It seems to be in short supply. We were part of the blogospheric effort to raise $123,000 for Darcy Burner when her campaign needed it badly. I can’t think of another contributor who would raise that much money and get repaid like this:
The last-minute fundraising effort in August for Burner was titled "Burn Bush for Burner" and drew about 3,200 individual donors from around the country, said Burner’s campaign consultant Sandeep Kaushik. It was coordinated and organized by some of the nation’s most popular liberal blogs, including DailyKos.com and firedoglake.com.
"They tend to be partisans, no question about that," said Kaushik, a former writer for Seattle’s alternative weekly newspaper The Stranger. "At the same time, they’re not part of the party structure."
Their role in the public discourse is still largely undefined. "They kind of play this weird role that has this superficial semblance to journalism," Kaushik said.
But for all their potential, it’s easy to get carried away by bloggers’ self-perpetuating hype. "There are a lot of overblown statements about the ‘power of the blogosphere,’" he said.
While they may not be tools of the party, they want to help elect certain kinds of democrats, namely, progressive populists who care about issues that matter to them, such as ending the war in Iraq, providing universal healthcare and promoting environmental initiatives that include bans on clear-cut logging and stronger restrictions on development.
A recent example of the bloggers’ influence can be found in Ned Lamont’s 2006 campaign for U.S. Senate against Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. Lieberman ran as an independent after he lost to Lamont in the Democratic primary. Lamont, a wealthy entrepreneur, had the backing of the liberal blogosphere for his strong anti-war stance. But after a tough, freewheeling political fight, Lamont went on to lose to Lieberman, 39 to 49 percent.
As as pressure group on the Democratic Party, Kaushik said bloggers push their own agenda, and that doesn’t always agree with the party leadership, combining elements of a political movement with the behavior of a traditional constituency group. He points to Lamont and his candidate’s campaign as examples of the bloggers’ limitations.
"They’re not at the point yet where they can really swing a race," Kaushik said. His challenge is keeping Burner from becoming too closely associated with the local liberal blogosphere, which overwhelmingly supports her. "Part of my job is making sure people know the blogosphere is not the campaign," he said.
You know, the list of successful Republicans who publicly say "the religious right is crazy, but we’ll use them" is justifiably rather short.
The Burner campaign may think they’ve gotten everything they need out of the netroots and now it’s time to distance themselves. But in doing so they stupidly poison the waters for everyone who comes after them. They need to ditch this clown.
Related posts:
- “He’s With Us On Everything But The War”
- Lieberman-Graham Threaten to Shut Down Senate, Add Detainee Photo Suppresion Amendment to FDA Tobacco Regulation Bill
- DFA Opposes the Opt-Out For the Public Option
- Lieberman’s Filibuster Threats Run Counter to 2006 Campaign Rhetoric
- Early Morning Swim: Glenn Greenwald and Rachel Maddow Take Down Joe Lieberman





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Jane!
Geez. What was the context in which Kaushik made these disgusting comments?
stunningly weak
Why is Darcy allowing this?
Unbelievably stupid.
Animals are da bomb….ya know 4 legs good ,2 legs bad….People are just so damned stoooopit…that is all
elections for U.S Representatives still come every two years, right?
Buh-bye.
and these EVIL.EVIL EVIL OLD MEN will be the death of us all…STOP THEM somebody STOP THEM
Exxon Mobil Profit Sets Record Again
Del.icio.usDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalinkBy JAD MOUAWAD
Published: February 1, 2008
Exxon Mobil delivered its strongest performance ever last year, earning a record $40.6 billion in net income because of surging oil prices, the company said Friday.
The figure, a 3 percent increase from the previous year, exceeded the company’s own record for profits at an American corporation, set in 2006, and is nearly twice what it earned in 2003.
Exxon said its fourth-quarter net income rose 14 percent, to $11.7 billion, or $2.13 a share. That also made it the company’s most profitable quarter ever
Sandeep the “campaign consultant” just wants to feel like he made something happen without all those DFH’s taking some of the credit. Such a fragile ego means he’s headed straight for Dangerstein territory. Wow.
Jane, WTF???!!!
he needs to STFU,and what does it say about her?
Hmmm. Unless Darcy disavows this shitheel I may have to ask for my money back.
They WILL listen to us. Period.
Morning, Jane and everyone else.
Gosh with ‘friends’ like Bruner’s Sandeep Kaushik, who needs enemas?
‘Stand deep’ in ‘Kau….?’
Sorry, could not resist.
…Kaushik said bloggers push their own agenda, and that doesn’t always agree with the party leadership…
heavens to Murgatroyd, we can’t have that, now, can we?
So what are we to think of candidates who bite the hand that feeds them? Perhaps that they’ll betray their principles for money?
i feel like i see with crystal clarity,this might be sanitarium thoughts,however…we need populist /progressives like Edwards to turn this ship around…and not as Atorney Generals…as policy makers
Unbelievable. We raise so much money for them at least one other Dem who planned to run in the primary for this seat dropped out because he was blown away by the support and results of the netroots for Darcy. As a contributor, I’m offended by his rude remarks.
Why is this guy working for Burner?
NOT one more penny from me Unless they ditch this LOSER……
this is upsetting, VERY upsetting
Well, that’s one less person to give my pittance to. I’m sure she won’t miss it.
OT -California SEIU comes out for Obama -along with earlier announced MoveOn.
Yeah, doofus, that’s the point!
Someone once opined that most who go into politics in America do so because it is a easy, comfortable path to the money trough for those possessing no talent whatsoever. Could this be true?
I dont find it offensive in context. I think he may be giving bad advice here especially if it leads to folks not wanting to give $$$ too Darcy. There are other campaigns competing for my cash in lots of districts. that is why I tell DCCC when they call that I dont trust them with my money I am giving it out myself.
to juxtapose us with the party leadership? I say duh and thank you.
the party leadership has gotten us hoyer and worse.
“Part of my job is making sure people know the blogosphere is not the campaign,” he said.
Seems to me that Olbermann had *three* liberal bloggers on last night to discuss and dissect the debate.
Some are in front of the curve, some with it, and some, Mr. Kaushik, don’t see the obvious, and will be left behind (no winger pun intended).
it is more about to me,the process…they seem to get corrupted by the process!!!
he could have at least left a twenty on the night stand for us.
Yes.
Dang. Work beckons. Back later.
One of the most boneheaded moves I’ve ever seen a campaign make, and that includes Rudy’s “strategery”.
Darcy needs to hear from us about this. Is there a contact number for her main campaign office, Jane?
I do hope ya’ll are writing to Burner’s campaign to express your ire. I just sent them a missive on this crap myself…
Hey, don’t you know Sandeep is (supposedly) a rising star around these parts?!
OT from Raw Story:
WASHINGTON (AdAge.com) — The Clinton campaign is buying an hour on the Hallmark Channel on the eve of Feb. 5 Super Tuesday presidential primaries to air part of a 90-minute national town hall meeting.
Dubbed “Voices Across America,” it will take place in New York and will air Feb. 4 at 9 p.m. Eastern Time. The extra 30 minutes will also be available on the internet and at 21 live events across the country.
This might be an opportune time to remind everyone of how threatening grass (net) roots is to the powers-that-be. We should never be surprised by attempts to dismiss and discredit us. But we should act accordingly wrt the offending parties.
Jeez – cheap date *g*
LOL
@Ann in AZ at 15
My “Yes” above was intended to answer your question. For some reason the “reply” link didn’t work properly.
So, in answer to your question: Yes.
Strategically a smart move. And their web interview (sort of like we did here for Dodd). I hope Obama does something big/creative like this – maybe at the same time :-)
So is Darcy angling to be the Chris Carney of this election cycle? If so, you’d think she and her campaign would at least wait until she’d actually been elected before showing the colors like this.
Another thought.
Is this the first example of a candidate who will use us to get into the power structure & then abandon us, because there’s more money there than here. If so, what can we don about it? I’m thinking about how we might vet them better in advance.
SOP. Candidate is unknown. Candidate goes to the blogs. Candidate says some good things. Candidate gets money through the blogs. Candidate uses money to hire professional campaign consultant who advises candidate not to listen to the blogs and distance him/herself from them. Candidate goes on to become Blue Dog, or lose. Rinse, repeat as needed.
“Shall we clap into’t roundly, without hawking and spitting”?
Fuck no.
Let’s hawk and spit at that man and his foolishness
Quote from As You Like It (V.iii)
If she allows her campaign surrogates to distance herself from her base now, can you imagine her behavior when/if she becomes a Congressperson? Another question we must answer is: Are we just another special interest group? If so, just what is our “Special Interest”?
comin’ right up, and i’ll give them some fries with that
Nice article in the Daily News on Rudy: How Judi killed off Rudy Giuliani
She brought enough political baggage to fill a Louis Vuitton trunk.
Indeed, part of Rudy Giuliani’s presidential flameout can be traced back to his Judi – the woman he fell for in a cigar bar in 1999 while he was the married mayor with a wife and two young children at home.
Well, I’m sorry but I am not buying Rick Noriega’s line about Bob Perry either. I was civil last night out of respect but I think it’s bullshit.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
Well then, it’s up to us to be very discerning and to raise hell when we smell that odor of corruption.
Jane,
i hope you personally get in touch with Darcy and find out what she has to say. if she isn’t forthright and hasn’t shoveled the cowshit out of the barn forthwith i say we drop her like a bad habit.
To paraphrase Shakespeare,
The fault, dear ccmask, was not in his Judis, but in his Rudys.
You also wonder whether the DCCC isn’t involved in this in some way – promising money if she “reforms” her ways.
Excellent questions, which deserve to be addressed, otherwise Hugh’s comment, @ 40, obtains.
The ‘politicians’ are not going to honestly address these questions.
So, ‘it is up to us’. Which motto, I suggest, should replace that now current on our coinage.
“So, ‘it is up to us’. Which motto, I suggest, should replace that now current on our coinage”
You are so right! Excellent idea!
So, are you saying that this is Darcy’s campaign’s way of letting the “powers-that-be” know they should not feel threatened by her? She is not in the pocket of the “net roots” and will not act as a populist? To what end? More importantly, is this what we expect? Is it what we want?
Didn’t Larry Kissel do the same sort of thing? Where does he stand at the moment.
So, ‘it is up to us’. Which motto, I suggest, should replace that now current on our coinage.
E pluriblog unum
Is this the first example of a candidate who will use us to get into the power structure & then abandon us,…?
