21 months away...

January 20, 2007 6:30 PM

So, if this is election minutiae, is this? And can we assume that a ElectionFilter FPP formulated like this is OK?
posted by dw to Etiquette/Policy at 6:30 PM (55 comments total)

(Just trying to figure out the strike zone. Or the ground rules. Or what the linesman thinks offsides looks like.)
posted by dw at 6:32 PM on January 20, 2007

Well, if by rules you mean "crappy single link posts to (non-)news that you can find on any TV station or news site tend to be deleted pretty often", then yeah.
posted by Rhomboid at 6:35 PM on January 20, 2007

The new one isn't a great post, but at least news of someone actually declaring for the presidential campaign is more newsworthy than someone announcing they might announce they're running. I certainly doubt there'll be more than one "H. Clinton announced she's running!" posts.
posted by The God Complex at 6:37 PM on January 20, 2007

She didn't actually declare she's running, she is simply setting up a presidential exploratory committee.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 6:40 PM on January 20, 2007

Well personally, I think this post was utter shite (come on, a broken second link and the most condescending tone imaginable) and should obviously go. If people want to discuss her candidacy the Obama thread is still open. Political posts should occur when there is particularly new and fresh insight on a topic, not every time a candidate sneezes or makes a "duh" move. It's about the links, not the discussion.
posted by Rhomboid at 6:44 PM on January 20, 2007

I heard she won already.
posted by The Deej at 6:45 PM on January 20, 2007

Well, there are no links to speeches, background, dishy stuff, whatever, that show someone's gone to the trouble to assemble it and not just echo what's sure to be known everywhere. politicsfilter posts with no added goodness are fertile ground for crap comments as well, and they should be deep-sixed.
posted by nj_subgenius at 6:47 PM on January 20, 2007

that said, the third post referenced by dw passes the test.
posted by nj_subgenius at 6:51 PM on January 20, 2007

fertile ground for crap comments as well,

Check. I'll get started shortly.
posted by IronLizard at 6:51 PM on January 20, 2007

personally, i don't think adding suplementary links to a newsfilter post particularly improves it. Either the news is worthy of FPPing or it isn't.

Adding a bunch of wiki articles and the results of a 15 second google search wouldn't make it any better.
posted by empath at 6:58 PM on January 20, 2007

I'd throw in my support for dumping this, but I think the current policy here is to keep the stuff I want deleted. Meh.
posted by wendell at 7:12 PM on January 20, 2007

Adding a bunch of wiki articles and the results of a 15 second google search wouldn't make it any better.

I totally agree, which means that any way you frame this topic it comes out as "let's have a discussion about <X>" and not "here are some interesting things to read about <X> that you may not have known about". And isn't metafilter supposed to be about the latter -- you know, filtering the stuff on the internet down to links to good sites?
posted by Rhomboid at 7:17 PM on January 20, 2007 [1 favorite]

It's gone.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 7:18 PM on January 20, 2007

A raft of supplementary links might help me to understand more about this Hillary person, of whom I have so little knowledge. Who is she? Is she actually a lesbian? Why does everyone hate her so much, and why, even though I know so little about her, do I feel an urge to stabbing my eyes out with a fork every time she speaks?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:18 PM on January 20, 2007

...missed it by this much.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:19 PM on January 20, 2007

I just didn't know that, if elected, Senator Clinton would be the first female president of the United States.
posted by matteo at 7:27 PM on January 20, 2007 [1 favorite]

OP for the Hillary post here. I was wondering whether or not the thread would get axed, and I decided to check it again an hour after posting to see. Sure enough...

Yes, it was sort of silly, and given the history of complaints about Barack threads, I can understand why it was deleted. So no hard feelings towards #1 or #2 (not the pooping #2, the other one). I thought (/hoped) it would be a little more blue-worthy due to the groundbreaking nature of Hilary being the first female to have a serious bid for the presidency, but oh well.
posted by rossination at 7:31 PM on January 20, 2007

Just trying to figure out the strike zone.

