home

On Hertzberg's Defense Of Obama's Flip Flop On FISA

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:28:13 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

When Ana Marie Cox is slapping you around effectively, you may want to rethink your position. In response to Hendrick Hertzberg's attack on people who care about civil liberties, Cox writes:

In other words: Don't you want to win, you dirty freaking hippie? Except if you're a member of the MSM, in which case, Don't you want to be one of the "better newspapers"? Oh, and John McCain is worse. I'm fine with people defending Obama's flip-flops, but I don't like pretending they don't matter. Especially if it's not just a simple change of some random position, but -- as with FISA -- a real rejection of a significant campaign promise. I'm probably going to vote for Obama, okay; I do not have to like it. I do not have believe that his awesomeness creates amnesia.

(Emphasis supplied.) Speaking for me only

< One Million Terrorists | Monday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    On Hertzberg's Defense Of Obama's Flip Flop On FISA | 189 comments (189 topical)
    BTW (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:33:58 PM EST
    Rick Hertzberg quoted me out of context in his New Yorker article. He quotes from one of my posts:

    Except that sometimes it's hard to tell fake from real. These sentiments, for example, are from actual blogs:

    "If Obama believes the BS he said about the FISA Capitulation bill, then he is not fit to be President."

    What did Hertzberg leave out? That I wrote that I do not believe Obama meant the BS he said about the FISA Capitulation bill. That is some shoddy work from Hertzberg, who once requested and got some context added to a post in which I quoted him.

    I suspect not shoddy (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:35:50 PM EST
    but intentional.  they need to discredit those like you who think for yourself.

    Parent
    What must this mean? (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:36:16 PM EST
    Hertzberg thinks that Obama meant what he said about FISA.

    Parent
    I read Hertzberg's comment (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:55:11 PM EST
    I know that's gotta be snark, but I want to point out anyway.... Hertzberg writes:

    But there can be little doubt that Obama's vote... was influenced by worry about being branded as soft on terrorism.

    Which I think proves that Hertzberg believes there can be little doubt that this:


    "You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically," he said. "I may just disagree with you."

    is a load of BS.  


    Parent

    He's flailing, BTD (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:37:00 PM EST
    to maintain his lofty perch of boredom over petty and naive concerns of us little people. He no longer has a choice. He's got to distort and excerpt and twist what you and others say.

    (Good on Ana.  I can imagine the, um, dinner table conversations in the Cox household...)

    Parent

    Lose - lose (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:04:48 PM EST
    It appears to me that Obama is in a lose - lose situation.

    Either he believes his own BS - in which case he isn't fit to be president...

    Or - he doesn't believe his own BS but is b.s.ing us anyway.
    So what does that make him fit for?

    Parent

    Oh I do not mind the BS (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:07:08 PM EST
    if it is necessary and actually helps him.

    Here the BS was a mistake on every level.

    Parent

    Could you provide an (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by dk on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:32:09 PM EST
    example of when you think BS is ok?

    Parent
    "I didn't inhale." ? (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:55:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Right. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by pie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:07:16 PM EST
    The Clintons are out to get you and take away your freedoms and your money.

    How in he!! did we get here?

    Parent

    From you, Ben (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:01:19 PM EST
    that's B.S. -- champion of freedoms that you are.

    Parent
    Bill didn't expect to be taken (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:10:18 PM EST
    at face value. I'd have been fine if he'd followed through on the accompanying wink and nod.

    Parent
    Sorry, wrong (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:02:50 PM EST
    It's perfectly plausible, especially since he suffers from asthma.  You'd have to be flat-out nuts to inhale MJ if you have active asthma.

    I get tired of explaining this to people who have never sat around in a group of young people when a joint gets passed around.  There are almost always one or two who take a toke so as not to look like party poopers by refusing, but don't inhale.  It's perfectly common and utterly mundane.

    Clinton would have been better off, because of people like you, if he'd lied about it instead.

    Parent

    I agree. I didn't like to inhale because I (5.00 / 5) (#142)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:32:14 PM EST
    wasn't a smoker and it hurt my lungs.  Of course, Bill could have eaten the brownies.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#163)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:02:17 PM EST
    He wasn't asked about brownies...

    Seriously, Bill Clinton to all appearances is one of those people, like Obama apparently, who don't like to be chemically altered, so to speak.  He hardly drinks, doesn't even drink coffee, if I remember right.  I know a number of people like that.  (I suspect it's a control issue, actually.)  So I can't see him getting all giggly on MJ brownies, either.

    Parent

    That was me (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:19:15 PM EST
    I'll admit it.  I understood exactly what he meant.

    Parent
    Of course the only valid point of (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:20:11 PM EST
    ridiculing him for the statement is because he thought it mattered.

    Parent
    I wouldn't vote for you. (none / 0) (#131)
    by pie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:08:12 PM EST
    Jut sayin'.

    Parent
    Or: (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:22:36 PM EST
    Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech, and I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false, and I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.
     [Bill Clinton; italics added.]

    Parent
    you mean you're OK with lies as long (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:44:43 PM EST
    as it helps him win?

    What haooens when you can't be sure which are the lies?

    Parent

    If it helps him... (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:54:12 PM EST
    When I see or hear someone b.s.ing - I have to conclude he or she is a b.s-er.

    People who B.S. are a dime a dozen.

    So - we're supposed to hope that he is bullsh-tting us but doesn't really mean it. It's OK because he doesn't believe his own BS.
    This is comedy.

    But he did support FISA. No B.S. That's what he did.
    Whether his stated reasons were BS or not, that's what he did. And on top of it, he is BSing us - and we are not supposed to mind?
    We're supposed to say a hail Mary and pull the lever?


    Parent

    My motto has always been....NEVER (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:57:59 PM EST
    b.s. a b.ser and that is why I have never been for obama.  BS 24/7 is just wrong.

    Parent
    People who claim (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by pie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:06:47 PM EST
    they voted for Clinton but are now on Obama's bus?

    Cynical person that I am, I just have a hard time believing it.

    Parent

    So write him. . . (none / 0) (#13)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:43:50 PM EST
    If you were willing to add context when you left it out, I'm sure he'd be willing to do the same.  Doesn't help much with print journalism, though.  You think he was just careless, or did he imagine he had something to pay you back for?

