Have to say I didn’t see the racist component of the ad, either. And it certainly wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been accused of not being “black enough.”

I’ve been patiently hoping that you’d find something you have in common with Barack Obama, I was just hoping this wasn’t it.

While I respect your opinion, I would like to point out a few things you said two years ago with regards to Waldo removing a blog from his aggregator

Different circumstances. First, Waldo’s aggregator is more like a blogroll, which I have repeatedly said each blog owner has the right to make their own decision. Lefty Blogs is not just blogrolling those included, not to mention the monetization of LB.

But I have to ask, is Vivian not “black enough?”

Have to say I didn’t see the racist component of the ad, either. And it certainly wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been accused of not being “black enough.”

But they had a right to make their decision.

I think I’ve given reasons why they were wrong on this – and heck, I even gave them an out. Change the heading as I mentioned above and I’ll let them off the hook, just as I have the bloggers.

Gotta get back to work.

I don’t doubt it. But I have to ask, is Vivian not “black enough?”

While I respect your opinion, I would like to point out a few things you said two years ago with regards to Waldo removing a blog from his aggregator:

On Waldo’s site:
“‘No one has been censored. Rather, they have been denied access to a site which you created, you maintain and you, ultimately, control. They are still free to post whatever they like, as often as they like on their own sites. If that is the definition of censorship, then I need a new dictionary.’

That would make two of us that would need a new dictionary, Norm.”

On your site:
“As the result, Waldo removed the blog from the aggregator. I wholeheartedly support his decision. Contrary to the postings of some others, this isn’t about censorship. This is about common decency. The exact same decency that keeps out of the blogsphere profanity-laden posts. The image was profane.

I would take it step further and say that Waldo, who has graciously hosted Virginia Political Blogs on his servers at no charge to the rest of us, should enact a code of sorts that prohibits anyone from participating in the aggregator who does not agree with the rules of basic decency.”

Just a little perspective.

Harold Ford is a bachelor. His private life really should have been off limits. He broke no wedding vows. Was not untrustworthy. I’m pretty sure lots of Republicans aren’t virgins when they are single.

The ad was about race and interracial dating. Likewise, the portrayl of Obama was racist and disgusting to boot.

As long as we’re on the topic, while there was a racial component to the ad you referenced in Tennessee, most people outside the Volunteer State aren’t aware that Ford’s problem with the ad wasn’t that it implied that he sleeps around with a lot of younger white women; his problem was that he actually *does* sleep around with a lot of younger women (of all races), enough so that thousands of people knew about it before the ad even hit.

BTW, I don’t think it’s only the government that can practice censorship. If I come to your house in the middle of the night and threaten or harm you for your views, even if I’m a private individual, I am censoring you. I am silencing you through intimidation.

If somebody was to do that, I would fight it with every ounce of my being.

But using judgment on who I list or delist from my blogroll is my right. I have many, many blogs listed that I disagree with. And I have cordial relations with and like many of those on my blogroll. I delight in our differences. But I took Howling Latina off my blogroll a long time ago, before this whole tempest. It’s not because she is a PUMA. Although I’m not one, I can sympathize – I was a Hillary supporter.

But increasingly, I disliked her tone, her lack of respect for others, and her general nastiness. That cartoon of Obama, which everybody is referring to, probably was the final straw for a lot of people. It was racist and vicious. She was already off my blogroll but if she hadn’t been, I’d have taken her off it then.

Again, that’s just my editorial judgment. You are free to disagree with it. Just as you are free to disagree with the judgment of Lefty Blogs. But they had a right to make their decision. I don’t think it had anything to do with what she said, but with the increasingly shrill and disrespectful way she says it. Again, they have the right to editorial discretion. We all do. That’s not the same as silencing somebody for their views or making the tent smaller.

This has to be some kind of record for your site. Congrats on sparking an interesting and useful debate.

“Where was the outrage when Senator Clinton’s anatomy, family, etc., was villified and slewn all over the internet and media?”

I criticized certain aspects of Clinton’s record, but never attacked her gender or her “anatomy.”

Please show me another Leftyblogs blog that has behaved anything like Howling Latina.

Where was the outrage when Senator Clinton’s anatomy, family, etc., was villified and slewn all over the internet and media? This lack of tolerance for another’s opinion (HL’s) to the extent that her blog will be removed from LeftyBlogs is really just FEAR of another’s opinion. It shows weakness and unsuredness.

