Uncensored: The Narrative Is Not a Story of Technology

...and put your chairs and tray tables in an upright position. The "no smoking" sign has been turned off.

Expect some turbulence in the coming days. It's going to be one hell of a show!

Glad you're safe, Al. That's numero uno. I look forward to hearing about it all.

Maria

Hi Al,

Glad we found you (Oona++). Where you are, I choose to be, as well.

the above pastures comment by me, amyvdh

We have missed you. I will reserve judgment but my initial though is how the heck could Saul and Rules for Radicals be censored? It is totally standard reading in the community organizing world....

Hello Everyone. Just to let you know that you can comment with a name now. That way there won't be a million "anonymous" posts.

Brilliant post Al.

Please, do fill us in with respect to what happened.

Your analysis is cogent, the more intelligent will follow your reporting.

How do we get you to Denver at this point?

Be safe, keep blogging.

I'm really sorry that you had to go through whatever bumps you did, but I'm also happy that you're safe and more than happy to follow you to narconews.

I have been contemplating how at first the organizing / enemy part didn't really resonate with me. The idea of community organizing and pulling people together to fight the power certainly does.

But, when I think about the success Obama has had rallying people against "the system" and the corrupt divide and conquer politics, it does actually make sense in terms of #13 and then things working all the way down. What I like about it is that you can trace this back to his moving 04 convention speech -- there are no red states blue states but united states. He's taken that message and tweaked it for the campaign trail to be "fighting against those who slice and dice us and keep us from seeing our shared interests in things like the economy, environment, and so on".

This to me, put the Clinton machine on the defensive right away, as that's the politics they know how to play. The more they played it, the more he was able to say, "and that's the problem with politics, right there."

Glad to have you back!

Thank goodness.

Disturbances in the Field, I guess. I'm very surprised, and am wondering what the heck happened. I don't understand at all the censorship issue. The Field with Al was my first read every day and kept me totally rationale during the primaries. I'll now come here and forget the original Field site.

This is a test take 2

I was on the inside
When they pulled the four walls down
I was looking through the window
I was lost, I am found

Walkaway, walkaway
I walkaway, walkaway...I will follow
If you walkaway, walkaway,
I walkaway, walkaway...I will follow
I will follow

"I Will Follow" - U2

Thanks for the heads up, Al!

Glad I was able to find your new digs Al. Deb has been less than forthcoming, deceitful actually about what happened to you. Refusing to answer questions in comments while firmly claiming the mantle of the defensive crouch to Field Hands not happy with the new and unexplained "cross posting" arrangement.

There are posts about Obama and Alinski in the New Republic. Kopkind might call himself a "radical journalist", but he certainly worked for some of the most establishment publications in America. I just really cannot believe this nonsense.

Just popping in to say hi. Will continue to read your blog. I don't care where it is as long as I get access to your insightful writing. :)

Ok it's all good. I guess at some stage the comment box is going to remember me and my email?

Well like others I have questions (like the Denver $5000) but I guess the main thing is to settled back and enjoy the flight atm.

Oh, and this is definitely a smoking flight!

I can't believe that this post got you censored. I'm glad that you are ok, and that I found the new place.

I just want to say that to those of you that added insightful comments to The Ex-Field, answering my question about how the 13 "Rules for Radicals" could be seen at work in the US presidential campaign, that what troubles me even more than the attempt to censor my words (now foiled) was the censorship of yours.

But have no fear. I've got a "screen shot" of those comments saved, and we'll re-post them here shortly.

Right now our servers are a little bit stressed from all the traffic (a little icing on the latest Iron Man suit?) but our tech guys at Narco News are the best and once we get the wrinkles "ironed" out we'll get to re-posting your censored comments, too. The censorship was an attack on your words, too.

Have been utterly mystified at the response of the powers-that-be at Rural Votes, but I suppose we'll hear more about that later. Glad to have more of your writing and insight to look forward to!

Looking forward to hearing the story. btw, the ning site tipped me off. I saw you were online. Brilliant move to create that and start to mobilize us. (I know I haven't registered yet). Communities of informed people cannot be overpowered.

and Al, you write so well! Makes it easy to read, and alive. Glad to find the Field again tonight, whew.

...and here I thought it got axed because of some comment I missed. I guess I'll reserve judgement till the 'facts' come out, but it does seem a bit heavy-handed. Meh...so goes the hyper-PC world. ghod-forbid we challenge ourselves to think outside of the spoon-fed drivel normally available.

Many thanks to NarcoNews for the tech expertise and work. I'll be looking for a "Keep Al Writing" button. Was just getting ready to donate to the old one. Let's all reach into our pockets if/when appropriate.

Hi Al,

It seemed rather obvious there was some sort of falling out when you and the Alinsky post went MIA. Wanted to suggest this scenario but didn't want to be accused of spreading rumors :) However, I became even more suspicious when no one offered an explanation.

As someone said upthread, you kept me sane during the primaries and although I'm fully inoculated, still looked forward to your insightful commentary re the general election so I was disappointed when you hadn't posted new threads. Glad you're back in action.

I'm as curious as everyone else to understand why the post was deleted.

I'll sleep well tonight but please don't add a security code :)

It is clear to all of us what went down, and why. Our respect for you has only increased because of the stand you took regarding censorship. You are without a doubt an unparelled journalist and voice of truth, and I know we all will support you at your new location here, as you continue to be a voice that would be silenced elsewhere.

Whenever you need our financial support, just ask. Such people must be supported for the sake of us all.

Al is alive and kickin'.

I've been waiting for your latest on......

Obama's moving the DNC to Chicago
Obama's flood help
Tim Russert

and all other things

And I'll choose.......

11 ) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.

As in Clinton pushed "shame on you" and "the skies will open" and Obama broke it into "I thought that was pretty good actually"

...to add my support. Al, I've been following your blog throughout the primary season - since Iowa - and my readership is due to you, not to any particular website - so needless to say I'll be following your posts here.

And censoring an article, particularly without an open discussion regarding that censorship, is honestly appalling.

well Al i'm wondering if you still respect Deb? You gave me hell for my post saying i didn't.

Hey Al,

I was worried about you until I read Oona's post on that other site with this link. Glad to see you are OK. I posted several questions, as did others along the lines of "Where's Al?" and "Is Al OK?" In addition to "What's happened to the Allinksy post?" So I am really happy to find you out that you are OK and to find the Allinsky post as well.

Now if we can only see the comments. One of the reasons I asked about the Allinsky post was because I hadn't gotten through all of the comments.

Also Al, I am one of the many field hands who contributed to send you to Denver. I hope that you will be able to use that money for the purpose it was intended.

Thanks for all that you do, I was having serious 'Al withdrawal!'

Elle

The Fund for Authentic Journalism

There is a box at the top right of the page that says "Support The Field" and a link on the box that says "The Field is supported by...".

Click on that and it will direct you to a page where donations can be made.

Thanks!

Al,

I was shocked to learn that you have left ruralvotes. And boy, how did I learn that ? (Thanks Oona). How come Deb didn't have the courtesy to tell us about this ? What happens to my donation to you for the Denver convention ?

Al,
Went to reread the censored post Wed. night, and it wasn't there. I got a "funny" feeling in my stomach then. Am so glad you're back and look forward to Monday's post. You are my first read of the day. Also, thanks Oona! I was so delighted with your comment (I found Al.)

I was wondering what happened. It's unfortunate there was no notice given on RuralVotes. I thought your post was very educational and I don't understand what was so offensive about it.

If we don't sign up for a co-publisher account, do you still want us to use our real names or are our old hands OK?

Keep up the good work as always!

This is all very confusing, but I'm glad someone located you. Everything just went all pear-shaped over there, and it was arousing the little vestigial nub of chicken DNA buried in me. I guess I need another round of shots. Glad to be here. I won't be able to post at a site called "narconews" at work, as I'm in government, but I'll adjust.

I never saw the Alinsky post. In fact, I had never heard of him; I didn't even know that "community organizing" was a term of art. For anyone else who's confused, this MSNBC article about Hillary's senior thesis seems instructive: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/.

So Al, am I to understand that your post was censored because a pro-Obama site didn't want the word to get out that Obama was connected to someone who was called a Communist by some. There's a word for that: gutless.

Anyway, I guess that's enough bitterness. If I stay bitter, the terrorists--the uber-patriots, the paranoiacs, the censors--they win. And I'm damned if they're going to win.

after extended use reveals the addiction. Found myself refreshing the old site for days, desperate for a new hit. All is better now that I've found your new home.

I must say, very odd sequence of events. Look forward to learning more.

Oh, and count me as another Denver contributor who hopes the donation wasn't made in vain.

Cheers, Al!

This is all very confusing, but I'm glad someone located you. I won't be able to post at a site called "narconews" at work, as I'm in government, but I'll adjust.

So Al, am I to understand that your post was censored because a pro-Obama site didn't want the word to get out that Obama was somehow like a guy who was called a Communist by some? There's a word for that: gutless. And apparently as gutless as the Clintons: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/

Enough bitterness. If I stay bitter, the terrorists--the uber-patriots, the paranoiacs, the censors--they win. And I'm damned if they're going to win.

No. 14: Don't censor the Rules for Radicals

Funny how you start to rely on these web presenses... I kept thinking, first Russert, and now THIS? Glad to hear everything is getting sorted out and ready to move on.

No drama. Fired up. Ready to go.

I just dropped a few. Will it go to your 2008 election efforts or into a general bin?

Oh my. This is like a flight that went into the Bermuda Triangle and came out the other side. I can finally breathe!. Looking forward to hearing more about what transpired.

I was worried something happened to you, so I'm relieved that someone tracked you down and let us know where to find you! You are my oasis of sanity.

It's hard to believe that censorship exists in the Western World, but the beauty of the Internet is that we can just go someplace else.

The threat that white voters, Hillary supporters, hispanic voters, black voters (remember when?) won't vote for Obama. The threat that McCain's mystical powers would immediately neutralize Obama's meticulous and thoroughgoing organizing skills. The idea that the Clintons are an unstoppable force.

Hah! Let us laugh in the face of fear!

The fact that one of the best posts I have read on a blog ...ever! was censored fills me with dismay and disappointment.
rural votes address has been removed from my bookmarks.