    No matter what the context, language like "FISA Capitulation bill" not withstanding that it may be perfectly accurate, isn't going to sound particularly adult.

    Parent

    Too lazy (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:44:55 PM EST
    Would rather bust him in a comment here.

    Parent
    at least you can be sure (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:45:56 PM EST
    that will be read

    Parent
    It seems only fair. . . (none / 0) (#19)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:46:10 PM EST
    to give him the same opportunity to correct he gave you (or, since that's pretty much impossible in a print publication, to acknowledge the mistake).

    Parent
    Opportunity? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:47:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Well. . . (none / 0) (#63)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:04:08 PM EST
    when he was cheesed off with the way you quoted him, he got in touch with you, didn't he?

    Seeing this comment he might argue "Hey, when I was cheesed off with you, I took it up with you, not the world".  Or he might argue that if he used language like "cheesed off".  But that's why he writes TotT and I write comments on TL.

    Parent

    Meh (4.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:09:13 PM EST
    I would rather just tweak him in a comment.

    He is not going to have a correction run in the next issue. So what's the big deal? If I was a famous writer, maybe I would do more, but I am just a citizen who write some stuff about politics.

    Parent

    He can't cross the street to the Inner Netz? What? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ellie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:27:20 PM EST
    Jeez, is this some unwritten protocol from Duels at Dawn era, where one cannot proceed until a liveried coachman knocks you up at the estate and delivers a handwritten note before action can be taken?

    Or all the regiment at **shire and its stupid fourth-cousin will spread gossip at the hunt?

    Both areas have comments, no?

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:05:38 PM EST
    Hertzberg's piece was not even in "Talk of the Town," I don't believe, it was in the Web edition of the magazine, but he doesn't have a comments section.  Too grand a fellow for that.  One has to write a proper "Letter to the Editor" to express an opinion, doncha know.

    Parent
    Huh, I guess he didn't get the Telepath-memo ... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ellie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:14:13 PM EST
    ... yet about the information superhighway being a two-way street.

    Parent
    Might have been an editor... (none / 0) (#40)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:56:23 PM EST
    might not.

    Parent
    In today's political climate... (none / 0) (#91)
    by dianem on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:46:56 PM EST
    ...if you don't want to be misquoted or quoted out of context, you have to write everything in a way in which you cannot possibly be misinterpreted. I write a lot of run on sentences, simply because I'd rather have everything in one sentence. It makes it harder (although not impossible, unfortunately), to misquote me.

    Parent
    I find it works to work up (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:03:27 PM EST
    a boring quote, so not quotable.  But I do not recommend that for BTD.:-)

    Parent
    I'm not worried about being quoted... (none / 0) (#114)
    by dianem on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:16:00 PM EST
    ...because I write something fascinating. I'm more likely to be misquoted because I write something that offends somebody, or because I offend somebody, and they choose to take my words out of context to make me look stupid.

    Parent
    You go, (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kmblue on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:35:22 PM EST
    Ms. Cox!

    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:36:19 PM EST
    I always liked her.  and I still love wonkette.

    Parent
    His awesomeness wouldn't be awesome (none / 0) (#201)
    by lambert on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:29:23 AM EST
    If it didn't induce amnesia.

    What's wrong with you?

    Parent

    We're whiners don't ya know BTW (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:36:25 PM EST
    We want our Constitution in tact, we want our nominee to display credibility and courage and we want it now! No wonder they hate us.


    BTD, he didn't quote you in context because (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by kmblue on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:36:36 PM EST
    that would hurt the narrative.  ;)

    I'm glad to see (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by pie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:37:28 PM EST
    some people are keeping things in perspective.

    I will not tolerate this blanket immunity for Obama.

    We just lived through eight nightmare years of that.  How disappointing it is to me to see people I respected turn into what they hated and criticized on a daily basis.

    "his awesomeness" (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by bridget on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:41:47 PM EST
    Of course Cox is voting for Obama. And he knows it.   And I know it.

    "I do not have believe that his awesomeness creates amnesia."

    Is that supposed to be a pundit's attempt to hold Obama's adored feet to the fire?

    ZZZZzzzzzz .....

    BTW, (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by pie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:43:15 PM EST
    is Obama only supposed to represent the people who don't care/are uninformed about FISA or the people who do care?

    It would take about two minutes to explain to the former what the repercussions are.  Did our good ol' media bother to do that, or is it up to the individual to search out and find the information?

    What a country.

    Comedy gold. (5.00 / 10) (#24)
    by pie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:50:08 PM EST


    if you made this stuff up (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:54:16 PM EST
    no one would believe it.

    Parent
    An often overlooked point... (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:50:14 PM EST
    The people who dismiss concerns about Obama's reversal on FISA never seem to mention that Obama made a clear-as-day, unequivocal promise to oppose and filibuster any bill that contains retroactive immunity for telecoms.

    He broke that promise.

    Maybe nobody cares about FISA and wiretapping and government intrusion. But what do they make of their chosen candidate promising to do something and then breaking that promise not more than a few months later?

    Overlooked? (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:53:44 PM EST
    Not here.

    I am pretty confident I quoted the pledge a number of times.

    Parent

    They don't care about that either (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:54:45 PM EST
    (Simple answers to simple questions...)


    Parent
    A good friend said we have to elect (4.75 / 4) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:53:33 PM EST
    Sen. Obama to get change.  I mentioned his capitulation on FISA.  She sd., uhmm.  

    Parent
    I am finding it harder and harder (4.66 / 3) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:06:14 PM EST
    to stay with those friends.  and it a big problem.  I have known and loved some of them for decades.

    Parent
    Ditto. And whaddya do about family? :-) (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:04:35 PM EST


    Parent
    I know. I work with our county Dems (5.00 / 7) (#124)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:04:13 PM EST
    every election, making phone calls, canvassing and so on.  Now I can't because I can't vote for Obama and they are all for him.  It makes me feel  terrible because i consider all those people friends and it's an important part of my life to do that.   However, I guess there are some exceptions. I ran into our Democratic  mayor the other day and she said we were going to be gearing up soon for the election and I told her I couldn't vote for Obama and I wouldn't be joining them. She looked at me for a moment sympathetically  and then pointed to her husband and mouthed "he can't either."


