The Vapors

Via Balloon Juice, a Jonah Goldberg Op-Ed published in the Chicago Tribune:

I'd like to ask a simple question: Why isn't Julian Assange dead? [. . .] Why wasn't Assange garroted in his hotel room years ago?

It's a serious question.

It's not a serious question of course. And Goldberg is not a serious person. But for all the fainting couches the "progressive elite" pundits fell on regarding Markos' book American Taliban, it is remarkable that this column was published by a major newspaper in the United States.

Speaking for me only

< Beltway "Elite" Don't Worry About Jobs, Just "Values" | Yemen Terror Scare >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'll let Mr. Rushdie answer that one, for (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by observed on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 11:36:21 AM EST
    $1000 dollars.

    Goldberg really is the stupidest of all the conservative flaks, and that's saying a lot.

    How many Jonah Goldbergs... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 12:22:57 PM EST
    ...does it take to change a lightbulb?

    none. they'd rather everyone be in the darkness.  

    These right wing lunatics (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 01:27:38 PM EST
    wanting to "garrot" and "stuff hoses into the mouths of their drowning opponents."  If anyone thinks these people would not seek to imprison or kill their political opponents if given the opportunity, they are delusional.

    I think it is a dangerous mistake not to take these kind of a$$es seriously.  Not for the substance of what they say but for their willingness to provoke or enage in violence to achieve their ends.

    If we have a Pres. Palin in 2013 all bets are off.   These people will feel free to act on their demented desires, Walmart patriotism and nutty religious beliefs.

    Wow, and some say the TP talks like (1.50 / 2) (#7)
    by BTAL on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 01:29:47 PM EST

    Not sure I get drift of your reply (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 01:40:29 PM EST
    but hundreds of thousands are dead in Iraq after an invasion based on lies like those Germany used to invade Poland, the pros & cons of torture are now topics to be examined and discussed among "reasonable" political leaders & serious people.

    Nothing suprises me anymore and no nut on the right is too nutty to be dismissed.  What has become mainstream with them is frightening.


    Your original comments were extreme (2.00 / 1) (#10)
    by BTAL on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 02:35:36 PM EST

    You are not troubled by (3.00 / 2) (#13)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 03:02:59 PM EST
    the quotes in the Goldberg article as well as the hose in the mouth of drowning opponents?  These nuts are scary, stomping heads, second amendment remedies etc.  My observations of thier behaviors and concern over where it leads should their agenda and pied piper succeed is extreme?

    I am old enough to remember a President who mused aloud with his aides about firebombing a political opponent's office.  I fear a Pres. Palin and her crowd of Tea Bagging, head stomping supporters will make Nixon look like a saint in comparison.


    Palin is supporting Joe Miller, the guy who had (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Angel on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 03:46:16 PM EST
    his people handcuff a journalist at one of his rallies.  Lock and load and all that....

    Digby has been tracking the (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 04:01:14 PM EST
    Thug stories pretty well. Here's one link. There has been a lot more than I had thought.

    Well, close (none / 0) (#23)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 04:11:44 PM EST
    I am old enough to remember a President who mused aloud with his aides about firebombing a political opponent's office.

    It was the Brookings Institute (lib think tank) office that Dick wanted to firebomb.  He also mused about having nosy columnist Jack Anderson rubbed out, if I may use a polite, old-fashioned term I associate with the Mob.  

    Then there he was in 1972 in the Oval ordering some of his black bag job aides to go out and plant incriminating evidence -- McGovern campaign literature -- in the apartment of accused assassin Arthur Bremer.

    Quite a fellow, that "librul" Dick Nixon, and with all the above plus all the other high crimes and misdemeanors we know of, a Pres Palin would have to work mighty hard to equal some of Dick's felonious feats.


    I doubt that Nixon's abuses of power (none / 0) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 04:29:48 PM EST
    would generate much journalistic or public concern now. Glenn Greenwald would write about it but not much would be done.

    I've wondered about that too, MO Blue (none / 0) (#31)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 06:08:45 PM EST
    At the time, it all seemed like the government would fall apart...a this can't be happening in America feeling. After the wars, scandals of all stripes (tho, for me, the big money ones have been especially disturbing), I don't know what cynical response we would have today.
    Then, I think back: Nobody ran with the story for a long time...the Denver Post criticized in an editorial way candidate McGovern for even suggesting that something might have been more amiss at Watergate than met the eye...then, the luck of the draw and Sirica and Dean's testimony and Martha Mitchell and Rosemarie Wood's tapes and--on the side of good--the ever genial "I'm just a country boy man" of steel, Sam Erwin. My goodness, nostalgia for the Watergate investigation. But, it was dug in and never-seeming-like-it-would-end...until one bright day, it did.  That sealed my optimism that, eventually, the good will out. I'm certainly no neophyte. But, one way or another, I believe it will work. (Whats the alternative? Misery & dread?)

