No Mirrors Handy?

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Josh Marshall ridicules MoDo for having kind words for Hillary:

You know she's got it bad when she has the bit so firmly in her teeth that she even finds herself saying good things about Hillary.

Indeed, I doubt we will ever again see the day when Josh Marshall has a kind word for Hillary. The lack of self awareness is truly astonishing. Is he not aware that he is now on the frontlines of the Hillary Hating blogs?

< Will Obama Do As Well As Clinton In FL, OH and PA in November? | PPP PA Poll: Obama By 3 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Josh parted ways with credibility months ago (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:47:58 AM EST
    and his comments about Dowd just prove how far over the cliff he's jumped. But, more than anything, he's a coward. He wouldn't feel the freedom to make the Hillary-hating comments if his readers were allowed to respond to them. Not allowing comments on his posts keeps him safe and secure in his inner sanctum of hate.

    I didn't see that column (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:50:12 AM EST
    as particularly charitable to either. MoDo is always a problem.

    MoDo is always a problem ;) (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:53:55 AM EST
    You sexist!  Oh yeah, girls are always a problem...I've heard it all my life :)

    Hey, cattiness can be found everywhere! (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:10:06 AM EST
    Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing?

    heh (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:57:53 AM EST
    Modo is keeping cling-gate alive (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:52:23 AM EST
    and focusing on the cling part.  That is what gets the JM goat.

    She's right, though.  Social elitists (aka snobs) don't win elections.

    Did (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    it hurt to say that MO DO was right about something? I agree and it makes my brain feel all icky.

    It sent (none / 0) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:41:26 PM EST
    a tingle up my leg, but not in a good way ;-).

    Hillary is not an elitist. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:56:51 AM EST
    I thought Obama wasn't either. Apparently I was wrong. And it's got nothing to do with money.  It's got everything to do with attitude and snobbery. The Republicans are filthy rich most of them. But they are not elitists. And they would never bash a major part of the electorate with snobbishness.  

    Truth (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:57:04 AM EST
    They believe what Obama says.  They are not tolerant.  They are fashionably tolerant.  They do not get people's struggles.  They just don't like being unpopular in the world.  The mirror needs to be held up .

    Some elites have no clue! (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by ghost2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:45:57 PM EST
    lazy to link, but Tom Watson wrote a piece on bitter-gate and Riverdaughter responded.

    What gets me is the opinion by the 'creative class' (aka: elites themselves) that oh, Obama's statement was truthful, but impolitic.  That's utter bulls--t.

    What they are saying is that the unwashed masses are bigoted and unintelligent, and we know best.  No, you don't.  As we found out in this election about sexism and misogeny, bigotry is alive and well in all classes, but the elites hide it well under sophistry.  In fact, Hillary's support has come from lower middle class, rural people: exactly the kind of people the elite would have accused of overt sexism.  How many times has it been written? The writer meets a tough, old fashioned guy, say a firefighter, a farmer, a hunter, and is amazed that they not only vote for Hillary, but their support is intense?

    Yeah, the elite like to divide the world into, "us the enlightened bunch" and "them the ignorant".  Sorry, it is not like that in the REAL world.


    This comment is dead on!! (none / 0) (#58)
    by ghost2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:11:03 PM EST
    He was always there (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:59:45 AM EST
    Back in the day whenever Obama was criticized Josh would try to change the subject to Carville and CNN not disclosing what everyone already knew.

    That Carville was a Clinton supporter.

    That's the hallmark of candidate advocacy.

    The irony is all the more richer as he claims to be free of any bias while embracing the CDS.

    Josh is a Joke (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by JoeCHI on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:00:03 AM EST
    And it's a shame.  He has such a cute kid.

    Shrill (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:09:19 AM EST
     I don't know about you guys, but now when I click on any of those sites, I feel like I am entering a room, where  a bunch of people are screaming at each other, allegedly discussing, but all you see are the popped out veins.  You get into it and then you leave feeling rather gross.  Cause all it was was yelling and exaggerating.   At first the commenters got on my nerves, but now the blog owners have picked up the style.  Yelling louder.  

    They have destroyed the medium for me, they may have upped their hits, but man, it's really gross.  


    heh (!) Irony (none / 0) (#38)
    by buhdydharma on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:45:41 PM EST
    Both in that you attach my sig line (not that I care that much) to the candidate war when I have done my best to keep out of them .... both personally with the direction at Docudharma as a whole.

    And in light of the perception that TL (rightly or wrongly) is now known as a premiere Bama Bashing site! Are you folk aware of that?