Again, Vivian, you are the true big-tent Democrat and an excellent defender of the Democratic Party’s principles.

Lots of self-appointed Progressive Democratic Blogs in VA have gone well out of their way to do real damage to the candidate who turns out to be the nominee in a given contest.

Yes they have. And how many of them have been shunned?

So my question for you is – is there a line? And if it isn’t this, then what is it?

My line isn’t the same as your line, someone else’s line is different than both of ours. So your question has no answer.

I fixed the blockquote on your post. And that last sentence you quoted wasn’t directed at you, it was directed at everyone who felt that way (thus the reference to “y’all” )

As for the line, Carla – well, perhaps I don’t see it as a fixed one. It depends on the circumstances, just like everything else. There are quite a few things that I see in the so-called progressive blogosphere that offend my sensibilities (and no, I’m not going to give you a list) and I don’t mention them. Instead, I just avoid visiting the sites that display such things.

The problem I’m having right now is that it is as y’all are OK with taking down HL, because she says things that you don’t agree with. To be perfectly honest, that scares the crap out of me.

I never said I was okay with HL being taken down because she says things people don’t agree with. I meant it was predictable that as insulting and objectionable as she has been behaving in the past few months I can’t condemn the decision. She was determined to incur just such a response. That much was obvious from her relentlessly negative attacks on Obama AND his supporters over the past few months. She wasn’t merely expressing differences of opinion, but was reprinting anti-Obama screeds lifted directly from right wing blogs and commentaries, was taking snippets of information and drawing the most negative connotations about Obama and Obama supporters she could find, was extremely insulting to Obama supporters, adopting right wing terms like “Obamatrons”, “Obamaniacs”, etc. She was insulting and disrespectful toward anyone who disagreed with her.

If it were the government which de-listed her I’d be up in arms in a heartbeat, but that’s not the case. It was other people, all self-described progressives or Democrats or liberals, who were saying that enough was enough. In other words, they decided she crossed a line.

I asked whether there was a line. I never said there’s a firm, immutable line, but that a line may be justified under some circumstances. So my question for you is – is there a line? And if it isn’t this, then what is it?

But I like Mimi´s Blog, and c´mon, you can´t deny that she supports progressive values.

The real question seems to me to be, if you leave under those circumstances is it possible to come back? I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I don’t think Mimi Schaeffer is to be trusted anymore.

Hmmm. That’s not really something I think is really a useful discussion. As noted above, I think she’s lost the plot, but I don’t bear her any ill will. And heading down that discussion topic road will only be hurtful. Not interested in it.

actively working to defeat the presumptive nominee of the party.

Now, with a bit of modification, I think *that’s* a topic that may well be worth some exploration. Lots of self-appointed Progressive Democratic Blogs in VA have gone well out of their way to do real damage to the candidate who turns out to be the nominee in a given contest. Should we trust them?

(Now stop, before you get to something like cursing.)

Deliberately left off the list That criteria would eliminate almost everyone.

I agree, and you are correct in your analysis of the freedoms. Because there is no government actor, there really isn’t any issue of rights. The question really is whether those of us who have de-listed Mimi Schaeffer were ever under any obligation to link to her in the first place.

I think that Mimi’s goal was to provoke a fight among Democrats. I don’t think she succeeded. Instead I see a relatively calm and respectful discussion about what it all means.

As far as whether or not she’s crossed a line out of the progressive camp, well I suppose it depends on how you define the progressive camp. But phrase the question a little differently and ask if she’s left the Democratic Party’s big tent, and I think that the answer is much clearer. Mimi is actively working to defeat the presumptive nominee of the party. It’s a choice she made consciously. We didn’t kick her out: she left.

The real question seems to me to be, if you leave under those circumstances is it possible to come back? I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I don’t think Mimi Schaeffer is to be trusted anymore.

*Except I very much disagree that it’s an issue of freedom of association (or of speech). Those are freedoms with respect to the gov’t, not to private actors (which we all are, here).

I had said that it was LeftyBlogs’ business to do what they felt they needed to.

??

