NY Times Article On Lamont Blogging

We would be winning (4.00 / 1)

the war in Vietnam if it wasn't for the damn hippie war protesters.

---

by: notcho @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 11:40:39 AM UTC

Dan Gerstein (0.00 / 0)

Why they give this bozo time is beyond me.  He was on MSNBC last night and AL Sharpton eviscerated him.  Even the always on prozac Barnacle called him on a lie when he tred to say Jane Hamsher was part of Ned staff.

---

by: DisNoir36 @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 11:44:07 AM UTC

Simple (0.00 / 0)

Gerstein illustrates how out of touch the Lieberman campaign is, completely underestimating the dynamics of the race, how the blogosphere played a role in promoting Ned Lamont while challenging the Lieberman campaign at every turn. If you cannot compete on that front, and have no visible prescence, of cource you will lose that battle.

---

by: Scarce @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 12:30:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a good article (0.00 / 0)

...not a 'hit piece' at all.

Medina covered the minor issue in decent enough detail for people to understand the pro's and cons of having unaffiliated bloggers close to your campaign. And she has full explanatory quotes from those involved.

In an interview, she said national bloggers like her acted independently of the Lamont campaign and were merely augmenting, and giving a wider audience to, what the Connecticut bloggers were already doing.

“The local bloggers are longtime political activists in the state, some of them local committee people,” Ms. Hamsher said. “They blog as a way to express what they’ve been doing for a long time, anyway. For them, it’s like a cafe. It brings them together.”

Also, note that Hillary Clinton has hired Peter Daou as a “blog adviser to facilitate and expand her relationship” with the blogging community. This is a sign that Hillary Clinton appreciates the opportunity bloggers provide to spread a message or instantly report on the issues of the day. More pragmatically it also shows she understands what can happen if you alienate that community and are openly hostile to the emerging new media. Something the Lieberman campaign may pay dearly for.

---

by: Scarce @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 12:23:19 PM UTC

I agree (0.00 / 0)

I think the article was fair

---

by: thirdparty @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 12:44:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

MSM missing a point (0.00 / 0)

The "Kiss Float" is theater. Street theater, literally, of the sort that has not been seen in decades, outside of gay pride parades.

Though I did not see the "blackface" image on firedoglake, I would suspect that this was also a form of theater, considering Jane's background in film and her intelligence and wit. I cannot say if it was offensive, but I suspect it was funny.

Blogging is theater. Even the silly collage diary format of myspace sites is a type of self-portrait and characature considered art/performance/poetry in other eras.

This is the dawning of the age of internet theater. Hurrah!

(and it does not cost $50 a seat to attend)


"I am not a Blogger...But I play one on the internet."

---

by: tessa @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 12:49:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It was not funny (4.00 / 2)

It was offensive.

---

by: thirdparty @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 13:17:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Believe me (4.00 / 2)

It was offensive.

---

by: Maura @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 13:19:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ok - I totally trust Maura (0.00 / 0)

so, perhaps Jane is slipping.

I repeat that I didn't see it, though I have many friends who collect artifacts that are of their own background or others (not just racial) that I consider offensive.

I still believe this is all Theatre.

And, of course, I consider Lieberman deeply offensive as well.

"I am not a Blogger...But I play one on the internet."

---

by: tessa @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 15:24:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A man I met at the Jackson/Sharpton rally (0.00 / 0)

...who was African-American and was asked about the blackface image by a reporter who had a printout of it, said, "I think pictures of dead kids in Iraq are a lot more offensive."

I don't mean to diminish the recognition that the image was offensive.  It was.  But the point this man made was quite powerful, I thought, as far as putting these things in perspective are concerned.

---

by: Maura @ Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 00:33:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Overall, a positive article (0.00 / 0)

I'm not crazy about the spitball headline, either, but overall the article is very fair, I think.

Jennifer Medina did what most MSM reporters on blogging rarely do - she talked about the positive impact that blogging has had.

Given the firestorm of (well deserved) indignation over Jane Hamsher's use of a really offensive image, what Jennifer Medina did is even more powerful -- she included a lengthy example of one really positive effect that Jane's blogging has had on the campaign.  It is easy to demonize Jane and do nothing but write a hit piece including examples of her  expressing anger about Lieberman (and frankly, most of us have plenty of those available for any reporter to selectively cherry-pick in order to "prove" us to be nothing but irrationally angry) but Medina did not do that - she cut through the usual MSM BS about angry bloggers to get closer to what's really going on here, the positive and the negative.  And there has been negative.  So I think overall it is quite fair.

---

by: Maura @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 13:18:26 PM UTC

Star gazing back and forth (0.00 / 0)

I love Jane Hamsher but for Jennie(yes I've spoken with her a few times and like her) to portray her like the mother Hen of the Ct Bloggers in this article was a disservice to her readers.Jane showed up last month not last year when the local Bloggers got this buzz going.

The preperation for trhis race was laid long before Jane had even heard of Ned Lamont and I'll say before there even was a candidate Lamont.

---

by: ctkeith @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 13:33:20 PM UTC

agreed (0.00 / 0)

Reporters are desperate to put a face to represent the blogs.  They could try to understand it is just a conversation with no one holding more weight than anyone else.  Kos, Jane Hamsher and the like certainly don't represent me. 

---

by: concorde @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 14:24:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"When the people lead, the leaders follow." (0.00 / 0)

and ctkeith is a good example of that saying.

---

by: Larkspur @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 14:51:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jane is prettier than we are (0.00 / 0)

ya gotta admit it, keith.

"I am not a Blogger...But I play one on the internet."

---

by: tessa @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 15:31:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I remember our first "contact" (0.00 / 0)

Over a year before Lamont existed you were running dumpjoe and I was running timetogojoe. There was no "candidate", just a need for people that wanted a change to look for one.

We lucked into Lamont (there was another "candidate" before him, and if he had actually run we wouldn't be where we are today). There was a movement, but no head. We got a good head, and we are lucky, or we would still be a movement stuck with 25% at the polls.

And, for the record, I believe that one of the key reasons that Lieberman didn't take Lamont seriously was because of the noise we had made for over a year. He didn't take what we were doing as serious, and he saw Lamont as part of that.

Big mistake.


The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 19:27:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

if you give it (0.00 / 0)

you must be ready to take it

---

by: dad @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 13:46:26 PM UTC

Thanks, ctkeith (0.00 / 0)

I think ctkeith had an extraordinary point, that this started long before the formal Lamont Campaign for many, many people.  Though six year terms for Senators is arguably too long (a history to that, all in itself) we have "terms" for a reason.  It is NOT an apppointment for life.  The voters assess their candidates near the end of each term, and vote accordingly.  The role is meant to change in accordance with the will of the constituents; we may vote to retain the incumbent as well.

Mr. Lamont has scored higher, for me, on ALL major issues.  One does NOT have to be “anti-Lieberman”  to vote comfortably and enthusiastically for Ned Lamont.  Lieberman has done many things necessary for him to do as a Senator.  My robo-call from Chris Dodd yesterday reminded me so.  I give Joe a “C-” with a strong caution under “Plays well with others?” category: “NEEDS IMPROVEMENT”.  The past several weeks of the Lieberman campaign have been so disorganized and negative, I could NOT vote for him now in good conscience, regardless.  Lieberman's behavior during the single public debate was embarrassing.

Humor has a long history of crossing the line into the repugnant/offensive. The “Aristocrats” comes to mind.

Clean humor?  Go to http://forevermarxis... and
scroll down to the first photo, to see our Senator’s doppleganger giving a “hug”. :)

---

by: TC @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 14:45:55 PM UTC