Bravo, teacherken.  :)

Peace.

the excellent way you expressed RK POV.  Bravo.

On behalf of the 11th CD Democratic Committee and the four current candidates for the Democratic nomination, we are heartened by your comments and hope that you will treat all of the Democratic congressional candidates with dignity and fairness.

RK certainly has the right to endorse any candidate it chooses.

If candidates are treated fairly and malice is kept to a minimum, we will preserve the strength of the eventual 11th CD Democratic nominee, whoever that might be, in the general election.

What we hope not to see is a sequel to the 2007 General Assembly elections where Republicans took quotes from RK diaries and used them against several of our Democratic candidates in the general election.

So this is a good policy, if you can make it work.

-- George Burke, Chair
  11th CD Democratic Committee

George, you know very well that Republicans will take anything they want out of context and use it.  Also, you know very well that this is a popular community blog which receives many diaries and comments, not all of which we agree with. Thus, there is no way, practically speaking, to stop Republicans -- or anyone else -- from taking words written here and twisting them if they so choose.  However, as I said during 2007, it's completely unethical and slimy to attribute those quotes to Raising Kaine, unless they're by a "front pager," and even then they should be specifically attributed to the diarist who wrote them.

Trying to avoid all quotes that can be taken out of context and used by Republicans would essentially transform RK into some sort of official in-house newsletter for the Democratic Party.    

n/t

be able to hold RK to account for "over the top" diaries, now.    All you'll need is a candidate ticked off enough about what someone says here, and you'll find out that you can't just point his or her lawyer to the original poster and say "It's his, take it up with him!" anymore.  RK will be on the hook, too.

Considering that you were an Edwards man, you definitely have the credibility to say this, Ken.

one of the very few in the Old Dominion  :-)

I think the recent editorial decision was very poor, and I'm most definitely not a Hillary Clinton supporter. The statement implies that it's only Clinton supporters who are unhappy, which - to me - is another thing that makes me wonder whether they get it.  

Time will tell.

there is no call for personal invective directed at anyone.  

We had serious offline discussions of what to do, and this statement is the result.  It is in part influenced by something that has recently happened at Daily Kos as well.

By making an open statement of expectations, it is our hope that we will not have to exercise further editorial discretion.  

Vigorous debate is fine.  Personal attacks are not.  And there becomes a point where the tenor of the language passes the bounds of acceptability.

Hopefully this statement will be sufficient.

And for your information, it is not just postings by Clinton supporters to which the editors have reacted, including by exercising editorial powers.

I'm sure you didn't mean that to come across as condescendingly as it did.

What are you referring to that happened at Daily Kos?

Do you think there are "false flag" diaries being posted there?

Larry Johnson's blog.  First Susan Hu got troll-rated, then Larry got blocked.  Posting a diary about Obama's terrorist connections was considered a violation of the site rules.  

Thanks.

Although I check in here regularly, I have not followed the reasons why RK felt moved to endorse Obama, who happened to get my vote in the Virginia primary.
Since this site has become so valuable to the progressive movement in the state, was it really wise to take sides? In the future, it seems to me that the impulse to pronounce for one candidate or another in the midst of primary season should be checked. Why not let everyone use the site as a forum for issues instead of turning it into a candidate-partisan platform. There's too much at stake and the larger good might be better served to remain neutral until the voters have spoken.  

in a front page story posted at the time.

By that time most of us had individually come out for Obama.  

The sentiment was overwhelming that we should endorse Obama, so we did.  By the way, Gov. Kaine thanked us for it in our conference call the other day.

if I recall Gov. Kaine came out for Obama what seems like forever ago almost  a year ago when Obama was polling 17% against Clinton in National polls. Say what you want about Kaine but the guy deserves respect for calling them like he sees them even when at the time most people including most contributors on this blog and others were favoring Clinton.
I recall back in 2006 the mantra was to get Congress to go Democrat and then get Clinton, it always specifically refrred to her, in the White House. While the endorsement of Obama is well deserved I think is is pretty ironic that many of the folks that so supported Clinton in 2006/2007 have moved away from her camp and into Obama's on this blog and others----i think the pundits call that MOmentum.

"It is inappropriate to engage in personal invective or unwarranted trashing, either of Democratic public officials and candidates or of other participants at Raising Kaine."

