I like your suggestions, Jeffrey.

As for my own... We in the netroots often talk a lot about not tearing down other Democrats, with Joe Lieberman often being the case in point.  I agree wholeheartedly with this notion, and I think we should keep it up.  But it bugs me so much when I see some of the front-pagers here do just that and tear down fellow Democrats any time they make any sort of minor mistake, with the usual victims being Obama and Hillary Clinton.  Do I wish Obama and Clinton would say or do things differently sometimes?  Sure, but they're not the source of all evil, and it does us know good to simply tear apart two of our party's biggest leaders, and two likely Presidential nominees.

I would add blogging about science issues.  The Dems have been very strong (given their lack of political power) is exposing 'the War on Science', and it's something that this site should be covering more frequently.  For instance, how is stifling a NASA scientist any different than stifling a Pentagon whistleblower.  One is called 'politics' and gets discussed, the other is called 'science' and is ignored by those who have the capacity to change something.

The environment would be a nice addition to the list as well.

It is a great wedge issue for us even though it is hard to believe that the Earth should have to be a wedge issue.

It is a great issue to rally suppurt from all sides of the political spectrum.

I don't see the point of these suggestions.

I come to MyDD for wonky conversation about politics, with a focus on events that are happening.

Whether someone is female, in the army, or dark-skinned has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I read their posts. I am here to read content about progressives and moving the progressive agenda forward in today's political environment. I see no value in calling out specific subcategories of putative FP'ers. Because it's all about the content. Good content gets read and recommended. It drives discussion.

Similarly, if a particular contributor organically emerges to be a compelling voice of useful opinion, I see no impediment to their being named a FP'er. That voice might be military-slanted, or gender-slanted, or culturally-slanted. Or it might not.

I'm not a fuddy-duddy and I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade. I want chunky front-page posts like we get today. I honestly don't care who provides them. I see no value in asking for some sort of artificial promotion or emphasis of a "category" of contributor.

If we see enough good posts from a particular woman/minority/soldier we'll have found that diverse view here. If not, then there are other places to look. Goodness knows you can get all the terrific female blogging you want at FDL. And dkos routinely has useful posts from every imaginable progressive interest group.

I repeat, I'm not out to stifle creativity. I just don't see how this fits with the basic wonky nature of MyDD discussions. And I'd hate to dilute the content in an attempt to diversify. It's not like there's some sort of active exclusion going on.

"all of" -> "to all parts of"

sigh.

Well that certainly makes me want to suggest a change...

Can we please have the ability to change/fix our comments?

Yeah, this is the Wonky side of politics on the net.

But...

We need some diversity.  Best example:

Mfume/Cardin.  I think we missed the boat by not having (and I could be mistaken) ONE front page post by an African American on the subject.

Also, there are too many Y chromosones on here.  Don't you all watch Battlestar Galactica?

I think it's important not to try to make unorganic changes to the blog.

Such as choosing FPs with any considerations of diversity in mind, or going beyond its current scope, limited to issues of process - electoral and legislative.

For instance, healthcare is a key political issue in the 110th and every other Congress in the foreseeable future; a lot of politics is therefore going to be tied up with healthcare issues, and (sez me) I'd expect that politics to be dealt with here.

But at some point, politics shades into substance.

So, we currently have several plans that have either passed into law (MA and (I think) San Francisco), got vetoed (CA's SB 840) or not made it out of the starting-gate (Conyers's HR 676).

I could get to grips (with some effort - ugh!) with the politics of these plans - but evaluating and comparing the healthcare costs and benefits? No way!

And I doubt whether there are more than a handful of regulars here who could.

Second example: a month or two back, we had the Gulf drilling bill under consideration. I'd more or less marked this down as corporate welfare to Big Oil - something not to be rushed through at the tail end of a Congress.

Then, some folks from LA pointed out that the state wanted the moolah from the bill to help pay for Katrina damage to LA wetlands.

So, now what do I do? I can only decide whether to code the bill as one to support or oppose by examining the substance of the issue.

Yikes! Do you know how complicated the regime governing  offshore oil exploitation is? Not to mention evironmental considerations. And - well, I'd be floundering to make a judgement on the merits.

