Well, what's going on is that a McCain troll diary has been on the rec list for hours.  One at DKos was immediately identified and trashed -- this one got resounding support from the former party faithful.  If this comment gets me banned, so be it, but you did ask.

► Diaries trashing Obama, using bigots from Fixed News

► Diaries threatening to vote for McSame, if Hillary doesn't win the nomination.

► Diaries promoting McSame

assuming i'm doing this right.  url=[img]http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads /2e75c4bfc9.jpg[/img][/url]

New Warhammer 40K in July, too.

How cool is it when alegre posts from noquarter citing FOX? I guess waaay cool

also..Who is Bishop Rock?
(man if the Bishop could do this floating thing at no25cents..cool

This is for alegre
yer Blues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAvlYLCYO DU&feature=related

ahh yeah. an admin should do something about the 'style' attribute as BishopRook asks.

I never liked him on the radio and I don't like him now.  I didn't see the appearances you're talking about but that's probably because I just don't bother listening to him any more than I have to.  He's kind of like our version of Rush Limbaugh, and one of those guys is enough.

Please do something about the "style" attribute administrators.

I saw Schultz. What a fool. Another Obama supporter basically told him to shut the fuck up.

Schultz is no surrogate... he's an independent entity...  Obama has handled his surrogates and his supporters well.  Just look at the RBC meeting.  Who were the ones causing a ruckus, and who were polite?  The Obama campaign strongly urged its supporters to be quiet and polite during the proceedings.  They were successful.

Old Big Dog didn't do so well either today.. whew. I hope he can go back t playing golf and other such non-stressful things. Certainly doesn't have all that magic left from the early 90's. I expected him to break out the ole, well you won't have me to kick around anymore schtick.

ah well, hopeful things get better for him.

there is a current diary on this blog citing bigots on fox news and another one saying the Texas Caucus was stolen.

your points lose authority, if they're not enforced at your home blog.

I know what you're thinking. Maybe she doesn't have many friends. Maybe you feel kinda bad for her. No one really believes her. She's just trying to warn everybody and no one takes her serial. Well, I, I believe you. Maybe I'm just not sure what I can do about manbearpig.

But I know you're super, duper serial.

this is why unity will not happen. At least not for now and for another month or two. The attacks that Hillary had to face everyday certainly do piss many supporters off. And those people from the Obama camp have the guts to say 'we received the same attacks too'.

And for all those so called liberal, progressives etc who are asking for a censorship of opinions, i tell you this, if this is what the democratic party will become, i'm sure to inform you that you will lose to support from at least a quarter of Hillary's electorate. And i hope then you can coronate Obama without us.

A little magnanimity goes a long way and tonight he showed me why i really never cared for him.

this issue as there has been enough off-topic, inappropriate and pseudo-surrogating to last 4 election cycles!  Let's not keep one-upping one another as this is a colossal waste of time.

I nominate this idea:  I say we all get past "surrogate-gate" and focus our guns on McShame who is in Blunder City, USA spouting inaccuracies wrapped in contradictions and topped with lies to boot without consequence.

A few writers have picked up the stories but we can move them much quicker.  Let's not forget to keep our focus on where it needs to be no matter WHO gets the nod.  

I am not ignoring the passions that still simmer high for Sen. Clinton, so please do not misconstrue.  I only intend to say that we still have things in common that we can focus on - and McShame is one!

If not - in what way could the Obama campaign exert any kind of control over him?

(Also, you really should disable the "style" attribute.  BishopRook's mischief was relatively benign compared to what someone could do with them on a site like this.)

Disable the style attribute.  Unbelievably annoying.  

Are you sure he's actually a surrogate?  For much of the primary season CNN would have on a Clinton surrogate opposite someone identified as a democratic stragist or a liberal radio host.  I got the impression that the Obama campaign just wasn't providing official surrogates most of the time.

His most recent comments about Obama are terrible for party unity and if he (they) keeps it up its going to hand McCain victory in the Fall.  Some very rational people are going to start wondering if that's their goal.

