see also: the NARAL endorsement). So what you're going for is awe rather than shock.

John Edwards is perhaps the only name that can deliver awe without shock. And that's because, if you look at his appearances on Morning Joe and Larry King Live, he's been softening the ground on a potential Obama endorsement for about a week now. And he deferred to Clinton until after the North Carolina primary and Obama won that primary. It's an endorsement that would gather lots of headlines, but that wouldn't give the appearance of being hasty or presumptuous.

by markjay 2008-05-15 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

I don't think I'm in any violation of the rules now. If this is an attack on Alegre, then what is a diary comment supposed to be? Attacking the diarist?

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Why would you spend an entire diary calling out someone else? Instead, you should have made the case for why NARAL's endorsement of Obama was the right thing in your view. Instead of going after alegre, you could have simply propped up Obama in light of her attacks.

And regardless of what the rules officially say, it's a little crass to do this kind of thing I think.

by VAAlex 2008-05-15 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

As I said in another thread, hammering on Obama for his virtues is a terrible thing. At this point, NARAL is just buying some political points with an all-but-certain nominee. But it's not as if Obama's record doesn't merit an endorsement. Wingnuts are already raging against his choice record, talking about how he voted against partial-birth bans.

by mattw 2008-05-15 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

You'll get banned for calling out another diarist.  Better delete this pronto.

by TexasDarlin 2008-05-15 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Sorry Texas,  your days of strong arming this site are over.

How can Jerome ban people for breaking rules, when he bans them for not breaking rules.

I need some logic.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

This diarist is respectfully trying to point something out that most people on this site feel needs to be addressed. And he chose what is arguably the most effective headline. If he gets banned, I say it was a user account well put to use. It was an excellent display of civil disobedience.

by Djo 2008-05-15 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

The letter is very respectful. Doubt it will get banned..

Would rec if I could.

by astoria gooner 2008-05-15 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

This is exactly the sort of thing that gets people privileges removed.  You can't call out another diarist like this. It's very clear in the rules.  If you want to make your  point about Naral, do so without calling out other diarists.

by Denny Crane 2008-05-15 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

No, Jerome removes privledges from people he doesnt like.

It has nothing to do with rules.

look at this thread: 15/703 15/703

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

I can't attack another diarist, or call out via diary title. I don't think I violated, but I did chnage it to be clear. Do you have any other comments?

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Maybe change the title to "An Open Letter to the Rec List"

by astoria gooner 2008-05-15 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

That would be more fair.

You know alot of this could have been avoided if Jerome made Alegre, and Texas Darling permanent Front page writers.

That was the point of removing REC privledges,  as soon as their dominance was interupted Jerome started banning

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 09:59AM | 0 recs
um no.

my first diary to make the rec list was just bumped for this one.  and i have way more rec's.  so that just doent fly.

by canadian gal 2008-05-15 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: um no.

Recs depreciate with time . . . you should know that by now.

by Veteran75 2008-05-15 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: um no.

i know this - but there are other OLDER diaries that are on there, so i think this argument is moot.

by canadian gal 2008-05-15 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: um no.

I think it has to do with the timing of the recs.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:25PM | 0 recs
And you

got this inside info from whom?

This is BS.

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: And you

Our own two eyes?

by Jordache 2008-05-15 11:46AM | 0 recs
first off

I am amazed how you can answer for someone else. I guess that is how "you" know. You are a mind reader. Right?

Second... your eyes must need glasses.

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 12:10PM | 0 recs
Great Diary...We will miss you

I agree with almost everything in this diary.  However, I fully expect you to get banned.

Please get a new account as soon as possible.  I enjoy your writing and expect to hear great things from you in about 7 days.

New Username suggestions:

Falsehood 2.0
Banned for Truth

See ya in a week

by CAchemist 2008-05-15 09:53AM | 0 recs
To Rec or not to Rec


I would rec your diary but am afraid of getting "Bob Johnsoned"

by CAchemist 2008-05-15 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: To Rec or not to Rec


by Jordache 2008-05-15 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: To Rec or not to Rec

I don't know why not.  The same as it has been throughout history, I think it's once again becoming de rigeur to be banned or silenced. Embrace it as a badge of honor.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-15 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: To Rec or not to Rec

Actually that is a good point.  Diary recommended!

by CAchemist 2008-05-15 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: To Rec or not to Rec

I daresay I survived any expected purge - really, respect can do wonders. :D

I'd ask Jerome about the title, but I won't push it....

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 03:00PM | 0 recs
This isn't a &quot;call out.&quot;

He's not requiring that she respond, so it's not a call-out.  He's even saying that alegre's critics shouldn't get on her case if she chooses not to respond.

Like it or not, alegre made a very serious call for action yesterday against an organization that apolitically does what it thinks is right for the people they work for and with.

Heat, kitchen.  According to alegre's candidate, one should be able to stand one if they want to stay in the other.  She's gotten a lot of favorable treatment at this site over the past couple months, methinks that she can handle dealing with a polite request for continued debate under slightly different terms.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-15 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: This isn't a &quot;call out.&quot;
The diarist, who shall not be named, is not the issue. She is not running for President. She does not represent the organization in question. This diary breaks at least 2 community rules, pure and simple.
by zenful6219 2008-05-15 10:16AM | 0 recs
Community rules?

