- ‹ previous
- 2779 of 2798
- next ›
One Last Shot
ONE LAST SHOT....I won't pretend to know why Newsweek chose to turn over 3,000 words (!) to professional liberal Obama hater Sean Wilentz in their current issue (his opening claim that "I would like to see him succeed in fulfilling his promise" is one of the more transparent howlers I've seen recently), but it really has to be seen to be believed. Be sure to especially check out the second-to-last paragraph:
Liberal intellectuals actually could have aided their candidate, while also doing their professional duty, by pressing him on his patently evasive accounts about various matters, such as his connections with the convicted wheeler-dealer Tony Rezko, or his more-than-informal ties to the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, including their years of association overseeing an expensive, high-profile, but fruitless public-school reform effort in Chicago. Instead, the intellectuals have failed Obama as well as their readers by branding such questioning as irrelevant, malicious or heretical.
Um, sure. That would have been a great way to help out Obama. Should liberal intellectuals also have viciously attacked his wife just to toughen him up for November? Questioned whether he was really the father of his children? Dug more deeply into his Muslim heritage?
If Newsweek wants to publish stuff like this under Karl Rove's byline, whatever. At least everyone knows what axe is being ground. But how many of Newsweek's readers know that Wilentz was a one-man hurricane of pro-Hillary/anti-Obama agit-prop for months and months during the primary? Not many, I'd guess, and they might read this bitter diatribe a little differently if they did.
They say Barack needs more substance, let me remind you that Faith is the Substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen!
On Meet the Press,Tom Brokaw asked Speaker Pelosi a question on the tighening of the race in which she responded:
"REP. PELOSI: it's a close poll in either way. But I'm very confident about Senator Obama's success because these polls are about likely voters. They're people who vote in the last two elections. Senator Obama has and Senator Clinton, too, has attracted millions more people to the political process, some who have never voted, some who haven't voted for a long time. So I don't think that the ? I think it's a OK poll, he's ahead and that's good, but I think that his support is much stronger than that. I'm very confident about the success that we'll have in November, and then the success for jobs and health care and education in?come January." From MTP, 8/24/08
However, MSM, is very aware that they are only giving part of the picture regading polls and that the polling data cannot in anyway give an accurate accounting of the true picture due to the thousands of new applicants. However, GOP-owned media wants to give the PERCEPTION that Barack is slipping in the polls and that the race close.
MSM also continuses to say Barack is not specific when he is and has been very specific in his speeches on how we must solve our problems today on a myriad of issues, another lie they want to leave in the minds of the American public. GOP-owned media likes to say he has no experience, a total fabrication. Some men are born with a certain talent or genuis, example a genuis to play an instrument or paint without any formal training. Some people are born with certain talents and Barack was born to be a leader of men in enabling to unite and tackle problems which have too long been ignored. We are at a crossroads and we have a profound decision to make on which way the United States will go. Will we continue to spiral downwards into decay or will we pick ourselves up out of GOP domination and control which has done nothing for the American people and bring back the American dream. However, we live in the time fortunately where every eye shall see and every ear shall hear and people are not as dumb as GOP-owned MSM would like them to be.
We must not give into panic, those of us who support Barack Obama. We must remain hopeful as his slogan reminds us. There are going to be pitfalls in the road our strength is in our confidence that we will overcome. As Rep. Jessie Jackson, Jr. stated today in regards to the Democratic Party - this is not a week to talk about losing, this is a week to talk about winning!
They say Barack needs more substance, let me remind you that Faith is the Substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen!
On Meet the Press,Tom Brokaw asked Speaker Pelosi a question on the tighening of the race in which she responded:
"REP. PELOSI: it's a close poll in either way. But I'm very confident about Senator Obama's success because these polls are about likely voters. They're people who vote in the last two elections. Senator Obama has and Senator Clinton, too, has attracted millions more people to the political process, some who have never voted, some who haven't voted for a long time. So I don't think that the ? I think it's a OK poll, he's ahead and that's good, but I think that his support is much stronger than that. I'm very confident about the success that we'll have in November, and then the success for jobs and health care and education in?come January." From MTP, 8/24/08
However, MSM, is very aware that they are only giving part of the picture regading polls and that the polling data cannot in anyway give an accurate accounting of the true picture due to the thousands of new applicants. However, GOP-owned media wants to give the PERCEPTION that Barack is slipping in the polls and that the race close.
