Sunday Night Blog Fights

It's a diarist over at Daily Kos vs. Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher.

What started it: This post by Jane at HuffPo suggesting progressives align with libertarians to defeat the health care bill. [More...]

There is an enormous, rising tide of populism that crosses party lines in objection to the Senate bill. We opposed the bank bailouts, the AIG bonuses, the lack of transparency about the Federal Reserve, "bailout" Ben Bernanke, and the way the Democrats have used their power to sell the country's resources to secure their own personal advantage, just as the libertarians have. In fact, we've worked together with them to oppose these things. What we agree on: both parties are working against the interests of the public, the only difference is in the messaging.

...time and again, we're told "Obama retains his popularity with liberals" and that "screeching liberal bloggers" aren't having an impact. Nobody seems to notice that the "screeching liberal bloggers" are reflecting the very same sentiments of the vast majority of the country, whether the very small segment of the population who self-identify as "extremely liberal" holds the President responsible or no.

The Dkos diarist writes if you lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. I think he's confusing "teabaggers" and the radical right with libertarians. I think that's painting with too broad a brush. Liberal alliances with libertarians are nothing new. Many progressives are libertarians on many issues.

In 1994-95, when defense lawyers mobilized to defeat Newt Gingrich's Contract on America that would have eviscerated many of our constitutional rights, we teamed up with the Second Amendment groups. We did the same when we were pushing for forfeiture reform. Both efforts were successful.

I haven't made up my mind on the health care bill. I think the ship sailed long ago on a real reform bill and I'm not clear enough on the details of the new one, which apparently has the votes for passage. But if you are one who believes the health care reform bill is not reform, if you believe it is not better than what we have now, then you should be working towards its defeat. And you find your allies where you can. So I side with Jane.

As for the diarist's personal attacks on Jane, I think those ruin his post. Jane has never claimed to be a pied piper for liberals, she's just fighting her hardest for what she cares about and believes in. She's taken what began as a small blog and built it into a huge online community, filled with passionate writers and readers and intelligent discourse. That she's become a dominant voice and force in the progressive movement is the result of her hard work, and the diarist's snipes read like sour grapes to me.

< "Definitive" Book on Clinton, Monica and Whitewater | Martha Coakley's Bait and Switch on Abortion >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Very confused when it comes to (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 09:49:51 PM EST
    Libertarians and the radical right....very very confused.  People are really upset.  Jane has been our warrior on the health-care crisis, and her writings are a good place to vent if this is your last straw.  I may not always agree with her but it is very few times that I have disagreed with her in the health-care debate.  Obvious attempted hatchet job on Hamsher.  I'm sure a lot of daily Obama photo diarist wish she'd just vaporize :)

    That Orange diary is so ugly (none / 0) (#78)
    by shoephone on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 12:11:08 AM EST
    Most of the commenters behave like rude seven year olds. Scary to think that the place is supposed to be so in*flu*ential for the blue side.

    Tea Party activists and Libertarians (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Politalkix on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 09:55:57 PM EST
    Well, Jane Hamsher, herself writes
    "But in the very next breath, they will then promote statistics that say the tea parties are more popular than either the Democratic or the Republican party, and wonder if it's an opportune time for a third party candidate. (From the "right," of course, because who would take the "left" seriously.) At no time do the synapses firing in their brains make the connection that both the "lazy progressive bloggers" and the tea party activists are saying almost the exact same thing about the Senate bill"

    If Jane is using the word "tea party activists" and "libertarians" interchangeably, she may be the source of confusion, herself.

    I blame Punditstan for mis-applying labels ... (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Ellie on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:00:11 PM EST
    ... and slapping those around instead of doing actual research on actual events and talking to actual people.

    They prefer having on some feckin' eedge claiming to be channeling what Real People are thinking and feeling, but never leaving the TV studio.

    Then they're all confused and get in a bunch when the storyline gets out of whack and try to explain it retroactively.

    Boy, is that the truth! (none / 0) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:53:08 PM EST
    Example A on all of that is Chris Matthews.