    There is a SEVERE shortage of mirrors in the blogophere right now on all sides

    Please god let all this juvenile bs end soon!



    Why bash Alabama? (none / 0) (#45)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:07:48 PM EST
    we get bashed enough as it is!

    -- now if you're talking about bashing the Crimson Tide, I take back my comments...


    When the candidate wars are over (none / 0) (#46)
    by buhdydharma on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:10:25 PM EST
    I will throw the biggest bash in the blogosphere to celebrate!

    Wrongly (none / 0) (#47)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:11:06 PM EST
    but what is your point?  Did you wonder over just for that?  

    What's the title of the post? (none / 0) (#49)
    by buhdydharma on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:33:05 PM EST
    And yes (to continue the irony) aside from the fact that I read here all the time...I wAndered over just for that, is that allowed? Is my content unacceptable, since it asks everyone to look in the mirror? Or is only the "other side" expected to look in mirrors?

    give me a break (none / 0) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:03:54 PM EST
    this site is restrained and managed.  Critical and partisan, yes.  it's not a room of people hollering, you can have a conversation.  

    Did I say you couldn't? (none / 0) (#54)
    by buhdydharma on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:14 PM EST
    Did I or did I not use the word perception?

    If you want to have a conversation...let's talk about why the candidate wars are so vitriolic.

    What has all of the attacking fellow Dems done to affect the primaries? Has of all of this juvenile back and forth in the blogosphere gained a advantage for either candidate? I sure don't see it. If so, how? Examples would be appreciated.

    Or has it just served to do the work of the Repubs by dividing us?

    How about this conversation...how do we overcome the vitriol and start working together to defeat McCain?

    I won't even go into the issue of how all of the energy that has been expended for the last year could have bee used.


    TPM is oppo research to me (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by herb the verb on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:11:47 AM EST
    for now and that is really, really sad. I always thought he was holding himself out as some kind of pure journalist, a place you could get more in depth coverage than the MSM would give to important corruption stories. Speak truth to power, etc.. Now I realize he is just another hack. Sadly, he has also gradually to become not just a hack, but a poor hack, with not very good info. My guess is that he has alienated many of his former sources and soon he won't even be any good as oppo research.

    Then I won't even have to give him hits....

    His site did a lot of great research (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:31:49 AM EST
    on important issues. He wasn't just another hack a year ago.

    What's so bad is that he did some great work-- (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:39:19 PM EST
    Now I have to wonder if he's giving unbiased interpretations of what he's writing about.

    Darn it, Josh! You had a brand image going, a strong brand image. And you hadda blow it.  


    Did he? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by dianem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:19:40 PM EST
    Or did we just think that the information was good because it fed our preconceived notions of what was "right"? The biggest problem with the blogosphere is same problem we have with print and television media.  Bias. I know that my local paper runs a bit conservative, but I trust them to give me the news I need to know. Do they? Does the New York Times? I've seen a lot of garbage come out of the Times, yet I repeatedly see them referenced as a reliable source on some questionable stories about Clinton. Heck... Drudge was nationally referenced as a reliable source when he said that Clinton's campaign provided him with those photos of Obama in a turban. I think we all tend to trust sources that tell us what we want to hear. What we need to do is to learn to listen to various sources and accept what we don't want to hear.

    From time to time (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Grey on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:29:13 AM EST
    when he's feeling down, Josh's claws come out to make a sniping point.

    To her credit, Dowd actually got that the problem in Obama's comments weren't in the "bitter" section, but in the "cling" part.  And she wrote about it rather cogently.

    So Josh snapped.  Again.

    Someday (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by OxyCon on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:32:22 AM EST
    It'll sink into JMM's head that because of his Hillary bashing, his online world has been shrunk substantially by his alienating the Clintons personally, most of the Clinton's friends throughout American government and most of the Clintons supporters who participate in online discussion.

    You know, this point (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by frankly0 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:29:18 PM EST
    about his shrinking online world is, I think, a pretty important one.

    In general, if you take a look at almost any left blogosphere site, their numbers have declined dramatically -- by a factor of two at least, and more typically by more -- from what should be roughly equivalent time periods during the run-up to the 2006 election. Indeed, one would pretty much expect that the numbers should be higher at this point in 2008 than they were at this point in 2006, given that there's a Presidential election looming, and a major Presidential primary campaign still taking place.

    It's pretty breathtaking to go to alexa and see the precipitous decline in numbers.

