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

FITH watch: Goodwin Edition

vastleft's picture

Michael Goodwin at the Daily News knows how to milk a non-story when he wishes he heard one:

There is no question she was citing the RFK murder of 40 years ago in the spirit of "anything can happen" and thus as a reason she should stay in the race against Barack Obama.

Which means she was thinking of murder as a momentum changer.

90% of his readers, he says, enthusiastically support his revisionist history while-U-wait service.

One reader response he proudly shares comes from a "Barbara Lovely":

"Hillary is a despicable, power hungry, egomaniacal sad excuse for a woman and women who hold her up as an icon should be ashamed of themselves."

(via Bartcop)

No votes yet


orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

i have not seen this discussed elsewhere, but it should have been:

the journalistic attack on senator clinton following her defense of staying in the primary race is one of the most irresponsible acts of journalism i have ever witnessed.

what was irresponsible on the part of print and electronic journalists was publicly raising the issue of the assassination of sen obama.

senator clinton was talking to a small newspaper in a small population state.

she did NOT raise the issue of assassinating sen obama.

it was NOT she who trumpeted that news all over the united states.

it was the media.

doing so


we are a nation of 300 million people. that means that there are several thousands of 3 sigma crackpots out there.

it only takes one of these to destroy the life of a candidate, and/or members of his or her entourage (james brady), and/or protective service officers. not to mention bystanders.

i would be astonished if it were not the secret service which forced senator obama's campaign to shut this issue down by last monday.

the secret service knows very well what they face and they know very well that intense publicity like this at a time of heightened animosity in the nation is extremely dangerous for ALL candidates.

tell me when have you ever witnessed a more irresponsible journalistic act?

Submitted by lambert on

... would be their reaction to Colin Powell's speech. That was world-class irresponsbility.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

If I can steal the time tonight or tomorrow, I'll write up why I'm using the term FITH, which is guaranteed to send the pearl-clutchers to the fainting couch.

Simply put: it's because this shit is different and more toxic than your usual campaign bumps and bruises. It's fucking evil.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Please put these thoughts into their own post (as opposed to a comment), and feel free to use the "Fucked in the head watch" tag, if you're so inclined. I would be honored.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

You don't even have to be familiar with Secret Service to know that; it's common sense. That's why Clinton immediately issued an apology that focused the attention on any offense caused to the Kennedy family, away from assassination talk.

Yet another reason why I find Obama and his camp to be not only foolish but also dangerous. The Obama camp pushed the assassination feeding frenzy with Burton issuing that initial statement, attaching a New York Post article about how Obama had needed Secret Service earlier than most candidates, and Axelrod being caught by Stephy as having pushed the Olbermann rant to various media "elites." I wouldn't be surprised if they were behind the slew of articles months back in publications from the Times to the Post about Obama's security and assassination fears (Notice, there's rarely been any mention of Clinton and security). They're playing with fire.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on


but i am very wary of posting. i would rather keep my ignorance hidden down deep in the stacks (library term).

however, you have my permission to use it any way you see fit. don't worry about attribution, just get the info out.

we're at war with power-loving, career-enhancing, attention-loving corporate media.

[VASTLEFT: edited that last line. Though I'm raging at the FITH madness this weekend, let's be a little more thoughtful about our metaphors, OK?]

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

And the Obama campaign flacked it. What kind of person does that? What kind of party leaders let him?

I have a very bad feeling about where all of this is leading. I don't think you can put this much hatred, aimed solely at one person, into the national system and not have some horrible price paid somewhere, somehow. It's like some sort of fever has infected this country and it's growing hotter and hotter. It's got to break some time. I just hope whatever price gets paid is with advertising dollars or electoral votes and not more precious commodities.

Submitted by jawbone on

what was irresponsible on the part of print and electronic journalists was publicly raising the issue of the assassination of sen obama

MCMers and academics are permitted to speak at length about, well, just about anything. Racial make-up of voting blocks, racial motivations (whether known or not), the personal characteristics of (especially) Democratic candidates and particulary those disliked by the MCM, the meanings of words taken out of context, etc.

But, yes, if the MCM is so aghast that a candidate would mention an assassination which might be construed, in however tortured a manner, as somehow suggesting that weirdos commit an assassination, why in dog's name would the MCM publicizes this? Over and over and over (Daniel Schorr did it again last night on NPR; I'm pretty sure he did a nasty on Hillary on Saturday; damn, Dan, get a grip!)

FITH fits. (Finally saw what the initials stand for, teehee.)

kc's picture
Submitted by kc on

the Mainstream Corporate Stenographers.

And I am alot more worried about Hillary's safety than Obamas---considering the mental state of some followers.