Well, it is most certainly not my place to speak for Howie Klein, but I think that it’s fair to say that he’s very much aware that he/we have been burned a time or two, and is doing his absolute best to be sure that it doesn’t happen again.
as a side note, I chose to go into the legal business because I was *sure* that I was an excellent judge of character…
Sure as hell didn’t take long to disabuse myself of that notion…
John Barrow
I don’t know Darcy Burner, so cannot speculate on what her motives are. But yes, in general, people go into politics to be part of the power structure. So when they abandon the net roots we should not be surprised. But we should do something about it. Those who do it should suffer some consequences.
It’s only fair to him to put his remarks in their proper context.
Sounds to me like the context was “I’m an ignorant gas bag who hurts my candidate everytime I open my yap and pretend I know what I’m talking about.”
E pluriblog unum. Hilarious. It is, up to us.
Just sent to the Burner Campaign
It’s easy. It took me all of 5 minutes.
Thanks. People gotta stop bein’ afraid to say: “Yeah, I’m a liberal. Got a problem with that?”
http://www.darcyburner.com/pages/contact_us/
I just sent my letter. Took about 2 minutes.
E pluriblog unum
I, once again, bow to the master…. Excellent.
Does this mean that everybody else that gave her money does agree with the party leadership?
Corrected. Remember the ablative plural is never to be taken lightly.
I say that’s a given; also, I think it’s behavior to be expected from the DCCC, but a candidate? That’s something else again.
darn, I should have taken Latin in high school… :~)
Aw, Raven… That’s hitting below the belt. I just had lunch…
Perhaps Rahm has had a word with her. Tryin’ to ’splain how to get elected.
I for one am proud to be part of the liberal blogosphere.
According to Microsoft Word, Kaushik, the opposite of liberal is small minded, bigoted, prejudiced, bias & intolerant.
ZACTLY vet them better…we dont have 100s or thousands to throw away on status quo canidates
E pluriblogibus unum
however, in some dialects that translates as “let’s throw the blogs under the bus”
Funny, I just got a shiny flyer from Darcy asking for more money yesterday afternoon.
Corrected. Remember the ablative plural is never to be taken lightly.
Have I mentioned lately that the things that y’all sling right over my head are, I think, responsible for the distressing lack of hair on the top of that head?
Since no one has anything to say about Noriega how bout this
Move On endorsed Obama
Oh, that makes all the difference.
This might be an opportune time to remind everyone of how threatening grass (net) roots is to the powers-that-be. We should never be surprised by attempts to dismiss and discredit us. But we should act accordingly wrt the offending parties.
It is nobody’s interest to credit the netroots. The campaign consultants need to add wins to their resumes. The press needs a head to talk to. Operations with nobody in charge is a real problem. It’s why MoveOn has become a short hand way of referring to the netroots, because that’s a concrete, single organization with a head (and a top down organization).
This is an even bigger problem wrt issues, because nobody can speak for us, although we can all speak for us. I had just this conversation last month at Drinking Liberally with a reporter from the Observer. She was looking for Clinton/Obama rifts, but simply doesn’t get that the consensus is whoever wins the primary.
We need to find a way to encapsulate the movement so they can report on it.
That’s “below the gnat line” here in Georgia!
sweeetheart…i always say to my peeps…do you want A LIBERAL AMOUNT of chocolate fudge on your Sunday,or should i be CONSERVATIVE….hahahahaha
Other than a vote against cornyn he is just another blue dog.
Sounds like common talk among all people in the campaign and that would include Burner.
Not good.
Weren’t they requiring a 66% supermajority in their poll/election in order to endorse? Wow!
Here’s my email:
OT:
Plug for Ed Fallon, our Progressive who is taking on Bush Dog Boswell. Ed could use our help.
Boswell already has raised 700,000 almost all of it from PAC’s. Please help Ed Fallon.
ah yes,lets BITE the hand that feeds us…makes a lot of sense
Just annoys me that I got sandbagged into donating money to him.
I dunno, Mrs Greenspan just reported it.
OT..Well looks like last nights “love fest” didn’t last very long..From Krugman:
NYT
I suspect some “hot-shot” on the campaign staff thought this was a good idea. This is not the way to educate the public to want universal care..next thing they will run a Hillary is for socialized medicine.
I can only put the onus on Darcy. She hired him and she takes his advice. Level of being attracts level of life. The only way she can reclaim her honor is to publicly disavow his statement as reflecting her own. We are grown boys and girls and cannot blame others. She needs to step up and take over her own voice.
Well, like Hillary, I suppose Darcy can control her man.
I would like to hear a statement from the candidate. What does she really think?
It does make me feel a bit like I now feel toward my representative, McNerney. At least his “people” bent over backward to not actually say out loud what this guy is saying out loud. . .
You don’t hear Bush/Cheney say “we don’t want this administration to be all about the giant telecom gravy train” do ya? They just conduct themselves that way . . . but there are really all about “protectin’ the people.”
Very clever!
What’s disconcerting is that you know this isn’t the first time he’s said this — it’s what he probably runs around all the time saying, it’s probably campaign CW.
The GOP does a much better job of publicly respecting the fundies who show up for them. It’s just common sense.
It would seem that Darcy has some ’splainin to do.
How is it that we raise money that winds up paying for the consultant class to dismiss us?
Time to stop that horsesh*t.
Darcy. What have you to say about this?
oops, I mean they are publicly all about “protectin’ the people.”
If you’re looking for someone to support, please consider Dr. Vic Wulsin of Ohio. She’s running in OH-2, which is now so poorly represented by Jean Schmidt.
http://www.wulsinforcongress.com
Exactly. The powers-that-be learned how to game the system to their advantage after 1980, and have been perfecting their game ever since. The model is the top-down General Motors format. Executives decide, proles do the work, and Madison Avenue ensures that the proles are happy with their work. People are not expected to know what they want or what is good for them.
I get this alot from my more conservative liberal friends, especially those of a certain age who grew up in Democratic politics. Nobody likes to give up power. It’s as simple as that. In the 1960s, it meant that newcomers to precinct meetings were on sufferance until they showed they could toe the line as well as anyone else.
I’m nevertheless surprised at this guy. Western Washington is highly educated and liberal. He should know better. Darcy should know better. She should dump him.
This is rich.
I went to Darcy’s 2008 Campaign website, and the top story is this:
There are some embedded links, if you click through to the story.
By all means, let’s focus on the Grassroots. Step one would be for Sandeep to meet them, on his way out the door.
G’morning, almost afternoon CST. I’m late to this particular party. As regards
, may I simply say that any body of folks who don’t always agree with the party leadership are my kind of folks!!!
Incremental steps.
As bad as Cornyn is, Noriega is orders of magnitude better. And for Texas in today’s world, that might be the best we can get on a statewide basis.
This will sound cynical, but here goes.
What percent of Darcy Burner’s campaign budget for this cycle do you think she got from the netroots? How much clout does that buy?
OT…weirdness
Truthout.org reports:
A think tank with close ties to the telecommunication industry has been working with a key Democrat in the Senate on a domestic surveillance bill that would provide telecommunications companies with retroactive immunity for possibly violating federal law by spying on American citizens at the behest of the Bush administration.
Third Way, a non-profit “progressive” think tank that is funded and controlled by hedge fund managers, corporate lawyers and business executives has advised Sen. Jay Rockefeller on a domestic surveillance bill that includes immunity for telecommunications companies with which Third Way board members have close ties.
Seems to me the first thing we need to do is answer the question of why? You are operating under the premise that DWBartoo is correct at #22 when he speculates that possibly “most who go into politics in America do so because it is a easy, comfortable path to the money trough for those possessing no talent whatsoever.”
Then we need to start doing some PR about what the netroots really is: just people who are political activists and who want what’s best for our country. We have certain political interests in common very generally, but while I might be more interested in the Constitution and healthcare, others have other concerns. We are very loosely organized for the benefit and facilitation of electing candidates that have common goals. The internet is just the platform in which we get to know the candidates, and we have their intentions in writing for the most part.
One thing I think is certain: when a candidate allows her surrogates to say the types of things this candidate’s surrogate said with impunity, there’s a lie in it somewhere. Therefore, if she doesn’t repudiate her surrogate, she should no longer be considered a friend.
And don’t forget DiFi has her AT&T San Francisco secret spy room to protect.
Darcy Burner for Congress
Phone:425-443-2564
FAX:425-453-7023
Email:campaign@darcyburner.com
Physical Address:
1607 116th Avenue NE Suite 103
Bellevue, WA 98004
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 1090
Carnation, WA 98014-1090
Not weird when you think about it, they have an interest in the bill. You could also say that the ACLU and EFF have been working closely on this since they, too, have an interest in the bill. On its face, it’s not unexpected…unless they’ve written the bill entirely, which would be a whole other level of “involvement.” But I’d have to see documentation on that and not innuendo, ya know?
I would rather know where we satnd. In the Republican’s case, the fundies get lip service, give their donations, and then get ignored. In Brunner’s case, we know her campaign’s true feelings, so we won’t waste our money there, again.
OT…weirdness
Truthout.org reports:
thanks. I would dispute only your characterization as “weird” – and would suggest a substitution of “business as usual”.
You write such good letters so much faster and seemingly more easily than I do. I belabor these letters for hours, especially when I need to try to cut them down to a reasonable size (I swear there must be a book in me somewhere wanting to get out every time I write a simple letter!). I sure wish I was more like you! An ordinary comment may take me up to five minutes!
OT
“How does it affect me, Al Franken?” is ahead in MN.
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/….._minne.php
Woohoo!
Sorry bro, doesn’t fly for me but all that means is that I won’t be coming off the hip for him, no biggie.
Oh, as an economist, I must point out that it’s the margin, or additional dollars, that count. Now, if the race is a slam dunk, the margin has already been determnined. But in a close race …
Besides, why go out of your way to insult any donor, no matter how insignificant?
You would think that a guy who wrote for a paper like The Stranger might have a less point of view slightly less obstructed than looking out his naval from having his head up his ass.
Burner should dump or reign this fool in before he does more damage. Also, how many other “campaign consultants” on the Dem side thinking (but not saying) what ol’Sandeep is?
”They’re not at the point yet where they can really swing a race,” Kaushik said. His challenge is keeping Burner from becoming too closely associated with the local liberal blogosphere, which overwhelmingly supports her. ”Part of my job is making sure people know the blogosphere is not the campaign,” he said.
These people don’t seem to realize that the Netroots- the Internet- has a loooooong memory. I wonder if/when Darcy will realize that this article has saddled her with a new litmus test that will never go away… that a percentage of her potential constituency will now view her with certain skepticism- and with one wary hand on their wallets- forever. Think of months and months from now, this post and others like it turning up whenever she holds out her hand for contributions.
it is just the way things are..votes are bought,people obviously have few deep held convictions
I just went to the article Jane cited and tried to leave a comment. These folks need an education about who we are. Hmmm…seems the site is temporarily down for maintenance. I’m saving my comment for when it’s back up. I see at least one of us has already been there.
