"Lessons" Is a Seven Letter Word

... that's going to leave a mark.

At this point, it's probably all for the best.

Al,

Thanks for putting this together, I know I'm not the only one who's been waiting patiently for the reasons behind this snafu (and I'm not sure about the n part, but I think it fits as well as the other letters).

I will admit to not having given to your original Denver fund, but I have done so since you've moved to the FAJ.

Keep on telling the truth, and I do hope RV (I loved your line about "whose mission, after six months of working for it, I still haven’t heard stated in a manner coherent enough to explain" - I will admit that I'd been meaning to ask you) comes to their senses, at least with regard to the funds they collected on your behalf.

Peace,

Jim in NYC

I had no idea it had got this bad.

Al, take it from me: The Alinsky excuse is a dodge. The REAL reason is your refusal to bow down to the nut jobs -- many of which sound suspiciously like agents proschlockateurs to me like the guy who cybersquatted on an HRC domain and is now claiming he just "recently" converted to McCain.

Actions speak louder than words eh? RV showed their true colors...which were shades of yellow.

This outcome is unfortunate but not to be worried about. Your keen insight reminds us all to pay attention and reject the unacceptable around us. What has been most interesting for me to watch is the absolute fear that clouds the mind of those who realize now that the playing field is truly changing. Although deeply unfortunate, this example of what happened at the ex-Field is yet further proof that we are on the right track.

Thanks for sharing the truth with us Al.

Peace.

Al -

I have followed your page on a daily (if not more) basis since the start of this fascinating primary season. You have an uncanny ability to provide proper historical reference for what has been happening without the short-sighted screaming and pomp that seems to exist everywhere else.

I am a young voter who has been passive and disillusioned for years, a vocal, yet previously inactive opponent of the glaring problems in our country. It is because of Senator Obama's campaign and journalists like you that I am becoming an active American citizen, an agent of change rather than just a grumbling consumer.

I understand where Ms. Kozikowski is coming from, because it fits 1990's-style politics to a T: anyone who has money and the ability to shout "I'm offended!" about ANYTHING becomes the most important constituency and must not be alienated at any cost. I had to laugh when Ms. Kozikowski wrote about how she thought you were getting 1970 and 2008 confused. I think that politics will be a MUCH different animal once more politicians like her realize that 2008 is a far, far cry from 1996.

Anyway, thank you for maintaining your integrity and continuing to bring us all up to speed with the political climate as well as diffusing our natural chicken little impulses. I haven't donated to you before, but I'm going to donate now. It's more important than ever to keep blogs like this alive and healthy.

I had posited the other day that this was all about the Benjamins, but I see that it was also about some Pollito Chiquito problems. That comment I sent in, BTW, never appeared, but I do know that the new system was overwhelmed. I donated a small amount to Al and the aggravation involved will not merit asking for the refund. Yet, I do not think Al should remain unable to report from Denver. It's not out of any kind of solidarity that I feel for Al, it's for my own damn selfish self.
What kind of convention will that be without Al there? I'll redonate the original amount.
I believe that someone over there in the Demo Party Office in Chicago OWES Al a big freebee
as long as we are talking Benjamins. If that happens, I hope Al buys some lovely present for himself with my donation. He more than deserves it. And the petty money paid to him for his talents at RuralVotes is abysmally embarrassing.
I am reminded again why I do not blog.
I am sorry for the drama Al, and I am SURE you will get to Denver. I'm one of your readers that used to comment when there were only three comments. Go, baby!

much like the operations of her site, apparently. If Deb Koz thinks kowtowing to big donors and "Cranky Women for Hillary" are in the interest of rural voters, then maybe she should get a job at CNN - I hear they thrive on that sort of thing. I could sure use some more party hacks telling my Tennessee vote what's important to me.

Since you asked, I sent an email on Monday and haven't heard anything back yet. I'm assuming that there is just so much traffic that mine hasn't been reached yet.

I used the ombudskoz@ruralvotes.com address...

Al - I thought you were so dead on with this:
"If Ms. Kozikowski and her organization are... letting wealthy individuals dictate what can and can’t be said on their website based on the simple fact that they have money and might give it to her group, it is they that have not yet entered 2008..."

How does writing about the Weathermen (sometimes critically) as a journalist make you a member of the Weathermen?!

I told Deb she could keep my money, and I meant it. It's a hard lesson to me -- to always be sure where your money is going and only give it to organizations you trust -- that apparently I needed to relearn. The loss of hard-earned money reinforces that lesson. That said, ruralvotes won't get another dime from me nor another website hit. And I promptly turned around and donated to the Fund for Authentic Journalism here (so lets hope I learned the right lesson). RV will see their site hits and comments drop dramatically. And an army of donors has been turned away. The first rule of fundraising development is that you start out with small donations and involve people in your organization in a stronger and stronger way. That opportunity has been dramatically and drastically lost for them as has much good will. I can't see that gamble paying off. It's very similar to what Clinton donors tried to pull with Howard Dean & Nancy Pelosi, who apparently has a backbone. Those people are running around strong-arming left and right...I can't wait for them to see their power shrivel right before their eyes. dewberry

Hey Al,
Glad you're out of there, it wasn't a good fit anyway, never did get the rest of the site, or visit it more than once.
Anyway, yours is one of the main blogs that keeps me in touch with my better self, music, humor, history, shenanigans and even politics.
Fly us to the moon...

I asked for a refund for my $50 and was told that'd be no problem. I wrote back to ask when I could expect it and have had no reply, so it looks like another prompt might be needed.

What an arrogant fool Debra Kozikowski turned out to be. And the guy they have over there now, his name escapes me, is trying to copy Al's style too. It's quite sad really.

As an extremely rural guy I am still mystified by the complete lack of any analysis of the massive, long term, disastrous and historically mistimed Farm Bill. And I said that
in comments numerous times. All the same, as good as he is at what he does, Al never really fit in at RuralVotes and RuralVotes, instead of making the equation work somehow, have now killed the Golden Goose.
But what do I know? Maybe RuralVotes will receive all kinds of donations now that the evil and alien revolutionary Al has been purged.
To what end will those funds be applied? Shall we keep tabs?

