Still Smearing Hillary

Josh Marshall does it still, by use of an emailer:

It should be noted that for whatever reason, McCain has so far refused to go places that Hillary went in the primary (Wright, explicit comments about "hard-working, white" Americans supporting her, distributing emails with pictures of Obama in Muslim garb, etc.).

It should be noted that everyone of those charges is pure nonsense and Marshall should be ashamed for repeating them yet again. Hillary Clinton's campaign NEVER used Rev. Wright ever. When asked, she said she would not have him as her pastor. That was it. No ads. Nothing on Wright ever. The "hard working white Americans" line was the question she was asked by the AP reporter. It was another phony scandal, now a Josh Marshall specialty. But the one that takes the cake is the "Obama in Muslim garb" lie that DRUDGE sold and Marshall bought and still buys. What a disgraceful performance Josh Marshall has put in this campaign season. I'll be honest, I do not believe his site when it writes something about McCain. I have to see it somewhere else before I believe it now. I just do not trust his site anymore.

By Big Tent Democrat, definitely speaking only for me

< Is Pro Bono Work 'Anti-Social'? | Biden's Gaffe >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Haven't been back to his site (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by Farmboy on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:36:22 PM EST
    since Edwards dropped from the race and TPM went into high gear on writing fiction about the Clintons.

    Sigh.  Why did so many of the first-tier (allegedly) leftwing blogs have to adopt the "win at any cost" tactics of the rightwing?

    THANK YOU BTD! (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 11:32:46 PM EST
    For having the guts and the integrity to write such an incisive declaration about this unfortunate truth.

    Note that BTD is quoted (none / 0) (#80)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 01:38:00 PM EST
    by Taylor Marsh, whose post on the same subject is linked at realclearpolitics.com today.

    I haven't been here in a long time either. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by chopper on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 02:31:47 AM EST
    I left when the anti-Obama comments started getting bleeped.  The site became sickeningly pro-Obama.

    But, I saw a mention of Hillary on Memeorandom and had to check it out. I love and respect Hillary and sorely miss her. But, there is no way in hell I would ever vote for Obama.

    I guess I'll get bleeped - but I have to say, he is still a lying, cheating, corrupt punk.

    He still lies and flip-flops, he has ACORN outrageously corrupting the election system, and his ties with Rezko, Fannie & Freddie, and others just deepens. And, I don't like all his secrets, denials, and too many blanks in his life. As far as his programs and promises, I don't believe a word he says.

    One of my favorite sites now is NoQuarterUSA.net. I get a great deal of fresh news there. A lot of Hillary supporters went there.

    I can't stand Obama, but two other big reasons for voting for McCain are that I hope Hillary will run again in 2012. The DNC wouldn't allow her to run against Obama (she would probably win again), but she could run against McCain, Palin, or anybody else and win.

    And, McCain would have a Democratic Congress to keep his hands tied and clear judges. Plus McCain is pretty bi-partisan anyway.

    Well, it was nice dropping by.  Maybe I'll chat with you again after the election.  Be sure to vote for all the down-ticket Democrats. Take care, everybody.

    Hillary 2012


    Well, at least Donna Brazile is back (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:37:34 PM EST
    to pissing everyone off.

    I missed that, can you clarify? (none / 0) (#4)
    by jerry on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:41:38 PM EST
    Has she done something recently?

    Comment of the day. (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:24:26 PM EST
    I check his site about once a week (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:40:07 PM EST
    to see if they have come to their senses now that Obama has a lead.  I was almost willing to blame high anxiety for their last 10 months of hackery. Thanks for letting me know not to waste my time this week.

    I absolutely agree with you also about not taking anything they say about McCain at face value. I sure don't, after seeing them lie about Hillary for so long. And if I can't trust their site to tell the truth, why bother with it?  Just a waste of time if I have to fact-check.