Hi all.
This little fishie also contributed to Burner and feels “burned” by the remarks quoted in Jane’s post. Thanks for the link…an email noting my disappointment and displeasure is on the way next.
Sorry to re-post this link..but Obama needs to get rid of the people who thing Republican talking points are good politics. Or maybe I am mis-reading the intention of the ad. I just reminds me of 1993.
From Krugman
OT. Just received an email from moveon.org concerning the moveon primary in which I participated. It reads, in part,
The email goes on to cite a NJ respondent who is absolutely ecstatic about Obama’s candidacy.
Now, admittedly, I voted for Obama, but I included a comment that I was doing so with no enthusiasm whatsoever and that I intended to vote for Edwards in the primary if that turned out to be possible. Judging from moveon’s charactization of their vote, I must have been the only person who felt that way.
Understood. But as a Texas resident, I would at least like to have one Senator that appeared to listen to me, even if he was planning to blow me off.
I’d like perfect but willing to settle for the best I can do. And for TExas, Noriega is probably the best we can do.
Currently.
im sorry it feels wierd and shitty to me
Well, Darcy’s made her choice: to become a target.
What a great opportunity to demonstrate we have knives (political, not tangible) AND checkbooks.
What a great opportunity to demonstrate that repudiating progressive support ends your political career.
So – Darcy – fire Kaushik today.
No second chance – no consulting agreements – no graceful resignation.
Of course, you probably won’t – and that will be your true gift to the progressive movement.
There will be a Dem majority in the House if you win or lose, Darcy.
Darcy, your defeat will do more to advance progressive power than your election could ever do.
And your treachery will make contributing to your defeat a plaesure.
Can’t wait to watch your campaign eaten alive – and your ambitions ruined.
You’ll do more to educate the next Blue Dog wannabee than any number of netroots efforts could possibly do – by losing.
You ambitious, feckless, suck-up to power.
Good point.
And I guess it’s not just how much you need, but how badly you need it.
Still, even if her association with the blogs is hurting her with other potential donors, and she felt she needed to distance herself a bit, there are other ways to do it that include statements of appreciation for what the blogosphere has done for her.
I’m curious about what she is going to say (and do) about this.
I have the distinct impression that no representative, or candidate, wants to admit support from us, the great unwashed, maniacal, DFH’s.
Yet.
I would echo commenters above that Darcy needs to answer this very very quickly. I was one of the many who donated to her campaign, and did it specifically in response to her statements that were carried on FDL and other netroots sites.
The attempt to “draw the distinction” has all the earmarks of beltway consultant “wisdom” the number one problem every truly progressive candidate needs to confront.
Darcy can win, going away, if she embraces the netroots and the progressive values that flourish here. If not, it will be much harder.
Re Franken, depends what poll you follow. Another has them in a dead heat. Either way, Al is gaining. Hear footsteps, Normie?
These people don’t seem to realize that the Netroots- the Internet- has a loooooong memory
hell yes, that’s why I’m still bitching about LBJ and Kennedy!
Who are the alternatives in her district?
Hey Audrey.;)
more about Jello Jay
Democrats connected to Third Way were integral in defeating a bill, supported by a majority of Senate Democrats, which might have prevented the telecoms from getting immunity.
This immunity provision is the major sticking point in the battle over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) legislation that is currently stalled in the Senate. The Bush administration has threatened to veto any FISA update that does not contain retroactive immunity. Civil libertarians and a majority of Democratic senators oppose the retroactive immunity, in part because the provision would cut off lawsuits against the telecom providers. These suits have been the most effective vehicles for uncovering the details of the Bush administration’s potentially criminal surveillance activities.
“We have advised Senator Rockefeller on messaging and have talked to his staff regarding FISA,” Matt Bennett, vice president of Third Way said. “We believe there should be immunity and have been cooperating with [Rockefeller’s staff].”
Rockefeller’s committee was tasked with drafting a FISA update bill after the House of Representatives passed a version of the legislation that intentionally did not include telecom immunity.
During the crafting of the Intelligence Committee bill, Bennett met with a frequent contact of his, Clete Johnson, Rockefeller’s legislative aide for military and national security issues, to discuss the FISA legislation. At the meeting, Bennett advised Johnson on talking points to help make the case for telecom immunity.
“I told him that we thought it would be helpful for [Rockefeller] to talk about the reasons for providing immunity to the telecoms,” Bennett said. “We thought it would be a bad idea to allow these companies to be held legally liable for cooperating with the government … you want to encourage the cooperation of not just the telecom industry, but all other industries in the future.”
This talking point stuck, and remains one of the main arguments made by proponents of granting retroactive immunity.
Sorry, Raven, but I rarely read or pay attention to anything that I can do nothing about and has no direct bearing on me. Therefore, I didn’t read the Noriega post yesterday. I had no $ to contribute and he’s not in my state. I’m actually quite surprised that I’ve stuck with this post.
It is odd that my memory of those times doesn’t match the hagiography.
Just catching up everybody…
I thought her contributions were sucking badly before netroots took care of her? It seems she was having trouble with other potential donors before netroots,So why diss the netroots now? It doesn’t make sense.
It’s so Woody Allen. “I wouldn’t want to join a club that would have me as a member.”
Threw Wulsin a few $$, but by way of BlueAmerica.
http://blueamerica.firedoglake.com/
BTW, Burner is still up on that page. Should she be removed?
But how do you really feel about Darcy, Doc? Don’t hold back — let it out . . .
Hey…if Darcy doesn’t get out in front on this FAST then we need to get to ActBlue and ask them to remove her from their list of recipients, with a public explanation of WHY they removed her.
I would also say the when is important. A few dollars early on may be more important in establishing a candidacy then big bucks later on.
Wow, moveon has endorsed Obama …
Rule #1. Don’t listen to what she says. See what she does.
-Does her voting record represent us?
Rule #2 NEVER BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU.
True. I had forgotten that.
Jane, any idea if Howie has contacted Ms. Burner concerning this?
let’s play darcy burner this is your “MOMENT OF TRUTH”. darcy, you’ll have 5 questions to answer. for each question answered truthfully you can keep $25000. if at anytime you are caught lying, you have to return your netroots campaign gift. here we go darcy.
1. did you deliberately mislead the netroots into thinking you were on their side?
2. now that you know the power of being part of the congress, would you sell your best friend into slavery to keep it?
3. has the dnc/dlc investigated your personal life?
4. has the dnc/dlc blackmailed you?
5. do you agree with kaushiks statement and will you ever apologize to the netroots for your idiotic handlers comments?
yes yes yes yes no
What did Darcy say that gave her points with netroots? By comparison, Donna Edwards reflects my views and shows strength of character. Did Darcy show these qualities? People will say anything for money if that want that seat of power. But did Darcy ever stand out the way Donna Edwards does? Some of you may have better insight.
You’re probably not the only one who feels that way. I voted for Obama, but left a clear message in the comment that he was a second choice. I guess they’re quoting the ecstatic comments, not the lukewarm ones. Also, in a situation like that my guess would be that folks would be more likely to leave a comment if they’re strongly in favor, rather than just “so-so.” But I may be wrong…
Hey Margot! :)
Thanks for that. I voted yesterday. Obama got 70%
A response from Ms. Burner would be rather nice. If she’s about to become Blue-dog Burner, then she needs to know that the netroots don’t feed no Blue-dogs. Nuh uh…
Does anyone feel that Sandeep would issue such a comment without Darcy’s approval ?
I agree. I have to say that Darcy Burner always struck me as reasonably well-intentioned but weak. Certainly not a barn-burner like Donna Edwards.
Great question, Fern – I don’t know if a third party filing is still possible.
But I’m looking beyond the “least bad” choice in her district – it is merely one of 435.
I’m looking for a very public Blue Dog sacrifice – to deter the ambitious creeps who will feign agreement with progressive goals just long enough to take the money (we could have sent to real progressives) on their way to join the Blue Dog wing of the corporatist party.
Should Darcy retain her “consultant”, I’m quite comfortable seeing her lose the race to a Rethug – and rub her nose (and the Beltway’s) in the cost of betraying the netroots.
This is power politics – this is how the mainstream Republicans in Congress were long ago replaced with Reps the activists in the GOP could live with.
This is how we show ambitous politicos that we are to be feared – and heeded – by “executing” traitors’ careers.
Public political executions: messy, but highly instructive.
(executing the career, not the person – I’m sure there’s a Blue Dog sinecure in Darcy’s future)
I’m very surprised that they would do this before the nominee is confirmed …
I emailed ActBlue to give them a heads-up that one of their supported candidates may be a GOPer in sheep’s clothing…
My answer to that argument is that if what the government asks for in the future is legal why would any industry have a problem with that. Or is it that corporations are not the great patriotic entities they are cracked up to be?
Ah, it’s probably not the same thing anyway. Darcy is disloyal to the “netroots”. Rick just took, returned, but would like some more money from a man who supported the Swiftboat Vets for Truth.
but I rarely read or pay attention to anything that I can do nothing about and has no direct bearing on me.
That’s they key and I can’t expect other people to feel as strongly about it as I do. There is plenty of stuff that gets discussed here that I don’t care about either.
Yes. That was the reason for establishing Emily’s List (Early Money Is Like Yeast.)
The fact that Obama got 70% on a “lefty” poll makes him the weaker candidate in the general election.
Jane, journalism has a “superficial semblance to journalism”.
I left a very clear message on MoveOn, as well. It was a toss up for me and like drawing straws. In the end what pushed me in one direction over the other is that I want to break the pattern of family dynasties heading the country. That means it begins with me putting the check mark where my beliefs are. I opened my statement with my support for John Edwards as head and shoulders above the other two.
Given the number of so-called “patriotic American” companies that have set-up paper headquarters overseas for tax avoidance, I think you know the answer to that question.
I hate to interrupt a witch burning, but the number of times a campaign mouthpiece has sounded off stupidly are countless. Before we light this fire, do you suppose we could give her staff time to respond to the letters they’ve received?
Boxturtle (We can always burn her later)
I totally HATE this “talking point”!!!
So, if the police show up at our door without a warrant, we should automatically cooperate? Just cuz? This is totally intrusive and unacceptable in a socalled “free” society. What ########!
120
Sorry to re-post this link..but Obama needs to get rid of the people who thing Republican talking points are good politics. Or maybe I am mis-reading the intention of the ad. I just reminds me of 1993.