Great job keeping a cooler head while dealing with that drivel. I donated 25.00 for you to go to Denver and emailed Deb last Saturday. She did refund me and will donate here from now on.

Al, What could we do, collectively as Field Hands, to petition the DNC to give you blogger credentials for Denver? I'm betting that the Democratic nominee's convention organizers could be persuaded by a suitable show of solidarity.

Is the "offending" post available to read anywhere? I'd like to see what all the fuss was about.

That said, seems just as well to me that The Field has gone out on its own. Let it be independent. Let Al say what he wants. That's what the internet is for.

It really does seem indicative of something much bigger going on within the party construct, doesn't it? The party mainstream--the big donors, the party droogs, the figureheads--they just can't seem to get past their self-importance to realize the depth of change that is sweeping the electorate right now.

And self-importance, I think, is the right descriptor. I mean, really. Deb censors you because "three" Obama donors found your work incendiary? So what, anyway? Is she saying that because they found your post on her (smallish) website to be inflammatory that they would take their marbles and go home, never again to support again the Obama campaign? Ridiculous. As if you, or Ruralvotes, claim to speak for the Obama campaign in any capacity.

I just find the whole thing nonsensical. And disingenuous. Because upon further reading, it seems that the Obama donor would be reticent to donate to Ruralvotes, not the Obama campaign proper--am I correct in that reading? So, you've lost her the money for her (now impotent) website from one individual "party-brass" donor--but she's lost herself a fiscally generous, bipartisan, activist readership in the thousands? Short-sighted, hubristic, and absolutely illustrative of the absolute necessity for the kind of change for which we Fieldhands are agitating. One thing this episode really drives home to me is just how much of the status-quo fear is driven by the almighty dollar. Appalling.

a) Does Deb not know how to pick up the phone? b) She and the types of supporters she references are the type of non-figher Democrat that has done the party so much damage. Obama doesn't run scared from Alinsky or other things, why should they? It reminds me of your post the other day of the Obama tribute to that minister. You'd think he'd stay away from church for the rest of the election but he doesn't - he marches straight into that big, "scary" black church. I'm so sick of the cowering Democratic stereotype that fits all to often. c) Regarding RV's mission, when I exchanged emails with Deb on this she used the words "progressive, populist and ground movement." That seems contradictory to the status quo she is supporting. d) Shit - the credential is really gone?? Nothing can be done? If we get all our money back, they wouldn't have the money to send Tracy or Sean (that would kill me)so they'll sit on it for spite?? Any chance of getting another one? e) Deb says the Groundspring transactions take longer and she's working on mine. f) Where's the "with a big thank you to the readers for their participation??" I think it's pretty safe to say that none of us readers feel we got anything but a slap in the face. g) If the missions didn't fit and Deb wasn't comfortable with how things were going, fine. That's her prerogative and it was her website. But the way it was handled on her end in a) pulling the piece and b) going dark on the whole thing just could not have been worse.

As requested, status on my request for a refund, so you can get a feel for how much they kept. I hadn't donated much, just $20 to the 'Send Al to Denver' fund. I have received the refund (via PayPal), and prompted donated it (and a tiny bit more) to 'The Fund for Authentic Journalism' here. After reading the above emails from Deb, I'm stuck by how disrespectful they are. And what an odd way to start a discussion about a post she disagreed with. The first email could go into a book on how not to manage people.

Oh no she didn't!

Jesus, this woman is batshit insane. Conducting a self-initiated McCarthyesque blackisting of the only contributor that made RV worth a bookmark in my browser, and using such an embarrassing descriptor to describe a member of the LGBT community to boot. I think that phrase went out of style back in the 50s when Confidential Magazine was obsessed with ferreting out closeted gays in Hollywood.

I'm unemployed and broke, but I will scrape up a few $$ to contribute to the Fund for Authentic Journalism.

I think I started reading your blog when Andrew Sullivan linked to it one day. I was a little bummed when it seemed you were going to be mixing content with the Back Forty. But what the heck. I waited for the content to mix. There was no mixing. You just disappeared completely. I hit "The Field" link a lot of times. I hit refresh a lot of times. And yet. Nada. So finally I turned to that most invaluable of all resources: Google. And here you are. Who knew. I was really confused after reading this post & 4 included emails. Finally I made it back to the original offending post. I'm working on my sense of outrage. I'm having some trouble. Perhaps after I finish chuckling over the Cranky Women for Hillary line.

Oh well. Cheers. And time to change the bookmark.

Al, you are being too modest here:

I still have my integrity and the trust of thousands of readers, maybe including you.

 

I wouldn't be here and many many others with me if we didn't still trust you. I split the difference so I asked for the latest donation back (USD 100) - and got a few e-mails back - no refund though. But I'm now a happy co-pub here.

 

Update: Just got the Paypal refund heads up.

"Ms. Kozikowski,

A few weeks ago I donated $25 dollars to your organization's action fund via Pay Pal to send Mr. Giordano to the DNC convention in Denver. I would like to request a refund of my money given that the money will no longer go to said cause. The Paypal receipt is reproduced below.

Ordinarily I would not quibble over such a paltry sum, but there a many competitive House and Senate races this cycle and I figure my donation won't be missed, overshadowed as it is by "real" fundraisers.

Jonathan Greenberg"

I almost feel bad being so snarky, but the censorship is unforgivable.

And I'm terribly biased given that my father worked with the SDS.

I'm not sure if anyone will see this comment buried down here, but Hillary Clinton's senior thesis was essentially a defense of Saul Alinsky, relating him to activists such as Eugene Debs and MLK.

Thank you for posting this so we could all know the backstory. What a mess and really disappointing, but sadly too typical for a lot of folks who are in positions of authority in state parties, etc.