MSM also continuses to say Barack is not specific when he is and has been very specific in his speeches on how we must solve our problems today on a myriad of issues, another lie they want to leave in the minds of the American public. GOP-owned media likes to say he has no experience, a total fabrication. Some men are born with a certain talent or genuis, example a genuis to play an instrument or paint without any formal training. Some people are born with certain talents and Barack was born to be a leader of men in enabling to unite and tackle problems which have too long been ignored. We are at a crossroads and we have a profound decision to make on which way the United States will go. Will we continue to spiral downwards into decay or will we pick ourselves up out of GOP domination and control which has done nothing for the American people and bring back the American dream. However, we live in the time fortunately where every eye shall see and every ear shall hear and people are not as dumb as GOP-owned MSM would like them to be.
We must not give into panic, those of us who support Barack Obama. We must remain hopeful as his slogan reminds us. There are going to be pitfalls in the road our strength is in our confidence that we will overcome. As Rep. Jessie Jackson, Jr. stated today in regards to the Democratic Party - this is not a week to talk about losing, this is a week to talk about winning!
Someone should take arch-puma Wilentz out to the woodshed. His whole gravamen is just silly anyway: Obama has laid out precisely what he wants to do in terms of domestic and foreign policy. Wilentz is lying and lazy when he says there's uncertainty.
And wtf is this 'liberal intellectuals' thing? Is the press made up of liberal intellectuals? Do liberal intellectuals have some sort of platform for 'pressing' Obama on these things? Have such liberal intellectuals as are engaged in public discourse done anything less than explore all these 'shadowy' connections and conclude that there is no there there? For that matter, who says liberal intellectuals are a monolithic group? The two who have perches in the NYTimes, Paul Krugman and Stanley Fish, were both Clintonites.
The only good thing about the article is that it's too long and boring to read through to the end.
Lucy, honestly, what in the hell are you talking about? Odinga? Seriously. You people are insane. You don't have questions, you just have suspicions that you're waiting to confirm regardless of whether or not there is any evidence. Also, um, there is no "different candidate" except McCain and if you're even willing to entertain four years of him in the White House we have a misunderstanding so profound as to be completely beyond any attempts at reasoned argument. I really don't get why there are so many Obama haters. I can understand not liking him, but hating him seems really weird. He's not really a hatable guy. What has he -- not his campaign or his supporters, but him -- done to fill these people with such vitriol? Nonsense.
I'm not sure why the political situation in Kenya is central to the election of a U.S. President?
If a candidate's ethnic background is directly related to his politics, then does that mean McCain needs to explain his stance on Irish or Scottish politics?
That would have been a great way to help out Obama.
Had they asked for nonevasive answers to these questions and had Obama given them, are you suggesting that would have been damaging to Obama?
Should liberal intellectuals also have viciously attacked his wife just to toughen him up for November? Questioned whether he was really the father of his children? Dug more deeply into his Muslim heritage?
Gee, don't you think you could have asked a more irrelevant set of questions?
WTF?? What is this, Drum Unchained? Kevin a la Mother Jones? It sure isn't the eminently sensible Kevin Drum I had come to know and love.
Lucy, you missed the point again. If Newsweek wants to run a piece by a Clinton hack, they can run a piece by a Clinton hack. However, they should identify the writer as a Clinton hack.
The paragraph Kevin cited is funny. McCain supported NCLB, which is the "expensive, high-profile, but fruitless public-school reform effort" all-time record holder, but we are supposed to be very nervous because of a program Obama supported. Of course, you can take it seriously if you want to.
Of course, McCain is not connected to any shady characters. Even if he is, it's OK because he was a POW.
Lucy,
That you use Corsi as a source is all I need to know about you. You are a loon.
Dear msw,
Why don't you call Lucy a troll, or concern troll, or maybe just human crap or something?
After all, she disagrees with you, so why bother reading what she has to say, which is not particularly complimentary of Corsi?
Why don't you consider following the MoJo rules set for Kevin's blog?
2. Do Not Abuse, Harass, or Defame
- No personal attacks. Insulting, attacking, or denigrating another community member are ad-hominem attacks, which weaken debate and are not allowed under any circumstances. We have zero tolerance for taking an argument about any topic to a personal level.
I realize she disagrees with you. I realize so much of our liberal blog society tells you that you can just engage in name calling and dehumanization.
So why not attack Lucy for the piece of human excrement that you clearly think she is?
I think she should die. Don't you?
