Yawn
Primary tabs
[To be clear on sequence, the post you are now reading is a response to this post at TC which is a reaction to material mostly in the comments to VL's original post, which, ironically enough, was meant to elicit a discussion that would have been, if anything, a defense of the PUMAs. Oh well. --lambert]
RL calls fortunately. See in any case this thread on PUMA, which seems to cover the ground more than adequately.
We all thought that post would be a gift, but it didn't turn out that way. Check out the thread; it will certainly interest a historian of the primaries.
I'll address only one point:
myiqu writes:
BTW - It’s kinda hypocritical for you to ban people from your blog and then complain that your comments are moderated at theirs, but as far as I am concerned you are free to comment here, pursuant to our guidelines. I can’t speak for anyone else though, because I am only speaking for myself.
Feh. Goldberry posts here; myiqu can't -- exactly because he violated site guidelines after being warned; as he well knows. Goldberry hasn't. And if myiq can point me to the site policy I violated at TC, I'd be very glad to see it.
On the bright side:
We've been attacked by both Sirota and TC in one week!
UPDATE The hilarity continues. Boston boomer writes:
I recall watching as Lambert wavered and ultimately made his decision to go down with Ship Obama. If Lambert voted for Obama he voted for misogyny, sexism, the end of social security and medicare and no chance for universal health care. There just isn’t any getting around that. A bigot is a bigot. Misogyny is bigotry. Voting for misogyny is bigotry. Lambert has to live with that, because he knew what Obama was before the election.
I mean, what is their problem? That I didn't vote for McCain?
BB may have watched, but she wasn't paying attention. I voted for Hillary. NOTE Corrected to "she." My bad. I guess I'm a misogynist as well as a racist!
- lambert's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
errr...
errgh, I'd just decided I was going to stop commenting on either site but some things I can't bear to let go --
bboomer is female, she said 'if', and I think she meant the general, not the primaries. Myiq clarified upthread that you voted for Hillary in the primary. The Ship Obama thing was off, though.
For pity's sake
1. I voted for Hillary both in the primary (a horrible caucus) and in the general, as the link I gave shows, which is why I gave a link to my post on the general in my response to BostonBoomer.
2. Sure, I'm familiar with the "if" gambit; I've used it myself, when all I cared about was winning, where winning is defined as getting the other person's goat. And if the "if" is truly meant, then you don't throw it in at the start, and then end with an unqualified declarative statement like "Lambert has to live with that, because he knew what Obama was before the election." Pas si bete.
Please don't pity's sake me
you linked to your general vote after bboomer made her comment. In fact, when I read your original comment, I couldn't remember who you voted for in the end, and I was mildly paying particular attention at the time.
I agree with the comments below, about calling a truce, or something; I was trying to elicit strictness of interpretation in this last round (on both sites) but I think I'm going to stop because my timing is just off. I was thinking tonight about how Clinton didn't concede the last night of the primaries, and how p*ssed off the OFB was about it -- what they lacked the ability to understand is that a concession that night would have brought along a lot fewer of her supporters than how she ended up playing it. The timing would have been off. This is vaguely similar, I think. (not the obot part, just the timing part)
Peace out, all.
On the vote, I didn't see
On the vote, I didn't see any other way to interpret what BostonBoomer wrote than the general, so I responded with a link to general. As you wrote "I think she meant the general, not the primaries." So what was the point? I voted for Hillary both times, am not trying to distance myself from her, wouldn't take back a word I wrote in support of her, etc.
As far as a truce -- and just as soon as the incoming fire stops, there will be one. I just checked the posts I wrote today, and, oddly, there isn't one called "Dear _____." There is one, however, called "Dear lambert."
Yes, my timing is off, too. It's almost 3AM and I have a life, believe it or not.
Will you all stop!
Seriously. Both the sites are very passionate about the topics offered.
I was a Hillary supporter in both primary and general also and did not see where Lambert's post was so offensive.
Now stop it and make up! Jeeze
I probably shouldn't have responded at all
But... You know how it is. No quarrel uglier than a family quarrel.