Many of the community rules are inconsistantly enforced.  Once I lost all posting, rating, and diary privledges for no apparent reason, and then got them back after drewid posted a letter for me.

I would argue that this journal obeys the spirit and the intent of the rules even if it's vaguely in violation of the letter of said rules.

The issues involved deserve to be spoken about, and it would be a pity if alegre didn't see this diary (because we all know that she's a very busy lady).

by Dracomicron 2008-05-15 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: This isn't a &quot;call out.&quot;

Do you think I was "attacking" her?

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:26PM | 0 recs
More Proof this site doesn't follow rules:

Admins have said clearly, if you support Republicans especially John McCain you will be banned.

Than why on earth do we have an active John McCain activist on our site laughing at us.

His name is ChitownDenny.

His pride and joy website is:

If it bothers you, please write all Admins.

It is common knowledge about who this troll is.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: More Proof this site doesn't follow rules:

Right wing trolls like to go on "democratic" sites.

Nobody goes to their they come here!

by gil44 2008-05-15 10:32AM | 0 recs

That site has the famous gay limo story.

That guy is hilarious.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-15 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: More Proof this site doesn't follow rules:

That site is vile - how are you sure they are the same poster?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-15 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: More Proof this site doesn't follow rules:

A: He never denies it
B: His name is the same
C: He admits it in some comments

This is how it is, Jerome knows he's a republican, that is against site rules.

Singer said yesterday instant ban for anyone campaigning for McCain.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: More Proof this site doesn't follow rules:

Fair enough.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-15 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: More Proof this site doesn't follow rules:

Republican doesn't mean campaigning for McCain.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

This is a thoughtful and respectful response to Alegre's post. It does not call her out, bash her, or demean her in any way. It asks her to think.

by vermontprog 2008-05-15 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

I'm sorry, but he's not calling out Alegre, as much as you guys piling on 'em wanna call it. This is a helluva issue to politicize, and even you Clinton supporters know she's never actually recognized when people make hard arguments against her and have responded to them.

This was an idiotic issue to politicize- if NARAL had endorsed Clinton, I'd have shrugged and continued to think they would have done good works. I don't think you'd have seen a raft of Obama supporters going "ZOMG LET'S GIVE OBAMA MONEY INSTEAD!!!" or somesuch thing.

by ragekage 2008-05-15 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

I want to recommend your diary. It's a very thoughtful and polite effort, clearly. However, I'm afraid of getting Bob Johnsoned, to use the new phrase. Even if this diary does technically violate a site guideline, I don't see any real basis for complaint. This is an honest, good-faith attempt at dialog and greater understanding. It is obviously not designed to hurt anyone personally. Indeed, the diarist approaches alegre with about as much charity as a critic could.

Anyway, again, thanks for trying to elevate the conversation a little.

by DPW 2008-05-15 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Thank you. I think you'll be ok rec'ing it. :D

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

violating the rules is basis enough for complaint.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-05-15 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

De minimus violations of law are often dismissed by courts (especially in copyright, tax, and property cases). I would advise folks here to follow that example, especially in response to a diary like this one which makes every effort to avoid being inflammatory.

by DPW 2008-05-15 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

I agree, but that doesn't mean the complaint merited action. However, the weight of complaints did merit, in my judgment, a name change.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Sadly, people unable to debate the issue --- since their opinions are based on little more than a rabid loyalty to a candidate and, therefore, a rabid hate of anything that supports that candidate's opponent --- will focus on the "call-out" nature of your diary and, rather than talking about the ridiculous nature of the diary you're combatting, will cry about your having broken the rules.

So, my advice is to edit this.  Make it about a diary whose author you keep anonymous.  Maybe delete it and repost it as such.  

Your argument is valid, but it'll gain no foothold because you've been deemed a "rule breaker" by those you're fighting.  

by freedom78 2008-05-15 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

I think there's very little to debate.

Who wants to be for polarity/manipulations of fact? Instead, I think we can and should talk about ways to self-govern - such that Obama supporter jump on their own when someone screws up.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:43PM | 0 recs
Red Clintonite, or Green?

by benmasel 2008-05-15 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Red Clintonite, or Green?


by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:43PM | 0 recs
I am Alegre

I am Alegre.
I am every Clinton Democrat who is sworn to vote for the nominee, but is called a troll until we have a nominee.

I am Alegre and I am proud of my friend, her support for the most qualified person of our lifetime and I stand with Alegre until Hillary tells us to stand down.

by NewHampster 2008-05-15 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: I am Alegre

I, too, am Alegre.

I am every Clinton Democrat who is sworn to vote for the nominee, but is called a troll until we have a nominee.