However, personal invective or unwarranted trashing of Republicans is free to continue.

as is exemplified by recent posting we have made about certain members of the General Assembly

then there is no reason to specify "Democrats" in your posting now.

I was going to ask for clarification on that.  

When Ken wrote, "[i]t is legitimate to criticize the specific actions of Democratic candidates and office holders," I thought the necessary implication would be that it is illegitimate to criticize the specific actions of Republican candidates and officeholders.  

Well, if we can't criticize the actions of Republican candidates and officeholders, at least we can still use personal invective and unwarranted trashing.  In fact, given the current crop of Republican officeholders, I wonder if it's even possible to engage in "unwarranted" trashing.  

Given how godawful the current crop of Republicans is, it would take a great deal of effort to rise to the "unwarranted criticism" level.

...Let's hope Raising Kaine lives up to its important message.  RK would be much more viable and play a bigger role in Democratic politics if it treated all Democratic candidates fairly.

It is ironic that just this week, two RK editors and Ben of NLS winked and hinted about how they were going to trash Gerry Connolly during the upcoming congressional campaign.

Here are their words from another RK diary on the front page...

Don't worry about coverage (4.00 / 1)
There will be no lack of Connolly Campaign Coverage here on RK during the next few months.  And, although I can't speak for Ben, I'm pretty sure you'll see a lot about Connolly over on NLS as well.

by: Eric @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 14:55:04 PM CST

grin (0.00 / 0)
n/t

by: Ben @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 15:06:41 PM CST
[ Parent ]

Yes, "grin" is right (0.00 / 0)
n/t

Thank you for visiting RK! Click here to learn how to join Virginia's progressive online community.

by: Lowell @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 16:34:22 PM CST
[ Parent ]

I referred to their comments in a couple of other postings on this blog, but within an hour they were removed by the editors.

The comments certainly weren't offensive.  I can only presume that they violated RK's ideological purity policy (spelled support Obama, Byrne, Deeds, and Feder at all costs).

I just checked those comments, and they were troll rated by members of the community, NOT by editors.  That's why they disappeared, because members of the community found them offensive.

By the way, how many times are you going to repeat this same comment?  I believe you've now done it in a couple of threads.  

Murtha's Beneficiaries
The annual payback dinner by defense contractors who benefit from earmarks by Democratic Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, will be held Feb. 27 at the Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City in Virginia, across the Potomac from Washington.

Murtha, a close adviser of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is one of the leading earmarkers in Congress. The earmark recipients will be paying the $1,500 a person admission to "An Evening with Jack and Joyce Murtha."

Although the dinner is timed to coincide with the anniversary of Murtha's first special election to Congress in 1974, invitations for it were mailed just before the annual deadline for earmark applications.  

I appreciate the "important message", teacherken, but I do think it would have more power and authority if it mentioned violators on both sides, not just one side.  

which were by certain supporters of Clinton who were engaging in inappropriate posting of a personal nature.  That was the immediate occasion of the discussion.  In general,the personal attacks have been unequal.  

And the message makes clear that unwarranted personal attacks will not be tolerated.

if you have a real issue, document it, offer the links and let others draw their own conclusion.

Oh, and now let me speak only for myself, and not the other editors:

I have been critical on policy of all of the Democratic candidates at one point or another.  I criticized one of the tactics of Edwards but that did not prevent me from supporting him.  

I will continue to apply my intellect and whatever writing skills I may have in a critical fashion not only in the presidential campaign, but in campaigns at other levels.   That includes the various Congressional contests.

And here let me be clear -  I have told a number of candidates that absent a strong personal connection I do not endorse in primaries in which I cannot vote.  So when I write about the candidates competing in various CDs around Virginia, be it the 6ht, the 10th or the 11th, for example, it is not because I personally favor one candidate over another.  What analysis and criticism I will offer - and I can promise you that will be forthcoming - will be solely on the merits as I see them.

For the record - I consider Leslie and Doug friends, I do not personally know Gerry.  In the 10th I know Judy better than I do Mike, but I respect both.  

I have a certain personal antipathy towards Gerry on issues in the recent past, and I make no bones about that.  I have had a contretemps in the distant past with Leslie, but we are long since past that.   And my attitude towards people is shaped also by recent political contests, specifically the Web-Miller primary.  