This is a great FPP that nicely illustrates why, if you're "trying to figure out the strike zone," you've missed the point of MetaFilter.
posted by cribcage at 7:42 PM on January 20, 2007

How about .... say .... Labor Day 2007 as the start date for (US) election filter madness?
posted by R. Mutt at 7:58 PM on January 20, 2007

In my opinion, the third post was annoying as well since it was pretty much spawned from the MetaTalk post about the first one. This pushes the envelope on the "please don't use metafilter to make a point about metafilter" guideline. Mathowie and I discussed removing it, but it was a decent post and it would have started a shitstorm so we left it, but that was as much a reflection of that particular time and place context and not "gee this is the type of Obama post we'd like to see around here." In short if it's a plain old blah blah political update filter post that doesn't seem to have anything remarkable, interesting or unusual about it, it's probably better suited for one of the zillion political blogs out there.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:58 PM on January 20, 2007

*which would be September 3rd, 2007.
posted by R. Mutt at 8:01 PM on January 20, 2007

I thought (/hoped) it would be a little more blue-worthy due to the groundbreaking nature of Hilary

You can rest easy, with a marketing budget funded like this, there'll be little danger of missing anything Hillary does for quite some time.
posted by scheptech at 8:24 PM on January 20, 2007

Just trying to figure out the strike zone.

Much like baseball, the "strike zone" is largely up to the umpire's mood that day.

not a slight on the admins

or umpires
posted by dirigibleman at 8:44 PM on January 20, 2007

my only comment on this is if hillary get elected we won't have the president and the first lady, but the president and the fellatee

*crash*

thank you, thank you, i'll be here all night ... i already hid the hook in the broom closet
posted by pyramid termite at 9:17 PM on January 20, 2007

I just didn't know that, if elected, Senator Clinton would be the first female president of the United States.

Wait, Millard Fillmore was a DUDE?
posted by dw at 9:19 PM on January 20, 2007

Senator Clinton would be the first female president of the United States.

Well, "officially" yes... But, Eleanor Roosevelt and Edith Wilson both acted as de facto presidents when their husbands were medically incapacitated.
posted by amyms at 9:42 PM on January 20, 2007

i don't think adding suplementary links to a newsfilter post particularly improves it

Well, there *are* ways to add interesting depth and context to a breaking news story post that do improve things. That said, hallelujah for a heavy hand in deleting exceedingly obvious political news posts with almost no effort behind them. I'd love to see Matt and Jessamyn continue ruthlessly deleting tossed-off single-link political news posts along with lame obviously padded ones.

For the children.
posted by mediareport at 10:02 PM on January 20, 2007

We were so freakin' close to a day without MataTalk.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:37 PM on January 20, 2007

That's right, Matatalk. It's talk from Matt!
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:37 PM on January 20, 2007

Thank God thiis was posted here, otherwise we might not have our perfect consistency.
posted by smackfu at 11:26 PM on January 20, 2007

How about .... say .... Labor Day 2007 as the start date for (US) election filter madness?

Could we make it Thanksgiving Day?
posted by fixedgear at 4:27 AM on January 21, 2007

Hold on, Hillary Clinton can become the first woman to vote for President?
posted by Kwine at 8:46 AM on January 21, 2007

"...and it would have started a shitstorm so we left it..."

Good to know that all it takes is (the anticipation of) a great deal of whining to prevent a post from being deleted.

"I'd throw in my support for dumping this, but I think the current policy here is to keep the stuff I want deleted. Meh."

I'm currently afraid to tag anything for precisely this reason. I'm not sure, but I think that means the terrorists have won.
posted by Eideteker at 6:09 PM on January 21, 2007

Could we PLEASE stop referring to her as "Hillary" and maybe afford her the same respect we give her male counterparts? Unless, of course, we should start referring to all of the candidates by ther first names. Can you even imagine the press or anyone referring to "John" or "Sam" or "Barack" running for President? Ug.
posted by tristeza at 11:25 AM on January 22, 2007

There's already been one Bush in the White House; hence 'Dubya'. There's already been one Clinton in the White House; hence 'Hillary'.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 11:46 AM on January 22, 2007

Plus, the vagina thing.
posted by gigawhat? at 12:02 PM on January 22, 2007

So, "Senator Clinton" would be too much of a challenge?
posted by tristeza at 12:55 PM on January 22, 2007

tristeza : "So, 'Senator Clinton' would be too much of a challenge?"

Pretty much. When have you ever heard people here refer to a senator consistently as "Senator X"? Maybe once, in passing, but after that it's almost always just "X". Or, if there is someone else with the same last name, you introduce them by their full name the first time they come up ("Robert Kennedy"), and then by the first name after that ("Robert"), since the last name is usually deemed to have been "taken" by the first one who became famous ("John F Kennedy"). This becomes even simpler when the first name is unusual ("Hillary"), because you can omit the step where you introduce them by their first name before going on to the nickname.