I am Alegre and I am proud of my friend, her support for the most qualified person of our lifetime and I stand with Alegre until Hillary tells us to stand down.

by KnowVox 2008-05-15 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: I am Alegre

cool.  Maybe one of you Alegre's can answer some of the substance of this open letter.

by map 2008-05-15 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: I am Alegre

"I am Malcom X"

Whats your point, you can't steal the last scene of a movie and get away with it.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: I am Alegre

Actually, it's "I'm Spartacus".

by Jordache 2008-05-15 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I am Alegre

"I'm Gatsby".

Bonus points to anyone who enjoys terrible acting in TV remakes.

by The Great Gatsby 2008-05-15 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: I am Alegre

And yet I'm the one drinking the Koolaid, swallowing "Obamapills" and following a cult of personality to put my "messiah" on a pedastal, because I'm too afraid to address substantive issues. Give me a break....

by Djo 2008-05-15 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I am Alegre

I am Alegre too

by TexasDarlin 2008-05-15 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I am Alegre


by owl06 2008-05-15 11:23AM | 0 recs

Well done.

"You truly are the king of kings."

by Dracomicron 2008-05-15 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: I am Alegre

Hahaha and you guys call us cultists

by amiches 2008-05-15 11:40AM | 0 recs
Gee Where is Spartacus?

by LtWorf 2008-05-15 11:46AM | 0 recs
I am Bob Johnson

I am Bob Johnson.

I am every Democrat who is sworn to vote for the Democratic nominee, but is called a sexist, race baiter and troll for supporting Barack Obama as that nominee.

I am Bob Johnson and I am proud to be a Progressive Democrat, and support a candidate that has a new vision for our country that has been reduced to big corporations' and lobbyists' well being.

I am Bob Johnson and I will continue to fight for the average person and their right to pursue happiness, to choose for themselves, and have their rights be protected.   I will align myself with my strong Democratic brothers and sisters and we will not stop until our mission is complete.

I am Bob Johnson.

by hootie4170 2008-05-15 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: I am Alegre

I hope you don't think I was calling Alegre a troll - I've 2'd her comments, and rec'd her diaries before.

I don't like some of what she said, but I hope that doens't coming across as a troll accusation.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 12:02PM | 0 recs

Your screen name says it all.

by KnowVox 2008-05-16 01:19PM | 0 recs
Knowvox, your personal attacks.

Your incessant personal attacks are precisely why you don't have ratings privileges anymore.

by Shem 2008-05-16 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: I am Alegre

I'm Spartacus.

by Skaje 2008-05-15 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I am Alegre

Just to get a few off my chest:

I am Sam.

We are Marshall.

Who is Keyser Söze?

I AM the greatest! (that's Ali, FTR).

I am he who is called "I am."

by freedom78 2008-05-15 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: I am Alegre

Lol. Mojo :D

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I am Alegre

I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam.


by Captain Bathrobe 2008-05-15 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Fantastic Diary. Both in content and in the  debate it brings up about mydd's silencing of opposition to alegre and texasdarlin.

by Maize and Blue State 2008-05-15 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

I don't think MyDD silences opposition - but rather that its hard to have a substantive discussion in the comments.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

How dare you actually use facts and logic to support your arguments!  That right there should be enough to get you booted off the Rec list on MyDD.

by belicheat 2008-05-15 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

What's sad about this letter is it doesn't matter.

Alegre is a paid blogger.

Her opinion is going to be Pro-Hillary Clinton no matter what because this is a part time JOB.

Nothing anyone can say can change that, gang! Didja know that gang? Didja didja?!


I said it last night, she is a human flashing banner.  A flashing banner that most of you invest thought in, for some reason, and actually take time to agree with and reason with.

by AlexScott 2008-05-15 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Prove that she is a paid blogger.

by owl06 2008-05-15 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

You gotta prove that, I've never seen anything to indicate that.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Why do you say she gets paid?

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-15 11:41AM | 0 recs
I see that so far

you do not have the guts to comment in your own diary.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-15 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: I see that so far

I just got back on the site. Hello!

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 11:32AM | 0 recs
Call Out Diaries

Violate site rules.

by owl06 2008-05-15 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Call Out Diaries

Site rules violate open discussion

by Maize and Blue State 2008-05-15 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Call Out Diaries

Then go play some place else.

by owl06 2008-05-15 11:24AM | 0 recs

by Maize and Blue State 2008-05-15 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: No!

Site rules are rarely ever enforced.

And many people are banned for not breaking any rules at all.

There are no rules on this site.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 11:37AM | 0 recs
No, because then

you would all tear each other to shreds fighting about who loves Hillary the mostest. I can't have that blood on my hands.

by bookish 2008-05-15 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Amazing how no one wishes to respond to his point, they just want to see him banned.  Courage of your convictions, eh?

by quixote27 2008-05-15 11:24AM | 0 recs

what amazes me is that people think that because they say something on line other people are obligated to answer them.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-15 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: rofl

I specifically said she did not. Did you read the whole diary?

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: rofl

Nice straw man. I never said people were obligated - they obviously are not.  I simply noted that people HAVE NOT responded to the substance.  