    Real Dems and Blue Dogs (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:02:29 PM EST
    and President Snowe are a far more unholy alliance than what Hamsher suggests.  Politics is always all about coalitions -- big tents, if you will, but often really campgrounds of pup tents.  

    But the Nu Dem party today is the problematic coalition now making a mess of health care reform and even of health insurance reform.  If others form their own coalitions to fight the unholy Nu Dem coalition, fine.  Politics will be politics.

    The FPers, including Kos', position on the (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:04:08 PM EST
    current bill is much closer to Jane's than the diarist's. There was a time when Kos promoted the idea of finding common cause with the libertarians.

    While I don't always agree with all of Jane's strategies, she has worked tirelessly to get a decent health care bill. Jon Walker, Scarecrow and others on her blog have provided some of the best information on what was contained in the bills as they progressed and provided analysis of the ramifications of the provisions.

    All in all, I think her blog has done a great job on health care.

    Oh, I think Jane has very much wanted to (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:08:30 PM EST
    be a pied piper for liberals, and I think she has grown increasingly territorial about the whole exercise, routinely excoriating those who dare question the strategy, the tactics, the plan.

    I mean, seemingly out of the blue, Jane became a single-payer advocate, bar none; those who wondered where this new-found passion for single-payer came from were ripped new ones, and told she had "always" been a single-payer proponent.


    I don't doubt that Jane cares about these issues, but I also think Jane wants to be the go-to site, the pre-eminent expert, the one who runs the best on-line fund-raising initiatives, the one who gets called on to appear on TV, the one who pretty much runs the show.

    Yeah, she's worked hard, but she was also in the forefront of whipping something that was little more than a slogan: public option.  She whipped the crap out of something that had no definition, and for which there was no line in the sand.  She raised money for it - a lot of it.

    Let's not kid ourselves, please; Jane has interests that extend beyond the purity of health care reform, and if you think that's not so, just try challenging some of her pronouncements, and see how long it takes for you to get jumped.

    Jane Hamsher is a smart cookie, but make no mistake - she has her own agenda.

    Sure she does (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:20:25 PM EST
    She's a cancer survivor.  I have an agenda too in all of this.  When I was watching the Sopranos this morning the episode brought up Luvox and compulsions.  I wondered to myself if I needed some Luvox to stop thinking about health-care reform and then I looked at my son.....NOPE, there is no cure for life.

    Jane was a cancer survivor long before (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:36:32 PM EST
    this latest effort; in fact, I think if you go back into the archives, Jane's health was barely mentioned until her latest recurrence.  I would submit that health care was not her focus, she did not want to be identified with cancer, and not until health care came to the forefront did Jane begin using - yes, using - her own health history.

    Jane was at the forefront of lobbying for a robust public option when no one even knew what that meant, and she continued to flog it even though it was little more than an idea.

    I'm sorry, but her latest cause - single-payer - and her efforts to demean and trivialize the efforts of those who have been on the front lines of single-payer advocacy for a long, long time, all so she could shoot to the head of the line of pre-emininet advocates, just turned my stomach.

    Let's at least not make her into Saint Jane; she's quite focused on building a brand, and has been for a long, long time.


    I don't perceive her that way (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:38:19 PM EST
    I respectfully disagree

    If you can go back into the FDL (none / 0) (#27)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:47:29 PM EST
    archives, from long before Obama was elected, even before FDL was supporting Ned Lamont, from back in the days when FDL was just Jane and Christy and the odious TRex, and find any health-care advocacy, any mention of fighting for reform, I would be interested in knowing about it.

    I respect your opinion, Tracy, but you and I are going to have to disagree on this one.


    So her timing upsets you? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:48:43 PM EST
    Fair warning to the both of you (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:50:34 PM EST
    J is close friends with Jane and they have been close for a long time.

    J was there for Jane during a lot of that stuff, so tread carefully please.


    I know you're trying to be gallant, but everyone (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ellie on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:10:49 PM EST
    ... you've mentioned is a big girl and more than capable of taking / dishing it.

