Well Mike, two things:
First, she's not looking to 2012. She's saying that she and others don't want to wait for Hillary to run again. She chose 2012 because she doesn't think Obama will win. I think this is a needless buzzkill for people like me who are riding incredibly high on the most exciting candidate to come out of the party since JFK, but based on everything she's said and written, its her genuine belief. The sentiment is pretty clearly, "We can't wait for you to run later, we need you now," not, "If you don't run now, here's hoping Obama loses and you get your next shot sooner rather than later." It's still, in my opinion, a needlessly pessimistic view, but I think it does nothing more than color the phrasing of a fair, if disagreed with sentiment ("Hillary now, not later").
Second, you're right about the ratings. The ratings are not a place to express myself; that's the comments. The ratings are a place to report abuse, and while I believe you've been hypersensitive, your reactions aren't abuse.
Thanks for engaging me, Mike. I love these communities because of people like you who are willing to dissect their motivations and the motivations of others. I hope Senator Clinton suspends her campaign soon for the sake of the party; the potential benefits to her are so unlikely and the definite costs to the nominee are so great. When that happens, I hope Alegre, Texasdarlin, and the rest of Hillary's most ardent supporters will prove their democratic metel by supporting Obama. I guess we'll find out who's on what team soon enough. In the meantime, I'm glad you're on mine. The people in this party make me as proud as the platform does.
PS. I've fixed my ratings for you. Just please do try not to throw gasoline on a fire. Even if its intentional, these diaries are just a match. Comments and attention are the fuel that makes them incendiary.
I agree on all points. My issue was with you labeling the diary as trollish. Counter-productive? Absolutely. Short-sighted? Incredibly. Foolish and incorrect? Very likely.
But trollish? Intended to damage Democratic causes or persons? Crafted to bait outrage? I think not.
My problem is not that you have a problem with Alegre; I do too. I don't mind that you have a problem with this specific diary either; I think its foolish and counterproductive. Nonetheless, your vitriol and choice of words should be reserved for diaries that are truly trollish. I understand wanting ideas and viewpoints which damage Democratic prospects to just go away quickly and therefore opposing them voraciously, but the fact is that this is well within the scope of progressive dialogue, and the attempt to squelch parts of that dialogue that threaten our electoral success, while tempting considering all of our near-losses, is simply not part of the netroots community, and it is that sort of idea intolerance that led to the rift we're now trying to heal.
Call it out as wrong. Call it out as dumb. Call it out as a waste of democratic energy. But don't call an honest opinion delivered without venom trolling.
With all good intentions towards you penguin, tell that to my kids. Tell them why bitter and divisive people split the party and got yet another right winger elected. Tell them why this kind of nonsense is rec'ed to the top of the list at a Democratic forum every time it's posted and gets ample enough airtime that it find legitimacy.
It's not Democratic. It's not Progressive. It's single-minded, tunnel vision with the intent to deliver for one candidate at the expense of all else. How in the world can we call this NetRoots. It spits in the face of everything that Jerome and Kos wrote about in the "This Ain't No Party" chapter of "Crashing the Gates."
I don't engage Alegre or many of the others with similar reasoning here at MyDD for the simple reason that their candidate was running in contested elections. I disagreed with them and found much of their writing awful. Tonight is a very different story. The implication that Obama won't win and that Hillary will carry the mantle in 2012 serves no NetRoots purpose other than to drive people away from the person who was named the presumptive nominee. It's designed to create the impression that we've put the party in danger.
What really puts the party in danger is sentiment like this that suggests we're going to lose. There's nothing about this dialog that contributed to the election of a Democrat to the highest office. Nothing. It is driven by a cult of personality movement that discredits everything that Hillary Clinton has worked for as a Democrat. It places her above the party on the night when the party has loudly spoken to the world about who will be carrying our banner into battle. I can't stomach that.
shrug Agreed. It's still not trolling.
