Washblog

And didn't this blog decide to give up general political discussions (and the popularity that comes with them) for the party-approved task of talking primarily about local politics?

No.

by m3047 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:09:21 PM PST

---

but I have no idea what you mean in this post.

by dinazina on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:02:13 AM PST

---

Hi, dlaw -

I'm quite concerned about the rising power of the liberal blogosphere and how that's being used.  I think it's a great question. I dont' quite know how to tackle it, but I'm glad you raised it here.

I'm intrigued by your statement (as I understand it) that the message of the Presidential candidates are coming from them rather than from the party.  I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on that.

As for state coverage rather than national coverage on Washblog - there's plenty of national coverage going on on other blogs.

Covering state politics is absolutely key -- not a cop-out as you seem to suggest, or some kind of nefarious party-led plot.  There are key gaps in this coverage that need to be addressed.  We have some major potential in 2008 for vote suppression, we have critical election integrity issues, and, as usual, huge sums of money will be flowing into our state to support private interests and distort the process.  The reason you see so many millions of $ flowing into Washington State from special interests around the country is that what happens on the state level is very important nationally in almost every way you can think of.  This 'investment' is not made because our state politics are unimportant, as you seem to suggest.

Words words words.  They're pouring out of me.  But what is inside of me is the direct knowledge every moment that all this political crap -- as much as people want to make it about gamesmanship -- it's all about real people, real pain.  What happens in politics has consequence that translates for real people into impact on their lives, even to the point of whether they get to live or not.  Just think of health care for starters and the impact that has on newborn babies.  We do have quite a high rate of infant mortality in this country.  That is just one tiny pinpoint example among a nearly infinite number of chains of consequence that come from the political decisions we make.

The outcome of 2008's state campaigns will have serious, ongoing, daily, direct impact on all of our lives -- It is critical that attention on these races is not sacrificed to focus the presidential campaign.

And as far as I see it -- between the extremes of a true hero of the people (could Obama or Edwards be that?  Perhaps...) or someone like George Bush, seemingly intent on dismantling democracy and every last shred of our honor and security -- the person who gets elected to the presidency will be less important than what "the people" do.  How we fix our broken electoral system.  How we demand or don't demand some corporate accounability.  How we demand or don't demand that corporations like Blackwater are brought under control.  Etc.  Because  unless we do something outside of the "business as usual" paradigm, the distortions of power and wealth now dominating the scene will continue.

by noemie maxwell on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:56:14 AM PST

---

Hi dlaw.

Whatever Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are saying, they're not talking to me. Stepping back from the abyss would be a positive move. But, overall, I'm mightily uninspired.

I've seen Seattle City Council member Richard Conlin twice this last year. One presentation was about the green building initiative. Another was about changes to the storm/sewer portion of property tax to encourage people to reduce storm water runoff (thereby improving water quality and reducing the expense of water treatment). Stuff like getting a tax credit for having rain barrels.

It's not just that Conlin is spearheading cool, important stuff. I'm more excited by the thought processes and values that go into the effort.

Specifically, Conlin is part of an effort to leverage market forces to attain progressive goals. He recognizes that you can't preach people into behaving correctly and isn't afraid to use the tools of capitalism to enact positive change. (Among others, the book Natural Capitalism, the Rocky Mountain Institute, "get it".)

At this moment in time, I truly feel that Conlin "gets it". He's a true progressive (as in "for progress").

(I'll give two examples from the national debate surrounding immigration and healthcare. Historically, immigration has been a key factor in America's success. We should be welcoming our brother and sisters with open arms. But nobody is talking about it in those terms. Ditto universal healthcare and single payer. Capitalism is just a means to efficiently allocate resources. Well, universal healthcare is the most efficient system. Ergo, it's the best option for our society and economy. But all the candidates are dancing around the edges of the issue, giving us wasteful half-options. It's sad.)

Some other names come to mind. For instance, I mostly like our region's delegation to Olympia. But, sadly, the good ones are mostly notable by their uniqueness.

---

Of course the blogosphere matters. The bloggers are blockade runners, getting around the news and information embargo.

You may recall the Bush/conservative efforts to shut down the blogosphere. Stuff like attempting to regulate individuals posting of their accord as campaigning and to be treated as "in kind". Squelching free speech, more or less.

Imagine if Bush's junta had happened two years earlier or if the world wide web had happened two years later. None of the left-wing blogosphere would exist, at least not openly. I can't even imagine dailyKos, Pacific Views, Huffington Post, alternet, Talking Points Memo, Orcinus, etc, etc, is that alternate scenario.

You may recall how bloggers kept some notable issues alive: Bush's Texas Air Nation Guard papers, the Downing Street Memos, (sorry, I'm drawing a blank), etc.

The blogosphere is like a peculator. Eventually, the important stuff bubbles out to the rest of society.

by zappini on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:51:19 PM PST

---

you can't handle the truth.

by Brian on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:25:11 PM PST

---

on talkleft.com about Obama? BTD used to be Armando on dailykos - which may or may not mean anything to you. BTD's critiques frequently discuss what other big kid bloggers are saying.