    I don't visit FDL much, but it has been a good HCR activism site.


    that's very true (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:33:00 PM EST
    I spent a week in CT with her while she underwent chemo for her latest (third) bout with breast cancer. I was there when claims denials came in from her health insurance company. To suggest she didn't care passionately about this issue before the current bill is just false.

    She cared enough about the Scooter Libby trial to delay the start of her chemo so she could attend it. She and FDL paid for a house for many of us bloggers to stay in (Marcy, Christy, me, Jane and more.) She never sought the limelight at the expense of others.

    Readers can disagree with her positions but you must do so within the comment rules, without  personal attacks.

    Thanks, BTD, for pointing that out. She is my friend and I have tremendous respect for her.


    There is nothing like a denial (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 08:09:12 AM EST
    when you are fighting for your life or the life of your child to mark you and drive you harder than anything else you will ever know in this life.  To know that there is hope, there is a chance, there are possibilities for you.....but the answer is NO for you because someone wants a profit and someone wants a bonus is the most efffed up thing I've ever dealt with.  I did not know that Jane had a file of personal insurance denials, but I figured that she did.  I have always attributed her razor focus and no time for small talk to that assumption.

    IIRC (none / 0) (#88)
    by hollyfromca on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 12:50:12 PM EST
    One of the denials was payment for her ultrasound that actually diagnosed her breast cancer for the third time.  I don't remember the time frame, so I can't search the archives.  If that wasn't it, it was something equally jaw dropping.

    We're only discussing (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:52:59 PM EST
    Good to know, BTD, and I certainly mean (none / 0) (#49)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:00:47 PM EST
    no disrespect to the friendship, nor would I discount or minimize the personal effects of battling cancer.

    I think I will henceforth refrain from further comments on Jane Hamsher.


    Good for you to refrain (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:35:12 PM EST
    because I just deleted your next nasty comment about Jane. You've made your point that you don't like her. You can disagree with what she writes but personal attacks are not allowed, and you are just repeating yourself.

    Maybe nothing (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:02:06 PM EST
    Just thought you would like to know.

    We need more Jane's out there (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 08:04:01 AM EST
    fighting for the liberal side.

    She is the fighter we're so sorely lacking these days. Even bigger, she's a doer. Wish more blogs would put actions behind their words.

    Much of your criticisms are what I see as welcome strengths. Let her be one of the leading voices. She dares to challenge. We need so much more of that.


    Hilarious stuff (5.00 / 10) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:12:28 PM EST
    Gawd knows I have had my differences with Jane over the years, but to me the funniest thing is the "you signed a letter with who!" stuff.

    For crissakes, Obama had Rick Warren do the invocation at his inauguration and we were all told to be quiet about that. It was just "reaching out."

    The O-bot-ness of it all is too too funny.

    Also (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:20:32 PM EST
    I will note again that my departure from Daily Kos was going to make it the nicest, most civil place ever.

    How'd that work out again?


    It did become rather dull and boring. (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:34:52 PM EST
    It lost at least 20 I.Q. points instantly (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:36:43 PM EST
    For some that is dull and boring

    And Armando became: (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:40:28 PM EST
    "As usual, . . . more analytical and calm"

    I think that is finally (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:44:07 PM EST
    pretty accurate.

    thanks J.


    You're welcome :) (none / 0) (#69)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:36:30 PM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:45:30 PM EST
    He rolled into lawyer town, and Jeralyn and he have very good co-blogging chemistry.  It is more of a results oriented blog.  When I started reading him over here and started reading the commenters on this blog I suddenly thought that I could learn something useful here :)

    And how did that work out for you? (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:53:39 PM EST
    Erm......Ezra Yglesias doesn't know what (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:57:49 PM EST
    he's talking about.  And baby needs new shoes!

    Why is the blogger feeding Politico anonymous (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Ellie on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:41:34 PM EST
    ... to get the word out? S/he's got a fricken blog.

    I did like this part of the quoted letter, though: "Important thought-leaders like Paul Krugman ... "



    I did not read anything in detail (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:43:42 PM EST
    So I really do not know what you are referring to.

    I love Jon walker at FDL though. He's done a great job on the policy issues.


