Author: has written 1136 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

22 Responses

  1. Tom B
    Tom B September 15, 2006 at 10:42 am |

    So much for free speech… And it confirms my deleted comments too!

  2. ole blue
    ole blue September 15, 2006 at 11:07 am |

    Why weren’t there any black or Latino bloggers invited to the meeting, which after all took place in Harlem?
    They are not familiar with any.

    And why didn’t any of the bloggers who wrote about the meeting mention this? They are embarrassed that despite their rhetoric they tend to keep amongst their own cultural back grounds.

  3. ole blue
    ole blue September 15, 2006 at 11:32 am |

    Well I have no idea. It could not be just an oversight, do the bloggers who attended have a larger audience?

  4. norbizness
    norbizness September 15, 2006 at 12:33 pm |

    Zuzu: Steve, according to his post on the subject, wouldn’t have attended even if invited (something he suspects Peter Daou knew). Oliver Willis was invited but couldn’t attend. There will be additional meet-ups.

    Well, hopefully the gut reaction of people won’t be used in any suppress the vote GOP strategems in 2006 or 2008.

  5. Sailorman
    Sailorman September 15, 2006 at 12:55 pm |

    Before I know why harlem would matter (as we all know, you can blog from anywhere) i’d want to first know why they met in Harlem.

    IOW, I don’t see how the harlem link is relevant based on what people wrote: what, nobody would have protested the lack of POC bloggers if the group had happened to meet in a lily-white section of long island? It’s either wrong or not; the location doesn’t really matter to me.

    As for why no blacks or latinos were included…. I’m guessing that the ostensible reason is one of exposure and focus of the blogs. I saw a partial list on one of your links:

    Seeing the forest
    Liberal Oasis
    The Carpet Bagger Report

    and while I don’t recognize all of those (I’m limited in my blog reading) those I do know are pretty obviously VERY well written and VERY popular blogs with a “general” liberal bent.

    So the interesting thing to me isn’t merely “why didn’t she include other blogs?” it would be “what other blogs specifically do you think she should have included?”

    Gilliard himself notes

    Peter Daou saved himself some work by not inviting me. I don’t go to private sessions with politicans. That is not what Jen and I do here.

    which suggests a good reason for not inviting him, as this sentiment is, one assumes, pretty obvious from his blog.

    And Pam notes

    I’d never get invited to anything re: the Big Dog, because, well, I think he may have a problem will all those sHillary posts. :)

    which is probably right.

    There are probably other black or Latino bloggers who could/should have been included. But so far you’ve only raised two, and a look into their own blogs suggests good reasons not to invite them (I’m not even trying to get into other reasons that may or may not exist).

    If you want to make a case this is race based, can you show black/latino bloggers who have similar focus and exposure as those who got invited, who would have been receptive to an invite, andwho didn’t have other things that might prevent them from being invited? That would be a much more compelling argument.

  6. norbizness
    norbizness September 15, 2006 at 1:10 pm |

    Zuzu: In reverse order…

    (1) voter suppression by targeting core constituencies is a well-known phenomenon, not limited to race, sex, ethnicity, or economic class, and has been perfected by the GOP because they have no expanding constituencies of their own.

    (2) If the gut reactions include factually false statements (nobody of color was invited and this is it as far as bloggers and exposure to the Clinton campaign), then yes, they don’t count

    (2a) Although as a launching event, it obviously falls short of inclusiveness, although I’d be loathe to start participant-blaming and

    (3) By all means, people should go to other candidates if the above points; like Steve or Pam, I suspect they weren’t in her camp to begin with (and I don’t blame them). What if it’s George Allen vs. Hillary in 2008, and he now has a perfect diversionary tactic for his overt racism? BTW, I just creeped myself out with that matchup, and would not relish it happening.

  7. Sailorman
    Sailorman September 15, 2006 at 1:20 pm |

    zuzu: you’re right. I should have gogled the clinton office myself; sorry. That said, a lot of people say “… and it happened in HARLEM” as if that made it “worse” somehow, and I don’t really buy that.

