I agree with your take on both Obama and Edwards. I still prefer Edwards as he seems to me the only candidate who's campaign has taken a strong stance for some real change. But how much of that is strategy and how much would translate into real action? I'd suspect a fair amount, but I don't really know. With Clinton we are going to be given more of the same, and those in the party who've made us weak and spineless will continue the path of calculation and corporate interest rather than restoration of this country to what was suppose to be. She breaths life back into the wing of the party that has disdaine for its own base.
The only hope I hold out is for Gore to run. I don't see him as savior. But I do see him as honest broker for change. He is the only one at this point who inspires and excites me. He seems to be the only one poised to knock Clinton of her stride, or for that matter, who aims to knock Clinton off her stride. Unlike Obama, I think he could win and wouldn't be running for the VP slot. I don't see him as the same candidate as in 2000. I liked him then. I admire him now. But I fear he will not run.
I also fear that we lose again with Clinton. She's got the best machine on the Democratic side. But a machine has no heart or soul. It just has purpose. I don't like the purpose her machine brings, nor the excitement it will give to the GOP. I think with her as the nominee, we give the GOP a reason to stand and fight where as they may just have little wind in their sails with Gore or Edwards or Obama.
2004 was so much more enjoyable and interesting. There was passion in my heart for the process. This cycle I just feel like a pawn being set up.
Welcome to parenthood by proxy, Chris. Only for me it all things unicorn and pink.
You speak of "if you had a family" you probably couldn't do what you do. But realize something - it's not "if" but "when" you have a family.
I'd love to not only blog fulltime, but work in politics full time. Best of both worlds. But I'm not in my 20's anymore. I - and my familiy - can't afford the transition it would take. If I had to guess, this would be the reason I'd give as to why we see bloggers come and go so rapidly. I coudn't maintain the hours required to blog, work for a campaign, go to grad school, work full time at my job, and spend any time at all with my family. Physically or mentally. When it came down to what I was going to cut out (or reduce), it was blogging.
And Chris I honestly haven't heard anything regarding payback for Lamont from the people who worked for Cegelis. The grassroots people most who did the hard work in the primary for Christine either offered to work for Duckworth's effort (and often felt turned off by her campaign people) or went to work for other local candidates. I know few who wanted Roskam, and even fewer who would have done anything to help his cause via any type of "payback" mentallity.
But Christine's campaign is alive and well, having sparked the Greater Chicago Caucus and Turn DuPage Blue, both vibrant and new Democratic grassroots organizations here in IL-06. I just wish we had a decent candidate to challenge Roskam. I fear this is the legacy of the IL-06 primary.
That's why I asked KO last night directly. People tend to hang with people like themselves. That's why it is both important to be aware and reach out for diversity and at the same time difficult to do so. Just as you mentioned regarding Jonathan/Matt, finding anyone who is the right fit is a really infinitesimal universe; adding another search criteria just makes the universe smaller.
I also agree that filling this niche is what makes MyDD the blog I choose to read. If I want topical, I can always go to DKos. I like the active bent of this site, like this discussion. Although it's been pretty meta in nature, the goal here is still some sort of action.
I'm rambling just to hear myself type here I guess as I really don't have a good answer. You're leading the discussion. That's a start. You are aware. That's a start. Maybe those who feel this start in inadequate can take the lead for a while. But what do I know. I fit the demographic.
You're the only one I know who could write a comment that ought to be a post in it's own right...
I think we are in agreement, so allow me to play straight man in this duo and, as one who fits the blog reader demographic perfectly, allow me to ask: How exactly does the blogosphere reach out? What does the hard work look like in real practical terms?
I don't see this or agree with it. It almost has an implication that a) you don't care how diverse MyDD is or isn't (which I know isn't true) and b) you're not interested in doing what most every other progressive organization that falls into the demographic breakdown you're describing (white and wealthy) puts into its mission statement: outreach.
I didn't get this at all. I think Chris' point, which I agree with, is that the blogosphere is not THE center all powerful communication hub of the progressive movement that it is often made out to be. It is a part of the overall movement; not the core, but just a part. It's not the be-all, end all.
Also I'm not sure that all blogs are all things to all people; in other words not all blogs are going to be relevant to a wide group of people. Just as blogs are partisan, they more often than not are very pointed in their approach. Narrowcasting seems to be the game more often than not. Maybe the goal is to make more relevant blogs rather than making the blogosphere more relevant.
