Should I quit posting on my blog?

By way of explanation:

http://www.thisisnotover.com/2006/05/the_longest_del.html#comments

Some more explanation: I was initially very flattered by the invite from the site operators to participate in their little project there, which for a time in '05, appeared to be quite the happening website to me. It was only after they invited me to join (in the fall of '05) that I started to "get" that not all of them followed...real news. About Kerry or anything else. As some of you may remember, I indicated last January (after the beginning of the filibuster thing) that my plan had been to stick around and try to slowly and carefully indoctrinate some of the challenged people posting at that place--which has a lot of diverse, even disparate perspectives on it--into my often uncomfortable world which is unfortunately stuck squarely in a reality many of them seem unfamiliar with. Now, I'm wondering if it's even worth it to try to bother with that objective anymore.

If anyone cares, I am, of course, not being paid one dime to post on this blog.

Glancing at the site give me the impression they are looking for a fight-not a serious conversation. They are obviously on the Gore wagon and the one posters seems to be indicating that Kerry should wait it out like Gore did. At least, that is my impression.
Most important, I fail to see anything new or different from this site. It's the same old, criticize the other guy because he isn't my choice site.

It just feels like there is absolutely nothing I could or should say to convince these folks to see reality. To see reality, you have to read the news that comes from this reality. No, not the NYT's landfill--reality. And every time I post something there, especially when it raises the hackles of our readers who either a) think they know more than I do about things posted in blogworld about politics (but curiously, apparently skip all meaningful discussion about Kerry) or b) are more brainwashed than most of the rest of the writers on that site...I feel like I'm doing something that is actually less than productive. For me anyway.

Let them continue supporting Gore, who says he has no plans to run. As I go around to blog, I usually skip the few that pretend Kerry doesn't exist. They're in their own little bubble, detached from the rest of the world.

I've given up trying to convince anyone of anything they aren't already open to hearing. Simply because there just isn't enough hours in the day. I want to spend what precious time I have with people I feel comfortable with and see what we can build together.

It's a lot more fun and hey, we might actually create something we love. :-)

Instead of posting an unabashedly pro-Kerry post maybe posts that say that you can support Gore, though Kerry remains your first choice, because of his positions on the 3 issues that Gore has support on, global warming, constitutional issues and being anti-war are in line with John Kerry's position.

Mention that in 2004, Kerry's strong environmental record on many issues (clean air, water etc) was part of the reason you supported him. Hios 2004 platform was great on this. Admit that Gore was the politician that did the most to communicate the concerns of environmental scientists on global warming.

Compare Gore's January speech on Bush's breaking the law with Kerry's answers in interviews and in his dissent speech. Kerry has at least a 35 yr record demanding that the government follow domestic and internationa law. Kerry's last speech on Alito is brilliant and is excellent on this - Kerry, not Gore is a lawyer. Kerry also competently spoke about international law in 1970 and 1971 before he was a lawyer. Kerry, not Gore, insisted the law be obeyed in terms of the Contras and BCCI.

On Iraq, Kerry was anti-war even though he voted in Oct 2002 for the IWR. He is now on the forefront of those suggesting ways out. Gore was a voice (like Kerry) before the war saying we shouldn't invade, and you assume his position is in line with Kerry/Murtha/Feingold now - though he hasn't (I think) said where he stands on this issue now.

Basic idea - position Gore as your second choice - showing that Kerry is the same or better on all Gore's good issues. (Feingold voted for the 2 bad environment guys for interior)

Try to be low key - if Gore doesn't run, these people may see that Kerry was right on these issues.

That should help me really streamline my efforts there. Streamlining would be nice. The other thing that has been making me want to just give up is that researching and composing my posts for that site takes me forever. It's tough to complete them when I have to wiggle my focus around so that the entries read as intelligible to those in the audience who both do and do not read news which isn't totally propaganda. And it's basically me and this other guy on that site acknowledging that almost all non-Internet news is heavily propagandized. We're very lonely on that blog (and I've noticed he's scaled back his posting quite a bit) and our posts get no comments.

I'm not sure if you guys remember back to John Kerry's last post on dKos. I had an altercation with a poster named "One Pissed Off Liberal", and I had thought that a miracle had happened -- he backed down, and said he would watch Kerry's Dissent speech for which I had given him a link. I was thrilled, thinking -- hey, all this hard work has paid off -- somebody SO anti-Kerry had been turned around.

Well, I was wrong. I was reviewing Kos diaries a couple of days later and found a diary by the same poster, one day after my conversation with him, TOTALLY bashing Kerry. He hadn't changed his mind at all, but was just saving face for the misinformation he had been called out on on that big JK thread.

Here's the thing: you don't argue with some of these pathetic creatures on the lib blogs because you think you can pursuade them. You won't. You do it for the lurkers and the quieter people -- in short, for the pursuadables. And even, on the occasion of a post by John Kerry on the popular dKos site, MSM observers might see your comments. They'll realize -- oh, there ARE supporters of Kerry on the blogosphere. That's why commenting on Huff Post is even worth it, with its popularity.

On the smaller blogs, I think that should be for your own spirits. It should be something that is fun for you, because a smaller blog has limited exposure to actually influencing the powers that be than larger, community oriented blogs. So, yes, we sometimes have to deal with these idiots on DU and Kos because it may bring about change for the good. But not with this blog that you mentioned.

(Of course, there are exceptions for smaller blogs, like KG's and Dr. Ron's for which they HAVE had some exposure, but that's because they have earned respect from Kerry's staff among others).

Anyway, the beauty of advice is you don't have to take it!! Let us know what you decide.

I'm just asking because I'm still kinda conflicted.