Blog Funnies

By Big Tent Democrat

I do not link enough to Bob Somerby. I thought this was pretty funny:

This week, we emitted a low, mordant chuckle at one part of this David Sirota piece, to which wed been linked by the person who has kidnapped Josh Marshall.

Some days I feel like the entire Left blogosphere has been kidnapped.

< Fighting Dems For Obama? Uh, No | NC Poll - Obama By 9 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    When I read that (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by DaytonDem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:07:29 PM EST
    yesterday I was struck by his theory of what happened to Sargent. He was way out of the TPM lock step for Obama. I wonder.

    Progressives (none / 0) (#61)
    by koshembos on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:19:37 PM EST
    Not only "the entire Left blogosphere has been kidnapped" was kidnapped, all the progressive movement was.

    After Obama loses the GE due these shenanigans, we will have to start the progressive movement from scratch.


    Nah (none / 0) (#62)
    by dianem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:27:21 PM EST
    They'll just burn Hillary in effigy and go back to trashing Dems every chance they get. If there is one take-away lesson I learned on Daily Kos, it's that there is no problem so big or so small that you can't blame the Democrats for it.

    I Know Something About Computers (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Dan the Man on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:08:42 PM EST
    Am willing to help with the technical problem with Greg Sargent's Horse Mouth for free.

    Curious, isn't it? (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:12:30 PM EST
    lol! (none / 0) (#25)
    by ghost2 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:05:33 PM EST
    You say (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:12:12 PM EST
    Some days I feel like the entire Left blogosphere has been kidnapped.

    Me too!

    I don't get to read Somerby enough, so I'm glad you're linking to him. He needs an RSS feed!!!!

    R's in the 90's and the Left blogoshere (none / 0) (#7)
    by delandjim on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:34:50 PM EST
    In the 90's is when I became pretty firmly anti Republican, because of the stupid creul s___ they were doing to the Clintons and all other Dems.

    Now I am firmly independant and will seriously look at both sides because I see we the Dems are just as cruel and unthinking.

    Kinda sad. I know the left blogoshere is not att Dems. But the crap in the 90's was not all the Republicans either.

    If it weren't for the balance of power in the scotus I would be very serious about voting R this time. She is repeating what she was told by a Sheriff's deputy. The deputy may not have had the details correct, but that is not 'making stuff up again"


    Based on what we (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:56:26 PM EST
    currently know I wouldn't call this making up stuff.  But, look at how this exact type of thing played out for BO when he mentioned the anecdote about the under equipped military using captured equipment in Afghanistan.  The media (and the Pentagon) went after him suggesting the story seemed implausible, but it turned out the BO team had the source's information, and the story was completely true.

    All I'm saying is that the HRC team should make some effort to see if a story is true before repeating it.  By not doing this it looks like they're more interested in political grandstanding because the reality of this story was never checked.  And, if HRC was so worried about this situation, why didn't she find out the particulars so she could do something to prevent the suffering of others in the future?  


    Hmmm... (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by kredwyn on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:15:50 PM EST
    "should make some effort to see if a story is true before repeating it"

    Y'mean like that story going around about HRC feeding the Obama pictures to Drudge when they've been out there for quite some time?

    Or maybe that suggestion that there was something illegal going on between the Edwards campaign and the union's 527?

    How 'bout the campaign memo suggesting that there was some cheating going on re: Clinton's fundraising trips to Florida?

    I would say that warning of yours is a double-edged one that...ummm...slices both ways.


    Yeah. Maybe Obama should have checked (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:21:01 PM EST
    to see if his father really was airlifted by Kennedy before repeating the story for the one gazillion and first times, right?
    One gazillion times telling a fairy tell is ok, but not once more--that is MY Obama rule!

