One of the main things that’s bothering me about American elections is the “you’re either with us or against us” attitude too many politicians and even citizens (and thus bloggers) have. For a perfect example, see this post by Pamela Leavey about a post published at the Booman Tribune (I’m not willing to directly link to drivel like that myself, so I’ll just link to Pamela and leave it up to you all to click through the links in order to read Booman’s post).
The case is simple: Booman argues that netroots / progressive bloggers who don’t support Barack Obama can’t be trusted in the national elections.
I’m curious… Will Booman start blacklisting all the Clinton supporters in the netroots? Because there are more than a few of us. The implication that any blog or blogger in the netroots that supports Clinton shouldn’t be trusted “get back on board” for the general election is in a word asinine.
Personally, I hold no illusions that the Obama team will even be welcoming to those of us who support Clinton. But the netroots is about more than just one presidential election, isn’t it? May not, perhaps we’re all supposed to blog in lock step for the chosen netroots candidate in the primaries or else we face being called “insult to the genre of left-wing political blogging.”
Awkward, I always thought that bloggers were individuals, allowed to endorse whoever they want to endorse. It’s about the view of an individual on a particular issue.
Not?
As an aside, although I realize that one can’t possibly blame Obama himself directly for this kind of behavior, I have to say that I find it a typical aspect of the Obama Revolution. Unite!
Or else.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Typical of Obamania? If so, only beacuse it’s typical of human nature in the political realm. This is the exact same phenomenon which we have been watching happen to the right in this election over maverick John McCain. And just observe how the Clintons have always tried to utterly marginalize anybody who disagreed with them.