Ok Field Hands, its back to work time:

A Kos diary on the somewhat legendary Poblano's GE thoughts.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/15/01046/4962/940/536054

Yeah, I know it's too early and meaningless, but it's sure fun!

the gang's all here...or will be soon as they see the link. Many thanks for leaving a trail of bread crumbs.

Saul did a great interview with Playboy in 1972. Sorry I don't have a link.

Hi Al. Just found out about your censorship and Ruralvotes. What a shame, but I've now bookmarked this The Field and moved on! how do we get you to Denver now!? will Deb give you all the money? i mean, everybody donated to YOU not exactly ruralvotes.com

Fabulous link. Electoral maps built from stale polls drive me bonkers. Sure, Poblano's new methodology is naught but a statistical method, but fliudity makes my heart go pitter-pat.

BTW Al, can we follow the simple sequential posts in your new site instead of the indented replies ?

If you can, you can add track back to the post (for whom the reply was meant) in the new comment.

Joeytj -

When I disassociate, I mean it.

Our attorney has handled all communications with the owners of The Ex-Field.

Supposedly there will be an answer to the question of "what happens to the $5,200 (or $5,600, or more, depending on which version is to be believed) given explicitly to "Send Al to Denver" on Monday.

The other outstanding question is "what happened to the $2,400 raised from the April 30 fund appeal, before there was any plan to send Al to Denver, 'to keep Al writing'?"

And why wasn't Al paid for his work in the month of June?

All these mysteries and more await answers and greater transparency.

I'd love to add some more editorial comment on that, but I'll wait another 48 hours or so (maybe less?) before determining what is prudent.

But no Chicken Little-ism is necessary. There's no way the current situation continues as is. Particularly after tonight, when Field Hands have weighed in so convincingly.

best,

Al

I don't mind having donated earlier for the upkeep of the site; I'm sure that money was already spent to keep Al blogging at that time. But the $50 I donated to send him to Denver - what happens to that?

I'm relieved to find Al here at his new home - I was worried something had happened to him! All set up with an RSS subscription so I can always catch the latest posts.

Thanks. I just pulled the beak back off and stuffed it in the drawer. No, wait, I'm going to throw it out with the kitty litter.

Glad to have found Al, again. I also want to hear if the donations
made to send AL to Denver will actually go to that purpose.

Additionally, what about the blog spot at the convention, does that
stay with RuralVotes or go with The Field?

Can I say that here? Just as the Field Hands are getting organized, the money gets cold feet. WTF?

I hope for a rapproachment, but I'll change the bookmark. That's too bad.

I have been checking the Field a few times a day. Has been odd and disturbing to see the same blog every day. At first I thought you were deliberately staying away so the Field Hands would become more self-reliant. But I had my doubts as the days went by.

So glad you are alive and well in body, and your fighting spirit is unbowed.

I don't get it about the censorship. I read all the Alinsky posts and saw nothing wrong with them.

Anyway, glad for this new place to hear from you and discuss!
Heather

Hundreds of Fieldhands are breathing a sigh of relief. We were genuinely worried about you. Glad to hear you just ran into some stupid and had to get unstuck. I'm also guessing the rapid rise of Fieldhands at ning scared somebody - imagine our readers self-organizing!

Can't wait to hear the full story when you're ready.

I thought I had lost Al forever! I was wondering where the heck he went to. I'm glad that I followed the link from the other field and came here. Everyone, sing along...reunited and it feels SO Good!

I'm sorry that things ended badly at ruralvotes (and it appears they did), but I am frankly relieved that The Field has become independent from that website. I have been an avid and grateful reader of The Field since February. Though I donated to the cause early on, I resisted more recent impulses to contribute, including the Send-Al-to-Denver pledge drive, because comments made by management had irked me often enough and badly enough that I really didn't want to risk funding even a bit of non-Al expenses. And so I just felt guilty for taking and giving nothing back. Now I can support Al without feeling conflicted.

And was going to get to the post that afternoon, but whoop it was gone!

So now here we are.

The decision to move the site was a tough one, and had to do with journalistic freedom.

But please, this post is getting almost to the edge of hero worship.

Not to say that Al hasn't done great work there, but please don't tip over the edge. Think for yourself. The perspective of outside the box, which he has, combined with the wealth of knowledge makes his point of view valuable; but you too can think outside that box and build your own knowledge.

Long time lurker here, speaking up to say that I am relieved to find that at least this little corner of the world will remain intact, even if you have moved to a new address.

As the days went by with no new posts in sight, and with repeated questions left unanswered, it became more and more obvious that something was wrong. After the shocking news about Tim Russert - which hit me like a ton of bricks - the lack of new posts and the questions that were met with silence left me feeling oddly disturbed and quite unsettled.

Happily following you to the new site...

As a writer who gave up a popular column in a Pittsburgh weekly because of censorship at the behest of cigarette company advertisers, I salute you.

Also for standing up for Andy Kopkind. He was a colleague at the Boston Phoenix when I was a writer/editor there in the early 70s (I notice this isn't mentioned on his Wikipedia bio, but as far as I recall, he was a staff member and certainly wrote regular for the paper when I was there.)

It's also heartening to see the 1960s roots of Obama's grassroots movement acknowledged, especially when the boomer generation is so routinely vilified by everyone, left right and center.

Looks like you've landed on your feet, and started to bring your readers with you.

I hadn't read this review of Hillary Rodham's thesis before. In light of the campaign that has just ended, as well as Al's recent dislocation, my head is exploding over multiple ironies.

Chief among about the campaign is how much Obama is who Hillary might have been had she taken one critical different turn; what an Obama girl young Hillary would have been; how Obama transcends the failure Rodham found in Alinsky's inability to nationalize his model; how indebted both are to Alinsky; how Rovian the Clintons are, knowing now that they have been using Larry Johnson et al to do their dirty work by smearing Michelle the very ways that Hillary feared being smeared herself - by her college thesis; and on and on. Did I mention my head is exploding?

Al! I am glad to find the New Uncensored The Field. I am kinda blown away that they censored this. I mean Alinski is required reading for organizers. In fact I had recommended him to the people applying for Obama's fellowships. Saul Alinski's ideas are still being used today to bring about improvement in communities, which was the subject of a film by a friend of mine called "The Democratic Promise: Saul Alinski and His Legacy." - - AND we have seen this in this campaign. I remember a quote from a Superdelegate from Georgia with a background in the AA civil rights movement (not Lewis , this was a woman) who endorsed Obama and mentioned that part of the reason was she liked what the campaign was doing with giving power to local people to organize, and said it reminded her of her own experience in SNCC which was all about local empowerment.

3 ) Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.
This is something that I think characterizes what was going on between the Obama and Clinton campaigns. The latter were out of their element in the idea of organizing in the smaller or red or caucus states, in the enthusiasm that can build by giving power to people at lower levels in the campaign and in the use of popular communication technology.
i'd have to think some more... but i will be interested to see the screen shot to see what people wrote that got CENSORED from ruralvotes.

btw did y'all see this piece Nicholas von Hoffman wrote in The Nation, "The People's Ball" (How Alinski would Plan Obama's Inauguration)
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080324/vonhoffman

Here is some of it:
"Alinsky would advise Obama to skip the balls. That in and of itself would be a new-page statement, but Alinsky would add that such a symbolic act will not mean much unless it is not backed up. He would suggest inviting all the people who worked on the campaign to Washington. Students and others who can't afford such a trip would merit some kind of stipend or scholarship, something the campaign organization with its astonishing fundraising abilities ought to be able to handle. ....

"There should be people's parties as opposed to the lobbyist balls, but there should be more--organizational meetings, seminars on important issues, opportunities to visit the city's marvelous museums and so forth. The inauguration could be turned into an opportunity to convert Obama's campaign organization into a permanent, democratically self-governing, political-social organizational entity of a new and unique character. It would be outside the Democratic Party so that the breadth and enthusiasm brought to the Obama effort by independents and Republicans would not be lost.

Alinsky would point out that for such an organization to endure and perfect itself, it would have to have a rich ongoing life at the local level involving local projects in education, health, environment or whatever the membership determined. Thus it would be profoundly different from the usual political party organizations which essentially go to sleep between elections.

This organization would afford a new kind of communication system for politics and government. It would free the White House from dependence on polls and focus groups and keep it informed on the mind of the nation, as ideas and news could make its way back and forth from top to bottom and bottom to top. Such an organization would provide millions of people around the country as well as Washington office holders with an information system outside of commercial media.

Such an organization, Alinsky would say, would be indispensable to the success of an Obama Administration intent on instituting changes that the K Street money interests will delay, obfuscate and block. This organization, with a stable grassroots presence in most of the nation's Congressional districts, will be able to show members of both houses of Congress how much it will be to their advantage to vote with the Administration rather than with the lobbyists."

**********************************************************************************

I still am concerned with rural issues so i reckon I will still visit ruralvotes but the first thing I'ma do over there is let them know I am very disappointed they would have censored this post of yours and peoples comments on it. That is very sad.
will look forward to hearing the story on Monday.

Duh! I mentioned n my previous comment that my friend Bob Hercules had made a film on Alinski and how his ideas are used decades later.... But when I wrote that comment I had not clicked on the video yet , now I see that it's a promo for Bob's film! I had recommended that Joe try to get a copy of that to watch before his fellowship interview.
I'd repeat that recommendation to all the Field Hands.

I posted a comment to this blog that was censored. I came back the next day and did not even realize it was gone. I logged on twice a day for the last three days thinking you were on vacation. Jeez, I am getting slow in my old age. Al, I am so glad to find you well and am sorry about this garbage. It seems our country is not really free anymore huh? I guess the first amendment only applies to the rich or the Repug fear mongerers?
I hope you still get to blog at the convention and will help with funds if needed.

Al, we were SO worried! I have (had) "The Field" on my iGoogle Homepage, and checked it right after (or even before) my email!
We "Radical 60s Boomers" and "wannabees" missed you so much, and our "radar" knew something was up!
Most of us started "Chicken Little-ing" all over again!
Don't know what the deal is/was at Rural Votes, but as you have taught us, we'll try to be patient and wait to hear what you have to say...

Tell the NarcoNews webmeisters to "bulk up"...here comes the Field Hands!

We love you, Al...and we know you love us back! (To coin a phrase from our next POTUS!)

No, I am not too surprised that this went down the way that it did. Deb is a Democrat Party hack--and the two-party corporate duopoly is all about herding passive consumers. Community organizing is anathema to illegitimate hierarchies of power and priviledge.