    He was disenfranchised (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:34:31 PM EST
    That was how I felt. In '06 it was all about taking Washington back and fighting for our issues. As bloggers we were on the modern progressive side that would deal honestly with a bad administration and do what is right for this country. Together, as true intelligent Democrats we would fight for our candidates with the future of communications. We held our breaths together on election day. We relished in the sweet feeling of victory. In 08 a new brand of KoolAid was introduced. A Democratic brand. And if you did not drink it you were ostracized and disenfranchised from the popular blogger sites. Your family didn't have any use for you because you were not with 'them'. But we managed to find new friends who felt the same and managed to keep our integrity along the way. Hopefully those former family member are not going to need us again someday. One stabbing in the back for me was enough thank you very much.

    Where did you read that? (none / 0) (#15)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:09:10 PM EST
    Angry I am not. I only state how I felt being disenfranchised from the now Pro Obama sites. They turned nasty and I am not a nasty person. I can still pick and choose diaries but they have become few and far between the ones that I can read. When I said family, I meant the blog community. My own family are all pro Hillary. We have to wait and see what will happen. I was a Edwards supporter who had to make a choice 2. I admit that some of the ugly negativity about a candidate on top blogs helped me make a decision to choose Hillary. Then I was able to see additional weaknesses in BHO. I didn't like what I saw. He is a nice man but I do not think he would make a good President. Yet. I don't hate him as some bloggers absolutely hate Hillary. I don't even dislike him. Ron Paul? Are U being funny? Was that snark?

    mordant... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by kredwyn on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:36:09 PM EST
    I love the sound of that word...

    of all the great bloggers (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Turkana on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:38:41 PM EST
    he's been doing it longer than just about anyone. i wish he'd write books. his archives wouldn't take much editing to make into books.

    I think he'd fill a library... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by kredwyn on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:41:42 PM EST
    with everything that he's written on the media escapades.

    Could I respectly suggest something? (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by ghost2 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:10:35 PM EST
    Bob Somerby is couragous.  He is like Paul Krugman.  They are not afraid of shouting against the hurricane and speaking truth in all the circumstances.

    Bob's blog is just hidden.  Could I humbly suggest that you guys in the blogsphere link to him more often if possible? He is very sharp, and every time I have read his blog, he has been right on the money.  


    i've linked to him (none / 0) (#30)
    by Turkana on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:17:24 PM EST
    but, as with btd, not often enough!

    He's the first blogger dude I read... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by kredwyn on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:31:31 PM EST
    when I first started playing around in the blogosphere. Loved him then...love him now.

    back in the day (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Turkana on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:00:05 PM EST
    it was daily howler and bushwatch.

    And the late great (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:19:32 PM EST
    Mediawhoresonline.  (sigh)

    Which usually ended up being spelled "Mediahorseonline" in transcripts! lol  After a few times, MWO started calling itself "The Horse."  Heheheh.  Jeez, those were the days...


    It could have been the blogosphere's finest hours (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by nellre on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:38:15 PM EST
    But so many wallowed in the mud just like the right wing nuts... throwing it about as if it were the blessed truth.
    I thought we were smarter than that and I for one have been very disappointed. Talk Left is a notable exception, and it looks like it's taken a lot of work to make it so.
    Kudos Talk Left

    What I've understood from this primary (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by hitchhiker on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:01:07 PM EST
    is that I don't want to be one of them; whoever they've become, the kossacks and the rest of the furious ones are nobody I want to associate with, much less belong to.  I'm embarrassed that I ever did.  I remember when I made the rec list at kos -- I rarely wrote diaries there, but when I did they would sometimes ride that list -- and it felt like a sort of achievement.

    I believed in the collective editorial and aesthetic power of that community.  I thought that most of the time diaries on the rec list and on the front page deserved to be there by virtue of some combination of good writing,good ideas, & good information.

    That is totally gone now.  It's the mirror image of freerepublic.com -- just as full of itself, just as venomous, and just as foolish.  

    I like to think (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:04:54 PM EST
    that there used to be something different about it. In fact, I'm rather sure there was: my critical thinking abilities haven't changed over the past three years.

    Well, I hope you're right. (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by hitchhiker on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:07:40 PM EST
    I'm waiting for some enterprising phd candidate to write a dissertation about the metamorphosis of a strong, self-regulating community into a useless echo chamber.