From Krugman
____________________________________
in today’s NYT Krugman really spells it out how John Edwards basically set out the blueprint of actual issues that Hillary/Obama are now touting. he said that Hillary’s health plan was pretty much chapter and verse the plan that Edwards came out with a year ago and that Obama’s plan was not as progressive. we should remember well how Edwards was the leader and H & O were the followers. i will vote for either and support every worthwhile issue they drive but i want to keep them focused on doing what needs to be done and not triangulating and waffling.
Per http://www.thestranger.com/sea…..?oid=11483
Jane,
I visit FDL many times a day– before breakfast, during lunch at work, and in the evening. I spend more time here at the Lake than on any other blog.
But I’ve got to be a bit of a contrarian here. Don’t shoot the messenger!
Instead, we should use Kaushik’s statement to prompt some good self-examination. We need to learn how to convert our passion into a better ground game.
Let’s look at the scorecard on the presidential race, shall we?
[*] The Netroots loved Kucinich. Progressive Democrats of America did a poll several months ago, and Kucinich was the favorite, with 41%, IIRC. Edwards was second. How much did we help them?
[*] Dodd courted us. We had him here for a Vlog. He threw down the gauntlet on FISA. We cheered. At the peak, we helped him boost his poll ratings to. . . 5%. How much did we help him?
[*] Biden rose to support Dodd. He was king for a day. Take a look at the Dirty Dozen bills Glenn Greenwald used recently in his attack on “bipartisanship.” Biden voted more often with progressives (7 times) than Clinton or Obama or Dodd. How much did we help him?
[*] Edwards was a favorite of many of us. His platform was arguably more progressive than any of the other contenders except Kucinich. How much did we help him?
Instead of shooting the messenger, we should be asking ourselves, How can we do better?
Bob in HI
Makes some sense. She may be an improvement on the Republican candidate, but in terms of investing limited blogospheric resources, there are better options.
Not too thrilled, though, about “executing” someone’s career – or seeing a republican win the seat.
This is one way to light a fire under the campaign so Darcy WILL respond. If we all just sat here and waited peacefully for a response, it would take forever for a response to be had.
Darcy needs to get out with a statement pronto. The response is part of the impetus AND the reason she needs to do so. I will not be dismissed once I’ve given money and support to a mere politician.
Not raise any more money for people who are only going to humiliate us for our efforts?
It’s OK for Darcy to lose to a Repug. At least we know where we stand. Another Landreiu gives false hope and betrays the people over and over.
Funny thing about MoveOn endorsing Obama. It was Clinton who actually voted against the censure of MoveOn, while Obama didn’t vote. But I am assured that he had a really, really good reason for not voting. I’m sure…
Corporations contribute to campaigns to get the candidates ear and the candidates listen.
Blue Dogs/DLCers/TheThird Way contribute to campaigns to get the candidates ear and the candidates listen.
We the people contribute to campaigns to get the candidates ear and the candidates distance themselves while consultants make derogatory statements about us in the media.
That’s so wrong.
I don’t mind executing someone’s career at all. I believe in the idea that one sleeps in the bed they make.
When one makes a conscious decision to do x, then tough shit if the response to x is ruin…particularly when x is NOT an honest and thoughtful act for a greater good. When x is simply a selfish and self-promoting act, you get NO sympathy from me.
What I don’t understand about Sandeep Kaushik’s statement, is that it isn’t butressed by any detail. Also if Burner approved the message, she should be asked what she means.
I get that he wants to dissociate, dis, and miniminze the legitimacy of ideas from netroots/the blogosphere. What isn’t clear is why. He doesn’t cite any examples of why he’s disatisfied, or why the blogs come up short in his opinion. What further gets comical is that every form of MSM, including TV, print media has rushed to have most of their columnists blog. Take as an example the NYT or WaPo–many of their columnists have their own blogs.
Also, when a talking head appears from the print media, I notice that the chairs shuffle quickly. By that I mean I can name several well known people who were at either one network or one newspaper, who now have gone to some “.com” or actually don’t work at the network or newspaper anymore, but run their own blog.
There doesn’t seem to be any “there” there in Kaushik’s intimations that the blogs are “less legitimate, less intellectual, have less integrity, have lesser writing skills, check facts less or whatever he means by the phrases “they play a weird roll…they’re not defined…” and to me the worst criticism “theis has a superficial resemblance to journalism.”
Here’s what makes me smile:
1) Darcy Burner, who used to be a program manager at Redmond Microsoft, has apparently said nothing. Did Darcy approve this message? Has anyone asked her what this guy means?
2) What’s “superficial, wierd, and largely undefined is this guy’s criticism.” He cites no examples–he just takes a broad brush stroke whiz on the blogosphere in a way that does not support and define his claims, other than he primitively doesn’t seem to want to accept the blogs as a potent force.
3) Politicians are able to use blogs and the net to raise tons of money in time periods they could not have dreamed about before. Obama raised more in one month than he or anyone else has raised in a quarter. Ron Paul is raising a lot of money mainly through blogs.
4) Is Burner (again who worked at Microsoft as a Program Manager) a huge company that thrives on new ideas using the web–whose founder helped make the web what it is today and was principally responsible for anyone’s being able to read a blog by putting PCs on desktops with the Introduction of Windows 95.
In the last 5 years, thousands of Microsoft employees have started their own blogs with personal information and/or work related information or both for all kinds of reasons with the result that a huge channel of communications have been opened to developers and end users that influences the way Microsoft works and what products come out of their pipeline and how the products get improved.
This is puzzling to say the least.
I find it hard to believe that Darcy would subscribe to any of this.
Sounds like a good next step to me.
Unless Ms. Burner would like to come to chat about things here at the Lake, to clear up the problems caused by a FORMER campaign consultant.
It seems Sandeep’s comments were in reply to this part of the article which appeared before it.
So it looks like a response to that.
Sounds like Rahm got to her – or she just used the blogs to get money.
She’s got some ’splainin’ to do.
No mo money.
I’m sorry, but that’s totally wrong and ill-informed. Noriega is one of the progressive members of the house here in Texas. Fact is, Congressman Cuellar (which some claim as a blue dog) is the only member of congress who hasn’t endorsed Rick yet. I’ll let you calculate why that might be.
I mean, Noriega was one of about only 20% of the Texas House that actually voted against putting the gay marriage amendment on our ballot.
165
Per http://www.thestranger.com/sea…..?oid=11483
A former drug addict of no fixed address and ambivalent sexual orientation, Kaushik landed at The Stranger only after being poached from the Seattle Weekly’s recruiting department, which had lured him from the scenic vista of Cleveland, Ohio. Kaushik can often be overheard working on assignments for other publications (Time Magazine, The Boston Globe) while on the clock at The Stranger, but he has never once been reprimanded. Experts credit his good luck not to the fact that he quintuples the company’s minority employee quotient, but to the fact that Kaushik is a husband and father, with another kid on the way.
_______________
i read that TEWWWWW and something about it don’t pass the smell test. it reeks of some kind of metrosexual self-promotion. SOS he wrote about the ‘roots. prolly goes to somewhere in flyover territory and meets up with Karl for a seminar every two months ……
As quoted by KTinTX:
Obviously, political consultants find bloggers much less compliant than they find the mainstream media. I’d be very disappointed if he didn’t find bloggers frustrating.
Exactly
Why I donate to Darcy’s campaign… My granddaughters live in that district and because I want all those issues that Darcy stands for my girls, I donate to make sure they will receive it.
Could someone tell me exactly how many blue america/ daily kos/ fdl/ down with tyranny endorsed candidates have stabbed their supporters in the back?
I have Darcy Burner; Chris Carney; and Jerry McInerny. Am I missing anyone? Wasn’t Stephanie Herseth also endorsed by left blogistan?
Why does this keep happening?
Kaushik has written some fairly liberal stuff; e.g., this appeared at tompain.com
Here’s my email…
I regret sending you money.
When I read Kaushik’s comments regarding the Blogosphere today I was really saddened. Let me predict what will happen with Darcy’s future. You will be in office one term, then the netroots will fund a primary challenge and replace you with a progressive.
Bye! and Bye to my checkbook too. The netroots is not an atm, and Kaushiks comments are well, cow shit.
Just called the campaign office and the woman who answered the phone said that Darcy does NOT agree with Kaushik’s statement; is very upset; and will soon be making a statement herself to address this.
So, let’s wait and see.
Can you edit posts?
At any rate, just wanted to add my impression after talking with the woman who answered the phone — she sounded highly stressed, and highly sincere. She noted that working with the grassroots to “build a movement” is Darcy Burner’s favorite part of her job.
I’m glad someone called. This was infuriating. I contributed while living in California. I live in Washington state now, so it would have made more sense for me to continue to send her money, which I was going to do. But unless she totally repudiates this idiot soon, she won’t see anything from me.
I sent her both an email and a physical letter…the latter should have some impact.
I live in Darcy Burner’s district. As a matter of fact, we were in the same Camp Wellstone class.
I will do my best to find out what the hell is going on here. The consultant in question needs to be fired today.
-S
just another liberal blogger campaigns must distance themselves from…
“Part of my job is making sure
people know the blogosphere is not the campaignno one supports her TOO much, and she has no durable base of support,” he said.Hear! Hear!
Jane and others,
respectfully, you’ve got it wrong.
Sandeep’s point was not to diminish the blogosphere. He certainly recognizes our importance, and both local bloggers like myself and others work closely with the campaign and Sandeep on message and issues.
Sandeep simply points out that we are independent voices.
Raising Burner’s profile beyond the blogosphere is what Sandeep was talking about. She needs to continue to grow that profile, and it isn’t that she is “using” us, or abandoning us, but Sandeep is recognizing that she must be seen, and increasingly is, as more than just a netroots darling.
This was not a knock on the blogosphere or netroots. He was just pointing out that any campaign needs to show strength beyond the netroots to reach the millions of voters who are not tuned into the internet or our grassroots efforts.
I can’t think of a campaign that isn’t more tuned into the netroots or working with us than Darcy’s campaign – and this is a two way collaboration of the best kind, with an incredibly accessible candidate.
Ask any of the few dozen local bloggers who are in touch with Darcy and Sandeep on a regular basis and they’ll tell you the same thing.
Daniel K
On The Road To 2008: http://www.kirkdorffer.com/ontheroadto2008/
WA-08 resident
And looking at Third Way’s list of state governors in their pocket, there is only one name:
Kathleen Sebelius
Maybe there’s a reason the SOTU rebuttal was so mild on FISA.
Let me restate that: “I can’t think of a campaign that is more tuned into the netroots or working with us than Darcy’s campaign”
Daniel K
I understand about not shooting the messenger, but I contributed to Darcy’s campaign several times, and the statement Jane quoted bothered me, so I sent this letter:
I just got off the phone with Sarah at Darcy Burner’s campaign headquarters. I gave Sarah Jane’s firedoglake e-mail and asked her to contact Jane ASAP to explain.
