Sunday, November 11, 2007

I'm just sayin...

Seeing as we're all Democrats, maybe we could stop using this blog primarily as a tool to push our favorite candidate? I've probably been guilty of it in the past, but it seems like thats all it's being used for nowadays. I mean, I'm not sure the last time I read a post from Kyle that didn't bash Obama, or Sean that didn't show some poll proving why Edwards will win the nomination (in fairness, I'm sure us Obama-ites are guilty of it as well). OK, I'm exaggerating for dramatic effect, but I do feel like we're all getting a little caught up in the media frenzy surrounding the impending election, and we should all try to break out of it a little bit. There are still like, issues our country is facing, and Republicans trying to fuck it up.

So whata you say? You guys with me? Let's try to keep shit a little more constructive and save the fellow-Dem-hating for other forums?


Kristina said...

Well, in all fairness to Sean, he's probably posted the most non-2008 posts. But I do generally agree that whenever I see the author of a post, I already know what it's going to be.

Although there should definitely be posts about our current candidates, I do agree with Gabe that there are so many other topics to cover. I like coming here because it is usually different than the mudslinging/horserace mentality that they like to cover in the main stream news.

2 cents from an alum so old, she dealt with the inner party fighting as BD'er circa 2004.

Kyle said...

Ultimately the blog is what you make it. If you want it to be more substantive, then you should add to the substance by posting about issues and advocacy! It doesn't have to be either/or, but folks shouldn't be forced or guilted to write about things they are not interested in at the moment.

That is, after all, why we have many authors, to get many different opinions. So ultimately it comes down to more people being necessary to post about a more diverse range of issues. Indeed, looking at the page right now, excluding your post, only six people have written entries (several from Sean and me, and one from Curtis/Afshin/Harrison/Caitlin).

That's what we need - more contributions from different people, not an alteration of the ones already contributing.

Caitlin said...

I mostly agree - while I think there have been too many of them lately, I do like the discourse created by the candidate posts. They're fun, and almost always elicit responses. They get people "fired up," to steal an Obama tagline.

While I don't think that cutting them out completely is a good idea, I would like to see more posts bashing the Republican candidates for being the incompetent morons that they are, and more posts advertising our actual club - talking about the tailgate, recent meetings and such.

gabe said...

yeah, i mean, im not by any means trying to silence anyone, or tell people they should write about stuff they don't care about. i just think we should all agree to focus our collective energy a little more on our opponents, rather than ourselves. if all we're all interested in is bashing other candidates, well, then lets keep writing about that. but im pretty sure thats not the case, so im asking everyone to join me in changing our tone a little bit. thats all.

Kyle said...

Well again, at this point 'everyone' mostly amounts to me and Sean, at least looking at the recent blog posts proportionally. If the tone is to be changed, perhaps we should do it by having more people post more often. An Obamaesque theory, eh?

Taylor Kayatta said...

meh, it's politics. while I am against unfair attacks, silencing discussion just because a certain candidate is having a bad few weeks in the press sounds a lot like the GOP...

Curtis said...

I agree with Gabe for the most part. I don't think we should silence our criticisms of other candidates, but I do think we owe it to our readers to make fair -- rather than provocative -- criticisms. Caitlin admitted it herself when she responded to Gabe's post by arguing that her and Kyle's attacks inspire "elicit" responses. Though my objectivity is at best suspect, I sincerely believe that many of the anti-Obama posts have been pretty ridiculous. The story Kyle links in his "ageist" post doesn't mention the actual quote Obama gave to the press about Hillary's chances of bringing America together. Instead, it opts for sensationally stating that Obama said Hillary was "too old." He never said that. If he had said that, it would have been fair to call him ageist. I'm sure Kyle doesn't give a shit, though. And he'll probably respond with the question "are you going to cry?" That sarcastic question usually marks the end of the debate. So, fuck it. I quit.

Kyle said...

If you disagree with the author's or my take on the article, then write a post or comment about it!!! This is a place for dialogue, not silent brooding. I'd love to see some anti-Hillary/Edwards stuff out there.

Curtis said...

I did post a comment to your misleading post. You should read it.

Kyle said...

I read it - and then I went back and re-read the article again. It is true, he never said the words 'she's too old per se,' so on that I shall grant you a victory. The article's headline is misleading.

However, the point that he does use generational politics still stands - now I don't think he's an ageist, but I think we can all have a spirited debate whether or not pitting one generation against another is good for the country. I personally do not think it is - but I also understand that you think it's time for a change.

Indeed, I was listening to Bob Dylan's 'Times They Are A-Changin'' a while back and it struck me as quite Obama-like.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

This is high praise from me. :-)