    What's most fascinating to me is how quickly it happened, and how relentlessly the institutional memory was obliterated.  The mocking GBCW business marked the moment that it became irrevocably gone.

    But that's taking it too seriously, eh?  Just a blog we hoped would be stronger than its was.


    Left vs. Anti-right (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by pluege on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:53:15 PM EST
    Some days I feel like the entire Left blogosphere has been kidnapped.

    what has happened is very simple: much of the left blogosphere has been revealed to be not left at all, but instead what they are is nothing more than anti-right...Left vs. anti-right...big difference.

    Accordingly, when there were choices to be made among left and left they couldn't handle it and went into the only thing (apparently) that they know against their left brethren: anti-right shrieking harpy mood.

    Its really pathetic that Obamabots can't tell the difference between the wingnut right, and follow lefties with a difference of opinion.

    I never really thought (none / 0) (#64)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:09:21 PM EST
    that DK was a left blog anyway. NEVER

    I am not at all troubled by the fact that DK has become a 527 for Obama - at least not like lambert is troubled by it.

    The fact is that Obama hasn't run a left campaign...in fact, he has done virtually everything possible to get to the right of Hillary.

    What does bother me is that Air America became shills for Obama...up and down the line and I had to turn them off for my own sanity. Who knew?

    As for Randi Rhodes...she's toast in my book and has lost me forever.

    Josh...did someone actually consider him to be a liberal?


    Another angle on kidanapping (none / 0) (#5)
    by Faust on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:31:47 PM EST
    I felt this post from Hunter on DK was hillarious, and fit my mood as someone generally disapointed with both sides of the new left paristanosphere.


    There is some profanity (as rants are wont to have) for those who don't like that.

    That is profoundly (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:47:10 PM EST
    Self-serving.  And is one of the blogging talking points that I have found so distasteful over the years.

    It is indeed the mirror image of Conservative activism.


    Hmm (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:19:39 PM EST
    Interesting. wonder who Hunter thinks will read it as directed at them.

    Well.....yeah. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Fabian on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:42:27 PM EST
    But of course!

    Here's the nub: (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:24:36 PM EST
    But I too am a creature of habit, and given that I have no cats to take humorous pictures of, I am resigned to my own circle of hell.

    Hunter's welcome to some (none / 0) (#22)
    by kredwyn on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:34:55 PM EST
    of my cute cat pictures. Given her cuteness, there are plenty to go around.

    I was cracking up at that one yesterday too (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:51:51 PM EST
    I hope Josh escapes his captors soon. He's one of the good guys.

    DrinkLiberally (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:13:17 PM EST
    The Seattle chapter of "Drink Liberally" sent an email around about a gathering last week where everyone had to drink everyone else's koolaid....of course, laced with hard alcohol.

    The organizer offered to bring Hillary-Aid, Obama-Aid, and of course red Koolaid for those who wanted to drink McCain-Aid.  The alcohol would be found behind the bar.

    It was supposedly a kiss and make up day.

    Cute concept.


    How'd it turn out? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:15:21 PM EST
    I don't drink (none / 0) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:53:07 PM EST
    for health reasons, so I don't go to those things.

    I don't know...but I do think it's a great idea!


    I went to Seattle's DL once (none / 0) (#48)
    by shoephone on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:13:43 PM EST
    and that was enough. Most of the other NW bloggers are quite full of themselves and generally write and talk like frat boys. Anyway, these days, they have pretty much all drunk the Obama kool-aid.

    In a Pilsner glass of course. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:16:03 PM EST

    Hey, I am all in favor of reality (none / 0) (#50)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:46:39 PM EST
    Sometimes Josh is just plain wrong though, when facts are staring him in the face, as if he has been kidnapped.  Somerby has it well documented, as is his way.   I don't object to anyone merely having a difference of opinion about a favorite candidate as long as it is expressed in a civil and reasoned way, as Josh does. But distorting facts or getting them wrong is another thing, and he has done that quite a bit lately.   Quite unlike him.

    Some of my best friends are not Hillary supporters.  No Kool-aid drinking required at my house.


