home

The Blogosphere's Big Mistake In Campaign '08

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Via commenter white n az, a report from the Eschacon Media criticism forum (see also Susie Madrak's own report, she was the moderator):

Media Matters' Eric Boehlert. . . . [T]here's a new phenomenon ... it goes back to Gore's press in 1999 which was "really unfair and really weird." What's happening online now is potentially dangerous: HRC has gotten dreadful press, not fair, "gotcha," and so on -- there's a portion of the blogosphere that has ignored that and there's a portion that has encouraged that. It's dangerous because the media criticism has to be consistent and relentless, and we can't very well say, "You can't go after our candidates ... except this one." I get nervous about pushback regarding disingenuous coverage - our response needs to be, "You can't treat Democrats this way." When people in the left blogosphere are quoting an anonymous Matt Drudge source, it makes me nervous.

[Susie] Madrak: the rule of thumb is that if you read or hear something that makes you hate another Democrat, you need to dig down further because there's more to the story. The real enemy is the media, and they see themselves as the only superdelegates.

(Emphasis supplied.) BTW, Eschacon sounds great, Krugman will be discussing DFH economics with Duncan. MORE . . .

Susie adds:

I’d been chatting with Eric the night before, and he told me he’d been interviewing Clinton bloggers for a book about how bloggers are affecting the 2008 presidential campaign, and was “shocked” to hear again and again that people felt they could no longer speak freely in the blogosphere.

“I’m not,” I said. I told him most of the bloggers I know are appalled at the present state of affairs, and that they’d basically been bullied into silence. (Which I find ironic - white working class Clinton voters are called “Archie Bunker types” by Obama supporters, and yet the Clinton supporters are the ones being told to “Stifle yourself!”)

He said he was astounded at the venom those bloggers described, and had already collected so much material, he was thinking of making it a separate book.

Later, for the evening’s entertainment, Rude Pundit performed his crowd-pleaser “Why I Won’t F[---] Ann Coulter.” (He’d originally planned to perform “Why I Won’t F[---] Hillary Clinton,” but in light of the day’s conversations, he decided not to.)

< Obama Admits Error on Kennedy Family's Role in Bringing Father to U.S. | Donna Brazile's Breach Of Neutrality >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    That has (5.00 / 16) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:38:59 PM EST
    been my Great Disappointment of this campaign season (aside from the misogyny and sexism and racism).  The way that the left has so embraced ripping a long-time Dem to shreds.  The same people that were horrified at ABC for playing that horrible movie about Bill are using the very same accusations this time around.  Frightening. And I never ever thought I'd see it.

    It's not new (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:28:03 PM EST
    Daily Kos has been gleefully ripping Democrats pretty much since the 2006 elections. Some people seemed to think that since Democrats were nominally in charge of Congress, all of the bad laws should instantly be overturned. The reality is that we have minority control of the Senate, composed in part of red-state Dems who will could get kicked out of office in a heartbeat, and know it, and an obstructionist and unified Republican Party. Nothing is going to change until we get some real power. But the party line on Kos and other progressive sites was that Democrats in general and Pelosi and Reid in particular are cowards who are selling out the nation's values to the corporate leaders who pay for their campaigns.

    I'm not going to pretend that Pelosi has never said anything stupid, but calling her a coward and sellout seems beyond the pale. The whole Clinton-is-establishment meme and the associated anger is based on the same arguments that have been going around for years. There is nothing new here.

    Parent

    You want to see a long-time Dem (none / 0) (#54)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:12:38 PM EST
    ripped to shreds?

    Read THIS

    http://tinyurl.com/23dacn

    Financial Times

    "Obama attacks Bill Clinton's economic legacy

    By Edward Luce in Washington DC

    Published: March 27 2008 17:34 | Last updated: March 27 2008 17:34

    Barack Obama on Thursday laid much of the blame for America's unfolding credit crisis on the financial deregulation of the 1990s in his hardest hitting attack so far on the economic legacy of Bill Clinton's administration.

    Mr Obama's speech - the fourth so far this week by a presidential candidate focusing on America's probable recession - called for an overhaul of US financial regulation and another $30bn in fiscal stimulus..."

    Parent

    Another unnecessary attack on Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:40:38 PM EST
    Dems distancing themselves from Clinton does NOT work.  It didn't work in 2000.  It won't work in 2008.  Why do people not realize that most people with Dem registrations don't care about "progressivism," don't care about Ned Lamont, don't care about Leahy...Bill Clinton is still the Dem that rules the roost.  He's still someone most Dems feel in some way proud of.  

    Does Obama not forsee that he might want Clinton on the campaign trail?  Or if the nominee, that he might want to appeal to the 90s at some level to get votes?

    Parent

    There he goes again. (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by lucky leftie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:04:55 PM EST
     As a democrat, I was angered and offended when Obama called the GOP "the party of ideas."  I was offended when he said "half of the country" was "unwilling to vote for our candidate" in 2000 and 2004.  And I'm offended by this dissing of Clinton, as I remember the Clinton years as being a positive time in our nation.

    This is the same individual who claims to have been "inspired" by Ronald Reagan, and the "optimism" and "clarity" and "accountability" that Reagan brought about.  Wha'??  

    Parent

    weird that a fellow dem (none / 0) (#120)
    by TheRefugee on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:55:18 PM EST
    who decries "politics as usual" is using the GOP playbook from the 90's to destroy the same people that caused the GOP to come up with the playbook in the first place.

    Parent
    i've dubbed it (5.00 / 18) (#2)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:39:23 PM EST
    "the great convergence":

    the formerly "reality-based community," both in form and content, adopting every characteristic of the corporate media.


    Looking at (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by rooge04 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:49:25 PM EST
    sites that used to feel like home is like looking at a parallel universe.  I used to subscribe to Sirius and would hear Ed Schultz & Randi Rhodes and Rachel Maddow on there. Then I let my subscription run out. And I am shocked that the same people I used to listen to and agree with on a daily basis are the ones attacking HRC while Republicans like Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough are the only ones defending her. Truly, like out of another galaxy!  

    Parent
    If you were watching the Iraq debate (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:56:17 PM EST
    or maybe the impeachment discussion, and you had a different opinion from most of these people, you'd recognize the behavior.

    Parent
    it needs to be a trilogy (5.00 / 10) (#20)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:02:38 PM EST
    1. The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton- about the right wing smear machine's attempts to destroy the clintons.