I was interested to read of the Massachusetts angle, especially about State Rep Bill Strauss, who I know from the Dean campaign days here in Massachusetts. He is a really good guy, in my experience, tho more conservative than me & he worked his butt off for Dean here in MA and in NH in 2004. In fact, I was in a MA state delegation of electeds and grassroots folks that went to Iowa for Dean (ie "we're from Kerry's state but let us tell you why we're not for him") for the primary.

The state party here in MA is INCREDIBLY atrophied and resistant to change/new people/new ideas, etc. (I realize this isn't unique to Mass, but it's really annoying in a supposed ultra blue state). Grassroots folks have been fighting for reform for years. Deb K's behavior is sadly all too familiar. I've sat at state Dem meetings & conventions and looked around at the crowd, average age 50-60 and realized that most of these folks have no vision of who will replace them. They also have no vision of the fact that there needs to be more racial diversity in the party, and more young people. And also they've spent 30 years not marketing the party and letting the absurd state GOP, which barely exists as an entity, demonize and define them as corrupt to the populace at large -- which has driven indie registration thru the roof and Dem reg way down.

Deval Patrick's campaign was the beginning of rebuilding and rediversification (race and age), and there was a detante of sorts between the Dem establishment and the grassroots who linked up to support Deval. It concerns me that the Clinton/Obama race has exposed festering fissures or created new ones between the establishment (Clinton) and grassroots (Obama) supporters that may have implications beyond the Prez campaign here in MA...I hope not.

Thought that was the reason, Al.

As I noted in my post about this on an earlier thread, the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) list Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals" as required reading for all 21st C public relations professionals . . . not the most radical group in the country, and a group the Vice-Chair of a non-profit donor-funded org should be interested in emulating.

The reason why is that Alinsky's rules are the same rules as a PR pro's well-organized "roll out."

Too bad she's so unsophisticated. Or has so little knowledge of American 20th C history to know that at the time Alinsky was doing what he was doing, no one but rich white men had any real rights. People like blacks and women and workers under salary and safety siege.

And as I also noted in that previous post, my grandma said it best: "What can you expect from a pig but a grunt." (Said with her lilting gaelic brogue.)

I just emailed the DNC with a polite email asking them to transfer the credentials directly to Al since he has left RuralVotes. Here's an excerpt of what I sent to OnlineTeam@demconvention.com

Unfortunately, there have been some problems over at RuralVotes,
forcing Al Giordano to move his blog (and with it, its reader base) to
another site. Since the credentials are technically listed as being
assigned to RuralVotes, which had planned on sending Al to the
convention, I ask that you transfer the credentials to Al Giordano
directly. (There are no other journalists or bloggers of note left at
RuralVotes - I would argue that his blog is what put that organization
on the map in the first place.)

The list of credentialed blogs is here:

http://www.demconvention.com/credentialed-blogs/

Although it lists it as "RuralVotes", the link is to The Field's address specifically. Anyone with familiarity of the blogging world should know that it's Al that brought that site to prominence and is probably what got it credentialed. Those two things should be grounds for petitioning to have it transferred to Al now that they're disassociated.

This page about the credentialing process...

http://www.demconvention.com/blogger-credentialing-process/

...links to a PDF file which lists OnlineTeam@demconvention.com as the address to send inquiries. That would be the place to start. If that address bounces or gets no response there's always the general info@demconvention.com address which they list on the contact page.

and the organisation then was proud of being radical, espoused community organizing at its heart and tried to give its grants to the most grassroots farmers' organisations it could find. Saul Alinsky was referenced among office staff, on occasion. Using Farm Aid as a scaremongering tactic in relation to that post, in particular, is a sure sign that Deb is indeed out of her mind or quite ignorant or both.

I travelled with Mr. Nelson on his bus a coupla times between the County Fair performances from which he was donating the proceeds and before and after which he was meeting with farm organisations, to hear their stories and more importantly, to draw press attention which would otherwise have been very thin on the ground.

Willie Nelson was a community organiser in his approach to Farm Aid's efforts and the Family Farmers he wanted to support: he was the best listener I have ever met, treated all farmers with infinite respect, was masterful in shifting media attention at these events from himself to the farmers, allowed no drinking of any kind among his band, crew and roadies, and indulged in 'herbal remedies' with no qualms or quibbling. OT, but endearing, he also watched a sh'tload of golf and ate vienna sausages he cooked himself on the bus.

Finally, thank you, Al, for your integrity, your wisdom, your generosity and your clear voice for radical reality-based change. With you all the way.

Three funders. Haha. What an awful mistake.

Now I don't feel bad at all for attacking her "good friend" and fellow hack Mark Brewer during the RBC meeting threads. They're exactly the type of people I despise in the Democratic Party: more worried about keeping their job than they are keeping their integrity.

I applaud Al for doing the opposite.

This populist structural shake-up isn't going to be easy, and we can expect plenty of insiders, just like Deb, to act in the same manner over the next few months.

These emails are an astonishing indictment of your former host -- on so many levels:

1) She openly admits that she jumps to the tune of big funders;

2) She openly admits that she jumps to the tune of campaign operatives;

3) She openly admits that she wants coverage tailored to fit a certain political narrative; and

4) Most mind-blowingly stupid of all, she actually imagined that making these arguments would convince a popular blogger with a known independent streak and reputation for integrity to bow to her will.

Amazingly stupid on every level. I have to conclude that this is either a rather limited and corrupt mind, or else that she was champing at the bit to get you to quit. My suspicion is that this is a rather immature, ambitious person who could not the attention The Field has been getting.

It's called "Uncensored: The Narrative Is Not a Story of Technology." Scroll down.

It is more than sad to see that kind of behavior from a member of the Democratic party supposed 'leadership.'

"I am uninterested in the defense of Saul Alinsky and his worthiness -- we are not a debating society ... it doesn't matter what you think is right or wrong headed -- it is what it is -- and funders are running away as will the Obama campaign -- who has informed me it wants nothing to do with this sort of propaganda."

Those words say it all. I can not imagaine any person on the 'Obama campaign' supporting those words - and think the writer of those words is SMEARING both the Democratic Party - and the 'campaign.'