    It's hard not to attribute it to the transformation of the left blogosphere into the Obamasphere. Obviously, people are being turned off in droves to the current state of affairs.

    It's really the Great Implosion of the blogosphere. Personally, I doubt that Humpty-Dumpty can be put back together again. How does one regain any respect for someone like Josh Marshall, who's proved out to be such a childish hack?


    I don't really take Alexa seriously (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:31:29 PM EST
    mostly because, last I checked, it only counted visitors using Internet Explorer and their stupid spyware.

    Is this generally taken to be (none / 0) (#55)
    by frankly0 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:31:20 PM EST
    a real limitation in these statistics across time, for the same web site?

    Yes, because the use of FireFox & Safari (none / 0) (#56)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:52:50 PM EST
    has grown tremendously over the past few years. They haven't been adopted evenly, either.

    FWIW (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:08:51 PM EST
    and I am no fan of the New and Improved Josh Marshall, but I actually think in this case he was referring to Dowd's long history of Hillary-bashing, not the insanity of saying anything good about Hillary.

    IOW, it was snark.  His hasty posts are often unclear and poorly worded, and I think this was one of them.  Maybe we need a new acronym-- WJRM.

    oh yeah, almost forgot (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by sas on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:38:04 PM EST
    Congratulations to Obama for winning tonight's upcoming debate!  Wasn't he magnificent?  He said all the right things and it is obvious to all that it is over for Hillary.  How could anyone not be in love with this man? It's a slam dunk now, the voters of PA will overwhelmingly shoo him into the nomination now.

    You just wrote (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:46:53 PM EST
    half the diaries for daily kos for tomorrow.

    The other half will be Clinton attack diaries.

    Okay - next item of business:  What will be the most oft quoted factor for the results next Tuesday.


    just remember (3.50 / 2) (#42)
    by The Realist on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:01:20 PM EST
    He,KOS,Arivosis, and Huffington, are all ex-Republicans.

    I couldn't trust any of them less if i tried.

    This is the key for me in understanding (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:45:51 PM EST
    how batpoop crazy they have been in this primary -- and for Obama.  I think it really began to ramp up on those blogs when he said good things re Reagan.

    And for that reason, I distrust them all, entirely.


    Of, course there's nothing wrong (none / 0) (#57)
    by Joelarama on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:08:24 PM EST
    with being an ex-Republican -- in fact it's great -- but I agree that it's important to understanding Aravosis, Huffington, and Kos.

    But I think it's key that they were all (IIRC) Republicans in the 1990s.

    That's where the Clinton-hating comes in.


    This is all wrong (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:28:37 PM EST
    Josh Marshall was not a Republican, at least not during the 1990s.

    Markos Moulitsas indicates that he stopped identifying as a Republican in 1991 and never voted for any Republican after 1992.

    John Aravosis stopped working for Sen. Ted Stevens and became a Democrat "in the early 1990s."

    You guys have got to stop this crazy obsession with purging the disloyal.


    No one mentioned Marshall. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Joelarama on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:41:13 PM EST
    Huffington was a Republican until late, late into the 90s. Aravosis was a Republican through the mid-90s, but remained a Clinton hater.  

    I resent the "crazy obsession" part.  The only people who have been purged are the Clintonites from Daily Kos.

    The only people who have demanded undivided loyalty are Obama supporters.  If you'll take the time to read my comments, I have reservations about Hillary and am voting for her because of her positions on Social Security and health care.


    The Clintonites have not been purged (none / 0) (#72)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:55:50 PM EST
    They like to pretend they have, but no DailyKos user has ever lost his or her account for supporting Hillary Clinton for President in comments or diaries. This is more than one can say about MyDD and Obama supporters.

    I wasn't addressing you specifically about the purging, though.


    Also (none / 0) (#73)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:59:23 PM EST
    the post you were responding to did mention Marshall specifically.

    And I don't know where you get this from:
    The only people who have demanded undivided loyalty are Obama supporters.

    I don't see any posts on the front page of DailyKos or of TalkingPointsMemo bashing anybody for supporting Hillary. But on the front page of TalkLeft, you find Josh Marshall's integrity impugned, and Publius, Olbermann, and DailyKos.

    You have some serious blinders on if you think that Obama and his supporters are the ones with a loyalty obsession.


    This is the kind of stuff I really (none / 0) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:17:49 PM EST
    dislike, whether it comes from you or from other folks here who are on the other side from you.