Obama should be responsive to voter concerns about his background, especially when he started out relatively unknown on the national level. Dismissing every concern as a smear, including Wilentz's latest column, doesn't address the content itself -- that isn't going to go away just because Obama thinks it should.
Absolutely. I, for one, can't in good conscience vote for Obama until he's proven, to my satisfaction, that he's not a serial rapist of goats. And if people have a problem with my voting concern, then maybe it's because they're goatfuckers, themselves.
The problem isn't that it was Kenya or even that it was tied to Obama's personal history, but that he, as a member of Congress, attempted to meddle in the election of another country. It shows a lack of experience and a misunderstanding of his own role as a member of our government and representative of this country.
Sing out, sister! If he were half the senator that Clinton is, he would have threatened to totally obliterate them & been done with it.
McCain/Ferraro 2008!
pressing him on his patently evasive accounts about various matters, such as his connections with... his more-than-informal ties to the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, including their years of association overseeing an expensive, high-profile, but fruitless public-school reform effort in Chicago
Tomorrow the University of Chicago is going to release the records of the Annenberg Challenge and I'm sure what we going to see is a whole lot of nothing. We'll see a foundation that put a lot of money into schools that had mixed results - however what is unreported is that many of the education policy recommendations that were made are being used and implemented today. It seems to me that this could be a positive message for Obama. I think what will also come out is that Ayer's "radical agenda" included such dangerous things as encouraging smaller classroom sizes. Finally what will come out is that there was a board of 15 or more people, and Ayers was only one person, not even a driving force. In the end, a mistake somewhere in the handling of these records has brought out a bunch of conspiracy theorists who ultimately see nothing damning or scandalous at all.
"his more-than-informal ties to the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers"
As a "professional historian" Wilentz should be thanking God for tenure so he can commit crap like this to print with no consequences other than derision.
Newsweek is so biased in favor of Obama that you can't fault them for bringing some balance once in a while...
They say Barack needs more substance, let me remind you that Faith is the Substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen!
On Meet the Press,Tom Brokaw asked Speaker Pelosi a question on the tighening of the race in which she responded:
"REP. PELOSI: it's a close poll in either way. But I'm very confident about Senator Obama's success because these polls are about likely voters. They're people who vote in the last two elections. Senator Obama has and Senator Clinton, too, has attracted millions more people to the political process, some who have never voted, some who haven't voted for a long time. So I don't think that the I think it's a OK poll, he's ahead and that's good, but I think that his support is much stronger than that. I'm very confident about the success that we'll have in November, and then the success for jobs and health care and education income January." From MTP, 8/24/08
However, MSM, is very aware that they are only giving part of the picture regading polls and that the polling data cannot in anyway give an accurate accounting of the true picture due to the thousands of new applicants. However, GOP-owned media wants to give the PERCEPTION that Barack is slipping in the polls and that the race close.
MSM also continuses to say Barack is not specific when he is and has been very specific in his speeches on how we must solve our problems today on a myriad of issues, another lie they want to leave in the minds of the American public. GOP-owned media likes to say he has no experience, a total fabrication. Some men are born with a certain talent or genuis, example a genuis to play an instrument or paint without any formal training. Some people are born with certain talents and Barack was born to be a leader of men in enabling to unite and tackle problems which have too long been ignored. We are at a crossroads and we have a profound decision to make on which way the United States will go. Will we continue to spiral downwards into decay or will we pick ourselves up out of GOP domination and control which has done nothing for the American people and bring back the American dream. However, we live in the time fortunately where every eye shall see and every ear shall hear and people are not as dumb as GOP-owned MSM would like them to be.
We must not give into panic, those of us who support Barack Obama. We must remain hopeful as his slogan reminds us. There are going to be pitfalls in the road our strength is in our confidence that we will overcome. As Rep. Jessie Jackson, Jr. stated today in regards to the Democratic Party - this is not a week to talk about losing, this is a week to talk about winning!
Boy, these comment sections are making the Washington Monthly comments look like a Mensa meeting. Who let all these PUMA clowns in?
I don't understand how a professional historian from Princeton (perhaps hanging out there with Paul Krugman too much), who wrote a cover story in Rolling Stone on how George Bush was the WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY thinks somehow Obama vs. McCain is a close call.
Lucy, McCain is trying to start a new Cold War with Russia over Georgia and conduct America's diplomacy before he gets elected. Still, POW POW POW.
So why not attack Lucy for the piece of human excrement that you clearly think she is?