    2. Fools for Scandal: How the Media Invented Whitewater- self explanatory.

    3. and who will write the book about the shrillosphere's attempts to emulate the right wing smear machine and the corporate media?


    Parent
    I don't know (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by rooge04 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:05:43 PM EST
    who will write the book but it will be written! I know that much.  On a daily basis my jaw falls to the ground seeing a new and different wing-nut attack. I saw Markos at a meetup some years back and I can't imagine not cursing him out if I saw him today.

    Parent
    Erci Boehlert is writing the third book (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:06:21 PM EST
    He'll get blackballed when it comes out.

    Mark my words.

    Parent

    No doubt (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by rooge04 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:07:23 PM EST
    that he'll get blackballed. The same way that Krugman is now a Clinton shill. Never thought I'd see that particular day.

    Parent
    That is stunning. (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by lucky leftie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:46:47 PM EST
    Krugman has been a staunch defender of democratic values for the past seven years.  I have a quote of his tacked up in my kitchen, to remind me that "liberal" is not a dirty word-  

    I believe in a relatively equal society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty.  I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law.  That makes me a liberal, and I'm proud of it.

    Can anyone doubt that this is a decent person, committed to the ideals of our party?  

    Parent

    I'll buy a copy (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:08:56 PM EST
    And that's (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:09:37 PM EST
    the tragedy of what's been going on.  We may very well end up with a completely fragmented left of center.

    Boehlert's words (paraphrase) ' we can't say you can't treat Democrats this way except for this one'

    Were dead on the mark.  What's happening at sites like Dailykos and TPM is, in addition to other things, another version of what we've seen when a Democrat in Congress gets attacked in the press and other Democrats are either silent or decide to pile on.

    On top of everything else it's plain (as I see it anyway) that KOS fancies himself a kingmaker and he'll do anything to take some credit for getting Obama nominated.

    The really big joke in all of this is that their chosen one is by all indications the most conservative of the two.

    Parent

    Not surprising to me (4.00 / 2) (#57)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:13:25 PM EST
    After all, Markos is a former Republican and Josh was a big Lieberman supporter who also supported the Iraq War. I really don't think they care about liberal vs.conservative. I think they care about the power of being the Big Boys of the Blogs.

    "Crashing the Gates" my a**.

    Parent

    What are they so pissed about? (none / 0) (#80)
    by lucky leftie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:28:41 PM EST
     The vitriol directed at Senator Clinton, particularly on kos, seems so out of proportion to anything that she has said or done.  One gets that sense that these people detest her and are delighted to have a pretext for denigrating her.  What's that about?  Is it her ties to the DLC and it's presumed dissing of the left-wing blogosphere?  No doubt the DLC HAS been dismissive of liberals at times but good God, there are other things at stake here besides a few slightly bruised egos!  

    Since many of the Hillary supporters left the site en mass in protest, dailykos is an echo chamber, with everyone in complete agreement-Obama is above reproach, Hillary is a lying traitor, and Obama supporters are more intelligent/principled/virtuous than anyone still supporting HRC.  Very depressing.  

    Parent

    The weird part (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Daryl24 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:59:53 PM EST
    for me is that she embodies the fighting dem they have been asking for. Funny when they call Pelosi and Reid weak but turn around and tell Senator Clinton to stop fighting and drop out of the race.

    You alluded to the DLC. That's the only thing that I can figure eventhough she has shown herself to be very supportive of the netroot causes.

    Parent

    Yep, Hillary is fighting like a she-devil. (none / 0) (#93)
    by lucky leftie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:15:19 PM EST
    And I like it.  I'm sick to death of democrats taking the high road and losing.  Our candidate will need to be a street brawler.  Unless, of course, kos and Co. can convince John McCain to drop out of the race. ;)

    And I agree, I've often heard kos mock "timid" democrats in DC.  

    Parent

    It can't be the DLC thing. Kos is a big fan of (none / 0) (#85)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:38:40 PM EST
    DLCers like Richardson and Sebelius.

    Parent
    Didn't know they were DLCers... (none / 0) (#91)
    by lucky leftie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:01:18 PM EST
    ...but you're right, kos likes them.  In fact, I believe both of them are on his short list of potential veeps.  So it's not the DLC that he objects to; I'm stumped.  

    Parent
    if he does (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:24:09 PM EST
    we should raise funds and bulk buy, and distribute at all blogger conventions.

    Parent
    I've been meaning to pick up a copy (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:06:44 PM EST
    of #1. I have a pretty good idea of what it will say, but I should make it part of my "loan to other people" library.

    Parent
    Hunting of The President (none / 0) (#61)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:22:45 PM EST
    After you've read it you'll be even angrier, downright furious at Bush I, Republicans in general, Richard Mellon-Scaife, Ted Olsen, the right-wing attack machine, various Arkansas politicians, mainstream media who flocked to Arkansas smelling blood and a cast of thousands.

    Parent
    Well with Barack Obama (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:06:57 PM EST
    I can see them 'turn the page'

    because there is no way that the smear machine will let Obama win.

    Parent

    Press coverage (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:00:37 PM EST
    Obama does better surviving crisis.  For whatever reason, he has been able to survive Wright so far....

    Hillary has made two major mistakes in the campaign:  the drivers license question in the October debate and the Bosnia sniper fire account.  She paid very heavily for both....There is very little room for her to make a mistake....

    I suppose one could say this phenomenon is because of bias in the MSM and blogosphere....but that begs the question.  Why does she have so little good will?  One could chalk it all up to misogyny....but that seems facile.  Perhaps she has been around for awhile and people have gotten used to assuming the worst.  Perhaps her combative style invites a harsh response.  Perhaps she and Bill have been on stage too long when the new thing is what most people want.

    The Republicans seemed to snap out of their funk when they could lambast Hillary over the sniper issue.  That seemed to really get them going again....

    Hillary is fixed in most people's views....That may be her hardest challenge.

    Parent

    Low information voters neither know about (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:04:05 PM EST
    the Bosnia comments nor do they care.

    "It's [still] the economy, stupid."

    Parent

    Obama hasn't survived the Wright issue. He (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:10:13 PM EST
    was given a slow acting poison. The full affect should be felt sometime around November.

    Parent
    x (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:36:45 PM EST
    Exactly. And let's not forget that there has yet to be a single primary or caucus since the Wright revelations went mainstream. There is no way to assume that this hasn't hurt him until the voters vote. At this point, you can't trust polls. They have been cooked too often this election cycle to trust.