    MOB is partly right, as (none / 0) (#54)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 07:10:49 PM EST
    christine notes.  Watergate got little attention in the early months, and it took a few lucky breaks to finally get Nixon on the ropes, keep him there, then force him to throw in the towel.  

    But for the tapes existence being revealed to the senate panel, Tricky probably would have survived and most of the WH "horrors" would have gone unnoted probably until after he died.  

    I recall Sam Dash, Watergate comm'ee lead counsel, saying that they feared their investigation was about to close up shop after a few months with nothing done against Nixon when they caught a break with a tip about the WH taping system.

    And, yes, I recall Sen Sam Ervin (I think it was Ervin and not Erwin, or Erving -- I think Dr J was Julius Erving but Senator Sam was Ervin ;)  

    And that line of his I recall as "Ah'm just a simple country lowya."  Quite a colorful character and perfect choice to head that special comm'ee by majority leader Mike Mansfield.  Brilliant political stroke by the Mikester.


    Remember the events as they occurred (none / 0) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 07:39:31 PM EST
    Maybe actual tapes or videos are needed now as well. Not sure that in this climate even those would do the trick. No one was or is willing to pursue any serious investigation. Basically everything was taken off the table and pushed under the rug. We are going full force after the whistle blowers instead.  

    So are you saying something like this? (none / 0) (#60)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 12:12:01 AM EST
    There is a political movement in this country that:

    1.    Is well-funded.
    2.    Has a lexicon of common words with distorted meanings:  freedom, constitutional, patriot, Christian, etc.
    3.    Has a distorted alternative history of the United States, including the ideas of its Founders, that denies the foundations of our democracy, such as separation of church and state.
    4.    Is obsessed with enemies, both internal and external.
    5.    Believes its enemies surround, persecute, and conspire against it.
    6.    Is obsessed with matters of language, culture, religion, and race.
    7.    Has its own media and institutions that re-enforce the above characteristics.
    8.    Routinely uses violent and eliminationst rhetoric to attack its ... enemies.
    9.    Has begun to use threats, intimidation, and force to get its way.
    10.    Is on the verge of wielding real power.

    You're obviously crazy.


    I have seen many people convicted (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Peter G on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 02:27:11 PM EST
    for communicating threats of violence in interstate commerce, on the basis of statements that were a lot less clear and explicit than that.  Consider the recent prosecution of radio shock-jock Hal Turner, for saying the several federal judges "deserve to die" for ruling against a Second Amendment argument. It's potentially a five-year felony under title 18, U.S. Code, section 875(c).  I might have indulged the presumption that it was just political hyperbole, and thus protected under the First Amendment, except that Goldberg expressly disclaims that interpretation by reassuring us that he's "serious."

    Double Standard (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 02:37:19 PM EST
    Israeli terrorists on a US terror watch list are going to protest muslims at WTC site.

    Do you think that any muslim would be granted the same privilege?

    On Sunday November 7th at 3:30 pm, followers and supporters of Rabbi Meir Kahane from Canada and America will gather at Ground Zero ostensibly to rally against "political Islam." Why is this important news for many Americans who consider Ground Zero a sacred site? Because Rabbi Kahane is the founder of the villainous Kach Israeli political party, a group on the U.S. State Department's official list of terrorist organizations.

    ]linkhttp://www.loonwatch.com/2010/10/jewish-designated-terrorists-to-meet-at-ground-zero-what-if-they-we re-muslim/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+loonwatch+%28loonwatc h.com%29]


    What Goldberg wrote, for anyone still interested (none / 0) (#85)
    by Peter G on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 01:23:58 PM EST
    in this subject, is thoughtfully dissected by Prof. Mark Kleiman, at Reality-Based Community.  (Disclosure:  Mark is an old friend of mine, whom I hold in high regard, although we certainly don't always agree.)  The RBC post concludes that Goldberg, whom Mark detests, neither threatened Assange nor called for his murder.  At the same time, I stand by my comment that some people are in fact prosecuted for criminal "threats" that are no more clear, serious and/or explicit than Goldberg's op-ed.  I should perhaps have also stated that as a matter of narrow construction of criminal statutes (a necessary feature of due process and concomitant protection against tyranny) and of First Amendment doctrine, I do not support those prosecutions.  

    I would ask (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 03:04:52 PM EST
    why the Pantload is still alive but I know the answer.  to punish Lucianne.

    I might (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 03:32:17 PM EST
    be wrong... but it seems to me that Jonah Goldberg's journalist credentials are that his mother did a number on Monica Lewinsky.

    Balloon Juice = Hot Air (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Angel on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 03:47:06 PM EST

    If a left-wing blog (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 04:34:01 PM EST
    allows commenters to talk of meeting and "bringing guns" to the conversation, what would we think?  Not a serious blog?

