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

Pretty fucking sad

It's pretty fucking sad when Big Boi Josh Mr. Stubble starts quoting Drudge's BFF, the Politico, as an authoritative source, or, indeed, as doing "reporting" at all. Because Politico is always wrong about everything.


Hey, remember when we had the self-correcting blogosphere, and a media critique, and everything?

But that's s-o-o-o-o-o-o 2007!

Oliver Willis (April 19, 2007)

The Politico should really just be called out for what it is: an outlet for right-wing nonsense to attack Democratic pols. A lot of the people who write for Politico think that the era of "journalism" from '91-present where the press exists to slam Democratic politicians (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Obama, Clinton) and suck up to Republican ones is the normal state of things, and if it means servicing Massah Drudge they're more than happy to do it.

But it isn't real journalism in any sense of the word.

Crooks and Liars:

OK, so we all know Drudge's new BFF is the Politico. And we know that Drudge is a GOP smear machine,,,Aren't you thinking what I'm thinking? Greenwald says they are joined at the hip

Media Matters has the rundown…All hail "Drudgico"…

Glenn Greenwald

The new online political magazine, The Politico, is a pernicious new presence in our media landscape. As I noted the other day, it really is nothing more than the Drudge Report dressed up with the trappings of mainstream media credibility. Today, Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News writes on his blog about what is merely the latest episode (of many) proving how closely coordinated The Politico is with The Drudge Report. It is not hyperbole to say that the former is all but an arm of the latter.

Good times...

Why, I'm so old I remember when I used to go to TPM for the news!

Tell me again why it's any better to have the Boiz on the Blogs pick my candidate for me than the rest of our famously free press?

UPDATE eRiposte does the math. Two conclusions: First, in the popular vote, Clinton's doing just fine, especially if you, like, count all the votes and don't disenfranchise FL and MI. Second, the caucus system is just wildly undemocratic: In both TX and WA, the caucus system and the results of a genuine, secret ballot election are very different, and while Hillary wins the genuine election, Obama takes the caucuses. Of course, an Obama nomination won't disenfranchise the large states that Obama can't win or didn't deign to compete in, no siree.

UPDATE Boi Josh doesn't get it. He opines:

et this afternoon, just before going to a meeting, I posted a link to The Politico article on Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the nomination and expressed my agreement with it. When I returned I fully expected an avalanche of emails from Hillary supporters. But when I did return, nothing, or nearly so. Even the few we did get barely seemed to have their heart in it.

That's not it. We know you're so deep in the tank there's no point writing.

No votes yet


BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Takes on both the Blog Boys and the media today at I had no idea Josh Marshall had insinuated that Clinton was behind the Obama passport file break ins, does this mean Obama is behind the Clinton break ins? Nah, I'm sure she was behind the break in to her files to provide cover for her later break in of Obama's. You know how manipulative and devious we wimmin folk are.

OxyCon's picture
Submitted by OxyCon on

I got booted from there for calling them out and calling them "Obama's Talking Point's Mouthpiece".

Now I'm going to call his other bog the "Horse's Ass".

Anna Granfors's picture
Submitted by Anna Granfors on

...wondering if the lack of the usual Hillary-supporter e-mail he got on this meant that "acceptance [of impending loss]" was right around the corner for the HRC campaign.

I didn't have the heart to write him to tell him that people were just embarrassed for him (and not a few other A-listers who oughtta know better) for actually quoting from Drudgico approvingly.

oh, man. I just wanna find a liquor strong enough to comatize me until this is all over...

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

win--including FL.

I've read that the 11 biggest states alone give us more than 270 delegates in Nov.

Obama only got his home state, and there's no way in hell he'll carry the midwest/caucus states in the fall.

And McCain takes white men and independents away too. The base, which Obama has not run toward, will decide this.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I think her point that all big states are essentially disenfranchised if MI and FL aren't seated is an interesting one. Essentially, what throwing out MI and FL does is give the smaller states a larger mass than the bigger states and so makes the bigger states less important than, say, Wyoming. Like I said, interesting.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

It's sad that it hasn't occurred to Josh that Hillary supporters aren't emailing him, in part, because fewer of us regularly read his blog. TPM used to be a must-read for me. Now I only go there if someone links to a story that sounds interesting, otherwise I don't bother because I know no matter what happens, it's always good for Obama and bad for Hillary. It's not even a site I go to for opposing views because there no interesting analysis or discussion. Just Hillary sucks, Obama rulz. Hillary could walk on water and the TPM headline would read "Hillary Fails to Swim."