    JH's post at HuffiPron quotes a letter to Politico (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ellie on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:51:59 PM EST
    ... (Ben Smith) written by an "anonymous blog denizen".

    Why does a blogger have to write an anonymous letter to make a point or get out a message?

    I mean ... OH COME ON.


    No idea (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:57:05 PM EST
    Not interested enough to figure it out.

    My point is that it's some WH or Sen aide leaking (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ellie on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:34:18 PM EST
    ... Politico's way and being granted cover.

    Why would a "liberal blog denizen" need to write an anonymous letter?

    (I don't follow blog-fights, allegiances, or care about identities anyway.)


    Yup (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:17:42 PM EST
    An excuse to link racist imagery to FDL (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Ellie on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:17:37 PM EST
    ... and do a takedown in advance of the Senate vote(s)?

    No excuse for that Clinton / Lieberman blackface, which was over and done with already. (It was a two-fer linking Whiny Joe to Al Jolson's The Jazz Singer).

    All that other racist cr@p is just an excuse to run, well, all that racist cr@p during Health Care Voting week and attempt to put Jane / FDL on the hook for it.

    But both sides are wrong (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Pacific John on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:32:46 PM EST
    ...about who the populists are who are abandoned in all of this. They aren't the white male upper income dKos/MoveOn demo, nor are they whoever Jane thinks the libertarians are.

    They are working class voters and women, all of whom are barely represented in the debate among DC elites.

    Whoever figures out that they should appeal to the base of the party, and to the bulk of unrepresented voters who want traditional Democratic populists policies, will be on to something.

    Polling consistently shows that both parties ignore the voters on social programs, and I'm hoping the DP pays for it. We know the GOP is evil, but to be betrayed by our own side is too much.

    Why stop there? (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Steve M on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:39:44 PM EST
    Why not just point out that people trying to kill the bill are making common cause with Republicans.  Why not point out that people trying to stop the Iraq War are making common cause with Saddam Hussein.  I don't know what the point is to these pie fights.  If someone wants to oppose the bill, they should oppose it.  Personally I support it.

    STFU (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:42:41 PM EST
    You sellout O-bot corporate shill . . .

    BTW J (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:46:52 PM EST
    how is this Colorado News, you Hamsher-bot, Obama hating, PUMA shill . . .

    I'm joking for those who do not know.


    my mistake on the category (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:38:18 PM EST
    It should be blog related, they are one apart on the dropdown list. I'll change it. Thanks.

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Steve M on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:56:32 PM EST
    I have not seen a statement from Hillary on the health care bill.

    We should start a rumor that she opposes it.


    I figure No Quarter (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:57:50 PM EST
    has that covered already.

    evil (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:59:39 PM EST
    anonymous source

    And she refused to talk to the Duquesne (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:06:15 PM EST
    Univ. law prof. re Monica.  What is happening?

    heh (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:46:05 PM EST
    that's also in the spirit of this thread.

    It is quicker and easier to demonize (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:48:03 PM EST
    someone than to debate legislation on it's merit. You don't have to know what is in the legislation. You don't have to analysis the possible ramifications either. All you have to do is find the correct derogatory label to assign to the person who does not share your views.



    Hear Hear! (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:50:14 PM EST
    In the spirit of this thread, (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:45:02 PM EST
    I want to say that I thought about something you wrote last week (can't find the link), and I think you're right. I too often express too much certainty about things that are unknowable.

    I think to a large extent that's essential to internet punditry (aka w@nkery), but it's not very constructive.


    And why not point out people against (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:48:26 PM EST
    U.S. forces being in Afghanistan are in league with Mikhail Gorbachev?

    It's funny cuz (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:49:12 PM EST
    it's true . . .

    Evil as you are, I refrain from (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:50:34 PM EST
    hitting that "1" button.

    I;ve been punished enough today (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:58:50 PM EST
    Lost my FFL playoff game. WOULD HAVE beaten the team I ducked by throwing the last regular season game.

    Should make you happy.


    Punished by the public ethicist. Poor you. (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:01:13 PM EST
    Not too late to recoup by betting on Tiger Woods divorce settlement though.