    I would have to go with (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by waldenpond on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 04:36:34 PM EST
    not a serious blog.  In fairness, it takes 24 hr moderation to run a serious blog and some people have real-life jobs.

    Oops.... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by waldenpond on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 04:39:22 PM EST
    saw who did the gun comment.  Again, that person will never be banned.  A couple people left the site specifically because of that persons toxicity and being fed up with the inconsistent banning.

    Nobody should leave the site (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 05:51:28 PM EST
    because of that person, but I know that can be easier said than done.

    I miss Steve M, Spamlet (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 05:53:28 PM EST
    since the great Memorial Day weekend meltdown, and many more. . . .  Glad you're still here, despite the attacks again targeted at you.

    Anyone who left (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 06:07:28 PM EST
    needs to come back.  It is very important to me to experience and be exposed to a wide variety of opinions and angles.  It is how better understanding and solutions are arrived at.  I hope that anyone who left and is perhaps lurking chooses to begin to participate again.  I usually ignore a certain person on here as often as possible, and I think they've lost their ability to actually have an affect on me that lasts longer than five seconds :)  Both Steve M and Spamlet shared opinions and insights that I miss too, and I don't need to agree with them all the time and they don't need to agree with me in order for me to understand that they are important to the discourse.  I came to understand one specific issue much more deeply particularly because of Steve M.  Something that I had previously been blind to, and I even spent weeks mulling it over before I came to better understand.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 06:29:05 PM EST
    And it would also be great if all the commenters returned who fled because of the mass influx of Hillary refugees from dkos et al.

    Who was a dailykos Hillary refugee? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 06:31:09 PM EST
    I'm here because BTD blogs here and encourages a wide variety of discourse and opinions.

    No Idea (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 06:38:43 PM EST
    All I know is that most of the people who came during the primaries, complained about being bullied by dkos obots. And then proceeded to bully anyone here who supported Obama.

    Pretty hilarious.

    I never hung out in the dkos comment threads, but many here seem to be quite familiar with the crowd over at dkos and slammed them on a regular basis for being obots. Meanwhile, the fanatic love for Hillary ran deep here. I guess two sides of the same coin.


    I'm sorry you felt bullied (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 06:41:22 PM EST
    The primaries were two years ago though.  The primaries are over.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 06:47:19 PM EST
    I never felt bullied, although you did try bully tactics in the other thread.

    I supported Hillary and was not an Obama supporter, although I voted for him in the general.


    I bully you? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 06:58:06 PM EST
    As far as I'm concerned (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 06:58:36 PM EST
    I stand up to you

    OK (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 07:03:10 PM EST
    If you think calling me a hack because you did not like my comment, which was not directed at you, is standing up to me, so be it.

    Calling angry voters who have lost (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 07:08:18 PM EST
    home and job and all security a bunch of children demanding candy was just about as unfeeling and uncaring and seething hatefulness as just about anything I've witnessed on a left blog.  People are really hurting out there worse than any other time since the Great Depression, and your response to them was that?  How are you a liberal?  Truly, please explain that to me?  How are you a liberal and that hateful and uncaring about what people are trying to survive?

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 07:27:02 PM EST
    My comment was in response to another comment. Sorry if it does not make sense to you.

    Whether people are acting like parents who will do anything to get their kids to be quiet, or children who will do anything to get their parents to give them candy, voting for the GOP is stupid and will only make things worse.

    Abdicating ones responsibility as a parent or believing, like a child, that a big strong authority figure is going to make things better is exactly how fascism started in europe in the 30's.

    And if you have been paying attention to the news, it appears to be rearing its ugly head once again, both in europe and the US.

    I am not sure why you have decided to take this salient historical point and turn it into a case of me being a right winger, or questioning my values or compassion for those who are suffering.


    No (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 07:01:01 PM EST
    Although it did appear to me that you were attempting to. In order to successfully bully, you need someone who is scared. I am not scared.

    Typing away anonymously ... (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 08:03:08 AM EST
    ... on a keyboard and you're not scared?!?



    Explains A Lot (none / 0) (#106)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:43:34 AM EST
    About you.  

    The fanatic love of Hillary was tolerated (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 07:11:29 PM EST
    here.  This place did runneth over because of that.  Since then though some people have left because this blog moved on and nobody wanted to keep revisting the primaries.  The primaries are over.

    Steve M use to comment on (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 06:29:13 PM EST
    another blog. Haven't seen any comments from him there either. His comments were always well written even when I didn't agree with his POV.

    Must have missed the great Memorial Day weekend meltdown.

    Personally I think completely ignoring select comments, no matter how tempting it might be to reply, is the best policy.  


    Yes (2.33 / 6) (#32)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 06:24:19 PM EST
    McCarthy and Rove would be proud of you for your innuendos.

    And as far as left wing blog goes, most of the commenters used to be left wing until you arrived. Your vendetta tactics are waaaay to the right. You keep lists.


