I admit that I am an unaffiliated voter for Obama up front. One of the so-called writers striking TheDailyKos is Taylor Marsh, and if you have ever read her blog, you know that this little brou-ha-ha is an instance of the pot calling the kettle black. I have never come across another blog so vitriolic and one-sided in Clinton's support, and whenever I have tried to comment there, I have been shut out. I have often wondered if Ms. Marsh receives compensation from the Clinton campaign in which case she should issue a disclaimer. Neither am I a special fan or reader of TheDailyKos. I do not care for Markos Moulitsas' attempts to become MSM, and they are a little too big for me over there, sort of like the Catholic church. But on this one I agree with Kos that the blogosphere is a huge place, and if they don't like it at TheDailyKos, I'm sure they will find another berth. Moulitsas and Huffington are Obama supporters, but they allow the Clinton supporters to post on their sites, something I think Marsh and her fellow "strikers" ought to reciprocate on their own blogs.

Chris:

I can't find your contact info. 'Loved your Sicko piece. It's similar to my reason to support hrc.

I need a little help understanding the OR Primary. If it's convenient, please email me: [email protected]

John

Chris, editors of Blue Oregon have opened up this forum to Clinton supporters -- and everyone in the race -- since this race began. The term above "lately" implies otherwise, but the truth is that Edwards and Obama supporters saw the value of organizing here early and Clinton supporters for the most part didn't. Please don't try to spin your own campaign's late entry into a reflection of this site's fairness.

Steve Mauer, yes I am considering that option since Republicans are doing the same thing for Hillary Clinton. I think Obama will carry Oregon handily, but my vote would add one more to his popular vote total. I have been donating to his campaign and will continue to do so.

Alegre wrote, "Sadly, the majority of the administrators have allowed this hostile environment to develop in our online community for anyone who isn't planted firmly in the Obama camp." But she could have just as easily written, "ALL the administrators allow diaries attacking EITHER candidate. It's an open forum."

Also, this is not a writer's strike. These are individuals who are not posting to a blog they don't like. Perhaps that rises to the level of "boycott," but I see it as not much more than a GBCW.

I read not only this blog and DailyKos but also, for example, MyDD and The Left Coaster. The last of these has turned into a place as hostile to Obama supporters as Mr. Corbell believes DailyKos is to Clinton supporters. BlueOregon certainly sees its share of pitched arguments, but rarely does the tone become as nasty as at those other sites. Having noted this, however, I'm not sure I see any point in the writers' strike idea. One can always take it someone else, start one's own blog, and so on. Too bad, I suppose--I'm not a fan of echo chambers--but nobody is guaranteed a place to preach on someone else's blog. I've had the experience of having my IP address blocked by a couple of Portland-area blogs after posting comments that went against the party line (in one case, to the left of the party line, in the other case to the right, simplistically put). As I do not engage in personal attacks or post obscene remarks, I certainly felt "censored"...but again, I have no intrinsic right to post anything on a blog that someone else maintains.

I sincerely doubt that the vitriol one commonly sees on the Internet would exist in face-to-face arguments. It's the anonymity of the blogosphere that makes nastiness so easy.

Also, the strikers' problem isn't opposition to a Democratic candidate — they themselves possess plenty of that. Their problem is that they're outnumbered. Now they have a face-saving reason for being outnumbered: They officially don't post to that site.

The point of the writers strike is to hurt the pocketbook of Markos Moulitsas. He has let his site deteriorate into a den of vitriolic anti-Hillary commentary. No real discussion takes place when the anti-Hillary pack descends on anyone who is pro-Hillary. Why should Hillary supporters add to the revenue of Daily Kos by visiting it?

What's inherently wrong with being intolerant in certain circumstances? Personally I wish Democrats would be less tolerant of Michael O'Hanlon's militarism fantasies, Mark Penn's union and liberal bashing, Harold Ickes denigration of non-California and New Jersey states, etc.

Chris, when Robert Casey was censored at the 92 Democratic convention because of his views on abortion, that was intolerance. What you and other Hillary supporters are dealing with is not a lack of tolerance, it's a lack of popularity. Among Democrats who watch this race closely, Clinton just isn't popular, for some of the reasons I've listed above. You can only have so many "as far as I know" and "John McCain has passed the CiC threshold" statements a campaign cycle. People who pay attention get nauseous at that stuff. And that's a good thing- bad ideas should not be popular among liberals. Insert GOP joke here.

What astonishes me is the messianic thinking going on regarding both candidates. These are politicians who have flourished in this system. I'm sorry, there are no heroes.

Kos, of DailyKos.com fame, has left his perch much like Wonkette... he now writes for Newsweek and could care less about the site that propelled him forward. When he does occasionally stop by, he is smug, demeaning, and condescending and issues various pronouncements and commandments with nary a follow-up in comments. He's an idiot, and his site has devolved into the gutter.

That's the way I see it. Kos isn't very bright, nor does he have any unique insights into the political process (read his crappy book as evidence). He likes to sit and gloat and take credit for something a campaign does or something an analyst says by linking to some tangential reference he made months back. All hail Kos!

In fact, Kos created an eponymous site that managed to leverage the labor of others to rise to prominence. Kos did very little. Along the way, he has spurted various stupid, smug, and self-obsessed things; for instance, he eulogized a passed blogger by saying "I am selfish, I wanted much much more"... perhaps it is not surprising that this self-perceived God, who named a site after himself, revolves EVERYTHING, including the death of someone else, around himself. (Including the once monthly pronouncement that this is his site and he can do as he wishes, and if you don't like it, you can leave, dagnabit!)

Nowadays, for the average DailyKos reader, the site has been boiled down to its stinking core... a hardcore, rabid group of mostly men who aggressively harass those who don't follow their edicts. And, yes, that includes people who support Clinton.

Closed mind much Peter?

Alegre needs to ask herself: WHY has EVERYONE turned on Hillary? Just 'cause? No reason?

COME ON, Alegre. Time to face facts. Hillary has EARNED every bit of the hostility she is getting.

If Kos sucks so bad, why does Alegre give a damn about dailykos? Maybe she should just leave, since it's not her blog - which for some bizarre reason she seems to think it is. A sense of entitlement, just like Hillary.

Keep in mind - Alegre cuts and pastes from hillary.com and calls that a diary.

This just reminds me of this classic from way back. "Arguing on the internet is like..."

Point of order to anonymous:

"EVERYONE" has not turned against Hillary. She continues to represent majorities of Democrats, women, Hispanics, and blue collar workers.

Further, polling shows that a large majority of Obama voters would voter for her in Nov.

"EVERYONE" seems to include the netroots, and perhaps the MSM. But not those darn voters.

That's why this post is topical. What is happening online does not resemble real life.

Bray per Kos: Including the once monthly pronouncement that this is his site and he can do as he wishes, and if you don't like it, you can leave, dagnabit!

I'd never looked at DailyKos until recently, so I cannot comment on the history, but if the website is in fact his--if he maintains it--then the "my way or the highway" approach is completely legitimate. Irritating, undoubtedly, but legitimate. Censorious? No. Nobody has a right to post anything on someone else's blog. Anybody who chooses can, however, start a blog.

There are people who have been banned (IP address blocking?) from this site for various reasons, I am sure, such as posting abusive rants. Whoever maintains this website is completely within his rights to ban people.

Free speech does not mean you get to pound on my door (literal or figurative) and scream abuse at me, preach to me, or whatever. "No solicitors" is a perfectly legitimate response.

For Obama supporters who visit Hillary sites you can expect to receive the same sort of attack dog vilification that Hillary supporters complain of at Daily Kos. I used to visit Left Coaster and MyDD with regularity for helpful political commentary and information. Then they started becoming subsidiaries of the Clinton campaign and it was "duck and cover" for me. I had more women telling me what terrible patriarchal dipshit I was than I have ever had in my life. No doubt my wife has found fault with me a time or two,(or more) but this was way ... over the top.

This will end soon enough. I can understand angry feminism feeling thwarted and seeing it all as oppressive patriarchy triumphing over an historic opportunity. And I find common cause with the Daily Kos people who see HRC and her demonic minions of Mark Penn and Terry McAuliffe as being the personification of the DLC politics that have brought ruin to the progressive cause. It's a bit analogous to a sports event. The cheering section gets worse than the competitors and advocacy turns into viciousness. Actually Kos has frequently praised Hillary on a personal level while attacking her choice of staff and tactics.

We do have a divided party on gender, ideology, region, and ethnicity. Somehow it needs to find a way to come together. I don't think that Hillary's one option for winning, a smash-face campaign to damage Obama as an electable GE candidate is going to help, especially by having an illegitimate nomination. It's a recipe for party disaster and Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Bill Richardson and others are signalling to her that it's unacceptable.

I propose that Hillary make her list of demands to the party elders for conceding, VP, cabinet post, Gov. of New York, Majority Leader?? whatever? and she make common cause with Obama and the rest of the party. If not then the party elders use their clout to neutralize the supers so that her strategy is toothless and an obvious failure. Until the nomination is decided I think the cheering sections are going to be throttling each other.

I'm not familiar with any of the people who are boycotting Koz.

Is my understanding correct? People left Koz because others were being "mean to Hillary"? What happened to being ready to fight in the fall when the Republicans pour on the nastiness?

Wasn't that the justification for starting this round of attack and counter-attack? What did they expect when their candidate cried shame and accused Obama of being like George Bush, Karl Rove, supporting slumlords, not being a muslim "as far as she knows" and less qualified than the Republican candidate?

If her supporters can't make a case for Hillary with other Democrats, maybe it's time they threw in the towel?

Chris- "The bigger issue I feel is even beyond Obama and Clinton and this year's election. It's about the culture of the blogosphere and the misanthropic vogue that evolved on sites like Kos."

I can find common cause about the need for civility in political discourse. Where you are mistaken is to demonize and single out Daily Kos, nor the blogosphere culture. It is the culture...period. It is mean and uncivil. Talk radio has fueled it in part, but it goes to human relations in general, there is just a greater permission to use abusive and disrespectful language and aggressive behavior. Look at road rage! And in approaching my 7th decade of life I can notice the change in the lack of common courtesy in human relations in our society.

What you complain about on Daily Kos can be equally found on other blogs of the opposing camp. The policing is more difficult on Daily Kos because of the huge numbers of visitors. But it is not the fault of Markos Moulitsas that some people get abusive.

How to have a culture that uses respectful language and discourse, that's much beyond the question of the blogosphere itself. It gets into family life, marriages, work environment, athletic competition, and civic culture, or the lack of it.

Chris,

At the risk of sounding juvenile, Hillary started it. She's running this race exactly the way she wants it - dirty, divisive, damaging, scorched earth. ("slum lord" "denounce AND reject" "shame on you Barack Obama" "choirs will sing" "McCain a better C-in-C") It's blackmail - cave and give me the nomination or I'll destroy the party and give McCain the White House.

Hillary does not give a damn about the party. She only gives a damn about Hillary. And as result, I want her out of the party.

Alegre thinks that by posting a cut-and-paste hillary.com propaganda diary on DailyKos every day, she's some sort of heroic "activist" and everyone at DailyKos must be converted to her point of view - or else they are being unfair to her. She completely does not understand how a blog works. She thinks that having a user name entitles her to front-pager status!

The problem is, Alegre's product is crap, and we're not buying that crap.

I mean, 2 minutes after Hillary's crash and burn on the last debate, Alegre posts a diary entitled "Hillary lands knock-out punch!" that's loaded with all sorts of "atta-girls" and boxed quotes from Hillary's campaign website. I don't think she even watched the debate, because obviously her diary had no relationship to the facts of what actually occurred. People tend to not respond positively to a diary like that.

Dude, it's called a "boycott", not a "strike".

A strike involves paid employees walking off the job in an attempt to get better working conditions. Unless "Alegre" had been paid for blogging on Kos, it ain't no strike. It's also kind of offensive to anyone who's been part of actual organized labor and risked their livelihood for a just workplace.

Al Giordano of "The Field" names the "writer's strike that isn't a strike" at Daily Kos one of the three things that don't matter anymore or are increasingly irrelevant. http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/

The other two are an Edwards endorsment. Obama just picked up the lion's share of Edwards delegates in Iowa.

And the third are national tracking polls. Since most states have now voted in the primary. They are meaningless. Only state polls have some relevance.

Per the issue of polarization, I have been told by some folks who describe themselves as "leftist" (not "progressive"), but who customarily vote Democratic, that there is not enough ideological polarization in US politics, and that Obama's unity rhetoric is fundamentally bullshit. I've also heard some of these folks characterize lines from Obama's various policy statements as "right-wing dog whistles". Rather a different perspective than most American voters have, I think.

I too wonder how much of the nasty commentary on the pro-Clinton websites is coming from exasperated feminists feeling that a great feminist champion is being dissed by stupid men. I have certainly heard that opinion voiced by some women.

There are leftists who support HRC precisely because they don't like this "unity" talk from Obama. And a number of feminist writers posting who seem to believe it's all right to diss Obama on racial grounds.

As for Daily Kos being the source of all malevolence in the blogosphere. Today a featured diary on MyDD, an HRC subsidiary, was how Obama compares to Hitler. So, give me a break, all right, about how ugly Daily Kos is! Haven't seen any diaries yet about HRC being Hitler on Daily Kos.

People have the right to support who they want to. If others can't take that heat, then get out of the kitchen. It's that simple. Don't go into a big "look-at-me" victim mode about how you're going on strike, and shouldn't you all be ashamed this has to happen. That's stupid, middle school dramatics.

Supporters for both candidates should attempt to refrain from personal attacks by sticking to the facts, but in a user-generated content environment like DailyKos, that's not likely to happen. You'll notice, if you're a regular reader, that the diaries that go front page aren't the vitriolic attack jobs you see elsewhere on the site. Kos is not personally directing those who post to his site to write bad things about Clinton supporters, or if he is I never got the memo.

If you don't like a site's content, don't read it anymore. It's a big world out there folks, there's plenty out there for everyone. If you're so afraid of being challenged by someone online, you're in the wrong place. We're here to think for ourselves, which sometime results in debate. It doesn't have to be personal- you are allowed to agree to disagree. If you can't debate without personal attacks, you're of no help to the cause you're promoting. And you look like an ass while you're doing it.

So quit being a crybaby, put on your big boy/girl underpants and deal with it. Or take your damn ball and find another sandbox with kids who won't be so "mean" to you anymore.

Personally I don't really care if someone is boycotting KOS. It's too big for me anyway. I'm not fond of Hillary bashing by Obama fans nor am I fond of Clinton supporters bashing Obama. I think its a stupid argument because either of them will be by far and away a better executive than McCain. The supreme court is too important to squabble about it. Look, the fact remains that Hillary will probably win Penn. and then what does she win? Is there a state left leaning towards her? Obama has a better campaign and that plays in to his organizational skills. This is all Hillary's own problem. She screwed up royally early on and is now paying the price. Obama wipes the floor with McCain and Hillary is a nail biter with McCain.

Obama has widespread appeal beyond the Democratic base. If the Democrats want to win in November, we need to turn some of those red states blue. Obama can do that, Hillary cannot.

It's now mathematically impossible for Clinton to win the nomination. Obama leads in the popular vote, the elected delegate vote, and the total delegate count.

Hillary Clinton's strategy is a negative one--prevent Obama from reaching the nomination number so she can game the convention. In the meantime, McCain will have seven months to court the electorate. 80% of the process is over.

If Obama is deprived of the nomination because of old guard Democratic Party machinations, then the Democrats will lose in November. I have no doubts about that.

It is not "mathematically impossible" for Clinton to win the nomination any more than it is for Obama. Neither will clinch without the use of superdelegates.

That's a no-brainer, how can anyone argue about this? Spin doctors are having fun nonetheless.

Obama may well win the nomination. But at no point in this process did Hillary ever call for him or any other candidate to drop out of the race.

Has Obama called for Clinton to drop out? I think not. In any case, this argument is a straw man, because for all practical purposes, the race did not even start until Super Tuesday, and at the end of the THAT day, there was essentially a tie between Obama and Clinton. That situation has not changed, as far as I am concerned.

Finally, on an unrelated point: why do so many people refer to Senator Clinton as "Hillary" but to Senator Obama as "Obama"? What's with the first-name stuff? Personally, I find it sort of creepy, not endearing. If Hillary Clinton walked into my home, I would not address her as "Hillary".

I guess the vitriol at Blue Oregon is is not so bad afterall - relatively speaking.

Opinions don't matter, only the facts.

Hillary's only hope is to prevent Obama from winning and gaming the system through the SDs or pushing for Florida and Michigan.

Obama has won. The fact that both Obama and Hillary are losing in polls to McCain over the last 3 days shows how the Clinton's negative campaign is hurting the Democratic party's chances in November. It's past time for her to withdraw.

Bill said she'd quit if she lost Texas. She lost the Texas delegate count.

Hillary can't win with Independents, she can't win with Republicans, and she'll lose all the new Democrats if she robs Obama of the nomination.

Do you think that California, New York, New Jersey or the other Democratic strongholds where she won will switch to the Republicans in the fall? The big states will go Democrat, there's nothing "smug" about that fact.

Obama will win all the big states she won as well as in a number of other states.

Although the Clinton campaign thinks the only states that count are the big one, that's the same thinking that has put Republicans in the White House. Democrats can win in every state as we saw in the 2006 election and Obama will do that far more effectively than Hillary.

Hillary and her supporters refer to her as Hillary. It separates her from her husband.

When the Clintons said over and over and over again that Obama could be HER Vice President, they were inviting Obama to quit.

The idea that Hillary never asked Obama to quit is wrong.

Chris C said: "When the target is the right wing everyone seems to think it's fine, but what happens when we train such fire on ourselves?"

The problem, Chris, is that progressives, i.e., those who supported Kucinich and now support Nader or some other alternative, see Clinton as the right wing. If you want to ignore the fact that Hillary has endorsed McCain, and by doing so has implied that her approach is Republican lite, you do so at your own peril.

Zogby International released a poll yesterday: It showed McCain 45, Clinton 39, Nader 6 percent.

If you want us progressives to vote for your candidate, you better find a way to reject Clinton and move Obama to the center.