    At a glance (none / 0) (#16)
    by rilkefan on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:12:44 PM EST
    yesterday I thought Somerby's argument about Marshall's update didn't make much sense.

    I read Bob Somerby everyday (none / 0) (#21)
    by gish720 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:34:52 PM EST
    I would even say "religiously". I think the update about Josh clearing his throat was that Josh seemed to be clarifying his previous statment about the race chasm.  He seemed to be changing his position a tad, however upon viewing Josh's youtube clip on the subject (the difference between David Sirota and Brendan Nyhan) Josh appears to be saying the two are really saying the same thing.  This has been an ongoing charge since the Bradley effect was brought up by Obama supporters after New Hampshire.  If you watch that youtube clip of Josh the smug assurance that the Clinton people are hoping for the exit polling to show race as blah blah blah.  Anyhow I loved Somerby's post on Monday last, the one about the Washington Post's fact checker that starts with "Who is Michael Dobbs:" That one is a howler indeed.

    Bob Somerby is my hero. (none / 0) (#24)
    by ghost2 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:04:56 PM EST
    Over years, I read Dailyhowler and its exposure of the media bias and its silliness.  Most of all, he exposed the nastiness of the media in their dealing with Al Gore.

    I always imagined Bob as a rebellious hippy, and in this election, I thought, well, he wouldn't be a Hillary fan.  I was very wrong.  

    Bob has called every instance of hypocrisy by media, bloggers, and even other candidates.  His blog is a refuge in all the noise we have now.

    Bob strikes me as particularly offended by... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:17:19 PM EST
    ..hypocrisy. So I wouldn't imagine him to be too tolerant of the Obama campaign. Not so much the candidate, but the campaign itself. Plus I could never really see him fall in line with the media darling.

    I think that what Somerby possesses (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by frankly0 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:23:26 PM EST
    in immoderate measure, is, in Hemingway's phrase, a "b____t detector".

    And that, I think, is what, more than anything else, is the common denominator among current Hillary supporters.

    The hype, the talk, the overinflated reputation, the mob psychosis that lies behind Obamamania creates an irrepressible gag response in those of us who value reality over pretense.

    I don't think there was any chance that Somerby might lose his head over the likes of Obama.


    let's just say that (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by frankly0 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:28:52 PM EST
    most of us current Hillary supporters, like Jake Tapper, have keen noses, and can smell the cigarettes on Obama, however much he may deny smoking them.

    That's just a low blow (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:49:34 PM EST
    But at the same time (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by gish720 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:57:23 PM EST
    He's not ugly about Obama.  He's very fair minded about him.  He said when push came to shove he pulled the Clinton lever in Maryland. I was glad to hear that.

    Somerby's candidate (none / 0) (#43)
    by wasabi on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:01:51 PM EST
    I believe he said he was leaning towards Obama for the same reason as BTD.

    kind of (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:29:50 PM EST
    After south carolina and the jesse jackson statement, I belive he thought the media was getting to the clintons (making them angry and responding to that) so that was something to keep in mind.  However, I don't believe he thought the anger was unwarrented.  IRRC, he hasn't really mentioned it since.

    He did vote for clinton based on experience but he's said nice things about both.  He's also hammered obama for comments on social security, jeff gerth and advancing some right wing "character" attacks that were also used on gore.  

    he really seems to detest bradley because he did the same in 2000.  Ha!

    But he's fair and I read him (and link to him) a lot.  In case you couldn't tell from this post :)


    That was right after (none / 0) (#44)
    by gish720 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:03:55 PM EST
    South Carolina, since then he voted in the Maryland primary and pulled the Clinton lever.

    Does the Clinton .... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Tortmaster on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:59:35 PM EST
    ... campaign treat all "low information voters" as "slobbering racists"?  

    Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take them on the basis of what they say. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.... No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.  

    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:05:56 PM EST
    Of course not.

    And "low info" is an Obama supporter term, not a Clinton campaign term.


    x (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:49:07 PM EST
    I don't consider low information voter a pejorative. Most voters are low information voters; they simply don't pay as much attention to the races/candidates as others do.

