Fri, 07/18/2008 - 4:23pm — lambert
Seeking to participate vicariously in the Austin Netroots palooza, I went to ask Speaker Pelosi why she wasn't supporting HR 676, as DCBlogger suggests, and saw the site actually had a nifty little tool for uprating and downrating questions posed by the netroots. Here are the questions in the miscellaneous category that the netroots is downrating:
OK, I can see downrating "Why do you hate American and its people?"
But what's with downrating a question (the very first one, -28, at the top) like "What did you wish you'd know[n] then?" and "What is your advice to young women who are starting their careers?"
What's wrong with these people?
Think the downrating had anything to do with the Hillary hate?
»
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Mob rule
The netroots reminds me of Springfield, they are always willing to become a mob whether or not there is a reason to do so. Obama is like their Monorail.
digital mob
every revolution has its enforcers
The Sad Thing
is that many will see no connection between these actions, including the Hillary hate-fest, and the treatment Michelle Obama is already receiving. This kind of hatred doesn't just go back into the bottle.
Netroots fever
In an interesting coincidence, while Lambert was doing this I decided to take the temperature of the netroots in a different way, by looking at the top 20 rated questions (as of about 5:50 PM).
The results are pretty much what you expect, whether you explain them by (Paul's?) theory of "ya gotta have hate" or by (?'s) theory of dominant libertarianism.
Of the top 20, 13 concerned holding the Bush administration accountable for its crimes (impeachment, subpoenas, criminal prosecutions, or general "accountability"). I classified two as being concerned with the rule of law, but as they were on FISA, I suspect they really belong with the previous category.
I classified three as concerned with economic justice, but the one on corporate donors doesn't fit very well there; the other two are on health care (yay!)
So there we are. A howling mob gathers with pitchforks around the Bush White House. Within are real, actual monsters. A few blocks away a mother gets off the bus from her second job and wonders what she's going to do about her kid's strange rash. A few thousand miles away a brown person wonders if he'll ever get out of Guantanamo and see his family again. A few light-years away on planet Kolob a couple of gods are placing bets on how many decades away from the carbon tipping point that funny little planet is.
Policy not party!
Glass more than half full?
Possibly, possibly. Of course, all the people wanting accountability propelled somebody to the nomination who is highly unlikely to put that into practice.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Anti-bush then what?
That's the title of a post I did at The Democratic Daily about the need for many in the progressive movement to find boogeymen. It was obvious back in 2004 that something needed to be worked out. Nothing ever was so here we are.
The libertarian bent of the netroots is also real and needs to be discussed. It may not drive the Hillary hate, but it is a problem (health care, mortgage forclosures, etc.).
There is a link though
The Hillary hate went full speed ahead once she positioned herself as more populist and became the stronger candidate (hence her strong victories towards the end of the campaign)... remember, initially, the Hillary hate was based on her centrism, right?
Of course, there were other factors in place but I am quite sure that once Hillary positioned herself as the more progressive candidate (relatively to Obama, that is), the hysteria went into full-blown mode. She was mocked for her economic positions (economists had not approved of her gas tax plan!!!).
Go Global!
to be fair
the questions highlighted by lambert were voted down. And at least there were two health care questions. There are a few people writing about health care at big orange, but they seldom make the recommended list.
uh...
you, as an Obama supporter, just made Lamberts point for him again.
Which was that the Obotosphere (don't see any PUMAs around at this little shindig, do you?) is so contemptuous that of womens issues that they will actually vote DOWN a question that raiees the issue of sexism in politics.
Keep in mind that you didn't have to vote at all on each individual question -- 28 more Obots actively objected to a question on womenns issues than actively supported that question -- indicative of the significant hostility to women and the feminist perspective that pervades the obots.
Why don't they call it "Obama Bloggers?"
That would be truth in advertising.
------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm
x
------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers
I don't get the impression
the Obama bloggers are all that interested in truth.
that's tracy russo who posed the question.
check here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracy-russo
"Tracy Russo works for the Internet team for the Democratic National Committee. She regularly edits and writes for the Democratic Party at the Kicking Ass blog."
not exactly an outside agitator. looks like they're guillotining everything is sight.