    Atrios and Drum declare McCain worse than Bush (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by jerry on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:46:48 PM EST
    Seemingly related (at least in my mind), today, Atrios and Kevin Drum have declared that they just can't tell who would be the worse President, and McCain is so evil, they might right now vote for Bush over McCain.

    Perhaps because I don't live in a swing state, and have no TV, this sort of commentary makes me laugh.  All that stuff about worse president ever, all that stuff about Iraq, 9/11, torture, warrantless wiretapping, justice department scandals, politicized science, horrible environmental policies, etc.  Apparently Kevin and Duncan are ready to forgive and worse, rehabilitate.  Because McCain is teh evil campaigner.

    The case against McCain is actually very strong (none / 0) (#47)
    by rilkefan on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 06:22:06 PM EST
    Bush is a figurehead.  Cheney ran the show, and while he's evil and misguided and hyperpartisan, I don't think he has some of McCain's shoot-from-the-hip issues nor his ignorance.

    "Apparently Kevin and Duncan are ready to forgive and worse, rehabilitate."

    No.  They're saying Bush is awful, McCain might well be worse.   "Iraq, 9/11, torture, warrantless wiretapping, justice department scandals" etc - you think we wouldn't get that and bomb bomb Iran under McCain?


    Honestly, no I don't.... (none / 0) (#51)
    by jerry on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 07:11:50 PM EST
    I'm voting for Obama, and as I said, I am not in a swing state and don't watch TV....

    From where I sit, and read the net, McCain's campaign hasn't been nearly as bad as past campaigns.  His campaign seems mostly negative, not racial, and incompetent.

    We've heard many claims about how he was going to run racist commercials -- but he really hasn't.  Stupid commercials yes, racist ones, no.

    I can't see how one can extrapolate from the campaign he has run to conclude he would anymore favor warrantless wiretapping than Obama (who has voted FOR warrantless wiretapping) would.  I don't think we'd get torture.  If 9/11 had occurred, I think he would have gone after Bin Laden.  He apparently is now for stem cell research.  And likewise, I don't think he'd be involved in the skew science for politics that Bush has been involved with.

    I don't understand the school of thought that rehabilitates Bush by saying it was all Cheney's fault.

    There are a gazillion reasons not to vote for McCain.  I think it's bizarre to think this this particular campaign means he would probably be a worse president than Bush.

    I think the conclusions that can be drawn are:
    He's a lying Republican Politician
    He'll do pretty much anything to get elected.
    He probably won't go racial.
    He has a dumb understanding of what it takes to win.

    His campaign, to me, honestly doesn't seem as bad as 2000, or 2004.

    One example: people are crying today because he calls Obama a socialist.  If only!  Thank god for Bernie Sanders -- Socialist!

    In the past Rs would have called Ds commie, pinko, f*g*ts.  

    He calls Obama a socialist?  That's water off a duck's back.  Obama could easily counter by talking about the corporate welfare of McCain and the socialism for the rich of the Bush/McCain tax cuts.

    It's hard for me to take seriously people who think calling Obama a socialist makes this a uniquely tough political campaign.


    FYI (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by CST on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 07:50:26 PM EST
    McCain voted against a ban on torture.

    I used to think like you did about McCain, I have learned...

    Also, I think it's reasonable to think he would be even more of a war-monger than Bush, and have a worse economic policy (McCain proposed an across the board spending freeze?!?!).

    I do grant you, I think McCain would be slightly better on "social" issues.  As in, he wouldn't push for a gay marriage ban and so forth.


    Related? Gay marriage (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jerry on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 08:02:17 PM EST
    I think I spoke to it hear, but maybe it was at Drum's.  The Biden debate claim about gay marriage was gutless, mostly contradictory, and reprehensible.

    If the issue is what can we draw from his campaign (none / 0) (#56)
    by jerry on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 08:00:23 PM EST
    then I find it hard to support your conclusions based on his campaign alone (though I agree with several of your conclusions).

    Bomb bomb Iran was a joke.  Was Ronald Reagan (The bombs are flying in five minutes) more a war monger than George W. Bush?  I don't think so.