Darcy is evidently planning on making some kind of comment about this as well.
-S
And Sandeep would agree with you!
Jane, I’ve seen this coming for several months now. It started just after YK07 when the Edwardians began their scorched earth offensive against Clinton. It was relentless negativity for months, complete with over-the-top Republican-like talking points. Then, when he started losing momentum, the Obama group picked up where Edwards left off and purged the big name sites of any opposing voices. It’s been devastating blogocide against Clinton people to the extent that they really aren’t represented well on DKos and TPM anymore (and even here to a certain extent a couple months ago). But the vehemence and zealotry for Obama in the blogosphere doesn’t translate to the general voting public. I don’t recognize the place anymore. It’s completely out of joint with reality. So, it’s hard to take places like DailyKos seriously and it’s easy to want to distance oneself from it. We really have become rabid lambs.
Unfortunately, all we can go on is the words he used, not his intent. And after having been burned before, you can imagine the skepticism his words engender.
Wrong. Sandeep is not advising Darcy to ignore the blogs or the netroots. Darcy has a netroots outreach person in Lynn Allen of Evergreen Politics, a respected blogger in Washington state.
That’s why as someone who actually knows Sandeep and deals with him regularly, I’m practically begging people here to listen to what I’m saying about this.
Respect is an interesting word to have tossed into this discussion.
From the article cited above:
In this one sentence, I see gross generalizations, that lump all blogs together. I see a slap in the face to places like FDL, which goes to great lengths to source their matierials and provide detailed analysis of various issues. I see disdain for us, in that he can’t put us into a nice neat controllable box.
I see very little respect.
Well apparently not, unless she immediately repudiates this idiot’s remarks.
There are ways to express independence, but this was clearly a put-down of the blogosphere.
Whenever you use the words “weird” and “superficial” you aren’t exactly throwing praise around.
The idea that she would want to reach out beyond the netroots, however that’s defined is great. That’s a good thing. But the netroots made a big splash for her…not only FDL but Atrios, who’s in freaking Philadelphia for God’s sake.
And as to the power of the netroots, sure sometimes it’s overrated, and sometimes it’s underrated. So what? All we can do is keep building and contributing time and support and money when we can.
And I agree with the commenter above who said we should look at how we can do better. We should always be doing that of course, and spend as little time as possible patting ourselves on the back.
Responding to dakine01 @ 199:
That’s why as someone who actually knows Sandeep and deals with him regularly, I’m practically begging people here to listen to what I’m saying about this.
I just hung up the phone from talking to Darcy’s office. I told the person answering the phone that Darcy needs to talk today with Jane about coming on line today, with the Firedoglake community.
Sandeep needs not to ever be a spokesman ever again because if that is what he meant to say, he failed miserably. What I quoted above (from you) is in no way a parallel statement to his comment:
If he had said what you wrote…
…no one would be upset.
Based on my brief conversation with someone at Burner’s campaign office, it sounds like your claims about Burner herself, at least, are on-target. But the message people outside the netroots need to hear (from anyone speaking for Burner’s campaign) is that netroots consists of dedicated, passionate, intelligent people and the campaign is proud to have our support. Oh and that without us, she wouldn’t be where she is today.
So, we believe the words Sandeep used or we believe your pleading with us that it’s all a big misunderstanding and he really didn’t mean the words he used?
While I agree Darcy should comment on this – I also believe Jane should have contacted the campaign and Darcy before posting this to get her comments. Reading through all the comments there is a lot of anger based on false assumptions that is very damaging. Jane could have talked to any of us local bloggers, many she knows personally, to inquire as well.
Gee for someone who means what you say, Sandeek sure has a funny way of saying it.
Sandeep is quoted as saying (if you accept the quote is totally accurate): “Part of my job is making sure people know the blogosphere is not the campaign”
I read that, knowing Sandeep as I do, and know the campaign and Darcy as I do, as him simply saying that Darcy is so associated with the netroots that the media too often dismisses her campaign as just a netroots campaign, and nothing more. He’s simply stating his job is to show that it is not just the netroots that back her. This is common sense. She needs to win over more than just the netroots activists like us, especially in a swing district as mine is.
Which assumptions do you see that are damaging?
“Weird”
“superficial”
“some resemblance to journalism”
But those were Sandeep’s assumptions. Perhaps he’s the person you ought to be upset with, not Jane. She didn’t say those things — he did.
Perhaps Darcy should have read and approved or disapproved the message her campaign put out prior to it appearing. She is the recipient of peoples’ hard-earned money and support, and it is her responsibility to manage her campaign — not Jane.
There are two actions that are needed, IMHO:
1) Darcy needs to clarify her position on Sandeep’s comments and the article to her supporters (already in the works according to the other comments).
2) A clarification or retraction the originating publication to not allow this to be a “bash the netroots and get off scot free” event.
Well let’s be fair then.
“some resemblance to journalism”
I think a journalist would have contacted the campaign to inquire about these comments before throwing red meat to the masses.
Instead we’re all getting outraged and bombarding the campaign with that outrage.
I love Jane’s work, but I’m shocked she didn’t do that.
So are you saying now that he was “mis-quoted” here?
“Perhaps Darcy should have read and approved or disapproved the message her campaign put out prior to it appearing.”
What message?
Jane’s posting and the article it references were not submitted to Darcy for her comments.
Why are the net roots raising money for millionaire candidates like Darcy Burner anyway?
Why are we not raising money for other progressives who really need our help and who will stick with us after they’re elected?
It would appear that at least one local blogger doesn’t agree with you.
http://thedaily.washington.edu…..wo/#c38474
The first rule of digging a hole;
If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
If we’re to be taken as more than just having ’some resemblance to journalism’, especially as we excoriate the MSM often and correctly for not doing research or knowing their subject, Jane needs to take ownership of the fact that she didn’t call or contact even people she knows in the local blogosphere, much less Darcy herself, that would have a handle on this statement.
Read anything Glennzilla has said about ‘jokeline’ Joe Klein for a better understanding of my verbosity above.
You beat me too it. “Red meat for the masses”? Yeah, that will calm everyone down.
No, I’m saying he is being mis-understood regarding the quote Jane highlights.
Jane took something that was published. Why should she call anyone to find out if it were acurate?
Excuse me? Kaushik was quoted in the article as a consultant to the campaign. He was speaking for the candidate. If she did not approve the message, then he should be fired.
No. I don’t know Sara personally, although I have met her once. She blogs with Dave at Orcinus, and I respect her writing. But the people she mentions “people like David Goldstein and Dave Neiwert and Natasha Chart and McJoan” would back up what I’m saying here.
Feel free to ask them.
dankirkd,
In the future, can you send us the decoder ring so that we can find out what Sandeep means to say and not what he is actually saying? It would be a big help.
gotta go upstairs for good.
darcy should do something to clarify whether Sandeep was speaking for her or misappropriating his title in that article. Or maybe the reporter did it and Sandeep was just talking with his other hat on–as raconteur and bullshitter.
Jane coulda or shudda checked it out with the campaign or Darcy, but then again…
I think it is fine to be provocative at FDL, but the stuff we usually pay attention to — FISA, and the stuff that made this place viral; Scooter — was more authoritative than this post.
I can forgive or forget, but I would also love some clarification and on a new post so I dont have to keep unburying this one.
Or at least disable our dog-ears so we can’t hear the dog whistle.
If Jane indeed posted this before talking to Sandeep or Darcy, then I agree that this is a knee-jerk reaction, something we need to be VERY careful about.
Did Sandeep bother to have Darcy Burner check his statement before he released it to the press?
No wise candidate allows anyone to release a statement without first checking what that statement says.
But if your situation is anything like ours, Burner will trust those bastards more that us. Life is so much easier and more glamourous if all you have to do is go to chic wine parties and raise money for big TV buys.
Sounds like the published piece was based on interviews, not a written statement.
Correct.
I’ll feel good about this when I find out that he never “said” the things he’s quoted as saying. ;>
jane – have you (or howie) contacted contacted darcy to ask for an explanation? it’s always possible that Kaushik was misquoted, and if this is the first example of this kine of statement from him… well, even an old cynic like me would want to give them both a chance to make good.
i say this as someone who has been not just misquoted, but was quoted as saying several sentences that not only did i never say, i didn’t even know anything about the topic – and this was in the Worcester T&G (owned by the NY Times Co, so maybe i shouldn’t be surprised).
Wow, thanks Ann.
Dankirkd:
You must realize on reading the paragraphs highlighted in Jane’s post that there is no non-offensive interpretation. This is not what you say about the people who were in your corner when you needed them.
You might have some special knowledge based on your private conversations or relationships. But there’s no way for the general public to read what is being said here and not come to a very definite conclusion.
You are taking great pains to let all of us here know that you are involved with the Burner folks. I suggest, then, that you talk to them. Not to us. I have re-read the comments, and we are not the ones who have erred.
Talk to those who have erred. Not to those who have been quite obviously dissed. Or, in the words of Andy Sipowicz, “don’t piss in my ear and tell me it’s raining.”
Even worse — the lowliest of political consultants should know better than to alienate the people who contribute to a campaign.
i think this is right on. it’s up to them to explain or disown the comments that were quoted.
I’ve just talked to Sandeep who explained to me that he was very complementary of the netroots, but when asked about the limitations of the blogosphere, he stated that the risk sometimes is that traditional journalists sometimes over contribute what is said on blogs like HorsesAss.org, or even my own, as the voice of the campaign.
Sandeep tells me that looking at how he was quoted in the article, he can see how it could look like he was taking digs at us, but that wasn’t his position at all.
When I was a Wall St. economist, I frequently did interviews for the media. One quickly learns how to phrase answers to be clear about what the point was, avoid making mistakes, avoid saying things that could be taken out of context. It is more difficult to do for politicians and her spokespeople, but if you don’t figure it out pdq, you’re sunk.
I don’t know Ms. Burner nor Mr. Kaushik, but how he was quoted (and I repeat that I see no reason why Jane should contact anyone to check the veracity of something that was already published) certainly came across as dismissive of netroots, to put it in the best possible light.
Whether he needs to be fired, taken to the woodshed, or sent for communications training I don’t know. But what is certain is that Ms Burner acknowledge what has happened and make appropriate amends & take appropriate remedial actions.
Tell him to “Put up or shut up.” A published retraction and apology would be the best action to take.
so, is sandeep going to be making a public statement? or this just a super secret communication for us – and not the other people who read the article.
seriously, i’m really inclined to give the guy a chance to make good. but private conversation to you that your relay to us does so not cut it.