    Ha! Cream City is right wing (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 06:28:51 PM EST
    and driving the whole blog right wing :)  She has lists :)  Next thing you know she'll be garrotting Assange :)

    Well (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 06:33:20 PM EST
    Certainly the comment above using dishonest innuendo, is pretty low and cowardly. Pretty much McCarthy 101.

    isn't she repeating your comment? (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 06:43:31 PM EST
    Ha. His petard is hoist, huh? (4.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 06:51:12 PM EST
    I saw where squeaky and Politalkix (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 07:11:35 PM EST
    had themselves a good ol' gabfest on another thread talking about all the right wing people here now - because of course, the Hillary supporters were/are all of that ilk.

    It really just kind of slays me that people can run down a list of issues on which their positions are decidedly and unquestionably to the left, and these two yahoos will still insist - on the basis of whether that person EVER supported Hillary - that they are right-leaning.  Yeah, as if squeaky has the last word on anyone's place on the spectrum.

    Squeaky, of course, leaves out the part where he, himself, has identified as a Hillary supporter, but pats himself on the back for realizing that there wasn't really any difference between the two - apparently no one he knows saw any difference, ergo, game over: there were no differences.


    Boo-hoo, poor wittle squeaky...he doesn't have the blog to himself anymore, and the people here don't put up with his tortured logic and  unending BS Hillary obsession.



    Ya gotta love an accusation (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 02:52:10 PM EST
    of pretension from the guy who pretended here that he wasn't a guy.  

    Ha! Ooooohhhhhhhhhh, cream city..... (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by Angel on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 03:33:46 PM EST
    you're gonna get clobbered by you-know-who!

    Worse (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 06:31:47 PM EST
    Incongruously "LOL"ed.

    Always incongruous, always a tipoff (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 06:48:05 PM EST
    to what's ahead with that temperament, huh?

    Never Pretended Anything (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 03:45:34 PM EST
    You may have pretended...

    Anyway knock yourself out with your BS attacks... It seems to have become an obsession of yours.... lol


    Quote: (none / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 05:39:08 PM EST
    I am not sure why you have decided to take this salient historical point and turn it into a case of me being a right winger,

    Gabfest? (1.00 / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 11:49:37 AM EST
    Geez, coming from the queen of endless kaffee klatch monologues, that is hilarious.

    And there is no disconnect between my supporting Hillary and all of my comments criticizing the lovelorn fanatics like you who took roost at TL. I supported Hillary in the primary largely because I could relate to her style much more than Obama's. She was my senator and I have personally met her. I knew her positions all too well. They were the same as Obama's.

    I was under no illusion, unlike fanatics like you, that either candidate was anything more than mainstream centrist democrats, to the right of where I stand.

    You make pompously make believe that you are above personal attacks and raise the conversation to a "higher" level. Pretension is about all you have in that regard aka hypocrisy.


    "Lovelorn fanatics" like me? (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by Anne on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 07:53:50 PM EST
    If there are, I don't know, seven people commenting here who believe that accurately describes me, I would be surprised.  Really surprised.

    "Lovelorn" describes someone who doesn't question, who accepts without any examination or analysis or thought - and that just isn't me, sorry.

    I think it's kind of interesting that you characterize Hillary's positions as being the same as Obama's, because what I saw during the primaries was a lightweight who glommed onto Hillary's positions to the point where, in debates, he might as well have responded, "what she said," or "me, too."  

    He was mirroring her, not the other way around.

    As for illusions, perhaps the biggest one is the one you have created for yourself, as you try so hard to convince yourself - and others - that Democrats are a generic brand, interchangeable in ideology and position.  Those who see with their eyes and minds open can understand that they are really not.  But, hey, if I had voted for Obama - or anyone for president - maybe I would be trying to convince myself it didn't matter, too.

    What seems to stick in your craw is that people who supported Hillary didn't flip the switch and go all-in for Obama after the convention.  I can't speak for anyone but myself, but the concerns I had about Obama didn't just evaporate when he got the nomination - and there wasn't much in the couple months until the general election that came close to convincing me that I was wrong to have those concerns.

    And the last two years?  Well, they aren't about Hillary - I don't pine for her, sorry.  I am enough of a realist to know that she isn't going to come to the rescue, and it doesn't matter what I - or anyone else - think she would have done differently, because that's a waste of time.

    So, you can keep trying to make me into some sort of fanatic, keep trying to cast all my criticism of Obama as lovesick longing for Hillary, but it's just not there.

    What keeps coming through, in a really sad and bitter way, is your longing for the days when TL didn't have as many commenters who could see through your BS; you can't let go of that, can't let go of Hillary or the primaries - still haven't been able to come up with ways to discuss what is happening now without going "there."

    If anyone is lovelorn, it's you...projecting that onto me just doesn't work.