    Parent
    I know it's very small comfort, (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by dk on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:14:51 PM EST
    but I really admire your courage at doing what I at least think is the right thing.

    Parent
    Kind of worried about the traditional (none / 0) (#152)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:18:24 PM EST
    Election Night party one of my good friends hosts.  Yes, I want Sen. Obama to win, but, . . .

    Parent
    I don't envy your friend (none / 0) (#51)
    by CST on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:00:37 PM EST
    All my friends are so terrified of being drafted by McCain I don't usually have to make those arguments.  It's hard to defend Obama these days.  Although, I'm enough of a realist (pessimist?) to think it would be the same for any dem candidate at this point.

    Parent
    It was the Democratic Rep (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:25:16 PM EST
    in N.Y., Charlie Rangel, who first was proposing the "draft" option. Not McCain. If McCain has said anything on this subject, perhaps you can link it here.

    Parent
    And Rangel was right for doing that. (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by dk on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:36:49 PM EST
    Probably the only thing that would get us out of Iraq is the draft.  Because then, the pressure on politicians to stop this stupid war would be so great, they would have no choice but to end it.

    On the other hand, thinking that Obama would actually end this war any quicker than McCain would is, in my opinion at least, foolishness.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#155)
    by CST on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:22:46 PM EST
    McCain hasn't said that.  And I don't believe for a second he will.  He isn't that stupid.  I don't think there will be a draft with either candidate.  I should've made it a bit clearer, that that's just what my friends THINK not what is true by any stretch of the imagination.

    Parent
    Under the assumption... (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:52:09 PM EST
    ... that this isn't meant as satire, let me ask:

    When Obama promised to oppose this bill earlier, did he know he didn't mean it? Were the people who believed him dumb?

    Simple answers to simple questions (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by lambert on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:30:02 AM EST
    Yes.

    Yes.

    Parent

    As long as... (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:53:30 PM EST
    As long as civil libertarians say that they feel betrayed by Obama's actions but are going to vote for him anyway, there is no incentive for him to respect us.

    Nice snark (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:54:13 PM EST
    Well done.

    and how much do you love (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:55:53 PM EST
    that the Obamans are now sneering at "Liberal Purists".
    that is classic.

    to elaborate (5.00 / 11) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:13:54 PM EST
    it is amazing that the low brow, low income, low information, racist hick, republican lite Clinton supporters are magically transformed into liberal purists.
    its a GD miracle.  thats what it is.

    Parent
    All purpose reply= (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by kmblue on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:56:57 PM EST
    "McCain is worse!"  
    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    heres the problem (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:01:21 PM EST
    is there a more subjective word than worse?


    Parent
    Indeed, Captain, you are right (none / 0) (#57)
    by kmblue on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:02:28 PM EST
    but it's not my argument, so I'll leave it to those who use it to improve it. ;)

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:03:27 PM EST
    just venting

    Parent
    Thing is (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:05:41 PM EST
    It's true and matters.

    I do not make that argument because my goal is to see if all of us together can maybe, just a smidgen,  make Obama better,

    Parent

    I am inclined to believe it (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:09:36 PM EST
    probably is true.  I just keep hoping for some concrete evidence of that.
    I would truly hate to vote for Nader.

    Parent
    I don't agree. McCain doesn't have corrupt (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:21:35 PM EST
    Chicago politicians and pay for play crooks and international criminals in his background and supporting him.

    McCain, in spite of the last four years of his humiliating need to prostrate himself in front of the far right in order to get them to vote for him, has a past record of working with Democrats.  

    McCain was perfectly acceptable to many Democrats when John Kerry wanted him to run as VP in 2004.  

    McCain has a son in Iraq.

    McCain is a decent person.

    Obama has been brought to us by the same people that gave us GW Bush and two stolen elections. There is evidence that Republicans were some of his key supporters when he first appeared on the presidential scene with a gazillion dollars (see Rosemary Regello, cityediton.com)   He will not stand up for anything because he has no core beliefs other than his egomania. He has no substantive experience working in any kind of job. He simply runs for progressively more status-filled political offices, using underhanded and dirty tactics to win them. Then  he becomes bored and doesn't want to make any effort at actually governing.

    Obama has told us from the beginning that he wants unity with the Republicans.  If he wins, then the Republicans will have taken over BOTH parties. They've set us all up. Heads they win, tails we lose. He is NOT a progressive and will sell us down the river.

    With McCain at least you know what you are getting. With Obama, I'm afraid what we are getting is the Democratic Party taken over by thugs and a man with no credentials and just as thin a skin as GW Bush as President.

    I am not a Republican, nor a racist, so you can save those insults, as I've heard them before. I"m a lifelong Democrat, who voted first for Lyndon Johnson and who has worked all my life for Dems, including being a Jesse Jackson delegate from the State of New Mexico in 1988.

    By the way, thanks to Jesse for speaking the truth.  Read the Black Agenda Report. They have the same opinion as Jesse's, just not so colorfully expressed.

    Parent

    McCain can be forced to testify under oath (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Ellie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:38:08 PM EST
    As a more swift, direct and transparent means of  discovering and reversing the atrocious behavior of the Bush admin and their cronies.

    Having any old Dem in the White House won't achieve this. Obama will not reliably do whatever he's promising this week, even when that something is as lame as "considering it" or "promising to think about it" or some other bogus fluff.

    If he's too "bored" to stand up for rule of law for a term in the Senate, and too "bored" during the campaign to discuss it in direct unflinching terms, I wouldn't assume he'd do it should he win in the GE.

    A strong Congress with better -- not necessarily more -- Dems, and better ones in leadership than the ones we have now or this empty suit on the Boss Machine is what's important.

    Parent

    If the shoe fits... (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:02:52 PM EST
    Sure this argument is a cop-out, but it is an easy one to make.

    Parent
    It's just a (none / 0) (#200)
    by mikeyleigh on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:15:25 AM EST
    variation on "Clinton is worse" that was used so many times during the primaries.

    Parent
    Thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:57:10 PM EST
    You obviously have inside information about Obama will do when and if he elected.

    I do not.

    Thats where hope comes in! (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:32:33 PM EST


    Parent
    By the way (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:06:51 PM EST
    One should not assume that just because Ana Marie Cox owes her journalistic career to creating the raunchy Wonkette persona, that means she is actually empty-headed.  In fact, if I were to make a list of media figures who would surprise me if they were to ever make a worthwhile point, she would not be in the top 100.