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

which is appalling.

And are there enough consolidated small states that are swing or blue enough to get to 270 anyway? how is that possible?

and isn't the damage done by not counting MI and FL votes in the convention/nomination already horrendously damaging for November? The effect on the general seems to be ignored by the DNC for power reasons, which sucks.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Well, Riverdaughter's theory is that ultimately the big states - and their Super Delegates - will not permit their wishes to be overcome by, say, South Dakota. That with MI and FL there would be an overwhelming critical mass of support for Clinton from big states and she believes that, in the end, the big states are likely to oppose that. Unless I'm misreading her.

And here is a good primer on the popular vote issues and why The Math isn't as bad for Clinton as many, like Josh, are making it sound -

Submitted by lambert on

They wouldn't be screaming so loud for Hillary to quit if they thought they could beat her. Eh?

I mean, if she didn't quit before TX and OH, why would she quit now?

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

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I never feel quite so confident in Hillary's chances as I do when hearing so many screaming for her to drop out. I'd believe she was dead more if they acted like they cared about her less.

And today the Obama folks spent his campaign conference call personally attacking her. Not exactly the way someone who has put this thing away behaves.

Submitted by lambert on

I thought we were going to have a national conversation about race, and now we're recycling Hillary hatred?

It seems confusing, but I guess it's just me.

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

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Person 1: Wasn't Obama's speech on race, like, the best speech in, like, twenty years?

Person 2: Best speech ever.

Person 1: Obama rocks. He can heal our divisions with his face. His face.

Person 2: Yeah, the best ever. Hillary sucks.

Person: Yeah. Dishonest, triangulating shrew. She needs to drop out.

And we're right back on script. Not so much a conversation as an attempted transition. We'll see if it works.

Edited for embarrassing spelling mistake.

Submitted by lambert on

With a little expansion, that's worth a post, BDB.

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

A. Citizen's picture
Submitted by A. Citizen on

......What Kos, Bowers, Marshall and yes even Drudge were doing was appopriate. At that level of our 'culture' the 'Big Man' served to organize and direct the community for the good of the community. The whole community; if not they soon ceased to be a 'Big Man' and were replaced.

Now, not only are the Committee of Three, plus their new ally D, out of step with the rest and directing resources in the wrong direction, the doomed O-Man campaign, Left Blogistan is moving on to the next phase of organization. Civilization.

Or is it?

It's not inevitable that the 'lather, rinse and repeat cycle' of mentality be broken. We've seen it persist in the 'sphere until now. I say it is up to us, Lambert, CD, the rest of Corrente along with those of RiverDaughter's clan, the exiles, to ensure that the 'Big Men' don't transition to the next phase of primitive culture 'The Chieftains'. First step is understand how they will/are doing this. They are using internet 'warfare', hominem attacks...spin...lies, to break their opponents by shutting them out of the conversation.


Lots of discussion, lots of questioning, lots of thinking ahead. No flaming just good old fashioned rhetoric backed by what was once Kos's greatest weapon.

The facts in all their messy, non-linear selves.

But, as I said about Boosh in 2003, I'll be damned if I ever stop opposing the stupidity and lies of Kos/Bowers/Marshal/Drudge, interesting how that last name just fits right in ain't it...., and any other of the 'Big Men' who arise on the 'net.

Speak Out!

It's our best way to....

Fight Back!

And one wonders what the late Steve Guilliard would say about his old partner Kos now?

A. Citizen

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

They wouldn’t be screaming so loud for Hillary to quit if they thought they could beat her. Eh?

I have been thinking the same thing.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

someone give Siddarth a camera and tell him to follow McCain around, because that is the only way we are going to win this one.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

Really interesting article on the population and race and bias and psychology, etc (and not about either candidate or wright, but about all of us)--

and this (but it's less about us, and more about past/present and our wide gulf, etc) -- --
"... Two thirds of whites believe that blacks have achieved or will soon achieve racial equality. Nearly eighty percent of blacks believe that racial justice for blacks will not be achieved either in their lifetime or at all in the U.S...."

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

top blog entry now makes the hillary argument. Please don't let this distract you guys from your mission of feeling persecuted by the Obama Controlled Media.

