Julie Hamos on the Campaign Trail

by: Hamos for Congress

Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 12:33:42 PM CST


(promoted per blog practice.  however, someone from the campaign really does need to answer gary's question... - promoted by bored now)

Julie kicked off the week at the Hadassah-sponsored congressional candidates debate at Am Shalom synagogue in Glencoe.

Connecting with the crowd of more than 150 men and women, Julie shared her family’s story of escape from Communist Hungary during the 1956 revolution. She also discussed how, as the daughter of Holocaust survivors, Israel is more than simply a political platform or policy position for her. She has a deep, personal connection with the United States’ only Democratic ally in the Middle East. 

“I am proud to be running for Congress in a district which values Israel and expects its Congresswoman to be a passionate advocate for Israel,” she said. “That’s what I will be.” 

Like many of the 10th District's residents, health care was also on the minds of attendees. As the Republican candidates made clear their opposition to health care reform, Julie stood up for Americans in need of quality, affordable health care. Voicing her strong support for the Affordable Health Care Act and the public health insurance option Julie stated:

“We have the opportunity to provide access to quality health care for all Americans. This is a key moment in time.”  

Julie made clear that while the Affordable Health Care Act was a significant achievement, she is adamantly opposed to the Stupak amendment, which would limit women’s reproductive rights more than any legislation in recent history.

Hamos for Congress :: Julie Hamos on the Campaign Trail
Many new supporters took the opportunity to meet with Julie after the debate to offer their congratulations, take yard signs and find out more about how they can get involved.
Tags: , , , (All Tags)

Print Friendly View Send As Email

Julie Hamos on the Campaign Trail | 41 comments
Does she support single payer? (4.00 / 1)
Even the President has admitted that it would be the only way to cover everyone, and it would be far cheaper than the current plans which amount to subsidies for the "insurance" industry.

"In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing -- for the sheer fun and joy of it -- to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose." -- I.F. Stone
Are we promoting "...for Congress" posts of... (0.00 / 0)
P.R. info now, or, just diaries by candidates, with answers to questions?
i guess we are... (0.00 / 0)
i told both campaigns that i'd promote their posts AND that it didn't matter how they signed up, since it's been sort of clear that posts under candidate's names weren't usually by the candidate.  i suppose they decided to be honest about it.  so the answer to your question is, it is blog practice from the pov of what i told the hamos and seals campaigns...

Want to drive conservatives crazy?  Send President Obama back to Washington for four more years...
[ Parent ]
We Should Firm Up Our Position (0.00 / 0)
I spoke with Jim Madigan recently (he is running for the 7th District State Senate seat) and suggested he write a piece for PSB and that I would promote it provided it WAS NOT strictly PR flak from his campaign.

I'm for diaries and policy pieces but if campaigns want ads, I think they should pay for them.  

[ Parent ]
i'm definitely just the opposite... (4.00 / 1)
having done campaigns for so long, i understand just how isolating they are.  to me, posting at blogs for a campaign is at least an attempt at interaction.  it's good for them.

i do think the level of the race matters.  running for congress is at least triple-a ball, and players have a shot at the majors.  going to springfield?  any other state might be single-a ball, but this is illinois.  babe ruth, at best (and probably more like little league).  they only have to look good in their uniforms.

in the past, congressional primaries have sparked a lot of comments (and eyeballs) here.  from my blogger perspective, any posts on a contested congressional primary is welcome.  mostly, though, i'll keep my word.  social media has proven successful in the past at enforcing its own standards and traditions -- and probably much more effective at teaching them than our culture at large.  so i just welcome the interaction and the opportunities for people to chime in about things they care about...

Want to drive conservatives crazy?  Send President Obama back to Washington for four more years...

[ Parent ]
Oh, Alan (1.00 / 1)
If your campaigns are isolating then you're just not doing them right. Seriously, you are just the opposite of what? Firming up a position? Exploring the variety of ideas and approaches that might be possible here?

Look, I understand how important and valuable any face time is for any candidate and his or her campaign. But I believe PSB will loose something unique if it chooses not to distinguish between the off-the-cuff personal candidate diary and the professionally polished and vetted campaign post.

I think there's room for both/many types of posts. Categorizing is what sidebars are for.  