Dig in your heels, never admit you made a mistake. . .oh that’s them not us huh?
i do. from my own experience. (see my 235)
and i’d just like to point out that maybe economic reporters (like sports reporters) have a better track record of getting things right than political reporters.
Sandeep told me that he’s written up a statement and supplied that to Darcy. I don’t know what’s next.
Seriously, Sandeep is a great guy. It kills me how mis-characterized he has been here.
Nope. My comment that accompanied my vote was, “Lesser of two evils.” Apparently they didn’t bother with that one, either.
You know, I have no idea who you are or what your connection is either with the Burner campaign or with Sandeep.
But you should know that you are not doing Darcy Burner any favours here.
I’m listening/
Paul Krugman, the Princeton economist and columnist at the NYT blogs at the NYT, David Pogue the Techie columnist and prolific author on Windows apps and Apple Apps a and Walter Mossberg the tech columnist (who made his own millions and hasn’t had to work for a living in years) reportedly one of the highest paid columnists at WSJ all write regular columns. They all have popular blogs. When these well respected columnists blog does that make them at the point that they post a blog somehow different in quality? Does that make the content in the NYT or WSJ high quality but the content the same columnists put on their blogs superficial?
After all the internet is just one more platform to get content out.
I guess this guy is objecting to the fact that people can comment on blogs, and that they are more of a deomocracy and because not everyone of the people who comment is a “journalist” from some accepted MSM company that makes them less relevant or more superficial. His points don’t make much sense to me.
We only have your word that he’s a “great guy.”
A truly great guy would put in an appearance in the Comments and apologize.
Actions plus words — not a third party telling us we don’t understand. That’s how Republicans operate, not progressives.
I saw that and sorry you had such a bad experience. I was lucky to never be seriously misquoted or taken out of context. (The one time I was taken to the woodshed was because I opened my big fat mouth about gender discrimination at my firm, which ended up on Page 6 of NYPost.)
Still, think about it. If every time you went to write about something that has been published you had to double check to see if it were accurate, you would end up with an unmanageable task.
if he’s such a great guy, he will know what to do. if he really does set things right in a very public way, i’m sure all will be forgiven.
but if he tries to weasel out of responsibility for words he actually used – well then, i may have a different opinion of him than you do.
let his actions be the deciding factor. i hope he knows how carefully they will be vetted.
The thing to do about this is “publically financed campaigns”. Once money is out of this process, the greed will diminish.
Frankly, I’m just as concerned with our collective “burn him!” response.
Agreed — if I had my way, they’d have one month to campaign before the primaries and 6 weeks to campaign before the general election.
Fern – how so?
I’m a blogger. I’ve live in Darcy’s district. I blog almost obsessively (ask my wife) about Dave Reichert, Darcy’s opponent, and I support Darcy’s campaign. I interact with other local bloggers. I interact with the campaign. They’re nice enough to listen to what I have to say. Darcy is very giving of her time to sit with me in private to discuss issues of concern. When she first appeared on the scene we checked her candidacy out. We were skeptical at first. She won us over. Now she’s trying again, and off to an even better start. She’s genuine.
But, you make my point. I am trying to speak for her and her campaign, although I’m not on her campaign. That’s fervor. That’s how easy it is for the traditional media to think we speak for her. That we are her. We’re not.
I’ve just read a lot of statements here that I think are based on a wrong understanding of her, or the comments made by Sandeep, and I felt I had to respond to them.
not every time. but if it’s an outlier – i think it’s probably a good idea. but, if it’s the twentieth time the guy has done the same thing, i wouldn’t even think to double check. my point was not meant to be absolute, but rather to consider the greater circumstances. when it’s a first time big screw up and comes from a campaign we weren’t expecting from – that’s when i think our loyalty ought to include considering that it may not be true.
not faulting anyone here, just trying to be aware that it could have been a misquote. sounds like it wasn’t though from the lame defense being given in this thread.
I’m not. I think most folks here are tired of being taken for granted and abused by the process and are willing to stand up and call Bull sh*t rather than sit quietly in the corner and wait to have our heads patted like good little bloggers.
Oh, selise, being in a position where the reporting is regularly less accurate or worse, puts an even greater onus on the interviewee to be clear (or stay out of the kitchen). One possibility is to request to see a copy of the article before it is published. This may not be granted, but it puts the reporter on notice that you expect fair treatment.
Tom, some of us have hit the “I have had enough, and I ain’t going to take any more” wall. We wouldn’t be here if we didn’t care about what’s happening to our country.
I for one think the “political consultants” are part of the problem, not the solution.
I agree. If you don’t raise holy hell you get ignored.
Good points. I don’t know either Burner’s or Kaushik’s records, so I can’t judge whether a courtesy call would have been reasonable.
The text itself, though, got my goat.
Thank you Jane regarding Darcy Burner…
I agree with one 100%!! Outrageous comments by her staff indeed! Just another closet “Republican” trying to pass themselves off as a Democrat!
and i should say that my worst experience – the one i referenced above – i was “quoted” in a very complimentary way, both to me and my point of view. the reporter involved is known to be sympathetic to the anti-war work done in this city.
i really think it was a completely innocent mistake on his part – it was probably something some one else said and either his notes got who said what confused, or his editor made a hash of it.
so, in the end, it really wasn’t nearly as bad as the times i’ve very obviously been taken out of context.
but the experience made an impression on me, and taught me how easy it is to be worse than misquoted.
no kidding, me too!
Here’s Sandeep’s statement, as quoted in the article: “They kind of play this weird role that has this superficial semblance to journalism,” Kaushik said.
As I said above, in this one sentence, I see gross generalizations, a slap in the face to places like FDL, and disdain for us, in that he can’t put us into a nice neat controllable box.
How do you read this as anything but a slam? Which meaning of “weird” and “superficial” did he intend, if this was meant as a complement?
And the problem in the internet age is that the misquotes live forever and may go viral. I’ve thought a lot about this, unproductively. What I’ve seen that I like best is the “update” posts. I like them better when they are at the beginning of the original post rather than at the end. Could do same with “corrections.”
His challenge is keeping Burner from becoming too closely associated with the local liberal blogosphere, which overwhelmingly supports her. “Part of my job is making sure people know the blogosphere is not the campaign,” he said.
There is NO way to spin this into gold, dankirkd.
He is saying, quite clearly, that he needs to distance the candidate from her supporters.
And the comment upthread is also correct: Apologizing to us here does nothing to dispel the now-public notion that no one, not even candidates who get HUGE support from the blogosphere, wants to be associated with the blogosphere.
It’s DFH, angry frothing at the mouth, nutroots chatter. We’ve all seen it a zillion times before. So we’re sensitive to it.
And now that we’ve reacted to seeing it yet again, the implication is that we’re angry frothing at the mouth nutroots.
We cannot win.
Well Peterr, when people with the influence that Jane has doesn’t even bother to contact the campaign before posting what she posted, how can you argue otherwise. It just about proves the point.
I mean it is one thing if it was any old campaign, but Jane has been a supporter of Darcy’s campaign, so even more reason you’d think to contact the campaign to inquire about this before posting.
“He is saying, quite clearly, that he needs to distance the candidate from her supporters.”
No he was not. I’ve explained what he was saying in the context of the interview. It is a real problem when a candidate gets dismissed by the media as merely a netroots darling. That’s taken as failing in the candidate by the media, as derogatory. Sandeep’s was say that his role was to show that Darcy is more than that as a candidate. He wasn’t saying the the netroots or blogosphere are a problem or an issue, he was saying that if voters only think Darcy is a netroots candidate and nothing more, then that would be a problem for her election chances because of the way the media portrays us.
agreed, more like a living thought that is responsive and engaged.
Dankirkd — You seem to be missing the point that Jane quoted a PUBLISHED article.
Why should she have to check with the campaign about an article that was already in print? Why wasn’t the article vetted by the campaign manager or the candidate before it was published?
Jane is NOT the person at fault here, Sheepdip is.
How about something like:
In other words, acknowledge (favorably) the support she has received from the entity in question, and then indicate how her campaign has greater breadth. Instead of slamming netroots to prove they don’t control her.
Rather than attack and marginalize the support base it would benefit all involved to challenge the media’s derogatory branding.
yes. and even if corrections are not made, at least when commenting is available – alternative views and data can be posted. sorta like a letter to the editor, but attached to the original article.
i don’t have any perfect solutions either. actually, so far, i think the best is just lots of citizen participation. i’ve said it before, and i really believe it – we are smarter when we work together.
can i vote for you?
please?
Have you ever quoted from an article appearing in the NYT or WAPO???? Do you call the people quoted and ask them if they said what they are quoted as saying? That is the job of the publisher of the article, prior to publication to verify the source.
It is not Jane’s fault.
He either said it and was quoted accurately or not. I understand that you like him, etc., however, bloggers don’t like to feel ridiculed, marginalized, or financially used as tools by campaigns.
We’ll have to see what he says….personally.
If nominated, I will not run.
If elected, I will not serve.
*g*
Four hours and counting.
That the spirit! *g
Just so — you never say something insulting about a contributor to your campaign. If fact, people are more likely to give more if you make them feel good about having done so.
The statement Jane quoted does not accomplish this.
“Published” article? By a student journalist.
I actually was also contacted by this “journalist” for this article he wrote for his political journalism class. He asked me some questions, I supplied some responses. He never followed-up with them. You vet bloggers on the internet. You vet “journalists”. He left out a ton of valuable context, and the result is this.
Yes, I think Jane should have verified with the campaign.
”“He is saying, quite clearly, that he needs to distance the candidate from her supporters.”
No he was not. I’ve explained what he was saying in the context of the interview. ”
Your read of it, yes- you who have made it clear that you know him well and are on good terms with him.
The myriad commenters here are not bringing your insider perspective to the matter. There’s just the article itself to work with, which- it should be obvious by now- seems to be very alienating to many readers. The article and the quotes in it appear to sound deprecating to quite a number of people, and that is a genuine problem for the quotee, and also for the person he is representing.
My dog ate my homework.
Good Dog!! s/
A “student journalist” writing for publication is still a journalist. Verifying the vericity of the authors piece should lie with his editor(s) and not Jane. If they are letting him write and publish incomplete or errant pieces under their banner then they need to be held accountable for the misinformation, the same as he (the author) should. All Jane did was report what the remarks were, and in the context of how much help and support she and other “A” list bloggers gave Ms. Burner she has a right to be a bit upset.
Also, other “Blue America” candidates have pulled similar tricks, and unlike other Dems, we don’t see the need to be fooled more than twice before moving on. We are not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi… we do not enjoy the pain of being screwed by DINOs.
As well as writing a letter and an email, I called Darcy’s office and left a message.