Submitted by lambert on

Thank you for commenting, rootless. Your comments are very important to us. Please do not hesitate to share them again.

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

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

not in the link, but the imbalance on this thread. i don't care who wins. but: if we're going to talk about the blogosphere, who links where and to whom, i'd really like it if more people spoke up.

i totally agree with the premise of this post: Politico? OMGWTFBBQ? since when are they "liberl???" but still, i was just thinking as i went thru the comments: surely more people than those who are in 100% accord have a *nuanced* opinion to share here, on this.

it's not about HRC or BHO. it's about "why do we care what politico says, given their track record?" let's hear more about that.

A_B's picture
Submitted by A_B on

chicago dyke,

I can't speak for other lurkers, but as a long time lurker the transformation that this blog has undergone is deeply unsettling. I hate to use a tired old phrase, but it really has become about the politics of personal destruction.

On the topic of the election, substantive discussion has made way for little more than constant name calling and emotional outbursts against perceived persecution from all corners.

For example, lambert's constant name calling of, as far as I can tell, everyone on the left side of the blogosphere who doesn't support Clinton is particularly unsettling. Just today, for Josh Marshall, I see, "Mr. Stubble" and "Big Boi Josh." Nevermind the "deep in the tank" comments regarding JMM, or similar claims made recently such as Matthew Yglesiasis is suffering from "Beltway mindrot."

Of course, Kos is constantly and sarcastically referred to as "Lord Kos" and there's an endless stream of derogatory nicknames for Obama. (As much as it seems there is personal animosity towards Kos, I can't recall a time that he made the same kind of insulting nicknames towards Clinton or others in the blogosphere on the left.)

The idea of respectfully disagreeing with those who generally have the same political outlook is absent. The substance of the opposing viewpoints is generally ignored with the focus on the claimed personal failings of the third-person.

This behavior, obviously, tends to discourage lurkers from speaking up.

Which brings me to the OP here regarding Politico. The substance of lambert's post is: insults, citation to year old posts about Politico, and general criticisms of Politico by Media Matters. The eRiposte update, at least, attempts to address some substance that is wholly lacking in the original post.

Now, a more nuanced and relevant discussion would look at the work of the two reporters and the substance of their post about Clinton's chances and the media. If the blog is interested in nuanced comments, in the very least, the original posts should reflect a modicum of thoughtfulness.

Looking to Media Matters ("MM") specific criticism of Allen and Vandehei and not just Politico as a whole, MM has had 6 posts about Vandehei, none related to Clinton, and Allen's big problem was promoting the Clinton "cackle" meme a few months ago. Hardly a right-wing agenda against Clinton that warrants not only dismissing the article, but JMM who cited it with a "Pretty fucking sad" post title.

Consequently, I think it's unfair to dismiss the entirety of reporters at Politico based on the lousy work of other reporters. It's nothing more than guilt by association. Moreover, reliance on year old comments is particularly unconvincing.

Obviously, there's no discussion whatsoever of the merits of the article in the original post. lambert simply makes the ad hominem that _everything_ from Politico is inherently wrong and meritless, and that mere citation is another example of how JMM is in "the tank."

Consequently, it's the caliber of the original post, which provides very little substantive criticism, and the overall tenor of the blog that discourages people from responding and fosters an echo chamber environment. If lambert and others want to publicly vent, that's absolutely their right. But don't be surprised if those who disagree aren't motivated to respond in a nuanced manner to these emotional outbursts and turn to other blogs for commentary.

Submitted by lambert on

Heck, since when are they reporters?

I liked Marshall's example, though. Sly. The credibility of a comment is inversely proportional to the number of exclamation points it contains, and the all caps is a dead giveaway. Yep, real representatie selection by a fair-minded guy. Of course, there could be other explanations for why he's not getting any mail...

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

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

three polls. Same polling company, same basic margin of error, same state (Ohio) same population.

January 1-4 -- Obama just beginning to gain traction nationally
Clinton 46% McCain 48%
Obama 43% McCain 50%

February 26-28 -- Obama is riding high. Literally at the top of his versus McCain national polling trend line at, while Clinton is at the bottom of hers
Clinton 50% McCain 40%
Obama 50% McCain 40%

March 14-16 -- Wrightgate has hit the media bigtime
Clinton 50% McCain 44%
Obama 43% McCain 50%

In less than two weeks time, lost a net 17 points to McCain because of one problem. He's literally back where he started in Ohio after winning in Iowa. This is a candidate that people have been hearing about for three months, but no so little about that at the first sign of trouble, his support starts hemmorhaging.