I prefer progressives in districts that are safely democratic.  Thus I was a supporter of Donna Edwards in the MD 4th - but I have known Donna for several years, and her campaign manager is a close friend.  In district that are competitive or challenging, I am likely to support the candidate whom I think has the best chance of putting or keeping the seat in Democratic hands.

All of the foregoing is personal.  

And speaking as an editor, no one was mentioned on either side - the message was in response to specific recent incidents, but lays down the same standards for all.

if you have a real issue, document it, offer the links and let others draw their own conclusion.

This, I can get behind 100%.  Too bad we can't do that, in this case.

teacherken, I support Obama and would love to see him become president. I just think that in the meantime, some of the trashing of the Clintons that I've been seeing is counterproductive.

What I mean when I say that you only cite one side is your statement:

We acknowledge that those who support Senator Clinton are not happy with the position of the editors to support Senator Obama.  That does not warrant some of the kinds of things posted recently.

 You did not provide any citations or links in particular.  I admit I haven't been following all the back and forth because I'm a lot more interested in going after the Repubs than in watching Dems attack each other.

Since you asked for examples on the other side, though, I might cite the profound comments HisRoc made about Mrs. Clinton here and
here.

I certainly don't like to see either side trashing the other, and I'm genuinely glad to see the commitment to police such activity.  

Sorry, I didn't realize that your sense of humor had been chemically neutralized.

Please don't take this personally, but I don't give a damn about your (or anyone else's) political correctness.

;-}

That goes double to you, VaNative.

)
.
)

an emoticon mooning?

should go without saying.

I think most commentators and diarists here understand the ground rules -- so my sense is that this above message is simply reiterating the existing policy here.  It probably wouldn't hurt to add a link to these guidelines somewhere on the site (e.g. the disclaimer box on the right hand side of the page).

I'd second Kindler's comment that some examples of abuse might have been merited.  In my own judgment this issue probably didn't need to be front-paged -- although it is what it is -- editorial discretion.

colorados progressive blog, Same templates as R.K.
They  have thier policy about trolls and "sockpuppets" right at the top pf the page.
We can disagree without being disagreeable. Even with republicans. I had a nice talk with the mccain person at Beth El Temple,as  a crush of obama voters made their way to the polls.

I must admit I am disappointed that the site has such an Obama slant.  I used to visit daily, now I only check on occasion because I don't see the site as very objective.  I would say the same about NLS as well as to their Hillary slant.  

I will say, however, that things here are a bit more civil than at the Daily Kos where the tent is pretty small.  

I voted for Hillary after much thought, swayed in large measure after Bill's visit to Roanoke.  I have no qualms about voting/supporting Obama.  In fact, I hope he becomes the nominee because I'm convinced he has the best chance of winning in November.  It is apparent to me that a large swath of Obama supporters would sit on their hands if Clinton were the nominee. I don't believe the reverse to be true.  In the end, I want a Democrat in the White House.

in the White House. I know I do. Sorry you don't like the pro-Obama direction we've taken, but I would note that many people (our presidential poll showed overwhelming support for Obama) are happy with it. Also, I'd note that our traffic has spiked since we endorsed Obama, from about 3,000 visits per day to more than 6,000 visits per day.  

That isn't all front page traffic, and a good chunk comes when people are directed from Breaking Blue on MYDD to an RK specific article- so they aren't always seeing most things on here.  It's a good distinction to make.

And, because I'm just sitting here waiting for my wife (which I state merely as a fact, without in any way intending to convey or condone any form of sexism or gender disparagement), I thought I'd help you and the Editors flesh out the new standard in a little more detail.  

I know "unwarranted trashing" when I see it, but a "personal invective" is much more difficult to spot.  My concern is that, with the publication of this "personal invective" standard, all RK posters will suddenly begin to see "personal invectives" leaping out at them from every posted criticism of anything or anyone they hold dear.  

So, to help clarify, I consulted Merriam-Webster, who tells me that:

An "invective" is "insulting or abusive language : vituperation"

Helpful, but I think we need a bit more clarification.  After all, one man's insulting and abusive language is often another man's poetry.  Therefore, in search of additional guidance, I checked the definition of "vituperation" and learned that:

"Vituperation" is "sustained and bitter railing and condemnation."