    Speaking of mirroring Ann, (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 08:29:16 PM EST
    look back at the Al (softballs) Gore - Bush debates if you want to see an established precedent for an even more egregious, and wholly unwarranted, example of this public "mirroring" dynamic you refer too.  

    Agree that Obama is, in the context of what this country has to offer, a relative "lightweight"; but isn't that the only type our media-owning paymasters only ever risk loaning the spotlight to? And seriously, if Mrs Clinton is really your idea of anything like a heavyweight, historical game-changer - publicly issuing a protracted challenge to things like the idea of the-too-big-to-fail, corporate responsibility only to shareholders, our imperialist and war-profiteering traditions, the nouveau-Democrat tack of pretending that an underclass no longer exists in this country etc..Well, I give you more credit than that.        


    Yeah, for whatever reason, the media (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Anne on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 08:58:26 PM EST
    are the ones who seem to fall head-over-heels for the sexy candidate, and then seem to devote their attention to doing whatever they can to get the public to follow along.  Even if that might not be the best direction to be heading in; but what do they care - they seem to salivate over the disasters and failures more than they successes.

    I don't believe Hillary is anything close to perfect; truth be told, I am not particularly a fan of some of her foreign policy, but I do believe she had it all over Obama on domestic issues, including what I would call "women's" issues.

    I have no way of knowing what her decisions would have been - whether she would have put more emphasis on jobs in the first year, whether she would have sided more with the people than the big banks, if she would have taken single-payer off the table in the health care discussion.

    I suppose my point was - and is - that that - the primaries - was then, and this - life with Obama as president - is now.  And Hillary isn't the president, she's not been vocal about anything she agrees with or doesn't agree with, so it's all just history - and there's nothing to be gained by wondering "what if..."

    If Hillary would decide to run in 2016, I would not necessarily just sign on, but would need to put her to the same tests as in 2008.  Who knows where we will be in 6 years - I'm still worried about where we will be in one, for heaven's sake.

    I'm not lovelorn or lovesick or pining for something that never happened; I'm just trying to deal with what is, and what can be done about it.


    I will disagree with you (none / 0) (#78)
    by Politalkix on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 10:46:29 PM EST
    There were various stages in the campaign season. HRC was promoted by the media in some of them, Obama in other stages. It is a myth that the media did whatever they could to get the public to support Obama. At the beginning the media created an aura about HRC being the "inevitable candidate". She was given a pass for any answers she gave, however silly some of them were to lots of people (outside the MSM) who were knowledgeable. Obama started getting better treatment from the media after the JJ dinner and the Iowa caucus. After the Ohio, Texas, RI primaries, the media was very rough on Obama and switched back to supporting HRC. There was a period before the Pennsylvania primaries when Obama was getting hit by the media (sometimes in very unfair ways) everyday over his pastor controversy, his "exotic" background, etc.
    Obama's answers in debates (particularly in foreign policy areas) appeared to be a lot more thoughtful to me than HRC's answers.
    There were many areas in domestic policy where I felt that HRC would be the less progressive choice. Owing to her deep connections with unions, she would never push to reform the education system in this country in the way Obama is doing. We spend a lot more than S.Korea, China, Taiwan, etc in our public schools, yet have a lot less quality as far as science and math education is concerned. Her deeper connections with unions in the auto industry would have made her less likely to push for better fuel efficiency standards. Her electoral bases in Appalachia states such as W.Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, etc would have restricted her from formulating policies less dependent on coal.
    I am not relitigating the primaries, just informing you that others can have very different perspectives than you do.
    I would however prefer that the primaries be water under the bridge now.

    Only In Your Own Mind (1.00 / 2) (#44)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 06:55:17 PM EST
    Silly and stupid tactics on your part. But knock yourself out.

    Hardly (2.00 / 4) (#43)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 06:53:54 PM EST
    MilitaryTracy made a threat that I would have to run if I was in the same room with her. I replied that she would need a gun.

    Her comment had the :) thingy and mine had a lol.

    But Cream City (and waldenpond) dishonestly decided to ratchet it up into some kind of terrorist threat, because I am on her vendetta list.


    Or for God's sake (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 07:02:52 PM EST

    It must be exhausting to have to fight for top victim position.

    I said what I said because kdog was worried about my being visceral and this is blogging.  You have nothing to fear from me.  It isn't as if we are in the same room arguing about something.  That is what I was pointing out but you would attempt to paint anything possible as a threat because you are more often than not determined to be somehow victimized while freely being a douche to as many people as possible.


    Victim? (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 07:08:16 PM EST
    None of this would come up had not CC and waldenpond decided to ratchet it up to a gun in the room terror threat.

    I am hardly scared of you, so there is no victim contest going on.

    As I pointed out you put your little smileys on and I put my lol on.  Certainly not serious, but my detractors thought it would make good ammo and are attempting to turn it into a fainting couch sort of thing.