I remember an earlier comment on another thread, asking for help in understanding just WHAT it was Deb & Co. were so scared by? I support that questioner - I really can't fathom anyone being so weak, cowardly....

My ANGER is reserved, in case Al Giordano does not get the press credentials he earned.

It would take Deb 90 seconds to either acknowledge my two emails or, better still, log into PayPal and refund my $50. (I forwarded my PayPal receipts, dates, PayPal reference numbers, etc, for her ease of reference.)

But it's Day 3 of Deb Watch and nothing. No acknowledgement, no refund, nothing.

Tacky.

P.S. : I didn't ask for a refund of my "Keep Al Writing" donations I made in April and June—donations he didn't receive. But the Denver convention "special project" is another story. Those donations were for a very specific purpose, which now cannot be fulfilled.

Tara,

Try this number in California for Groundspring 415-561-6300.

I called them directly on Sunday and left voice message. They called me mid-morning on Monday and discontinued my recurring donation immediately. (Also sent an e:mail to donations@groundspring.org on Sunday. Deb sent an e:mail on my behalf on Sunday as well.)

Also called credit card company directly on Sunday and they stopped all payments to Groundspring for Rural Votes without any issue. If it's important to you, it's probably more direct, fast and efficient if you do it yourself...

with a big thank you to the readers for their participation.

One irony is I would gladly have donated more to RV if she was communicating about what she needed funds for. I'm guessing I'm not alone in that sentiment. I worked in fundraising of a large nonprofit for many years and would have volunteered help too. But she appears to be hooked to the idea of fewer and bigger money donors rather than building grassroots.

I don't know what if any ground rules you had working with Deb, but those 4 emails delivered in the 1.5 hours convey a sense of her losing her perspective. And it's really sad that she has let others demonize Alinsky and Kopkind for her.

But I enjoyed the new organization name she used: Cranky Women for Hillary. I heard a radio interview with one of their members just today, Delmarie Cobb.

Via this morning's First Read we see, in part:

News is out that Obama and Clinton will meet at a joint fundraiser on June 26 in DC. The AP says it’s an “effort to calm donors who remain frustrated with Obama's presidential campaign… Two people closely involved with Clinton's fundraising said the meeting had taken on added urgency after several of her money ‘bundlers’ complained that they felt their concerns weren't heard during meetings last week with Obama campaign officials in New York and Washington.” It's interesting that top Clinton donors feel as if they haven’t been treated well by Team Obama. What it shows, though, is that Obama's camp just hasn't been that reliant on big donors, and so this may not have been the priority it would have been for nominees who had raised money by more traditional means. Still, the fact that Clinton and Obama have to hold a meeting together with these donors indicates it was not an easy transition and there are a lot of donor egos that need to be dealt with.

So, there are definitely some DLC-era donors roaming the land who are a little peeved that Obama's army of tiny pocketbooks is diminishing their former ability to demand obedience.

That said, however, I'm very skeptical that so many of said Big Donors™ all happened to read that same post within the same short period and felt moved enough write Ms. K with the same misguided concern. It seems far more plausible that she read the post, googled Alinsky's name, had a conniption, and projected her "grave concern" on to non-existent others.

But even if its true and it all happened just the way she says it did, I submit that she learned the wrong lesson, took the wrong side. The way successful political and issue advocacy campaigns are funded is changing dramatically. She had the opportunity to embrace the change and propel her organization into a sustainable future built upon a broad distributed network of small donors. Instead, she turned back to the brittle model of bowing and scraping to a fickle few.

In any case, Al has a new home, Deb is best left to her fate, and we still have a lot of work to do to convince a stubborn remnant of fearful Democrats that everyone who was (or is) to the left of Scoop Jackson wasn't the freakin' anti-Christ.

Al,

Thank you so much for standing up to your beliefs. So sad that Deb is the epitome of Chicken Little if all she is worried about is donors and not the amount of people driven to her website for your content. It's one thing to disagree on the overall theme and core beliefs of a site, it's another to turn your back on a highly esteemed writer and his (very large) group of readers. The timing of this is odd since it seems like you've been fairly honest in all of your pieces and I STILL don't see what is wrong with the Alinsky piece.

And this frustrates me to no end:
"As for The Field, without a reasonable agreement it goes dark and is archived with a big thank you to the readers for their participation. End of story."

Never. Happened. What a slap in the face. To everyone except her. Thank you, my ass.
I need coffee, I am rambling.

PS: How can we help get you to Denver???

I didn't know anything about Alinsky, when I read about your blog leaving ruralvotes and going to the narcosphere. But I can use wikipedia and although the English version is a bit short, it still reveals that Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote her senior thesis on Alinsky's model.
The German version of Wikipedia came up with this link http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR200703...

Why, I ask myself, should anyone be afraid of naming a rather famous activist in connection with Barack Obama, when this connection is so obvious and when it is openly discussed in MSM?

By the way, the German Institute on Community Organizing cooperates with Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation and is part of a Catholic University.

Martin

(A) The Democratic Party hierarchy, from local committees up to county, state and national levels, is riddled with personalities like this Debra Kozikowski. With hope, Obama's ascendence will dilute and eventually end their gutless and corrupting influence on the party.

(B) Any activist worth their snuff knows that you either need to make sure you have enough donors to be able to stare down any funder who tries to yank your chain -- or else you need to lay down the law early with any big donors that there can be no strings attached to the money they donate.

(C) I wholeheartedly agree with the suggestion above to email the DNC to urge them to transfer A.G.'s credentials, since they were plainly meant for him and his blog, not for Rural Votes as an institution. I wonder what the party policy on such situations is.

I'm curious what the RV web traffic graph looks like in the last week, although I doubt it will be used as a selling point for more donors.

Al, Thanks so much for your thorough explanation. I think "clueless" is the thought that came to mind when I read Deb's emails. I did donate a small amount (only $10 -- it was a rough month!) through PayPal; I requested a refund, and was notified by PayPal that it was on its way -- never received any communicaton from RV. Hasn't cleared yet, but when it does, I'll be re-donating it here, and will be more actively supporting ($$) your writing. It's my first stop every morning! I'm interested in all possible ways of getting you to Denver.