    His campaign has been negative, and mostly incompetent.  I believe that does say something about his administration.  I just don't think it satisfies the conclusion he would be worse than Bush.  I think that conclusion involves interpreting way more into the campaign than is justified.

    And considering what we were "told" his campaign would look like, and hasn't, I'd say the sort of logic that says he is a monster thus supports the opposite conclusion.  He's not the monster, the guys telling us all about his campaign and mostly getting it wrong are the most likely monsters in this one.

    So I'm not going to buy into their conclusion that McCain is so teh evil that 4 more years of Bush would be better than 4 years of McCain.

    I don't like McCain, I just think the story they are pushing is nonsense and fits the spin much more than it fits the facts.


    Not just the campaign (none / 0) (#58)
    by CST on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 08:20:24 PM EST
    But to some extent, events that occured during the campaign shed some light on these things.  And I don't mean "bomb bomb Iran".  I mean his reaction to the Russia / Georgia thing.  Where he skewered Obama for stressing "caution" which was essentially the Bush position at the time.  He said he wouldnt commit to meeting with Spain.  Stuff like that, which isnt joking around, but seriously damages any diplomatic efforts he might have in the future.

    As for being over-all worse than Bush it's hard to tell, but I think you could certainly make the case that he is worse on some critical issues.

    I don't think it's the stuff on Ayers, or calling Obama a "socialist" that makes him worse (it's hard to be worse than Rove - I think Bush was by far a more evil campaigner).  I think it's his reactions to serious issues.  I mean, who proposes a spending freeze during a deression????  Not even Bush would go that far.


    But, Obama came around to saying Georgia was in (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jawbone on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 09:08:37 PM EST
    teh right shortly after he initially said we should be more measured in our approach to the situation.

    Who told me to change? Why?

    Well, we're not going to see what a McCain administration is like, but we are going to live through an Obama admininstration.

    May you live in interesting times....


    non-sequiter (none / 0) (#66)
    by CST on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 10:01:19 PM EST
    Saying "Georgia was in the right" is not mutually exclusive to taking a "measured approach".  Takng a measured approach just means not doing anything drastic.

    What is scary, is saying that a measured approach is the wrong approach.


    So why did Obama capitulate so quickly? Why not (none / 0) (#83)
    by jawbone on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:37:32 AM EST
    explain his position further and stick with it?

    Why the cave?

    OK, I know the Kool-Aid answer is he needs to say whatever in order to win. May create cognitive dissonance going forward. Or not, if he doesn't feel it.


    Obama's position on Georgia (none / 0) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 10:58:41 PM EST
    ended up being essentially identical to McCain's.  McCain deriding Obama's "caution" initially was deriding his caution on condemning Russia, not for being unwilling to attack militarily, which McCain himself does not advocate.

    McCain did not say he wouldn't commit to meeting with Spain, he said he wasn't going to commit at this point to meeting or not meeting with any country, which is entirely reasonable, otherwise he'd have been plagued by every secondary country and/or its media to commit to meeting with them, and he'd have to do that to avoid offending them.  Silly stuff.  He was entirely right to resist that pressure from the Spanish reporter, though he did it very inelegantly.

    I'm with Jerry on this.   President McCain would be a collossal mess, but these accusations and the negative comparisons to Bush are just silly, IMHO.  McCain's foreign policy rhetoric has always been absurdly bellicose, but let's remember the guy who got us into Iraq ran on the idea of "humble" foreign policy.

    I hope we don't ever get to find out, but I'd bet money that McCain, like all even semi-thoughtful military men, would be far less likely to try to go to war than a chicken hawk like Bush out to prove his manhood and his bigger *** than his daddy's.


    I hope you're right (none / 0) (#78)
    by CST on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 09:28:27 AM EST
    And I hope we never have to find out one way or he other.