What to do? I think this is something that DKos should be handling. As it is, the size it is, it's a complete dog's breakfast, presentation-wise.

What it needs is just the sort of subject specific pages being talked about here, dealing with substance of issues of interest to lefties - healthcare would obviously be a must - around which professionals in the field concerned could organize, and give the rest of us informed analysis.

It has the visitor numbers and members to make something like that feasible.

Meanwhile, no goo-goo reform for MyDD - please!

Man, given the comments in this thread, if they ever decide to give a chick FP permissions then they will be considered the diversity poster.  Sheesh.

BTW...someone in my post that was FP'd earlier this week thought I was a dude.  I'm not.

MyDD is a tactical blog, it needs good tactical writers. If you find good tactical writers that are minority or women or military or whatnot, fine. But it's hard to think of another blog or writer who writes such tactical stuff that isn't already working as a pollster or for a dead-tree rag.

I like it the way it is.  I like the few voices that get the front page - they are the personality of the  blog.  If you want different voices, differenet perspectives, differnt topics - go to a different blog -- I hear the tubes are filed with them.  Bookmark your favorites and check them everyday.  Come here for what HERE has to offer, find what else you want elsewhere.

Hey Jeffrey,

Thanks for being so conscious of diversity.  It's appreciated by the people of color who read this website.

I like your idea of switching the "Open Threads" to a "Blogs to Watch".  It could highlight other blogs, one with different perspectives. In addition to being exposed to new voices, the MyDD community could offer comments on what they like/dislike about the other blogs and how they can attract more traffic.

I agree to some extent with the commenters above who say essentially that MyDD ain't broke, so don't fix it. While it would be interesting to have a woman's perspective for working inside a campaign, I hardly think it's something that should be done just to have a woman's voice.

That being said, if you're looking for an "offseason" series of topics, here's what I would be interested in (as someone who is greatly interested in politics, but has very little time to involve myself at this point).

1) Profiles on well-known possible candidates and prospective recruiting targets to competitive races, perhaps even e-mailing and offering them a post to describe themselves as a way of introduction.

2) A look ahead to the 2010 census. Perhaps a look back at what happened in 2000, where we lost/gained seats, and what the demographic trends are telling us (if this sort of data exists outside the census itself).

3) Following up on #2, a look at states where we could possibly gerrymander seats, a look at state legislative seats we could target to give us control in state houses that are split - all this looking forward to controlling as many of them as we can for the 2010 elections.

4) A look at Bush's judicial nominees, why we're blocking them, and what his appointments that have gotten through have done once they're on the bench (although here, the one judge I can name off the top of my head - Judge Jones who presided over the Dover intelligent design trial - deserves a big HA HA)!

5) Maybe a series on voting machines in general. All the ones that are still in use in the U.S., how they work, and which states use them. Also possible obsticles to having a uniform, trustworthy, paper-trail containing voting system in every state.

Just some ideas off the top of my head. Many of these may not be feasable, but these are the sorts of topics I'd love to see MyDD tackle. :)

What I find fascinating about the posts about well this is a strategy site is that people here seem to think they can talk strategy (often times in the context of talking about groups such as women, latinos, etc) without having anyone who follows these issues intensely as the leaders of the discussion. What I found instructive for example the other day when discussing the RNC pick - the Cuban guy- was that not a lot of people missed an obvious flaw in the approach, namely what Kos immediately said in his analysis of the pick- that the choice was a Cuban, and what that means for the Latino vote. These kinds of nuiances are - frankly- often lost here and elsewhere. I will read comments like "what will the gay vote be?" And I think - well it depends on who you are talking to, what they perceive of as the party that will represent their interests. If they, for example are mostly conservative, and they have to choose between the two parties, and yet neither seems different on the gay issue, they may choose the GOP. These sorts of things come up all the time. I don't really understand how you can talk "strategy" and not have that info in the context. A lot of these things are experiential, and strategy is only as good as it accurately reflects as much as possible the communities that you are trying to define for electoral gains.

This is a wonderful topic. I hope it continues for the rest of the week, at least.

These are not either/or choices here. Reaching out to women or minorities is also reaching out to the general concerns of everybody.