So let's pursue the grassroots push of the credentials with the DNC.  OnlineTeam@demconvention.com is the address.  I think the key argument is that The Field was the website referenced in the credentials.  The Field has always contained content provide by Al although hosted by Rural Votes.  The Field has now moved and Rural Votes is no longer the host.  Therefore, the credentials need to follow The Field.  Any other thoughts?

 

I'll put up a note over at Fieldhands later.

Geez. I gotta say I'm disappointed... not only (obviously) in Deb and her handling of this situation, but also the fact that there isnt more "juice" to the story. Not that I was wanting (more) drama... but Holy Cow! Its all completely a result of Deb overreacting.

This fear of right-wing labeling, and the consequential kowtowing to even the THREAT of smears is exactly how conservatives cornered the market on morality for so long. Deb, along with many other's in the party, need to realize that if they plan on playing politics in 2008... It's amazing how much she could have learned if she would have actually read The Ex-Field.

Hey Al, you started mass producing that Chicken Little immunization yet?

The "additional comments" just above were mine. I'd add two more:

(D) It's pretty funny for someone to scream, "Alinsky isn't rural!" and in the next breath say "You've got to knock it off because someone in a big Californian city told me to get you in line."

(E) It's pretty disgraceful (and a piss-poor p.r. move) for Rural Votes not to even acknowledge the split with someone who had been their site's main draw. Whatever slim chance they had of retaining Al G.'s readership was lost when they failed to provide any explanation whatsoever for what happened.

I'd guess they saw a slight uptick in traffic post-Al, as people went to the site to rubberneck -- but that the next week will show a precipitous drop-off in visits.

How dare you Al? Scaring those Obama supporters with money!! LOL. translated: Scaring Clinton supporters who DK was soliciting for her own career goals. Thanks for sharing the actual emails. I have been curious for some time on the partnership that you had with DK and how it came about as I saw very little politically that you had in common with her. She most certainly should have known that you had not been fond of any type of big donor control of a party and that Obama's campaign was, from the very start, at odds with her view of how to support a candidate. And did you win the Scrabble game? Because by the time it was close to over you could have used the 7 letter word ex-Field.

Wait a second Al. She's playing the game...Hell this checkers player new that a long time ago but you too have played the game. That post bashing the crap out of me was itself crap. You know it and i know it...that was a Clinton move you pulled ..the fake anger...Well Sir don't get up on that high horse so fast about the this Deb stuff. You told people that Deb didn't come out because she was a chess player or something like that which was bull but people believed you Al. Now the question is are you man enough to admit it? Are you man enough to admit that you were talking crap to protect Deb. and all along you knew she was for Obama but was trying to protect her job.

ARE YOU MAN ENOUGH?

"Was my freedom of speech being offered up in ritual human sacrifice to the gods she calls “Cranky Women for Hillary” by someone trying to save her own hide?"

DING! DING! DING! I think that's got to be it. The ostensible explanation makes no sense whatsoever. What a freaking tool DK turned out to be. I'm sorry I wasted 30 seconds corresponding with her at the Ex-Field. But for once I'm glad I'm such a procrastinator -- I'd meant to contribute to the Denver fund but had not gotten around to it. At least I can be certain a contribution here would go to the rightful owner.

Al, I found the Ex-Field via a Wolcott link and was a reader and commentor back when you had 2 or 3 comments per thread too. It was wonderful to see you develop such a well-deserved audience. Your analysis has been indispensible -- you kept me sane, man.

If there's anything we Field Hands can do to help you get the credential you deserve, say the word.

This is one of the behaviors you have talked about Al. Success brings the lame and the lazy out to assert their illegitimate importance. When there was that fanfare before the primary in my state about a predicted win a gaggle of local pols, who had previously stayed away, started to show up and stand around trying to look important. If Deb is being remotely honest it sounds like one or two of these people pushed her chicken little button and it went off like an out of control car alarm.

I haven't come up with a good idea to help with Vik M's question. We need to identify the right fulcrum for the lever we can bring.

It's called "Uncensored: The Narrative Is Not a Story of Technology." Scroll down.

so happy in this field! and ack (or ick), those e-mails are hilarious. :< :P :>

Al, Sorry - meant to put this in my previous comment... Any advice that you can offer on the most productive way we can petition your credentials to the DNC would be appreciated. Hopefully we as a group can help out on this matter.

Longroad - If I offended you with my chess and checkers comparison back then, I apologize for my tone, but not for the content, because I thought you were freaking out over something you needn't not freak out about. C'mon, the shot didn't hurt that much! You'll recall that the superdelegate in question came out on June 3 on the same afternoon that many others did, clinching the nomination for their candidate. Some of them had decided to "hang back" and not declare until then because they were still working over other undeclareds to do the same. Now, I still think that was a smart way to play chess. Even people that do terrible things sometimes do something right. A stopped clock is right twice a day! As for the "man enough" talk, that kind of posturing doesn't move me one way or another. Your questions would have been stronger without it.

Those e-mails are incomprehensible. It's feigned outrage over the mere mentioning of the FOUNDER of community organizing, Saul Alinsky, whom Hillary Clinton even wrote her thesis about in college. Surely this: "Obama campaign -- who [sic] has informed me it wants nothing to do with this sort of propaganda" has to be a lie.
Also, Plan Jericho was a lot more controversial (I personally agreed with it, but I can imagine donors getting nervous about it), so why react to the mentioning of Alinsky and not to Plan Jericho?
I reckon she did it to distance herself from the "far left" to somehow appease her donors and the Cranky Women for Hillary, so she could keep her job.