What tipped Deb's hand to me was when she tried to paint me as some type of elitist---when I am probably one of the few Fielders that actually run a fledgling farm. LOL

Siddartha picked up on what was happening at the time, and, out of respect for Al, I did not push the matter much.

This week was very tough, so I only glanced at the Rules for Radicals entry.

Again, given Deb's penchant for playing her cards close to her chest (in a very wierd fashion), none of this surprised me. Censorship has everything to do with maintaining illegitimate power--and a community organizing in a truly democratic context scares the plutocracy and its servants shitless.

Al - I'm glad to have found you again and that you're OK. I am mystified as to the reason for censorship, since I thought the post was excellent and thought provoking, but what do I know? I just know I'll keep reading wherever you post.

I never new how much I was addicted to this blog, Al welcome back. Thanks to the Jedreport (I'm sure there are others)reporting on your new digs. Hell, I thought there was some techno-glitch regarding the missing post at the ex-Field site and you were probably taking a couple well-deserved days to recharge before things really heat up. Sorry to hear about the drama, but looking forward to the full story. Take care.

Another lurker here - I came here regularly for innoculations and booster shots during the primary season. Thank you for still being here and heres to getting through to a landslide election:))

but I'm glad you and The Field have survived. Air seems fresher over here, but maybe that's just me. Also looks like Firefox likes your software better - another plus. Waiting for Monday...

As long as I'm at it, our candidate shows us how it's done - again. http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/barack-helps-fl.html

linked to then quickly bookmarked. You are a pleasure to read.
Thanks.

Al,
One thing you definitely need to make sure to do is get an archive of all your old posts from http://www.ruralvotes.com. I presume that all your posts and comments exist in a database file somewhere and you need to make sure you get a copy of that database file. It would be a great pity to lose the history of your commentary on this Democratic Primary. Another thing you can do while the site is still being hosted at Rural Votes is get some web capture software (there's some free stuff out there or maybe some technologically inclined Field Hand can help out) and point it http://www.ruralvotes.com/thefield/ and it should be able to grab the website. The only thing I'm not sure of is would it grab the comments - that's why you should ask for a copy of the db file. I don't know if you legally own the content, or if you joint-own it with Rural Votes, or if they own it outright, but you it would be courtesy for them to give you a copy (for the book you're going to write, right?).
Cheers,
Look forward to reading you over here.

@ John @ 2:15 am...

Al IS our *hero*...in that there are very few blogs that unabashedly tell the truth...even when it hurts.

That's why a lot of us were saddened by Tim Russert's death...yes, he did a lot of "gotcha's", but he was REAL and pretty much independent for a MSM person. When Tim said after IN/NC that Senator Obama was the *presumptive nominee*, it was DONE as far as the MSM and HRC was concerned.

Of course the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are devastating (especially because of a war that "should not have been authorized and should not have been waged"), but because most Americans get their news from the MSM, the loss of Tim Russert is immeasurable; especially in this political season. Compare him to Georgie S @ ABC!

For most of us, no matter what our age, Al is like the wise sage...he instructs, he makes us think, he makes us work hard, and he admonishes us when necessary. Al is REAL!

So it's not so much *worship* as deep and profound respect for Al and his work.

We Field Hands are PROUD to be progressive Liberals with a capital "L" and there are few independent outlets for us. Even the O-man has had to put a disclaimer on his blog site!

Great news, Al, that is that you're all right. Even though I mostly read, I have sorely missed your commentary and loved the community organizing post. Really so fine and especially the way you engaged us in both understanding the rules and applying them. Can't imagine what was so threatening to warrant censorship. Glad to find you; did so, via Barry Crimmins whom you had earlier recommended. Thanks to both of you for all you do.

A remarkable thing happened. I shared the original essay on Facebook, and a very short while later, got people asking me where the things I had referred to had gone...

And so I checked at ruralvotes and found that something odd had happened to The Field.

Sigh. Why is Tracy Russo blogging in 'Al Giordano blogs the US Presidential Campaign'-land over there now?

And now I've found The Field again! Happiness.

So 'Rules for Radicals' got the faux rads all steamed up? I can't wait to hear this tale, I'm sure it'll be most informative.

Here are two links that tie both Hillary and Obama to Alinsky in earlier times.

Obama's Alinsky Jujitsu - January 8, 2008
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/obamas_alinsky_jujitsu.html

THE CLINTON-OBAMA-ALINSKY MYTH - March 25, 2008
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield

===========================

I guess that means I ditch the ruralvotes bookmark.

Al, what happens to that money donated for you to go to Denver?

I posted this @ the old field (@ ruralvotes)

To all the Field Hands who had donated to Al’s Denver Convention.

Deb has e-mailed me that the amount will be refunded back to my account (sorry, she ain’t transferring to Al directly).

You may e-mail her at ombudskoz@ruralvotes.com and ask for a refund. You need to tell her whether you paid through paypal or groundspring.

Late to the party, again. Just clued in today 6/15. The $$$ I contribute monthly and additional periodic lump sums were absolutely meant to sustain Al Giordano's writing and trip to Denver to cover the convention.

Whew, I am so glad to see that Al's excellent work is continuing. I'm not sure what's going on with names here, but I'll try to stick with CarolinCA. I posted very rarely, but for the sake of transparency (something the folks at ruralvotes have a lot to learn about), I prefer to keep my screen name consistent.

I just keep literally shaking my head over this, as I cannot fathom that any site dedicated to political discussion -- much less one claiming to care about rural issues -- would actually censor a column citing the work of Saul Alinsky. I said as much in a couple of posts over there. I'm extremely disappointed in them, and will be glad to hear your perspective on what came down, Al.

I care about rural issues, too: My grandparents were sharecroppers (my mother was not allowed to attend school past the sixth grade because she was needed on the farm and according to my grandfather, "girls don't need to know how to do more than count to ten and sign their names"). All of my aunts and uncles on her side are still farmers.

I've done organizing work in the rural South and Southwest of the U.S., and currently work to make HIV care, substance abuse treatment, and mental health services accessible to what's generally referred to as underserved populations -- many of which are rural. And it's exactly because of my commitment to these concerns that I WON'T be returning to ruralvotes. The way they have handled this so far indicates that I can't trust them to fairly represent the voices and issues of the folks I know and work for in rural regions.

If, upon Al's description of what's come down, I am shown to be wrong about ruralvotes, I'll gladly apologize and make peace, but right now that possibility is looking pretty remote. And I damned well want to know what's going on with my donation for Al's trip to Denver.

In any case, I am very happy and relieved to see Al's work continuing. His writing is one of my sources of mental and spiritual oxygen: It centers and sustains me on many levels. I hope all of the Fieldhands successfully make the transition to the narcosphere. I'm delighted to be here!

Hi Al,

I am so happy you overcame the type of censorship that is oh so prevalent all over America. I am so sick of the U.S. culture of grouping any type of writings or historical events associated to social movements in the same bucket as the joke-type communism that the USSR ran. Unless we have a space where those ideas can be put side to side with the extremisms of unfettered capitalism that Neocons and Neoliberals have been pushing all over the continent for decades, we stand no chance of ever achieving the type of ideological and discursive balance needed for the world to move into the future.
As far as Alinsky's rules, I think the one that resonates with me the most with regard to Obama's campaign is number 3. The way that Obama started using the discourse of the young, of the future and of hope, you would think he was living in a completely different world than that painted by the viejitos of the Republican party (and unfortunately by Hillary too). Nothing, and I mean nothing scares boomers more than the prospect of having the younger generation take power and make them accountable for the disaster that they have caused around the world in one generation.
While Obama talked about unity, he talks about it in a much more sincere way than say Bush did in 2001, meaning that he is reaching out to those accross party lines who think like him, not to the pre sliced and diced constituency labels established by the old rules of politics. In doing so he gave voice to countless numbers of people, and countless numbers of dreams that up to 2004 could not even be articulated, as the discourse revolved around the Reaganesque ways of conceiving the world. Glad that Bush's second cold war (on terror, that pervasive and oh so invisible enemy) is being discredited as it should be.

Alinsky? How the hell can anyone get busted for Alinsky? For sure, Alinsky is (in many ways) extremely dangerous for the dominant paradigm but still...infinitely more scurrilous things had been written about on the "old" Field. Oh well...

Nice to see everyone over here.

I thought you'd taken down the post and our comments because you thought our responses to Rules for Radicals were not enlightened enough! Glad to know otherwise....

Since I contributed with my charge card, I'm going to cancel the contribution, lodge a dispute, whatever it's called. It can't hurt, can it? If you end up getting the money from Rural Votes, I'll re-contribute it. I'm glad I found you via Barry Crimmins. I wondered where you had gone. Couldn't imagine going through this election cycle without you and the Field Hands.

Thanks, Al.

I also chipped in a hundred bucks (which i'm missing more than i thought i would) so i really hope it makes its way to Al to get him to Denver. I had never contributed to this kind of thing before, so it would be kind of a letdown.

On the plus side, this whole thing -- including reading narconews has re-awakened some of the activist in me, so I'm sure it's all to the good. But, it would be a shame if Al doesn't make it to Denver and the swarm journalisming doesn't happen.

Second, I did want to comment on the 'hero worship' thread / comment. I think (whoever it was) raised some good points that if you read these comments, we look like a bunch of fawning... something or other. It's unsettled me a few times too.

On the other hand, it's a good time to show solidarity for a guy who has given A LOT of his life to journalism, in an age where actual good reporting is few and far between. When I was debating as to whether to send $ for Al to go to Denver, I re-read his interview with the Boston Phoenix and immediately got out my checkbook. Sometimes, people just are a little heroic.

me too :)

Thanks AMK! I was going to dispute this with my credit card, but I'll see if I get a credit and re-contribute to Al.

Can someone who has an account with DailyKos post over there and let people know where to find Al? I just signed up for an account, but can't post for 24 hours. We need to let people know. I just found out through Barry Crimmins a www.barrycrimmins.com. I'm following you Al.

what an interesting lesson Al is going to teach us now!!! I left a message on the 'old' Field Hands thanking Al for his kind words about Andrew Kopkind.
Seat belt buckled and ready for action.
Thanks, again, Al.

saying that she will refund by check. I asked her to refund to my credit card account.