[ Parent ]
sorry, i'm a scientist... (2.00 / 1)
so i don't recognize any definition that informs us how to do campaigns "right."  (i'm also fairly certain that you don't recognize the distinction between candidate and campaign.)  did you do your campaign "right?"  

i suspect that, if we used your campaign as a basis for my statement, you would be correct.  i don't recall that you had any/much staff that would allow your campaign to get isolated.  perhaps you might want to consider the experience of your opponent.  i doubt that you faced the competiting claims for time, resources and attention that the campaigns i have had experienced have faced.  same caveat applies; etc etc.

so let me qualify the statement so that it better fits into your nativist experience: "competitive campaigns at this level are by their very nature isolating."

your definition basically says that we don't want anything but "jeff smith" type diaries here.  which obviously i take exception to.  the difference between our thinking is not merely our experience with campaigns, but our experience with this blog.  eyeballs at this blog improve when we talk about (real) campaigns.  since i predicted that i wouldn't write that much about congressional primaries this year, i've invited them to write about themselves.

you and bob may hate this, but i will keep my word.  your only real alternative is to drive me off the blog...

Want to drive conservatives crazy?  Send President Obama back to Washington for four more years...

[ Parent ]
My problem, besides you presuming my opinion,... (2.50 / 2)
is not that campaigns post here; I think they should, but that PSB's paradigm was that we FP'd candidate diaries, not campaign PR pieces of campaigns we support.  If that's not the case, I'll factor that in when friends who are running ask me to post PR pieces here.  So far, I've refused, as I thought that was what the blog wanted.

Elsewhere, I've suggested a poll.  What's your suggestion?

[ Parent ]
perhaps i was unclear the first time i mentioned this... (2.00 / 1)
i'm going to violate internet protocol and post one of the email exchanges i had with the person who wrote the post:

Campaign helper wrote: No problem. I was thinking about posting something about it up on Prairie State Blue. Would that be ok?

I replied: absolutely.  you can create a login for the campaign (or even julie herself) and post it under that.  if you do, email me and i will front page it for you.

always willing to help in that way...

i have been nothing but clear about my part in this.  i encourage candidacies to use social networking sites because i know that they can be successful at mobilizing money and volunteers.  that doesn't mean that everyone starts off like barack obama/joe rospars.

what is most disturbing to me about this is the preference that campaigns lie to us, pretending to be the candidates.  afaict, any candidate who has time to post diaries to blogs isn't a serious candidate and doesn't really deserve our attention.  the only exception i can imagine to this is a live blogging opportunity -- iow, a once-in-a-campaign moment.

again, repeating myself (for the third/fourth/fifth time?) i made a commitment to both the hamos and seals campaigns based upon their inquiries of whether i would be "covering" the congressional primaries as i had in the past.  in responding negatively to that question, i promised both that i would make sure their message would be seen, if they choose to post here.  i will keep my word, even as you and suzanne try to make something out of it.

i have no idea how this pertains to other campaigns, but we clearly disagree.  i would personally encourage every campaign to post here, in whatever fashion they deem appropriate.  i think it's good for everyone.  i'm completely at a loss to understand why you (and suzanne) feel so strongly otherwise...

Want to drive conservatives crazy?  Send President Obama back to Washington for four more years...

[ Parent ]
I have been nothing but clear in MY part in this. (3.00 / 2)
I am not trying to make something out of this.  If YOU made a commitment to campaigns to use your status granted you here to promote 'diaries', rock on.  I understood PSB's policy here is to promote candidate diaries, not PR pieces from campaigns.  If I am wrong, fine.  If I'm more correct, I would hope that the community would police itself, for it's own good.

I've just asked the question.

[ Parent ]
see, i agree with what you said... (0.00 / 0)
but it seems clear that you disagree with me.

it seems to me that you and suzanne have been on some sort of jihad because you didn't like what i did.  all i've said is that i will keep my word (it's probably a southern thing).

i don't see a difference between candidate diaries and campaign diaries.  no real candidate is writing their blog pieces (at least at the congressional level) and i have no problem with campaigns actually admitting that by posting as the campaign.

nor do i have any trouble with the community policing itself.  you have continued to read into what i've said things that i didn't (say or argue).  eventually, though, people start to read what i said or just ignore it altogether.

from my p.o.v., we have starkly different desires: i want to see everyone feel welcome to post here -- even if they don't meet y'all's standards.  i don't expect others to share that value, i'll just tell you that that's my values wrt to this...

Want to drive conservatives crazy?  Send President Obama back to Washington for four more years...