    Parent
    blame the victim (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:16:54 PM EST
    I don't really care why clinton is the victim of unfair coverage.  It just shouldn't happen.  Period.

    You brought up drivers licenses - that's a case in point.  Clinton gave a meandering answer on a complicated issue on october 30.  (Fine by me - not every issue is yes/no and licenses are a state issue anyway).  She got hammered.  Obama gave the same meandering response at the next debate sponsored by cnn.  He got a pass.  Ridiculous.

    Parent

    These trends tend to continue (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:23:18 PM EST
    Hillary is cut no slack....Obama gets the benefit of the doubt...Once the trend sets in, it is hard to reverse as Al Gore found out....

     

    Parent

    sure (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:29:18 PM EST
    But I don't think that obama will continue to get a pass if he is the nom.  And it's a sign of clinton's strength and support that even with her opponent getting a pass and even with the media out to get her that she is still in this race and still winning states.  When the media turned on dean, for example, he was toast in pretty short order.

    Parent
    One of the MAJOR reasons that (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:30:30 PM EST
    people flocked to critically thinking oriented left wing blogs after 2000 was the way that Gore was treated in 2000. The media shamelessly lied about him, over and over.
    Are you saying that the blogs make no difference at all---that Democrats are powerless to prevent the trashing of their own, still?

    Parent
    Trashing and cheerleading (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:45:33 PM EST
    combined these two have created the toxicity.  This has been fueled by the bloggers and the shills.  

    And a very gullible audience. (5.00 / 10) (#34)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:26:33 PM EST
    I was thinking the other day that this shift has been aided by the acceptance of the blogs as being credible.  Before they were considered credible there were a number of sites that worked very hard to make sure that what got posted and survived was credible.

    Now that some blog owners no longer feel the need to protect their credibility - because they believe they've captured that prize - they are allowing their support for one candidate take precedence over protecting their honor.

    Meanwhile, much of the momentum is also being fueled by newer participants who haven't a clue what it was like to adhere to much tougher standards of accuracy and sourcing; and who accept what they read on these blogs as being "true" seemingly without applying a shred of skepticism or critical thought.

    It is a perfect recipe for disaster and disinformation actually.  It is also a perfectly primed playground for the GOP to to manipulate Dem blogs and voters - which is part of what I think is going on - not all - but definitely part.  If I was on the GOP's team, I'd be over the moon with the opportunity to make mischief that I see on many of these blogs.  As I am not, I just find it incredibly depressing.

    Parent

    Yes. (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:40:36 PM EST
    There is definitely a Rovian flavor to all this. How hard would it be to get a bunch of wingnuts to infiltrate the top leftie blogs and turn them into the same kind of poison that is on the right? This is a tactic that Rove learned way back when he was a college wingnut working on earning his wings. If you look at his story, this is the kind of thing he has been doing his whole career.

    Parent
    It is not just Rovian - it is a basic (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:03:42 PM EST
    time-honored public relations tactic too.  The more you repeat your version of "the truth", the more traction it gains.  There are a few posters over at the other site that just always seem to be at the right place at the right time; they post constantly; and their comments are so venomous and vitriolic that they can only be chariacatures.  When someone takes a "balanced view" of an issue or topic they seem to always be there to assert the worst and most extreme view of a situation.  Meanwhile, less skeptical readers latch on to their so-called "passion" and thus a movement is born.

    They've gotten bolder too as the rules have gotten more lax.  Drudge is now considered a reliable source and that for me says it all.

    Parent

    Chuck Hagel is the new hero now. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:50:09 PM EST
    Didn't you get the memo?

    Root of Rot - DC Dems !!! For Decades (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by seabos84 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:51:04 PM EST
    there has been NO consistent hard hitting opposition message to fascist lies.

    So, come primary time, you take what the candidates throw at each other and mix in all the b.s. from the sold out media,

    AND

    the silence from the DC Dems,

    AND

    now the 'me too' ism of the I-wanna-be-nagourney-teddywhite blogotopian big shots,

    and you got the current mess.

    Recall, there are:

    -- 100's of Congresscritters with a -D on their name in DC,
    -- 1000's of their staffers employed in media and public relations and press and commuincations
    -- TENS OF MILLIONS IN SALARIES for all of the above,

    and since I was 20 in 1980 making about 4 bucks an hour, all these big shots can do is:

    -- make excuses for getting the snot kicked out of them,
    -- lose,
    -- oh ... keep their highly paid jobs making excuses getting the snot kicked outta them!

    it is toooo bad to see blog-o-topia 'leaders' basically join the sold out scum of the media with respect to stupidity, BUT

    what the f*** are the a$$hole$ who are paid to fight the fascists doing?

    rmm.

    Most of these people (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:55:13 PM EST
    never liked Hillary Clinton. Frankly, I never much liked Hillary Clinton. But unlike the other left bullies, I was able to get past that for reasons of pragmatism and fairness. They just got vicious.

    Liking has nothing to do with it (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    I can't think of 5 Democrats I "like." I defend them all from unfair attacks.

    Parent
    For them, likes and dislikes (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:01:01 PM EST
    have everything to do with it.

    They are every bit as shallow as the rest of the American electorate and the media. Turkana has it right.

    Parent

    When I was younger.... (5.00 / 8) (#31)
    by kredwyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:14:33 PM EST
    I quite liked HRC. I was excited by the possibility of a First Lady who would actually do stuff and not write books from the voice of a dog or focus her attentions on china purchases.

    Her tone about cookies and so on mirrored my attitude towards the idea of "woman's work" that was so prevalent during the 80s.

    There was a point a while ago where I was disappointed by her. This is to be expected because her positions and mine do not always mesh.

    But at no point have I felt like she personifies Evil Inc.

    Parent

    And Another Thing (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by kaleidescope on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:55:39 PM EST
    It really bugged me how people let Barack Obama skate when he used Republican framing to criticize Democrats -- not just HRC, but also John Edwards and the Party in general.  

    It seemed like Obama was using the Republican framing to dog whistle to the Village that he was no Angry Black Man and that they didn't have anything to fear from him.  At the time I thought this was horrible for the party, but probably smart politics for Obama.  Joe Lieberman has worked this angle for years and so, to a certain extent, has John McCain.

    Given the over-arching media bias in favor of Republicans, this becomes a quandary for Democrats -- one viable way to political respectability is to tarnish the Party's brand.  Given how this worked out for Obama, I expect the trend to accelerate.