Let's see what happens. This whole thing has become quite unsavoury.

First I thought you had gone fishing in one of those Pennsylvania valleys Al.

then I thought some sort of collation of the repiles to Alinsky was in the works.

then I noticed the ning site was looking more interesting but I was missing one voice.

Now there is a very curious tale but I am very glad to find to find your post and have lots to think about what this censorship really is leading towards.

I had no funds to contribute but will assert there was no ambiguity about where those donations were going, to send AL to Denver.

I am glad to have seen the post on Dkos that led me here. I have been a regular reader this whole campaign season - and I don't understand the internal politics of this move to censor you.

Who controls the rural votes Site?

You have always referred to Deb Kowalaski (sp) as your boss - but is this an organizational decision or simply that you were too independent.

In any case, I don't see how a blog post discussing alinsky and community organizing, and rules for radicals - can be grounds for censorship. This is not Obama's own site -- and the fear of open discussion on other sites is exactly the reaction I would expect of the old DNC- not the new Obama campaign.

First, I totally support Obama's attempts to impose message discipline and control the 527's that want to support him - I am more than happy to give all my general election money to Obama and the congressional candidates, rather than a 527.

But that control of message certainly does not extend to independent blogs. So what gives?

More explanations would be helpful.

Hi Al,
It's a great morning to have found you. Glad you are OK.

CATHERINE

Al- I'm so glad you stand up for what you believe in and in doing so you stand up and with all of us. We all knew something was going on and we'll all be tuning in tomorrow to find out what happened? Are you still going to Denver? Perhaps this makes more sense to have The Field over on your site? Now we can go to one place to read all of your fantastic, free thinking, hard-work!

I'm also relieved to find Al over here as well. It's a shame that this should happen the way it did - especially since apparently no announcement was ever made on the original blog.

Since it's the weekend, I'm willing to give those reponsible time to sort what the final result will be, but to just say "cross-posting" without anything else is disengenious, to say the least. Not to mention the money I donated for the new "Iron Man suit" - I have a feeling they may end up having a new suit but nothing to try it out on.

Anyway, I'll maintain a "favorites" tag on the old blog for awhile just to see how things play out, but I've created a new tag for this blog - I've labeled it "The Real Field".

I think Obama's style of organizing is so substantially different from Alinsky's, and so much more successful, and so much more inclusive, and so much better, that I'm just not sure why you'd bother to bring Alinsky up. In a way, it's like biting your nose off to spite your face. Not saying you should be censored. Just saying you should be smart. Alinsky represents an old paradigm that led to some of the alienation of the 1970s ... and remember that while Alinsky was talking about radicalism (right or wrong), John McCain was getting beat up (literally) in Vietnam's Hanoi Hilton. McCain basically said, "I think the war is justified and I hate the g----," while a lot of radicals were saying something different. Check out today's NYT story where McCain talks about "brainwashing" Americans to be pro-America.

I'm trying this again to see if it goes thru. If it does, glad to find you this morning! And hoping we can go back to the non-indented reply format?

I'm very happy you are in a new place as I was rarely on the same page as "Super" Deb. Among one of the many; she never did answer my question about Vail, Colorado and Carmel,California being considered rural by her definition. Telling me that rural is defined solely by population rather than by the primary rural related industry and the associated economics of an area.

Sorry to double post—What will happen to the archive of posts and comments?

Folks might want to refer to information or posts from you AL.

It was getting a little dull commenting on the "And then there were two" post over at Rural Votes. A couple of quick comments:

*The Field = Al Giordano (it's a brand thing)
*The commenting options over here are superior to Rural Votes (you can reply directly to comments and preview before posting)
*Online communities form around authentic voices (good luck to Rural Votes!)
*I was a know-nothing when it came to Alinsky, so I read the post as one possible way to interpret the efficacy of community organizing, not a call to arms. I'm stupid that way, I guess.

Glad to have found The Field community again!

I went back to look at the comments posted the next day, and couldn't find it ... now I know why.

Having read up a bit on your journalistic history, I had wondered why Deb decided to hire you on for this project. Her reaction to your article doesn't really surprise me.

Phew, I'm just glad that a) Al is alright (the radio silence worried me) and b) he's still blogging! It's too bad that the powers that be at Rural Votes have been afflicted with a terrible case of Chicken Little-itis (oohh Alinsky [who HRC wrote about in her college thesis], scaaaary), but we soldier on.

Al, as the Field Hands shift over here, can we help out with the new field in any monetary way?

Also, are we still Field Hands or what? I kind of like Narconauts but that might give the wrong impression.

wow, such intrigue.
I would really like to know the whole story from joining ruralvotes to the exit. if possible.
with Hillary gone, Al gone, Tim gone, the energy level had sunk very low. but now Al is back.
thanks

Thanks amk! Request sent. If I actually get the refund, I'll re-direct it to Al here.

Well. It sucks you got censored. I'd like to here more about that in the coming days.

I'll go with 5 "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/watch-obama-on-annie-oakl_n_964...

When Hillary claimed she was some kind of lifelong gun owner instead of trying to pander and pretend that it was he who was the lifelong gun owner he used ridicule. And it worked.

I spent the evening and morning thinking about how much I've enjoyed Al's posts. I had the sudden awareness of how his frank, imperturbable, pragmatic political analysis reminds me of the political philosophies in Romance of the Three Kingdoms. It also reminded me of Machiavelli even though I haven't read very much of his work. And then this morning I encountered this terrific quote by Salinsky:

Machiavelli wrote The Prince as a handbook for the Haves on how to hold on to their power. My book is for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.

I wondered what had happened--your analysis stands out amongst all the blathering in the endless echo chamber. I'm curious as to what happened, but I'm certain that Rural Votes is the big loser in this deal.

--Nick

Can't seem to access the old Field anymore - the link goes straight to the Back 40.

mmmmm

BondiBeachViews

Just went over to The Ex-Field to see if Deb has finally chimed in with an explanation, but the old field link takes you directly to the Back 40, 'The Field' link on the main page also takes you to the back 40, and there is now a 'Keep Tracy Writing' link.

Wow, this was really handled 'ugly' by ruralvotes. *brushes off the shoulders*

Glad Al's voice found a new, improved ground in which to flourish.

Al, you have that well honed "no" feeling from all the time you've spent building up the idea (and reality) of authentic journalism. When ideas start getting censored, you know someone has an ass to cover. You've said yourself that the "important" people are reading this blog, and evidently they are too "important" to the people running Ruralvotes to offend their sensibilities with the results of telling people that their thoughts are valued and it is important to organize and make the world we have into the world we want. I was frankly shocked at how far your radical brand was going and was wondering how far it could go after Deb formally endorsed. Now we know. Barry Crimmins is redirecting traffic to you at his blog (thanks Barry!!).

but unfortunately, so are all comments about Al and the comment that had this link. Hopefully people who have been away for the weekend will figure it out.

Sad it came to this, I thought Al and Deborah had been friends for quite a while. But most of us, I think, agree with Al's decision to cut the cord under the circumstances.

Looking forward to learning if Al's donated Denver money gets to him.

If Deb found your Alinsky post too radical, she should have had the guts to say so. But the disappearance of the post, your disappearance, and the general stonewalling was just ridiculous.

And now The Field, if it is up on the server, is completely inaccessible via browser as there's a redirect to The Back Forty for all pages called within that directory. You can find several pages through Google cache for the next little while, at least.

I hope your lawyer can get your writing back to you, Al. And if you have local copies, you hold all moral and intellectual rights to those too, don't you?

Joy, I called American Express this morning and stopped payment of my "Denver contribution" to Rural Votes/Groundspring as well as recurring monthly contribution. I did this largely because refund promises from Rural Votes are a bit sketchy as are directions on how to stop monthly recurring payments. Was easier to write Rural Votes and let them know that payment was stopped.

Al, I also made a lump sum contribution on April 30th (in addition to the one I stopped on 5/20). I was assured that donation went to your work so I did not dispute it on my credit card. I hope this is true.

Glad you have a new site. Hope it is free of censors.

As many of you are probably finding at the same time, Rural Votes has removed all links to The (former) Field and redirected and removed comments from previous entries, including the aptly named "This is Not Ok"

I have the original "This is Not Ok" post at The Field in one browser tab and there were 99 comments, many questioning what has happened to Al's site and some simply commenting on the original version of the post. The redirected version of the post is now at The Back Forty and as of this writing, has 19 comments. Mine, protesting this, is currently awaiting moderation. I will be curious to see if it will be approved and I will not be surprised, though very disappointed if it is not.

So it gets posted somewhere, I've pasted it below:

I’m incredibly shocked and angry that this site has removed *without explanation or apology* close to 100 comments on the original version of this post (not to mention completely removing, again without comment or explanation, the original site, The Field).

This is contrary to the spirit of free speech and freedom of information (as well as basic human courtesy to readers who were here before as well as anyone who might find the site in the future). It is shameful and wrong.

I am insulted, saddened and deeply disappointed that a site that proports to be about democracy and *community* would behave in such a manner to genuine feedback and erase the evidence of a vibrant and engaged readership.

(In response to http://www.ruralvotes.com/thebackforty/?p=109)

Censorship of this post (or any other) is so completely
ridiculous I thought at first it was some kind of joke.

Look forward to your continuing commentary on this new site!

4 ) Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules.

This is an easy one - when Hillary said "Lobbyists represent real people" or whatever the line was, that showed her loyalties to big money over the populace. She was held up to our small-d democratic ideals, and she came up short. McCain comes up short, too.

I was trying to comment at The Field just before noon CST. While I was there, it was taken down. Visiting The Field now redirects you to The Back Forty. Of course this removes from public view all the objections to censorship and Deb's silence/stonewalling. I entered a comment there calling this out and sharing the link to the new & improved Field.

Could the censorship of the Alinsky post have really been about the fact that readers of The Field were organizing themselves? Could that have made people uncomfortable or nervous?

Also, re. "humbling experience for we writers...." (please forgive me, I'm grammar-obsessed --) Should be "us" because it functions as the object of the preposition "for" ("for us") and therefore should be objective case rather than the nominative "we" (not "for we".) (There! Sorry, it had to be said!)

I find it silly that Ruralvotes has taken "the Field" down. Unfortunately I can only interpret that as not being welcome there anymore, so I won't go there.