    I disagree about Spain. But then again, one of my favorite Obama moments was when he agreed to meet with rogue leaders.  I know he has sorta backtracked on that a bit and it was politically stupid, but it was a telling moment for me about his foreign policy perspective - in a good way.

    McCain completely over-reacted to the Spain thing in my opinion.  And frankly, his rhetoric about Russia and Iran scares me.

    Bush ran on "humble" foreign policy, but lets face it, he didn't have much of a choice after 9/11 and he completely over-shot the thing.  I honestly think if McCain was president we would be at war with Iran right now.  McCain doesn't seem to have a healthy fear of war that a lot of the other vets have.

    But it's kinda a moot point.  And I am also not willing to say he would be an overall worse president than Bush.  There are other areas I think he would certainly be better (social issues, seperation of powers, etc...).  Foreign policy just isn't one of them.


    What campaign have you been watching? (none / 0) (#52)
    by rilkefan on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 07:42:31 PM EST
    McCain's response to the financial crisis was terrifying, if you care about the future of the country.  McCain was almost single-handedly responsible for preventing an effective anti-torture bill from passing.  Etc.  

    "If 9/11 had occurred, I think he would have gone after Bin Laden."  

    McCain linked Iraq to 9/11 weeks before Cheney did.  His rhetoric on the Iranian govt has been awful - remember, Obama is the guy who wants to negotiate with them, while McCain is the guy who thinks it's funny to sing about killing them.

    "It's hard for me to take seriously people who think calling Obama a socialist makes this a uniquely tough political campaign."

    This, like most of your claim, is pure straw.


    response to the financial crisis (none / 0) (#55)
    by jerry on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 07:52:41 PM EST
    McCain's response to the financial crisis was terrifying, if you care about the future of the country.  McCain was almost single-handedly responsible for preventing an effective anti-torture bill from passing.  Etc.  

    So was Kevin Drum's.  So was most folks on the left.  I haven't heard that it was Obama who finally got the direct capitalization language inserted into the bill.  The Paulson plan was crap, and most Democrats supported that.

    Please don't tell me I don't care about the future of the country.

    I tell you my opinion, based on what I've seen.  I tell you what I've seen and pretty much where I live, to help you understand.  I tell you that so you can understand where I am coming from.  And then you ask, what campaign have I been watching?

    You respond by telling me I don't care about the future of my country, and that my arguments are filled with straw.

    Um, that's not an argument, that's just ad hominem.

    When people engage with you honestly, it's pretty disgusting for you to attack them as you did.  Whatever happened to "we just disagree with each other?"

    As I've said, I may not be happy with McCain as President, but I don't see his campaign as teh evil monster so many people make it out to be.  I don't see how his campaign can lead people to thinking he would politicize science, or differ in warrantless wiretapping from Obama who voted for it, or differ in bankruptcy than Biden.  That's not straw.  That's my opinion.

    Your attacks on my character because we disagree is obnoxious.


    The above wasn't ad hom (none / 0) (#60)
    by rilkefan on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 08:40:48 PM EST
    but apparently you can't read so I'm not going to continue to engage you.

    Even tho they havent (none / 0) (#76)
    by Amiss on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 11:42:36 PM EST
    gone racist yet, I saw on the News tonight they are re-thinking the "Rev. Wright" fiasco of the primaries. So dont count that out just yet.

    Why should that be noted? (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:48:55 PM EST
    The McCain/Palin rallies associate Obama with a domestic terrorist, feature people bring into the rallies racist puppets, feature people yelling "kill him."  Oh, and I have seen some pretty dark, pretty mean pictures of Obama from the McCain campaign.  I don't check Kos, so I don't know if they have been analyzed.

    Talk about missing the forest for the trees...McCain's heinous, hateful campaign is happening NOW.  Why are they going back to the primary?  McCain may be less sleazy than Bush, but his campaign is just as recklessly malicious.

    Yep (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:50:32 PM EST
    But CDS dies hard apparently.

