On top of having frustrating site issues yesterday - my posts wouldn't upload - I received a rejection notice from the Democrat National Committee for my request to attend its Denver convention as a credentialed blogger this August... :(

I applied last month, making the pitch that I represented a signficant minority in the Party, but alas, they say there is no room at the inn. Click to enlarge:

I'd be interested to see the traffic rank of blogs chosen over mine. Mine is now at 239,400. No brag, just fact, it must certainly rank in the top 100 of DNCC applicants.

But taking my rejection notice at face value, I have now applied to be credentialed for entrance into the Big Tent, sponsored by the DailyKos and ProgressNow among others.

I've made the same pitch.

If there's no room for me in the Big Tent, I'll have to assume the worst, liberal censorship.

But pro-lifers have grown accustomed to a shut-down of the marketplace of ideas on liberal blogs, particularly pro-abort blogs.

yeah, Jill, get use to it. What's the matter with you anyway, woman? (slap to Jill's head)
Heaven knows what you'll post on your blog. You might change the course of America...
And American's might actually know what's really going on instead of getting some liberal pap.

Jill says: "If there's no room for me in the Big Tent, I'll have to assume the worst, liberal censorship."

What? Liberal censorship? Outlandish! Who ever heard of such a thing? Why, next you'll be saying crazy things like "Liberal bias in the mass media", or something equally impossible to believe!

[/sarcasm]

Are they credentialing conservative blogs, in general? I have no idea how this process works.

Maybe I'll apply with my liberal pro-life blog, or is it too late?

Sorry to challenge your ego and paranoia, Jill, but well over 90% of the applicants were not credentialed, as there were more than ten applications for every available spot.

Yes, it is all about you. Everyone is afraid of you, and wants to deprive you of free speech.

Anon, That just goes to show how difficult it is to get a spot. Cheer up!

So YOU got censored?

Sharon Stone was right.

What goes around comes around, and karma IS a bi**h.

Jen, 10:22a: No more applications are being taken. I think the deadline was April 15 or there-abouts. I made the first cut after that. They requested names of those I wanted credentialed in my posse, and I listed my husband and daughter. I was really hoping....

Anon, 10:25a: The facts are what they are. This is a highly trafficked blog, and I represent a signficant minority of the Democrat Party. 90% of applicants were not credentialed? I bet I'm in the top 10% that were, traffic-wise.

Laura, 10:56: I heard Arianna Huffington on Laura Ingraham yesterday, and she said she moderates all of her comments, which I do not. She has 30 comment readers, in fact. Even Arianna would censor you for some of things you've said here. And she likely wouldn't have given you a 3rd break.

Jill, I'd argue you don't represent a significant minority of the Democratic Party, because you're not a Democrat. (Or at least, your blog is highly supportive of conservative Republicans. Also, you call it the Democrat Party, which is generally used by opponents.) It looked, from the list of credentialed blogs, like they weren't picking Republicans.

I did apply for the Big Tent credentials.

The list is here, btw, for people who are interested:

http://www.demconvention.com/credentialed-blogs/

I think that the blogger credential program looks less like press credentials, and more like a way of keeping bloggers sympathetic to the Democrats happy and in the loop. It definitely came across that way in 2004.

I'm not really sure I agree with that. I wonder how this compares with the credentials for "Old Media". I don't suppose they're keeping the National Review or Fox News out, for instance. Conversely, I'd like to see a blog like Talking Points Memo be able to cover the Republican convention from the inside.

Hey, Jen, we may then meet... :)

True, I'm not a registered Democrat. That said, I'm pro-life before I'm Republican and will support whoever supports my issue.

At any rate, the DNC considers bloggers part of the press, which is theoretically not supposed to be Democrat or Republican either.

And as I told the DNC when I applied, I do go out of my way to support the accomplishments of pro-life Democrats. I even wrote a WND column on them a couple months back.

See, I think they only sort of consider them part of the press. I think they mostly consider them a way to get the message out.

Laura's back???

What happened? Did the PP blog also throw you out or is there something in Jill's blog that draws you in no matter what?
------------------

As for Jill being rejected...I would consider that a backward compliment from the Democrats.

They obviously would not be able to sway you to report on what they want you to say and with your pro-life stand, you would be of no use to them.

With the way the party is divided right now, they need all the help they can get.

@Jill: Do you know if the RNC allows Democrats or liberals in general to blog at their national convention?

Jill, I think in all reality censorship is a bit of a stretch. Personally, I'm all for having bloggers of opposing parties witnessing each convention. That way

a) everyone know everything
b) Biases can be pushed past even farther, bringing people closer to the truth if they read each side's report of events.

However, I find it unlikely to realistically happen on both sides. I get the feeling people within the party would view it in the way that the NFL now views filming the hand signals of other coaches. Reading about it is one thing, allowing someone from the opposition to actually be there is quite another.

By the way, your archive feature is also really busted up.

Some days it'll jump back to the right month or day, other times it'll send you to a bunch of posts linked by tags.

"@Jill: Do you know if the RNC allows Democrats or liberals in general to blog at their national convention?"

My guess is probably not. And if they do they would probably make them sit in the janitor's closet with Alan Colmes.

Sorry dude, you're about as democratic as the 2000 election. For you to attend it would be like allowing my roommate to dress in drag for halloween. You have to at least be able to act the part, and judging from your blog you cannot even be charitable, so why would anyone want you at their party?

Dude?

Re: the Republican Convention, the question is will they allow pro-abort bloggers in, and the answer is: of course.

@Jill: Like who if you don't mind me asking?

Are you planning on coming up to St. Paul for the RNC in August?

Rae: Are you planning on coming up to St. Paul for the RNC in August?

Be careful - it's been reported that a couple yay-hoos were spotted in Minesota.

@The Dougster: That we do- Al Franken (*gag*) and Gov. Pawlenty (*double gag*).

I look forward to the vast increase in crazies that will be visiting during the RNC- that and the Daily Show and most likely the Colbert Report will be coming and setting up shop at the University of Minnesota.

Rae, you gotta get Jesse Ventura back in there...

Thanks for this, needed a good laugh.

"The facts are what they are. This is a highly trafficked blog, and I represent a signficant minority of the Democrat Party. 90% of applicants were not credentialed? I bet I'm in the top 10% that were, traffic-wise."

Still willing to bet $ on this? You are way off base.