If this is the standard by which blogs are listed on a blogroll, then I might as well remove 99% of them. I don’t condone calling John McCain “McSame” or “McLame” so there goes most of the blogs on the left. I don’t condone calling Tim Kaine “Timmy” so there goes most of the blogs on the right.

Woohoo! I still make the cut! (Now stop, before you get to something like cursing.)

~

SB – whatever it is, I don’t think it can be fairly ascribed to some post-primary adrenaline rush. I’ve definitely written some things in which the tone was set by exactly that, so I know what you’re talking about. And it’s what I was hoping explained things over at HL’s place for a while. But this far down the line? It ain’t adrenaline. I admire your sincere and credulous outreach to her, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a reasonable response.

I think that everyone is just guessing about the reasons Leftyblogs dropped Mimi. Here’s my guess: her posts became too offensive and irrational in tone and style. Her posts were no longer debate: they were fighting words meant only to cause ugly fights, not debate. I don’t think she was dropped for supporting Hillary Clinton or even the PUMAs. She was dropped because of her constantly escalating attacks and attempts to start fights, that’d be my guess.

You are certainly free to disagree with that decision and I don’t mind debating the point with you. In the end, it was Leftyblogs’ call to make in so far as Leftyblogs goes, and my decision as far as my own blog goes. I am comfortable with my decision.

Do you believe what Mimi is doing is deliberately inspired by hate or rather some adrenaline rush from the nomination fight playing itself out? You know her personally, what do really think?

By keeping her on your blogrole, you are condoning her behavior.

If this is the standard by which blogs are listed on a blogroll, then I might as well remove 99% of them. I don’t condone calling John McCain “McSame” or “McLame” so there goes most of the blogs on the left. I don’t condone calling Tim Kaine “Timmy” so there goes most of the blogs on the right.

Just a reminder – I said that individual blogs have the right to make their own decisions about who to include in their blogroll. My beef is not with them – it is with Lefty Blogs.

Howling Latina was delisted because she ran a profanely racist cartoon on her site.

Wait. What cartoon was that?

As I said before, everyone should do what they want to do. But let’s not pretend that Mimi Schaeffer is some poor, innocent victim who was blind-sided by her de-listing. Two months ago Mimi embarked on a systematic campaign against not only Barack Obama, but also anyone who supported him. Mimi deliberately set out to offend and create hard feelings among Democrats. She did so with malice in her heart. She has drawn precisely the reaction she hoped to.

I will be interested to see if you can make sense of her behavior, but for myself, I prefer not to associate with her in the future.

I fully sympathize with your point of view, but I have to back up Vivian on this one. I am bending over backward to approach Mimi in the spirit of friendship and understanding. I don’t actually believe that what’s in her heart is represented by this hateful tantrum, but only time will tell. Until then, I still will call her a friend and will wait to see what she will do.

Can somebody please tell me how Lefty Blogs became aware of the graphic when it is a text-only site?

I don’t pretend to know why Mimi Schaeffer felt obligated to burn her bridges once Hillary Clinton lost the nomination, but she did. Mimi has repeatedly attacked and insulted every supporter of Barack Obama. That was her choice. She has done everything she can do to offend, and she finally succeeded.

That was her intention Vivian, she meant to offend. Who is she to complain that some of us have taken offense? Why are you so upset on her behalf? This is what she intended.

Many of us no longer care to associate with her. Period. Those who want to continue associating with her, well that’s their right.

It’s as simple and American as this: everyone do what they want to do.

Like a broken clock that is right twice a day, even Bearing Drift gets it right once in awhile.

I don’t read things that I just agree with. There have been many credible criitiques of Barack Obama that give credence to the dissenting opinion. These are done using empirical evidence and facts, not lies, insults, and smears.

Hell, I don’t even think Ben @ NLS has crossed a line this far.

What difference does it make what the source is? (That is known as an ad hominem attack — attacking the source of the information in an effort to show that the information is false, rather than actually finding evidence that contradicts the information provided by the source in question. If they quote something that is untrue, then post the truth, with your sources.

One little aside, Vivian, when have the Republicans “[censored] the sources within [their] party”? It seems that it was those dissenting voices in the Republican Party that derailed Harriet Meyers and the Amnesty for Unlawful Immigrants bill (McCain-Kennedy). Many voices in the Republican Party also railed against the Prescription Drug benefit, too, though not as effectively.