But, apparently you have responded, and your response is "I don't want to."  Thats cool.

by quixote27 2008-05-15 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: rofl

What amazes me is that people can be so adamant about their opinions, yet never ever ever willing to sit down and discuss them politely with people who feel differntly. We've had eight years of that. I thought you'd be sick of it by now.

by Djo 2008-05-15 12:20PM | 0 recs
A spirited argument which didn't ONCE

...touch on the diarist's impassioned and extremely courtesy plea for truth and sanity:

Alegre - you went further in pushing the idea that Obama has been weak on choice at any point in his career. I know you support Hillary, but that doesn't mean that you can say such things, because they are FLAT OUT NOT TRUE.

So are we saying that one diarist can post known falsehoods but another is prohibited from posting to refute those falsehoods, and to express pain and disappointment at the disingenuous and divisive tactics a supposed fellow progressive (unless she is in fact a paid operative - I don't know what to believe anymore).

by obsessed 2008-05-15 11:29AM | 0 recs
I mean &quot;courteous plea&quot;

See how upset you've gotten me?

by obsessed 2008-05-15 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Geesh if you don't like Alegre's diaries then don't freaking read them!!  No one is forcing you to read, or respond, or even come to this site.  Get over yourselves already!

by JustJennifer 2008-05-15 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Don't want to respond to the substance of his statement, huh?

by quixote27 2008-05-15 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

That is my response.  If you don't like what she has to say then don't read it.  I am against any form of censorship on any level.  Don't like what is on TV?  Flip the channel, but don't tell me what I can or can't watch.  Don't like a book?  Don't buy it but also don't tell others to burn them.  Reading something is a choice not a necessity.

by JustJennifer 2008-05-15 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

I'm not sure you read his diary - he didn't ask for her to be banned, censored, or any of the sort.  He asked that she reconsider what she's saying based on the substance of what she was saying. He focused particularly on the NARAL issue.

I'm not sure what that has to do with censorship.

by quixote27 2008-05-15 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

She is saying what she truly feels - asking her to "reconsider" that is the same thing as saying "shut up, you are wrong".  Yes the diary was worded more politely but there have been plenty of shout outs that weren't.  All I am saying is if you disagree and/or are disturbed by her diaries then stop reading them.  Don't continue to "suggest" to her that she change her mind.  

by JustJennifer 2008-05-15 11:46AM | 0 recs

It's called "honest debate."

by Dracomicron 2008-05-15 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Isn't the point of these diaries (and having a comment section) so that we can have civil debate over the substance contained within?  We can quibble whether this deserves its own diary or should be in a comment, but it seems like a reasonable issue to debate and not some call for censorship.

And, to be frank, "if you don't like it don't read it" seems pretty contrary to all that is blog.

by quixote27 2008-05-15 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Pointing to one blogger is not honest debate - it's like a pile on.  I am sure she can hold her own so I am not here to defend her.. just sayin'

by JustJennifer 2008-05-15 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Alegre is the most visible Hillary supporter here.

She made inflammatory statements.

Through logic and facts, Falsehood argued against her statements, and challenged her to raise the level of her dialogue.

Exactly what part of that is "piling on"?  Why are you so against intelligent debate?

by The Great Gatsby 2008-05-15 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Well you could have done the same thing and stayed out of this if you didn't agree with diarist. (switched channels, read another comment, replied to another diary) But no ... you had to.

Well I could have done the same thing and not commented on your comment ... but I had to .

Crap ... this is piling on and defending is like an addiction ...

by v2r1 2008-05-15 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

"Crap ... this is piling on and defending is like an addiction ... "

I agree with that.  LOL

by JustJennifer 2008-05-15 12:29PM | 0 recs
Lincoln Douglas debate???

Isn't supporting your position part of our historical legacy?

When did blogging become about stridency and misrepresentation and a total failure to apply reason to your professed beliefs?

We're adults.  Grow up and SUPPORT your position with rationales instead of acting like a child with "I just feel this way" or "cause someone said so".

by Regenman 2008-05-15 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

I'm not suggesting she change her mind - I'm suggesting that she consider the way she frames her argument for the sake of a better discussion.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Point taken.  However I doubt anyone who disagrees with her premise is going to fall in line just because she words things differently.  

by JustJennifer 2008-05-15 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Whoops, hadn't gotten down here yet. I don't think people will fall in line either, but it changes how people react, and the general discussion. Change in a million tiny steps.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Just as she is free to write what she wants (within site rules), I am free to critique it (within site rules.)


I'm not saying she doesn't have the right to say those things, but rather that I think its a bad idea.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:51PM | 0 recs
I Alegre

I am Algere, he ducked the 'present' votes on reproductive choice and hid behind the wishes of some organization.  You can't be a little bit pro-choice, it's a issue that affects lives, real women die because of the inaccessibility of options.  This is not a pet project, it's not a political football, it's not to be ducked.  

by anna shane 2008-05-15 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: I Alegre

"some organization"

Planned Parenthood is "some organization"?

by quixote27 2008-05-15 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: I Alegre

If you're really an academic, as you stated in another thread, you have to know how terribly intellectually dishonest your comment is.

by amiches 2008-05-15 11:45AM | 0 recs
Using your baseless logic on Obama

Let's apply that voting scheme to Hillary.