    In a similar way to Atrios, she is pretty sharp even if she generally prefers to offer a snarky one-liner in lieu of a more substantive analysis.

    I completely agree (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:10:29 PM EST
    there is more than snark there.

    Parent
    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:13:01 PM EST
    Thing is Rick Hertzberg is great when he he is great. Which used to be most of the time.

    Parent
    I begin to think (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:07:03 PM EST
    there was a mass kidnapping, like of Josh Marshall.     Maybe they're still in the Columbian jungle, too.

    Parent
    One of the side effects of the Kool-Aid... (none / 0) (#203)
    by lambert on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:32:31 AM EST
    ... is that the writing goes bad, and the analytical abilities disappear. Herzberg is not the only one. True for all Kool-Aid no doubt, but we have an especially virulent brand on the market righ now.

    Parent
    You got a problem (none / 0) (#179)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:03:12 PM EST
    with snarky one-liners?

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:40:09 PM EST
    In Soviet Russia, snarky one-liners have problem with me!

    Parent
    This quote is Money! (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by OxyCon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:29:14 PM EST
    "I do not have believe that his (Obama's)awesomeness creates amnesia" - Ana Marie Cox

    'But I will certainly continue to enable him' (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by andrys on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:01:57 PM EST
    and he knows it.

    Parent
    I wish it could create amnesia (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by mg7505 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:01:08 AM EST
    so we could forget Obama ever existed, nominate Hillary, and lock down the White House for 8+ years with two landslide victories.

    Parent
    Proofs in the Pudding (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by fctchekr on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:34:23 PM EST
    The polls show the Great FISA Flopper's numbers shrinking.

    Define "Winning" (5.00 / 7) (#86)
    by BDB on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:34:47 PM EST
    Obama could sweep all 50 states this November, but if he is going to violate the Fourth Amendment that isn't winning.  What I want is a government that thinks the Constitution is important and that its leaders are not above the law (wow, never thought I'd be asking for something so basic).  

    To the extent I want particular candidates to win an election, it's because of what they will do.  I don't particularly give a damn about whether Nancy Pelosi might feel good about herself because she's Speaker of the House or the Obamas might enjoy the inaugural festivities.  I don't care.  These people aren't my friends, they are tools to get things done and I've only won if they're going to do what I think needs to be done.  If they aren't, they're useless to me.

    We'll lose for winning.. (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by fctchekr on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:39:50 PM EST
    For a Constitutional lawyer he's done damage and hasn't even crossed the electoral threshold yet...

    Parent
    These people aren't defending Obama (5.00 / 7) (#87)
    by nellre on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:38:09 PM EST
    They're defending themselves for swallowing Obama's promises hook line and sinker.
    They do not want to admit that their critical thinking cap was in the laundry for the last 17 or so months.

    Worship doesn' t require one (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by fctchekr on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:48:07 PM EST
    I guess we give people a lot more credit than they deserve for thinking and acting rationally..

    Parent
    one of the things I learned (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:45:27 PM EST
    during the primary is that hertzberg wrote a large chunk of carter's malaise speech.

    Even if all I cared about was winning and was able to write off obama's "evolution" on FISA as a politician just doing what he thinks he needs to do to win, hertzberg's endorsement of it would be a clue to me that it was the wrong thing to do just from that perspective alone.

    Stop the odious trend to view Obama's endangerment (5.00 / 8) (#96)
    by Ellie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:56:02 PM EST
    ... of a constitutional amendment as an excusable political necessity, as a :: wink wink :: clever rhetorical device or as a repair to make later, cause right now there's something more important going on.

    Those are all abstract headzy speechy positional gossamer.

    Obama and all who permitted the FISA mess to occur colluded on an act of treason against human rights and the rule of law.

    I don't like this contemporary attitude that any rights can be shred that the enabler personally doesn't happen to "need" or feel s/he'll be "using" in the near future.

    Labeling the slovenliness as ethereal and placing it in the realm of BS or intellectual exercise creates the illusion that the worst that can happen is someone "agrees to disagree".

    Uh, no -- someone gets extraordinarily renditioned, disappeared, tortured, deprived of due process and redress, stripped of franchise ...

    Bring back rule of law, transparent procedure and basic human rights, even for people who don't have deep thoughts, who didn't go to Kool Skool or aren't in the laughing loges just back of the pits when the laughingstock of the day is brought out for shaming.

    Ellie....you could not be more correct!! (none / 0) (#102)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:03:31 PM EST


    Parent
    The really smart thing to do? (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by fctchekr on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:57:32 PM EST
    Honestly we don't need Republican Fear Mongering, we've got a candidate who's already eroding Democratic ideals. And you suggest the rest of us should vote for him anyway because the change that never was, that has now turned on Democratic principles, will change once he's elected??

    Go fish!

    "the change that never was" (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by abfabdem on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:59:29 PM EST
    that encapsulates what an Obama presidency would be!

    Parent
    Feingold's been saying "Obama will correct (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:00:49 PM EST
    tsome of the worst provisions" of the FISA biil.

    Who'll correct the rest of the worst provisions? You on that Russ, or will it have to wait until I'm in the other Wisconsin seat?

    Bwaaaah! (none / 0) (#111)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:14:15 PM EST
    2012 cannot come soon enough, Ben.

    Did I tell you that I could end up with Kohl's nephew as my state assemblyman?  There begin to be as many Kohls in politics as there are in the malls.

    Parent

    I knew he was running (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:17:31 PM EST
    but didn't know in which AD you reside.

    Parent
    I'm just a few blocks outside of (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:08:00 PM EST
    Senselessbrenner's district, thank heavens.  He was my Rep decades ago, when I lived to the west.  I fled a full county away, but he's stalking me. . . .

    I'll keep moving away from him, if I have to do so.:-)

    Parent

    Hmmm, do you think the Kohl kid (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:15:58 PM EST
    is planning on a few years in the state legislature before stepping to take Uncle Herb's seat?  At least the kid would have more experience after one day in politics than Uncle Herb did.

