Pennsylvania Progressive blogger silenced?

http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/04/farewell.html

Should we invite him over to D.U.?

(What next?)

Anyone who says something against him is run out of town.

Apparently Mayhill Fowler has received many death threats.

WTF?

"Update: Thanks for all the emails and invitations to join other blogs. I now have an attorney working on this matter and I'm going to spend some downtime figuring out what to do next. I have a lot of thinking to do and we're now fearful of what these Obama supporters might do next. I've never seen a campaign breed such hatred and vitriol at those not supporting their candidate. What is it about Barack Obama which is causing this meltdown among his supporters?"

Maybe you should post your appeal for supporting him over at Free Republic?

His attorney is working on a lawsuit he wants to litigate for being shut down

here is the last line of the "update" on his blog:

"I have a lot of thinking to do and we're now fearful of what these Obama supporters might do next. I've never seen a campaign breed such hatred and vitriol at those not supporting their candidate. What is it about Barack Obama which is causing this meltdown among his supporters?"

Sad, isn't it?

Tavis Smiley, Mayhill Fowler, Penn Progressive, who is next?

On Tuesday, Pennsylvanians will have the unusual luxury of voting in a Democratic presidential primary that promises to be truly relevant. Like two opposing armies marching to a new Gettysburg, the forces of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton come to this latest battlefield symbolizing two views of America -- one of the past, one of the future. Pennsylvania Democrats need to rise to the historic moment. For us it is the candidates' vision and character that loom as the decisive factors in this race.
#######################
So forget all the primary skirmishing. Sen. Obama is every bit as prepared to answer the ring of the 3 a.m. phone as Sen. Clinton. Forget this idea that Sen. Obama is all inspiration and no substance. He has detailed positions on the major issues. When the occasion demands it, he can marshal eloquence in the service of making challenging arguments, which he did to great effect in his now-famous speech putting his pastor's remarks in the greater context of race relations in America.
Nor is he any sort of elitist. As he said yesterday in effectively refuting this ridiculous charge in a meeting with Post-Gazette editors, "my life's work has been to get everybody a fair shake."

This editorial began by observing that one candidate is of the past and one of the future. The litany of criticisms heaped on Sen. Obama by the Clinton camp, simultaneously doing the work of the Republicans, is as illustrative as anything of which one is which. These are the cynical responses of the old politics to the new. Sen. Obama has captured much of the nation's imagination for a reason. He offers real change, a vision of an America that can move past not only racial tensions but also the political partisanship that has so bedeviled it.

•
To be sure, Sen. Clinton carries the aspirations of women in particular, but even in this she is something of a throwback, a woman whose identity and public position are indelibly linked to her husband, her own considerable talents notwithstanding. It does not help that the Clinton brand is seen by many in the country as suspect and shifty, bearing the grimy stamp of political calculation counting as much as principle.

Pennsylvania -- this encrusted, change-averse commonwealth where a state liquor monopoly holds on against all reason and where municipal fiefdoms shrink from sensible consolidation -- needs to take a strong look at the new face and the new hope in this race. Because political business-as-usual is more likely to bring the usual disappointment for the Democrats this fall, the Post-Gazette endorses the nomination of Barack Obama, who has brought an excitement and an electricity to American politics not seen since the days of John F. Kennedy.

First published on April 16, 2008 at 12:00 am
EmailPrint

WTF?

First, the OP, and article linked to, do nothing to provide specifics about this case. I doubt this blogger simply printed the woman's name, which is what he originally alleges.

Second, enough of this generic lumping of personalities and traits with the lowest common denominator of the group. It not only cheapens the discourse, but is usually wholly inaccurate. All Obama supporters aren't "young and latte-drinking" and "full of hate" and all Clinton supporters aren't "pants-suit wearing old ladies" who are "secretly Republican". These summarizations weaken an argument and cast doubt on the writer's other ideas, which may have been valid.