Wow, got in other words you want to put in my mouth?
No, anyone citing Corsi is a loon. When a person starts citing trash they need to be told they have wandered past the point of respectable argument.
If Obama has no explanations, then they deserve a different candidate.
Luce, Hillary isn't going to be the candidate. Hillary's really not going to pull it out at the convention. Honest. Your other choices are McCain, McKinney, Nader, Barr, or--what was it?--the California Peace and Freedom Party.
In the general election, people who see Obama evading legitimate questions (no matter who raises them) are going to vote for the other guy because they won't consider it a sin to be Republican and won't put up with the demand for total, unquestioning loyalty to the One.
Now doesn't that feel better--to just say it out loud and be done with it? If voting McCain is a sin, Lucy doesn't want to be ho-lay!
"The problem isn't that it was Kenya or even that it was tied to Obama's personal history, but that he, as a member of Congress, attempted to meddle in the election of another country."
So let's support McCain, because he would never do anything like that, except for the times that he did.
Just a minute now. Lucy here. That's another Lucy writing that crap up there.
Just to set the record straight.
[Thanks for setting the record straight. I was giving "our" Lucy a little room to vent. Now that I know it isn't you, I am deleting the PUMA agit-prop. --Mod]
"Instead, the intellectuals have failed Obama as well as their readers by branding such questioning as irrelevant, malicious or heretical."
I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that Wilentz and Lucy remain deeply grateful for the "questioning" the Clintons received during their Presidency.
I knew it wasn't you, Real Lucy. It's our old friend Seven or Eight Names from Washington Monthly, who started posting as Also Lucy in pure pique after you kicked her butt daily in debate during the primaries.
Wish you came around more, Real L!
Why thank you shortstop, I take that as a real compliment coming from you. Seems to me you've got it covered.
And "Lucy"--farewell, my lovely!
"his more-than-informal ties to the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers"
As a "professional historian" Wilentz should be thanking God for tenure so he can commit crap like this to print with no consequences other than derision.
Posted by: brucds on 08/25/08 at 2:31 PM
It's correct.
Which part of that do you think is inaccurate?
Which part of that do you think is inaccurate?
I cannot really speak for brucds, Zaladonis, but I think his point was that Wilentz, as he is wont to do in this piece and others, means to suggest some sort of darker and deeper relationship than really exists between Obama and Ayers. If he intended to describe their relationship accurately and not through this sort of innuendo, he could certainly have done so. The evidence is that they have very little relationship. They have worked together on a couple of boards because Ayers is a pretty ubiquitous figure in the Chicago community. Their is no evidence that they have shared some late night plotting sessions on how they plan to overthrow the government.
Wilentz of course knows this but doesn't want to state what he knows in a straightforward way. Instead, he wants to leave the impression that there is something more to their relationship then there appears to be. He wants to do that because he is a jerk.
I won't pretend to know why Newsweek chose to turn over 3,000 words (!) to professional liberal Obama hater Sean Wilentz in their current issue.
Kevin, has Secular Animist taught you nothing?
Wilentz of course knows this but doesn't want to state what he knows in a straightforward way. Instead, he wants to leave the impression that there is something more to their relationship then there appears to be. He wants to do that because he is a jerk.
Posted by: brent on 08/25/08 at 6:27 PM
Actually Wilentz stated it in the most straightforward way possible: "his more-than-informal ties to the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers."
You're interpreting all that other stuff into it.
Wilentz simply stated the truth, which is what a good historian does. And what each individual reads into simple straightforward characaterizations like that is always more revealing about the interpreter than the writer's intent.
Actually Wilentz stated it in the most straightforward way possible: "his more-than-informal ties to the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers."
This is, of course, complete nonsense that really shouldn't need to be explained to a native English speaker. "More-than-informal" is not in any way a precise description. The entire point of such a formulation is that it can mean anything from casual to extremely close. However, all the evidence is that Obama's relationship to Ayers is really pretty minimal. They know each other because they have been acquainted with a few of the same entirely unobjectionable causes. That would be a straightforward way of describing it. Wilentz deliberately chose not to do so and you have decided to cover for his deliberate innuendo.
If I started talking about my "more than informal" relationship with your girlfriend or wife, when in fact we were just casual acquaintances, every sentient human being on earth would wonder why I was trying to imply otherwise. You are apparently an exception and have managed to convince yourself that that kind of indirect language is perfectly appropriate. It is a highly unconvincing position.