    First, Josh Marshall has impugned his own integrity in the eyes of people here NOT because he's an Obama partisan but because he vehemently and ferociously denies that he is and pretends he's still running a "fair and balanced" blog.  That's what he's criticized for, and that's why his increasingly silly posts get highlighted here from time to time.  He's criticized because he's bent himself into a pretzel to justify everything Obama says or does and slam everything Hillary says or does.

    Secondly, you appear not to know what the word "loyalty" means, or more likely are deliberately distorting the comment you're responding to. Kos himself announced on his own front page that Hillary supporters should just get lost from his blog.

    But more importantly, Obama supporters react with rage and screaming insults to anybody who dares to suggest that their candidate is not perfect, or worse, that Hillary might have a legitimate point on something-- anything.  That's blind loyalty.  You won't see that here.  This is a reality-based blog.  We are partisans, yes.  We're very clear about that.  But nobody gets bashed here for making a substantive critical point politely.  They may get shrugged off, but they don't get screamed at and called insane racist somethingorothers.


    Yes (none / 0) (#62)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:42:37 PM EST
    It's a knee jerk reaction for ex-Repubs, I think.

    He's the Avant Garde (none / 0) (#1)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:40:53 AM EST
    He's miles behind enemy territory.

    Color me confused.... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:44:30 AM EST
    ...what bit is he talking about? MoDo is who she is, basically an equal opportunity basher. And Im sure it pained her to say even the vaguely nice things she said about Hillary in that column, but so? What is Josh's point except that he just doesn't like it when anybody criticizes Obama.

    I don't think Josh wants to lose (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:50:39 AM EST
    any of MoDo's Hillary bashing consistency.  What if MoDo is deciding to be "nicer" to Hillary in the future?  Josh had better whip her into line :)

    Is MoDo (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:05:58 AM EST
    No longer Of the Body?!!!1111!!!

    /shorter JMM


    I don't get his point or BTD's ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:49:56 AM EST
    it all seems so unnecessary.  Pointless sniping.

    You got my point (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:59:05 AM EST
    You just think it is pointless sniping. I think it is sniping with a point.

    Ha ha ha (none / 0) (#68)
    by wasabi on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:22:30 PM EST
    That's funny!  Sniping with a point...
    Love it.

    Hillary hating blogs (none / 0) (#10)
    by Chimster on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:54:51 AM EST
    --Is he not aware that he is now on the frontlines of the Hillary Hating blogs?

    You phrase this question like it's a bad thing. Isn't this the kind of pandering to his audience that makes his web impressions go up? If it doesn't work out for him (Hillary wins), he may have to back McCain. I'm sure the Huffington Post will always have a special corner of her site to keep him around.

    Every where I see (none / 0) (#17)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:00:13 AM EST
    "The Revenge of the Media"

    It is no secret that the media has been critical of Hillary from the start, a little justification perhaps that she was the front runner, longer record, because of Billy et all.

    BUT after the NH, the media laid its biasness so naked that even the common man [not glued to blogs/TV] would say "Yes, the media is baised against Hillary".

    Media had got NH wrong, and it was slap on their face.. ever since that evening when Chris Mathews said, "NE is still racist", I knew it well, Media may have lost the NH, but they will have their revenge.

    It's getting more clear, they have almost got their revenge. The have proved [Hillary got wrong on her nomination when she said, she is the inevitable, and yes they got wrong in NH]!!

    The revenge is most clear in the emotions of Keith Olberman, who if you can bare to see, you can see his sarcastic tone while pointing to the Hillary bashing news, while if he is talking about some thing about Obama [like Rev comment or his own cling comments] you can see his tone so serious and  defending as hard as if his own @'ss was on the LINE.!!

    Josh should consider (none / 0) (#22)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:12:31 AM EST
    his own advice - "On a separate note, perhaps it's time for the Times board to reconsider having a man who writes as a campaign operative occupying one of their slots on the oped page."  TPM might benefit from having a woman writing some of their posts.  He has Rachel Weiner as an associate editor but she hardly ever writes anything.  He has had a couple of others, Laura McGann and can't recall the other, that did not stick around for long.  

    Maybe there is more to Josh's penchant for using horse references when commenting about women than meets the eye.  

    Related to Cling-gate (none / 0) (#26)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:54:28 AM EST
    I saw a very brief snippet of Michelle Obama this morning explaining why she and Barack are not elitist.  I have very mixed feelings about Mrs. Obama.  I love her strength and power, but sometimes she comes across with a big chip on her shoulder, this seemed like one of those times to me.  I just know if Hillary was as angry as Michelle the press would eat her up.  I fear w/o Clinton around Mrs. Obama will indeed be eaten up by the press.  The press and the electorate have never done well with angry women, justified or not. They are always cast as the villan.