It also just irks me to no end that it's people like Deb K. who (currently) own the power structure of the party. Bah. It's so obvious that she is incapable of understanding the greater context of this election...the underestimation, for example, of the small donor base is such a huge mistake, and upon reading the above emails it becomes obvious that it's really not just an error in judgment but also that the party leadership seems to lack the imagination necessary to envision and embrace activist movement. Add to that lack of vision a worship of money and power, and you've got a powerful recipe for a very stagnant political stew. Yuck. I'm so glad, though, that all of this has come out. It really just helps energize people like me, I think, who have been fed up for so long but lacked the tangible evidence to point to what, exactly, we are fed up *with.* Here it is in black and white--the very attitudes we must work to eradicate. Identifying the underlying attitudes makes activism that much easier, no?

Sent this email to OnlineTeam@demconvention.com Hi, You're probably already aware of this, but Al Giordano, who until about a week ago was the main blogger of the www.ruralvotes.com/thefield site, had a hulabaloo with the owner of the site and is now posting 'The Field' from http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield instead. He was originally going to go to Denver to blog the convention, but the credential is apparently staying with ruralvotes instead of moving with the reporter voice. Please consider either transferring the blog credential assigned to RuralVotes/thefield to Al Giordano at narconews.com, or somehow add a credential for him. Al Giordano has been a vibrant, important voice during this election and it would be a real shame to not hear from him during the convention. Thank you for considering my request, Carol Gaupp

I dont mean to insult you by asking this. You have press credentials up the ying-yang as a long-time published print journalist, publisher of your own paper, founder of a journalism school, and for being one of the genuine originals in online journalism. In my opinion, you have more credentials to be at the convention than other political bloggers some think are in the vanguard of the field.

However.

If there is something you need us to do, holler. I donated about $200 over time early on in the year. Strange that my nose said "Wait" for the convention push. I was going to send you a dutiful amount of money in early August with instructions that it only be spent on vices.

No the checkers thing didn't hurt at all actually. Maybe my post made it sound that way but truly it didn't. ".. man enough..." yeah maybe i should have left that out... hell it sounded good at the time.

You're a smart guy Al don't ever turn to the dark side.

P.S. i hope that in the future if you do think i'm talking crap you call me on it and please don't hold back.

Al,

I also think it's pretty disingenuous of Deb (and Rural Votes) to pretend that, if it didn't work out, the site would "go dark" with a big "thank you" to its readers. As of right now, Rural Votes has said nothing about it. In fact, they've censored those who do. And, what's worse, it links the former Field straight to their new, crappy blog where the authors are getting about 3 comments per post. What a ridiculous situation.

Also, I'll help out with whatever it takes to get you your Convention pass...we need you there!

This seems another generational disconnect--I don't find any of the organizers you cite remotely shocking. I'm on the cusp of 40, and this was all before I was born. It seems there's a segment of the Dems that fears anything with organizers will turn into '68. (I'm an independent, so as a guide to what the mainstream will and will not tolerate....well, a post about the Rules for Radicals as applied to all candidates in the race is way within bounds.)

Sent an email to OnlineTeam@demconvention.com requesting that Al have credentials, since it was his writing that so many were anxious to read. Thanks to those who posted the address and saved me some searching.

I felt a bit uncomfortable reading Deb's hair-on-fire emails, but clearly she got what she wanted: a fallow field that is now "dark."

Al, you know you have the readership to re-raise the money to go to Denver -- in fact, I am more willing to give now than before -- but your credential that ruralvotes is (apparently) holding hostage seems to me is the main issue. You see it that way too?

I read thru those emails twice and nowhere does she actually denounce and reject you.....

Hillary Clinton's senior thesis was about Saul Alinsky. Obama was trained as a Saul Alinsky style organizer and he still considers himself one.

Hell. Alinsky himself offered a job to Clinton.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR200703...

"I basically argued that [Alinsky] was right," Clinton told The Washington Post in 1993."

"As first lady, Clinton occasionally lent her name to projects endorsed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), the Alinsky group that had offered her a job in 1968. She raised money and attended two events organized by the Washington Interfaith Network, an IAF affiliate.

IAF organizer Michael Gecan, who has met with Clinton several times, said her Wellesley work was often an icebreaker: "She would always say, 'I did my senior thesis on Alinsky.' "

Chicago organizer Gregory Galluzzo, Obama's former supervisor, who likes to describe himself as Alinsky's St. Paul, believes that Obama's exposure to the organizer's liturgy taught him that wisdom can emerge from the grass roots.

Deb and RuralVotes are what's wrong with our party. In Deb's Party the only thing that matters is the opinion of the donors.

In Obama's party, in our party what matters is the grassroots, the people. Beacuse we're donors too and together we are stronger.

Please tell us how we can help get you credentialed Al. At this point I would write the DNCC but if you think we shouldn't or if there is somewhere else to contact please let us know.

Whew!

Hi ALL, Al I sent in for a refund for the significant contribution I made, but have heard nothing. After reading this post I just sent another email to the address you posted and it was NOT pleasant what I wrote especially my thoughts on the so-called "Cranky Hillary Women" who are waiting for a disaster to happen. HOW PATHETIC that anyone who calls themselves progressive would even entertain giving them ANY credence.

With your regard to the question about donation returns; I e-mailed Deb on Saturday about returning the $15 I donated (I'm a college student so I'm poor), and have thus far received no response from Rural Votes. I don't expect I will hear anything from them, nor see that $15 again. My intention was to re-donate it to the new field site, but alas, I will just have to scrounge up $25 to donate here instead.

One of the things I found so ironic about the e-mail, is how a person so involved with "rural issues" was so obsessed over a donor from... San Francisco! I have long wondered about Rural Votes real mission, and I thus far have been unable to deduct a mission from their website either--other than to promote "rural issues", and that can be defined as anything. Oh well, the money is a small loss to me, I am more angry with the premise that some guy from San Fran is more important than the 400 fieldhands that organized from this blog.

I originally emailed ombudskoz@ruralvotes.com on Sunday requesting a refund of $50 I donated through PayPal to send Al to Denver. I forwarded the message to debbyskoz@cs.com on Tuesday in case that was a better address. Have not yet received any reply, nor a refund in my PayPal account. It is not a huge deal if I don't get the money back, it is more the principle of the thing.