    I'm not much into going bananas over (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:15:55 PM EST
    "framing" questions. Look at the substance.
    Obama presented a dangerously false perspective of the Reagan years with the dual purpose of courting Republicans and slamming the Clintons.
    THAT was the problem.

    Parent
    It does seem as though (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:36:44 PM EST
    part of the Obama strategy has been to neutralize H Clinton's ability to run on the 90s.  But in doing so they have really done no favors for the party and have been filling the historical gaps with puffery about the Republicans "of yore" ["let's not make this about Bush - Clinton!  Let's go back to...Reagan!"]

    Parent
    All those years of people arguing (none / 0) (#52)
    by badger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:09:38 PM EST
    that when given the choice between Republican-Lite and genuine Republican voters choose Republican nearly every time - all of that arguing, which finally seemed to be getting somewhere, down the drain.

    Parent
    Did they mention the Daily Howler? (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:57:37 PM EST
    I would be interested to hear if they mentioned The Daily Howler and Bob Somerby on that panel.  He has done the heavy lifting on this issue every day, but they rarely give him credit because he is an equal opportunity critic and gets after Boehlert when needed too.

    I don't mean that he is seeking the credit, but just that the problem get fixed. As he puts it, it has turned into a shirts v skins game and the shirts cheer when the skins get nailed by the media, no matter that it is to the benefit of the ultimate common opponent.

    Anyway, he has the day to day documentation of this at dailyhowler.com.  Any book written will probably borrow heavily from his archives.

    Somerby (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:58:41 PM EST
    deserves to be included in the history books IMHO.

    Parent
    You read as much as I did (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:58:31 PM EST
    I was not there.

    Parent
    I get lazy (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:14:08 PM EST
    and let you do my research for me!  I'll look for a podcast or something.  Sounds like an interesting discussion, if I can make it through without wanting to throw something against the wall.

    Parent
    thank goodness (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:07:42 PM EST
    Thank goodness for boelhert and somerby and those who will and are looking into the horrible record of the blogosphere during this primary (digby has mentioned it as well).

    Frankly a lot of the big blogs have lost all credibility.  For me, it was also how they ignored, excused and/or abetted gender-based attacks.  I don't care if they don't like hillary, but that rhetoric is inexcusable directed at any woman and they did all women a disservice by giving it a pass.

    Don't stand up for hillary when she's called "cold", "a ball buster", "shrill", etc and what do they think is going to happen to michelle in the fall?  Or pelosi next year?  Or the next serious female candidate?

    I have come to the conclusion (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Nadai on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:14:11 PM EST
    that they won't care about it happening to those other women, either.  Left-wing men may be less misogynist overall than right-wing men, but it's just a matter of averages.  The ones who are misogynist are pretty much the same no matter what the rest of their politics are.

    Parent
    Too bad that many voters (5.00 / 10) (#33)
    by LHinSeattle on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:21:59 PM EST
     inspired to get involved in Clinton's -- or earlier, Edwards' campaign, are feeling alienated by the vocal faction of "new" voters in BHO's camp who use personal insults and double standards to stifle discourse.  

    As someone who worked for 15 yrs in a "creative class" job, and has a graduate degree, I take offense at the Obama camp dissing Clinton supporters as lowbrows. And I take even more offense at many Obama fans' unquestioned scorn of anyone with "less" education or talents than themselves. As if any of that makes a scrap of difference.  What every happened to the essential value of every human being?

    "Respect, ok, that's a basic human right." Bruce Cockburn


    Yes (5.00 / 10) (#38)
    by sas on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:34:31 PM EST
    I am another low brow, uneducated,  Clinton supporter.  I have a Master's Degree in Mathematics.

    Really bugs me when I see "Do the math!".  LOL

    I still think she'll lead in the popular vote when this is over, and delegates will be fairly close.  

    If super D's expect to have this settled before the convention without putting in Florida and Michigan, they will be making a big mistake.

    Let's "Do the Math" then!

    Parent

    HAHA... well, can tell you that a Ph.D in (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:37:34 PM EST
    mathematics does not help one understand Obama's appeal any better, nor allow one to grasp "the math".

    Parent
    The lowbrow effect (none / 0) (#89)
    by sumac on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:56:38 PM EST
    Initially, I was amused about how many "college-educated" Obama supporters wanted to really stress that the intelligent people were voting in droves for Obama.

    Having two post graduate degrees, a sarcastic part of me always wanted to ask what year of college they were in. ;)

    I think there is a great danger in putting your candidate on a pedestal. There is an even greater danger of alienating your cause when you join the candidate on said pedestal and then look disparagingly down on the poor, uninformed masses.

    Parent

    thanks.... (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by bjorn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:30:05 PM EST
    I have been reading all the blogs for the last couple of months.  I was new to the whole thing. I was kind of horrified by what I found in lots of places but talkleft is the one I have kept coming back to....maybe this is where the adults are hanging out or something.  It is not that everyone agrees with each other, but it is respectful and a lot more factual than most stuff out there.  Just wanted to say thanks to everyone at this blog and folks that have been commenting here.  I have learned a lot and hope to continue to learn.

    I knew we were in trouble when (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:34:09 PM EST
    Edwards media blackout was simultaneously dismissed and welcomed by other candidate supporters.  To me it was a matter of principle to defend any Democrat from that kind of treatment.  Dean and Kerry both suffered from what at the time looked like a deliberate attempt by the media to influence their campaigns.  I was as offended then as I am now when the media treat any of our candidates unfairly.  

    Media hit jobs on Dean, Kerry etc. (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:57:32 PM EST
    It was stunning, when Dean got shot down after that one 'rebel yell'. I believe it was well-demonstrated that the audio-level of his yell was elevated in post-production, so that the mic level of the audience was lowered and the level of Dean's mic was elevated to make him sound like a screaming banshee.

    In reality, the audience was so loud that there was nothing odd about Dean having to yell as loud as he did. In fact, in alternate coverage of the event, it sounded like he could barely make himself heard over the crowd.

    This is all speculation, but I was left with the impression, that the Democratic leadership was complicit in the Dean take-down. Meaning that they didn't want him to be the nominee and they let the dogs out.

    I've got the same vibe this time around about Hillary, the leadership has released the media hounds on her; or at least they're doing nothing to kep them at bay.

