i actually do dislike hillary, for a number of reasons (her refusal to apologize for her initial iraq vote being among them), and i'm hoping any democrat, including the dead ones, would get the nomination before her.
that being said, i find the premise of this diary completely ridiculous. and what gave it away?
reporter has been loathed by some clinton supporters since he was the first national journalist to write about the whitewater affair in 1992, an investigation that unpredictably would lead to clinton's impeachment six years later.
whitewater "affair"? which was proven to be totally bogus? so now we're supposed to take this "reporter's" side against the clintons?
again you raise the straw man of one's individual blog not getting enough attention.
i have written extensively about my feelings about this elsewhere, but i will give you the reader's digest version:
if google ranking is disrupted for the lower liberal blogs by not having link-to's from the a list blogs, then what you will see most of on a google search page for any given issue will be a whole lot of conservative blogs linking to a whole lot of conservative opinions, with a bit of tpmcafe and a dkos link or two mixed in.
ok, maybe you think the conservative penchant for supporting each other is robotic, but we're not (at least, i'm not) worried about what we think about ourselves. we should be worried about getting our message out, which is what the "robotic, lobotomized" conservatives have been so damn good at for the last 12 years.
i'm not saying there's a cause and effect happening with blog support and effective message delivery. but i am saying the two are part of a greater whole, and that whole includes community.
sense of community means something different to others than you? doesn't sound like a community to me. there's a difference between a community and a bunch of folks co-existing.
as i've said elsewhere, i'm not insisting or even suggesting that people are supposed to link to me. it's not even about me. my blog has increased traffic and visibility since getting dumped off of 4 big box blogs' rolls.
this is america. nobody has to do nothing they don't want to.
don't want to support those who supported you for 5 years? fine. don't want to be civil about not supporting them? fine. don't want to put message above ad revenue? fine. this is america. do what you will.
but then, you can't sit back and express disdain at those who question your sudden decisions to change your supposed mission statement. not without seeming more disengenuous than the original purge made you seem.
and, of course, by "you," i'm not talking about you, chris. but i will note the irony of someone who posted last month about the excitement of being a part of a movement, suddenly writing how nobody owes nobody nothing. what kind of movement is that?
it's not about traffic, and that's a straw man so fanciful as to be republican in inspiration, if not actual nature.
it is, to paraphrase jon swift, about community, and to paraphrase me paraphrasing the old fashioned patriot, about google ranking.
anyone who cares to read my thoughts about it can sift thru the amnesty day tag at my blog, or go to my diaries at my left wing or booman.
in short, tho, i'd say that one of the apparent reasons that republican memes are so easily transmitted thru-out the land is the republican willingness to support each other, especially in blogtopia, and yes i coined that phrase.
blogroll purges rend lefty blogtopia assunder emotionally and tangibly via google ranking.
and declaring one's self to be immune from any consequences via a self-proclaimed "amnesty day," is simply bad manners that only compounded the insult. what, markos, and to a lesser extent, duncan, couldn't find my email address to alert me to their decision? what am i after 5 years of support, chopped liver?
markos, and to a lesser extent, duncan, can blow me i am distraught.
i also don't think it was over the top or vitriolic.
i thought it was well done parody.
hey, hillary's a big girl, she can take it. it's not like it's swift boating her or telling lies.
it likens her speeches to "big brother." whether or not you agree w/that position, it is a position that can be taken legitimately. tho it may be based more on emotion than facts, she still is fodder for satire.
i think the nay-sayers here are reacting to the media's attention on this, rather than on the actual content or affect it might have.
and the media is focusing on it because they don't want to do the hard work of reporting things like hillary's and obama's positions on anything.