Clinton has had her ups and downs, but at no point has her support nosedived like this -- even with all the crap she's had to put up with.

And all the MUPpets insist that Obama is unbeatable in the General Election....

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

asks previous primary voters if they've changed their minds since?

That's what i wanna see--i think that if this Wright stuff had come out earlier it would have affected earlier primaries, but i'd like to see proof either way.

Submitted by lambert on

... and a dime will buy you a cup of coffee.

Paul, any polling data on this? Any time series?

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

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Ohio is the only state where I've been looking at GE matchups over time, and the because of limitations in the data in Ohio (see below) its hard to say for sure what has been going on over the long haul there (maybe I'll try to balance out the data to get a better idea at some point, since Ohio is going to play a key role in Part III of my sexism series.)

As for primary voters changing their minds, I haven't seen any polls that address that specific question, but the Obama/McCain matchup data suggests that, at least among democrats in Ohio, nobody changed their minds. The big change came with independents. In the Dem primary in Ohio, independents were 22% of the electorate, and broke slightly for Obama 50% to 48%. Keep that in mind when you look at the data from the McCain/Obama matchups below.

During the period when Obama went from +10 to -7 against McCain, there no change in Democratic support for Obama (66%), while McCain went up 1% among Democrats (to 25%). Among Republicans, Obama lost 4% (to 12%) while McCain picked up 8%) --ie, it wasn't just a switch, a lot of republicans went from undecided to McCain, and undecided GOP's went from 8% to 3%). The big change was among independents -- Obama went from 60% to 45% among independents, while McCain jumped from 28% to 49%.

One important caveat about the big change in Obama's ratings in Ohio (which may also explain why McCain gained 4 points on Clinton)...

SUSA polls are based on registered voters -- but I can find no voter registration breakdown for Ohio. In the February poll, the party breakdown was 26% GOP, 49% Dem, 18% Ind. In the March poll it was 34% GOP, 44% Dem, 18% Ind. While gender and racial breakdowns showed only minor difference (gender going from 47% -53% Male/Female in Feb to 48% -52% in March, race going from 86% - 11% White/Black in Feb to 87%-10% in March), the swing on voter registration demographics is probably do to a lack of baseline data for SUSA to use -- and so they just go with what people tell them.

Earlier SUSA polls show the same kind of wild swings in the party demographic as well -- and I don't think its because people are changing their party identification, because the "independent" vote stays pretty much the samw throughout.

Most of McCain's gains against Clinton can be racked up to the increase in Republicans (McCain saw only a net 1% increase among independent, and since they were only 18% of the vote, you're talking a very minor shift in overall voter sentiment.) However, most of McCain's gains against Obama have to be racked up to the major shift in the independent" vote.

....and the white vote. In late February, Obama lead McCain among whites by 47% to 42% -- a 5 point lead. By mid-march, that had changed to a 19 point deficit among whites Obama 37%, McCain 56%.

Submitted by lambert on

This one:

In late February, Obama lead McCain among whites by 47% to 42% — a 5 point lead. By mid-march, that had changed to a 19 point deficit among whites Obama 37%, McCain 56%.

Of course, it's all the fault of that bitch Hillary. She should drop out. How come I'm only seeing numbers like this on a C-list blog?

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

Charles Lemos's picture
Submitted by Charles Lemos on

that Hillary must drop out now (before Pennsylvania) only points to the fact that the Obama camp is running scared and is rather desperate to stem the bleeding of support.

Saint Barack of the Rock has a problem. Ahead but behind the eight ball.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

the fact that vetting is only happening now that most primaries are over really makes me want to know if Iowa or other midwestern/western voters are thinking twice or not.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

the main$stream media message has permeated most of the big blogs -- ritual disclaimer for Eschaton here -- and many of the b-,c-,...and xyz-listers as well of late.

i still don't know where 0bama's support arose from. I still don't know for sure who he's beholden to. He still makes my back teeth itch. I still can't tell you any better than that what it is about him that fills me with a deep abiding lack of trust, but there it is. No matter how hard I try, when I see/hear him, it's like I'm watching a rerun of W in 2000. It smells like Enron.

those of you who've known me long understand that i'm not a default-HRC fan, either. I'm an Edwards Democrat, as they sometimes called it over at Kos before the site went completely _________er-riffic.