    It also seems that the emailer (none / 0) (#22)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:16:51 PM EST
    PB, and less so, Josh Marshall, miss the point kind of.  From my POV anyway.  Turning someone, especially someone with the middle name "Hussein," someone who is not a WASP, into a terrorist in the eyes of your supporters, is beyond the pale.  I don't think you can really compare the Swift Boaters to it, because Americans respond to terrorism and terrorists in a different, much more violent way.  How do we treat terrorists in this country?  We know how.  

    Maybe I am just what PB suggests, caught up in the sleaziness of the present, unable to remember the past.  But to understand the present moment, I think simply comparing sleazy Republican campaigns of the past 35 years does not do the present moment justice.  There is some serious grassroots hate going on here.


    My List of Bookmarks (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by wasabi on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:56:57 PM EST
    My bookmarks list got smaller as the primary went on. After a few back and forth e-mails with Josh, I deleted TPM from my list.  I'll only go there if directed by another website, and then only after I think twice about it.  He's been disgraceful to say the least.

    Me, too (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 11:16:21 PM EST
    I wonder how many of us there are who had the identical experience.  I and several personal friends of mine went the same route-- increasingly acrimonious email exchanges with Josh culminating with deleting the bookmark after years of enjoying his site.  And I've seen any number of comments to that effect, too.

    TPM became increasingly uncomfortable for anyone (none / 0) (#84)
    by jawbone on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:45:39 AM EST
    who did not support Obama, Clinton supporters especially. Then, one of the bloggers who did point out some reality about charges against Clinton had his blog (Horse's Mouth) undergo rebuild or something for, what, weeks? Months? Came back a different writer, iirc. But I haven't gone back much at all since then.

    What makes me sad is that Josh Marshall waged a strong and, I thought at the time, reality-based campaign against BushCo's move to privatize SocSec.

    I wonder what he'll do when the issue come up under Obama....  ???

    Since he's gone into the tank for Obama, I find I don't feel I can take anything he posts at face value. I look for sites which show onging reliability and, if they make factual errors, are completely open to correcting them and rethinking what got them into the errors. A reason I no longer to to Avavosis's blog.


    Amen (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:58:15 PM EST
    & thank you

    Thanks for continuing to hold their (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Joelarama on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:05:52 PM EST
    feet to the fire.  JM has lost much of his credibility in my eyes.    

    When will Obama supporting progressives/libs (self (none / 0) (#85)
    by jawbone on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:47:01 AM EST
    id'd) feel they can begin to hold Obama's feet to the fire?

    Yeah (5.00 / 11) (#16)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:10:18 PM EST
    It's bad enough that so-called progressives engaged in another round of Al Gore-style mythmaking against a fellow Democrat.  But now that the primary is over, you'd think people could wake up to reality and stop repeating the same old lies, even if they somehow managed to get away with those same lies while the primary was still going on.

    This is why (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:30:08 PM EST
    the Clintons ought not have even bothered to be such good Dems, for all it gets them.  They'll still be racists forever to a sizeable segment of fools on the leftie hill -- and Hillary Clinton, especially, never will be acceptable to a particular subset of such fools.  So a sizeable segment of the left no longer is acceptable to me.

    And when it's the fools such as this that raise again the specter of the Rev. "Watch Me Dry Hump the Pulpit" Wright and worse, who needs Repubs to do the heavy lifting?  Now they could have some fun saying that those leftie bloggers really ought not go there, but since they did. . . .  

    groan (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by dws3665 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 06:56:16 PM EST
    I have been toying with the idea of re-adding TPM to my bookmarks. This settles it - nope.

    Of course, these kinds of insinuations and smears are daily (hourly?) occurrences on Sully's site, as well.

    They need a CDS support group -- oh ... wait. I think they've created their own.

    Bob Somerby (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 07:01:37 PM EST
    of the incomparable Daily Howler has been on Josh Marshall's case for quite a few months now.  Somerby asked incomparably "Have they kidnapped the real Josh Marshall?"