The campaign also did offer to pay a consulting fee, but at $49K for 4 months of part-time work (he said he's not asking money for the 2 years of work before), the guy is asking to be paid like a top political consultant.
Did the guy achieve results like a top political consultant or not? Who cares if he was a "professional," he achieve results and put them in place before anyone else in the race. He gave the Obama campaign an edge by having the infrastructure in place before the other campaigns and a huge seed base of "friends" to grow from. He performed like a top political consultant. Pay him comensurate with his results.
But bottom line, I agree with Jerome. The campaign should have bought him out when he declined to move to Chicago. There are plenty of reasons a person might not want to up and move to work at something that may just be no more than a year or two long gig at best. So buy the guy out. Do it graciously. And do it quickly.
As Jerome points out, the price was not out of line, and definately would have cost more if done through a "professional." Obviously the campaign needed control of this, it was in Senator Obama's name, so doing the right thing here would have cost less than $50K for something that gained much more than this in good press and good will alone.
But how much does this situation cost? What's that Warren Buffett quote: it takes a whole career to build up trust and five minutes to lose it? Seems the Obama campaign chose to panic, rightly or wrongly, and throw away the trust of not only Anthony here, but a lot of people. Over what? $50K for a guy who's efforts became more successful than he bargained for? And an unqualified success it was at a time when the campaign had no presence what so ever. Don't discount that. Make it right.
For those of you chiding the "greedy" volunteer, take a breath and step back. It's easy for a volunteer who is successful to find himself quickly in a role in which he finds himself still a volunteer, yet integral to the campagin in some way, along with the associated pressure and responsiblity. And a full time job at the same time. And working more hours "volunteering" than at their full time job often results. There is a huge sense of pressure not to let the campaign down. If you put a volunteer in a role in which they begin to feel overwhelmed and underappreciated or even taken advantage of and bullied, they will react not always in the best ways. Especially when tired, stressed and overwhelmed. They will make mistakes. People working two full time jobs will often make mistakes.
Hence it was probably in the best interests of the Obama campaign to assume control of the site. But not TAKE the site. That burns bridges. Straighten this out with Mr. Anthony and make things as right as is possible now. Stop painting him as greedy or a threat to the campaign, but instead realize and aknowledge what he did for the campaign. Accept that under pressure he may have made a mistake or had the very human response of reacting in anger to something the campaign did or implied purposely or accidentally.
Just accept it, make it right, and move on. Buy him out and do it real quick.
There were plenty of reason Crane lost, many of them due to promises made to labor that Bean didn't keep. I live right next door to Beans district. Like much of Dupage, it is not the GOP bastion its reputation would have you believe based on 20-year old statistics against a long term GOP incumbent.
Why Democrats won and lost there has more to do with my now supposed support for a Democrat who seems to break ranks with the party when they need to stand up for the party. It's a pattern. If we call BS when Republicans do it, we need to hold our own to account who undermine the party - especially repeatedly as in Bean's case.
And Bean didn't take Crane her first try either. With Rahm's help, she did get in the second time.
But the question is, do you believe that only a Democrat like Bean - one who voted with the GOP often undermining key Democratic party stances - could beat a crack pot like McSweeny and therefor should be supported because of this?
Obama votes way better the Keyes would have. But is that really an argument to be taken seriously? Any Democrat could have beaten Keyes.
I don't think the McSweeny argument in this case is valid, and is not much more than a nice rehtorical trick. It sets up a circular argument in which any elected Democrat can do no wrong because they are better than the Republican candidate they may have run against. Gee, I should hope so. I have higher expectation for Democrats than I do for Republicans.
The question is, are they moving the party forward or hurting the party. This vote, IMO, is another case where Bean is hurting the party by bluring the lines between what Democrats stand for and what Republicans stand for.
So use this to our advantage. Have Bush veto it and tar him and by extension the GOP. Highlight how well his "new" plan isn't working and bring up "stay the course" logic used by the GOP.
Then go and let the Republicans filibuster, and pin that to every Republican running for office. Every. Damn. One. Public opinion is against anyone who wants to stay in Iraq. This one is a win even if we don't get it passed.
And the more public opinion sways behind us on this position, the easier it will be on other positions. Keep up the punches to the body and take the air away from the GOP.