We've had fifteen e-mails to the site (email@example.com) from people responding to last night's entry (http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2005/01/randi-rhodes-show-unfiltered-majority.html). All say that they do not support Simon Rosenberg for DNC chair but that Interesting Times is entitled to their own opinion.
Jim: "I can disagree with someone on the issue of who should be DNC chair. I was one of the ones suggesting that Interesting Times was a strong site. I still believe it is. I don't read his post as an endorsement but I was by no means pleased to read that Simon Rosenberg was a choice that could be lived with. My disagreement over Rosenberg doesn't detract from my enjoyment of Interesting Times. We don't all have to agree 100% on every issue. I agree that Interesting Times should continue to be linked to."
The other fourteen echo Jim's sentiments. (If they grant permission to be quoted, we'll post their comments later today.)
Jim is correct that Interesting Times has not endorsed Rosenberg.
A paraphrase of the three e-mails on the subject last night was used and in case that wasn't clear, it's now noted as a "paraphrase" in bold type.
Interesting Times has addressed the issue of whether or not an endorsement has been made:
Let me be clear about this: My previous post about Simon Rosenberg was not an endorsement. My point was only to say that Rosenberg had qualities to merit his taking on that role above and beyond him being "the acceptable alternative to Howard Dean". In other words, if Dean weren't running, Rosenberg would still be a good choice for the post (certainly better than any of the non-reform alternatives).
Should Interesting Times decide to endorse Rosenberg, that will not result in their link being removed. As stated last night, Chris Anderson is entitled to express his opinion and, if he chooses to endorse Rosenberg, that's his opinion. The fifteen who e-mailed already on this issue echo that sentiment.