New Kerry post

[ProSense]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/virginia-needs-this-fight_b_22794.html

[beachmom]

1. Thanks! Wow. Great post, and very passionate.

I commented. Gee, I suppose it'll show up maybe AFTER the primary is over. Okay, does anyone know the rules at Huff Post? Would it really work if we commented every day? Would that make us trusted users? If by some miracle my comment shows up, I'll report back immediately. I e-mailed them, pleading that they make me a trusted user, but obviously, that didn't work.

[fedupinBushcountry]

2. Yes, very strong and passionate

I hope your post shows up. I think the way they screen people over there is ridiculous. The trolls rule that site.

[beachmom]

3. Did you see the 3 comments on there right now

None bashing Kerry, but TOTALLY stupid lacking any intelligence whatsoever. It's really embarrassing for the LW blogosphere the commenting on Huff Post. Daily Kos commenting is MUCH better, which tells you how bad it is at Arianna's site. Why doesn't she allow the good people's comments, even if she disagrees. It would improve the image of her blog. Andrew Sullivan linked to a Beinart post on Huff Post, and then went on a tirade against the "Anti-war Left" based on the horrible, mean spirited comments to Beinart. You know, he's got a point. I did e-mail him, just so he knows that the majority of people against the war are a) not so abusive and b) not even lefty. Not sure he'll believe me. But, seriously, they need to make a goal over there to improve commenting. They're allowing people who quite frankly, haven't a clue how to get Democrats elected, rule the day, and that's just wrong.

[whometense]

4. I think it's great Kerry is posting there,

but that said, I loathe that site because of the comments. I think she should just turn off the comments altogether. They add nothing of value.

[Dr Ron]

7. I'm not sure it matters

In terms of changing views it would be better if Kerry (or a staffer) stuck around to reply to negative comments. Most people probably have their minds made up, but some might be receptive to a good explanation of the misconceptions. Kerry stating he never supported the war, and explaining the confusing surrounding the Grand Canyon statement, would mean a lot more than us saying what Kerry believed. Most of the attacks on Kerry come from very few misconceptions.

As that does not appear likely, at least it would be better if we could post there in defense of Kerry without waiting forever for our posts to appear.

[fedupinBushcountry]

6. Very true

they only like a certain type of dissent and it is the most vile type. I mean I got banned for questioning Arianna, no vile, no swearing , just an honest comparison opinion, and zap I was gone. They let the Coulterish comments go on and on, it just turns people off.

[fedupinBushcountry]

8. #4

is from the idiot Doofus. Geez, and yours is still not up. I'd like to know who is in charge over there because no matter if you are frequent or not it should not take this long for your post to show up.

[Dr Ron]

10. Can take hours

I've had posts responding to attacks on Kerry take a few hours to show up. By then there are multiple new posts and nobody notices the older posts which pop up ordered by when they were initially written.

[ProSense]

9. Excellent comment! It's up now! n/t

[fedupinBushcountry]

11. very good

and a few others too. They actually moved Doofus's down in the responses.

[Dr Ron]

5. I suspect so

I sure can't say for sure but my bet is that if you posted frequently it is more likely your posts would show up faster.

My pro-Kerry posts do show up ultimatley so its not as if they are blocking pro-Kerry posts. I have also seen some pro-Kerry posts show up quickly. Achieving trusted user status by posting frequently is the most plausible explanation I can think of.

[ginnyinWI]

12. it's there now, beachmom

And it was a nice one--yours and noisydemocrat's. :)

[beachmom]

13. Thanks guys -- yes, that's great that they published my comment

I also put up a diary at Raising Kaine very quickly so they would write nice comments on Huff Post (I think some did). Anyway, one of the owners at Raising Kaine edited my diary (which admittedly I dashed out in 2 minutes so people knew about it), and I like what he wrote:

http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3028

(Those who do not understand the significance of the John Kerry / Jim Webb alliance may not be aware that we are watching, first hand, as the national rift created in the Democratic party by the Viet Nam War actually heals, before our eyes. That alone should show Virginians that the Webb candidacy can transform American politics forever. - promoted by Josh)

It's too early to tell if what Josh says will come true, but I'm really hoping he's right.

[beachmom]

14. GOP voter suppression of . . . Republicans in Dem Primary?

I just read this, and can't figure it out. I think the GOP is scared that Republicans will go vote for Webb in the Primary . . . and again in November. Just as background, in Virginia you can vote in ANY primary because we don't have party affiliation on the voter rolls. However, your name is given to that party if you vote in their primary. This went out today to members of the Virginia Conservative Action PAC:

Dear XXXX,

Don't vote Tuesday!

In 2004, the Virginia Republican State Central Committee passed a new party rule that states you may be barred from participating in future Republican conventions, mass meetings, and primaries if you have voted in a Democratic primary.

Please ensure your right to elect conservative Republican candidates in the 2007 Republican nomination process by NOT voting in the Democratic primary on Tuesday.

Thanks.
Robin DeJarnette

http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/2006/06/shaun_kenney_an.html


God, what are they Nazis or Republicans? I hope the Dems here aren't like this. I seriously considered voting in the Repub primary last year because there were more contested races.

[ProSense]

15. That's pretty scary! n/t

[whometense]

16. We have the same thing in MA (you can vote in any primary),

but here all you have to do to switch your party affiliation back to what it was before you voted is fill out a card right after you vote. It couldn't be easier.

If it works that way in VA too, then this message is very misleading.

[beachmom]

18. Actually it's easier in Virginia

When you register to vote you do not register with a party affiliation. They don't have that here. So nobody knows what party you lean toward. The only time you have to choose is if both the Democratic AND Republican primaries are on the same day -- you simply ask for the Democratic ticket or the Republican ticket. No need to switch party affiliation to vote in a primary. If I were a Republican I would be FURIOUS about these rule changes (from 2004, interestingly enough -- they didn't want Repubs determining the Dem nominee). For example, say I lived in a gerrymandered blue district, and I was a Republican. Well, I would want to vote in the primary so the less liberal candidate would win, since it would be most likely that the Dem would win in November. This REALLY limits the voting rights of Republicans who also want to be activists. I suppose this is because the Democrats are the "enemy". It makes no sense except in an anti-democratic, dictatorial way.

[wisteria]

17. Wow, that is scary. Open an free elections aren't something the

Repubs want to encourage do they? I hope their rules come back to bite them in the a**.

[beachmom]

19. Hey guys -- Kerry's post is still on the front page, but toward

the bottom. So I went to take a look at the comments. First, the good news:

My comment was labeled "The Best" by readers and is the FIRST comment you read. Good for Kerry, good for Webb.

The bad news is the Swift Boat Liar comments are on page 2. I hit abusive for every single one. Really sick stuff, actually.

Anyway, I'm hoping that maybe next time my comment will show up quicker since I got some props. I REALLY hope so.