As I said, msw, what lucy or fake lucy said wasn't particularly complementary of Corsi.
But I am glad you have positioned yourself as ePsychologist of the blog, ready to tell us all who is a loon, and who is worthy of reading or not.
Me, I can read and think and don't need other people to label people or dehumanize them. I've read plenty of loony stuff, and that includes nonsense written by our liberal bloggers and their commenters. I don't need your perfect sense of political pitch to tell me who is a loon, who is a racist, who is a troll, or anything like that.
I have an idea.
Respond to the actual arguments.
I apologize to Lucy for stepping on her posts. I didn't realize there was anyone here using that name.
Shortstop -- I have not been posting here regularly nor have I read the comments with any regularity. I have not engaged in any exchanges with anyone here as Lucy, recently or for the past few years to my recollection. Anything said to or by Lucy in the past year (before today) probably wasn't me.
I will try to use a more distinctive fake name in the future.
So I don't spend a lot of time here. How is it that twice in about ten visits SEVERAL posters have been removed, leaving much of the discussion flapping in the breeze? Who is pulling these posts? From what I can see, Lucy, real or fake, has only said things counter to Kevin's opinion. Is that all it takes?
[I am removing them. Posts put up for "McPoints" as well as PUMA trolling that derails conversation gets deleted. --Mod]
If Obama has an Ayers problem it will be the fundraiser not the board.
Wilentz can be a tool when it comes to current political analysis but he stated he loved Hillary in the second paragraph. I don't even know why liberal bloggers and Obama partisans are making such a big deal about a relatively banal piece. Obama is Carter but with shittier associates isn't exactly a scathing take down.
The over reaction to the piece appears to support Wilentz's lament that liberal intellectuals are in the tank for Obama. It is these intellectuals that are Wilentz's real target not Obama. I guess he wants something in writing for his big I told you so if Obama loses. (why any tenured faculty member would think liberal intellectuals are above being complete sellouts or should be supporting 'not Obama' is beyond me)
Posted by: brent on 08/25/08 at 8:15 PM
I didn't say it was precise, I said it's straightforward.
And it is.
Obama has been the one who's less than straightforward about his relationship with Ayers, and he's absolutely not been precise. All that does is lead to speculation. Wilentz presented the relationship, in a few words, the best one can with the information that's available.
Obama began his political career with a fundraiser at Ayers' house hosted by Ayers. They worked together on two boards, one of which Ayers founded and Obama served as its first Chairman. Characterizing that as a less than formal relationship is straightforward.
Axelrod described the relationship: "Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school," he said. "They're certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together." That's certainly less than formal.
I also thought Obama's response to a query about Ayers during the Philly debate was sort of revealingly vague: "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. "
"... not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis."
Wilentz reports on what is public information. In typical fashion for him, Obama has failed to provide a clear explanation about a relationship that is, at the least, curious.
Bottom line is, Wilentz is correct: liberals who supported Obama during the primaries should have insisted on a better explanation about Ayers and Wright and Rezko and the other stuff.
Hillary supporters who shifted immediately to Obama after she conceded should also have insisted on better explanations.
Some of us who remain resistent to supporting Obama might have endorsed him by now if these questions that have been responded to in a slippery style had been answered forthrightly. I don't trust him, and that has nothing to do with Hillary or McCain, it's all to do with Obama's reluctance to be forthright coupled with his tossing people and principles under the bus when it suits his personal ambition.
Posted by: brent on 08/25/08 at 8:15 PM
I didn't say "more than informal ties" is precise, I said it's straightforward.
And it is.
Obama has been intentionally vague about his relationship with Ayers, and that's curious.
Obama began his political career by Ayers hosting a fundraiser at Ayers' home for him. They sat on two boards together, one of which was founded by Ayers and Obama was its first Chairman. This little bit we know does not indicate a casual connection.
Axelrod described their relationship: "Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school," he said. "They're certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together."
And in the Philly debate Obama described it as: "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis."
(I think the "not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis is vaguely revealing.)
Characterizing this as "more than informal ties" is straightforward.
Bottom line is, Wilentz is correct: liberals who supported Obama during the primaries should have insisted on a better explanation about Ayers and Wright and Rezko and the other stuff.