So based on your logic, we should analyze Hillary's vote for the Iraq War and her "nuke Iran" context separate from her NY interest groups and from 9/11.  Right?

As well as her "nuke Iran" comment?

So in the clear light of day--

I, Hillary Clinton, supported the war in Iraq.

I, Hillary Clinton, discussed nuking Iran.

Boy, isn't logic a turd sometimes....

by Regenman 2008-05-15 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: I Alegre

Must I?  Because that's what you think and what I ought to think too, if I'm really a professional?  I think some issues need to be faced, taken on, stood by, and in that way, although I don't think Barack is against reproductive rights, I'm not sure it's his priority or that he might appease some group who is against abortion by not making his position clear.  There are some places where her convictions are clear, and this is one. NARAL ought to have at the very least waited until he was the nominee before endorsing him. This way it looks like they're taking sides and preferring his non-confrontational stance to hers.  Seems it was a 'leadership' decision, and not one that was cleared by the rank and file.  By the way, I got tr'd for my opinion, it that elitist, or just mean?  

by anna shane 2008-05-15 11:55AM | 0 recs
Intellectual dishonesty

I believe the intellectual dishonesty part comes form labeling his as a "little bit pro-choice" when all indications are that his rating from NARAL is 100%, he's one of the most liberal Senators in Congress and he made his "present" votes due the request of Planned Parenthood.

Intellectual dishonesty is applying this bright line test to him (without an analysis of the politics) and then giving Hillary a pass on her Iraq war vote or on her nuke Iran comment (by analyzing the politics).

Applying separate codes of conduct is (gasp) discrimination.  Or is my intellectual reasoning incorrect?  Feel free to discuss.

by Regenman 2008-05-15 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Intellectual dishonesty

I'm gonna take you codes of conduct and flip them over.  I agree, politics should be considered for Obama's 'present' votes.  

BUT, absolutely no politics warrant threatening "obliteration" of another country.  Even in war obliteration is not an option.  I guarantee you that every country in the world is mostly made of citizens that have no desire to hurt a fly. Implying you are going to destroy them because of their government's activities, makes me wretch.

by jontabb 2008-05-15 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Intellectual dishonesty

good point, you have the right to think some of her positions are just political too.  I don't agree with her one-hundred percent. I do think that we need to control nuclear proliferation.  I do think the US will need to take responsibility for nations who get may get nuked but have agreed to not have their own nuclear weapons. I watched Dr. Strangelove, I think the doomsday machine should never be secret.  He said 'respond strongly,' and i think he needs to spell out what that means.  So that nations can understand the consequences if they take steps that could lead to the end of life as we know it.  This is another reason she's winning back the Reagan dem's, and he isn't. She takes their fears seriously too.  

by anna shane 2008-05-15 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: I Alegre

I think NARAL could have waited - my diary wasn't on that, but rather on some of the statements made, which reflected sentiments I've seen on this site.

We all get TRs we don't deserve - I hope that doesn't scare you off.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I Alegre

had they waited it would not have been protested. We'd want them to endorse him were he already the nom, the entire problem was the timing.  Some, like me for example, don't believe it's over, I think she'll win.  She has the popular vote back and I think the best argument to put to the super's. I was offended that they would make this endorsement at this critical time.  I don't buy Barack's explanation, I do think he's less committed to reproductive rights than she, i do think it won't be his priority, and I do think some of his supporters want that right limited.  That actually is my opinion, and no amount of tr'ing me or calling me nasty names (not you, but wake up) will make me agree that he's better than or equal to her on the point of reproductive rights.  Watch, I'll get tr'd again.

I also object to the demands that some of us answer for our opinions to some of his supports. It feels bullying and aggressive.  It's also repetitive and time consuming and when minds are made up pointless.  On some issues there is simple disagreement.  Especially when it comes to 'motives.'  

by anna shane 2008-05-15 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I Alegre

She has the popular vote back?


by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I Alegre

The "present" votes were part of a legislative strategy, devised by "some group" called Planned Parenthood, to provide political cover for Dems in more conservative districts. You know this but accuse him of being ambiguous on the issue anyway because it suits you politically. That's okay, because this is politics and a little intellectual dishonesty comes with the territory, but I hope when Barack wins the nomination, as he inevitably will, you drop this ridiculous line. We have two candidates with 100% ratings on choice issues.

You accuse Obama of a lack of leadership on this issue, but in my mind, it exhibits a lot more leadership in doing the best thing for the pro-choice cause while knowing it could bite him in the ass politically in later contests.

