DISQUS

Great post. I see Twitter and Friendfeed as complimentary -- after all, Twitter is lightweight enough to go mobile in a more seamless fashion, and Twitter still has the users. But Friendfeed's features make it hugely interesting. Facebook liked them well enough to copy them right down to the words "like" and "comment".

Funny, my user perspective is opposite -- I like having the reference right there without having to load another tab/page. From the site perspective, I love it. It's very cool to have the ability to link up a reference and give the user instant access to it.

I was never a fan of the popup site thumbnails (snap?) because they didn't offer any value for the effort, but the apture data is much, much different.

Webaholic girl geek, NewsGang Live regular, photographer, mom to drummer, dancer, and actor kids, married to a good guy. :)

As one who wrote for PayPerPost and would still be writing for them if I didn't have other unrelated restrictions, I applauded your original post and applaud this one. There was no question that your KMart post was sponsored. It was clearly disclosed and was in no way misleading. So what?

My sense is that the tempest is one that those who want to whip Ted Murphy are stirring, for the most part. I happen to like Ted, and think his ideas have been creative and beneficial.

Your KMart post enhanced your credibility with me. As you say, if you haven't done it, how can you advise?

Hear hear! Well said.

Signed, another "not an American"

Well, now that you ask...yes. But not because of some court decision that allows everyone to fight with their lawfully wedded spouse during a full moon cycle. No, that's not it.

I just blame it on the moon.

As you know, California has an initiative on the ballot intended to ban gay marriage. I am fighting hard with my mouth and my money to see it defeated.

I've been bankrupt, I've been alone, I've been a single parent barely making it with no backup. Those things scared me.

I have a home, I have a job, I have a family, as do you. I have skills that survive down times and up times. This feels frustrating, but I'm not afraid. Because things do turn.

Fear is what feeds stupid decisions. I encourage you to focus on the positive and let that guide you instead of fear. You'll make better choices, and sleep better at night.

I'm still laughing at your incredulity at the panda barf. I, too, think it's utterly bizarre...not sure at all where the mind of the person who thought of it was, but getting the laugh that I got out of your post? Priceless. Worth rainbow barf any day of the week.

I've decided Steve is right. There is no difference between politics and tech; they're both the same. In my interpretation, the underlying dynamic is the guide; the specific topic is the detail. Steve always sees the meta much more clearly than I do -- this is why I'm unwilling to completely resist his argument for Hillary as VP, and it's why I was so rapidly addicted to the Gillmor Gang. It was that ability to look beyond the details into the larger implications of new technology on and off the web.

Anyway, how does that relate to community? As someone who has managed communities online for ten-plus years now, around politics, health, tech, society and law, there are certain dynamics that arise in the best communities and push the conversation forward. The desire to bring the online discussion to the offline world, to create action from ideas, to share the knowledge gained in the virtual community with the real community.

Benchmark times include the response to Hurricane Katrina, which is still ongoing by many of us, and the involvement in the Presidential campaign this year. There is no question that the passion and ideas that rise out of the group on NGL are carried outward into our supermarkets and casual conversations with coworkers and workers alike, all of it beginning a larger meta-conversation which I hope leads to some real lasting change.

Niiiiice. I like. :)

Ugh, your comment box is horrible. The sentence beginning with "you had a candidate on the ballot..." should read this way:

You had a candidate on the ballot who has one of the most-recognized faces and names on the planet, and who is associated with a former president who had managed to rehabilitate his image by teaming up with George HW Bush to help tsunami victims and by using his foundation for good.

People who didn't pay attention could at least rely on the name "Clinton" the same way they used to rely on the name "Kennedy".

Hillary lived her campaign on the edge of drama and old politics.

Hope won over fear. Get over it.

This is the biggest bunch of bullshit I've read all night.

This was not about style over substance. This was about smear and fear over hope.

When you lose 11 elections in a row and then start painting your opponent as a black elitist, playing the identity politics to the nth degree, yeah, you start to win.

