Why I Support the Boycotters of Kos

Posted by Damozel |  As D Cupples has already noted, diarists at Kos who support Hillary Clinton have decided that enough's enough.  Good for them.  It's about time Clinton supporters start speaking up against the abuse and insults of the Hillary-bashing 'O-bot' contingent of the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic party. 

Here's an excerpt from Alegre's last post, taken from where it's cross-posted at No Quarter (I refuse to link to Kos).

I’ve decided to go on "strike" and will refrain from posting here as long as the administrators allow the more disruptive members of our community to trash Hillary Clinton and distort her record without any fear of consequence or retribution.....I will not help drive up traffic or page-hits as long as my candidate – a good and fine DEMOCRAT - is attacked in such a horrid and sexist manner not only by other diarists, but by several of those posting to the front page.

[O]ur community has become little more than an echo chamber with an attitude that harkens back to the early days of Dubbya’s administration - yer either with us or yer a’gin us, heh!  The attackers and disrupters are no better than Chris Matthews with their sexism, hate, lies, and obsession with bashing - all – things – Hillary.... (No Quarter; emphasis added)

Yes, the rise of that deranged segment of Obama's base Teh Nutroots calls 'the O-bots'  has certainly made me stop and ask what the hell is going on with my party.

Do you want to know Lord Kos's response?  Do you? 

His response: "First, these people should read up on the definition of 'strike.' What they're doing is a 'boycott.' But whatever they call it, I think it's great. It's a big Internet, so I hope they find what they're looking for."  (ABC News)

Conservative Michael van der Galien at PoliGazette had a similar reaction to mine:

And how does Markos react to the ’strike?’ That’s right, by showing that he’s in reality one arrogant son of a gun.... Dude; those are the people who actually enable you to make a couple of million dollars each year. Perhaps you should show them a little respect and appreciation?

'Son of a gun' isn't the exact expression that comes most readily  to my mind, but it is close enough.

Satirist Jon Swift remarks:

What Markos was saying, I think, is that not only are supporters of Clinton traitors to the liberal cause, they are incredibly stupid as well. They have been posting on his site for free for all of this time while Markos has been raking in money and not sharing one cent of it with them, which certainly cannot be characterized as an employer-employee relationship as anyone who has taken an Economics 101 class and is not a dunderheaded Clinton supporter would know. Although Markos suggested that the word "boycott" would be more appropriate than "strike," I think the word he was looking for was "slave revolt," since "slave" is a much more appropriate term for someone who works for no pay while the plantation owner enriches himself. The word "slave," however, has certain unfortunate racial connotations that he probably felt it would be best not to raise, so he went with the word "boycott" instead.

Brad Friedman of the BRAD BLOG describes his own issues with Kos :

We've had our own recent run-ins with the gate-keepers there who have inappropriately attempted to marginalize The BRAD BLOG and other Election Integrity advocates a number of times in recent weeks with inaccurate, defamatory, unsupported and evidence-free allegations, even while they've had their own undisclosed....interest-conflicted reasons for doing so in several such cases. We don't wish to re-hash it all today, but you can peruse the matter for yourself in great detail via our Daily Kos category, which offers a number of articles describing the...behavior of many of those in charge of the once-important dKos daily machine, including Markos Moultisas himself, and some of his front pagers such as Dana "DHinMI" Houle, who was, until recently, the chief of staff to a U.S. Congressman from New Hampshire.

At The Moderate Voice,  Joe Gandelman has commented on the increasingly bitter tone of the dispute between Clinton and Obama supporters and its toxic effects on the party and the campaigns of both candidates.

I'm pretty sure that Clinton supporters didn't start to get bitter---at least I didn't---until they got sick and tired of seeing Hillary's views repeated twisted, distorted, and willfully misrepresented by some of their favorite progressive bloggers.  In fact, I am absolutely certain, along with Sean Wilentz at The New Republic, Larry Johnson and Susan UnPC at No Quarter, Taylor Marsh, and others who have helped enable Democratic resistance to the not-at-all hyperbolic 'Obamamania", that the toxicity started with the first accusations that statements in now way reflecting badly on people of color or Barack Obama were labelled 'racist.' 

I am SICK of it.  I've completely lost faith in a number of people (media figures such as Olbermann---who should change his name to Obamaman---and Bill Maher as well as bloggers such as Josh Marshall)  whose opinions I used to trust because of their apparent inability to be objective on any point or ever get anything right. 

Their virulent, hateful allegations about the Clintons---and their utter unwillingness to look objectively at ANY of Obama's potential negatives---simply defies credulity.   I have seen the hateful, destructive word 'racist'---an allegation of an attitude I consider offensive to God, humanity, theology, and decency---ROUTINELY applied to one of the party's long-time advocate of civil rights.  I am  entire heartsick, disgusted, and, finally, FURIOUS. 

