(I wouldn't want it in my office, but I think that's a gorgeous crab, and anyone who's read Sherri L. Smith's Lucy the Giant knows a little about how huge --and how hard -- crabbing is Australia. I respect the state very deeply, want to live there someday, and I don't like all of the jokes about this woman and her family, and YES,doesn't it feel BIZARRE to be DEFENDING HER!? I really am not keen to be put in that position. BUT --!)

I don't know -- personally, I think things are too bad to sit on the fence any longer. When I was a teenager, I was intensely political and I sucked in all the politics (mainly liberal) I could get. So I'm not worried about teenagers not thinking for themselves. What I do worry about is four years of McCain/Palin -- I often wonder if there's an _overemphasis_ on balance in our culture, especially in the news reporting, instead of (as Jon Stewart has frequently pointed out) not just saying when someone is lying or something is WRONG.

I think it's good for teenagers to see adults who they maybe look up to with the courage of their convictions.

I'm sure Republican-leaning teens don't feel in a vacuum, with half-the country more or less leaning that way. And I'm sure they won't feel chastised if their favorite author disagrees. I want everyone to be informed though, because then the decision is a really easy one (as I see it!).

So, I'm all for it. And, hey, it's not like the youth vote and young people in general aren't outrageously favoring the candidate in question already.

I'm all for YA for Obama as well. If there are YA authors--or celebrities, or whoever--who want to put up a site called YA for McCain, or youth for McCain, or whatever, let them do that, too. There should be issues-oriented sites as well, but the partisan sites are, I think, fine. They're a way for folks who are already committed to, or at least intrigued by, the Obama/Biden ticket, to find community and show solidarity. That, as John Green already showed w/Brotherhood 2.0, is a profound thing for any age group, and maybe more for YAs than the rest of us (not sure on that, honestly).

The idea of it is fine - as I stated above you could do a great site that supports one candidate but presents thoughtful arguments for both and allows readers to make a choice. But that is not what I have seen over there (and I know it is new but go and look, please).

What I see is a lot of incorrect information and screaming. Read the responses to the person who stated they were pro-life. It's not pretty and it's not informative.

And for the record Palin never advocated aerial shooting of polar bears - but that's over there in the forums as well.

What I see is an atmosphere that celebrates people who feel one way and denigrates those who do not. When was that a good thing - and especially for teenagers who are stuck in those worlds of "cool kids" vs "uncool kids" every single day.

I guess I don't understand why a group of like-minded individuals should not promote their cause. Why does being an author for young people disqualify someone from endorsing a candidate?
In order for readers to make choices, they need things to choose from--this Obama site is just one place people can go for debate/boosterism/propaganda about the election. You wouldn't argue that any one book needs to give equal weight to all arguments; why should any one website? Part of "figuring things out for yourself" is learning how to evaluate conflicting information from different sources. I think we can trust teens to do that.

It's a social networking site that pretty clearly defines its parameters in the name. I don't mean to sound harsh, but people who don't agree don't have to go there. They can go to another community. And I haven't gotten the impression by anyone involved that they expect or want this to be the sole source of _anyone's_ information about the candidates and the campaign. It's a pro-Obama site, and I suspect any venom that's seeping out about McCain/Palin is based on people's understanding of the issues as much as personality (heck, look at Talking Points Memo!)--but free speech is free and no one should feel the need to prettify their political opinions to please someone else. Especially artists. IMO.

(The cool kids argument always rankles me, btw, because I think it's very rarely valid.)

Okay - first any group can form any kind of site and I totally and completely support that idea. Never had a problem with it and I happily read lots of pro-Obama sites.

I think my frustration with this is getting conflated into something else - I NEVER WOULD SUGGEST that authors can not have an opinion or state their opinions. That is NOT AT ALL what I am saying in this post.

Where I have a problem with this is that it is aimed at young people who, as the authors express, have never voted before. So the idea seems to be (from what I've read there and elsewhere about it) that teens should come to the site and learn from their favorite authors why Obama is the choice. Okay - fine. But they don't learn that actual policy comparisons and there is not an equal measure of respect for each candidate. And I do think that if you are aiming directly at teenagers then you should try to take the high road - not in "prettifying" your opinion but at least in doing something other than introducing forum topics where you state that you hate a VP candidate and then invite comments.

They can have this site all they want to - I would never suggest they can not. My point is that I think if you are going to specifically attempt to get teens excited about the election process then having a site that repeats falsehoods and attacks commenters with different opinions is not the way to do it.

There are plenty of sites out there that already do that (as we all know). This one just seems to be getting one side feel like they are better and the other side, by definition, like they are worst.

And if you are a fan of these authors and feel unwelcome at the site then yes, you can always leave. But then what have they accomplished in the long wrong but to diminish the opinons of some of their readership? That's why I added that "cool kids" comment, Gwenda. You go read the forums and tell me how you would feel if you disagreed.

Bottom Line: I NEVER WOULD SUGGEST that an author can not endorse a candidate. NEVER. It's how this site is organized and moderated that I don't like and I wish they would improve on.

I'd hate to think anyone had to moderate it, really -- heck, it might cut into the writing time too much. And, in my experience, social networks and forums tend to police themselves. There will _always_ be inaccurate stuff floating around, and the only place that isn't true is on the Fact Check sites.

I don't agree with every single thing I've seen posted on the forums there, and I feel fine. And I would have felt fine as a teenager. I'm used to disagreeing with people on the Internet and still liking them. :)

I think maybe we're responding to different things. I've only seen the posted essays by Judy Blume and John Green, which I think are thoughtful and well-written endorsements that do exactly what you call for--examine policies and explain why they support whom they do. The links I've clicked have mostly been to either funny or useful sites, one-sided to be sure but not offensive or over the top. I haven't been reading the forums, but I'm not surprised that they are less reasoned--they're open forums, after all. Are there YA authors "screaming" at kids? That would be bad, but that's not what I've seen. (But, again, I'm not poking around the forums.)

I read through the Sarah Palin forum, and it's awfully mild by message-board standards. Yes, someone posted that she supported polar bear hunting by air, but then someone else responded with, no, it's wolves. That's the way it's supposed to work. If you start heavily moderating replies for truth and fairness, readers are going to smell a rat and not be interested in posting. The internet 2.whatever is the rare place that gives teens a level playing field, and any teen interested in politics is already going to be used to the rough and ready discussions on such sites as FreeRepublic and the HuffingtonPost.

You know what guys? We just agree to disagree on this one. What I see is a lot more anti McCain/anti Palin posturing then positive Obama pieces. And yes the Blume and Green posts are a nice concept but I still think the whole package is light on content vs heavy on "how could you possibly diagree with us" posturing.

In the end it's fine that we disagree and I'll just leave it to the readers to figure out if they want to be part of this site or not.