[ Parent ]
I am my own person. Don't lump me in with anyone else.... (0.00 / 0)
The word jihad in this instance is waaay too much hyperbole.   I keep my word, but am more careful, perhaps, than you in giving it out.

I do see a difference.  MANY real candidates have blogged here, all of them real.  Even congressional ones.  As a frequent (in the past) campaign manager myself, I might recommend  that candidates I was advising be doing something else at this point in the campaign, but, that is the choice of the manager.

I don't think that FP-ing actual or near press releases here, in the candidate's voice, or not, does this blog any good, and, if out of hand, might actually harm it.  I think campaigns should show some respect here and have the person assigned to communicate through the blogs do little work and at least edit the post to not seem press release-ish (this one makes an attempt), but, I don't think they rise to FP status then, and that's where our opinions part company.

I think there is a difference between people feeling free to post here, and setting some standard for FP-ing something.  I'm sorry if, somehow, I wasn't able to communicate that to y'all.

[ Parent ]
And, as someone who has worked on, and run, a bunch of campaigns... (3.00 / 2)
and handled everything from national press, to the most local of blogs, I think you took the low road above, which, although I've only met you a couple of times, I think is beneath you.
[ Parent ]
Huh? (1.00 / 1)
You put words in my mouth and then bitch slap me for them? Nice trick, Alan, but I'm not having it.

Definition? No, I thought it might be useful to discuss the difference between candidate and campaign posts and to contemplate what may be lost/gained if we didn't.

Can't you find something more recent to kick around and disparage than my campaign? I mean really. And unless there's some super secret definition of competitive that I don't know about, or that can explain the massive amount of money Heather had to spend to defeat me, it was competitive.

Did I think about the experience of my opponent? You bet I did. On this point you really have no clue. If her campaign was an isolating experience, responsibility for that lies squarely with Heather and her campaign management.

Still, I get that you may think Heather and I should have rolled around in the mud or that I should have sold my kidney for a few more mailers, but I'm not much for your old, machismo model of politics. Progressive me thinks we might actually do it differently. And if you don't, or if you don't think it's worth trying, what then is your investment here on PSB?

[ Parent ]
How About Formulating Some Standards (3.00 / 1)
This might be a good time to note that after stripping away the name-calling, attitude, etc., this is a discussion of the ideals and methods of Prairie State Blue. This happens fairly often around here.

The core people at PSB might be better off if there were some agreed standards written down, like a Statement of Purpose, some agreed principles, maybe even some by-laws.

I am really tempted to say something snarky and judgmental about certain people on here losing their composure, since I know what they've said about me when I've been snarky and opinionated, but I'll restrain myself to this sentence. If there were some agreed standards for PSB, it would be easier to refocus people away from snark and get back to productive discussions on topics of mutual interest.

I'm assuming we agree that a list of agreed standards for PSB would discourage personalized snark. Feel free to correct me if you disagree.

[ Parent ]
Standards? (2.50 / 2)
That is what I called for. Scroll back, read and save the sanctimony, troll ratings and scolding for your own blog, Mountain of Evidence. Your and Alan's need to bait, impute and distort meaning, and smack around a two year-old campaign is absurd, though I do appreciate the confirmation herein that you were, indeed, 49th Warden.  
[ Parent ]
Let the Steam Out (0.00 / 0)
Okay, so I will focus on the fact that you agree standards are needed, rather than the other, less constructive things you said.

Do you have any specifics on what might be allowed or disallowed, encouraged or discouraged? A Statement of Purpose might be a good place to start, since it's relatively short and general. Any other ideas for some more structure?

Everyone else is welcome to respond as well.

[ Parent ]
About PSB ratings (0.00 / 0)
0's and 1's are used very judiciously here. I think a 2-marginal would have been a more locally appropriate way of displaying your concern about Suzanne's comment. In fact when we spend the time to reply to a comment usually no rating is necessary as the reply will speak for itself.

imho

Jeff Wegerson

[ Parent ]
Aha, a Written Standard! (0.00 / 0)
To be clear, I put in a bunch of ratings on this thread, so if Bob is under the impression that Suzanne attacked him with troll ratings, that may not be the case. Someone else put in some ratings too, so I don't know how to sort out mine from the others.

The standard I used was this - spewing anger is to be avoided. If a comment consisted entirely of recriminations and had absolutely no content regarding politics or how to run the site, I rated it a "1," because it contained only things that shouldn't be here at all. If a comment was a mix of spew, plus some useful content added in, I gave it a "2" because the content portion could be used to move the conversation along in a constructive manner.