      If you search Somerby's archives , you will find a long chronicle of Marshall's odd behavior.

    I used to be a big fan of Josh's, especially before he moved to NYC and juiced up his blog.  During the primaries, I realized that he had turned some dark corner.

    Some on the left may not be accepting TPM at face (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by jawbone on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 09:15:21 PM EST
    value, but he is now quoted by some in the MCM--so he's got cred and publicity. Quotes of his about the last debate were used on WNYC's public radio Brian Lehrer Show. He's an insider now--or he's at least orbiting really close to the inner circle.

    For me and others who knew him when, it is so sad to see him go downhill like this. Or whatever direction he's gone (been taken).

    Exactly Somerby's thesis (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 11:10:59 PM EST

    Oh, man (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 11:12:01 PM EST
    ain't that the truth!  Disgraceful.

    You gotta assume (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Pieter B on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 11:22:54 PM EST
     . . . that if WhoeverKidnapedJoshMarshall features a letter like that without expressing disagreement, he agrees with the message.

    distributing emails with pictures of Obama in Muslim garb

    If a year ago I had told you that large numbers of self-styled progressives would be accepting the uncorroborated word of Matt Drudge over that of a lifelong Democrat, you'd have had me placed on a 72-hour hold. I'm still appalled.

    He's the Drudge of the left--- (4.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 08:29:24 PM EST
    and very happy occupying that spot, by the way.

    Yup. n/t (none / 0) (#8)
    by Coral on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:48:06 PM EST

    The idea is to "go there" (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:54:24 PM EST
    by proxy while maintaining a veneer of plausible deniability; that way you dont get your hands publicly dirty.

    Why would our sainted lady of recent memory ever have had to mention Rev Wright-Horton, when he was, for a few weeks (of course against any and all wishes of the Clinton campaign!) everywhere you looked? But not here though, thank God.

    What a comment (5.00 / 10) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:57:24 PM EST
    Yep, Clinton made Wright go to the National Press Club.

    Could you be more ridiculous?


    Yeah nobody (1.00 / 2) (#18)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:12:42 PM EST
    had heard of him or ever would've heard of him before then.

    Could you be any more the ever-obsequious Clinton attack dog?


    Indeed (5.00 / 11) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:28:09 PM EST
    You COULD be more ridiculous.

    Well done.


    Comment of the Day! (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by barryluda on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 06:09:49 PM EST
    I had thought that Cream City had correctly identified Donald from Hawaii with the "Comment of the Day" but this one beats it.

    Hello, Earth calling... (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by marian evans on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 09:47:56 PM EST
    Planet Zog, are you receiving?

    BTD is obsequious? In which parallel universe? Let alone the rest of that offensive little comment.

    Oh, and maybe you need reporting for offenses against the English language - "obsequious attack dog" is an oxymoron...

    perhaps one can follow that train of thought to its natural conclusion.


    Do you know (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by rooge04 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:14:40 PM EST
    what by proxy actually means? It appears that you do not.

    Bwahahaha (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by blogtopus on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:21:52 PM EST
    You should warn people before you write this stuff... I had to wipe off my damn LCD because of this.

    Seriously, though: Seriously? I know BTD won't say it, but you have the narcissistic characteristics of a classic troll. Go ahead and declare victory and move on.


    Chronology can be your friend (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:34:27 PM EST
    so use those preschool skills in putting together a timeline, google for even a few minutes to see the dates of when the story of the Rev. Wright surfaced on Fox and elsewhere, and then when Clinton was interviewed about it (and how many times she was asked before she finally had to say something to get the guy off the topic, then see how the segment was edited, etc.) -- and then come on back and tell us what you learned.

    Admittedly, with so much b.s. flying around and being reported in once-respectable media, including once-respectable blogs, it is time-taking to do the work for ourselves.  But it is necessary, if we are to be at all informed.  And it is absolutely necessary to do so before perpetuating the b.s.  That only makes you look as warped by an agenda as does Josh Marshall.