    Parent
    Is he gonna win the Assembly Primary? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:26:06 PM EST
    Have you picked who you like yet? Any hints on who I'd like? I went to the Assembly Candidates rollout a couple wsek ago, in my (hempleaf)Vote T shirt, met 20 odd candidates, but none from your District. Overall, I was pleased with the new blood. Only 1 wasn't ready to, on the record, commit to voting for medical marijuana legislation, and I can make sure he's thumped in the Primary (Northern Dane/Columbia Countries.)

    Parent
    I like Pasch (none / 0) (#128)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:05:40 PM EST
    who started running hard long before latecomer Kohl.  She ran so hard that she broke her ankle, and that may be reason for her not to get to events elsewhere -- or she may have had an event here, as there are many.

    And she still is knocking on doors, rolling up walks in her wheelchair and then getting on a cane to get up the stairs.  She's tough.  And she has worked hard for a lot of health care issues here, where they matter so much and cost the most in the country.  

    Kohl has come into it so late that I don't know much about him yet, other than that he worked for Uncle Herb's little business called the Bucks.  And he must have a lot of lower-case bucks, too.:-)

    Parent

    It's a bit amazing (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by lilburro on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:05:31 PM EST
    that few figures in the blogosphere or media have been able to hold together two points:  Obama gets away with too much, and McCain is really terrible for this country.  The sentiment that we shouldn't criticize Obama until he is elected is far too sheep-like for me.  God knows these hangups over criticizing the Dem nominee wouldn't be so prevalent if Hillary was the nominee.  And since it's generally agreed that they were basically the same issues-wise, WHAT IS THE BIG FRICKIN' DEAL???

    the presumptive nominee (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by andrys on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:09:29 PM EST
    As we sometimes remember, he's not even the nominee yet; he just has commitments from enough SDs to vote for him in late August when the vote's actually taken, and by the rules SDs can change their minds at any time in either direction for any reason they feel important for the party.

    Parent
    And of course that's why DNC wants no roll call (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by andrys on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:10:57 PM EST
     -- not even to record the first really serious vote for a woman.  Perhaps that's not properly "historic" to them.  But it's also that they're afraid that events could bring a situation in which she might get too many votes that day.  Certainly Obama worries about it.

    Parent
    So when di he tell you (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:06:30 PM EST
    the confession that he would rewrite and just wanted to get the Republicans off balance.

    I have never, in all politics, seen so many people who read minds like everyone seems to be doing in re to Obama's head thinking and meaning.

    Just a bunch of rationalizing and explaining trying to not face reality.

    Get over it! He lied.

    Ah, a wafting breeze (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:11:23 PM EST
    from a breath of fresh air again.  I begin to think fondly of a Straight-Talk Express!  If only we had the straight-talking candidate still.  It beats being carried along in this Mental Pretzel Parade.

    Parent
    I've no doubt he'll support SOME (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:15:21 PM EST
    rewrite of the recently passed statute. The fight will be over how much. I'm betting on Feingold to win more than half, by pulling in some Republicans.

    Parent
    Don't bet anything (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:10:24 PM EST
    worth actual money.

    Parent
    He'll be different when he is sworn in. (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by DeanOR on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:40:14 PM EST
    Except that he has already sworn as a U.S. Senator to defend the Constitution. As I heard on NPR on the way home, according to an interviewee whose name I didn't get, his campaign thinks his base will "get over it" and they have nowhere to go anyway.

    Isn't it time to change the tpm on that one? (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:48:07 PM EST
    It doesn't get any less ridiculous, and I'm bored.  Cluelessness is annoying, but repeated cluelessness is tedious.

    Evil Willow:  Bored now.

    Parent

    Fresh Air today (none / 0) (#147)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:42:09 PM EST
    if anyone is wondering.

    And yes, in the final five minutes of the interview, he really does use the words "get over it".  I have no idea why they keep using that phrase.  

    (Small side track:  Talking with a conservative friend of mine.  He says he has to correct people who think Bush is a conservative and a run of the mill Republican.  "Bush isn't a conservative!  He's not a mainstream Republican!" he exclaims.

    The thought came to me days later.  So WHY did he vote for this not-conservative/not-Republican?)

    Parent

    Who'll fight FISA? (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by DeanOR on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:00:42 PM EST
    I sent some Obama money to aclu.com. :) They welcome contributions in any amount. They have already initiated a suit challenging the constitutionality of the new FISA law. When I'm clear that my State's electoral votes will not go to McCain, I'll cast a 3rd party protest vote, but that feels so negligible. It's much more empowering to unleash the ACLU attack dogs.

    I am sorry I came late to this thread. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by methuselas baby on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:05:33 PM EST
    I was dealing with a huge research mistake I made before writing a diary at DK (ow, Jesus, freaking ow).

    What Ms. Cox said sums up the thoughts of a lot of people, including myself.  I never imagined a world in which I would find reasons to flee the United States.  I love this country.  I love my home.  I love the United States Constitution.  If the Constitution is taken as a suggestion our legislators can fix at any given moment, and the new monarchical powers of the executive branch are passed on to McWorse, then I am on a plane out of here.  Goodbye lifetime of work.  Goodbye beautiful countryside.  Goodbye you poor misguided sot, Senator Obama.

    I hope he didn't blow it, and that he wins.  If he loses, then he deserves to.  We, the people, do not deserve the fallout he helped bring us.
    I will never forget.

    What makes you think he's (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:28:43 PM EST
    gonna "fix it" once he gets to be pres. Because he says so? When was the last time he said something and then changed...even at its most basic level (forget FISA for th moment), no press with my children, okay press with my children, no more press with my children! Where do you draw the line.

    I love this country. (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by methuselas baby on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:00:15 PM EST
    My father was blacklisted as a communist because his father supplied American arms to the Cuban communists during the revolution.  My grandfather was investigated for murdering Federal Agents who boarded his boat (no evidence was found, and I'd like to think he didn't do it).  I grew up in poverty because of Senator McCarthy.  My life has been very difficult as a result of things I had nothing to do with.

    The Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (God, I hope I got that right) will put into motion a policy that closely mirrors the same principles for which men such as Fidel Castro have been condemned.  The correlations between Soviet thinking and current thinking in the United States blow my mind.