I freely admit I'm making up my own rules, but there don't seem to be any formally established for me to follow, and the one I made up seems likely to promote conversations about politics. I think that's the point of the site, no? I can say for a certainty that candidates will be less likely to come here if there are lots of public spats like the one above.

[ Parent ]
To see who gave what ratings (4.00 / 1)
click on the "(2.5 / 2)" or whatever.

My view may be written but it's hardly a "standard", eh?

The main thing is that many here take ratings very personally. Especially if you bring a historical relationship with the rated person to the rating as well.

Most generally folks at PSB mostly don't rate very much and usually then on the positive side.

Just sayin.

Jeff Wegerson

[ Parent ]
Really, YOU troll rated me?!? (3.00 / 1)
Well, I'm not like you.  I'm leaving my three up here, but, don't approach me at the next event we're at and try to discuss this with me.  It will not be welcome.
[ Parent ]
campaigns that do it "right" win... (0.00 / 0)
campaigns that don't, didn't.  pretty simple.

i have absolutely no knowledge of your campaign with steans except the outcome.  see above for the standard i used...

Want to drive conservatives crazy?  Send President Obama back to Washington for four more years...

[ Parent ]
Note: The 7th Senate last time was gamed for a pre-determined... (3.00 / 1)
outcome by somebody other than the two candidates mentioned and no one without big pockets (and even some who did) could have run a campaign "right" under those circumstances.  I did have firsthand knowledge, and it was a travesty and more of the 'way things are done' type of politics that most of us here on PSB try to fight against.  I honor Suzanne for what she did with the hand her campaign was dealt.

bored (I don't use your real name here because I think that that is not good netiquette), I think you bring a (reality) breath of fresh air about campaign tactics here, and regularly cite and defend that viewpoint about winning being paramount in actually changing things, but I NEVER confuse it with what I think is right or wrong about what I think SHOULD be done.  I think any candidate should value their supporters and contributors by doing things that don't waste those resources, like making sure that their petitions are in order, but, I also value people like John Anderson and Clint Krislov who do things like suing to make ballot access fairer by removing some of the BS, knock someone off the ballot, gotcha rules.  Because one is prudent and one is Right, and I don't confuse the two.

And I TRY not to be snotty about my advice here, and elsewhere.  (I don't always succeed, but, ) I try.

[ Parent ]
A week later (0.00 / 0)
It's funny to see where this dust-up started. I used a phrase that has so saturated the popular lexicon that I assumed it would have been read as the punch-line that it is. "...then you're just not doing it right" isn't meant to be read literally. Rather, it was a friendly elbow thrown at Alan's claim (his ID is open) that campaigns are isolating.

I don't pretend to have a prescription for what a campaign should be and from what I've seen so far there really are no authorities, only recent winners. Some are humble, some are posturing, but all of them, I suspect, do what we did to varying degrees---the best you can with what you have when you have it. In that way, campaigns may be like parenting. No matter what you do, some degree of failure is inevitable (even when you win) and your real job is to work your tail off, tell the truth, have fun, hold your head high and, yes, kick backside as warranted. ;-)

[ Parent ]
sorry, i'm rather sheltered from the pop-culture vernacular... (0.00 / 0)
besides, aren't you supposed to use some form of stupid ascii sign to show that you were just kidding?

you clearly know so much more about campaigns -- i guess i'm just supposed to defer to your cultural superiority.  i guess you told me -- and sufficiently intimidated any campaign from posting here in the future.  well done!

Want to drive conservatives crazy?  Send President Obama back to Washington for four more years...

[ Parent ]
Supposed to? (0.00 / 0)
No. But I probably should have used an emoticon for clarity's sake. Cultural superiority? Not according to my eye-rolling, 10 year-old daughter. ;-)

Have a nice holiday, Alan.  

[ Parent ]
lmao (3.00 / 2)
United States' only Democratic ally in the Middle East.

Looks like someone on Hamos' campaign got confused as to whether they were posting to PSBlue or PSNeocon.

You folks should be more careful where you place your chauvinistic propaganda.

Damn, I missed that. (4.00 / 2)
Ms. Hamos, maybe you could use her deep, personal connection with Israel to ask its leaders to stop committing atrocities against Palestinians? One bad holocaust definitely does not deserve another.