Darcy Burner’s office just called me back (Sarah), and said they were very upset about this–she emphasized the “very”–and they are going to do something to make it right and “earn back our trust.”
She also said she really appreciated all the calls and emails they were getting about this, because it showed that people cared. Of course they pretty much had to say that, but she sounded very sincere, and clearly the campaign knows how bad this was.
So we did make an impact, and I thank Jane for getting this out there.
And I do think they heard the message, I don’t think this guy expressed the real thoughts or position of the campaign, and I will still be contributing. I think they are good people.
“Why should she have to check with the campaign about an article that was already in print? Why wasn’t the article vetted by the campaign manager or the candidate before it was published?”
To give the campaign the benefit of the doubt. Jane doesn’t know who Will Mari is, but she knows who Darcy is, and she should have given Darcy the benefit of the doubt.
That’s just common courtesy, and for a candidate that might unseat a Republican like Dave Reichert, why would you not?
That’s right goddamn it, when FDL says jump you better say “how high”? If FDL says shit,you better say “what color”!
You’re so funny. Come on, use the “the lurkers support him in e-mail” defense. It’s the only internet defense you haven’t pulled out of your ass yet. (Okay, there’s also the “My sister/babysitter/stalker was using my computer” one but that doesn’t apply here.)
So your defense now is that “because it was a student journalist, it shouldn’t be taken seriously?”
Having been a journalism student many years ago, I still remember how carefully our instructor and editor went over the articles we submitted. I am sure their standards were as strong as any city paper — because they knew they were sending their pupils out to work in that world.
Are you saying that the student’s use of the quote was inaccurate?
Mission Accomplished?
Hear! Hear!
oh, you shouldn’t have said this.
the only student journalists who ever interviewed me were the most careful journalists – double and triple checking everything. i think this wasn’t just being careful, i think a student has more time to devote to a single article – without the daily grind of deadlines while working in an organization that expects one journalist to cover what 2 or 3 used to.
our loss. your gain. *g*
“I think they are good people.”
Although it appears my word is mud here (although I have four years of blog posts you can read through to gauge for yourself if I’m full of shit or not), let me just add that I think they are too.
Trust is hard to earn. It is even harder to do sight unseen through the impersonal medium of email and Web sites. If you are local to her district, please consider personal contact. Visit the campaign office, talk to Darcy in person.
She is the real thing, and deserves the benefit of the doubt.
dankirkd – just wanted to make sure you knew that i started out very sympathetic to the idea of checking with the campaign… and that what you have been saying in this thread is turning me around (in, i think, the opposite way you intend).
so, let me see if i get what you’re saying.
he was not misquoted. we are misunderstanding him.
is that correct?
Bro, you are wastin your time.
raven – are you saying i’m being unfair? seriously?
selise – I’m just relating my interaction.
But that’s tangential. The point is simply, this wasn’t published by Frank Rich or Krugman and since Jane knows Darcy, and given the potential (and now realized) reactions here, Jane should have contacted her.
If I had Jane’s initial reaction to reading this (which I didn’t because I read it differently) I would have contacted Darcy, and she would have responded to me, even though I’m just a measly B list blogger (if that).
Nope, I’m saying this has been beaten to death and I see no resolution that is going to make everyone happy.
So, the question for me is, why am I still here?
selise – According to Sandeep, who I spoke to on the phone, the quotes are accurate, but the context is missing, which has lead to misunderstandings I have tried, it seems with little success, to correct.
don’t know, but am glad you are. thanks.
So…a professional writer, former communications staffer for King Co., and campaign consultant got pwned by a writer from a university newspaper?
It would seem that if Sandeep thought that clarification was appropriate, he has might have done so by now.
http://thedaily.washington.edu…..-part-two/
*crickets*
Joan: You charlatan! You killed my daughter, just like you killed most of my other children! Why don’t you admit it! You don’t know what you’re doing!
Theodoric of York: Wait a minute. Perhaps she’s right. Perhaps I’ve been wrong to blindly folow the medical traditions and superstitions of past centuries. Maybe we barbers should test these assumptions analytically, through experimentation and a “scientific method”. Maybe this scientific method could be extended to other fields of learning: the natural sciences, art, architecture, navigation. Perhaps I could lead the way to a new age, an age of rebirth, a Renaissance! [ thinks for a minute ] Naaaaaahhh!
I realize you’re trying to help your friend, and that you mean well. But the best action Sandeep could take at this point, would be to come and explain what was said and why, himself. Having someone else do it leaves the implication that he isn’t brave or gracious enough to do it himself.
That relationship between Jane and Darcy goes both ways, dankirkd.
Darcy knows Jane. Before Darcy sends a campaign spokesperson to talk to the media, she ought to be sure he understands how that he might want to refer to her supporters. Describing bloggers as people who practice something with a “weird role that has a superficial semblance to journalism” is probably not the best way to win friends and influence people.
No matter what the context for the description.
Brisingamen, I don’t think everyone here agrees with you. Many would say Darcy should do that. Other would say it doesn’t matter.
I’ve already told you that as far as I know he’s communicated to Darcy what was meant. I’ve also heard that mcjoan from Daily Kos has been in touch with Darcy, as has Dave Niewert and David Goldstein. There will be a response, but I don’t know what other events were ongoing for Darcy today to know when.
“weird role that has a superficial semblance to journalism”
Sorta has a ring to it doesn’t it?
Hey dankirk,
I am local. I contacted the campaign. We wait for a statement from the candidate.
-S
http://strategerie.wordpress.com
didn’t see any context from you… other than we’re wrong about the guy.
if the quotes are accurate, and you say that they are, then i have a hard time seeing how he thinks he doesn’t have an apology to make. to jane. and to everyone who has been donating to her campaign because we thought she was going to represent us. not hire people to diss us.
maybe it would have been a good idea for jane to get confirmation of the story from the campaign. but from what you’ve told us, the quotes are accurate. so, even if one thinks it would have been nice for jane to double check, what i’m hearing from you is that would not have changed the story – she would only have gotten confirmation.
now, if he was misquoted, and the story is inaccurate – then your complaint would make sense to me. right now though, it looks like you are trying to blame jane for not doing something that would have NO impact on the story in order to distract from what, imo, is the real story here.
where is the retraction / clarification / apology / explanation? that there isn’t any is an issue.
I gotta walk the dogs and I expect you all to have this shit settled when I get back!
OMG! Our national policy has been based on an SNL skit for the last 7 years. Who knew?
Nice one, raven.
for the record, i agree with brisingamen.
Gilda knew, and so did Father Guido Sarducci!
lol! thanks for keeping us from taking ourselves too seriously.
It’s the “part of my job” quote…that I find most interesting…and you say the comments were accurate? Hmmmmm…
Peterr, well you may not like the characterization of a lot of blogs out there, or a lot of bloggers, but it is a weird role. Most of us are not journalists. We do this part time. We are mostly activists and commentators, but sometimes we break stories or issues, but we don’t necessarily follow a journalistic ethic and we are typically partisan. That doesn’t mean to say there aren’t exceptions or outstanding contributors that blow the traditional media away.
Okay, so here’s what I’m wondering as we all wait to hear from the Burner camp… will Sandeep still have a job after today? I certainly don’t wish him the worst, especially in todays job market, but I have to wonder about keeping a “loose cannon” of that nature on deck. The damage could be infinitely worse in the next storm if it’s left to run free.
selise – accurate transcription of words without context can lead to a mis-interpretation of words.
Sandeep was very complementary of the netroots in his interview, he praised the things we are able to do and the energy we have, he was then asked about the limitations of the blogosphere, and one problem he stated was that the risk for campaigns so fervantly supported by the netroots is that traditional journalists will tend over contribute what is said in the blogosphere as being the voice of the campaign. That’s the context. People reading the blogs who aren’t savvy readers often have a hard time discerning “the truth” of what is written, which takes a little time with each blogger you read, so what we write can often be taken (through our partisan support of a candidate) as speaking for the campaign.
That doesn’t sound like a statement that should cause this kind of uproar.
JoFish – Loose words come out of many mouths. If there is a real concern here that there could be “damage” (and I assume you meant damage to Darcy’s campaign), I would think we would want to be careful about how we all react to this in the first place – hence the reason Jane or others should have contacted the campaign before jumping to conclusions.
That’s certainly my thinking.
true.
and the same thing could be said about the legacy media. but it wasn’t.
seems to me that you and i have a very different take on this – not so much on what was said, but rather on whether we agree with it or not.
you aren’t giving me another way to understand what was said – you’re trying to justify what was said as correct and accurate and no big deal.
i disagree with that perspective. that makes it not about misunderstanding the quote – that makes it a legitimate disagreement about values and perspective.
So…this great guy has suddenly become a liability to our progressive pal Darcy’s campaign.
And the mere fact of their association is now a liability for her campaign.
His presence suffocates her credibility.
So…when’s the mench gonna ask that Darcy announce she has requested and obtained his resignation?
I mean – he’s previously submitted his written/emailied request for correction of this journalism error you’re telling us of – right?
Standard practice in addressing published factual errors, right? – create the written record of objections…and the written timeline?
I mean, this mensch will look the noble fellow he is, right?
Publicly falling on his sword for the gaffe of not following up on his (documented – right?)request to correct this egregious journalistic error – and showing Darcy’s the candidate for which he’d sacrifice his professional reputation.
What a swell guy – and he still has three hours and
fourteenfive minutes to let everyone know.As does Darcy.
When you see him, please give him an ‘attaboy from me.
Brilliant PR strategy – what a way to get focus on the campaign.
I didn’t like it, so here’s what I wrote to campaign@darcyburner.com, for whatever it’s worth
Darcy, you were my favorite…
…because of what you said some time ago about wiretapping.
Sorry to read your aide’s dismissive comments about the leftie blogosphere:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/01/loyalty-2/
You made us feel welcome when you needed our $$$. And I’m sure I would never have heard of you without said lefties.
There are a lot of us out here — we are the mainstream — and I would suggest trying to reach out to us rather than distance yourself from people who are just as passionate as you are about trying to turn this country around.
Sincerely &c., &c.
You know, most of the bloggers and commenters I’ve read never try to represent their positions as those of the candidates. Nor have I seen any FDL blogger claim to the “voice of the campaign”
When a candidate’s stance is cited, there is usually a quote (or a reference to their voting record) to back it up.
Many of us come from academic or professional backgrounds that require a precision of language, and a respect for ethical presentation of the facts.
The truth of everything we care to write or post is right here in black and white.
Just how stupid do you… forget it.
This is condescending filler, not worthy of our time.
Brisingamen – “You know, most of the bloggers and commenters I’ve read never try to represent their positions as those of the candidates.”