    I am not a Communist, and never have been.  The policies of the administration, therefore, are to me incredibly repugnant.  Freedom, as defined under the Constitution of the United States, stood in sharp contrast to what is happening today.  I came to this thread because I believe my voice, however small and insignificant, matters.

    I never intend to insult or offend anyone, and if something I said in this thread did that, then my sincerest apologies are in order.  I have been reading here for a few months.  I am dirt poor, so I have only had Internet connections intermittently.  I only mean to try to express how I feel about something that I care deeply about.

    I don't know what else to say.

    Methuselasbaby, you're fine (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:16:37 PM EST
    The scolding wasn't meant for you.

    I'm a "red diaper" baby myself, although nobody in my immediate family suffered for it the way yours did.  My uncle was, though, labled a "premature anti-fascist" by the government for fighting in the Spanish Civil War and barred from the military in WWII and had his right to vote and travel taken away from him for years after he got back.  (So he opened a pet store in Greenwich Village, go figure!)

    I sympathize with your anguish.  I was there myself back in 2000, seriously investigating emigration to New Zealand or Canada.  Turned out I was too old and didn't have the right skills for emigration, so I compromised and moved to the Vermont countryside.

    Please don't go away, and keep typing here.  Your voice is valuable and you have a unique perspective.


    Parent

    As others have stated (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:19:16 PM EST
    My comment was not directed at you.

    Your story is an interesting one though, so the error was in our favor. Thanks for sharing.

    Parent

    That comment wasn't directed at you. (none / 0) (#158)
    by halstoon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:50:58 PM EST
    It was directed at me. If you ever wonder if someone's is referencing you, you can click 'parent' on their comment and it will tell to whom they were responding.

    Your comment didn't offend me, the person you replied to. I appreciate your willingness to share your genuine thoughts on the issue; that's why we're all here, supposedly.

    That's quite a history you have. I admit that I don't know anyone living outside the US, don't talk internationally, and certainly don't discuss anything the NSA would find interesting. That doesn't mean I don't believe in the Constitution or the Fourth Amendment, because I do. I just happen to believe that Armando and others like him have made way too much out of this issue, and I agree with people like Kirsten Powers (who's referenced in another thread) who say the netroots have been to quick to abandon Obama over what is at the end of the day a very esoteric issue that most Americans are not concerned with.

    Thanks for engaging me. I look forward to 'seeing' you around.

    Parent

    Good grief. (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by pie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:56:35 PM EST
    who say the netroots have been to quick to abandon Obama over what is at the end of the day a very esoteric issue that most Americans are not concerned with.

    Look.  We're all part of the netroots.  Some of us have never supported Obama.

    Please don't pretend that FISA is the only dealbreaker.

    It's not.

    Parent

    In world history, 'parties' have taken over by (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by andrys on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:15:26 PM EST
    emotional pressures such as you're using here.  Certainly you see it just before totalitarian governments take over.

      "Correct thinking"  "Correct talk"  "Are you really with us or against us?" etc.

      The U.S. was supposed to be different.  Freedom of thought, expression, etc.

    the short answer BTD, (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by cpinva on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:35:44 PM EST
    I do not make that argument because my goal is to see if all of us together can maybe, just a smidgen,  make Obama better,

    *emphasis mine.

    is no, we can't. he is what he is. you don't marry someone, thinking you'll improve them, unless you're very foolish. by the same token, you don't elect someone, hoping they'll improve, unless you enjoy being disappointed.

    myself, i have no illusions about the good sen.; he's just another politician, looking to get elected. unfortunately, he's not even a very good normal politician. he may have succeeded in bamboozling the "intelligentsia" and the young'uns, but us boring realists never were taken in by him.

    I'm no fan of McCain, (4.85 / 7) (#150)
    by ChrisO on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:48:28 PM EST
    but what I find so amusing is that the same Obama fanboys (and girls) who are ready to forgive him anything because "Guess what,he's running for President" are the same people who ridicule McCain for pandering to the right. Who's to say that McCain actually believes many of the things he says to the right wing? Maybe, like Obama, he can be trusted to "do the right thing," regardless of what he says while campaigning. Apparently, it doesn't matter what a candidate says, as long as we know in our hearts he'll do what we want when he's elected. I guess this will be a faith-based election.

    As a side note, a great example of the up is downism (to use the late Josh Marshall's phrase) spewed by Obama supporters is the insistence that his supporters never said he was special, or transcendent. That was all an invention of the MSM. Apparently all of those supporters swooning and crying at his speeches were hard headed realists, who saw Obama as just incrementally better than the other candidates. Who knew?

    For a mind-blowing set of illustrations (none / 0) (#188)
    by andrys on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:24:08 PM EST
    visit the site that documents these.

    Parent
    There are no good choices in November (1.00 / 1) (#199)
    by tdraicer on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:37:43 AM EST
    We have the choice of 4 years of a Wingnut or 4 years of a faux progressive followed in all probability by 8 or 12 years of other Wingnuts. An appalling choice, that should leave us all asking How did we get here? and How do we avoid this in the future? (Not treating any primary candidate as the Messiah would be a start.)

    Larry, how do you like Cox's (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:42:34 PM EST
    way of dealing w/Sen. Obama's flaws?

    What's up with this? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:44:12 PM EST
    Larry has to respond to all of my posts?

    Parent
    Only the ones in which you critique (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:48:51 PM EST
    Sen. Obama and only if he chooses.

    Parent
    Now see (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:59:27 PM EST
    I was just busting your chops.

    For the record, Larry and I are actually good internet friends and have argued over beers on a few occasions.

    Larry and Jay Elias are two of the few people from blog world who I know in real life and still like.

    Parent

    And I'll also point out. . . (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:01:10 PM EST
    that we're two of the people least likely to let you get away with stuff.

    I miss all those dKos folks.  There were some really nice folks there, but the whole thing got tainted with the anti-Clinton madness.

    Parent

    Never let me get away with even one (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:02:27 PM EST
    Ever.

    Parent
    DKos didn't "get tainted" (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by Nadai on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:05:03 PM EST
    I loathe passive voice for stuff like this.  A good chunk of the people at DKos chose to become unmitigated a$$holes.  Wanted to become unmitigated a$$holes.  Gloried in becoming unmitigated a$$holes.  "Get tainted" sounds like someone else spiked their Kool-Aid with extract of CDS and they innocently drank it.  That's not what happened.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#71)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:07:51 PM EST
    if you ever come back to NYC again, I will be happy to argue with you over beers, although I can't guarantee that you will be able to add a third name to that list!