Because it's not a substantive argument. It's an emotional, fear-based argument. Hillary Clinton ran an ABYSMAL campaign. She had no clue how to leverage the web, how to build a true community online, or how to take that community and put it out there to get the job done.

You had a candidate on the ballot who has one of the most-recognized faces and names on the planet, and who is associated she was beaten fair and square by a black guy with funny ears and a different approach. Quit marginalizing his incredible success.

He won, I might add, but NOT attacking her, no matter how much she deserved it.

Tanstaafl,

It's one thing to say birds of a feather flock together, and another to oppress the other birds because they look different.

Whites have oppressed blacks for centuries. That blacks would push back on that is unsurprising.

As a white person, I don't view applause for calling out racism for what it is spewing anti-white hate. I do think it's high time that all of us, black and white and brown and any other color, start figuring out that it's in our best interests to look beyond race to other, more important issues. That is as true for whites as it is Hispanics, Asians, blacks, etc.

Since I'm the owner of this particular blog, I will say what I want here, just as I've given you a forum to express an opposite view. Not only is your characterization of what I said erroneous, it's intended to bully me and it's not going to work.

And with that, I think we've all had an opportunity to say what needs to be said, so comments will now close on this post.

Danielj,

You're hardly coherent. If you look at the polls as we progressed through the primary process, the shift for blacks factoring in race to their vote happened after the Clintons made Obama's race an issue in the campaign. Also, the polls have consistently indicated a higher percentage of whites voting based on race than blacks.

Your comment about blacks 'not being able to recruit...' speaks volumes. As if they were PERMITTED to recruit when they HAD NO VOTE.

Does anyone not see through Daniel? He comes and tosses around big words that he doesn't fully understand while baring his racism wantonly in the statements preceding.

neonpinklime,

You have affirmed the exact point upon which we disagree. This is not a point we will ever agree upon; however, I appreciate the civil discussion, at least, for the most part.

neonpinklime,

Why did you edit the statement? The statement was "hard working people...hard-working white people".

The second phrase standing on its own doesn't imply much of anything, until it's combined with the first phrase, which clearly then distinguishes hard-working people as white.

that's what's inherently racist. Get serious. There's racism in many cultures around this country. Then there are folks like Flanders there, who sort of ramble on about utopian ideas that no candidate or country will ever achieve because yes...there are oppressed people (white, black, brown and mixtures), there are racists and there are media conglomerates. Let's all at least live in reality.

That she hasn't resonated with them. That making statements like the one about it taking a President (rather than MLK) to get civil rights legislation passed sent the message that she truly believes in the superiority of her race? That all the posturing about civil rights was just that -- posturing?

I don't know, show me where she's specifically reached out and tried to meet black voters where they are. Knocking back shots of crown royal and talking about shooting out in the wilderness with Daddy isn't likely to say much to them.

neonpinklime,

think about it for a minute. the exact quote was "hard working people...hard-working white people.."

Does the specificity of the correction imply anything at all to you? Anything?

Hi Debbie,

It does my heart good to see California leading the way on this, too. It was so ironic to see my state finally have a say in the primary process and then realize that the primary was so early that Obama didn't have the chance to overtake Clinton, even though he would today.

Cardoza seems to be putting out the call to make the Rules Committee meeting moot by inviting superdelegates to step out now and make their preferences known. Because of the timing of the primaries, they may have to come out in force before June 3rd, so as to neutralize any battleground Clinton may think she has there.

Thanks, Debbie. It was a long time ago, but that's exactly why a revival of those memories is so horrid.

In a time where many people in my age group are rediscovering their enthusiasm for politics and patriotism, I'd like to hope that we can finally lay the violence of the 60's to rest.

Betsy,

On the Constitution, you're referring to Hillary Clinton, yes? Because Obama has mentioned the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, many times over, particularly in the context of warrantless wiretaps and signing statements.

Hillary Clinton cannot claim the popular vote and be taken seriously, simply because of the caucus states and her specious claim that Michigan uncommitted votes should not go to Obama. It was publicly known that the Michigan voters for Obama encouraged and even mounted a calling campaign to encourage Obama voters to vote "uncommitted" in case there was an effort to seat their delegation.