    At the same time, I keep thinking that if the party 'elders' want to turn the media tide on Obama they could have it done as swiftly as it was done with Dean. Has there been any discussion of this hereabouts?

    You bet ter believe (none / 0) (#98)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:04:40 PM EST
    the Dem establishment was hostile to Dean!

    The reason the "yell" killed him was because the media, with the help of establishment Dems, had developed this storyline that he was "angry."  So there was endless discussion about how "angry" never works for Dems, blah, blah, blah.  Don't forget the "scream" was after he had lost Iowa big-time.  It was just the coup de grace.  He'd already been pegged with as too angry and out-of-control and possibly even mentally unbalanced.

    Parent

    Krugman's preference for Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:12:47 PM EST
    This is a reply to a comment upstream. I've been reading Krugman fairly closely for the past year or so, and he's a sane voice in the wilderness.

    Hasn't he always been held in very high esteem by the the left and the blogosphere?

    If so, doesn't it stand to reason that we should be hearing a LOT MORE about the 'fact' that Krugman seems to believe Hillary would make a better President all-around. Especially at sites that aren't openly anti-Hillary.

    *Have any of the elite blogs ever tried to discredit  Krugman's preference for Hillary, on the specifics of social security, health care and the economy. I don't see that it would be easy to dispute him on this.

    Krugman (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:42:13 PM EST
    doesn't think Obama is progressive enough on economic issues....

    I think that might be true--Obama will want to go in a different direction if he is the nominee....There is a fair amount of chatter about having Bloomberg be VP.  Andrea Mitchell said this morning on Tweety's show that Bloomberg could be prevailed upon to take it.

    Obama will want to get McCain's "maverick" press.  Being an independent tends to get better press than a committed partisan--another reason perhaps Hillary has a tougher time with the press.

    Parent

    Krugman is generally right. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:19:55 PM EST
    To MKS, bias or no bias, I don't see how progressive Democrats can find fault with many of Krugman's conclusions.

    My point is that, if Krugman is right about so MANY things, isn't it safe to trust his preference for Hillary as the candidate most able to right the ship of state?

    Depends on one's view (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:48:42 PM EST
    Krugman makes good economic arguments....Not sure about his sense of politics, or about the ultimate validity of his economic arguments....

    He is right, however, about the shadow banking system that has arisen with the big Wall Street funds that are beyond current regulation, and the risks of a bank run on such funds as happened to banks in the 1930s.

    Parent

    Trusting Krugman's judgment (none / 0) (#75)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:59:18 PM EST
    To MKS, do you have any specific points of disagreement with Krugman? Do you disagree with his preference for Hillary on social security, health care and the economy?

    Parent
    Short answer: (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:38:16 PM EST
    I prefer Obama on the economy....Long answer:  best reserved for another time, another place.

    Parent
    MKS, on what do you prefer Hillary? (none / 0) (#100)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:28:14 PM EST
    On the Importance of Fighting Misogyny (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:35:07 PM EST
    BTD, you and Jeralyn have been so great fighting the misogynist crap coming from the media and blogosphere, I thought you might be interested in this post at Feministe on why calling out misogyny is important to all women.  I know you know all of this, but it's a great post and it's a nice reminder that some parts of the blogosphere have not lost their minds or sold out their core values in this election.  Actually, that last part is wrong, I don't think a lot of Big Blogger Boys have sold out their core values, I think what we've learned this election is that their core values don't include fighting misogyny (and in some cases include misogyny).  Sad.

    Also, an interesting post at Tennessee Guerilla Women on a potential VP bid by Condi Rice and how you can bet the right-wing would never let her be treated by the media the way some in the lefty blogosphere has allowed - and in some cases encouraged - the media's sexist attacks against Hillary.

    That was a great post. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:06:03 PM EST
    I tried to make similar points earlier this week when talking about the comments of Rev Wright that actually offended me, those about Hillary Clinton.  Diss her on the basis of her gender and you diss us all.  

    I think Hillary's done a great service to feminism by doing so well.  I think she has earned the respect of many for her tenacity.  It's a good message to send to all the little girls and boys out there.  The closeness of this race to me is a good crack at the glass ceilings of race and gender in itself.  Of course it isn't enough but it's a good thing.

    Parent

    Condi's pro-choice (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:44:01 PM EST
    There would be hell to pay if McCain were to put her on the ticket....

    Parent
    Condi won't be "pro-choice" for long (none / 0) (#79)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:25:05 PM EST
    I haven't heard Condi give any ardent public declarations on a woman's right to choose. Insofar as she may be a 'tepid supporter'; does anybody think, for a minute, that Condi won't 'get religion' on the subject of abortion if she becomes McCains's VP.

    Parent
    No doubt (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:35:22 PM EST
    But she said she was pro-choice during a t.v. interview, with Russert I think.   The Republicans already believe McCain is a squish on abortion-I doubt they would settle for another death bed conversion and would want a true believer as VP.....

    Also, Condi seems to like Obama--her recent comments on race, unusual for her, helped Obama.  

    Parent

    That Feministe post was awesome. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:34:53 AM EST
    One of the things that stuck out at dk recently is that people seem to feel entitled to use sexist language and frequently those comments get recommended instead of reprimanded.  Truly foul language does get Hidden, but plenty of it does not.

    Many things have made me wonder who Democrats really are any more, but ridiculous, gratuitous sexist language certainly ranks in my top ten.

    Parent

    To MKS: future media on Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:44:36 PM EST
    To MKS upstream, the media, quite effectively, tore away at Gore for months after he became the nominee.

    However, they waited until THE LAST MINUTE to rip the guts out of Kerry back in 2004, with the endless uncritical repetition of the Swift-Boat smear. The take-down works best when the candidate is taken off-guard LATE in the game.

    Set aside your ruminations on the media's issues with Clinton, and your perception of Obama's ability to weather the relatively tame challenges the media has dealt him thus far.

    Now, with a clear head, consider this QUESTION: do you, or any other Obama supporters have ANY reason to think that the media won't find a way to Swift-Boat Obama in 2008? If so, let's see an explication of those reasons.
     

    This is not terribly O/T (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by jen on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:58:28 PM EST
    but a broader view of the topic.

    My friend at CCN (Clark Community Network)posted a FHA of a party she attended last night, and her conversation with both O supporters, and a few who had voted for Hillary in the primary, but were sliding over to Obama because of Hillary's negativity and nasty campaign tactics. It's a good example of how to get people to realize they're being bamboozled by the very same media we all used to fight against, without putting them on the offensive.