Happy to be here.

I'm so glad I found your new home, Al - I was wondering where you were for a couple days. No more visiting Rural Votes for me. Their other bloggers just don't interest me as much.

Am I the only one who remembers the overblown and tacky Inauguration festivities of Bill Clinton in '92? Lordy, I truly thought we had ourselves a King instead of a President.

Big fan of grammar chasing.  Nice work!

This is like popping back out of the looking glass. I hope they haven't paid the bill for their new servers over at that old rabbit hole, because it sure is quiet there now. I did hear a tumbleweed blowing by.

Don't unpack your bags for Denver, though, Al. We'll get you there somehow!

Glad you are in one piece, Al. What happens to our past donations for you to get to Denver? Can we donate again?

Glad you are in one piece, Al. What happens to our past donations for you to get to Denver? Can we donate again?

Al, I assume part of your attorney's conversation with the ruralvotes people concerns ownership of/access to old content and comments.

Since we don't know what the final outcome will be, and people are starting to panic a bit about the loss of all of that great discussion about the 2008 primary, and presidential electoral history, and race and gender in electoral politics, etc., I thought I'd remind folks that old pages can be accessed through the Google cached pages, if one knows the right page heading to search for. I'm working on the posts that were still front page at The Field as of last night, but I don't know the headings for all of the entries going back to the beginning of The Field.

I'm sure Al has copies of all of his old posts, but the nice thing about the Google cache is that it also has the comments. Unfortunately, it doesn't have all of the comments for the most recent posts, e.g., the one that was censored, but it does seem to have complete comments for older posts.

Al, if you already have this covered and there's nothing to be gained by tracking down the old entries, please let us know.

If anybody thought we wouldn't think of doing that before we moved The Field, and fantasized that six months of work by hundreds of us could be successfully "disappeared," they severely underestimated our chess playing abilities.

Everything that is happening right now was predicted and we thought it all through many moves ahead. It's amazing how predictably rote and petty the moves from some corners are so far, but we are able to accurately forecast future behaviors by studying past ones.

Once we get everything else ship-shape over here on The Field's new home, we'll give my archives and your comments a permanent gallery here.

The censorship has already failed. No need to go hunting Google caches. Still, thanks for thinking and posting about it.

Thanks, Al. That's a relief.

Karl,

Why do you think it worked? I certainly laughed when he riciduled her but also thought that maybe he was lowering himself a bit, sorta getting personal, going down to her level (the celestial skies...). Overall, didn't think it was one of his finest moments. How did this help him, especially with gun owners?

aghast,

Thanks. I'm grammar obsessed too and appreciate the rule review.

Yes, it had to be said. Keep saying it!!!

Al, So glad you are still here. I found out where you were from Tara's comment in the "We Interrupt This Program . . ." entry at the old field. I e-mailed RuralVotes and asked for a refund for my Denver donation.

Just my two cents about format. I LOVED the visually simple layout of the old field, including no threads and no titles for comments. I also liked your links on the right-hand side.

Keep up your great work. I will send a few bucks your way soon.

Glad you saved the content from the old field Al and I'm happy to have found you once again. I was going to need detox in another day or two without your posts. I'm glad I didn't send out my emails to some people here in my area that are wanting to become Field hands, it had the old address. I'll revamp them tomorrow with your new addy and wait until the dust settles a bit. In the meantime I'll send them to the ning site.

that after requesting they have recieved emails from Deb saying she will return their donations by check (you must say which method (paypal or the other) you used to donate.

So if you donated, go ask for it back.

Glad to find you, Al.

I cannot believe this!!!

I was first introduced to your blog by my brother and every time I had my chicken little syndrome slapping me in the face I would rush to your Blog and calm down after reading your articles and getting some awesome perspective..until a couple of days ago you went AWOL and I needed your dose of anti-chicken littling galore and I could not find you!!!!!!!!!!!

It was pure dumb luck that I found out what was going on from the Obama website and one of the users posted the story about you and giving us this link!!!

"Phew" is all I have to say and keep smacking us with the TRUTH!!!

And, Al, I second the comments about the 'old' Field's visual layout--it was user friendly and simple. When you have time, think about 'ease of use' with respect to your blog layout.

More, please keep us posted about what we are supposed to do about the money we donated to you through the old site. If I need to jump through some hoops to get those monies to you, let me know.

You said that you anticipated how things would play-out--when you are able, I would hope you would make meticulously clear exactly what happened. I am fascinated by the core-beliefs and biases that might have come into play in this situation.

As I said, Deb once railed at me for being an elitist--and this guy Don seemed to really be irked by my take on the reasons behind the Iraq occupation. These were certainly intended to stop the evolution of discourse surrounding several key issues.

Not to dwell on past conflicts, I do think that a detailed explaination of what happened would be helpful.

You have demonstrated your political organizing skills through quality journalism these past few months--I would hope that you go further down this road. Having an attractive, user-friendly blog where compelling information is kept current, where participants can easily donate small amounts of money on a regular basis, would be a service toward small 'd' democracy at this juncture.

I am a staunch anti-imperialist and democratic populist--and there is dearth of places to hang my hat when I have time to engage politically on the web.

Thanks for what you have done so far.

As for me, I like the threads so long as we avoid long tangents. And I applaud the preview option. But I agree on the visuals; I find these black-background sites to be a little oppressive (to mood, not otherwise), but the quality of posts and comments far outweighs that.

I still haven't sussed out how to rate replies. Any guidance, anyone?

OK, I've got to go to the office. No rest for the wicked.

to ombudskoz@ruralvotes.com; she'll let you know that the refund is coming in whatever form you donated it. I kept my request polite, even though I'm mad as...as...as a wet hen.

While I understand why your blog is now hosted at Narco News, I'm not sure it's the best permanent home. Didn't you once say that mainstream editors and reporters follow the comments here?

The content, obviously, is the most important issue. But will people yet to discover this blog still take the words as seriously? I'm not sure. It would be a shame to lose potential readership over a URL. You could still use the same blogging platform and technical team even if the URL is different. Or could the blog be hosted at Ning?

On the other hand, I was never sure why you were posting at a "rural" site, so maybe it doesn't make a difference at all.

Glad to see Al and The Field back. Does anyone know if any Obama Fellow Field Hands will be assigned to Georgia? We have a massive Voter Registration task ahead of us among African Americans in the South. Our registration rates, especially among men, lag behind the national rates for African Americans and the overall population. With a large African American population and a core of moderate whites in metropolitan Atlanta, I understand Georgia will be in play for November. Voter Registration, Voter Education, and GOTV will be key. Bush won big here in the last two elections.

Oh, Steven H, honestly. What irked me was your poisoning the well by announcing -- repeatedly -- that only stupid and evil people could disagree with you. I (still) don't think there's good evidence for the view that the US invasion of Iraq was an attempt to wrest control of oil. If so, the Bush administration are even worse blunderers than they seem to be. But I don't see how our disagreement about that makes me a reactionary wanting to "stop the evolution of discourse."

...my favorite pecan pie recipe! I am, after all, a Super Delegate!"

It stuck in my craw then, and it all adds up now.

I actually find this just as easy to read as the other field. And I'll do a happy jig over previewing so that I can have fewer typos when my fingers get ahead of my head. Happy to see my old commenting buddies....looking forward to continued comments from Al & others.

dewberry

I see Barry takes the mainstream media Russert weep-fest to task.

http://www.barrycrimmins.com/

It's an excellent post if you haven't checked it out. And he's all over the Field stuff as well, as someone noted.

Since my Field comment post on the Russert celebrity worship has been so far lost in the wake of the censorship parade over at what is now the house of ill repute, I'm glad to see it articulated elsewhere, far better and in far more depth.

And as for the new home of The Field, well, I like the sands on this beech far better already and I see some humongous waves in the distance -- so get your surf boards ready. We're about to ride the big one.

Hi Al, Glad to hear you had opportunity to do this (I knew you would have the foresight).

David B. has my phone number (we traded email). Let me know if there is anything I can do this week in terms of troubleshooting or researching problems.

Al--was wondering what had happened. Look forward to hearing your analysis of everything from now until the general. And obviously hearing the whole censorship story which I have a hard time understanding.

Steven H--you and I have had our disagreements on little things but they have been good humored no? Example: your take on the BBC. But today I really have to object, truly, to your calling out Don, another field hand, in this dismissive way. It seems wrong to me. Surely if you had something you wanted to object or disagree with him about you could have done it in another way? Without putting him in the same paragraph as those who censored Al?
Sorry, this is not the sort of exchange I am used to from back at The Field. what happened to the respect part?

Obama Fellows will go to the 17 states targeted including Georgia:

Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Iowa
Michigan
Missouri
North Carolina
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Nevada
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin

I'm not so sure it helped with gun owners but after he did that the media started focusing on how ridiculous her claim was instead of how Obama wasn't winning those "working class white voters"

When Clinton did it she was mocking his ability to make change. She was mocking our hopes and dreams essentially by implying we had no idea what we where doing.

When Obama did it he was calling her out for cynical pandering.

That might be a biased view but I think there is a difference.

So it didn't really help him but it made people realize how much she was pandering. It wasn't the best moment but she certainly could have won rural PA by a lot more.

By the way. I love the new comments. We can reply directly now!

You're not going to believe this, but I was just thinking about you as I read comments on the other post and wondered where you were. Then I clicked on this post and saw your name. Now we are truly at home here. The comments section wouldn't be the same without your energy and good information.

Ugg. Yes.

That was not a moment where you were proud to be a Democrat.

I love the idea of a people's ball. Perhaps then it could be a giant Camp Obama training on how to organize locally to pass Obama's agenda. They could get Marshall Ganz and all the other trainers to come. Do it on the Mall in DC. After Obama and Ganz and some speakers spoke to the entire crowd it would be split by state and congressional district. Big circles for each district. People could tell their stories and trainers would do their thing. Just like Camp Obama but with 100,000 people or something.

How amazing would that be? And what a way to kick off the new Administration!

Perhaps it could be coordinated by a new White House Office for Organizing headed by Ganz that would help make Obama's "What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer, as part teacher and part advocate" dream come true.

I think I'm going to write up a whole proposal for that. If only this had a user blog feature like DailyKos.

Deb's assured me that the removal is not permanent and that the content will come back on the new concept.

