I agree with you, as well as with Tom Wright (whose first post seems to have got a strong reaction from Andrew and Josh I can't agree with). Also with Ellen on the comparison to Facebook (although Ellen, alas, the eye for personal image is already a net cliche). But mostly my comparison would be to all Election Central all the time.

Increasingly, I have to look at Drum or Yglesias to see if it's possible to comment on anything other than who has more charisma and who is ahead. I know I'm more into policy than many, but we need a few posters here who have opened the Times in ages. If news is boring and issues are even more boring, at least dump on David Brooks's pop sociology of Obama and Clinton. Or something.

This site is like a parody of the mainstream media. Perhaps E. J. Dionne's posts will broaden it marginally. Of course, I'd also like to post one day without logging out first, would like tracking back, would like not to insert html tags manually, and am frankly amazed no one worked out any of that before a launch, but eventually bugs will go, I guess, and content will remain.

Posted at February 10, 2008 10:28 AM in response to New Site Is Terrible

I agree with you, as well as with Tom Wright (whose first post seems to have got a strong reaction from Andrew and Josh I can't agree with). Also with Ellen on the comparison to Facebook (although Ellen, alas, the eye for personal image is already a net cliche). But mostly my comparison would be to all Election Central all the time.

Increasingly, I have to look at Drum or Yglesias to see if it's possible to comment on anything other than who has more charisma and who is ahead. I know I'm more into policy than many, but we need a few posters here who have opened the Times in ages. If news is boring and issues are even more boring, at least dump on David Brooks's pop sociology of Obama and Clinton. Or something.

This site is like a parody of the mainstream media. Perhaps E. J. Dionne's posts will broaden it marginally.

Posted at February 10, 2008 10:27 AM in response to New Site Is Terrible

Or make the list entries vanish after 48 hours, to give more of a chance for a few members' interest to spread.

Posted at February 9, 2008 3:44 PM in response to Book Club Next Week: E.J. Dionne's Souled Out

Not what you asked, but to your list of books I've read only snippets of but am eager to get more into, please add Mr. Anrig's.

Posted at February 9, 2008 3:16 PM in response to Paging Dr. Krugman...

"What will eventually be there is only the most recommended blogs in the last 24 hours . . . I'll promote things I like with diary rescues." Sounds like an excellent solution, both allowing frequent change and an occasional exception for further discussion. Thanks.

Posted at February 9, 2008 3:11 PM in response to Book Club Next Week: E.J. Dionne's Souled Out

Since it's an Andrew post, let me put in here another site comment. It's great having more attention for reader posts, and it's reasonable to keep some up longer, as thus a combination a little like the old one of blogs and discussion tables (or blogs and blogs featured by Andrew on the home page).

However, in practice, it's meant seeing the same darn blog posts at the top of the home page forever. That and my hating the first. I realize it's a fine commercial and taps into nice feelings I have about Obama, so it's not Obama's fault I don't want to see it there. But it grows tiring.

It also underscores what I hate about the new site, the feeling we've migrated from political discussion to a sort of Facebook with Josh's trademark. This is blog post that did not do what discussion table posts used to hope for (and generally failed at): a substantive post stimulating a substantive discussion. It's just a link to a video, for goodness sake.

Posted at February 9, 2008 10:46 AM in response to Book Club Next Week: E.J. Dionne's Souled Out

Good news is that we came within one vote, even with the "let's let government grind to a halt, become ineffective, and then let us blame it" party. Think about 2008: can we pick up that ground?

Posted at February 7, 2008 9:33 PM in response to Stimulus Update

Hmm, Brokeback Mountain. Once all those sheep and cattle vote, not to mention repressed gays, it changes the balance a lot. But seriously, someone's going to win, and I keep feeling that Linda's analysis is having trouble dealing with that obvious point. It struggles to figure out who gets enough votes, but both parties start with a relatively small base. That doesn't mean Obama or Clinton is doomed.

I'm still inclined to think Obama's a stronger candidate, because (a) more people have demonized Clinton for no reason I can grasp and (b) she does best in states like New York that Obama, too, would carry. But the important factors are still not in these calculations. They're in defusing McCain's appeal as (god help me) an independent and straight shooter, as well as defusing future smears.

That isn't about improving on Kerry's response in 2004; both Obama and Clinton are increasingly aware of and deft. It's about organizing, getting out the vote, and doing what little we can to slam the compliant media. Of course, they don't still have Frank Bruni covering the GOP, but it'll be just as bad. Remember the last Times OpEd appointment? Linda's doing her best, but it's all sideshow.

Posted at February 7, 2008 9:32 PM in response to Just Do The Math

cscs has a perceptive way of putting it. I realize that, not long before the change, I posted my only blog item ever, wondering why there was so little posting on issues or other news compared to other popular sites (Yglesias, Drum, Klein, those of many of our own posters), so much shallow shilling and predicting. Looks like I had in mind a market segment that not as large and important as I thought, and reality was for Election Central readers. Judging by TPM, it may also just lie closer to Josh's heart.

At the time, another find old TPM Cafe user blamed the changes on, yes, old timers like me. We'd uprated the worst posts, the short, shrill, kind with cuss words, chasing out good contributors like Dr. Slaughter. In other words, we had MJR vs Larry because no one else would contribute here. Now, I'm dubious about that for lots of reasons.

(1) Seems to me lots of fine guests have contributed to the book club and elsewhere. (2) I don't admit ever to have rating or writing comments that way; if anything, I navel gaze way too long, and comments on (say) Yglesias or Stirling when they were here neared reverence. (3) Other long-standing commenters behaved I thought, even better. I'd learn policy from Dan K or Howard B any day, and I thought their contributions to America Abroad and elsewhere were exemplary. The corresponding posters themselves deigned to participate from day 1. (4) Most old timers tuned out the mad influx of comments by libertarians or those violently pro- and against Israel.

But looks like the culture conflict was different than any of us guessed.

Posted at February 7, 2008 4:02 PM in response to Culture Clash

You know, in light of common reactions here, I'd be curious not only about the motivation, but also about the process. I'm an editor who's worked on textbooks and online reference projects. When we've done something, other than because a client or insane manager with power ordered it, we went through a fair degree of market research among actual and potential users (user and nonuser reviews, as the jargon has it). Could be written reviews, Survey Monkey, or focus groups. I'm wondering if any of the usual suspects here were asked, or did Josh and Andrew just sit together and think of what looked interesting.

Posted at February 7, 2008 1:45 PM in response to Bug Stompin'