Seriously, in the words of Jon Stewart:

"You're Not Helping, Bill!"

Looking forward to your blog about Bill, Todd.

Rocky Mountain News

"Salazar says senators didn't agree on endorsement"

"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Ken Salazar joined a small group of fellow undecided Democratic superdelegates on Capitol Hill today, but said they reached no agreement on whether to endorse a presidential candidate as a group.

The gathering created a major stir amid published reports that up to 15 previously uncommitted senators were on the verge of giving a united endorsement to Democratic front-runner Sen. Barack Obama.

That did not happen at the meeting inside the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee offices, where Salazar and the only three other participants left by a backdoor to avoid more than a dozen reporters who staked out the front door.

Later, Salazar said the meeting had been "a dialogue without an agenda" and added he had spoken to "12 or 13" Democratic colleagues in the past few days.

"I could make the argument for either one of them," Salazar said about Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. "Many people can make the argument that maybe the best thing would be for both of them to be on the same ticket."

Salazar said the possibility of a joint ticket was discussed at today's meeting. "There was some of that discussion, but there's no conclusion," he said."

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/20 08/jun/02/democratic-senators-meet-discu ss-possible-obama-en/

Oh come on, Todd. The single biggest complaint I've had about people on either side is the continuous and unceasing confusion between the various levels of "support". Since it's apparent that so many people are in need of a refresher, I present to everyone a short primer on properly attributing comments:

Category One: The Candidates.

The Democratic candidates this year are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. When you say "Obama says" or "Hillary says", you are indicating that it is something they themselves have said. Additionally, given there is another prominent Clinton in Democratic politics, a qualifier such as "Senator" or "Mrs." or "Hillary" is probably a good idea. Statements from spouses of the candidate or other family members should not be attributed to the candidate.

Category Two: The Campaign.

These are people who are not the candidates but can generally be assumed to be speaking for them in an official sort of way. These will typically be close advisers to and close family members of the candidates. Examples in the Obama campaign include David Axelrod and David Plouffe. Examples on the Clinton side include Howard Wolfson and Harold Ickes. This category also includes official press releases. While they may 'speak for' the candidate, it is still best to attribute anything from these sources as "the Obama campaign" or some such. Note: If someone affiliated in this category says something which prompts their abrupt dismissal, it's inaccurate to attribute that comment to the campaign.

Category Three: Members of the Campaign.

These are people who work for the campaign, but in positions where one cannot presume they represent the candidate. This could be anything from a policy adviser to a precinct captain. When they say something, it should be attribute to them by name, with a clear statement of the position they hold within the campaign.

Category Four: Surrogates. These are typically other well-known pundits or politicians who have publicly endorsed the candidate. Typically there will be some coordination between the candidate and his or her surrogates in order to maintain a unified message, but the surrogate will not have an official position on the campaign. Examples include Bill Richardson and Ed Rendell. A proper attribution should be along the lines of "Governor Rendell, a Clinton supporter."

Category Five: Anyone else.

This includes anyone not in the first four categories. They have no direct connection to the campaign, and the campaign and the candidate have no control over what he or she says. Examples include Ed Schultz, your mailman, me, you (probably), and 99.99% of the people who post on this blog. In attributions, including the candidate's name at all is a bit tenuous. If it must be done, make it vague and in the passive voice, e.g. "Ed Schultz, radio talk show host who supports the Obama campaign."

The great the number of categories you jump in attributing your quotes, (e.g. "Ed Schultz...speaking on behalf of Barack Obama",) the more erroneous or simply dishonest your attribution is.

I've always considered you to be a far less biased front-pager than Jerome, but when you add bizarre snippy updates the way J does, it really gets me wondering why I take any of the front pagers seriously.

The idea that you could ask Obama to clean up his surrogates when you've got Bill Clinton acting like a bloody fool trying to whip up resentment against THE MAN WHO WILL BE THE NOMINEE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR THE ELECTION FIVE MONTHS AWAY is stunningly hypocritical, if not unbelievably foolish.

Mind your own garden first. There are red-faced pigs snorting about while you chase after the roosters.