    Big Tent, there's one problem... (none / 0) (#17)
    by mrmobi on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:10:59 PM EST
    with your attribution here. The item you quote here was a from the commenter, PB. I'm not sure why you have such a hardon for Josh Marshall. They are doing excellent work over there debunking this ACORN nonsense, among other things.

    You should get your facts straight. The vast majority of the comment from PB was pointing out that nobody runs a dirtier campaign than a Bush. Are you still fighting that last campaign, BT?

    For the record (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:14:51 PM EST
    BTD wrote "by use of an emailer" right there in the first sentence of the post.

    He chose to include it in his post to prove (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:15:41 PM EST
    his point. Are you suggesting he doesn't agree?

    Learn to read (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:27:03 PM EST
    BTW, repeating known lies is attributable to the repeater.

    BTW, watch your language.


    It doesn't matter. (5.00 / 10) (#29)
    by hitchhiker on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:36:57 PM EST
    They may be doing excellent work debunking ACORN stuff . . . the problem is that once a site starts down the path of printing smears, half-truths, and outright lies, their excellent work gets lumped in with their nonsense.

    No credibility is no credibility.

    The same is true of DK; every time I skate through there, I read the headlines with the same eyes that saw a front page post claiming that the Clinton campaign had photo-shopped an Obama photo to make him look more black.

    I simply don't trust anything I read there, because I know they lied.  If they lied once, they'll do it again, and I don't have time to sort it out.  There are reputable sites to go to, and I'm really sorry that so many progressive ones I trusted turned out to be left versions of freerepublic.  What a waste.


    Hillary re: Hard working white Americans' support (none / 0) (#30)
    by robrecht on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:40:27 PM EST

    Although I'm a strong Hillary supporter, I never saw a full transcript from this interview.  I saw this soundbyte played on TV several times and thought it was perhaps a low point in Hillary's campaign, trying to define Obama as a black candidate that could not appeal to white Americans.

    Did I miss a valid defense of her remarks?  If so, I'd love to hear it.  Does anyone have the full transcript?

    The AP report (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:44:16 PM EST
    said "white working class Americans."

    She was quoting the AP quoting polling.


    OK (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by robrecht on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:50:18 PM EST
    That much was obvious from Hillary's own remarks.  I certainly don't think the Clintons are racist, quite the contrary, and the Obama surrogates went way too far in suggesting this, but, still, I don't see these remarks as Hillary's finest hour.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:56:23 PM EST
    I do not see the relevance of your comment.

    Are you SERIOUSLY arguing this was akin to ACTUAL dirty campaigning?


    No, I did not say anything like that (none / 0) (#35)
    by robrecht on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:58:07 PM EST
    Then what ARE you arguing? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 06:06:16 PM EST
    Did you not read my post?

    Look elsewhere for meaningless arguments (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by robrecht on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 06:10:08 PM EST
    What makes you think I did not read your post?  I was not arguing.  Just asking for context.

    And you got it (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 06:15:14 PM EST
    I wonder why you commented if you did not want a response.

    I'll remember that next time.


    Why do you say I did not want a response??? (none / 0) (#45)
    by robrecht on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 06:16:12 PM EST
    She was quoting the AP to itself (5.00 / 11) (#32)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:48:35 PM EST
    to the AP reporter, a line straight from one of its analyses of the demographics of the campaign.  

    The AP reporter then turned around and attributed it to Clinton herself -- and when AP says it, it's picked up widely (see the book The Boys on the Bus for the influence of the wire services).

    Just one of many examples that ought to make a lot of people, if they are literate and read books to come about this campaign, embarrassed by their gullibility and their willingness to abandon the Clintons and, worse, buy into the labeling of them as racists.  I will have nothing to do with such fools anymore, and that includes family and former friends -- as I want to make clear that such foolishness is not genetic, in terms of family.  Nor are such fair-weather friends the sort to trust ever again.