    An exercise...
    Submitted by ms in la on March 30, 2008 - 1:06pm.

    A party last night in the Hollywood hills. About 50 people. All Dems, only about 50% Americans born in America. A good number of Iranian Americans. Me blabbering about politics as usual. These people all know me so they've come to expect it. They know who I support. We had a small band of serious Clinton supporters - some surprising. An actor, middle aged, single male and really quite the womanizer-- not someone you'd expect to be so staunchly Clinton... but he's uber political, reads and actually THINKS for himself and - here's the key- he KNOWS that the press is lying most of the time. He didn't forget that important lesson we all took 8 yrs to learn. Seemed his real reason for being in her corner was he (1)Remembers the real 90's fondly and (2) (more importantly) Feels she is the one tough enough to beat McCain. He had a few problems with some of her McCain comments awhile back but we talked them over and he's now going on a Super Delegate letter writing campaign.

    There was a whole family from Bev Hills that are strong Hillary supporters, all generations. We all of course commiserated about the unfair media bashing. They all have turned off everything as well and listen to more music. There were split marriages - Wife Clinton ; Husband O! The wives huddled on the couch with us to talk--

    The host- a strong Clarkie- and his wife who actually has run for local office -- both of them Green and very political-- they were heading in the O direction, so we talked. And talked. It's always about the He Said - She Said. She said "Wright" She said "McCain" She said "Sniper fire".... and in the end you bring it back to how that translates into how someone would govern... or not. They voted Clinton in the primaries but are pulling away now. In the discussion you could see traces of the very footprints of the media on their thought processes.

    In all the yammering last night I found one consistency from an exercise I strongly recommend anybody use in your own conversations on the topic...Each person who would give me the rote response about how negative SHE has been, HER attacks, etc- you know the chorus... I would listen and then calmly ask... "Really? I'm curious. Can you just give me a few examples of things she did that you found the most egregious?"

    And then you wait.

    You can enjoy the view while you wait. Get another drink. Have some more of that yummy Cuban cheese pastry. You can listen to the crickets. Or you can watch the mouth moving with sounds coming out that are... not really words. You get... "Um, well, uh....I really think she has gone way over the top. She uh well... I don't like the attacking she's been ....um.... doing and --" Stumble and stammer.

    So you come back to -- "Yes, but it seems to be troubling you so much- so I'm sure you can give just one or two -- the most offensive examples of what's been bugging you so deeply?

    Then you wait some more.

    The reason this is good to practice is not to make a fool out of our friends and associates... but to have them recognize for themselves how subjected they've been to the 'brainwashing' memes the media are bombing us with. The "attacks", the "kneecapping" etc. After you relieve them of their discomfort-- I usually step in right after they've claimed, with some degree of embarrassment, that they know there are many, many examples but they just can't seem to retrieve any right now- Must be the wine, they didn't sleep well, they had the flu last week, the music is too loud, and they are very hungry, besides, business was bad this month... That's about when I ask that they try to separate in their mind - what their brain has "learned" from actual witnessing, from what they've been told / programmed to think. By electronic jabberwocky. It seems to register after they've been forced to shuffle through the memory bank and come up empty.

    If we as a culture continue to magnify and uber focus on the meta He Said She Said that they endlessly hammer into our heads ... we'll never have enough vision left over to focus on real issues and real candidate's real abilities.

    We can all agree-- as much pleasure as it seems to give people to gasp, faint, scream and collapse in hyperbolic outrage over something someone said this week (candidate, surrogate, preacher or spouse)... history has proven that most of what politicians SAY tells us very little about what they will actually DO.

    This little exercise helps point that out without preaching it.

    Back to you!



    Yes, very well put! (none / 0) (#116)
    by Arcadianwind on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:58:24 PM EST
    The level of objectivity around anymore is seriously compromised, by any measure. And the amplification effects of media bias, intellectual laziness, historical ignorance/amnesia, and the atrophy of basic logic skills are more than cause for alarm.

    This does not bode well for the future, as the trend  appears to be increasing day-by-day.

    What will tomorrow bring?  

    Parent

    I know I'm over the limit by one already.. but (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:33:15 PM EST
    I just had a thought I would like to share.
    Isn't the real problem with the liberal blogs the way they have become institutions in their own right? They now have vested interests which are independent from and even opposed to their interest in fair reporting. Many of them are regular guests on cable news. Don't they have to watch what they say, now, compared to 4 or 5 years ago?
    Just for comparison, Bob Somberby is the same obnoxious but mostly right guy that he was 5 years ago. He has not changed.. but does he get invited on TV shows? Not that I know.
    Of course some of these blogs--TPM and DK---are good money makers for their founders as well.
    Newspapers used to have the "wall", which allowed them to generate income from advertising revenue mostly independently of how they report.
    Blogs? Do they have that freedom? I am not sure.

    1jane (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:58:08 PM EST
    Instead of repeating your usual, try addressing the posts. Your comment was deleted. Similar ones will be deleted as well.

    From the article (none / 0) (#16)
    by 1jane on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    "We can't keep treating Democrats this way." That includes us, right here!

    Indeed (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:01:18 PM EST
    Abide by the rules of the site - especially in your case, posting comment that are ON topic to the post, and you will find you have less problems here.

    You have been told this a million times and you persist in your habit of posting off topic to the post.

    Parent

    You are suspended (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:04:22 PM EST
    Come back tomorrow if you want.  Further comments from you will be deleted. Your victim act has no effect on me. None. Indeed, the very act is a violation of the rules.

    As most commenters know, we deleted comments all the time for a number of reasons. Most of them are deleted for being off topic to the post.

    1janne, is like most of the "victims who whine" - an Obama supporter. One thing about the commenters at this web site, the whining all seems to come from the Obama supporters even though the deletion fall primarily on the Clinton supporters.

    Parent

    The problem is massive cognitive dissonance (none / 0) (#24)
    by Faust on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    Really what's happened is that the party has suffered a kind of psychic split amplified by CD.

    Basically you have two groups of people who made two different choices. As time has gone on during the campaign people have found more and more reason to support the candidate of their choice and more and more reasons to reject the candidate they oppose.

    At this point as the venom has grown and the disussion has in general become less rational the two groups have retreated into their safe echo chambers where they can continue to push infomation which supports their point of view and reject information which counters it.