    Parent
    Steve (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:10:57 PM EST
    You'd fit right in.

    Phil (Lipris) is another good guy for it.

    We have fun when we do it.

    It's been a while. Maybe in August unless you guys do the beach thing then.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:15:55 PM EST
    we are going down the shore next week, so I should pretty much be around in August.  Although it's possible we will spend a few weeks stuck in return traffic!

    Parent
    Bustin chops: (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:28:54 PM EST
    To "bust someone's chops" is, as the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang puts it, to "harass by the forcible exertion of one's authority," often by insisting on obedience to pointless rules or orders. Army recruits, for example, assigned by their sergeant to clean their barracks using only toothbrushes, are having their "chops busted." The phrase is of relatively recent origin, first appearing in print only in the 1950's. "Chops" in this case probably harks back to its original 16th century slang meaning of "mouth" or "lips," a "bust in the chops" being the equivalent of a punch in the mouth.

    You were previously bustin Larry's chops, not mine.  

    But, are you sure Larry doesn't mind being id'd as your personal friend?  Jay got quite piqued w/me about that.

    Parent

    I don't mind. (none / 0) (#177)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:00:43 PM EST
    The way things are going, I could use all the friends I got!

    Parent
    Oh, I think you've redeemed yourself (none / 0) (#180)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:03:39 PM EST
    today.  But, here's the question.  I'll be in Manhattan in Nov.  You guys want to join me at the opera?

    Parent
    What Opera, doc? (none / 0) (#181)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:07:01 PM EST
    I'd be interested.  I'm more of an operetta person myself, but we all need to stretch ourselves.

    Parent
    I'm planning to see these two: (none / 0) (#187)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:23:45 PM EST
    November 14: La Damnation de Faust [Berlioz] 8:00 PM
    November 15: Madama Butterfly [Puccini]8:00 PM [This production was designed by Minghella, who directed The English Patient; the young boy is played by a rod puppet; sold out last time, with tickets on E-Bay!]  

    Tickets don't go on sale until this Fall, however.  

    Parent

    Oh, plus South Pacific Wed. night, (none / 0) (#190)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:47:54 PM EST
    Nov. 12, at Lincoln Center.

    Parent
    Now, THAT I want to see. . . (none / 0) (#191)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:48:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Great Ben Brantley review in NYT. (none / 0) (#192)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:54:49 PM EST
    Tickets on sale now.  But, no guarantee the initial leads will still be on board.

    Parent
    See. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:54:17 PM EST
    People want balance.

    Parent
    no they dont (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:56:55 PM EST
    they just say they do

    Parent
    Balance (none / 0) (#80)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:25:19 PM EST
    Here's what people get with balance.

    Parent
    I was refering to this portion of Ms. Cox's (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:51:19 PM EST
    diatribe:

    I'm probably going to vote for Obama, okay; I do not have to like it. I do not have believe that his awesomeness creates amnesia.


    Parent
    It seems to me (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by pie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:53:13 PM EST
    that Ana Marie is doing the same thing BTD has been doing.

    I'll bet she caught it from him!!!!

    Oh, noes!!!

    Parent

    BTD is a much, much better predictor (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:55:23 PM EST
    of Presidential election results than Ms. Cox.

    Parent
    I'll take your word for it, (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by pie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:00:38 PM EST
    since I don't read her.

    He's been right so far, not that that's been a good thing.

    We'll see how right he continues to be.

    Parent

    Heh. (none / 0) (#15)
    by pie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:44:37 PM EST


    Parent
    As expressed in the snippet. . . (none / 0) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:45:01 PM EST
    quoted, her views are pretty much my own.  Except I'll definitely be voting for Obama.

    Parent
    Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:46:49 PM EST
    Either you think I am better at critiquing Obama than Cox and thus can cause him more harm or you are just busting my chops.

    Parent
    Nope. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:53:39 PM EST
    I've only read one snippet of Cox's stuff, and that specifically indicates that she's voting for Obama.  Is she like this 24/7?  Or even 18/6?

    Plus, of course, Cox's job is to be a columnist, not a partisan Democrat.  She isn't published by an organization whose stated goal is to elect Obama.  If you ever want to give up the role of partisan Democrat I think you'd make a fine independent analyst.  But, as far as I understand it, that isn't what you're trying to do now.

    Finally, I certainly don't think you're any worse at critiquing Obama than Cox is.

    Parent

    It's not my job (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:55:08 PM EST
    to be a partisan Democrat either.

    Parent
    Only the most died-in-the-wool. . . (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:57:51 PM EST
    partisan Democrat could possibly have supported Freddy Ferrer for mayor.  And guess what?  Only the most died-in-the-wool partisan Democrats did!

    Seriously, I asked you last night if you were writing as a let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may issues-only advocate.  I don't think you answered.  If so, then there's nothing wrong with your approach.

    Parent

    Larry, Larry, Larry (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:03:10 PM EST
    Why must you be so morbid?  It's DYED in the wool :)

    Parent
    Sorry, it's that darned. . . (none / 0) (#66)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:05:21 PM EST
    Ngaio Marsh novel, I guess.

    Parent
    Touche (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:01:07 PM EST
    I plead personal relationship there. I knew Freddie pretty well.

    Parent
    Who knew? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by pie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:57:43 PM EST
    Plus, of course, Cox's job is to be a columnist, not a partisan Democrat.

    Of course, the job of every columnist is to be a columnist.  Just ask David Brooks, Richard Cohen Kathleen Parker, Robert Novak, Cal Thomas, Maureen Dowd...

    shall I continue?

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:57:11 PM EST
    Don't you think all of these defenses of Obama's flip flops are hurting him by keeping the story in the news?

    Parent
    I think Obama's flip-flops (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:58:53 PM EST
    are hurting him -- at least his flip-flop on FISA, but he's certainly getting a lot of help from folks ostensibly on his side.