    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#57)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 07:16:06 PM EST
    That's just another (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 05:17:55 PM EST
    mini-example of the different-rules-for-different (but the same) fools mindset around here. So Obama's a sellout, careerist, d*ck and Hillary is only endlessly competent, long suffering and LOYAL to the party (family? dead beat husband?)..

    And of course the perpetually outraged and affronted Team Hill can be as belligerent and confrontational as the seemingly neverending need to vent calls for, but god help anyone who calls them on it..

    Tweedle dum and Tweedle dee resolved to have a battle..  


    So you also approve (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 07:21:46 PM EST
    of blog comments about bringing guns into conversations, and at this blog?  That does not look good for Jeralyn, per her comment policy  Of course, despite her comment policy, there certainly are different rules for one commenter here. . . .

    And if you bothered to look back at the thread, you would see who -- could it be that commenter again? -- is the one who keeps bringing 2008 and HRC as well as guns into the conversations.

    We have moved on, and we hope that you do so, too.


    Give me more credit (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 07:43:32 PM EST
    if you please, Madame. It is, on all counts, an  ill-considered and irretrievably vulgar dynamic of communication to countenance and perpetuate at a forum such as this.

    Soooo glad I'm not home (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 03:43:11 AM EST
    And am hardly connected. Was waiting w/bated breath to learn who the Hillary-supporting gangstas are though.

    Hillary-supporting gangstas: (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 08:37:07 AM EST
    Anyone who criticizes Obama or his policies. IAHF  

    Jeralyn gets a bye since it is her blog and BTD because he is a contributor.


    "Gangstas". The problem is (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 06:08:02 PM EST
    that it's rarely pointed out by the perpetually-in-vent-mode avenging angels here how much what Obama does is symptomatic of a culture of political corruption that, as the movie title goes, only "lets the right ones in". So that, whether we like it or not, for the forseeable future we're stuck with people like kdog's Schumer, who cuts deals with John Paulson so that he can "take on" the Repubs (who want the Paulsons of the world beatified and 'freed' from any govt regulation whatsoever)..

    The unexamined divine right of capital is what NONE of our vaunted, mainstream, frontrunners are willing to publicly address and stand up to..

    But, by all means continue with the if-only-we'd-gotten-a-real-leader charade..



    It's (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 06:12:54 PM EST
    never Obama's responsibility is it? It's the same tired and shopworn stuff forever I guess. FWIW, Obama campaigned on changing that system but then completely reneged. Of course, I never believed him in the first place but I guess your answer is to wave the white flag and surrender. Well, go ahead then.

    If you believed (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 06:40:38 PM EST
    that Obama or Hillary were ever going to push forward anything like essential, progressive change, than you're a fool.

    Yeah, it's definitely his responsibility that he's involved himself (probably from the beginning of his political career), in perpetuating the Wall St-corporate-insider culture that's the enemy of true democracy in this country. Now, extend that critique to a Clinton or two and I'll believe you're more than just another disgruntled personality cultist tilting at windmills and thrilled with the Summers, Geithners and Rubins as long as Bill or Hill employ them (for the good of the people, of course).  


    This (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 06:55:04 PM EST
    if-only-we-had-a-leader charade never ceases to crack me up. You might as well be aghast that Sir Galahad doesn't show up to compete at Wrestlemania..

    That's not what he/she said (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 10:01:36 PM EST
    If you believed (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 06:40:38 PM EST
    that Obama or Hillary were ever going to push forward anything like essential, progressive change, than you're a fool.

    ... but i guess it is easier to refute arguments that you make up yourself.  Straw is so much easier to huff and puff away.

    BTW - The issue many have with Obama (not speaking for Ga6thdem, of course) is his ever-growing list of broken promises.  You whine and complain that HRC (and BC) are not held to the same standard as Obama for failing to push a progressive agenda.  As usual, you're wrong.  BC was a moderate Democrat who campaigned as such and actually kept his campaign promises on the very issues that you attack him for (i.e. NAFTA, welfare reform, etc.).  Hillary never promised a progressive utopia either, but she also hasn't backtracked/flip-flopped/broken her campaign promises.

    Obama has ...... again and again and again.

    See the difference?


    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 10:34:28 PM EST
    I just huffed and puffed out of thin air that entire idea that there were a bunch of commentators here who were Clinton supporters and that are now expressing disgruntlement over the fact that Obama has betrayed his faux-progressive principals. But not because they're progressively oriented in any way themselves, mind you (Rubin, Summers and Greenspan forever!), but only because Obama has betrayed HIS declared principals and we don't like people who go back on their promises (even if we didn't agree with the promises in the first place).

    Jeeze, sounds like if he'd only come out and publicly promised even more more Wall St deregulation, more outsourcing and had only promised beforehand to be "moderate", you'd have nothing to complain about. Other than the way the Tea Party is unfairly characterized, that is.    