    Your subject line reads (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by weltec2 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 06:17:19 PM EST
    "hard working white" but to me the issue was not color but "hard working" Americans. You might remember during Ohio when Obama said that "America needs to move away from a blue collar economy to a white collar economy." That had a lot to do with why he lost Ohio, Pennslvania, and other blue collar states.

    To my mind the Democratic Party has always been in favor of the working man no matter what color the collar. Now after the Second World War we moved strongly in the direction of the man [and woman] in the gray flannel suit, but the blue collar has still been a strong element of what we are as a people.


    It's hard for the white-collar class to see (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 07:48:06 PM EST
    that some blue-collar factory folks and construction trades types really like their line of work -- and so they want that sort of work to keep coming.  I've got some in my family who tried college, and it just wasn't for them -- they love to work with their hands as carpenters, to be problem-solvers as plumbers and electricians, etc.

    It's not all monotonous mass-production line work -- and it doesn't all need to disappear to China.  What they want to hear is who is going to figure out how to help them have their American Dream, too, which is not wearing a suit and sitting in an office.


    Plumbers and such (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 11:07:09 PM EST
    Joe the plumber aside, I've long thought these skilled trades are the way to go for many more young people than are willing to consider them.  You work hard, but you have to be very smart and very resourceful, you can make a very, very nice living, and you have the satisfaction of actually accomplishing stuff for people every single day.

    You don't hear much about plumbers and electricians and carpenters and such getting "burned out" and depressed.  Or getting laid off, for that matter.  There's a huge shortage of these folks.  But we as a society have put such an overwhelming emphasis on college education and nice clean white-collar jobs, people turn up their noses at the very idea.  Even way back when I was in high school, "voc ed" was for "losers."  How stupid.


    it is really sad (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by CST on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 09:33:25 AM EST
    I like the way Germany handles this.  They have a lot more options for people who don't necessarily want to go to traditional college.  You can either go to the university after 13th grade, or you can leave earlier and get "technical training" as an electrician, carpenter, etc...

    The jobs are high paying, there is no stigma, and it is a real option for young people.


    Agree (none / 0) (#48)
    by robrecht on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 06:32:07 PM EST
    I strongly agree with you--my subject line was just a paraphrase of Hillary's remarks.  I wasn't aware of Obama saying we need to move away from a blue collar economy toward a white collar economy.  Don't understand his point.

    Jealous you didn't get a Polk Award? (none / 0) (#36)
    by atthesametime on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 06:02:48 PM EST
    Josh Marshall is doing excellent work. How about not engaging in a circular firing squad and fighting the real enemy instead?

    Circular firing squad (5.00 / 16) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 06:05:44 PM EST
    Pretty damn funny considering Hillary was with Obama in Florida today while your boy  Marshall was shooting at Hillary.

    The irony drips.


    Josh Marshall did not win a Polk Award for (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by bslev22 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 10:34:46 PM EST
    emulating Messrs. Drudge and/or Hannity, or by trashing Hillary Clinton.

    The "real enemy" (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 11:09:50 PM EST
    IMHO is exactly this, the folks who claim to be on "our side" and yet lie and distort.  And incidentally, happily chew up other folks who really are on "our side" because they dare to challenge "The One," whoever this year's "The One" happens to be.

    Do you know who else won a Polk? (none / 0) (#41)
    by jerry on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 06:12:33 PM EST
    Hint: the guy I'm thinking about won a Polk, not a Pulitzer....

    O'Reilly, though he claimed it was a Peabody (none / 0) (#42)
    by robrecht on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 06:14:18 PM EST
    Correction: Inside Edition, after O'Reilly left (none / 0) (#44)
    by robrecht on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 06:15:25 PM EST
    The Right has their Hilters and the Left has their (none / 0) (#65)
    by VicfromOregon on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 09:55:15 PM EST
    Stalins.  The extremes do anything to win, including propaganda like Josh's.