OT abit, was checking out the Recreate68 site this afternoon with a friend and a strange thought smacked me in the head. I read about this site awhile back on NoQuarter--apparently it keeps popping up in posts over there. Anyway, being suspicious, I wondered if this site could be an Axelrod creation--you know, to make the rioting in Denver blackmail more believable. Any thoughts?

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

A lot of people would call you paranoid....But are you?

A lot of faith I had in the left blogosphere's credibility is gone now. They may be able to earn it back, but I don't see how, especially if Obama loses in the GE.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Submitted by cg.eye on

Recreate 68 is getting peel-offs from more legit groups, because the stench of agent provocateurs is getting kinda thick. Even though R68 controls all the protest permits for the DNC (funny about that, huh?), distance is being made....

Even though Malloy's in the deep throes of CDS, he did manage to dig that up when Limbaugh made his call for Denver riots a few weeks back.

kc's picture
Submitted by kc on

I never thought I would see Dems smearing other Dems this bad. I expect that kind of crap from repubs.---not us. After hinting at racism, they drag out the 'no smoke without fire' bit and you are cooked (npi). Reminds me abit of Nixon's 'pink lady' campaign in the fifties.

I just got an e-mail from John Edwards requesting money for the cong. Dems--pretty much let him have it in a reply. Oh well, now I'm just sad for what might have been.

Submitted by cg.eye on

and even though my instincts are to say "yes" to the DCCC, I'm not giving a damn dime through the pipes that are clogging FL and MI's process.

If I have to find Udall and stuff some bills in his jockstrap, well, if that's the sacrifice I have to make....

(if you wanna talk about dreamy in a non-Obama Al-Capone-with-the-baseball-bat way, Udall's got it....)

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

"...Even though R68 controls all the protest permits for the DNC (funny about that, huh?), .."

there's some weird stuff gong on in the democratic party.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

posted at no quarter and at anglachel's:

i think i've figured out what obama and axelrod are up to.

why the obama campaign seems so strange, so ruthless, its behavior so much like the bush campaign's behavior in november/december, 2000.

the insight came while reading an article on chicago's political/business power structure written by mel and published at NO QUARTER.

the article is entitled "ayers, obama, philanthropy, corruption..."

my comment there:

Comment by orionATL | 2008-05-29 10:06:12

this article by mel could use a good editor, but it provided me with a key insight.


they intend to TAKE OVER AND USE the democratic party to radically reform american politics,

these guys are left-wing ideologues little different from the right-wing ideologues who have run the bush presidency for seven and 1/2 long years.

throughout this campaign i keep reading comments from democrats and clinton supporters to the effect that

- the obama campaign is trying to hijack the democratic party.

- obama is some sort of manchurian candidate.

Mel’s article tells me that their intuition was correct.

read between the lines in the following two quotes and i think you will see what i mean.

from Mel’s article:

[(mel asks rhetorically)

..the Democratic Party feels someone like this is the future?
> Answer:

Dohrn stated: “I don’t look to the Democratic Party. I don’t have hope for the Democratic Party. I think the Democratic Party is bankrupt. And I think the only answer is for us to build an independent, radical movement, and, I mean, the big ‘us.’ “Stay vigilant. The light will come”…….is the light Obama, yes to them he is! JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY!! ]

and this

[ … David Axelrod happens to come from a politically communist family: his mother use to write for the NY paper “PW” which was a communist oriented paper. Axelrod also met Obama in the early 1990’s (1991 to be exact), when Obama was a community organizer leading a voter-registration drive on the South Side. Axelrod served as advertising director for Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign. A former political reporter, Axelrod, 53, left the Chicago Tribune in 1984 (started in 1977) to become press secretary for then-Rep. Paul Simon, D-Ill., who was running for the Senate. He established himself as a fixture in Windy City politics, as well as statewide. In 1989, Axelrod went to work for Richard M. Daley in his first successful bid to be Chicago’s mayor, and he has remained close to the Daley machine ever since by displacing the African-American leadership from City Hall. Read More. ]

bernadine dorn is bill ayers wife. i’d bet that obama and ayers and dorn and axelrod have had lots of conversations about taking over the democratic party in order to transform american politics.

axelrod’s communist family background suggests to me that axelrod was raised to hold a deep contempt for american political traditions and for the democratic party.

know we know

obama is the means for axelrod and ayers and dorn to “reform” american politicis.

that’s whatpolitics this strange race is all about.

and the superdelegates are going right along with that.

Submitted by lambert on

Please tell me it No.

Because the neo-cons were the Trots.

Personally, I think the "Communist" thing is over the top, ideologically. But when the ideology leaches away, the tactics and the institutions remain. The creative class as "vanguard" would be a useful trope, for example.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Lost in Space's picture
Submitted by Lost in Space on

But it is also part of how the GOP Narrative on Obama being "Anti-American" and "Wrong for America" has been able to gain traction; using the two "Vanguards" of American enemies: Godless Communism, and the "Secret Islamic Plot to Take Over America, Using Obama in a Position of POTUS to Do So."