The fact remains, the traditional media tend to think we’re sycophants of candidates, or love portraying us that way to dismiss what we write.
Their role in the public discourse is still largely undefined. “They kind of play this weird role that has this superficial semblance to journalism,” Kaushik said.
—–
Yeah, its kind of wierd like they are actually citizens or something…almost made a big mistake and listened to their concerns. Well, I can’t figure it out but show me the money. Losers.
See ya folks. How about we put this thread out of its misery?
Seems to me that Olbermann had *three* liberal bloggers on last night to discuss and dissect the debate.
—-
True, and at the same time he seemed to have bloggers on that were boosting candidates. I knew their answers before they opened their mouths.
< </p>
from above, except for crooks and liars I think it was.
We’ll see what their actual response is. They may be good people, and I believe they are, but I will judge them by their actions, not their words, and definitely not your words, because you clearly can’t see what the issue is.
And not being able to control the message of your staff, or take the proper action when someone goofs up as badly as this, is not a good sign for running a successful campaign. As someone said, “four hours and counting.”
Getting a phone call was nice, but I’m still waiting to see what the public response was, what Darcy is really willing to stand behind. That will be the key here.
And as someone said, you aren’t doing the campaign any favors by
a. blaming the messenger (Jane)
b. minimizing the content.
two hours, eleven minutes
…so Ben Domenech wrote that piece?
excellent and to the point.
and that is supposed to be an excuse for these kind of statements?
Since when is the truth an excuse for anything? It isn’t a diss on us for someone to point out that the traditional media likes to mock us and mock anyone related to us, it is just the reality of things. We know we’re better than that. Sandeep does too, but it does the campaign no favors to feed the media’s bias.
Really… time for you to stop digging.
Folks upset over this? Holy crap! Are we so thin skinned? Anyone in the traditional media reading this is probably busting at the seams laughing at this little implosion of rational thought. It looks from this post and subsequent thread that the media’s opinion of blogs has just been validated.
This is politics folks and a good candidate is out there taking far more abuse than is being dished out here for YOUR interests. If you want to take a college newspaper article that offends your sensibilities to heart like this I suggest a long and painful evangelic conversion.
Jane, next time just contact Darcy or Sandeep yourself if you read something that pisses you off. Go right to the source.
We bloggers have some good mojo going on and our influence in politics growing in some very positive ways. But the last thing I would ever want is candidates having to kiss the blogosphere’s ass to get elected or even raise money. If that’s the way it is we might as well all be republicans.
This is about winning, not our precious ego.
and:
the asteroid belt lies between Mars and Jupiter
energy equals the product of mass times [the velocity of light] (squared)
hemoglobin carries oxygen…
and none of this factual smoke obscures Sandeep’s blunder – or his craven failure to announce his resignation for cause.
Jeebus – true but irrelevant statements. High school debate teams can do better.
But dan – as long you’re digging – could you get some blackberry bushes out of my yard?
May as well see that effort accomplish something productive.
newtonusr said, “This is condescending filler, not worthy of our time.”
Can a statement be any more condescending than that?
Please.
Your only argument now is “stop digging”. Is it any wonder people are dismissive of the blogosphere when nuanced thought and common sense is buried by knee-jerk eat-your-own reactions?
Do we really want to get into a litany of things people have said that might offend people in the blogosphere (even through the truth)? Such a list would be full of senseless bickering by our own against our own.
Meanwhile, Karl Rove and the Republicans are just laughing at us, and the traditional media is too.
One hour, fifteen minutes.
Start counting backwards… right back to the start of W’s first term. Consider that!
You are here patching and filling for a flack, and doing a really bad job of it.
No. Contemptuous would be more accurate.
jimmy, i’m no more likely to take your direction than i am to buy dan’s spin for his pal the failed flack.
glad to see even fourth-rate flacks’s friends have someone to support them.
Kirk – did you know that a college football team can dress over 100 players? Imagine how many place-kickers that would add up to…
(((newton)))
LOL
Another dumbass who said something similar was Danny O’Brien who ran Biden’s Iowa campaign.
Hey Kirk- I too thought newt’s comment was LOL
above newt said: Really… time for you to stop digging.
I’d add this bit of advice:
When you step in shit, don’t start kicking it around. ;)
This has GOT to be a sock puppet.
Any word from the Burner campaign yet?
Hi VG – how are you and the felines?
That is a bunch of crap.
If people pay their hard-earned money to support a candidate in good faith, and if a campaign consultant apparently attempts to distance the campaign from its supporters with somewhat questionable remarks……someone in charge needs to stand up and say what was meant or not meant by those remarks. It is that simple. Stop blaming Jane for it.
Darcy Burner needs to step up and say,
1) I knew nothing about it, and it doesn’t represent my position.
2) It was misquoted and misinterpreted.
3) We are embarrassed to admit that the netroots contributed a bunch of money to our campaign, because we don’t want to be ridiculed by the MSM.
4) We are proud that the netroots has contributed to the campaign and would never be embarrassed by our support.
5) We support the netroots, and we don’t care what the MSM thinks.
So….which is it?
Hi Kirk- I don’t have my own felines right now. But, if I did, I can tell you that they would be most unhappy if they knew they had been subject to bait and switch.
Hey LS- and, really, I get the sense that dan&co dropping by got no clue about the FDL commenters and readers. Hey, it’s not like we were born yesterday! ;)
I have seen nothing to suggest that term is appropriate in this thread.
above newt said: Really… time for you to stop digging.
so….did anybody Digg this?
Snort!! What d’ya mean…I was born yesterday!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaahhhh…!!
:)
For the record, in my opinion Dankirkd is a good soul!!!
My quick email to Darcy: (Ann in AZ – not sure why this is Replying to you – guess I am still learning the system)
Hello Darcy,
I hope you read the interview with your operative in the UW paper. And follow the reaction in the blogosphere!
Here he is reported to have stated…
“As as pressure group on the Democratic Party, Kaushik said bloggers push their own agenda, and that doesn’t always agree with the party leadership, combining elements of a political movement with the behavior of a traditional constituency group.”
Good God! Why would anybody care what the party leadership wants – they are demonstrated failures and Bush enablers! Why do you think we want you in there instead? I’ll spell it out.
* We want you to go to Congress and change the Party Leadership completely.
Here he shows he does not know the basic history of the Lamont/Leiberman contest:
“He points to Lamont and his candidate’s campaign as examples of the bloggers’ limitations.”
Lamont won the Democratic primary which defeated Leiberman completely. Bloggers helped and they won big time. It was only Bad State Law that allowed Leiberman to run as an Independent (defacto Republican) after losing his race, that made this possible.
And here, it gets even worse…
“Part of my job is making sure people know the blogosphere is not the campaign,” he said.
Which “people” think the blogosphere is the campaign? Nobody with a brain. To that I can only respond:
* As a member of the community who reads blogs because the “real” Media is useless, it is part of my job to Not Give You another Dime again until you fire this idiot.
Best of luck to you – but if you don’t improve the quality of your advisors fast, your campaign will be just as unsuccessful as it was last time.
ALso wrote a quick email to Darcy.com and got a real quick response.FWIW….
Thank you for taking the time to write.
Sandeep was not speaking for Darcy or for the campaign when he said what he said. If we are going to reclaim our country and right its course, it will take a broad-based movement, including the blogs, working together to get it done.
We are truly sorry that a part-time political consultant associated with this campaign said things to a college student which reflects poorly on Darcy and her campaign. Please know that they do not reflect her views.
We hope for you continued support and please feel free to contact the campaign at anytime.
Lynn
Lynn Allen
425.467.1183
Outreach Director
Darcy Burner for Congress
I got the same response, thatlldopig.
Comparing the direct quotes to the interpretations, the interpretations are much worse than the direct quotes. Read them through? He didn’t say that bloggers are weird or superficial. He didn’t even say that blogs are superficial. I don’t agree with what he was saying, but it wasn’t that bad of an insult. However, DB ought to make it very clear that she isn’t leaving her significant fundraisers behind.
Here’s my response:
Dear Darcy
Recent comments from your campaign (Sandeep) seem to be giving the straight arm (or is it a finger) to the “populist progressive” elements of the blogosphere who have supported you overwhelmingly. Where do you stand? With him, or with us? Is he going for a Sistah Soljah moment?
Awaiting your comment.
just stopping by to see if any official from the campaign showed up to make a statement.
I find it hard to take this seriously, for a couple of reasons:
- This is the opinion of one part-time campaign consultant for the campaign. Has Burner given anyone any other reason to assume she was kicking the netroots to the curb?
- I’ve seen this play before – taking a little bit of information and then flying off the handle about it.
Wake me up when there’s a pattern to Burner’s actions that indicates she’s changed heart. For now, I’m just going to assume that this character is trying to make Mudcat Saunders look like a genius and leave it at that.
Boy, I just heard about this brouhaha and thought I’d check it out. I was ready to spit steel when I read the article. How many times do we have to take this kind of abuse, I asked myself. So, I jumped into the comments:
Talk about a lynch mob. Jesus Christ on a Triscuit, give Darcy a chance to speak! I’ve contributed to Darcy’s campaign. I’m anxious as anyone to see Deputy Dave get his walking papers, but this is NO way to do it. You folks turned on her so quick, I felt the breeze here in Seattle.
You read one god damn article! One freaking article! Yes, it was PUBLISHED. Does that make it the word of God? His words were surrounded by prose from the author. They were shaped to send a message to the ‘netroots’ and boy did you guys respond. Pavlov’s dogs got nothin’ on you all.
I’m a voter in her district and a campaign contributer. I will wait to see what she says. In the meantime, I’m going to contact some of the local bloggers to see if we can salvage anything from all of this.
Darcy’s man said some things that in a different context would have been no big deal. They get framed as a dig at the Blogs and FDL wants to drag her out to the town square and string her up.
How are we going to make any change in this country if this is the kind of political Tourrett’s our leaders can expect from us? Who’s going to want to represent us if we fly off the handle at the smallest thing?
Be reasonable, wait for the statement from the campaign but mostly, chill the fuck out.
Hi Jane…
I just received an email from the Darcy Burner Campaign and thought I would share it with you:
Thank you for taking the time to write and for your previous contributions.
Sandeep was not speaking for Darcy or for the campaign when he said what he said. If we are going to reclaim our country and right its course, it will take a broad-based movement, including the blogs, working together to get it done. Darcy knows and honors that.
We are truly sorry that a part-time political consultant associated with this campaign said things to a college student which reflects poorly on Darcy and her campaign. Please know that they do not reflect her views.
We hope for you continued support and please feel free to contact the campaign at anytime.
Lynn
Lynn Allen
425.467.1183
Outreach Director
Darcy Burner for Congress