    Hey, your loss was only a fantasy loss (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:14:13 PM EST
    and I live in Packerland.  Don't talk to us about losing . . . literally at the very last minute.

    And on the eve of the shortest day of the year, too.  Ain't no solace on this solstice.  I can't wait until Tuesday.  Whee!  Another minute of daylight in SADland, the ground zero of Seasonal Affective Disorder.


    I challenge you to a duel (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:21:18 PM EST
    on the location of Greater SADville!


    a moldy, gray Seattleite


    Ha. I'll raise you two mocha lattes (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:44:32 PM EST
    with extra saccharine. In our house, we all noticed today the need for sugar.  We made caramel pecan sticky buns from scratch and were scarfing them like mad.  My progeny had extended debate about the relative merits of Mambo bars vs. Skittles, and the one on crutches said she was ready to crawl to the store for the former for her sweet cravings today.

    It is that time of year when we wish we were bears and could just crawl into our caves and hibernate until the daylight lasts at least an hour longer.  I am starting to have my annual dreams of daffodils wafting in warm spring breezes in the SUNSHINE!


    Caramel pecan! Yummy! (none / 0) (#77)
    by shoephone on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 12:07:43 AM EST
    And I made... a fruit salad.

    I think I'd better go eat some chocolate, now that I'm so envious. I don't know what Mambo bars are -- do they dance?

    We did get sunshine for about 20 minutes today. Then back to rain. I should not complain about this: Two weeks ago the temperatures were down into the teens.


    Love carmel sticky buns (none / 0) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 12:14:59 AM EST
    But aren't Packers' fans happy (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:19:38 PM EST
    the Vikings lost big?

    Not (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:51:20 PM EST
    Now we're Communists too?

    Why the hell not? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:59:30 PM EST
    Better than racists.

    Well you're right about that :) (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:00:42 PM EST
    Backing away slowly. . . (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:01:12 PM EST
    In the spirit of this thread. (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:07:21 PM EST
    Here's an alternative amusement:  KUSC FM is broadcasting an old recording of Hansel and Gretl.

    I just got a new dog (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:23:42 PM EST
    I really liked her a year ago when another breeder around here got her.  He is moving so called me last week to see if I was interested in her. She is a sable, usually a coat you see more in Germany but more of them here now finally.  Her name is Gretel.

    Who minds all your canine's while you (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:26:09 PM EST
    and Josh are in Charleston?

    A local kennel that is also a member of (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:37:12 PM EST
    our kennel club.  I used to have housesitters but they moved.  It is good for my dogs to go elsewhere though, be handled by others, and be around many other dogs.  They really must have impeccable manners because if you have a dog that bites another dog for ANY reason or ANY person at a dogshow for ANY reason, that's it.  The dog will be banned from all show sites by the AKC, and sometimes the owner too.  You don't even want your dog to growl at another dog, though sometimes if two males are standing next to each other and they get a little snitty we can all overlook that.  Nobody had better make a serious move though....ever.  And if your dog nips at a judge or even pulls away from a judge.....just hang it up, the judge will write them off as having an undesireable disposition, not wanted in the gene pool.  I took three in last week for rabies shots, all at the same time.  The waiting room was full of little dogs all having a fit at each other but my dogs know the rules, they were all three laying at my feet.  When we got in for the shots the vet was laughing about how impressed everyone was with them.  But it is just working with them, socialzing them, praising them but also drawing the line with them too.  They are like kids.....only much easier :)

    Interesting, in light of your earlier (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:39:36 PM EST
    comments about Christmas trip and grandkids!  This is not a criticism as I have neither pets nor grandchildren.