One one level, I have some sympathy for Deb K as the focus of The Field had been shifting since Obama locked down the nomination (stressing the importance of the community self-organizing itself). But I really don't know what she expected in hiring you on ... did she perform a google search and read up on your journalistic resume? Did she think she was hiring a company man?

I also realize that we're only getting one side of this story -- three full emails from her, none of the previous emails sent (if any), and only a summary of the email(s) you sent back. The implication is that this isn't the first conversation you've had on the matter. Sometimes people say dumb things when they're emotional and/or frustrated, I feel I need to give her some benefit of the doubt. But a few things are clear: 1) She exercises editorial control over ruralvotes.com. 2) She is willing to base these editorial decisions on the complaints of Democratic party officials and donors -- not the thousands of readers and small donors to The Field @ ruralvotes. If she had respected her readers and small donors, she could have simply asked them "are you OK with the direction Al is taking this blog?". She has the email addresses of many small donors (including mine). She did not ask my opinion on the matter. 3) She has disrespected readers of The Field @ ruralvotes by not posting any explanation about what happened. Even a simple "Al has moved on -- thank you for your support!" would have been appreciated. 4) She has disrespected the small contributors by raising money in a fiscally irresponsible (if not deceptive) manner. Donations raised for specific programs run by the nonprofit (like 'Send Al to Texas') should be kept separate from the general operating budget.

I send a modest $20 back in February, I have not contributed since then. I'll be sending a contribution to support your writing here soon.

Yeah right. More like it moves elsewhere and all its readers Google their way there.

I see The Back Forty, party-approved, line-toeing type stuff, is averaging 1.23 comments per post.

I don't know what "valuable resources" you think you lost Al, but your talent and your new-found prominence are far more valuable assets than the paltry paycheck and mediocre web-mastering Deb was providing.

Looking forward to reading more about the election and less about Rural votes.

to "matt" and this is the reply i got:

"Mr. Giordano's work for hire payments were appropriately made from sources of funds including yours. Thank you for your help during the course of a successful RuralVotes project, RuralVotes' The Field. All our best to you and we hope you continue to check on RuralVotes as we work for progress in all of America."

Thank you Carol. I used your note as a basis adding a little.

It has come to my attention that the credentials which were secured by RuralVotes for the purpose of sending Al Giordano to the Democratic Convention in August have remained with RuralVotes after the two recently parted ways. Many of us made donations to RuralVotes specifically for the purpose of sending Al to the Convention on the understanding that he would have the necessary credentials.

As an ardent follower of Mr. Giordano's cogent, compelling and superior reporting/blogging on the Primary and General Election campaigns, I would like to request that credentials be granted to Al Giordano, so that the thousands of us who follow and delight in his analysis/reporting may have the benefit of his certain-to-be excellent reporting on the Convention in situ.

Many thanks for your consideration of this request.

name, address, contact details
Registered voter with Democrats Abroad.

I'm curious what the RV web traffic graph looks like in the last week, although I doubt it will be used as a selling point for more donors.

Kevin, I took a look and if number-of-comments is an indicator their last few blog entries have had essentially zero readership. 2 comments, 6 comments, 1 comment, No comments, that level. So their traffic has to be tanking.

Yep, that'll convince donors you've got a vehicle worthy of funding.

Bruce - There is a report with "reporting" (on the offshore drilling issues in the presidential campaign) below this one. And there are others farther down. You can skip over the "inside baseball" if you like. However, readers have been asking in the "reporting" posts for more of an explanation, and I think we can do both.

I followed those upthread and emailed the Dem Convention to get Al credentialed.

Al--the inside game stuff in MA is what makes sense to me, the rest, re Alinsky I still cannot get my head around. As you say--off to greener pastures.

Here is what I sent to the DNC: You may be aware that one of the credentials you issued has become the subject of some controversy. The credential was issued to Rural Votes for its blog, The Field. The Field's content was provided exclusively by Al Giordano and the credential was awarded based on his work and readership. However, as a result of a dispute with Rural Votes, Al has now moved The Field to a new home - http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield . All of his readers have followed him there. The two writers now providing content at the Rural Votes Field location are from another Rural Votes blog called The Back Forty. Those two bloggers did not provide content on The Field previously and were not included in your committee's evaluation of the blog's qualifications. Traffic to Rural Votes, as evidenced by the number of postings, is now negligible. Al Giordano has provided an inordinate amount of fabulous content during this election season and was the sole basis for the awarding of the credential. Unfortunately, Rural Votes has declined to provide him with the credential. I would request that the DNC either transfer the Rural Votes credential to Al at Narco News, for whom it was intended, or provide an additional credential. Thank you for your consideration. There is also a comment section at the list of credentialed blogs: http://www.demconvention.com/credentialed-blogs/

It seems that the word Radical combined with the name Alinsky set this off. It's doubtful that the throwbacks even read the piece through. It's a mind set, not an age issue, btw. My first presidential campaign work was for JFK, and I'm not locked into any age old ideology, or fear of words and names. Take the title and name away from the offending document, and how many would have noticed or cared. Some might have cheered. The ability to grow and change with the times is something Deb has failed at.

I also wonder if she bought the HRC steamroller argument at the time she hired Al, and has regretted ever since the morphing of her new community into a force leading the Democrats in a different direction.

I didn't realize that was little nothing was it!

Ms Deb K represents the Dems way more than Al. There is little difference between the Dems and the Pugs, just ask Gore Vidal, Huey Long or for that matter, Saul Alinsky.

"In the late 1940s and early 1950s, American liberalism and the Democratic Party, in alliance with the state, settled accounts with their opponents on the left in the purges. The consequences of that process for political, social and cultural life have been disastrous."

"The Democratic Party was discredited in the 1950s and 1960s, identified as it was with anticommunism, corrupt machine politics, Jim Crow in the South and, eventually, the Vietnam War. The angry, mass protests outside the Democratic convention in 1968 did not come out of the blue. The repackaging of the Democrats, their respectability on the ‘left’ is of relatively recent origin."

