Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Dear Bob; the word you seek is "Blub" - Updated!

okanogen's picture

Somerby bravely, gamely wades through a swamp of blub from Maddow, Dionne, and especially Lawrence O'Donnell, in describing how the elites have spoken on Elena Kagan, and only a rude bumpkin would ever say a word against her. But he misses the lede, which is O'Donnell, who straight-facedly says (while comparing Kagan to Thurgood Marshall) that she's not smart enough to fool Obama that she is (apparently) not a Secret Conservative, because:

"Barack Obama is the wisest and most learned legal scholar ever to occupy the White House".


I shit you not.

Evah!.*

Stand aside Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, et. al.. With inferiors like George Washington, Mt. Rushmore is not mountain enough for the visage of Dear Leader.

Your future

In case you didn't already know, he is also The Most Interesting Man in the World.

Updated! Now with appropriate image inspiration for O'Donnell. Oh, and yes, the word I sought was "Evah!"

* Thanks for the correction Lambert.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

You mean EVAH!

I really need to make Annals of Career "Progressive" Idiocy a department...

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

wow
everything they did for Bush they are doing for Obama. It really is the Sovietization of the American press.

sigh

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I think they're funny, but the Sailor rants "Why would I want his opinion on beer when he admits he doesn't drink beer!"

Which may be why I think the ads are funny. Hehe.

Submitted by Anne on

didn't nominate himself to the Court...because I suspect Obama shares O'Donnell's assessment...but maybe he's saving that for Term 2, when Ginsburg announces her retirement.

He's probably struggling, though, with whether to embark on a new and unbelievably lucrative career - you know his first goal will be to make more money than Bill Clinton - getting paychecks from all the industries he's worked so hard for, or taking the noble route of a lifetime appointment to the SC.

What to do, what to do...make warehouses full of cash or change the Court and American life forever? I know! Send Michelle out to make the cash, while he saves America! Perfect.

[It's a good thing I didn't have a mouthful of water when I read the punch line, or I
I'd be mopping it off the screen...but I did throw up a little in my mouth, so there ya go]

Un-fucking-believable.

Walter Wit Man's picture
Submitted by Walter Wit Man on

have made a deal with the devil. They support the cult of Obama, willingly, in an effort to co-opt him as he is co-opting them. But like a lot of progressive efforts it is a miserable failure. They offer Obama liberal cover and all Obama is willing to give these progressives is an occasional crumb, like say giving a speech employing vague liberal platitudes and calling out the Republicans or other boogeymen. But Obama will do nothing of practical importance.

Do they even see the mental hoops they have to jump through? They have to assure readers/viewers that they trust Obama's bone fides before they criticize him. It's like the abusive parent insisting that the only reason they abuse their child is because they love them.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

He should check and see if they have called him the "most learned" leader ever. Certainly "wisest" is a cliche.

Anyway, that was just one of those passages where you would like to respond with something really crude. Something like speculating just exactly where and what O'Donnell would like to have his lips wrapped around. This has gone way past "bromance", way past "would you like a pillow", way past "most historically historic EVAH!". It's serious lunatic stalker territory. But then, see below....

So, tell me again why we should be worried that the "Traditional Media" is imploding? I mean, what the FUCK? When shit like this gets said and even very smart people don't hardly notice what it is or means, because we are just bombarded with the insane day and night and who can keep track?

Submitted by libbyliberal on

Cronyism sucks. Personalities over principles. Team (gang) spirit.

Call them out why don't they but call it "tough love"? Don't succumb to this "gang group think loyalty". I thought Maddow had some integrity re the wars? Did success spoil Rachel Maddow? Apparently.

Obama a kind of "grasshopper" (nouveau) Godfather. "So you wanna be a gangsta?"

Kagan ... very depressing.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Kagan / elitism apologist Christopher Edley:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh051710.shtml

In many cases, the nominee has excelled in a world built around ass-kissing, respect for authority and careful coloring within prescribed lines. The Harvard Law professor, like his kissing cousin the Rhodes Scholar, will often be the kind of self-promoter who keeps his head down and keeps his mouth shut until it is safe to speak. He or she will behave in the manner of Kagan—failing to speak even during the years when American norms are being torn limb from limb. Her friends and associates will then write letters to major newspapers, explaining this silence away. She would have spoken, they will explain, but she wanted to get the big job.