    Heh...my dogs are my choice :) (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 08:32:44 AM EST
    I did not get to choose to be a NaNa :)  When I could not work anymore....or can't at least until Joshua needs me less (perhaps after he has grown enough that we won't be making the bi-yearly San Antonio trip) maybe then I can get a job. But I must have a project. I don't like being a homemaker (I hate it and I'm not good at it either because I have no passion for it).  If it's clean and sorted that's all anyone needs to conquer important things.  I have always loved Shepherds though since childhood and we have always had a couple, and when I was a kid I took my dogs through 4H programs.  I'm very competetive, I expected my dog to win any obedience event we ever entered.  It is very ingrained in me now, so even if I'm not specifically working with a dog on obedience training....it still happens.  Also, if you have one well trained dog and this dog gets approval from you for being a delight to live with....it literally teaches your other dogs.  Working with dogs to maintain correct conformation to the standard is a lot more time consuming, I always thought to be involved in something like that was for my retirement years.  It's sort of like the horse ranch dream. But I have a lot of home time now so they are my project that helps me not fret all day about Joshua and the things that I can't control.  They keep me more balanced in this mothering thing to, or else I will over mother him and drive both of us out of our tree.  I don't think that it is healthy for me or daughter though when I attempt mothering Josh, tending to Zoey's terrible twos and Naomi's colic :)  My daughter has a different parenting style and when I'm around we clash on that.

    please take this to an open thread (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 12:54:01 AM EST

    sorry J, I didn"t see this (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 08:33:39 AM EST
    Look at Al Giordano (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:09:00 PM EST
    He's teaching lessons on effective activism based on his wildly successful work for Zelaya in Honduras.

    Oy (none / 0) (#56)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:10:07 PM EST
    Have I mentioned that I value my sanity too much to read Al?

    I love Al (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:12:00 PM EST
    I really do. ESPECIALLY when he is critiquing activists.

    I find him a hoot.


    You've mentioned (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:13:27 PM EST
    I see her as an unapologetic fighter (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:10:55 PM EST
    right now, and I'm okay with that on this issue at this time.  Being anything less than that has not garnered us any great results.  I wouldn't take anything she may have said that some might have found hurtful too much to heart.  She's just fighting her fight and she IS a fighter.  I have never met her personally, but I do think that when the dust settles on this fight she would be approachable on healing any past hurt feelings.  I don't see her doing that though while the fight is on.  And I'm personally okay with that.  She is focused on this fight.....and secondly, in this culture - whenever anyone apologizes at a time like this it just turns into a pile on.  She's challenged just about everyone's status quo in this fight......even my own at times.  The more worshipful Obama supporters would make weeks and weeks of blog clogging out of Hamsher apology.

    oddly, (none / 0) (#75)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:47:09 PM EST
    i didn't take this away at all:

    suggesting progressives align with libertarians to defeat the health care bill.

    someone here can't do the reading/comprehending thing. ms. hamsher didn't suggest that progressives and libertarians/teabaggers align to defeat the HC bill, she said that's what they appear to be doing, not necessarily knowingly or intentionally. two radically different things.

    don't delude yourselves, libertarians and teabaggers are birds of a feather. the difference is that libertarians are able (much like ayn rand) to make the idiotic sound reasonable, until you lift the hood. the teabaggers come off as the ignorant, angry villagers, lit torches and pitchforks in hand, gathering on your front lawn.

    i read ms. hamsher's post first, then the diarist at dkos. whether i agree or not with ms. hamsher is irrelevant, the diarist comes off as a smug twit, who couldn't be bothered to actually spend his valuable time reading her post, just the time necessary to bash it and (unnecessarily) her.

    he's an ass.

    Damn (none / 0) (#82)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 08:09:10 AM EST
    first of all, watch out Dean Baker and Chris Bowers.  You may be unaware that signing a letter to audit the Federal Reserve puts you in an unholy alliance.

    Anyway that attack on Hamsher was pure b.s.  I get the distinct feeling the diarist has not exactly been following the debate.

    The Reality Based Community (none / 0) (#86)
    by Peter G on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 09:19:06 AM EST
    a blog by Prof. Mark A.R. Kleiman of UCLA (and others) made the same point about Jane Hamsher' position, in a more inteligent and non-sexist way, in a post on December 18.  Not taking sides, just pointing out that the observation didn't originate in a Kos diary.

    Klieman is no progressive (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:45:23 AM EST
    except on a few issues. I rarely agree with him.