Robert -

For eight years, Narco News has been cited and praised and featured by the top media critics and journalists across the world. Here's a collection of quotes from them just in our first two years (and there's been so much more, since):

http://narconews.com/mediacrits1.html

It was also the first Internet newspaper to win First Amendment protections under "Sullivan v. NY Times" due to an order by the New York Supreme Court, a case that is now part of the canon of law school textbooks everywhere.

The Ex-Host never had any of that, and what little it had came through my work at The Field.

And Narco News has more readers to boot, even before The Field Hands arrive.

You may find the name jarring, but nobody ever forgets it. And, besides, look around at the publications that are well known. From Rolling Stone to Vanity Fair, many also have off-beat but attention-keeping titles.

I can say after eight years that I am 100 percent proud to be associated with Narco News and its team of journalist.

Obviously, I've disassociated myself with Brand X because I can't say that about them.

I love that the Field is part of Narco News now.

When are you going to put up a donate button so we can continue to fund your writing and travels?

Can't speak for the original poster, but I think it worked because it slapped her across the nose and eventually helped neutralize her nonsense regarding the utterly-manufactured "bittergate".

I thought he just threw her own words on "bittergate" right back in her face. He didn't make up stuff, he laughed at her actual words.

Please see if the comments can be made non-threaded. Or if that can be made a cookie-persisted option.

It's hard to find new content in the comments with the threaded format. If I'm reading comments, and not replying, that seems OK because I can read the conversations. If I'm replying, and need to see if anyone replied to me, that sucks, because I have to find my comment amidst the others, then I notice there's other comments I missed because of the comment-order, etc.

Regardless of this...sorry you had to find a new home in the way you did, but glad you found one.

Mikell,

It's my understanding that Georgia is one of the states that will be (is already) getting particular attention from Obama Organizing Fellows.

Although not my favorite, threads work okay if new comments are flagged when you come back to the post. But all in all, I find them confusing--both visually and in terms of content. I'm so glad The Field is now an independent entity.

I think Rule #9--"The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself"--applies here. Fear of being labeled scary lefties for mentioning Saul Alinsky or posting on the narcosphere won't hold people back, I think. Billy Goats Gruff may be making lots of noise, but I think people are getting tired of being afraid. I'd like to hear about the specific tactics that the community organizers here use to help people and communities to keep moving forward in the face of fear mongering and intimidation.

When you can, independence is best. Conflicting POVs and conflicting objectives can just obfuscate and end up frustrating all parties involved. I always thought rural votes was a strange home for Al, in that while much he said was interesting and salient, it didn't have that much to do with rural issues. Sean Reagan is a better fit.

I think you'll find we'll support you here. I'm writing off my donation--will contribute anew here. Am still hoping Denver can happen.

It's my favourite post you've ever done, in that the comments it inspired were so thoughtful, engaged and analytical.

Glad to have found you. Will send support and spread the word.

Just wanted to add my voice to the chorus of folk who prefer the previous site's non-threaded comments.

It's wonderful to see the familiar handles here tonight. Although I post infrequently I read every post and thank everyone for their excellent comments and links.

Seat belt on. check.

... go with your gut. And in this case, it looks like I was right to set up donations through the NarcoNews Paypal account instead of through the Rural Votes-controlled Groundstream when I first found Al, so the money can keep on going straight to the work.

As always, it's good to read you again, Al.

Latina, I simply found Don's non-response to my assertion that the Iraq occupation was/is fundamentally about control of energy supplies pretty weird. More, I gathered (perhaps incorrectly) that he was tied with Deb in someway. After that situation, and the way that some of my qualms about Obama as a politician were received (or, rather, ignored) it did kind of put me in a self-censorship mode, to a degree.

I dropped out of graduate school on the cusp of completing my degree because of the pressure to conform to an inauthentic national mythos. My professors refused to even engage Noam Chomsky's critique--and I doubt that the very conservative field of political science is much different than it was a decade ago.

The best policy for any progressive moment is to encourage authentic debate and participation--not ignoring and marginalizing viewpoints that make you uncomfortable.

Indeed, the liberal, pro-corporate/accomadationalist wing of the Democrat Party needs to be challenged at this juncture if we are ever see much needed progressive change in the US.

Things to be fixed in the New Field.

1. When you hit reply, it goes to another page. Typically, it should go to the bottom of the same page you are on.
2. Your name stays permanently on 'anonymous' and you have to enter your name and mail id every time to post. (I know someone is working on it)
3. This black background is killing me. White background is easier on the eye.
4. Indented replies makes it harder to find the latest posts. One has to read all the posts (many of them already read) to find the latest ones.
5. As I had mentioned before, you can have a trackback facility to the post one was replying to and still have all the posts sequentially arranged.

Steven - I don't think commenters with differing opinions (that's bound to happen frequently in any large group) ought to be calling each other out personally (nor jumping to conclusions that somebody is "tied with" somebody else). Stick to the merits of the matters being discussed and let's not personalize it, because it has a distracting effect on the real meat of these conversations.

I've been exercising a very loose hand in approving comments but if any commenters start getting personal with each other, I'll tighten it up pretty fast.

Could not figure out after being gone a couple of days why I didn't understand what was going down on The (old) Field. Where was this famous Alinsky thread everybody kept referring to? What was I missing?

Al, I know it hurts, but some day we will all look back on this episode and recognize that it was related to the end of the nominating contest and Deb K.'s own political future. Everything looks different when you have a nominee you think has a very good shot at being the president. You real journalists are always kind of dangerous for us political people. And political people still astonish me every day with their own ruthlessness.

Don't let this bump in the road distract you from where you were going, which was into a bigger playing field as a journalist, where more people than just those savvy and interested enough to find you here can read your stuff. You have been absolutely brilliant this year. Get somebody with a bankroll to pay you for it and help you find the bigger community just waiting for a guy like you.

Al's new home.

thanks Joann for that! yesterday I was a bit off grid so I only got to posting today.

Steven--thanks for replying. My point which still remains, and which Al addresses, was that calling people out as you did with Don was/is not really the way to have a debate. And I must say that your assertion now that because someone did not agree with you this lead you to assume a connection with Deb? That just leaves me scratching my head, because to my mind such types of assumed associations are another huge stumbling-block to the progressive movement no?

I don't want this to become a distraction on the thread. I was just surprised that someone who is part of the community we built would be called out in that way, that's all.

again Al--so glad to have you blogging again. Look forward to all your insight on the events this week.

AL - What I think is so special about you is that you take the high road. I've learned so much from you. And you do know how to land on your feet.

All the best with the new site.

Joan

3 ) Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.

As an internet development professional, I can state with some authority that the McCain campaign has no clue about the net. Al is right that the Internet alone didn't make Obama, but it plus the campaign's tactics went a long, long way toward achieving the goal.

Just this evening I was listening to what was an otherwise a decent back and forth on XM's POTUS 08 channel between journalists at the National Press Club, when one of them made the boneheaded comment that 'websites are something you just pay for. You just hire people to get it done. I'm sure McCain's people will take care of it soon"

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. Effective use of the Internet as a communication and organizational medium requires vision. One campaign has it, one doesn't. 2 mins on either website will tell you which is which.

Feel kinda dopey for coming so late to the party. Been checking in at the former locale regularly, thinking Al must've taken some time off. Then, tonight, seeing nothing but
Reagan/Russo and noting the URL (back forty) in the address bar, finally tracked you all down. Geez. Feels a bit like that scene at the end of "It's A Wonderful Life," where everyone hears George (Al) has got trouble, and just heads over to George (Al)'s house with a soufflé and/or some cash.
"To my brother, George (Al). The richest man in town."
Look forward to the story, and instructions on what to do with donations over at RV for Denver.

Dude - you donated a hundy? Awesome.

I was wondering if anyone would catch the hero-worship thing, thanks and you're also right.

We can all lead. We ALL have it in us. Not everyone gets a chance to, because skills do vary, opportunities require timing and luck.

The mix of Al's journalism, the Obama campaign, the state of the internet, the badness of the Bushies, make this a time full of portent.

And Mr. Giordano's work is totally worthy of supporting.

Solidarity!

Now, two posts back I read you propping out the 60s radicals, so I'm feeling we're both comfortable with radicals, if we aren't ourselves.

But your post totally claims to speak for all Field Hands, and I think that disrespects the diversity we bring here, and that makes this movment strong!

I am NOT proud to be a Liberal with a capitol L. My politics are green and social democratic, I have much in common with modern progressives and the historic Farmer-Labor party. I AM with you on this blog, and I will work with you to make this country and this world better.

I've been a fan of Al's work for a while - I joined the Narcosphere four years ago because of it.

But let's you and I look at these lines - Al is like a sage. He teaches us, encourages us to think, makes us work, calls us on bullshit. I'm with you there.

Have you joined the Fieldhands group? I get the feeling that kinda disagreeing on the posts is less important than working on the movement, if y'know what I mean!

Edit: Tim Russert - I read http://www.barrycrimmins.com/ and agreed with that.

Can't wait to hear the full story. Ok, so the lawyers are involved; but why can't Deb just simply put up some sort of note that you've moved rather than deleting all references to your new location? Spiteful and sad.

Glad to have found you. I was worried and trying not to get all conspiracy theory about it. But there was a fair amount of drama.

It's quite fascinating because this was such a powerful post. It really got the wheels in brain churning and I love that feeling! This stuff must be much more threatening to those who a) know more about Alinsky et al first hand and b) those in power. To me I have hard time in seeing it from their viewpoint that this could in any way be threatening.

I sent a note off to Deb requesting a refund so that I can send it your way here.

Well, I'm glad at least someone saw that comment before it was taken down! They are taking down all references to Narco News from what I can gather.

to my PayPal account. I attached receipts and requested the refund by Monday June 23rd.

It's "only" $50 but I am financially differently abled and I want to make sure the money is in Al's pockets.

Oh, and hello to all! I am grateful for the Ning Field Hands site as that's how I found you-all.

Good Grief, Al. Usually when I go out of town, another so-called controversy erupts regarding Barack Obama. This time I go away for the weekend, our beloved journalist goes MIA, then resurface amid censorship drama. Oy! Thank goodness you are back. My inner chicken-little is starting to stir over the impending Larry Sinclair press conference nonsense. I know this too will pass, but really, does the Obama camp need more rumor/lies to refute? Anyway, glad you are back as you always keep my sanity in check during this presidential campaign. :-)

Here's what I've just posted at the old Field / Back 40 - my computer is being recognised by the ruralvotes' system again but I'm still being listed for moderation.