I'll make no comment on the NARAL endorsement because that's not what we're talking about, and I didn't troll rate you, so I can't explain someone else's motivation.

by amiches 2008-05-15 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I Alegre

I don't agree.

by anna shane 2008-05-15 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: I Alegre

You don't agree with a fact?  Its a fact that he did it in conjunction with Planned Parenthood.  My head hurts.

by quixote27 2008-05-15 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: I Alegre

now you want to insult me, let me know how little you think of my opinions?  I know what he says and I know that someone in his local PP backed him up and I know that the national organization did not, and I know that's his explanation and I know the reason why anyone votes for anything isn't 'a fact,' it's an explanation, subject to revision, subject to political interests. Want to insult me some more?  You really should think of opening a charm school.  

by anna shane 2008-05-15 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: I Alegre

Your response is a bit over the top for what I wrote.  I was a bit snarky.  If it hurt your feelings, I apologize.

by quixote27 2008-05-15 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I Alegre

I think everyone's just very confused as to what you disagree with. He gave an explanation and it was corroborated by those who would know the truth. Do you think Planned Parenthood and Barack Obama are engaged in a conspiracy to hide his secret anti-choice beliefs? Do you think the local chapter of Planned Parenthood would lie about his record on the right to choose? If you think they're lying, why? Why has NARAL continued to give Senator Obama a 100% rating? Are they in on the conspiracy too?

It's your right to think whatever you want to about the man, and it's your right not to vote for him if you so choose. But when you have an illogical, unreasonable opinion and choose to talk about it on the internet, don't be surprised when someone sets the record straight.

by amiches 2008-05-15 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I Alegre

I posted a bit more about that than the local PP chapter person. What about Lorna Brett's video?

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 04:54PM | 0 recs
I robot


by JJE 2008-05-15 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I Alegre

Subtlety is really lost on this community.  Why is it so hard to see that 'present' votes are strategic moves that did more for the cause at the time than a hard Yea or Nay? Politics is often about subtlety, there are times when you must be forceful and aggressive, but often you must move slowly and strategically to accomplish your goals.

by jontabb 2008-05-15 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I Alegre

it's not hard to follow his explanation, but in this case I think he's being disingenuous.  I think he played it both ways, for political expediency, because some of his donors are against reproductive rights for women.  It's my opinion, i've read both sides.  

by anna shane 2008-05-15 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I Alegre

And I think this makes my point.  Obama sends back a lot of donations to his campaign.  If he finds out you are younger than 18 he'll send your money back, if he knows your even tied to a lobbying firm, he'll send your money back...if you're not a US citizen, he'll send your money back.  If you don't share some political beliefs with him, he'll keep your money! He appeals to a lot of people, because he can be quite subtle with his methods, and yet his actions work to get Democratic legislation passed.

He may have done it for political expediency, but it doesn't matter, because the way he did it the passing of the legislation went the way planned parenthood and the Democrats planned.  It is a far cry from political expediency that ends up going the way of the Republicans.  

by jontabb 2008-05-15 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Rec'd for promoting dialogue.

If that's insulting, or a bannable offense here, better to know now.

by DeskHack 2008-05-15 11:35AM | 0 recs
Alegre Responds via email
Alegre just sent this email from work where she tries to feed her family.

Falsehood's gained even more of my respect with this diary - even though it's a callout he's shown time and again that his only interest is to advocate for his candidate in a thoughtful and mainly positive way.  I'm in the middle of work now and probably won't post anything in his diary - mainly because the other BO followers will get abusive and trash whatever I post.  But Falsehood's cool and is always welcome to drop comments in whatever I post.
by NewHampster 2008-05-15 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre Responds via email

See, now that seems reasonable.  Maybe sooner or later people on both sides will be able to talk like civil adults.

by quixote27 2008-05-15 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre Responds via email

So, she won't address the fact that she smeared the likely nominee by saying he is weak on choice issues.  Got it.

by map 2008-05-15 11:52AM | 0 recs
Seems classy but...

...why not give us the benefit of the doubt and actually post in the diary where her attention is begged?

If she's as open and honest as Falsehood has been, then I'd jump on anyone that attacked her, too.

Avoiding debate on something fosters ill feelings.  Trolls you can ignore, but Falsehood is no troll.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-15 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Seems classy but...

I understand not posting while at work. I also don't want to create a situation where people feel pressure to respond - that shapes what they say and might make them defensive.

It's honestly her choice, and there are pros and cons to both sides.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre Responds via email

New Hampster just killed whatever Alegre wrote with more of that classic pundit spin:

"Alegre just sent this email from work where she tries to feed her family."

What does feeding her family and being at work have to do with one another?

Unless she works at a resturant and feeds her family there you are just making a PATHETIC attempt at this new inner-party class warfare.

Some of us risk our jobs and feeding our family to post on these blogs,  but in the end we all work to feed our families, how Alegre is any more special is beyond me.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre Responds via email

I hope that's snark - if it was, I almost couldnt' tell.

If it wasn't, the point is that Alegre does her postings at home, something I hope no one would have a problem with.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre Responds via email

I never dissed Alegre in that post and it wasn't snark.

I am calling out New Hampster for "informing" us not that Alegre is at work, and does not blog there.

But that Alegre is at work, so she can feed her kids, something us elite Democrats would know nothing about.

So by victimizing her she thinks she sets up some kind of forcefield.