Your suggestion of her becoming a Lieberman chills me, and at the same time, concerns me because it could happen, if she figured out how to retire her debt.

Thanks for your comment!

Adrienne,

Your point is well-taken. Getting out the vote is crucial. I just wonder if it's too much to ask that the vote be informed, too.

Taanstafl,

In response to your specific questions:

Can’t you give Whites the benefit of the doubt and say, you know what, these race-related issues swirling around Obama, despite the press’ attempts to downplay them, they really are something Whites might have legitimate concerns about?

Not when they parrot idiotic and UNTRUE statements like "He's a Muslim, I know it." even as they cite Rev. Wright and his involvement with Wright's church for 20 years as a reason not to vote for him. Since when does color disqualify him from leadership? Moreover, why isn't the fact that he's half-white ever mentioned?

Do blacks who fret about whether White candidates really have their best interests in mind freak you out too? Do you assume they hate Whites?

Blacks have traditionally come out in force for white candidates. They are the one voting bloc that Democrats have been able to count on. I certainly don't see a lot of 'fretting' about that.

Do jews who are very concerned that their children only marry other jews concern you? Do you scream “racist” in their face? Do you think they do it because they hate anyone who isn’t jewish?

Who Jews marry is of no concern to me. It has absolutely no bearing on the leadership of the country I live in and love.

Do you think pundits should call for politicians to reject the votes of blacks and jews who think this way?

The Jewish issues you raise are red herrings. They do not have any bearing on the outcome of an election. I see no evidence that the black vote in this election was made on a racial basis until Bill Clinton and subsequently, Hillary Clinton, as well as Hillary Clinton's surrogates like Geraldine Ferraro tried to marginalize a legitimate contender for the Democratic nomination on the basis of his race.

Of course, Geraldine Ferraro's argument AGAINST Obama was a dog whistle calling all good white voters to reciprocate, which was the point of Gergen's comments.

The only players of the race card here have been the Clinton campaign, and they've played it over and over again. What's pathetic is how easily it's used as an excuse to bolster racism in this country.

Tanstaafl,

I object to all of it. I object, and have said so on this blog more than once, to the assumption that I should vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. I object to the notion that the topic of Israel is tiptoed around by everyone for fear of offending someone or invoking Godwin's law.

People vote for candidates for all kinds of reasons, from the way they comb their hair to the way they talk. That's their right. But Jews are not racist for wanting to choose a candidate that they believe will protect Israel any more than Iranian-Americans are racist for choosing to vote for a candidate that they believe won't attack Iran. A vote SHOULD express the hopes, desires and best interests of the voters.

Again, don't confuse a call to reject a premise for a vote by a candidate with the voter's right to vote that way.

When Clinton said she appealed to "hard-working white voters" she legitimized the racism inherent in that statement. Are there "hard-working black/hispanic/asian/indian/etc voters"? Of course. But if you're someone who really hates blacks, that single phrase gave permission to vote for Hillary on the belief that she would stand for the white folks who worked hard, to the exclusion of others.

That's what Gergen said she should reject, and not only did she NOT reject it, she embraced it.

Actually, the reporter is American. The video was played on Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera offers consistently more complete coverage of this election than any mainstream media outlet does.

neonpinklime,

Those Kentucky/WV folks are my relatives too. And they're rednecks. I have never, ever heard the term redneck associated with genetically inferior.

As you point out, wikipedia definitions are often incorrect, particularly when you get to the secondary definitions.

Also, if you listen to what Gergen said, he didn't denounce the people saying what they said. He denounced Clinton's embrace of it.

They're entitled to have racist opinions. They're also entitled to read and forward idiotic emails invented by racist missionaries working in Africa, of all places. He didn't deny that. All he said was that Clinton should reject it.

You can spin what he said, but you're not being intellectually honest if you continue to assume he took aim at the voters as some kind of personal attack. He never said they weren't entitled to their opinions, or to vote the way they wanted. He DID say that Clinton shouldn't court them.