    It's gotten so bad that some people claim they would prefer John McSame to either of the two democratic candidates even though he is rushing to the right as hard and fast as he can to consolidate the right wing base.

    It's truly a remarkable (and very disturbing) phenomenon.

    Both sides need to realize that the other side is not nearly as bad as they think. It's simply not possible the HRC is as bad as some people make her out to be. And same for BHO.

    'Unity' concerns are like PMS for Dem Amok time (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Ellie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:59:01 PM EST
    Oh dear, unity concerns within the Partei or, as Team Obama and DINOs generally advocate, with right wing forces. So many Dem men are sweaty, snappish or melodramatic.

    This can mean only one thing.

    It's the Democratic Party's version of Vulcan Amok Time again, which is as organically cyclical as a kind of political man-period. (Phew, and I was worried we were running LATE!)

    It's like that Vulcan going bonkers thing Spock and other logic groupies (and TV viewers and/or fans of good acting) had to endure when all monotoned sensibility flew out the window and a sweaty desperation took over about bio-functions.

    The Dem party version occurs when logical, sensible Dems who otherwise comfortably ignore the full human rights of [let's charitably call them -- rather, us] Special and Interesting Dems. We're normally shunted into the subset of better seen but not heard support Dems, too unreliably constitutionally nuts to handle important Dem business like hemming and hawing before our imperious right wing, Rethuglican abusers and overlords.

    Indeed, the feeling of lateness must be getting to logical, rational Dem leadership deeply concerned about powering the wheezing machine again.

    Must be an election year, when human rights get trotted out and waved to justify our Right to Unite with the Right once again, and which becomes solely the responsibility of those who are otherwise persecuted and abused the most by this deeply important need.

    And what a lively sight it is, every campaign season, when coolly rational upper caste Dems affirmatively give a damn about party "unity" in the name of sweaty, back burner topics like, eg, Roe  v. Wade, reproductive rights generally and other palm-soaking family crap like same sex marriage.

    Why oh why must "they" embarrass the party with their Special and Interesting bio-needs instead of letting the logical types dictate who and what go where?

    Senator Clinton has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a  candidate for as long as she wants to. As far as the delegate count and the interests of a  Democratic victory in November go, there is not a very good reason for drawing this  out. But as I have said before, that is a decision that only she can  make.

    Sen Patrick Leahy, a good, rational, important Dem man who folded to RW anti-choice, anti-human rights forces, here affirmatively supporting HRC's (and women generally's choice) every four years to do as she's told.

    But otherwise passively rolling over for anti-choice bigots who shove hard right ringers  onto the SCOTUS and other positions of influence. (cf, not standing up to WH and admin  stonewalling and nominees' failure to respond to proper, constitutionally mandated  congressional vetting that would protect human rights and franchise.)

    It's so lovely to see logical, rational Democratic men like Josh Marshall and Jonathan Alter going NUTS for composure -- read containment and unity -- during these quadr- and bi-annual man-periods of sudden awareness about the full franchise of hounded and persecuted groups that otherwise escape widespread Dem interest.

    Time once more to wave the Roe v. Wade issue again as the carrot under the nose of lollygagging Dem servants. Trouble is, I smell BUM on that carrot which also tells me how else that stick's been used to keep the same lower caste support system turning that same grindstone while the same Dem f*ckups keep their fat pointless butts spreading in their same comfy seats.

    It seemed like only yesterday when Dem leaders needed to flog us more Special and Interesting Dems to keep supporting the Dem machine types while they actively canoodled with parties who vow to use govt offices and resources to persecute us.

    Indeed, these same Dems look the other way when anti-HUMAN RIGHTS fanatics, like actual  Repug candidates like Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney who explicitly advocated the actual  incarceration of women who chose to have abortions, medical or organic. Never mind the incalculable cost in health, blood and lives this extracts from women, children and young people forced to live under conditions that wouldn't have passed muster centuries ago and even beyond biblical times (and which are barely even mentioned in the bible being thumped upon our medical charts.)

    During the dormant times, when our own government services are routinely abused to suppress and  distort modern medical and health information relating to reproductive rights -- vital  information that might save countless ACTUAL lives as opposed to merely preserving  unsentient medical matter like nail clippings -- these concern trolls are off doing more  important political things like debating doughy pantloads.

    Hey, I'm not late at all with this but right on time.

    Parent

    you know (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:05:52 PM EST
    I'd have more respect for leahy if he'd ever said, "george bush has every right, but not a very good reason to nominate roberts and alito.". And then tried to use his very powerful position to stop that.

    Parent
    So assuming you do hypotheticals (none / 0) (#94)
    by Faust on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:18:19 PM EST
    IF Clinton loses

    and

    IF she then suggests to her supporters that they support Obama

    will you

    THEN label her a traitorous "unity" Democrat who has fallen sway to the forces of over-reconcilliation?

    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#110)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:03:09 PM EST
    This has been another adition of simple answers to simple questions.

    (copyright Atrios)

    Parent

    I don't think that's the whole story (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:55:10 PM EST
    Some of us were undecided between Clinton and Obama and as we watched Clinton being mercilessly lied about and slandered on a personal level, ended up in her camp sort of by default because Edwards was gone and we couldn't support a candidate who would use such unbelievably ugly tactics to advance himself while pretending to be so pious and above it all.  The man won't even acknowledge the slightest responsibility for any of it.

    My dislike of Obama way predates my support for Clinton.


    Parent

    Do noyt use BHO here please (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:06:20 PM EST
    Do it again and your comment will be deleted.

    Parent
    with much love and respect (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:27:14 PM EST
    I use HRC and BHO myself and find them to be handles of respect and clarity.

    I just can't use BO for obvious reasons and just Obama or Barack when referring to the person (not the campaign) seems disrespectful.

    Please reconsider this admonition.

    Parent

    white n az, agreed (none / 0) (#78)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:15:45 PM EST
    I agree with your defense of using the three-initials to refer to both candidates.

    However, the "H" does call attention to the fact that the left, and the more 'moderate' MSM, doesn't tend to use Obama's middle name.

    On the other hand, HRC reads too much like the British HRH (Her Royal Highness). I always thought that's why the loony right likes to use HRC.

    Parent

    The right uses the 'R' (none / 0) (#104)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:51:21 PM EST
    middle name I presume to recall all of the years she used the name Hillary Rodham and didn't use the Clinton name formally.

    I think it was before she ran for the Senate in 2000, that she converted to using Hillary Clinton simply to stop the chatter.