Tactics right out of the campains.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-15 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre Responds via email


You need to cut it out.  I am no fan of Alegre's, but your comments are bordering on harassment.

by The Distillery 2008-05-15 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre Responds via email

That's a good, reasonable response, although I wish she'd post in the diary and response to the substance of Falsehood's letter.

My thing with Alegre is that her positive, pro-Clinton diaries are so heartfelt and impassioned that it makes her negative, anti-Obama diaries all the more disappointing.  The arguments for Clinton are strong enough not to need the use of distortion or bad-faith claims about her opponent.

by Koan 2008-05-15 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre Responds via email

I take no offense of feeding families, trust me. Thanks Alegre/NewHampster

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre Responds via email

You are most welcome.  And she really is at work where some people actually work.  Heck I could probably get fired for posting this.

You are a good poster Falsehood.  Not sure about the name though.

by NewHampster 2008-05-15 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre Responds via email

I just like the word. Plus, easy pun if I ever lie. :D

If she does post here, I'll jump on any tollish stuff, though most of the comments have been on my policy violation.

Have a good one, I got stuff to do.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre Responds via email

One possibility might be to coordinate some kind of joint post, where an Obama person posts something with a cut and paste Clinton post, if the issue is one that has two sides.

That way, you have two opposing viewpoints, but no one is getting called out.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

I wish that just once, when someone asked alegre a question she would answer.

She has no ability to debate or even to discuss. She is very good at copying and pasting and using the word "gang."

She is a hit and run pot-stirrer. That is it, nothing more.

by PSUdan 2008-05-15 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Please see my post below yours.

The reason is, gang, as I've said many times now....

she is a PAID BLOGGER.

This is the one and only answer to what you just said.

by AlexScott 2008-05-15 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

You are such a dolt.  She is at work and that is why she isn't posting.  See above.

by JustJennifer 2008-05-15 11:55AM | 0 recs
Yeah, like she never posts during the day

by Regenman 2008-05-15 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

She's more than that. She's excellent at rallying the troops, and I don't need her to answer.

I wanted her to read it, and she did, as well as many others. I'm satisfied.

What you are looking for is a response like:

"I'm sorry, you're right."

That's not how it works, except in cases where someone had the wrong information. Alegre is plenty smart - she's not ignorant about this.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 12:13PM | 0 recs
Didja know, gang?!

According to the Center's fellowship application, CIM offers bloggers a three-month, renewable fellowship which includes such perks as "a stipend of $4500 to be paid over 3 months", "editorial mentorship from experts in the field of blogging and/or journalism", access to expensive databases such as LexisNexis, as well as free legal advice, training and technical support. (14)

Because CIM fellowships expire after three months, CIM "fellows" are always on the hot seat. If CIM is satisfied with the blogger's performance, it will renew his fellowship. Otherwise, it will not. Plainly, CIM bloggers have much to gain if they toe the party line -- and much to lose if they fail to satisfy their benefactors.

CIM does not publish a full list of its bloggers. We can only speculate on their number. However, the CIM website does provide a "select" list of some of its more prominent "fellows". These are shown in the chart below. (15)

by AlexScott 2008-05-15 11:44AM | 0 recs
She's IN it to WIN IT, gang

or at least to make some cash.  What an amazing woman, gang.

by JJE 2008-05-15 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Didja know, gang?!

Meh.  Thats a newsmax article - I wouldn't go out of my way to quote those right wingers.  And I'm a BO supporter...

by quixote27 2008-05-15 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Didja know, gang?!

That is a weak association.  It does not pass muster as an indictment of Alegre, much as I disagree with her.

by you like it 2008-05-15 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Didja know, gang?!

Well said.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 12:14PM | 0 recs
Thank you

for "updating" this diary.

I give you Kudos just for doing that. Still no rec'd but heart felt kudos.  :)

by kevin22262 2008-05-15 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you

Thank you very much.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 12:29PM | 0 recs
Rec'ed after you changed the title! :) n/t

by The Distillery 2008-05-15 12:31PM | 0 recs
the &quot;process&quot;

is that old style politics as usual?

or new politics?

by darwinism 2008-05-15 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: the &quot;process&quot;

I am confused. What are you referring to?

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter on NARAL, Message, and Polariza

I try not to come here (or any political blogs anymore) 'cause it is too stressful. (Okay, since I'm here now it is obvious that I haven't been able to go cold turkey, but I'm checking sites far less frequently--only a couple times a day and am far less inclined to make any comments--not that I made that many before, as it doesn't seem all that  productive.)  

From my perspective, you've got to understand that I'm in deep mourning.  I don't know when we will get the opportunity to have someone as incredible as Hillary run for POTUS again.  From my perspective, my girl is (and has been) getting screwed (sorry, I don't usually use such terms, but I cannot think of another that puts it so pithily) first by the Republicans, then by the media, and finally, by Democrats.  It makes me ill, and I mean that, quite literally.

BO supporters have made it abundantly clear that they believe that everything that's happened to her candidacy is her own (or Bill's or her campaign staff's) fault, but there are other, equally valid ways of looking at what's happened during this primary.  I'll admit that the Obama campaign's been relentlessly brilliant--but, IMO, in very Machiavellian ways that I find particularly distasteful coming from the "unpolitician," unity-candidate's campaign.  