The Clintons finished off what was left through the auspices of the DLC and the final and complete neoliberalization of the party.

Anyone who thinks Obama is going to be any different is smoking crack. If you are looking for change you need to look in the direction of Ralph Nadar. At this point in the US ship wreck you could even look in the direction of Bob Barr or Ron Paul

Deb K is just acting within a great tradition

I'm an ex-pat living in Canada. During the primary season people would ask me who I was supporting given that the US political system is so corrupted by the corporate state. I always said that I supported Obama because although I could not vouch for the integrity of his talk, I was impressed by the organization of people that was growing in support of his candidacy. I thought that the possibility that things would actually change in my country was based entirely upon people's ability to organize and stand up to intimidation and fear mongering. I would say that maybe Obama would be surprised that people would really believe what he said in his speeches. The South American people who turned away Bechtel were my model for what was possible here.

This whole flap with Deb K and Rural Votes tells me that the fear and quest for power is insidious and strong. What I would like to see here on this website is some education so that we, as small donor individuals, can turn back this message that is already being disseminated by the corporate press about Obama the radical. I'm not a community organizer and have never thought of myself as a subversive. I'm an ordinary person who has been horrified to see what has been happening to my country since 2000 and more horrified to see that this "new" degradation of "American values" has actually been happening for ages. I want to do something to change this. And I think that there are people on this site who have lots of experience. I'd like an education. And I would like the no drama approach. This comment by John Slade was helpful. http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/gotta-love-the-welcome-wagon-i... More like that would be great.

Hey Al,

Thanks for posting the e-mails. Some would consider it bad form to post e-mails, but in this day and age, people should know better, especially those involved in politics. I was offended by Deb's use of the term "lavender man." I'm from San Francisco (born, raised, and probably will die here) and I've been called a number offensive names (wetback, fag, etc.) but never in my life have I heard someone call a gay man a "lavender man." We're not in the 50's. The e-mails she sent are ridiculous, and rather cowardly. You can't please everyone if you're a "middle of the road" self-described "moderate." In politics, these are the "friends" that betray you and roll over during a critical debate, as many "moderate" Democrats have done before. There are things worth fighting for, like our civil liberties, and we should use whatever means short of violence at our disposal. This includes the Rules for Radicals, which Ms. Kozikowski found to be so controversial.

Peace out and hopefully you can still go to Denver.

-Jorge

back in your corner. After recieving those you couldn't play nice. Not the fact that she sent you even in her first posting what was pretty much a "dear john" letter, you could have played nice with that. Nope, the problem was the chicken littlism. I understand you couldn't stay quiet about that not even to get your credentials or money and you couldn't stay quiet in the begining, get the agreement and then go all narco on her because then the playing nice would have been just a photo op.

So, okay things got to the breaking point and as in most divorces a few got sent to the landfill. However unless Deb was helped by Daniels (and I don't mean Charlie) even more than her emails even suggest there's got to be more back story. So I'm waiting on pinioned knee to hear what happened in prior communications. There's a guy/gal over on Kos that says he knew you both before and thought that it was a marriage of strange bedfellows and that your history showed you might be willing to dig under the chicken wire to gain your freedom. (my words)

In the meantime Deb's gotta be shaking in her pumps. If Al's saying he was censored by her was bad, being pilloried by your own emails has got to be worse. I think she can count out on any donations by lavendar men from San Fran in the near future, and what did she call Hillary supporters (like her mom) "cranky" or something? What is a petard (as in hoisted on) anyway?

Is it possible that Deb hasn't listed on the ex-Field that Al has gone for the explicit purpose of trying to keep the credential?? Bruce, I assume this is the last post we will have on the Rural Votes issue. I'm not trashing Deb, per se, as much as I am looking at what it represents for the divisions within the party. I think that's highly relevant to what we are trying accomplish.

When you start to get the sanctimonious “what do you think you’re doing?” and “how could you do this to me?” statements it is definitely time to pack up camp.

I have to say those emails seem contrived. It's like when you are ready to break up with your partner but you don't have a good reason, so you make up something to fight about so you can storm off in a huff. Perhaps Deb was angered by Al's popularity. Perhaps she felt the Field was overshadowing the rest of her organization. Or maybe she was getting pressure from Hillary loyalists. But there's just nothing about the Saul Alinsky post that is inflammatory. Al has posted things far more controversial than that.

Deb and these "donors" have no idea what a "Radical" is. As I read this event this has nothing to do with Alinsky, radicals or Kopkind. This is nailing the plywood up after the baseball broke the window, complete with the finger wagging and the threat of a repair bill. Whoever brought the report of the donors planning to strongarm BO upthread you caught the drift of this event.

One lesson I take from this is that we need to rely on ourselves and whoever doesn't set off the BS meter.

The new *NEW* notation on the new (go figure) comments is cool. The IT dept is really cooking with gas over there! (Does everyone see that or just the co-pulishers?) It really is amazing you guys have handled the transition so well with only a few hiccups.

Al, I've been following the Field since last year and it's my first port of call during this election season. I really appreciate what you have created and the hard work you do. And that this can mostly happen through the amazing convenience of the internet. And the ending you have documented with RV didn't surprise me that much, I was never real clear how your mission and RV matched up. And I feel like email did no service to the way this ended. Much of my own work is at the community level here in Portland trying to enrich collaboration between neighborhoods and developers and the city. While emai is great for sharing data and logistics, I find it horrible at working through differences and finding common ground and building deeper levels of trust, even in our differences. While I find the internet amazing for organzing and fundraising and sharing info, I think we also are good to appreciate it's limitations. I'm not suggesting the outcome with you and Deb/RV would have been any different, but I think something was lost in the medium.

I concur with Erik @6:44 ... what was she thinking? Did she not even google Al's writing prior to the invite to collaborate? No one who spent even a few minutes doing so would assume a partyline kinda guy! I mean... narconews??? c'mon! Makes one wonder