    As for Obama, there's no getting around his middle name, it has been repeated ad nauseam to the point where it no longer is derisive (my opinion).

    I find it significant that both Hillary and Barack supporters find the BHO and HRC designations acceptable but BTD doesn't and I have to defer to TPTB here.  ;-)

    Parent

    Pretty much sums up my thinking (none / 0) (#81)
    by Faust on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:31:35 PM EST
    However, BTD is the boss man around here. I'll just say Obama and Clinton from here on out.

    Parent
    I doi not care (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:44:24 PM EST
    Do not use it here.

    Parent
    BTD et al, question on Krugman (none / 0) (#36)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:32:14 PM EST
    Krugman's columns on the economy and health care, leave me with the distinct impression that he believes Hillary is better on those issues than Obama.  

    What is the 'word on the street' do you know if he has an overall higher assessment of Hillary?

    If he does, I'd like to think of that as an endorsement. And, imo, an endorsement from Krugman is worth more than an endorsement from most Democratic politicians.

    That's certainly my impression. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Faust on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:37:04 PM EST
    I don't think he merely likes her positions better, my impression is that he thinks she is likely to be more competant in general. That's just an impression though. I'm no Krugman expert.

    Parent
    Krugman is a huge Hillary fan (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:08:06 PM EST
    He got into a huge fight with Obama supporters a while ago.

    He wrote a few days ago about re-instituting the  old FDR/New Deal Home Loan Bank board, which bought up nonperforming loans and did work-outs and renegotiations of those loans.....Interestingly, Hillary's new foreclosure plan is very similar to that...She has, however, apparently dropped her price control proposal to freeze some ARMs.

    Krugman is not unbiased.....

    Parent

    Bias? (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:11:08 PM EST
    How is it that carefully analyzing rival campaigner's economic plans, considering their merits, and deciding that one of the two has a better program makes one biased?

    Krugman thinks Clinton's plans are better, more bold, more progressive. Does that make him biased?

    Or are you asserting that Krugman is biased, therefore he likes Clinton's plans better? If so, evidence would be appreciated.

    He has admitted being an Edwards supporter, initially. He certainly has not been uncritical of Clinton. Obama's disingenuous slamming of mandates and dishonest, wrongheaded statements about all that Reagan did for economic dynamism have drawn Krugman's factually and statistically-based, economist's wrath.

    That's not bias. That's called being a very very very high-information voter.

    Parent

    Krugman is definitely biased. (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by rooge04 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:35:59 PM EST
    A biased partisan Democrat.  Simply because those things happen to aling more closely with Hillary you assume he is biased toward her. In fact, he is simply biased to the more liberal policies.  Since that is HRC, Obama supporters call him a Clinton shill. He is not nor has he ever been.

    Parent
    last fall (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:12:56 PM EST
    Or maybe last summer, krugman basically wrote a column that said that obama's proposals were not all that progressive - I think it was apecifically about health care.  The obama camp then started circulating an opp research doc against krugman.  He's also said that he gets a lot of negative mail from obama supporters.  It's too bad they took a policy critique to badly that they's affectively alienated one of the best progressive columnists in the nation.

    Parent
    What is the "creative class"? (none / 0) (#39)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:36:34 PM EST
    Question for LHinseattle or anybody else. When did that term get minted and what does it mean?

    Creative Class (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:01:26 PM EST
    Not sure who coined it, but I first saw it used on Open Left a while back when it was still a place for rather high level thoughtful and pretty civil discussion between majority Obama supporters and Clinton people.

    It appears to mean affluent professionals and college students or recent grads who expect to be affluent professionals.  Far as I can tell.

    IOW, Obama supporters, who are better and smarter than us lowbrow Clinton supporters.

    Parent

    Thanks, got it now. (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:26:48 PM EST
    Today's "creative class" are the young, upwardly-mobile professionals who were called "yuppies" in the 1980-90s. They tended to be be rather conservative even when they were democrats.

    I remember, within the African-American community, black, upwardly-mobile professionals were called "buppies". We need to bring that one back.

    Parent

    Not just yuppies (none / 0) (#107)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:17:37 PM EST
    although they're part of it, but also older established, even retired folks.

    Personally, I never much cared for the term "buppies."  Yuppies are yuppies, no matter what color they are.


    Parent

    So, I guess that makes guitar players like me (none / 0) (#115)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:32:54 PM EST
    "guppies".

    Parent
    nope... (none / 0) (#117)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:39:32 PM EST
    guitar players will always be DFH

    I think I need one of these myself (for my Gibson case)  ;-)

    Parent

    That's funny (none / 0) (#119)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:18:46 PM EST
    and you're probably right.

    I play an ES-335. What's your axe?

    Parent

    Robert Florida's The Rise of the Creative Class (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by pukemoana on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:30:43 PM EST
    is the beginning of it I think.  You can read his blog here.  The latest entry is about creative class support for Obama

    Parent
    The underlying reasons might not be (none / 0) (#58)
    by tandem5 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:15:48 PM EST
    positive, but speaking as a mega blog refugee, I think that we are witnessing a first generation of a sort of "trust busting" and we might see a completely different landscape once the dust has settled.

    What does "trust busting" mean? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Faust on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:21:47 PM EST
    You mean economic "trust busting" as a metaphor for shaking up the big blog sites?

    Parent
    That's what I mean (none / 0) (#108)
    by tandem5 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:34:14 PM EST
    Sourced fact: McCain is ardently anti-choice. (none / 0) (#105)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:56:45 PM EST
    This is in response to an unsourced, upstream, post claiming that Republicans think McCain is: "squishy on abortion". This is a rather pervasive misconception (pardon the pun). The GOP might want to convince Dems and moderates that McCain is "squishy" on abortion but he's actually a hard-liner.  

    For the truth of the matter read this 3/19/08 article in Medical News Today: Abortion-Rights Opponents Should Support McCain For President.
    ----------------------------------------------------


    you are entitled... (none / 0) (#106)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:00:01 PM EST
    to your own personal alter-reality as long as you don't expect us to buy in.

    If you find TalkLeft to be so entirely dishonest, why bother hanging around?

    Are you so convinced in the righteousness of your path that you must remain to save us from ourselves?

     

    Parent
    can't help it... (none / 0) (#114)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:21:39 PM EST
    since my comment was a response to a comment that was deleted, it appears entirely without the context it was written.

    Sorry to disappoint...the reply was warranted.

    Parent