Now we're getting somewhere! Under this definition, we can all breathe a little more easily, knowing that we can engage in "railing and condemnation" as long as our railing and condemnation is not BOTH "sustained and bitter" at the same time!  In other words, bitter and railing condemnation is fine as long as it is not "sustained," and sustained and railing condemnation is fine as long as it is not "bitter."  At least that's the way I see it.

My wife is ready to leave now.  Let me know if you need any more help on this.

[A more serious two cents: In addition to warning posters not to post inappropriate remarks, I would warn readers of the posts not to take "inappropriate offense."  When reading political blogs, I've found it helps to: give people the benefit of the doubt; lighten up a little; and put on a slightly thicker layer of skin than you would normally wear.]

It's sad that Raising Kaine has taken such a biased position on this race for Obama and entirely against Clinton.

Yet another example...

as a Hillary supporter since RK is entitled to their opinion. As a Webb supporter, I appreciated their help in electing Jim Webb as Senator.

However, I was disappointed before the Virginia primary of the title Obama Central in one of the posts. RK should have also directed Hillary supporters to where they could make phone calls, do canvassing, and visibility events. I was lucky that I was already plugged into the Hillary network. But there might have been other Hillary supporters looking for volunteer work.

To be fair is to give both candidates a chance. If Obama is the popular choice at the convention, I will be glad to sign up for his campaign. I did so for John Kerry in 2004 after my guys, Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, dropped out  (Dean doesn't want a divided convention and Clark is supporting Hillary.) I will vote for the Democratic donkey over any Republican.

MJW

and were it well written, it might have been promoted to the front page.  Much more basically, it only takes one recommend to elevate a recent diary to the recommended box.  That is part of what is provided by the structure of this site, the ability of community moderation, including that of recommending diaries.

There already are diaries that cover events for both people, especially the weekly diaries done by Howard Park, posted at a variety of progressive websites including RK.  Given that we had had endorsed Obama I fail to see why it is incumbent upon us to take the time to write such a diary.

Now, had the site said that is ws neutral, then it might be appropriate to expect us to provide such information.  But we are not, and we were open about that.  

We certainly did not suppress posts that advocated for Sen. Clinton in a positive fashion.

I might note something of a parallel.  A number of people at Daily Kos who are Clinton supporters complain that the site is Obama central.  That is because with the withdrawal of Edwards most of those who supported him (including me) have decided that Obama is a better match for our concerns than is Clinton.  But that has not stopped Clinton supporters such as Alegre regularly having their diaries on the dkos recommended list.  And to offer the opposite situation, mydd has become a place that is outright hostile to posts supporting Obama in a way neither this site nor dkos have become.  

Again, the issue is when the content of the post is out of bounds.   The editors are most reluctant to exercise our editorial prerogatives - we believe the members of the community are capable of exercising the moderation powers without our direct intervention.  But because we had had to intervene recently, we discussed and decided it was best to explain clearly our concerns and to urge those posting - diaries or comments - to exercise a little good judgment and self-editing so that we do not have to intervene again.

Peace.

1. When RK endorses someone, we tend to throw 100% of our efforts into electing that person.  For instance, with Webb, we essentially became "Webb central," providing information and directing Webb supporters (as you write) "to where they could make phone calls, do canvassing, and visibility events."  No, we did not do the same for Webb's opponent in the primary.  Why not?  Because we supported Webb not his opponent.

2. This is a community blog.  Let me repeat: THIS IS A COMMUNITY BLOG.  That means that people are free to post user diaries, within the bounds of blog rules, about their preferred candidates. Frankly, if "Dianne" and other Clinton supporters had put their energies into providing information on "where [Clinton supporters] could make phone calls, do canvassing, and visibility events" instead of telling us how bad our candidate was, maybe the result last Tuesday would have been a bit more to their liking.