    There is a racial (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:17:58 PM EST
    Component here.

    No one will ever call Michelle angry.

    Not and live to tell about it.


    Bill O'Reilly (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:20:28 PM EST
    called for her lynching.

    Nothing happened.

    I think you underestimate the misogyny here.


    No one with any credibility (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:23:47 PM EST
    I should say.

    And in O'Reilly's case, something happened.

    It just didn't result in him being fired.  And given his ratings, nothing ever will.

    Lets just say I think there will be a built in counter attack to anyone saying Michelle is angry.

    A counter attack that doesn't exist for Clinton.


    Why do I expect (none / 0) (#37)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:44:21 PM EST
    that we'll be told "Sure, she's angry!  She has a right to be angry - look at how she is treated!".

    (Then I'll wait for that person to make the same point for Hillary...but you see, the talking point for Hillary is "She brought this on herself.  IACF.".  That's my prediction - we'll see if it holds up.)


    I think (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:57:36 PM EST
    you underestimate the extent to which things work differently once we're no longer in a Democratic primary.

    The general election is not going to be one long series of demands for apologies from the McCain camp for alleged race-baiting.  Only liberals have an unlimited tolerance for accusations of racism.


    I'm not 100% sure that will happen (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    You might be right.

    I'm just pointing out one potential reason why Michelle can be angry and Clinton can't within the context of this primary.


    TPM (none / 0) (#27)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:04:46 PM EST
    Josh opted to be a hack and a flack as I've said several times before here.  What a shame!

    We (none / 0) (#34)
    by sas on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:31:46 PM EST
    all need to be very wary of the MSM and the Blogger Boyz.

    You must never say anything negative about the messiah.

    well (none / 0) (#44)
    by The Realist on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:07:31 PM EST
    maybe not Josh, but the others, yes.

    Did everyone including JM miss the (none / 0) (#50)
    by 1jpb on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:43:25 PM EST
    end of the Dowd piece?

    It sounds like she (and Colbert) is acknowledging that HRC is the true expert of condescending, presumably because of her ability to pretend she's not elite.  BO's attempts at bowling and feeding cattle are not unusual examples of politicking, but he didn't pretend that these were his thing.  It's good that he left his tie on.  The problem is when you look phony while doing things out of the norm, e.g. Kerry or Dukakis in hunting or military garb.  HRC's current problem is her (like Romney) silly attempt to connect to real hunters.  Why can't people understand that real hunters are not fools, they won't fall for this stuff.  (For the record, HRC was a terrible bowler on Ellen.)  

    And, the hyped outrage regarding bitter-gate is ironic to the core.  Supposedly it's bad to claim that some folks are bitter towards politicians who repeatedly fail to fulfill their promises to bring good jobs.  And, it's bad to say that these folks cling to things such as religion or guns.  (Never mind that there are plenty (most) of D and R politicians who agree with these descriptions.)  But, apparently it is perfectly acceptable to say that so called elitist (i.e. even though you live a very comfortable, rich person, life style you are not doing enough to pretend that you're a person of the people, e.g. Bush with his photo op brush clearing at the Western White House--apparently blue collar folks spend their free time clear brush as a hobby, don't ya know.) politicians don't connect to some stereotypical blue collar worker, who is to stupid to know that rich politicians are tricking them.

    This is ridiculous.  To recap: everyone agrees that the candidates are all rich (some much more than others), they all live very comfortably, but they need to show that they are in touch with blue collar folks or else these folks will see them as elitist and they won't vote for them.  And, to demonstrate that they are in touch they need to pretend that they: don't wear ties, they don't go to Whole Foods, they are hunters, they do eat candy when they really don't, they regularly go to church when they really don't.

    Or, as Dowd puts it:

    What turns off voters is the detached egghead quality that they tend to equate with a wimpiness, wordiness and a lack of action

    All of these types of arguments assume that blue collar people are rubes who need to be tricked into thinking that these rich candidates personally relate to them.  And, this trickery is to be accomplished with wardrobe, photo ops, and exaggerated/made up stories.  But, Dowd et. al. can't see that they're truly insulting these blue collar folks because apparently it's acceptable to assume blue collar people are too stupid to know when politicians are feeding them BS.