    Parent
    I love LarryInNYC's fantasy about (none / 0) (#79)
    by WillBFair on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:24:54 PM EST
    independent analysts being emplyed by commercial media. Judging by how the vast majority of journalists and reporters repeat the party line, I would say they're ordered what to spin by their editors. The very few allowed to disagree slightly give the illusion that commercial media hires anyone except snale oil salesmen.
    http://a-civilife.blogspot.com

       

    I doubt that (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Pol C on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:12:37 PM EST
    They're hired because they reflect the prevailing point of view and/or aren't inclined to challenge it much when the heat is on. These people are selected because they're go-along-to-get-along by nature. I've never seen an employer who was impressed by a maverick temperament on the part of a prospective employee.

    Parent
    What if (none / 0) (#121)
    by Nadai on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:59:14 PM EST
    you're wrong?

    fight the good fight, eh? good luck. ;o) (none / 0) (#138)
    by halstoon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:23:18 PM EST


    You know (none / 0) (#146)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:38:55 PM EST
    Hertzberg could have just kept his mouth shut, and then there'd be no need to revisit this issue.  

    And a host of others (none / 0) (#148)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:47:40 PM EST


    Parent
    My goal is to get you to realize that this issue (none / 0) (#161)
    by halstoon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:59:19 PM EST
    is not worth abandoning Obama over. I understand that you guys are upset with Obama, but is it really worth pretending he's a total fraud over?

    The netroots have taken this one issue and tried to paint Obama as the ultimate flip-flopper on it. If the anger were only focused on FISA, it would be one thing, but you've created a meme here where Obama is the ultimate shifter, moving away from his primary campaign in a desperate attempt to be president, and that is simply not true. Not only is it not true, but on FISA Barack came out and made it very clear why he made his choice and how he hoped to address the issue down the road.

    While he may be the nominee, he is not the most powerful Democrat, so to expect him to move Heaven & Earth and expend any and all political capital he may have had over this one issue of telecom immunity was never realistic. He made the best choice he could as he saw it. He would've liked for Dodd's amendment to pass, but it wasn't going to, and Barack felt like making this compromise was better than essentially scrapping all surveillance. Agree or disagree, but there is no reason to smear his character or try to harpoon his campaign over this rather petty issue.

    Abandoning? (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:01:58 PM EST
    Here is a thought for you - you can criticize someone and still vote for them.

    Indeed, you SHOULD. Sheesh. What kind of a sheep are you?

    Parent

    Petty? (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:12:54 PM EST
    Even someone who has been known to argue that a lot of Americans might not regard FISA as the most important issue will be quick to point out those same Americans will invariably have a strong opinion about it.

    Parent
    The NY Times did their expose on this issue (none / 0) (#170)
    by halstoon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:19:22 PM EST
    in what, December '06? So where is the flood of strong feelings?

    Second, even if we assume most Americans would have very strong feelings on the issue, what would such a lopsided vote in the Congress tell us about the issue? Would it not indicate that Americans by and large support the program? Did all those Democrats just spit in the faces of all their constituents? Other than the blogosphere, where is the outcry from the average person??

    When you explain to people that the gov't tracks international phone calls in which the foreign entity has been identified as a potential terrorist, they are in favor of it. Period. Which is why the bill passed by a 3-1 margin.

    Parent

    It's two years later (none / 0) (#174)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:30:41 PM EST
    And it's not going to be a flood, no.

    All I can say is that everytime I meet someone who I think wouldn't care about a "constitutional crisis", they invariably know more about it than I thought they did, they have an opinion, and no that doesn't always mean I think it's the right opinion.

    The constitution is an American document.  A foundation document.  People care about America.  


    Parent

    I love that (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:18:54 PM EST
    this "one petty issue" of the 4th amendment.  Is this the change we have been waiting for?

    Halstoon, I never liked this guy much to begin with, and instead of winning me over even grudgingly, he's just getting worse and worse.


    Parent

    There's no reason for Obama's Yea vote (none / 0) (#175)
    by andrys on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:44:26 PM EST
    If he promised to filibuster it, there is no good reason to vote YES on it when *56%( of Democrat senators had the proper audacity to do that.  Instead of 'leadership' or 'teaching' or principle, instead we get this from Obama.  

    So, who even knows what the guy really thinks about anything, or how important it would be if he would cower and not do the right thing (according to those who brought him to the dance precisely because of his promises and call for no more old politics of pandering or voting based on fear)?

    56% of Dem senators voted NAY (none / 0) (#176)
    by andrys on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:46:15 PM EST
    That's a correction of my note above.  He was in the minority voting Yea after promising to 'lead' a filibuster.

      This just may be too representative of how he operates, both when wanting the office and when in.  No one knows, but it doesn't look good.

    Parent

    Obama is Hilary (none / 0) (#194)
    by yourkidding on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:27:58 PM EST
    Hilalry voted for the war because she would have been crucified as 'weak' had she not.
    Obama gave a speech against the war before he got into the Senate, AND then he voted for each & every bill to keep the war going, just as Cliniton did. Anyone think O was a flip-flopper?Never even whispered.
    Now,Hertzberg & other cynics say we just have to 'understand' Obama is running for Pres! Don't we get it???
    I know if I live long enough Hertz & all the ever=so=bright pundits will just stop talking about Obama, just let him slip out of  their consciousness, like the whole thing never happened. Apologize? That's a laugh.

    Another mind reader, apparently (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:56:52 PM EST
    "Hilalry voted for the war because she would have been crucified as 'weak' had she not."

    Parent
    Whatever her reason. . . (none / 0) (#204)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:48:03 AM EST
    for voting for the AUMF, it wasn't a good one.  I find it most likely (and prefer to believe) that she did it for political reasons -- I don't like to think she actually thought it was a good idea.

    If we want to slag off Obama maniacs for their apparent amnesia when it comes to his previous position on FISA (and I, for one, am all in favor of it) it's probably not a great idea to engage in amnesia about Clinton's failings.

    Parent

    Amen (none / 0) (#196)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:54:53 PM EST


    great blogs on www.counterpunch.com (none / 0) (#205)
    by suzieg on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:34:17 AM EST
    www.counterpunch.com/whitney07112008.html
    Worse than McCain? Delusions about Obama

    www.counterpuch.com/shor07122008.html
    The audacity of Hype

    www.counterpunch.com/kafoury07122008.html
    After the Obama betrayal

    On Hertzberg's Defense Of Obama's Flip Flop On FISA | 189 comments (189 topical)