Can't help but notice that discussions here quickly turn into free-for-alls.  Here's my analysis (FWIW) of why this happens:   BO supporters (many, maybe even most, but not all) are hugely reluctant to concede points--much less allow for their validity.  This is infuriating to HC supporters, who start swinging.  {Reminds me of arguing with my husband. :)}

On the NARAL endorsement, I just added this to the NARAL blog discussion and thought I would add it here, too:

Profoundly diappointed by the endorsement now. BO supporters don't seem to understand (some perhaps don't want to understand?), but to many, many women this comes across as a slap. May not have been intended that way, but geez... Bad form.

Now I'll duck (figuratively, that is...)

by ahw 2008-05-15 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter on NARAL, Message, and Polariza

I'm sorry you feel that way. She has been unfairly attacked. I don't think the Obama campaign has made everything her fault, and they certainly didn't snoop into Bill's business dealings.

I think the arguments go both ways. Both sides could do to listen better, especailly Obama supporters who don't have such a reason to (probably) be unhappy.

I'm sorry the NARAL came across as a slap, and you're right, I didn't see it that way. If anything, I saw it as a statement on electibility given the state of the race. Maybe.

Thanks for your comment on the substance.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter on NARAL, Message, and Polariza

The stuff about call out diaries was just a way to change the subject.  Substantively, you're correct.

by lockewasright 2008-05-15 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter on NARAL, Message, and Polariza

Thank you, I might diary on what happened in the comments here; self reflection is interesting.

Though I don't blame people for changing the subject - we have standards, and I understand where they are coming from. Even though I disagree, I don't need full out acknowledgment.

In some ways, the comments were acknowledgment.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

This is an excellent diary which should be a starting point for a discussion.

The replies illustrate perfectly the fact that, at this stage, discussion is impossible on this website.

Negativity leads nowhere. That's a great lesson of
this campaign... But you can free yourself from it.
Yes you can...

by french imp 2008-05-15 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter to Alegre

Well, we'll see what happens at is stays on the rec list, and then falls off. After that, I might do a post on what happened in the comments.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter on NARAL, Message, and Polariza

I stopped coming to MyDD a while back because of the mortal lock certain posters had on the recommend list.  I'm back because I like the community aspect here, and I do think things are better.  My solution has been to generally avoid the diaries by those posters.  They are still on the rec list, and I still read them periodically, but since I've found that the tone of the comments within them is generally nastier than elsewhere on the site, I can better maintain my sanity by limiting myself.

by travelerkaty 2008-05-15 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter on NARAL, Message, and Polariza

By all means, only do what you can. I'm new to this kind of discussion, so it may be that I have fewer scars.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter

You make some good points, but you miss the main one.  

NARAL did not endorse Obama over Clinton.  They endorsed Obama over McCain.

Why did they do that now?  

Hillary ran a poor campaign, and lost the nomination. Because many Clinton supporters and even surrogates are suggesting that Clinton's supporters won't vote for Obama.  They're saying that they'll only vote Dem if we give the nomination to Hillary, even though she lost the primary campaign fair and square.

NARAL felt a moral responsibility to point out the ridiculousness of that position from their pro-choice point of view.  Vote for the Dem, is what they're saying.

by tibbs 2008-05-15 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter

Yeah, but comments like this don't help, because neither candidate is saying the race is over.

follow their lead. Just because there's a probably brick wall on the path doesn't mean that I can't walk up to it.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter

"Hillary ran a poor campaign, and lost the nomination."

This is a LIE. Hillary did not lose the nomination anymore than Obama has WON the nominiation.

Neither candidate has won, neither candidate has lost.

by nikkid 2008-05-15 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: An Open Letter

I don't think the race is over, and you are free to disagree with the commenter, but there is a consensus that her nomination is unlikely baring an act of God.

by Falsehood 2008-05-15 05:45PM | 0 recs
I don't see a rules problem

You didn't call Alegre out here and simply levy a flat insult against her.  You wrote this diary to engage her intellectually on the topic.  I agree with most of what Alegre writes and have seen people call her out in ways that violate the rules.

But when you're looking to start a dialogue that respectfully engages a highly publicized recent diary, it sounds like open debate to me, not a scurrilous insult.  

by BPK80 2008-05-15 09:53PM | 0 recs

I really haven't got a clue why I lost the ability to recommend, so I can't officially help you in that respect.
But I think you put your finger on the sore spot and I completely agree with you on this issue. I can't understand that progressive Democrats keep repeating long debunked lies about a progressive likely nominee for the Democratic party.

I wholehartedly recommend your diary !!!

by hebi 2008-05-15 10:47PM | 0 recs
Looks like this had zero impact

Given the latest screed.

by quixote27 2008-05-16 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this had zero impact

I think the impact is measured more on if people here repeat the things I spoke against: Obama weak on choice, and a vote for Obama = a vote for McCain.

by Falsehood 2008-05-16 08:10AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads