That I posted at more on exactly the same "and we get" issue at more or less the same time using more or less the same form, when I hadn't seen yours yet. Parallelism of great minds.

NOTE The post on WKJM has everything to do with what on earth happened to Talking Points Memo, and very little to do with Obama.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

My reasons for Obama-critical blogging:

1. To the extent it might have once been possible, help the Dems get a better (more progressive, more grounded, higher-character, more electable, more-effective Overton-window-leftward-moving, stronger-governing, prouder-to-be-a-Democrat) nominee.

2. To the extent (now 100%) that it isn't, encourage Obama to build the Democratic brand instead of constantly throwing its constituencies and brand equity under the bus. For one thing, getting him to stop leveraging his campaign on what a great man once called "the absolute fabrication that the problem with Washington is excessive partisanship." His convention speech last week -- if also backsliding on this issue -- showed the first signs of promise that pressure from his base may be yielding dividends, and for some of us our "I might vote for Obama" meter inched toward the green.

My reasons for criticism of lame or inappropriate anti-GOP blogging:

Truthiness rots everything, and so does sleaze. Shame on the Obama campaign and the leftysphere if we can't and won't build a solid case about what's wrong with John McCain and his party, and we instead become poo slingers who turn jokes into gotcha quotes and slime our way up candidates' uteri. For seven years, the progressive blogosphere knew how to pound these guys where they deserve it, and now it's gravitating to fake and trivial issues in what's an insult to an American public that wised up much better than the media did, and voted for hope and change in 2006 and got fucked... and just wanted someone to tell them straight what it's going to take for things to get better.

As to complaints about obnoxious Obama fans, almost every corner of progressive discourse became overrun early this year with truthy, starry-eyed bullies. Some of us find that concerning and quite of a piece with some things that have come directly from the Obama campaign.

On two big recent examples of contention and snark:

1. Say what you will about the PUMAs, but although I can't prove it, I believe* that their pressure, from the outside, helped Hillary and Bill get to the podium in Denver, and that was a good thing for the Ds, because justice is good for the Ds. The poll numbers showed that Obama wasn't connecting with the under-the-bus portion of the Democratic base, and he made the adjustment. And if the PUMAs were driving that, then good for them. [I know there's little hard data, but this year, nobody knows anything, and almost nobody ever writes about Clinton supporters.]

2. Meanwhile, over at Kos, the "committed progressives" got so vile over Palin that McCain picked up on it, and again, Obama made an adjustment (unless it was kabuki) and asked (told?) them to tone it down. If the comments that I and other feminist blogs made on this topic helped do that, then good for us, because, again, that's a good thing for the Ds, because not becoming bad imitations of Karl Rove is good for the Ds.

Both these examples show that all this contention isn't necessarily commenters talking to and past each other, but it gets out into the wider world -- though #2 more than #1. Bottom line is that if there's point scoring going on, it's in the context of real issues that may affect the election.

And note that neither has to be pro-Obama or anti-Obama; all posts just don't fit into that duality. If calling the Obama campaign out on sexist bullshit be anti-Obama, then so be it. If it gets him to rein in his supporters, then the effect is pro-Obama anyhow. Confusing!

NOTE * As do all the people who hate the PUMAs, apparently. I don't think they'd be so hated if they weren't feared...

UPDATE Hilariously, the PUMAs seem to think we hate them too! But that would make us "pro-Obama"... Or maybe not, since the only requirement for a poster has been that they write well so Corrente, as such, is and can be neither pro-Obama or anti-Obama. People choose what to post and when to do post and whether to post, as their lives demand.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

We went through this bullshit throughout the '90's, ostensibly from the Republicans. The primary season brought all of that bullshit back from people who are supposed to be on our side. My problem with some (but by no means all) Obama supporters is that they either believe all of the CDS talking points, or they are so fucking cynical that they would play off of them for political gain.

The reaction to Sarah Palin is a case in point to me about how certain elements of our party have essentially decided that it's perfectly okay to to try and destroy a person on the basis of gossip, or innuendo. I seem to remember the election of '92 came down to a question of character as opposed to any serious policy discussions, or where we, as voters, wanted to take this nation. It didn't work as far as the election goes, but it did create a corrosive effect on the body politic as a whole. To see people within our own party relishing the opportunity to wallow in the worst sort of scandal-mongering is beyond the pale for me.

The sad irony of course is that Sarah Palin will in all likelihood be the beneficiary of the very character attacks, innuendo, and pointless gossip that helped to doom Hillary Clinton.

It's not a matter of scoring points, it's a matter of winning on your ideas, not becoming that which you despise. I suspect that Lambert "defends" Palin because Lambert rightly sees that if we are going to become no better than the GOP, then exactly what the hell difference is there anymore?

By now I would have thought that the "They'll listen to us if we're nice enough" belief would have fallen under the amount of counter-proof available. So I remain a DFH.

In 2000, I could have come to the conclusion that I was crazy if not for the great Media Whores Online and the growing blogosphere. There's a value to working through perceptions with people of similar viewpoints. Was Obama ever going to listen to the left? No (or to be fair, only when he was scared about votes, as when he said he would support a filibuster of the FISA bill on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary. That worked out well, didn't it?).

I haven't been terribly engaged in the primaries, because the Democratic Party has made clear its fealty to the imperial elites. While that goes for both Clinton and Obama, I have come to the conclusion that Obama is potentially more of a drag on any hopes of turning the country around, by becoming the propaganda meister for the idea that holding elites accountable to the law is mere partisanship that should be avoided.

I have been active in the Democratic Party (and have until very recently argued that you should join a party to amplify your voice through things like the party platform). This means I find myself in company that argues that not agreeing with Obama, the party candidate, on absolutely everything is being personally evil.

You say that outcomes are all that matter. I don't even agree with that, but I certainly don't agree that the only thing that matters is electing Obama or McCain. There are other outcomes that are very, very important. One is the building and maintenance of a progressive community that will still be here after whoever is elected has waged his war for the empire (Iraq or Afghanistan, take your pick), and there may be a chance that we can get a Congress to listen to us. In the meantime, it helps to know that others have similar perceptions of what's happening and have ideas on how to act in this dispiriting situation.

good to see you posting again

speaking only for myself, something really terrible happened this primary. It simply not possible not to talk about it. Should Obama prevail, as I expect, then this behavior will have been rewarded. That is not a small thing.

I think it is possible to elect Obama and find a way to fight this battle another way. But that is just me.

The fire of the mind was no match for the napalm of the id...

++++

After all, in a world where all that counts is how "hawt" you are -- why give in to the demands for cheapening yourself?

I am very proud that Lambert has refused to let Corrente become cheap.

i've got a mess of pages open right now, so lemme get back to this. but let me say: i'm so glad you chimed in again, and i miss your contributions. suffer fools, would you? please don't go silent forever. and hug your beautiful wife for me, Mr. Phat. i hope you all are Very Happy.

I think they are a symptom of tribal warfare within the internet-enabled progressive social network that is being fueled by the Corporate Media and exploited by the Republicans. Divide and conquer is one of the oldest tricks in the book, and it works.

something like 2/3 of average ordinary everyday americans want single-payer national health isurance, and have said they want this for years now. but the democratic party gives us the [rightly so] failed clinton plan of the 90s, but now with added shininess -- you don't actually have to participate!

something like 2/3 [or was it 3/4?] of average ordinary everyday americans would have been thrilled to vote for a barack/hillary08 ticket, but the democratic party gives us obama/biden instead, two dudes who are both likable enough, but together looking kinda clueless on what the rest of us really want.

80% of the country says we're headed in the wrong direction, and while probably 99 and 44/100ths of us average ordinary everyday americans are neither foreign policy wonks nor economic policy wonks, most of us have already figured out [if only on some subliminal gut-feelings truthiness level] that neither chicago boyz behavioral economickz nor moving the war from some far-away desert to some far-away mountains [and you thought jungles were bad; the hindu kush, now there's a resource-suck if ever there was one] is going to fix anything.

lambert called it early on: the howard dean wing of the democratic party, with obama as its figurehead, was more interested in seizing control of the party than they were in seizing control of the country. they just blithely assumed that the presidency would naturally and inevitably follow in the wake of their primary/caucus victories.

whatever internecine warfare may have been carried out over the intartoobz is just a mirror of the larger problem.

process. it's worth talking about improvements and alterations in the process, and whether we should dump the process altogether.

the only realistic input we-the-people have into the whole process, fanny lou hamer notwithstanding, is voting, and the voting process is looking mighty darn corrupted, thanks in part to the high profile of obama-and-the-caucuses. we used to be able to do demonstrations and protests and parades and such as part of the process too, but the burgeoning police state and the declining fourth estate have increased the costs and ruled out the efficacy of citizen actions.

can we leverage blogging to overcome the descent of the fourth estate into infotainment hell? maybe, maybe not. seems worth a try, even an imperfect one.

me, i'm thinking of agitating for mass emigration next. everyone north of the mason-dixon line goes to canada, everyone south goes to mexico. we could probably do it with flash mobs.

just wanking here, and you know that as well as i do. put another, bitterly cynical way:

1. if you eliminated blogging, what would be the impact on "real life" progressive organizing, activism, effective efforts for progressive change?

mostly, the answer is "nothing."

don't get me wrong, i truly do believe that blogging represents an important trend about the future and what's to come about how our rulers/leaders shape themselves, and their public discourse. but i more or less have come to the conclusion that effectively, blogging is all about what you said;

The scoring points part is what bothers me the most. I think it’s imitating the behavior of the Village Media where the primary purpose of writing is not to inform but to “play up the negative” or “play down the positive” spin of any news event depending on the writer’s agenda.

exactly. the only thing i can add to that: "and, elevate a few early entries up to the level of paid hack," of which there are several popular examples i know everyone here already perceives.

this is why the concept/notion of the PB2.0 is so valuable. short form: are we ready to do more? i guess we'll see.

this is, as always, a spectacular fucking post of the most outstanding nature and it deserves a repsonse in detail. not that it will change anything, but hey! don't i just love to flap my intertubular lips like the rest of you. i'll come back to this and join you in making more Hot Air.

I've been celebrating Labor in the traditional way so I'm not up to the level of sobriety necessary to respond to the comments in the manner they deserve.

As far as I can tell there is no vicious, ruthless and/or toothless flaming but that may be the beer goggles.

*Virtual hugs CD*

positive effects
1_makes readers more effective in RL
readers take more effective, better-reasoned political actions as a result of the influential others they met on C, but couldn't have met in RL
2_allows readers space
to clarify their own political views through reading, writing, and receiving criticism
3_combats sense of intellectual and political isolation
experienced by people surrounded by others who don't have the ability, focus, or motivation required to intensively debate issues
4_creates community
a community unlike those people have at home, at work, at church, or in any RL neighborhood or other org.

negative effects
1_what Shystee says
can lure participants down anti-O/anti-Rep snark trails, not leading to big-picture progressive goals
2_time-consuming
but then any political action will be
3_no group action in RL
cannot, at present, influence other communities or organizations except through individual Correniste actions, UNLESS Corrente (and other like minded blogs) figure out a way to link in a direct-action way to RL. I'm an architect (of buildings; can work on physical world issues even in my sleep) so I've got some ideas about how RL action could be implemented, I'll post on these when I can find some time.
4_potentially RL disruptive
Anyone ever been criticized for blogging (isn't it more important to pay the mortgage?, get to work early or stay late, pay attention to your husband, wife, children, pets, household?...)

Meanwhile, would anyone like to offer more points for these lists?