I agree with Claus & Lenore.

Also Sean should do some research on how we Fieldhands covered Sinclair when this ‘non-story’ first appeared on luna right websites. Being one of the ones who ‘went in’ for hours on end to research this basis of the slime, I am amazed that ruralvotes is giving Sinclair oxygen.

Here’s wondering if I will get censored - at least my computer is being recognised by your system again.

BondiBeachViews

PS: How did Orwell put it? Some chickens are more equal than other chickens (or something like that).  ;)

in many ways. Clinton studied his work, too, and wrote her senior thesis about him. Ultimately she rejected grassroots populist organizing as silly and ineffective on a larger scale, while embracing the power Alinsky's agitating techniques for the purpose of tearing down the enemy. It would be easy to go down the rules list and come up with multiple examples each, as used by her campaign.

Obama rejected the destructive and divisive aspects of Alinsky's methods, as well as his notion that words have little value, instead embracing the power of community organizing, and transforming it to work on a national scale. He also rejected Alinsky's assertion that people are motivated only by self-interest, and went on to demonstrate that people can be just as motivated by their hopes, dreams, ideals and values.

Number 2. is a fascinating one for me from the Obama supporter perspective. While Obama may have stayed mostly within the experience of his staff, there were many instances of fear and confusion on the part of dedicated netroots supporters, who time and again got a bit discombobulated by the most recent attack and how it would be weathered. It's an interesting consequence of engaging so many people so deeply in the process.

and remember that while Alinsky was talking about radicalism (right or wrong), John McCain was getting beat up (literally) in Vietnam's Hanoi Hilton.

No, he wasn't. McCain was not tortured. Here are John McCain's own words in an interview with Dr. Fernando Barral, a Spanish psychiatrist, printed in Havana's Granta in 1970 while McCain was a POW. These docs were apparently released by the CIA on May 22, 2008. http://cryptome.org/cia-mccain-pow/cia-mccain-pow.htm You can also search for these docs on the CIA's FOIA page.

"On 26 October 1967 I was overflying Hanoi in an A4E plane based on the carrier Oriskany when my plane was hit by a ground-to-air-missile.

"I bailed out, colliding in the air with the remains of the plane, and I landed in one of the lakes in the center of Hanoi, in the middle of the water. On landing I tried to get free of my parachute, but I could not move, and I did not realize why I could not move my arms or legs, but it was because of the injuries."

[BARRAL] Injuries?

"Yes, as a result of colliding with the remains of the plane, I fractured my right leg at the knee, and both arms, the right one in three places. Moreover, I dislocated both shoulders."

And this:
[BARRAL] What happened next? That is, what was the capture itself like?

"Well, many people gathered around since it was the center of Hanoi at midday."

[BARRAL] Soldiers, militiamen, or civilians?

"I could not determine exactly, because they had removed their clothing in order to take
me out of the water."

[BARRAL] Well, go on.

"From there, they took me to a military hospital in Hanoi, a large hospital where they
operated on me and attended to the multiple fractures. I understand I received more
than a liter of blood..."

[BARRAL] Were you the object of any physical or moral violence?

"No, although at the time of capture I could sense the peoples' hate or indignation, there were no insults of violence of any type. On the contrary, you have seen how I am recovering from my injuries."

This is on page 2 of the docs shown at the link above.

Completely agree with you, Ralph. Barry's post is spot-on. Loved this line
Russert, on the other hand, has already had 30 times more airtime devoted to his life and death than all of the 129 journalists who have been killed in Iraq combined.
And it should be noted that Russert's two books would never, not ever, have hit the NYT Bestseller Lists without Don Imus' constant flogging of them for months after pub date on his early morning MSNBC show. Imus described Russert's gig on MTP as thee political rock star extravaganza for over the 10-odd years that Imus did his cable show. Imus lionized Russert in ways Russert could never do for himself, made him a household word for the millions that tuned into Imus every morning who never watched MTP, yet Russert ran like a stuck pig when it came time to return the favor. So the violin strains for Russert's 'great loyalty' I heard all weekend are coming from lounge players with tin ears.

[My views on Imus are captured here, mainly in the comments:
http://www.africanpath.com/p_blogEntry.cfm?blogEntryID=609 ]

And I thought I was ALREADY disgusted at them censoring this post in the first place and then ignoring questions.

But now...not only did they ignore the questions when they were being asked, they're pretending that all those comments didn't exist. When I saw that they had censored all comments asking about Al or the Alinski post and expressing opinions about these issues.... well my disgust increased exponentially. I was one of the many people who commented: I just said I would like to hear from Deb about what was going on and the reason for the decision to censor this post. I was not happy about it but I was trying to keep an open mind because I didn't want to end up being so disgusted that I couldn't stand to visit a site dedicated to issues about which I care very much.

I wanted at least some sign that the readers were to be treated with enough respect that they would take seriously our comments and answer our questions - -tell their side - - at least GIVE ONE PARAGRAPH OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of what happened . And what did we get? Just deleting about a hundred comments- - committing censorship on top of censorship.

Here's a link to the start. Links at the bottom of each page carry you through to subsequent pages.

http://www.progress.org/2003/alinsky2.htm

I was sorry to see the Field go and especially the post where we were all posting our "I'm out of Here" remarks.

After I left mine and thinking over it for a night I was going to go back and post "How about a do over" I think many of us didn't follow Obama's example of "disinvesting with graciousness" as detailed in Al's report of Obama's statement regarding VP vetter Johnson. I kindof started each of my paragraphs good but then couldn't help myself and wound up putting snark in there too.

Anyway it's now a missed chance to better myself.

Interesting post--I'd heard of Alinsky and the Rules but don't recall reading them. (There's a whole segment of American history I've had to fill in as an adult--I was in my 20s when I realized I was alive for Watergate.)

#2 Both Dems tried to do this, but it paid off much more for Obama with the Comm Org background. The Clinton campaign tried to scramble to catch up to the online donation part, and there's justifiable criticism of her skipping (Axelrod? the Edwards guy? I can't remember) who wanted to set her up with $100 from 1 million women, and she went with the familiar instead.
But the McCain camp is very clearly trying to get outside their people's comfort zone--Meghan's commentary, the new blog (hilariously set off a debate at Politico as to whether it was a parody or not), his own 50-state strategy. McCain seems to recognize that following 2 is a sure defeat this year. Someone made the argument that it's to McCain's advantage to gamble--try something that could pay off big of could see him at the bad end of a landslide. But it's not in his staff's interest to risk losing big--they look much better with a 48% showing.

#13 Karl Rove reads rules for radicals. Amazing. Freeze it--Obama tries to paint McCain as Bush III, McCain tries to paint Obama as insufficiently American. Personalize it--look at the attacks on their wives. As Ben has pointed out, rumors of the Dem candidate's wife behaving in an unAmerican fashion (usually burning a flag) are standard fare. Polarize it--describes what's happening now, as both men seek to seize a wider voting bloc (Obama goes after evangelicals, McCain after Clintonites) while painting their opponent as the most extreme "not like you" guy (see Obama on McCain's tax cuts, too).

Jed directed me here, so thanks to him. And I don't see any need for RV or Deb bashing.

kicking you out for a few reasons. I should say that obviously we don't know the whole story yet, but it's bizarre and fascinating to me what Ruralvotes.com did. If you know anything about how web stuff works (which I'd guess we all do, because we had to work kind of hard to find Al not once, but twice), you know that being "handed" hundreds of loyal readers and thousands of more readers is a huge gift. They had what many considered the best political analysis of the election dropped in their lap and a huge and loyal following. Just think of how many of us learned about their site -- and were willing to look at other content based on this. They had the cornerstone of what could have been a pretty good hub for content. Second, even *if* the Alinsky post would have drawn controversy, they should know as admins that that is what they need. Just think of the traffic and attention it would have brought in -- even under their worst case scenario. I'm no expert -- my experience in web journalism comes from running joystick101.org for a while, but my hunch is that they don't know much about running independent news websites, the ecology of websites and relationships to the established media, and how to work these in order to get your voice heard above the din of rabble. They had an ace in the hole with this blog, and threw it away. My prediction is that it is an intersection between petty jealousies, intimidation by this overnight huge following, and "typically milquetoast" Democratic Party politics not wanting to "rock the boat". I agree with Al that Obama has far bigger things to think about. On a related note, it does seem to me that Obama's brand of organizing is a little different than Alinsky's, or at least it looks like he's tweaked it now that he's a Presidential candidate. However, I am no expert on this and agree that his campaign especially makes sense if viewed through the lens of community organizing. The ways that he encoruages people to own the campaign, trusted us with phone calls, set up the election as about "changing the process by which it's played" (which by the way was a coup considering how this kind of thing rarely gets one elected), and so on points toward a community organizing approach. I am eagerly waiting to hear the story!

I think every comment is getting moderated. They seem to be doing this to avoid putting up any mention of Al or the controversy at all. I find it really disgusting.

I abhor the black background. It really hurts my eyes. But I do like the indented replies.

Erm, dudette, the fact that this interview is drawn from when he was still a POW makes it a bit suspect. "Yes, everything is fine here with my kind captors--blinkblinkblink blink-blink-blink blinkblinkblink." This really doesn't prove anything, and disseminating it seems very Rovian. One can acknowledge McCain's prior life and service--as Obama does--while refusing to vote for him.

Deborah, you do a great job of doing the homework Al assigned. I need to get to the point where I can go back and think about this all some more without getting so sidetracked on the whole censorship thing.

And you are correct to a large degree about not "bashing" RV and Deb. At least not simply for emotional reasons. But there is a good amount of analysis that needs to be surrounding the bigger picture of what has Deb running so scared. What was really so threatening that she she felt her best option was to completely pretend Al didn't exist? How does all this organizng threaten their power so?

I posted a comment at the Back Forty that apparently didn't pass muster. It's not displayed on their page, and various comments have been posted since. I respectfully pointed out the virtues of open discourse, transparency, accountability, and how these align with small-d and big-d Democratic ideals. I asked for an explanation of what would happen to the money donated for Al's travel expenses. I asked for a statement of principles, so I could decide whether to continue my support of ruralvotes.