    "Thin air" (none / 0) (#80)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 11:20:31 PM EST
    Doesn't get any thinner.

    Keep buying that straw in bulk.


    the secret word of the day is "straw" (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 11:44:01 PM EST
    btw, what happened to "true prog"?, it had such a mid-sixties garage band sound ring to it, I almost miss it.

    Hardly a "secret" with you (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 09:33:53 AM EST
    It's all you do ... pretend someone else is making an argument they're not making by reinterpreting their words, then try to pick it apart.

    Too bad it's so transparent.


    transparent to the all-seeing one (1.00 / 0) (#87)
    by jondee on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 02:26:36 PM EST
    At this point, I find myself wondering Y, if someone mentioned Bubba's flatulence, whether you'd chime in and tell us all that it's currently being bottled and sold by Este Lauder.

    Or, rather than "reinterpreting", ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 02:39:38 PM EST
    ... you just make it up as you go along.

    Perfect example, including the (unintentionally ironic) "flatulence" reference.


    so what does it smell like, Y? (none / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 02:56:18 PM EST
    frankincense and myrrh? Does it transport you to a higher plane?

    Your ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 03:10:01 PM EST
    ... flatulence?  Doesn't do much for me.

    Some of us prefer reality to altered states.


    I'm not deluded about (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 07:40:38 PM EST
    anything but I like people who will at least fight for something worthwhile like HOLC. I never said Hillary was perfect and in fact I did not even like her at first. She changed my mind.

    If you were so interested in "progressive change" then you would be kicking Obama's butt all the way to Timbuktu for the things he has done instead of making excuses for him. But you really aren't interested in any change. You are just like Obama who would rather surrender than fight.

    The thing is, I would take the 90's over now any day of the week. 5% unemployment? What do you pine for? The days of Jimmy Carter or something?

    The problem per se isn't that Obama has Summers et al on his team so much as he doesn't have the knowledge or experience to know when to listen to them and when not to. Remember W. had his father's foreign policy team but they looked completely different with W. didn't they? All advisors come up with crazy stuff and it's the President's job to weed out the wheat from the chaff. Obama can't seem to do that.


    "You're not interested in change.." (2.00 / 4) (#79)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 10:51:08 PM EST
    and you don't know me from whoever runs the main white sheet concession down there in peach tree land..

    And me, I'm just wondering how you're posting now when BT hasn't told you what to think today; but here's one clue: historical context is all important, i.e., two war fronts and a major economic recession don't just magically melt away and we're suddenly, miraculously, transported back to the nineties the second someone other than Obama is elected President in 2008.  


    Figured that out ... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 11:23:58 PM EST
    two war fronts and a major economic recession don't just magically melt away and we're suddenly, miraculously, transported back to the nineties the second someone other than Obama is elected President in 2008.

    ... all by yourself, did you?  Must have, since you're the only one making that argument.

    So much easier to knock down your own straw arguments, huh?


    More (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 07:21:23 AM EST
    apologia. The wars and the economy were no big secret silly one. This was all known and it's why I'm constantly tired of hearing Obama and his apologists mention it. Like I said you really don't want any change because you are unable to criticize Obama because you can't see past your own soft racism. You seem to think that Obama can't be criticized because of his race is no better than the ones that are criticizing him because of his race.

    tired of hearing it mentioned (1.00 / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    as if those problems were somehow peripheral and barely relevant. You might as well say that you're tired of reality. History. Life and all that comes with it.

    I'm not sure what you want, short of yet another full-blown, emotionally cathartic, puma-snit; which would apparently be the only thing that wouldn't qualify as an "apologia". I've already stated that I believe that the main problems in our current political system are systemic - held together by a complex of unwarranted and unexamined assumptions - and that it prevents the coming to the fore of the kind of genuine "leaders" the country needs.

    It sounds to me like you and the rest of the gang think that things can somehow "change" in some lasting, meaningful way if we just change players while leaving the basic pay-to-play, revolving door system in place. And I'm the one who doesn't really want change..)  



    you create (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 02:34:41 PM EST
    your own reality don't you? I didn't say that the problems were peripheral only that they were KNOWN. If Obama didn't want to deal with them which it looks like he shouldn't have run for President. It's that simple.

    Again, it's more of the well, the system is the problem from you therefore there's nothing we can do therefore Obama is the best we can do at this time. Talk about low standards. No wonder Obama knows he can stomp on people like you and laugh at you. He knows you'll keep coming back for more and continue to be kicked in the teeth by him.


    The pertinent question is (none / 0) (#95)
    by Rojas on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 03:56:32 PM EST
    Would you take a do over of the 90s if it leads us right back to where we are?