    PS: is it just me, or does Dowd lose down home credibility points when she refers to "autos-da-fe?"  How contrived could she be: who can really burn themselves at the stake?  It looks like this was a desperate attempt at elitist language, even when it doesn't really fit.

    Irony, on top of irony.

    It's kind of along the lines of (none / 0) (#63)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:46:55 PM EST
    You should never be "honest" about your feelings toward your boss unless you think your boss is the greatest person in the world.


    The voters are the boss!
    If you happen to be a bit of an elitist, don't make that painfully, undeniably obvious.  At least make people guess and wonder ... a little bit...


    Your estimation of office politics (none / 0) (#65)
    by 1jpb on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:07:21 PM EST
    is the opposite of the environment fostered by the most successful leaders in the corporate world.  I'm not suggesting that most leaders welcome dissent, but the ones who achieve long term sustainable success do.  So, it could be argued that the voters are the equivalent of a mediocre manager who can't take honest assessments.  But, I don't believe that: if the voters have the complete picture and are offered full, persuasive, and truthful arguments I trust that they will be open to realities, even if those realities sometimes require change.

    I feel sick (none / 0) (#59)
    by kc on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:20:27 PM EST
    --everytime (daily) the media bias and its implications  are brought to my attention. I don't watch CNN or MSNBC anymore--wouldn't give them a rating if it killed me.

    I am old enough to remember learning about brain washing in school (in fear of the USSR--cold war stuff). I also taught it to HS govt. and econ. students years ago so they could be better consumers and critical thinkers during campaign season.

    What our media today is doing is nothing less than brain washing since they constantly take comments out of context, use emotive words when describing candidates or their policy positions, and 'get on the bandwagon' appeals. This bothers me so bad because they are influencing what is left of our democracy.  Apparently the media either can't see or don't care to learn from their mistakes--7 years of George Bush, and now again, the  same thing.

    Media darling (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:24:47 PM EST
    status officially dead. When Maureen Dowd starts an elitism meme it continues. I would be outraged except too many Obama supporters held this twit up and extolled her columns when she was attacking Hillary.

    He is not aware (none / 0) (#64)
    by annabelly on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:48:31 PM EST
    I e-mailed him a month or so back and his response to my criticism was downright hostile (on his second e-mail, admittedly). He took great offense that I would even suggest that a lot of his readers had doubts about his commitment to women and their issues. I haven't been back since, and I won't. He doesn't deserve my daily traffic. I used to read him everyday, though, for years. He was at the top of my reading list.

    So you wrote an email calling him a sexist (none / 0) (#67)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:22:03 PM EST
    and he didn't react well. Amazing!

    You're almost as accurate at reading (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:28:52 PM EST
    text as JMM.

    Are you nuts, BTD? (none / 0) (#66)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:19:31 PM EST
    Are you allowing your Obama Derangement Syndrome to cloud your eyes? JMM is obviously mocking Maureen Dowd's intense obsession with writing negative things about Hillary. Go ahead and comb the archives to find him ever saying anything positive about Dowd, then come back and apologize.

    I'll be so glad when this primary season is over and the "you're either with us or you're a Judas" Hillary bloggers turn their searing light of judgment away from the progressive blogosphere. You're just as nuts as the people who think Greg Sargent is a paid agent of the Hillary campaign because he's not an Obama cheerleader.

    Y'know (none / 0) (#76)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:42:02 PM EST
    I found a way to make the identical point above without being insulting and derisive.  Try it sometime.

    I am really trying not to go (none / 0) (#69)
    by bslev22 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:25:41 PM EST
    to Josh's site anymore, but I admit that it's hard because it's been so much a part of my routine for quite a long time.  But I hardly post there anymore because it really isn't worth it.  As I recently wrote to Josh, by the time you get done ignoring all of the Obama "right or wrong nitwits" (sorry Jeralyn and BTD, but I'm being historical here and would never call anyone a nitwit on this civilized site :)), one becomes devoid of incentive to engage in intelligent discourse.

    My problem with Josh is not that he is in the tank for Senator Obama.  That's fine, and I have no problem with people being human and having preferences.  My problem with Josh is that he won't admit his bias, and expressly denies it repeatedly, which to me just renders what he writes--so often in the form of ridicule or faux bewilderment at what the Clinton camp is up to-- utterly disingenuous and impure.

    Letters to Josh (none / 0) (#77)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:43:33 PM EST
    It sounds like there are a fair number of us here who've written Josh about this stuff.  It's interesting.  You sure wouldn't know he's getting any kind of pushback from reading what he says on the blog.