"In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing -- for the sheer fun and joy of it -- to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose." -- I.F. Stone
[ Parent ]
Well, her campaign's honest about it (4.00 / 2)
They're not trying to say one thing in one place and something else somewhere else.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted
[ Parent ]
Since "Democratic" is capitalized (0.00 / 0)
maybe they are referring to an individual within the Democratic Party.

Who could that be?

Jeff Wegerson

[ Parent ]
Israel is no more a democracy than Apartheid South Africa (3.00 / 2)
Israel has denied Palestinians national sovereignty since 1967 and since 1993 and still doesn't allow Palestinians in the occupied territories to vote in Israel's elections.

The claim that Israel is a democracy is complete absurd and disconnected from reality at this point.

[ Parent ]
i don't see anything useful in this charge... (2.50 / 2)
comparing israel to south africa is absurd.  south african whites sought to retain control of the entire territory through racial oppression.  israelis and palestinians hopefully agree that the land they share should be divided into two sovereign states.

neither israelis nor palestinians have aquitted themselves honorably in this regard.  both sides can point to atrocious behavior on the part of the other, and this reality has allowed fanatics on both sides to continue to act badly.  even the hint that one side monopolizes the moral good or right, while the other represents evil is just as absurd.

dividing up the land of palestine will be really hard, and it's not just because the two sides represents different religions.  real problems exist, such as water rights for both sides and how to solve the internationally-recognized right of return.  trying to paint one party as the victim merely perpetuates the paralysis, it does not aid or hasten a solution.

the instinct for survival is humanity's base instinct, and we will do anything we can to survive.  israel and palestine seemingly threaten each other's survival, and we don't help by choosing sides.  if anything, this nation should be an honest broker leading the two sides toward solution.  that is much harder to do when the american people have basically chosen sides in the conflict.

the IL-10th has a significant jewish population and there is no way for a candidate to get elected there who doesn't stand with israel.  if you don't want a democrat to win in that district, then making proposterious accusations like this will certainly insure that doesn't happen.  but if you do want to see a democrat elected there, then you have to accept that the democratic nominee -- whether jewish or not -- will have to address the concerns that many jewish constituents have about the safety and security of israel.  lecturing a democratic candidate in the 10th is more likely to be used against them in a future campaign than to have any chance of being taken seriously by a serious candidate for congress.

more to the point, progressives can hardly criticize candidates for using code words (or phrases) when the very term (progressive) is code that is barely understood outside its adherents.

democrats have jewish office-holders (and candidates) who can hardly be called neo-cons.  it's odd to me that people who proclaim themselves progressive would seek to alienate candidates who share so much with them.  we need to hold candidates accountable for their own words and actions, but we can hardly hold them accountable for their religion and ethnicity, let alone the choices of leaders half a world away.  there's something very disturbing to me about the eagerness of some to do this.

there are jewish "progressives" in both israel and america.  we should support and encourage them, for they share our concerns.  and just to be clear, i believe that terrorism and guerrilla warfare are legitimate options on the (military) tactical continuum -- perhaps not even as morally questionable as the use of nuclear weapons.  power is by its nature amoral and the fight for it is ruthlessly amoral.  i won't condemn either side for fighting for their national sovereignty.  but i won't pretend that one side has some kind of moral superiority, either.  this is a very, very difficult problem in international relations and it does no good to pretend that there are simple solutions or simple points of view among the combatants...

Want to drive conservatives crazy?  Send President Obama back to Washington for four more years...

[ Parent ]
Now I'm Having a Bored Now Moment (4.00 / 1)
Except for the idea power has some nature independent of our choices, I agree with this assessment. After living and working in Israel and the territories, I was surprised to find that the most adamant, bifurcated view of this conflict wasn't to be found in Gaza, Tel Aviv or Jerusalen but here in the U.S.  
[ Parent ]
True Jewish progressive in the US (4.00 / 1)
are the people who stand up to say Not In Our Name and condemn Israeli oppression.

It is candidates like Hamos who refuse to give such Jewish progressives a voice, by reflexively taking the AIPAC position and closing off the voices of conscience.

Contrary to the assumptions of AIPAC, not all Jewish voters want to see their representatives enabling the Israeli defeat of peace.  

[ Parent ]
Follow up (0.00 / 0)
First off, apologies that this entry didn't hit the mark. We simply wanted to provide an update on what was happening with the campaign this week.      

As for single payer, here's what Julie said at the Northside DFA event in October, when asked if she would co-sponsor a single-payer health care bill (HR676).  