    More Bush (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 04:05:12 PM EST
    apologia? This is tiresome. What exactly happened in the 90's that led us to this? It seems to me that nothing happened in the 90's that led to this. Don't say Glass/Stegall because my bank sold securities and it didn't go belly up. NAFTA has nothing to do with things being made in China.

    You might do just as well repeat what Obama says and blame it all on the baby boomers but then he's a baby boomer too.


    Bush simply continued on a path (1.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Rojas on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:31:44 AM EST
    forged by the neo-liberal Clinton. Not fifteen cents worth of difference between the two. Both were locked into the same, reduce corporate accountability and build more prisons to store the fallout mantra throughout the nineties.

    I don't have to say glass stegall because clinton's WTO had already made that acts repeal a moot point. Hell, who needs manufacturing anyway when we can export banking services.

    And yea those trade agreements were some great stuff. Our trade deficit was only up 400% after eight years of Bubba feelin our pain, but bettin on Enron and Worldcom was where the cash was at. No worries, that the nonsense that would see us through.


    You're (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 07:30:08 AM EST
    kidding right? Do you think Bush would have done SCHIP? No. Do you think Bush would have raised taxes on the wealthy? No.

    You're just making more excuses for W.

    And if you believe all of that you should throw Obama into the mix. After all he's done nothing to "fix" those so called problems you are talking about.

    I can't figure out people like you who scream about Bill Clinton but yet, Obama is to the right of Clinton on almost every policy and there is no criticism of him.


    The 90s didn't "lead us here" (none / 0) (#100)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 09:52:24 PM EST
    ... the 00's did.

    It's the (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 07:31:50 AM EST
    most amazing thing how these people continue to make excuses for W. I guess going into Iraq is Bill Clinton's fault too. Whatever.

    The right ... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 08:06:19 AM EST
    ... and some on the far left.

    Two sides of the same coin, in that way.


    I think that if you have read my posts (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 07:43:25 PM EST
    you would see that I do not restrict my criticism to just Obama. I have criticized members of the majority Democratic Party because they are the majority party. I have, also, criticized the system where IMO corporate money drives policy at the expense of the welfare of the people in this country.

    While I do not think that Obama is a strong leader, and I do not like the direction of policies or of the legislation, I do not write about what I think it would be like if only someone else were president. Don't have a crystal ball to determine if it would be better, the same or maybe even worse. I can only deal with what is happening now. I completely disapprove of what is happening and I have no intention of saying oh well, it is better than nothing. IMO if we say we are willing to settle for crumbs, I think we won't even even those.

    YMMV which is O.K. by me, but I think you are assigning motivation to a large group (based on a few) of people that is not the real basis for their discontent.  


    To Be Expected (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 11:37:23 AM EST
    Although I am in awe at Assange's courage and moral conviction.

    It is true that he faces death by taking on the corruption of the US and Iraqi puppet government.

    In awe as well... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 03:24:01 PM EST
    dude has got major league courage...hope he has a food taster and car starter on his payroll....and stays off desolate mountain roads and the like.

    Do these posts increase sales of (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 11:39:16 AM EST
    Kos's book?

    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 11:41:35 AM EST
    Let me add the Amazon link.

    I thought you weren't fond (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 02:36:38 PM EST
    of the American Taliban label...what's up increasing book sales :)?

    Markos (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 03:05:45 PM EST
    is my friend.

    You sell books for friends (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 03:12:12 PM EST
    You are nicer than I originally thought :)  I like the American Taliban label but I live in American Waziristan :)

    "The Vapors" (none / 0) (#17)
    by cpinva on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 03:22:52 PM EST
    at first glance, i assumed you were writing a review of a new band. catchy name though.

    it is remarkable that this column was published by a major newspaper in the United States.

    you make the common mistake of assuming that, because a publication has a relatively large circulation, it's a "major" newspaper. the two are not, by definition, mutually inclusive.

    a "major" newspaper would be one that provides solid journalism, an adherence to the profession's "best practices", providing it's readership with fact-based information, on a timely basis. as well, its editorial staff would produce well thought out, fact-based opinion, designed to provoke intelligent debate amongst said readership.

    off the top of my head, i can't think of a qualifying newspaper.

    Actually, This is a Serious Question (none / 0) (#47)
    by msaroff on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 07:00:36 PM EST
    For any activist who goes up against the US state security apparatus.

    Assange has no doubt asked this question himself, and the apparent answer is that Assange has an In The Event of Death (ITEOD) file, and has some fairly robust mechanisms to ensure that it will go out if something happens to him.

    I'm still holding out for a (none / 0) (#51)
    by 1jpb on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 07:06:50 PM EST
    Cole / Llorens bloggingheads.

    I suggested it during the 08 primaries.

    Here is, basically, how Cole said it would go:

    "C: F U
    L: No FU
    C: No FU
    L: FU Back
    C: FU
    and so on"

    Presumably, with plenty of time having passed, these two are less confrontational than they used to be.