Apparently that kind of comment is not welcome there. Ick. At least this gave Al and everyone the information we needed to choose whether/how to continue any association with rualvotes.

I can't believe they're saying they'll only refund to those who specifically request it. Clearly the best way to honor the intent of our contributions is to have it pay for Al's travel expenses, even if he's no longer with ruralvotes.

I agree. Thread indents good, Black bad.

Hey everyone. I'm your friendly neighborhood webmaster for all Fund for Authentic Journalism websites (Narco News, the Narcosphere, Salon Chingón and, of course, The Field).

Our priority these past few days has been to minimize downtime due to the increased load of readers. I'm glad to report that it looks like we have successfully optimized the server to handle the increased load.

Now, I am happy to tell you that I will be focusing my attention on the Layout concerns that many of you have voiced. Soon we will have an option to make the background white instead of black. You will be able to choose according to your own preference.

I'd like to also thank everyone for their patience as we continue to adapt our server to the exciting arrival of The Field, and all its readers, to our family of sites.

Cheers,

David B. Briones
Webmaster
The Narco News Bulletin

Tara Hussein, I agree with you about needing to understand how/why this censorship could occur in an organization 'hosted' by a super delegate to the Democratic Convention. Especially the way it was NOT handled. No honesty, no respect for the hundreds (thousands) of people who were reading & commenting on Al's writing. People who are inspired enough to organize (The Fieldhands) and continue their commitment to electing the next Democratic President of the USA certainly deserve more respect than we were given. I'm sure Al speaks up for himself, no worry about that, and I think our continued participation at NarcoNews and Fieldhands is a tribute to all of our commitment.

Without having heard Al's side of the story--this is the part that really gets me, the disrespect for the readers. No matter what happened, posting nothing at all and just doing a redirect to Back 40, THEN moderating comments and not letting any through that even refer to Al or the site is really Bushian in its pigheadedness.

No one knocks McCain's service, which extends from his Naval Academy days in the late 50s to the end of the 70s, over 20 years. Details of McCain's capture were discussed in Veteran's circles and publications for years before he ran for Prez. He was a POW. He was not tortured. Fellow POWs, present in the POW camps with McCain, but who were tortured themselves, have written about this. This is well-documented. The Viet Cong offered to release McCain immediately once they found out who his father was. He refused, and stayed five years. McCain, however, today, does not disabuse anyone of the torture part, part of the myth-making of a president. On the other hand, McCain refused to conflate 'torture' and 'POW' in 2000, when his advisers then said it would help him win the nomination.

You obviously didn't read the subsequent hard-to-read DoD documents the CIA released in the link above in which the DoD determined that he was being well taken care of and in good health as a POW. If you had, you wouldn't have accused me of being Rovian. The DoD said it. Not me.

I think the back story has been going on longer than just this Alinsky story. Remember when Al said all the Undeclared SuperDelegates were wusses? SuperDeb hadn't declared yet either.

Until I see Al's formal take on Deb, I'm not inclined to possibly dismay him by piling in with any "I always thought...." sort of posts. The complete absence of a reference at RV is pretty silly and does seem to not get the way the net works (e.g. the google, or the interlinkedness of blogs). But...c'est la vie, here we are at narco news, and while I also favor unthreading the comments, I can cope. It just seems the number of posts about "Al is da man" (a sentiment with which I agree) are overwhelming the number about "thought provoking topic, Al, and here's my take...."

As noted above, there's a whole segment of history from about WW1 on that my history classes always ran out of time before covering. At 39, though, I certainly don't see Rules for Radicals as anything similar to, say, the Anarchist's Cookbook.

Here's a link freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304 to a piece by Molly Ivins that does not mention Barack Obama once, but does get at the critical problem I think is motivating so much of the support for Obama, especially new voter and crossover support--there are a lot of issues a clear majority of Americans agree we should deal with, yet "Washington is where good ideas go to die." There's really no excuse for that attitude, and I think the failure to ask for our help after 9/11 was a critical tipping point in pooling that parade of fed-up-with-partisanship people that Obama is heading.

Reconstructing my original post from memory:

1 ) Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

An inaccurate gauge of your power -- either over- or underestimating -- hurts the enemy. Obama has been helped not so much by being underestimated (though he certainly was early on), but by being mis-estimated. His strengths are not where the press tells us they are. They are, in fact, in organizing -- which he learned at the feet of Alinsky's prize pupils.

2 ) Never go outside the experience of your people. It may result in confusion, fear and retreat.

3 ) Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.

These two rules go together. Good generals know to a) know their troops, b) what can be demanded of them, and c) what can be demanded of the enemy's troops. Obama has this down cold. He has his inner circle, then a cadre of exquisitely-trained volunteers who his people started trained back in 2007, then the teeming millions, and he knows what he can expect of each of these groups -- AND of the groups backing his enemies.

4 ) Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules.

5 ) Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

Obama hadn't been able to use these to the fullest against Hillary, for fear of alienating people he'll need in November, but now that he's facing McCain he is going to town on the man. :-)

6 ) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

7 ) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

8 ) Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

9 ) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

10 ) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

11 ) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into it's counterside.

These rules all logically flow together. Obama's mastered the art of the pivot: Of facing a negative (or his opponent's greatest strength) and turning it to his, Obama's, advantage. Also, when facing a negative, he knows that it's best to face it head-on rather than letting it fester. Furthermore, he knows how to keep people's spirits and interest up, as anyone who's attended one of his rallies knows. He constantly changes things around to keep them fresh.

12 ) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

One of the knocks on Obama is that "where are his specifics?" Of course, a similar knock was directed against FDR in 1932, yet he did well anyway. Obama does have specifics for various things -- just go to his website and see for yourself -- but he also knows that he'll have to change a lot of his plans in mid-course anyway. Pivot, pivot, pivot.

13 ) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.

This is again a technique that Obama couldn't use against Clinton, but can against McCain. The principle is this: It's harder to engage people's emotions -- and thus their energy -- to do battle against faceless abstractions than it is against actual people or concrete things. Personalize the issue you're fighting against by finding the human most associated with it and making him its poster boy.

Moreover, if the MSM had done a full-court press for an entire weekend over the Senate Phase II Report on Prewar Iraq Intelligence issued 11 days ago, maybe the 33% of the American people who still think this war is a good idea would be convinced of the venality and corruption -- and horror -- of what we've allowed to be done in our name. Lancet reported $1.2 million Iraqi citizens dead...two years ago.

120 journalists killed in Iraq? I guess none of them were NBC's 'own'. They weren't part of what Andrew Mitchell calls 'the family'. So fukkim.

Al:

Lurked religiously at your old site, finally got around to posting one comment, roughly one week before your disappearance.

Glad that Kos pointed the way to your site here. Glad to keep reading your takes and the commenters to your posts.

It has been more than 35 years since I have even heard a mention of one of my early inspirations, Saul Alinsky. What a rush to see the 13 rules again!

So far, I'm betting on Rule #10 to be the most applicable. The 50-state get-out-the-vote initiative, and the effect of establishing organizations early (such as the one in Wisconsin) is the right organizational tactic at the current time. The opposition has no clue...

Will read you often in the future, Mr. G.

I visited the Field first thing everyday for the latest in insights and sanity. Thanks for persisting.

Well, this is about some weird s--t.

I'm almost ashamed to admit that I wrote a long comment about Alinsky's "counterside of the negative", and I figured it had been scrubbed because it had been misinterpreted.

That's theoretical politics. Sometimes when you condense things into a blog post, you leave yourself open to all kinds of misunderstandings. I'm a mainstream scholar and I would like to have the chance to argue my points at length, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that...

I liked the "rural" metaphor of The Field, and I'm sorry this has all happened, but nobody should be ashamed of referring to Saul Alinsky, my goodness.

Well, The Field is The Field, wherever you are.

Thankful that you are back in business!

Al-

Glad to hear that you're ok and sorry to hear about the censorship of your work over at the Field. what is the status of your trip to Denver? i know many of us threw some coins in the fountain to get you there and i would still like to see that happen-- if there's been any change in funding since the, er.. venue change, I would like to know so that I can send some more in the right direction.

I've been seeing the Obama campaign in these terms for a couple of months now and wrote about it here, where it was welcomed like an advanced case of leprosy.

Hi Field Hands! I'm a mere lurker here at The Field, but I have found Al's voice to be quite insightful during the long slog of the primary.

For the record, I just want to say that I chipped in some money to send Al to Denver on the old site, and I want Al to have that money. That was my intention when I donated.

Cheers!

Why can't Deb just write a post stating this to end the confusion. It does not pass the smell test!

Deborah,

I am not alone in bringing this stuff up. Jeffrey Klein nails McCain for other aspects of his military story here. It's the lead story in the Politics section of HuffPo.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-klein/mccains-secret-questionab_b_...

NN's "The Field" newly bookmarked, though I am deeply saddened by this turn of events! I hope the rest of RV's "The Field" commentariat find their way over, given that RuralVotes hasn't had the minimal courtesy to at least provide a link, if not an explanation. Bad juju on them - I can understand their feeling a need to part company as necessary - it's their site. But man, this is just bad manners, not to mention internet etiquette.

I could sense a bit of tension with RV's stated goals and The Field as it grew beyond that site's expectations. They, quite accidentally I suppose, captured lightning in a bottle, and I'm sure it frightened them. But damn, Al - they hired you! What did they expect if not success?

i found the field !

what a relief

:)

Hi Al,

I have bookmarked the new page.  Keep up the good word!

RCW

these rules sound pretty generic at first glance, but they gain more power when you read alinsky tell how he applied these rules with anedcdotes that reveal the tactics' usefulness.

as he does in this interview:

http://www.progress.org/2003/alinsky2.htm

Unbelievable. A few weeks ago, they made me believe that The Field was undergoing some upgrade. I thought it would be online soon again. It had mysteriously dissapeared. The first searches in Google didn't clarify anything. I waited. Waited. Every day clicking my bookmark and finding that the link was redirecting me to "The Back Forty." Where was Al? Al simply couldn't dissapear like that! And the archive was gone too! It started to seem really bizarre.

Today I made a new search. And I found this. What a story. I am outraged, but also very happy to have found The Field back! Now it's time to catch up.

I was really missing you Al and Field Hands. So happy to have found you back!

He linked to The Field yesterday and absolutely made my day. 

Glad to see you're alive and kicking Al.