"I would not sign on, although I wish that the year we passed Medicare fifty years ago, that we figured out how to extend Medicare [by] ratcheting down year by year the groups that it would be available to. I went on a study tour of the Canadian health care system with Quentin Young in the early 90's. I got very excited by the possibility of single payer but I think our country is not ready for it right now. I think we have no political will to dismantle the insurance industry and I think it's not a possible thing to do. That's the political reality - not because what's in my heart [but] because what my political gut tells me what's possible."

(Video is here http://www.prairiestateblue.co... response comes at about the 17 minute mark.)

Julie is a strong supporter of a public option in the health reform bill that is before Congress. The goal is to get everyone covered and get costs down while maintaining a high quality of care. This could happen with single payer but it is doubtful that such legislation could move forward today. Health care reform with a public option can do this now.  

 

Thank you... (0.00 / 0)
...for engaging with us in this discussion. I appreciate your willingness to answer my question.

I wish I could say I'm happy with the answer. But I feel that your candidate is taking the road that is politically expedient, rather than the one that will end up benefiting the people she hopes to represent, and frankly that doesn't make me want to support her.

When the Bushies took office, they didn't ask whether the country was ready to let the wealthy loot the treasury. They didn't ask whether the political will was there to launch brutal, unprovoked invasions of two countries halfway around the world. They took what they wanted, what (one presumes) they felt was right, and made a case for it.

Our health care finance system has cancer. It needs major surgery. Band-aids may be more politically popular, but they won't cure it. And maybe single-payer won't pass now. But the more people like you who are out there campaigning for it, the faster we can build that political will.

And yes, the public option is a band-aid. Even CBO estimated that the P.O. in the current House bill will only cover two percent of non-retirees. The same for-profit insurance near-monopolies that have caused the current problems will probably end up administering the public plan, meaning that they get to take a hefty chunk of profit while leaving the risk to the taxpayers. Without the clout to negotiate prices that comes from having a big population of subscribers, the public plan might even end up costing more than comparable private ones.


"In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing -- for the sheer fun and joy of it -- to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose." -- I.F. Stone

[ Parent ]
Better link (0.00 / 0)
Looks like that link isn't linking. This one should work: http://bit.ly/p0Nvz

 

is there any point advocating for Israel conflicts (4.00 / 1)
with Julie Hamos' understanding of human rights?

Does the ideology of having a Jewish state always trump Palestinian human rights?

do Jewish political leaders have an obligation (4.00 / 2)
to educate American Jews about the suffering inflicted by Israel? Or do Jewish political leaders merely pander to the extremists in the Israel lobby?

Josh Marshall makes an effort to remind his Jewish readers there's another side to the conflict and eventually there needs to be reconciliation with the Palestinians. Treating Palestinians disrespectfully merely to show Israel has the power isn't helpful in the long term.

I'm getting the feeling Hamos will never question Israel mistreating Palestinians.

I have trouble believing Hamos is a sincere progressive given her uniformly chauvanistic statements on Israel.

It seems that Hamos would rather pander to the fears of ignorant and misinformed Jews than stand for human rights. She's not being a leader.  

[ Parent ]
Whoopie! (4.00 / 1)
Another vote in Congress supporting Israeli war crimes!  Just what we need, cause there are so few Israel supporters there.

Standards at PSB for Promoting Diaries - my personal 2 ยข (0.00 / 0)
I'm replying to a number of comments above so I'm starting a new thread.

Personally I think we are in a tempest in a teapot situation here. So far we are not being inundated with campaign press releases posing as diary posts. So far we are still struggling to keep fresh material on the front page. So I say lets promote such diaries to keep the front page fresh.

I agree with the point that for the sophisticated readers these press release diaries are boring and a disincentive to keep coming to PSB. I would urge our sophisticated readers to become sophisticated writers so we don't feel the pressure to promote boring stuff. But short of that I would urge a bit of tolerance for the currently occasional boring press release diary stuff on the front page.

Of course, sometimes our commentors spice up said boring posts and often that is attractive to our sophisticated readership.

I would further suggest that once we have sufficient material and then quit promoting boring press release campaign posts that the campaigns will either wise up or get ignored.

Jeff Wegerson

Julie Hamos on the Campaign Trail | 41 comments
Prairie State Blue
Front Page - Back Page


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

0 User(s) logged on.
Search




Advanced Search

Misc
View
-sitemeter was here-
Powered by: SoapBlox