It isn't the famous one in Copenhagen but they do call it the Little Mermaid:
http://orangeimagery.sensus-studio.com/3w/?zid=376

http://www.theblackadder.co.uk/2005/Budapest/index.html

We all have our sugar rags. Mine were literature and art. When I let go of those rags, I fell to earth. Hard.

Hilarious irony.

Bunch of Obamamaniacs, and I do mean maniacs, obssessives (as in, not normal people simply excited by voting for Barack Obama,) take over a web forum for a few months, and, by virtue of their mass and gang-like behavior, can game the newly installed software, and, with some added use of bully tactics, chase off anyone who wants to talk about anything outside the frame of pro-Obama, anti-Hillary. In doing so, they help to divide the liberal blogosphere into two camps: Hillary sites and Obama sites, where each group can send echoes and chase off the other group.

Then this self-selected group, who has chased off the most reasonable people who think different from them, start to think they own the website, and that the brand of the website is "all Obama all the time," and think there was no one here before them who appreciated a place where there was a mixture of viewpoints. They have no idea that tons more people left because of them and their sometimes bullying gang-like behavior, lack of interest in any objective analysis about anything regarding Obama much less analysis of any other topic, and how they changed a place for good wonk discussion of many varying viewpoints to "all Obama all the time."

I think Don Key, possibly a member longer than me (I've been using the site for 3 years,) finally spoke to that very eloquently here June 14, on Jason Miller's thread when he was still in Obama bully mode.

Most old timers just gave up and quit using the site, though, let them have it. (Former frequent commenters like hcBerkowitz, pseudocyants, devon, neoboho and nascardaughter still can't seem to stand looking at what this site has become for too long, spend time talking to each other when they feel the need on instead.)

But I always got the impression that although they were allowed their way for a while, that situation was not in the long-term Josh Marshall business plan. See, for example, "Seriously folks, you can stop writing about how angry Hillary makes you now," By Andrew Golis, May 28 or Lila's June 16 introduction where she said I'm excited about expanding the reach of Cafe-- bringing in more broadly cultural and literary topics-- without losing the driving force: a place where we can talk politics and keep a watchful eye on what's happening in Washington, and around the world, or in response to my query about site mission, Golis on her thread said that that's definitely part of why Lila was brought on. As she said, her interests are broadly literary and political, so she'll steer the site according to that. (One of Miz Lila first projects was host a book club that was about Ross Douthat's book on the GOP remaking itself. Think mebbe that was a message as well?)

Of course I see what you're saying. But I also see that intolerance of tone is still intolerance, period.

If you find something or someone uncivilized or not helpful, you can always choose to ignore them. If you enforce civility, you end up enforcing behavoir.

On top of this, it won't work, neither here at TPM nor anywhere else on the internet. Everyone here is an anonymous ghost, there are no rules, there is no accountability, it's a free-for-all.

I think that Democracy is a very messy and complicated thing. And either the absense or the deliberate surpression of skepticism and dissent is the first sign that something is going wrong.

And while it is understandable from a supporter who would be better described as fanatic, it becomes threatening when it comes from someone who would call himself a thinker.

I witnessed your spam attack on Jacob. If you keep it up, you are going to end up like a few of your friends that have been banned. If you don't like someone, stay away from them. Pranks like spamming a thread with wall posts ought to get you banned.

Just for the record, I don't support Obama only because there seems to be no other viable choice. I actually like the guy. I know he's not perfect, but having done a brief stint as an elected official in an area with radically diverse constituencies, I know that black and white thinking doesn't get the job done and compromise is really the best way to build consensus and to build rapport - and ultimately to get things done.

Obama has many great qualities - more than just about any other Democratic contender in a long time. I will agree that Clinton could be a strong candidate, too, especially against such an idiot as McCain. She would be on the attack more vehemently than Obama, too, I believe.

So, maybe it's just personal principles, but I prefer the way Obama does things. He can hit hard, but not with the kind of childish nastiness of the Republicans. It's just not clear yet whether a more principled approach will actually work. And I do believe that, when in office, Obama will do more that we agree with than what we don't. As I said in another post, I think for a Democrat, getting elected against the Republican smear machine is a lot harder than leading the country. Once you make it to the Oval Office, the rest may very well seem easy by comparison - especially with a friendly congress.

I am a Hillary Clinton supporter. When she was still running, I spent a lot of time on right-wing blogs trying to understand their thinking process, their view of her and their view of the world. It helped me in two ways: crystallize the reasons why I support her and understand how they tick. I must admit that there were several instances where the Republicans made very valid points that had nothing to do with personal character or personal history or Iraq yet still gave me a long long pause.

The point of all this is that I think TPM, like any echo-chamber, would actually benefit from encouraging dissent. And Obama supporters would benefit from talking less amongst themselves and talking more to the world outside. It's a little sad that so many of them wouldn't even dream of it.

There's no divide. Either you believe in the Constitution or you don't. Either you defend it or you don't. And in your case, either you understand it or you don't.

Not counting the trolls, you're potentially talking to Dems, Greens, Independents, disaffected Reps and Libertarians.