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

From the Department of Not Making Anyone's Life Easier

Gad. Go read. All the way to the end.

Thank dog I'm not a God. Or vice versa, eh?

Just to make my status clear, here, see "your comment is awaiting moderation."


So far as I can see, there's one reason, and one reason only, to list OJ along with JJJr and Barack Obama, and that's the color of OJ's skin. Ick. If the idea of the post is that "They're all liars, and gosh, the skin color is just incidental, because look, I threw the token white guy in there, Blago" then examples from Chicago politics would have been a lot more a propos, and educational, too.

Though there's a lot I like about the PUMAs, and if it hadn't been for the PUMAs, Hillary might not even have gotten to speak at the Convention, for which I honor them, it's posts like this one that make me want to pound my forehead on the table.

Now, every time the OFB want to smear me as racist again, all they have to do is use the ammo so helpfully provided by this post. Sheesh.

UPDATE Incidentally, the author of this post was banned for exactly the same kind of truthiness well-expressed at the post to which I link. Some streets are not two way. I'd respond, moderated or not, to the author's remarks to me, were it not for the fact that comments on the post have already been closed. There are plenty of people who are "smart as hell" but who don't have a lick of sense. I'd suggest that anyone who uses images of OJ to frame remarks about Barack Obama while expecting bullshit not to be called falls into that category. Makes life harder for people who ought to be on the same side, see?

No votes yet


Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

in that post? I read it all the way to the end? Or is it in the comments?

Fredster's picture
Submitted by Fredster on

Now, every time the OFB want to smear me as racist again, all they have to do is use the ammo so helpfully provided by this post. Sheesh.

Your comment wasn't published so you won't be linked to that post.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

The defense is pretty lame too. If he wasn't trying to draw the connection between Obama and OJ, why bring him up. It was gratutious, and he knows it, too.

Submitted by lambert on

I'm sure there are any number of Chicago pols who are liars, and probably some of them have written their own books. If the guy wants to draw attention to the statement, as he claims, then those would be the books would be the books to draw attention to. Heck, compare to Republicans, for pity's sake. But OJ? Absurd. I can't think of a single way it's helpful, even in the PUMA context.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

I can hardly say I'm surprised. They have and always have had terrible judgement.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

to OJ, fine. I can see it there, between Blago's statement and the OJ book. But throwing Obama into the middle, was pointless, unless you want to smear Obama with OJ brush too.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

he was Obama, and Will Smith, and Denzel, and Tiger Woods, etc -- all rolled into one -- ages before them.

He and Cosby were really the ONLY absolutely 100% beloved -- and 100% accepted -- African-American mainstream male celebrities for ages and ages.

This automatic "it's racist" slam on even mentioning him reminds me of what Obama did to Jesse Jackson in a way.

Obama intentionally worked the personal celebrity angle all along too -- and intentionally distanced himself from and trashed famous African-American pols. The media too --- besides making him JFK and Lincoln all in one, always brought up African-American celebs.

If everyone automatically makes comparisons -- and they do (hillary/caroline, obama/a million people including many celebs, ...) -- isn't it really not entirely off-base?

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

being compared to Clinton -- and it's also explicitly being compared to Bush's non-answers during all those investigations too, etc.

he's always, always being compared to others -- both in good and bad ways -- and to people of all colors, etc.

it's also that Obama and Blago and all of them are totally evading and lying -- and Obama has done that about everything that reflects badly on him all along continually.

I wouldn't use OJ, but i totally see why people would use him.

Submitted by lambert on

A better post would have said the things it didn't, in fact, say.

In any case, the author could perfectly well have worked any of the angles you suggest, amberglow, but didn't. And by writing a sloppy post, gave ammo to the PUMA == racist crowd.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

but who decided that the "PUMA = Racist" crowd matters most? and that PUMAs or anyone need to watch what they say because of them? (as opposed to all other possible reasons)

admin's picture
Submitted by admin on

Which, if you will read it, doesn't say that. The usual suspects will say it of me, because it's a real Wilson of a post -- off point, containing no new information, and snarky without being witty. Well done, all.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

But, I really do have to address something, and I've seen it done by you, Lambert, and vastleft and chicagodyke, to an even greater extent, and that is acting as if PUMA's owe you all anything. It's a ridiculous sense of entitlement. It's constantly trying to tie yourselves to them, when they seek no such thing on the other side. It's a level of self-importance that I find pretty silly. They aren't here to "make your life easier," nor were they ever. That you see it that way is your problem, not there's. And, this is coming from someone who stopped reading PUMA blogs because I thought they'd totally lost focus, which lead to idled minds going places I wasn't hadly comfortable going. I'm just getting tired of these petty, exclusively one-way beefs, and the self-righteousness that goes along with the attacks.