    It has nothing to do with your level of education or your intelligence. When people use it to denigrate others, they're showing their own lack of knowledge.


    Voter Apathy (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by pluege on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:00:27 PM EST
    is a betrayal of democracy. Democracy ONLY works if the electorate is engaged and informed. Certainly Americans have failed miserably at Democracy for a very long time.

    I agree (none / 0) (#53)
    by pluege on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:58:40 PM EST
    most voters certainly are low information. The cult of republicanism has built their entire program counting on it for a generation; ever since king dolt ronnie raygun was hoisted to power. the bush regime has take counting on voter ignorance and lack of interest to new heights of chutzpah - unfortunately, that too worked long enough for bush/cheney to score untold damage, destruction, and murderous adventures.

    I really have no idea (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:21:04 PM EST
    What you're trying to say.

    Although I can not imagine anyone being called a "Low-info voter" and then saying "Yep. That's me. I'm not offended by that at all."


    x (none / 0) (#60)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:11:06 PM EST
    What I'm saying is that "low-information voter" is kind of a term of art in politics. It means something specific, and that something is not dumb. If people want to use it to mean dumb, fine, but they're showing their own ignorance of politics by doing so.

    I'm offended if people sneer at me, sure, but I'll cop to using my husband's union endorsement mailer to vote for judicial candidates. Info is hard to come by and I don't pay attention. So yeah, I'm a low-information voter in that respect. I think I'm a high-information voter otherwise.

    Many, maybe close to most, voters are low-information voters.


    Exactly right (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:52:20 AM EST
    'Low information' means a very specific thing, but many Obama supporters in the media and blogs have hijacked the term.  Cenk Uygar is the first example that springs to my mind, as he frequently rants about stupid Hillary voters.

    The maddening part is that these people know what that term means in poll-speak.  They are deliberately misinterpreting it to insult fellow DEMOCRATS.   But of course it is Hillary that is tearing the party apart.


    unfortunately (none / 0) (#59)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:33:34 PM EST
    Many obama bloggers and posters do use that term to denigrate clinton voters.  

    Go read David Sirota's (none / 0) (#47)
    by gish720 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:06:44 PM EST
    The Race Chasm

    I should say for the Obama campaign's take (none / 0) (#49)
    by gish720 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:25:23 PM EST
    on the Clinton "low information" Joe Schmo's racism. It's pretty offensive, to this Clinton supporter.

    Group Dynamics (none / 0) (#63)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:07:48 PM EST
    Well- maybe the problem isn't the "left' so much as people. As corny and banal as it sounds- the issue is that they are engaging , whether Clinton supporters or Obama supporters, in groupthink and group dynamics. So the silly season exists for very basic reasons- its what we do.

    I remember reading some post by Chris bowers last week in which there were so many underlying assumptions that he never mentioned and so many things that were biased, that I was about to log in to comment, and then I realized- what's the point?

    I admit it was my disappointment to realize you are all human. But, there it is.  It's the blue eyes versus brown eyes. Those who love Monet versus those who love Manet from social pscyhology all over again. That's about as deep as one should get if one wants to understand the arguments, because ultimately, frankly, there ain't much behind any of it except faith based support mixed in with a bit of identity politics (as played masterfully by both sides to mess with Democratic psychology).

    Right now, I am against McCain rather than for Clinton or Obama. I know many of you are able to parse the gradations of gray between Clinton and Obama (for example, FL and MI, situation is to me equal parts both their faults,a nd neither seems particularly interested in what's best for the people of the two states) but from the distances of the average voter I suspect they just see gray. I don't ultimately see a difference between a candidate who may throw me under the bus versus one who may mean well but will compromise before trying. It's pretty much all gray. But, I prefer that gray to McCain.

    Obama Bedazzlement Syndrome (none / 0) (#66)
    by Charles Bird on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:40:36 AM EST
    It's taken over your party.  Obama can do no wrong in eyes of his ardent followers.

    Nice to see you back in circulation, Armando.