What about Krugman's writings on Obama?

I ask because I think Obama's message is as phony as they come.  They guy can deliver a speech like no one, but the vacuous soaring hope ...

yeah, whatever.

BTW, it is just politics as usual dressed as something new - and the politics as usual is don't say shit about shit or someone won't like you.

----

about blog-o-topia and the www.kewlkids ...

I skim dailykos and talkleft and mydd and digby enough to see that they are reading each other, as they cite each other.  

Are there some group think unhealthy dynamics going on? yup.

is it much different than Mel's Resturant 27 years ago when the silent owner and the chef got rid of the managing partner owner ... and a whole bunch of people who'd been marginalized where now in charge and a whole bunch of people who'd been in charge where out the door ? NO.

is it much different that what I experienced at Microsoft 19 years later as groups of managers and groups of toadies came and went? NO.

I think there is more modesty on the blogs than you get outta the sell out media slime who never have to have a back and forth, on record and in public, with their customers, the public.

like most of those involved in politics, they're looking for THE ANSWER and THE TRUTH, particularily so they can make a living telling everyone how to understand and interpret THE ANSWER and THE TRUTH ... what else are they going to do? get a real job, like at McDonalds?
----

edwards is getting NADA in media, in fact there was an excellent diary on kos today detailing the sell out media information black hole.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/5/12286/27650

I don't see how an establishment kind of candidate would get nothing from the establishment, so I don't see Edwards as some kind of covert insider candidate.

rmm.

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

by rmdSeaBos on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 07:37:42 PM PST

---

Wow, dlaw, didn't realize that I am now a "party insider" and that my support of Edwards is for "quite cynical" reasons.  I think Edwards scares corporations and the MSS (notice shabby coverage) the most of any candidate because of his message, which I happen to love.  To me, Obama is quite the party and corporate insider -- to wit, his lack of leadership in the Senate on issues, including his signature issue, the war; his lack of a universal healthcare plan (excuses offered at the NH debate were lame); his cautious use of words, however rhetorically inspiring, without details to back them up, etc.  

This is not to say I don't admire the engagement, excitement, and turnout that Obama has generated, especially among the youth.  It's terrific.  But please, let's not exclude candidates because they are white males and dismiss their supporters as cynical (code word?) party insiders.  Having a black president would be amazing.  But having a president that would have the strength and courage to truly represent the interests of the middle and working classes, the economically disadvantaged, and the forgotten would be even better.  Maybe Obama is one in the same.  I am not convinced.

by BevM on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:46:25 AM PST

---

liberals!

No idea why anyone would at this stage support such an empty suit bag of wind, please, eat my lunch for me, extremely nice-looking person of color who shares absolutely no history with African Americans, who in fact, shares a history of SLAVE ownership.  BO may be erudite, but he is by no means the most intelligent, change-maker in this race.

After falling off whatever planet he hails from, Kucinich loses his position as first out of Iraq to Richardson, no wonder no front leader there, then John Edwards - no question JE is the most intelligent, committed to populist change in this country and the only one of the top 3 not to position his lunch "ready to eat" by lobbyists and defense contractors.

I'm not looking for status quo here, regardless of his or her race or genitalia - let's stick with the intelligence and advocate for the underdog - which it appears nearly half our country ranks itself among at this point.

Stop with the white guilt - John Edwards is our guy.  Get on the bus.

by nkos on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:05:01 PM PST

---

What we need is to get away from democratic elections all together since we have zero chance of electing the perfect person as president. Voting for the best candidate is compromise and I agree with dlaw, seaboss, screw that!
No, what we need is an army ready to fight until we can force who we think to be the perfect candidate upon those who just don't get it. We will need to get together as many as we can who agree totally with our candidate cuz we will need to overthrow not just the federal government but every state government in order to hold onto power for more that a few days. Sure we will have to kill a few million but this is so much better than suffering the indignity of settling for anything other than "our" candidate in the end.

So, we better get started. Who is with me? .........................................................
I thought so.

 

by Particle Man on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:19:22 PM PST

---

Congratulations!

Fortunately we've seen that this "perfection" nonsense is just that: Nonsense. Clearly, Democrats are willing to bridge a lot of ideological gaps and let themselves get over doubts.

Just as clearly it's the Republicans - not the Democrats - who are splitting their party between the base and the centrists.

As for the "cynicism" of the Edwards choice, I stand by the charge. I have not, for one, forgotten that Edwards was a classic DLC Democrat, a supporter of the war and an author of the Patriot Act. His economic message is great. I love it. It comes straight out of his work as a trial lawyer, but it's still a good message. I hope he might accept the VP slot in the event that Obama gets the nomination and I would certainly support him if he was the nominee.

But Obama's campaign is more of a classic proposition of falling for the campaign because of the idealism of his speeches and then finding he's a bit more of a centrist than you'd like, but still stands for important principles that his candidacy has always stood for - antiracism, opposition to the Iraq war as a fundamental understanding of the political reality in America and the world, new hopefulness for American progress.

by dlaw on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:19:34 PM PST

---