Well thanks for clearing that up. I will continue to believe that Wilentz is wrong and that despite your very touching concern that there is little that Obama could have ever said or done to satisfy your need for "forthrightness." Set aside the fact that these issues are trivially stupid for anyone who actually cares about policy as opposed to this sort of lame-brained scandal mongering. These stories, like Whitewater and various other manufactured Clinton scandals have been examined in a great deal of depth and found to be basically a waste of everyone's time. Indeed, if you or Wilentz had anything like evidence that Obama is hiding anything here, you should present it. The fact that you haven't and that the best you seem to be able to do is enthusiastically present this kind of half-assed innuendo tells me all I need to know about your and Wilentz's deep concern for truth and forthrightness.
I will continue to believe that Wilentz is wrong and that despite your very touching concern that there is little that Obama could have ever said or done to satisfy your need for "forthrightness."
You're welcome to believe what suits you, and places like this can delete my posts, but the truth is I'm a Democrat who's voted only Democratic in every Presidential election since the 1970s and Obama needs my vote.
There's been contentiousness in the Democratic Party before ("Reagan Democrat" didn't come out of Democratic unity!) but this is the first time I've seen a Democratic candidate's supporters be so dismissive of Democrats who are still struggling with whom to vote for.
McCain won't have to win our votes; Obama and his supporters are losing our votes.
Who is brent at 9:17 responding to?
Hope this is not trollish of me and that I'm not derailing the conversation, but as I said, I'm not in with the in crowd around here. What are McPoints and what is PUMA? I am not sorry for being stupid.
Also, are we to understand part of the deal here is Kevin does not have to moderate comments because you do it for him?
Thankss
[1.) Brian is well-known as a concern troll and republican shill to the regulars. 2.) McPoints are awarded by the McCain campaign for posting pro-McCain talking points on liberal blogs. 3.) PUMAs are the angry Hillary voters who are supposedly backing McCain and it stands for "Party Unity My Ass." 4.) Yes. -Mod]
Thank you, Mod, for your response. Since this discussion is pretty much dead, perhaps you will indulge a few more questons from me.
What is a "concern troll"? (I believe a civilized blog should be willing to educate any and all comers who seem civilized themselves.)
How do you know who the "regulars" are? Did you come along with Kevin from the WM?
How can you tell a poster who's trying to accumulate "McPoints" from a poster who is just expressing an opinion?
Surely you're able to "block" repeat offenders from posting? At least that would prevent huge holes in the conversation and references to unavailable material.
Just a comment: I am a reasonably smart person and yet I can barely understand the jargon and secret code talk around here. Seems to me Kevin would want all visitors to feel welcome and encouraged to enter the fray. But it seems a "fray" is not what is desired here, just a meaningless slobbering love fest for those of a certain but secret persuasion. Even though you are kind for answering my questions with patience and tolerance, I believe YOU, Mod, are a major offender in this regard.
Thank you for your attention.
I'll try to explain it Casey, although your tone suggests that my attempt will be futile.
If you don't moderate comments you end up with garbage. A single determined person can clutter up a comment board with inflammatory things guaranteed to get a rise out of people. The net result is not a free conversation; it's a lot of shouting and insults. There are a variety of other ways to disrupt a discussion.
People can simply cut and paste blocks of text from other sources, filling up pages and pages. That's the "McCain points" bit. They're encouraging people to do this on progressive sites.
People can pretend to be concerned, while their entire approach makes it clear that they're behaving in bad faith. "I'm a lifelong Democrat, but Barack Obama is a socialist Muslim terrorist.." - the odds that such a person is actually a Deomcrat are very low. That's "concern trolling".
I actually prefer the Making Light policy of disenvoweling (removing the vowels from the offending post.) You can figure out what they said if you really want to, but you naturally scan over it and you probably won't respond to it.
Thank you, Marc. I have nothing against moderating comments. I've seen out-of-control boards and understand getting useful information from them is tricky. I do think it should be done with extreme care and transparency (with deleted posts noted). Your example of a "concern troll" is clear, if obvious. I expect the bright line is not so bright in reality, though, and there is a risk that true concerns are left out in the rain by moderators unwilling to consider alternative ideas.
I am very curious about your suggestion that your "attempt" to answer my questions will be "futile". Really, why would you say that?
Thanks.
A little moderation in the use of moderation?
I came over from Washington Monthly (though I think any use of the term "regulars" should encompass MoJo regulars who are now reading Kevin's blog), I know who the worst trolls/thread derailers are from the old site, and I'm still surprised by how many holes there are in the threads during the inaugural days of this new blog. Entire threads now barely make sense--very hard to follow.