I would like to see more articles on workplace issues, outsourcing, unemployment, and the employer-employee relationship as Republicans have managed to define it.  I am surprized and appalled that Progressive sites in general have done such a piss-poor job of covering workplace issues.

I think rural issues are also very important. Rural readers have substantially the same interests the rest of us do, but we need to do a better job of telling them where we stand and how they benefit.

Web technology has changed out from under myDD and many other Progressive sites. I'd like to see more interactivity here, but interactivity that helps me to find what I'm looking for a lot more quickly.  Do the terms AJAX and Web 2.0 ring a bell?  

sc

I'd  like more blogs and info about powered armor suits.  Why I don't have one, how I might get one, what the one I get might be capable of (lasers, missiles, space flight, etc.).

I hardly ever see anything about powered armor and my lack thereof on this (or any other) site.

Add my vote to the idea of an environment-focused FP series or poster.  

I actually wrote an entire diary here last week about this very topic: it's called "Ten Reasons for the Netroots to Reach Out to Environmentalists," and it assesses the many structural, ethical, and strategic reasons that more emphasis on an environmental-netroots alliance is wise.  See it here:
http://mydd.com/story/2006/11/10/215346/ 19

Either way, I really would value the environmental policy discussion, especially with the new Congress opening some doors...

I like the ideas and I think that for the discussion to be as full and exciting and analytical as possible, there should be a real mix of writers.

And I think that by extending an invitation to new voices, it will enrich this site. Points of view are formed and affected by life's experiences and I think that's what a diverse selection of writers will accomplish.

I have just finished working on a campaign for a black candidate and it became painful to many of the volunteers to witness the behavior of the young and white staff. So, many of the folks of color could see the deficit that the campaign suffered with an atmosphere of cultural exclusivity.

I think that we should encourage folks to engage with different points-of-view. And quite frankly, living in this country while Asian, or Latino, or Black, or any number of other identities, can bring new ideas and fresh perspectives.

Yes, even the progressive agenda.

i absolutely agree that diversity in content--which we all seem to agree is a desirable goal--requires a diversity in experience (which often corresponds to diversity of demographic groups).  

mydd.com is one of my top 3 favorite blogs, but i have often noticed this one weak spot.  IMO the absence of women's voices is the most glaring problem, and i am pretty surprised that some of those commenting here don't recognize how the absence of women (and men of color, etc.) limits the range and the quality of the content here.  

yes, let's keep mydd focused on strategic analysis, AND let's use the full range of the brainpower available on that subject.  

kudos to Jeffrey for bringing this up.  

I believe rangeragainstwar should be invited. He is insightful and, more importantly, has "been there" and brings a new perspective to what's happening.

I really like the idea about adding links to diverse blogs to the open threads. If I'm in a web-surfing mood, one of the things I'd be very interested in seeing is minority perspectives on politics, and I'd be enthusiastic if the open threads here pointed me towards a few especially good articles each time. There are some voices that just don't get represented online quite as much as others, and I for one appreciate being pointed towards thoughtful commentary from those voices--writers of color in particular, but anyone with a unique cultural or societal perspective, really.

I could have sworn I posted somethnig. Yo Jeff, was I censored? I don't think I said anything wrong :)

Just checking.

MyDD isn't a blog about everything.  Expanding scope risks losing focus.

Becoming a regular front page blogger at any reasonable size blog is about two things:

1) Ability to produce regular content on a schedule that is brutal.  

2) That that content be both consistent and reasonably good. It doesn't have to be great often, but it must not actually stink.

FDL was mentioned above.  I rather doubt FDL expanded its roster of front pagers just for diversity - they did so because two people doing all the writing on a major blog are prone to burnout.  

I'm not aware of any major group blog which wouldn't like to have more women, gays, ethnics, whatever, but frankly all of that is irrelevant to #1 and #2.  Find me someone who meets those two, and I can work with and who is at least modestly compatible philosophically, and they could be a bloody Nartian and it wouldn't matter, they'd be front paged so fast that their head spins.

Blogging at the pace required for a political blog is work.  And very few people are willing to do a part time job for nothing, or damn near nothing.