Re: "Stop it and make up!"
One of my biggest pet peeves -- one which played a big role in how I responded to the primaries -- is when one side and only one side is bullying and obnoxious, and a bystander or authority figure acts like both are equally to blame.
Here's the sequence:
1. I wrote a post sticking up for PUMAs and presumed PUMAS
2. Goldberry seized the moment to make several completely unfounded and undocumented accusations about me and Lambert
3. We objected
I do not plan to stop behavior #3. Goldberry is making an impressive case for giving up on #1, at least insofar as it pertains to actual PUMAs, if she is a proper representative of same.
Not what we need
This is the kind of back-biting that we don't need. I really don't get the animosity between the two sites. I used to read Riverdaughter's site back during the primaries, and didn't really care for how things got near the end, but save for a few posters here and there they never offended by sensibilities so much that I'd see them as enemies. And, I can say the same for this site.
If it'd been me, I'd have suggested Goldberry not even have made that thread the other day; it's the central thing that the two sides aren't ever going to agree on. In this case, since I don't believe they are so, so much further away from us as to be a wacko right-wing blog, I would call for a ceasefire, and same with Sirota on the other side of things. I don't mind all out blog wars against right-wing enemies, but, at least for me, the Confluence isn't an enemy if even it's not an ally.
Fine with me
1. This post is a response to a TC post.
2. VL's original post was perfectly tame, and if anything meant to elicit defense of the PUMAs, not attack them!
3. And if you look at the comments to VL's post, you'll see us in response mode as well. Some of the responses may not be what people wanted to hear, but ask a question, you get an answer. And if you look at the screen dump on VL's post, you'll see at least some TCer's (not all) praising the thread.
And no, I certainly don't consider TC or PUMAs "the enemy." Why would I?
VL? Huh?
How is VL a part of this?
I don't care if this is a response, because it doesn't change anything. But, if anything, a response makes it worse because that means someone has had time to ruminate on something and consider whether they wanted to post on it or not. TC's thread on this was a response mainly to what happened when Goldberry posted her post over here a few days, if I understand correctly. TC's thread didn't come out of the blue. But, this is getting ridiculous because there doesn't need to be any war in the first place.
Anyway, you're getting awfully defense (at least that's how it's coming across). My point is simply that this (blog wars with non-right-wingy blogs) doesn't really do anything for any of us. I wasn't attacking you personally.
Just read the thread
Yeah, it's "defense"; response. I mean, come on. Somebody says I might not have voted for Hillary and I can't respond? That's pretty basic stuff. On my own blog, people are going to get responded to. That hardly constitutes a "blog war." If that be "defensive," then so be it. I'm going to bed.
As for VL, read the original thread and you will see.
There is a more important item
on which you should both be exerting your energies, and that is looking over the left shoulder of our esteemed president, watching that he doesn't drift even further into the wacko right nether regions, as he has tendency to do. Just saying!
Good luck
with that. It's certainly worth a try but Obama didn't even listen to his own supporters or his constituents in the past so I wouldn't expect much now. So far he's been rollled by the GOP and only seems to care what they think.
Which we try to do...
... on a daily basis.
Well, I thought
the whole thing got blown out of proportion in the first place. Blog commenting can lead to as many misunderstandings as emails - never try to solve any kind of relationship or problem using email! The words take on meanings of their own, as people read into them an awful lot of preconceived notions.
Some people are just looking for a fight, I guess. Life's too short.
I do want to thank the dems for totally screwing up the election and transition to power, while failing to prove Obama was the best person for the job and alienating a not insignificant portion of their voting base. And still failing to prove it.
Nice job.
"Life's too short."
Indeed.
Ironically...
The first comment in that thread states "I’m still trying to figure out where all the other allegations about us came from."
I'm still trying to find where goldberry's allegations come from. I can only conclude that because I disagreed with her and some other TCers/PUMAs about some things, I'm a tribal heretic to her, and my legitimacy must be attacked. Any stick to beat a dog, including an invisible one, apparently.