Jeremiah Wright's "--d D--- America" comment was used intentionally to inflame the GOP base and stoke the coming fire of Patriotism and referendum over the war. However, the fact that Fox News was the one that "breaks" this story over the comments suggests to me that the comment was not meant to infer something sinister about Obama, but rather to start the wheels of "Obama: Anti-American" & "Obama: Secret Muslim Terrorist" running. The fact that some of Clinton's ardent supporters are running with the meme is sad. Much of this stems from the praise of Obama and absolute denigration of Hillary Clinton (as a power-hungry ----h) and her husband (as a madman "protecting" his wife) from the SCLM - and thus, any avenue which projects weakness to Obama becomes tempting.

Unfortunately, latching on to either meme against a presidential candidate; a presidential candidate of color, to boot; especially with any lack of hard, concrete evidence - at which point one would wonder why the "proper authorities" were never notified, especially given that a GOP-run Justice Department would have loved to deliver a smackdown to a Democratic Senator (say hello to Senator Alan Keyes?) - only makes things worse.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

Submitted by lambert on

See here.

Obama's got the press and the A list. They can handle this nonsense, I'm sure. Eh?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

They're doing a very fine job of hiding it.

My theory is this is plain old Chicago-style rent seeking:

Rent seeking generally implies the extraction of uncompensated value from others without making any contribution to productivity, such as by gaining control of land and other pre-existing natural resources, or by imposing burdensome regulations or other government decisions that may affect consumers or businesses.

They intend on using the government as a cash and favors machine to enrich themselves and their friends, and they intend on building a political machine on top of it.

Axelrod isn't a communist. He's Daley's man. He's looking to be a political boss, not a zampolit.

Submitted by lambert on

... fees for those mandated 401Ks, eh?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

lambert sez

"when the ideology leaches away, the tactics and the institutions remain. "

this is very much in line with my thinking here. my invocation of communism is emphatically NOT in order to discredit the obama campaign by screaming "commie" at david axelrod or by association, obama (there's words to play with here).

even if i were inclined to do that, which i'm not, it would have little political resonance today.

but axelrod having been raised in such a household, one presumes of intense political interest, activism, and most likely intense criticism of existing institutions, might incline axelrod to keep his eye out for opportunities for radical change.

there's nothing wrong with that, right?

nothing except that almost every combination of left-wing (or right-wing) ideology, coupled to "machine (authoritarian)" politics has been disastrous wherever it has taken root in the world.

the revolution begins nobly and promisingly, but then declines into authoritarianism and corruption. see european history - cromwell to lenin.

illustrative example?

remember those 527's that the obama campaign doesn't want his supporters to contribute to?

he wants all the money to flow to his campaign. then he controls, from the top, both the message AND the distribution of funds.

sweet, huh?

i'm not sure where this all leads, but my insight of the moment is that all of NO
Quarter's pecking away at obama's longtime relationship with bill ayers and bernadette dorn is beginning to allow us to see the outlines of what the obama campaign's hidden agenda MIGHT be.

could i be wrong? maybe the better question is: am i ever right? the answer to either is not of concern to me. from my viewpoint the challenge is to figure out what is happening in this particular democratic nomination season. and why it feels so strange.

when the obama campaign talks about "transformational politics", maybe we ought to take them at their word.

and worry about what the citadel on a hill they are going to build FOR us would be like to live in.

for the record, in thinking about what is going on in the democratic party now, i believe it is very important to keep the phrase "obama campaign" in the forefront of our minds. barack obama the person is but the public face of a nascent radical movement.

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

I dont know if Obama is anti-American. I dont even know what that means, really.

I do know Obama would be Wrong for America, there's plenty of evidence of that.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

cenobyte sez

'My theory is this is plain old Chicago-style rent seeking:..."

i love that line.

very droll.

my conspiracy hypothesis** is that the obama campaign IS chicago city machine politics ( the daley machine) and illinois state machine politics ("the combine")

married to left-wing radical political goals.

the danger this approach holds for the nation is well illustrated by the careers of obama and axelrod. since entering politics in illinois, obama has been deeply enmeshed in state machine politics some of which is corrupt in the rent-seeking manner.

as for axelrod, this putative reformer has been the go-to p.r. guy for the daley machine whenever corruption charges land on that machine.

nobody ever said you couldn't be a crackpot evangelical and a ruthless political power seeker and money bagger (james dobson, jerry falwell), did they?

that's the way right-wing radical politics has worked in america - scoundrels, ideology (faith), money, and power.

being similar personality types, why wouldn't left-wing radial politicians be expected to play a similar game?


conspiracy "theories" can get old and tiring.
"conspiracy hypotheses", on the other hand are absolutely required for the proper level of skepticism in analyzing political activities.