Speaking of which, could we PLEASE stop referring to Arnold Schwarzenegger as "Arnie" or "Ahnold" and maybe afford him the same respect we give his female counterparts like Condoleezza Rice or Janet Reno?
posted by Bugbread at 2:27 PM on January 22, 2007

The press consistently refers to Rice as "Condi." Sure, it's usually just "X" not "Senator X," but this is a special case. If she were a man, you KNOW they'd never use his first name all the time, regardless of "Arnie" (movie star/joke/etc). Once in a while, sure, maybe a nickname like "Dubya" or "Bobby," but never so consistently would they be so informal.

I mean, they showed results of a Zogby poll on Hardball yesterday, and the names were listed like this:

Obama
Hillary
Edwards

Come on!
posted by tristeza at 2:53 PM on January 22, 2007

In my colloquial experience, both "Bobby" and "Teddy" are used far more often than "Robert Kennedy" or "Ted Kennedy." Ditto with "Joe" and "Patrick." For that matter, President Clinton is just as often called "Bill." Our present governor in MA is "Deval," and our former governor was just as often "Mitt." (By contrast, Mitt's predecessor was never "Jane," his opponent was never "Shannon," and his lieutenant was never "Kerry.") And then there's Tip O'Neill, and Newt Gingrich, and 14 bajillion other examples.

But when it's a woman, somebody objects. Sexism, indeed.
posted by cribcage at 3:01 PM on January 22, 2007

Please see my example above from the poll - do you really think it might ever read like this:

Kerry
Teddy
Edwards


?
posted by tristeza at 4:14 PM on January 22, 2007

No, but I can imagine:

Hillary
Newt
Arnie
posted by Bugbread at 5:28 PM on January 22, 2007

Yea, let's not get too hung up on the Hillary thing. I think it's more out of familiarity, not lack of respect, and especially not due to her being a woman. The Clinton's themselves seemed to encouarage the use of "Bill and Hillary" to show they were one of us, and felt our pain. You can't now go back and say being on a first name basis is disrespectful.
posted by The Deej at 5:41 PM on January 22, 2007

Deej is right — in fact, I suspect that if you asked her advisors you'd learn that her "familiarity" is considered to be her strongest asset. It's hardly something they'd complain about.

On the other hand, haven't you heard people admit they'd vote for Hillary just because she's a woman? I've heard lots. (Similar to the MeFites who announced that they'd vote for Obama because he's black.) If we're going to discuss an issue of sexism being raised by her candidacy, I think we can do better than the relatively trivial and cosmetic question of what she's called.
posted by cribcage at 5:54 PM on January 22, 2007

tristeza, you should check out her website. It's rife with internalized misogyny. Like the banner at the top which says "Hillary for President". Or the statement which reads: "On Saturday, Hillary took the first step toward a run for the White House, opening a presidential exploratory committee." Or the invitation to "Join Team Hillary."

Somebody should complain to someone.
posted by felix betachat at 5:55 PM on January 22, 2007

I just want to go on record and point out:

The Clinton's themselves...

The Deej is SUCH an idiot! I hate when people use an apostrophe for a plural. What a nimrod.
posted by The Deej at 6:11 PM on January 22, 2007

Wow, felix betachat, it's Hillary all over the place isn't it? Hillary Hillary Hillary! Interesting. Thanks.
posted by The Deej at 6:14 PM on January 22, 2007

Hillary.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 7:19 PM on January 22, 2007

I'm sure they focus grouped the hell out if it and discovered that some significant sector of the electorate has negative associations with the name "Clinton". So they're pushing "Hillary" as if that matters.
posted by felix betachat at 7:58 PM on January 22, 2007

You know, if that's true (and it probably is) and the marketers that run political campaigns have the same contempt for us as the shills that try to sell us soda and life insurance...

*sigh* I dunno. But hot-damn it puts me in a slappin' mood.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:44 PM on January 22, 2007

some significant sector of the electorate has negative associations with the name "Clinton".

i heard on npr today that 45% of the population will not vote for her under any circumstances
posted by pyramid termite at 8:52 PM on January 22, 2007

the marketers that run political campaigns have the same contempt for us as the shills that try to sell us soda and life insurance

Man, just you wait. The line between grassroots activism and viral marketing is a thin one and basically consists of "having a soul".

I'm quite sure that Hillary™ will fully utilize innovative, web-based media to better leverage her vision of restoring America's promise.
posted by felix betachat at 9:09 PM on January 22, 2007

or, you know: HillaryBlue
posted by felix betachat at 9:11 PM on January 22, 2007

MetaFilter: Somebody should complain to someone.
posted by Bugbread at 9:34 PM on January 22, 2007

OK, OK, I'll stop bitching about it, but I reserve my god given 'Merickin right to be offended, by gum.
posted by tristeza at 3:10 PM on January 23, 2007