And, yeah----some of the fury is definitely getting transferred to Obama.  As Taylor Marsh has pointed out, the disgusting, exaggerated anti-Hillary language from our own Democratic brothers and sisters is negatively affecting Obama.

At The Democratic Daily, Stuart O'Neill writes:

The 2008 Democratic Presidential campaign primary has become divisive, not from action by the candidates, but by the actions and hate-filled words of Obama supporters in very aggressive attacks against HRC and her supporters. If you want proof of this reality simply post a pro-Clinton diary at Dailykos.

Until all this started I---an Edwards supporter---liked Obama and Clinton about equally and thought they would both about equally do for me.  No more.  The Left Coaster has accurately articulated the difference between Clinton rules and Obama rules.  I've had enough of them.

Re: Kos,  the BRAD BLOG has some advice for those who would like to demonstrate to Kos the drawbacks of becoming too angrily partisan:

If you really want to get the attention of a blog owner, however, we'd suggest a readers strike is far more likely to accomplish that goal, since the business model for such operations rely on reader traffic to help set ad prices.

Want to make sure the folks running dKos take notice of your concerns? Stop hitting those pages in big numbers --- yes, even checking for new comments counts as a new page view for advertisers --- and believe us, they'll notice.

Clinton supporters and bloggers who would like to join Allegre's Clinton discussion group can join 'Hillary's Voice' here.

As always, Jon Swift deserves the final word:

What has especially irked Clinton supporters about Obama supporters at the Daily Kos is that Kossacks for Obama have learned what politics is really about. Politics is not about getting someone elected or changing the world, which anyone who has taken a look at the ability of the Daily Kos to actually get people elected should know. Politics is about feeling good about yourself. Who cares if Obama gets beaten in the general election; he will make everyone who voted for him feel really good inside. That's how Ralph Nader made people who voted for him feel in 2000. It didn't matter whether he had a chance to win or not, it only mattered that his supporters didn't feel icky by voting for Al Gore or George Bush....

I don't know what the average age of Kossacks is but judging by the level of their writing, it appears that most of them weren't even born when Bill Clinton was President. But they have studied enough history in school to know how terrible those years of peace and prosperity were since they directly led to the war and economic downturn we are experiencing now and understandably they don't want to go back to that...

[T]he more I see these idealistic Obama voters who are so committed to their candidate and personally attack anyone who opposes them as traitors and idiots, the more I recall those idealistic days when I unquestioningly supported President Bush and believed anyone who opposed him was a terrorist sympathizer. If you close your eyes and read what Andrew Sullivan says about Obama (I know you can't read if you close your eyes, but with Sullivan you don't actually have to read his blog to know what he is saying), you can't help but recall his onetime fanatical support of President Bush and the War in Iraq and the scorched Earth tactics he used to attack those who opposed him. It might be worth seeing Obama get elected just to see how long it would take Sullivan to realize that Obama is the worst President ever and for him to excoriate him and back one of his opponents with the same romantic fervor.  (Jon Swift)

Memeorandum has more here

OTHER BN-POLITICS POSTINGS

DailyKos Blogger Stands up to Hillary Bashing 

The Media & Obama: Good Intentions Paving a Rough Road 

Hillary Takes the High Road   

The Democratic Campaign Grows Even Uglier 

Penn Makes Silly Statement, USA Today Blog Fuels Fire with Partial Quote   

Olbermann's Hillary Comments about Ferraro, More Campaiging for Obama 

Obama Campaign Uses Bush Tactics in Fundraising Email

Clinton Smearers Played Dirty re: Muslim Comment   

Studies Suggest Pro-Obama (or Anti-Hillary) Media Bias 

No Quarter's List Of Obama's NAFTA-Gate Statements

Comments

[joeysky]

Thanks. I walked out because I had enough of the bashing as well. Now I don't go anywhere new dailyKos. Let them rotten in their own stew.

[Sam]

I thought dailyKos represented the entire progressive community but I guess not. They have alienated a large segment of their supporters and let's not forget this in the future.

[Adam]

What about Obama supporters' actions in the last couple months convinces you that it's no longer true that Clinton and Obama "would both about equally do for [you]"? Their positions haven't changed; neither has their experience. Has something happened that makes you re-evaluate his position on something?

Again, although this election has seemed ugly as all get-out to you for some time, from a MSM perspective it only started getting dirty in the last two weeks or so (and not in a way that is particularly slanted towards or initiated by Obama). The average voter, who is going to decide this nomination and this general election, does not read dailykos. There's been plenty of vitriol, but it has been below the radar until very recently.

I am NOT trying to nullify your anger; you're entitled to it. If dailykos is too slanted to be worth your time then that's fine. Just recognize it for what it is - sniping between the most vocal, and probably the least reasonable, members of each side. Hopefully, in the months between the nomination and November, that 20% or whatever it is, that claims they won't support the other side if he/she is nominated, will have a chance to sit down and remember what the real issues are.