Submitted by Anne on

Editorial that appeared in this morning's Baltimore Sun:

Dear President Obama,

Thank you so much for orchestrating the outpouring of support for your Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, from Marylanders who wrote some two dozen letters to the editor of The Sun this weekend urging her swift confirmation. Although each of the letters is different, the identical formatting of the names and addresses of the letter writers and the repetition of certain salient points leaves us little doubt that we are in the midst of another attempt by Organizing for America, your political organization, to demonstrate to us that our readers support your efforts, much as it did during the debate over health care reform. We always appreciate hearing from our readers about the major issues of the day, and the fact that they were assisted in their efforts by you doesn’t make their opinions any less valid. However, we regret to inform you that this weekend’s flurry of letters was less than persuasive.

Certainly, the willingness of your supporters to put their personal spin on administration talking points is impressive. During the health care reform debate, the letters came so fast and furious -- on one memorable day, 50 before noon -- that it was at times difficult to get any work done between the new e-mail notifications popping up on our computer screens. And during the health care debate, the technique was particularly effective. Though it was clear that you had provided suggestions for topics to cover, the subject of health care is so personal, and so many people have experiences with the failings of our current system, that the letters served to humanize the debate and remind us of the stakes of the success or failure of the reform legislation. We printed several of them based on the passion, eloquence and uniqueness of the writers’ thoughts.

This new batch of letters is a bit different, though. In contrast to the health care system, none of the writers appears to have any personal experience with Ms. Kagan, and given that even the U.S. senators who have interviewed her in advance of her confirmation hearings have come away with little solid sense of how she would rule on the bench, any claims readers make about what kind of justice she would be are pure speculation. In case the staff member who drafted the talking points didn’t share them with you, here are the key arguments you supporters are making:

• Ms. Kagan has been a trailblazer in her legal career as the first female dean of Harvard Law School and the first female solicitor general.

• Ms. Kagan has a reputation as a consensus builder, as evidenced by her work in the Clinton administration with Sen. John McCain on tobacco legislation and her efforts at Harvard to hire conservative faculty.

• Ms. Kagan is following in the footsteps of her mentor, Justice Thurgood Marshall, who understood how people’s lives are shaped by the law.

• Ms. Kagan’s confirmation would mean we have three women on the Supreme Court for the first time, making it more inclusive and diverse than ever.

(Thanks to the letter writer who simply copied and pasted those points under the header, "My personal endorsement for Elena Kagan.")

Some letter writers have extrapolated from those biographical facts about Ms. Kagan to suggest that she would be particularly attuned to the rights of the disabled, or that the presence of another woman on the court would make it more sensitive to issues involving family and children (notwithstanding the fact that Ms. Kagan is unmarried and has no children, whereas Justice Antonin Scalia has nine kids). Others have lauded her as someone who will serve as a counterbalance to conservative judicial activism on the court, bristled at Republican criticisms of her qualifications or written in some cases astute analyses of the place of the judicial branch in American governance and society.

We certainly appreciate hearing the thoughts of our readers and urge them to continue sending their letters about Ms. Kagan during her confirmation hearings this summer, whether encouraged by you or not. And, Mr. Obama, we are flattered that in this digital age, you consider stacking the inbox of a newspaper’s letter column to still be worth the bother. All the same, we’ll hold off for the moment in rendering judgment on Ms. Kagan’s nomination in the hope that we might someday soon be able to do more than speculate about what kind of justice she would be.

Sincerely,

The Sun

Might be about the most honest thing I've read on that page in a long time.

john.halle's picture
Submitted by john.halle on

They've jumped the shark on this one. Demonstrating-to mix a metaphor-that there are some turds which just can't be polished. Even by consummated turd-polishers like Greg Craig!

Submitted by gob on

I didn't see anyone blog about the NY Times's ridiculous headline (I didn't watch the video, so won't accuse the debaters of ridiculousness):

Bloggingheads: Is Obama a Great Leader?: The Rev. Daniel Schultz, left, of Religion Dispatches and Mark Kleiman of U.C.L.A. debate whether President Obama is a great moral leader.

I wasted quite a few emotional cycles gnashing my teeth at that. But I'm surrounded by low-level provocation all the time, from the close friend who still displays that Shepherd Fairey Obama in her window, to the close relative with a long history of serious environmental activism who suddenly decided that we "have to" drill for oil offshore. .

Okay, I'm done venting.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

My haid asploded, I remember why I stopped reading the Times in the 90's, and slowly linked away from the page.

The obvious Colbert comparison comes to mind...whenever he used to "interview" Democrats on his show, he'd ask, "George W. Bush: Good President, or best President ever?"