3. Just as an FYI, the purpose of this blog -- or ANY blog -- is not to be evenhanded.  By their very nature, blogs are opinionated.  True, they provide information, and they may try to be as evenhanded as possible (that depends on the personalities and values of the blog authors) but remember that the root of the word "blog" is "web log," a sort of online diary for the author(s)' thoughts.  Look at just about any blog out there, Democratic or Republican, and you'll see that they take strong sides in primaries. For instance, check out some of the battles within the Virginia conservative blogs in 2007 over their choices in Republican primaries for General Assembly.  Or, check out some popular national or state blogs like Taylor Marsh (strongly pro-Hillary and anti-Obama), MyDD (strongly pro-Hillary), Daily Kos (strongly pro-Obama, before that strongly pro-Edwards), Burnt Orange Repot (strongly pro-Obama), etc., etc.  Love 'em or hate 'em, that's what blogs are all about.

3a. Having said all this, I personally try to be as fair as possible within the bounds of strongly supporting my candidates and strongly opposing their opponents.  I avoid ad hominem attacks, I try to back up everything I write with facts, and I try to focus the "attacks" on something real (e.g., support for policies with which I strongly disagree or opposition to policies with which I strongly agree).

4. One characteristic of blogs is that they are extremely easy to create.  In 5 minutes, you could have your own free, easy-to-maintain blog using free blogging software that's just a few mouse clicks away. That's part of the reason why there are tens of millions of blogs out there.  The other part of the reason is that there are tens of millions of people who have something to say -- about politics, cats, raising their kids, gardening, sports, whatever.  Getting back to point #3, I can guarantee you that most people who write pro-Redskins blogs don't spend their time trying to be evenhanded to the Cowboys or Giants or whoever.  And I see nothing wrong with that, given the fact that they love the Redskins and despise the Cowboys and Giants.

I hope this gives you an idea where I'm coming from.  

1. When RK endorses someone, we tend to throw 100% of our efforts into electing that person.

[ . . . ]

2. This is a community blog.  Let me repeat: THIS IS A COMMUNITY BLOG.

The second point gets the bolding, but the first point is where more of the apparent energy goes.  Which is fine.  Just realize that you do it at the expense of the second point.   How many Harris Miller supporters are around here?  Clinton supporters?  Expect to see any Connolly supporters around here in the future?  If you're genuinely interested in community, it requires some work, and more thoughtful handling of necessarily divisive matters like primaries.  If nothing else, it makes for more interesting reading, instead of the same "isn't our guy/gal GREAT??" stuff over and over again.

this is a blog and you have every right to go in the direction you see fit.  I do, in fact, appreciate the fact that this is more of a pro-Obama site than an anti-Hillary one.  

My sole beef with the criticism of Hillary representing the old style  of divisive politics is that folks in some quarters seem more intent on attacking her than in supporting Obama.  That seems to run counter to the message that Obama is spreading about his new style of politics.  Just seems a bit hypocritical to me.

As I have said, I do believe Obama is the best nominee for the party because I believe, at this point, he has the best chance to unite the party.  I'm a Democrat, I want one in the White House.  Ultimately, for me, its the party that needs to win.

on RK, you'll find very little anti-Hillary talk.  Overwhelmingly, it seems to me, we've been pro-Obama not anti-Hillary.  Hell, I was leaning towards endorsing Hillary for the entire spring, summer, and fall.   I still think she's highly qualified to be president, infinitely better than John McCain (and for all the suspicious people out there who read shit into everything I write, I do NOT mean that as a backhanded compliment).  Having said all that, I think that Barack Obama is by far and away our best shot at victory this year, and also "just what the doctor ordered" for what ails America after 7 long, horrible, dark years under Worst President Ever.

to convey that I saw RK more pro-Obama than anti-Hillary.  I also agree that Obama is better suited at this point to unite the party.  In the end, as Democrats, we have a lot more in common with our two candidates than with anyone the Republicans could provide.  Let's not lose sight of that fact. (Not suggesting you have).

Thanks.

I personally lean towards letting well known members who happen to disagree with us today, disagree. We can either ignore the entries that we disagree with them, or we can debate them. Hey, we can even leave comments stating our strong disagreement on tone and content. But I still believe that we should let them express their opinion and to be judged by them.

We all get wrapped up in the passion of politics at some point. I believe that most of the regular members would respond to a gentle reminder that we are getting to passionate. :)

Elections come and go, but what remains is the community. If we are going to lose a few people that disagree with us in every elections, we may find ourselves quite lonely after enough election cycles.