Submitted by lambert on

Sure, Obama could be some sort of weird neo-Straussian who's managed to conceal a hard left agenda so totally that there's no evidence for it. Heck, for all I know he could be part of the Italian Masonic apparatus, or programmed by whatever the KGB is calling itself these days. Or the Illuminati.

Occam's razor: I think Obama's behavior can be completely explained by rent-seeking in Chicago machine politics mode (and thanks for that analytical tool). So there's no need to introduce The Phonebooth Theory, steroidally enhanced, at all.

As for conspiracy, you really need to check out Shystee's concept of emergent conspiracy. CT is boring and trivial, hypothetical or no.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

Which left-wing political goals? I don't hear anything about the workers' control of the means of production.

I've heard a little left rhetoric and a little right rhetoric and a lot of religious rhetoric, but when I look into backgrounds and plans, I see CHA-CHING!

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

i am not thinking in terms of pinning some label on obama, or on axelrod, or on goolsby, et al.

calling one or the other troyskyite, social democrat, libertarian, 60's radical, neo-con, blah, blah, blah

misses the point.

what might that point be?

just this.

if obama is elected president, he will walk into the white house on january, 2009. walking in with him will be several key advisers. his and their views and "theories" on american society, it's problems, what's to be a priority in this new administration

will determine what courses of action they take.

do you know where these guys come from intellectually?

can you predict what they may find important to pursue or to not pursue?

can you make even an educated guess about what their legislative priorities might be?

suppose senator clnton becomes president. in jan, 2008 she would walk into the white house with her advisers.

can you predict how she will approach the presidency?

what might be her most important legislative priorities?

senator clinton's intellectual background is pretty well known. her inclinations as president can be guessed at. she is most likely to be a president who makes government work and who fixes problems. i like that.

senator obama's intellectual background is not well known at all. i have no idea how he will act. he seems uninterested in policy, not particularly concerned with problems. i don't like that uncertainty.

if obama is elected, i am going to have to wait at least a few months, maybe longer before i learn whether or not i think he can handle the job adequately. i don't like that uncertainty.

is it worth spending some time trying to figure out obama's and his advisors backgrounds?

i think so.

so then, where IS a "proper" place to start?

if not with obama's long association with bill ayers and bernadette dorn and, more generally, his intellectual network,


if not david axelrod's intellectual background and network, where?

historical note:

the PNAC (project for the new american century)letter the neo-cons sent to president clinton was dated january 26, 1998.

in ".. the PNAC's open letter to President Bill Clinton, its members explicitly called for a U.S. ground campaign to oust Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq" (wikipedia).

cheney, and rumsfeld signed that letter. others who also signed it (perle, fith, bolton) would, 4 years later, become high level dod and white house officials who participated in planning and carrying out the bush administration's invasion and occupation of iraq, a colossal military and diplomatic blunder.

was the intellectual background of these folks discussed in the 2000 presidential campaign?

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

don't be a smart-ass and say "chicago".

jeralyn merritt at "talk left" posted this today

"obama's new politics doesn't encourage new policies"

jeralyn wrote:

[ The Washington Post analyzes Barack Obama's campaign from an issues standpoint and finds he breaks little new ground.

When Obama changed his mind and decided to run for president after only two years in the Senate, however, he effectively dismissed the importance of policy proposals, declaring in one speech in early 2007, "We've had plenty of plans, Democrats," and in another: "Every four years, somebody trots out a white paper, they post it on the Web." He cast his "new kind of politics" in terms of his ability to transcend divisions and his unique biography and offered few differences on issues from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates.
His "new politics" mostly refers to tone and leadership style. I found this statement by a campaign aide quite telling:

Obama aides, however, say their approach will work because most voters are looking not for a new vision for expanding health care but rather for a reformed political system such as the one Obama calls for, one that would solve problems rather than resort to bickering.
I think a new vision for expanding health care is exactly what Democrats are looking for. ]

i wonder what would be of interest to a president obama?

"... a reformed political system such as the one Obama calls for, one that would solve problems rather than resort to bickering..."


what could that mean?

how long do we have to wait to find out?

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

means funneling government money to your cronies instead of their cronies. Obama's backers are money men. They don't care about fixing America, they care about getting their slice.

Or, actually, since we're talking Unity, perhaps it means funneling money to your cronies and their cronies. Everyone's happy.

What it clearly doesn't mean is fighting for Universal Healthcare.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

especially a reformed political system in chicago.

david axelrod has worked for mayor daley and with governor rod blogojevitch

both advocates of share the wealth, chicago-style.