    You might think Hilary should “[roll] out the red carpet for bloggers of color who HAVE been critical of Hillary” . I’m not sure I agree with you though i am far from fixed in my position. In any case, you gotta admit that rolling out the red carpet for bloggers of ANY color who have been critical of you is a pretty major strategic decision. I’m not sure it’s accurate to second guess her motives merely ecause you dislike her strategy.

    I’ve covered Steve and Pam, haven’t looked at Liza yet (who’s she?). It would be interesting to see her blog.

  8. Nanette
    Nanette September 15, 2006 at 3:03 pm |

    Definitely a mistake, this. I rolled my eyes at the star gushing posts, but once I saw the photos the first thing I noticed was that there were no black bloggers there.

    It probably wouldn’t be that big a deal, if it was just a one off thing, but I think -. for bloggers of color especially, many of may have had more expectations of cross culture participation and inclusion online than is usually found offline among white liberal groups – that this is just the last (and maybe the topping, considering the Clinton factor) in a rather growing line of exclusion. I know, I know… they invited at least one person, Willis, but he couldn’t make it. Next time.

    Of course, never intentional or even considered… that’s just how things shake out, you see. Yearlykos, billed as the biggest and most organized blogger convention – that was unable to find even one black speaker or panelist (“we did invite a few, they couldn’t make it – we’ll have some next time.”). And intentional communities such as Huff Post and TPMcafe (as eteraz mentioned in a post highlighted here not too long back, re huffpost), whose crews are, to all intents and purposes, quite pale.

    I don’t think these people are racist or anything… most will go to bat for issues related to minority communities and so on… I just think that it’s unfortunate that, in this day and age, people who are considered (and consider themselves) smart political activists can look around at yet another intentionally built liberal meeting/community, see no visible minorities at all, and still think… “yeah, this is good. this will do.”

    After Katrina, “Yeah, we know you’re there… we’ll get to you one day” is probably not a winning message to send to minority political activists.

  9. Tom B
    Tom B September 15, 2006 at 3:40 pm |

    You’re trolling. And it appears that you created a new identity to make that comment, for no apparent reason.

    No, I simply used a different computer. I think that accounts for the confusion there. Sorry.

  10. Mary
    Mary September 15, 2006 at 3:41 pm |

    Two words come to mind – “limousine liberals.”

  11. kactus
    kactus September 15, 2006 at 5:35 pm |

    You’re asking me to do all that research when you can’t be bothered to figure out that Bill Clinton’s office is in Harlem?

    Zuzu! You’re killing me!

    Well, I bet I didn’t get invited because of all the complaining I do about Billy’s welfare deform bill–if I’d have just shut up about that you know I’d have got my ticket.

  12. MB
    MB September 16, 2006 at 1:41 pm |

    I like to think that bloggers of color were just damned smarter than those in the picture – they actually declined to participate in the Clintons’ dog and pony show. Oliver Willis, Markos, Steve G. either declined or made it clear they would have if invited. I know Peter Daou (have been linked to by the Daou report more than once and even chatted via phone during the 2004 silly season) and know he knows two out of three bloggers at Wampum are Indians. But we’re also openly Gore supporters, so no way would me make the long list, let alone the short list. And frankly, I would not, under any circumstances, have, as a blogger, attended if invited. As a tribal leader? Perhaps. As a private citizen? Probably not. As a representative of the “new media”? Definitely not. As Steve G. pointed out, our loyalties should lie with the interests of our readers, and agreeing to “off the record” meetings with politicos goes against every tenet of unbiased reporting. It’s one reason I stopped blogging when I joined Draft Gore – you just can’t serve two chiefs without doing a disservice to both

    So my caption? “POC bloggers are nobody’s fools”.

  13. Aldon Hynes
    Aldon Hynes September 17, 2006 at 3:47 am |

    See my long comment, The New Elite in the Fourth Estate, you have the power, the danger of a new incumbency, and holding on to the long tail, at Greater Democracy or Orient Lodge.

  14. Karol
    Karol September 17, 2006 at 3:15 pm |

    Liza should have been invited but Steve Gilliard is a moron and I don’t know how he doesn’t walk into walls. And he’s a racist. So, there’s that.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.