I say BRAVO on your Update comment!

Second... I am getting pissed at the O supporters that I have seen "hacking" this site.

BishopRook is the latest, but this person IS using the "hack" as a warning to the admins to FIX IT.

This is what is constatly showing on my screen in a blue box in the lower left corner. It also floats.

Please ask the admins to disable the 'style' attribute for div elements in diaries and comments. That way people can't do mischief like this (or worse). Jerome's not responding to my emails about it.
~BishopRook

Please ask the admins to enable my rec and ratings abilites in diaries and comments. Jonathan's not responding to my emails about it.
                               ~RUMPROAST

Please ask the admins to disable the 'style' attribute for div elements in diaries and comments. That way people can't do mischief like this (or worse). Jerome's not responding to my emails about it.
~AK Democrat

Please address this security flaw.  Thanks!

Ed Schultz is NOT an Obama surrogate.  He does not speak for the campaign, nor will he be muzzled by the campaign.  He is our very own loose cannon for the left(ish) and we'll have to suck that up.

He's not my style, but he's brought a few of my redneck neighbors over to our side this year, so I'm going to defend his right to keep talking.

But Obama, unfortunately at times, has absolutely no control or power over Ed Schultz, as Ed is very fond of pointing out.

What the hell is that blue box doing on the corner of the screen?

Anyway, Schultz is not an "Obama surrogate." He's a loudmouth radio jock who happens to support Obama.  He is like Olbermann and a few others of that ilk - media personalities that have a horse in the race.

You know, I bet disabling the div element in the style attribute would do a lot for party unity.

You're looking at a guy who has been an Obama supporter from the get-go, and would probably be slurred as an "Obamaton" or "Obamabot" by some, but I have to add my voice to the chorus of "rock on" regarding your update.

The fact that I like Obama, and someone else likes Clinton, is not a reason for lowering the level of discourse--any Obama supporters who are going to contribute to this sort of discussion should be viewed in the same light as the people talking about Obama being a Muslim apostate or Clinton having secret plans to rip the party to shreds so she can run in 2012:

Utterly unreliable, anything but credible, and not worth engaging.

also, Ed Schultz is not very bright, and not very articulate, and not very funny, so why the F does he have a radio show?  oh, right, he's from the "heartland" so he's our Trojan Horse into the red states.  except that he's not very bright, not very articulate, and not very funny.  i wish there were something else on between Hartmann and Maddow on my local station.  

Dudes, I'm so losing my mind right now over that blue box at the corner of the screen...

Fat "Eddie" is a minor leagfuer at best when it comes to talk radio.  Perhaps that's an indictment against all liberal-minded media:  We just can't seem to find someone to host a national radio show who is engaging, interesting, informed, and entertaining.  Add to the mix Randi Rhodes and all the Air America stiffs and it's no wonder why liberals can't convince anyone to join their side in the fray.  We just don't communicate very well.

And this from a communications major, no less....

Someone please nail the guy who affixed the blue box on this thread.

Could you please go ahead and disable the 'style' attribute for div elements in diaries and comments? That blue box is incredibly annoying. Leave the person who created it alone, though. S/he's got a good point.

Ed Schultz is a free agent, in no way authorized to speak for Obama. Obama isn't the Decider. He can't send Blackwater in to quiet Schultz down. He's also not Bill O'Reilly. He can't send FOX News' goon squad to shut Schulz up. He's already asked supporters to lay off personal attacks.

In the meantime, Ickes, Bill Clinton, and countless other true Clinton surrogates are still wildly on the attack in the press. How's about them?

"And I actually thought you guys were getting on board with the whole wrangling surrogates thing."

Give me break Todd.  If you're going to preach, do it with an even hand.  

"Here's the final deal: I don't want to have to clean up the mess after Schultz says something stupid between now and November; get a handle on your surrogates and take him off the teevee now."

psst. no one's listening.

"Memo to Obama campaign: get Ed Schultz off the teevee"

Ed Schultz has always been a loose canon.  He's not gonna take marching orders from the Obama campaign or anyone else (except his advertisers, of course).