If PUMA=Racist somehow directly effects you, that really is very unfortunate, but that's your problem, not their's. I haven't been around here for that long, but from what I've been able to gather, they never sought to tie themselves to you. If you all stop playing up the beef, there won't be any. Period.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

First of all, many people here at Corrente were very sympathetic to the PUMA concept, Party Unity My Ass. Sarah used to do daily PUMA posts.

But eventually, the main PUMA mentality of defeat Obama at all costs, even by descending into truthiness and race baiting, turned off a lot of potential allies, like me and lambert, and you as well.

So it's not that PUMA owes us anything, it's just, IMO, they will continue to lose allies with this sloppy writing and innuendo. And PUMA=racist belief amongst most of the blogs, limits their effectiveness, which is sad and troubling, because their goals are important and valuable. And the belief is not w/out merit, like with the post under discussion.

So perhaps it is unsolicited advice, but it is still valuable advice, and it is their call to listen to it or not. It's really no different from posts that have called out Chris Bowers or Kos, for sloppy writing and innuendo. It may seem more personal, b/c with the PUMAs it comes from people who remain, for the most part, our idealogical allies.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

less to the interblog responsibility argument (discussion?) and more to the practice of focusing on the 'bad' posts, which almost always turns into PUMA-bashing of some degree or other.

Would you/we really want to be judged on some of the posts here, in isolation? Remember the white bitches are the problem post? (not the real title).

I can't tell you how many times I've surfed from TC to here, to see posts and comments expressing very similar analyses of the political crap of the day (well written or expressed on both sides), yet close to no links between them. Maybe the PUMA=racist riff would not have nearly so much currency if, of the hundreds (probably thousands) of posts and particularly comments weren't that get mentioned here, a few of the counter-racism narrative posts were spread around a bit. If I read Corrente only, I'd have a very different view of TC particularly, and the couple of other puma sites I read regularly, than I would with even a sporadic reading of puma sites.

Hasn't even Bowers been cited here, with approval, when he steps away from the KA? (maybe not Bowers; I can't quite recall if it was he or someone else). But TC gets it what Correntians would consider 'right' far more often than he.

Recommendation works as well, or sometimes even better, than criticism when trying to build a common narrative on issues you care about. It certainly works better than handwringing.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Have been cited here with approval.

And the post you cited above, met with fierce disapproval by almost the entire community. I don't know about the above post, since I didn't read the 200+ comments on it when I finally read it, but most posts over at TC are always met with a chorus of approval(at least since I last read there) , so I don't know if that compares.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on


Except for this: there are 'plenty' of great posts at TC which are equally agreed to or lauded by commenters (and so we don't get into an argument over the meaning of 'great', let's just define it as "are largely similar to, or in agreement with, the predominant opinions at Corrente"). So trying to argue a numbers game doesn't really work.

Many TC posts get hundreds of comments, I can't keep up with them usually. But there are 'plenty' of comments that agree or praise, add other perspectives, or yes, disagree (big surprise, I've commented in disagreement many times myself).

TC is not the same kind of site as Corrente. One big difference is that the community there expresses itself much more familiarly and personally with each other. The discourse is much less belligerent or at a minimum, less confrontational within the community than here (although certainly not less confrontational externally-directed). Looking at TC, Corrente, and other sites with different gender ratios among members, I noticed a long time ago that TC tracks along what is often described as female modes of communication (supportive, more likely to look for points of commonality, positive exchanges, inclusive, etc), while other sites where men outnumber women, the 'mode' is more what is commonly described as male. Perhaps you've missed some of the important discussion points because differences and objections are not expressed as loudly or starkly as you're used to.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

It can get confrontational here at times, but I find the externally directed confrontations aren't as harsh, as I observed over at TC. Also, I haven't continued regular readership over there in months, though I did just read Bostonboomer's article on domestic violence.(Lovely that too):/ Of course, IIRC, TC had an anonymous posting policy, while here it is registered users only, which helps to repel the random troll.

And as far as "plenty", well several TC posts are linked to approvingly(like the one above), either in comments or in Caro's daily posts. To call out one amongst that, with valid cause, as unhelpful, which is all lambert did, really doesn't seem that severe.

Corner Stone's picture
Submitted by Corner Stone on

How could someone use a post on another blog you don't run against you specifically?
Or are you saying that everyone who is not a full-on Obama fan is somehow linked together and responsible for each other's thoughts and strange analogies?
I see how a vapid post like the one at The Confluence could damage the author, and possibly the entire blog, but the whole "I'm not sold on Obama"-blogosphere?
There are some blogs like NQ who have lost whatever credibility they may have once had, and IMO have tainted everyone who blogs there, but Riverdaughters' is not one of them, at least to me.