I believe the solutions have to start with bringing the US back from the brinksmanship played so ruthlessly and so recklessly since November 2000. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice -- so many criminals, even if you don't want to hold the (plausibly, IMHO) brain-damaged public figurehead to account for all the evil achieved on his watch (and if you're one of the muckety-mucks aboard the Halliburton/Blackwater gravy train, or a Bear/Stearns boardmember, mission accomplished is the understatement of the decade!).

I still believe one of the biggest good things the next president can / should / must do is end the war in Iraq.
If the nation remains determined to pursue vengeance, let there be a NATO/UN effort in Afghanistan and its borderlands to find bin Laden (remember when the President made catching him priority number one? seems a lifetime ago, now, doesn't it? And the war in Afghanistan is a lot older war than the war in Iraq.)

Secondary to that, the next president MUST work with Congress to revamp our national nightmare of "health care coverage" which puts 47 million Americans in jeopardy of instant poverty at the touch of illness/injury, and countless millions more a single short step away because they're "underinsured." Single-payer is the only way, really; and the fact that we, the USA who claim to be so civilized and advanced are not only prosecuting two wars, one of which we provoked on grounds so evanescent no one can remember the original terms, but threatening yet a 3rd front in the Middle East (don't tell me Fallon wasn't run out so an attack against Iran could be engineered), we're the only civilized nation in the world where people don't have access to necessary health care regardless of ability to pay, is pathetic. The ONLY 'civilized' nation in the world whose citizens and residents are at the mercy of mercenary, profiteering 'insurers' -- 'insurers' who have more clout, should they deign to cover your health care needs so that you can continue to eat and pay your mortgage/rent, than your doctor in what prescriptions you may have / may not have ('covered expenses,' 'approved medications,' 'contract pharmacy', anybody?) -- yeah, that would be the US of A, and our delusional "master class" thinks we have the best healthcare system in the world.
Where's your choice regarding which doctor to see, when the "network" limits you? What about second opinions or alternative courses of treatment? None of that's currently affordable unless you're pulling down six-figures-annually in the US. So how, pray tell, are we better off and how do we have more freedom than "socialized medicine" offers?
Unity isn't going to solve either of those problems, CD.
Charisma and personal charm aren't going to solve them either. It's going to be a long haul to get those two things done, and based on previous performance as a public servant, one of the two Democratic candidates left in the race just doesn't strike me as qualified. Doesn't seem to me to be able to stand up to the test of a long haul.

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

So a guy who worked as a political organizer, civil rights lawyer, a state legislator and senator with highest ratings; Someone endorsed enthusiastically by leftie icons like Cornell West, Lakoff, and Barbara Lee, plus people like Tim Wu and Larry Lessig, move-on, SEIU, and many other organization's - makes a liberal voter deeply uncomfortable for reasons that can't be articulated. Just "smells like Enron".

Smells like "bought the negative emotional marketing" to me.

Submitted by lambert on

I read Marshall for a long, long time. I really hoped we were looking at a new kind of citizen journalism from the blogosphere -- based on the media critique that so many of us worked so hard and so long, and for no money, to develop.

Alas, it was not to be. I'm not the one that turned TPM into something other than a source of trusted news; TPM did that all on its own. And the same can be said of many other places I used to read with regularity -- and I am by no means the only reader who has reacted that way.

Now, this post has absolutely nothing to do with "the politics of personal destruction" (for pity's sake). To make this claim is to miss the point of the post, and misunderstand the nature of the site (or my work on the site, at least; others have different approaches).

TPM is in a small media company that's in the profit-making business of delivering eyeballs to readers because of its product --- just like the world's greatest newspaper (not!) that used to employ Judy "Kneepads" Miller.

TPM is also s branded product where part of the brand is the identity of its editor and owner (and his stubble). It's also a brand where the quality has gone south. I, as a reader and consumer, am reacting to what's happened to TPM in exactly the same way that I reacted to what happened to the Times -- by inflicting pain on their brand so that they change their behavior; a project which, in its own way and over time and with the participation of many, actually had some effect on our famously free press; one such effect being, obviously, to fuel the development of new media properties like TPM. With what seems like irony, now.

Yes, it would be wonderful if I had the time, constantly, and always, to write "balanced and nuanced" posts -- and you yourself, A_B, may even invest the time all by yourself to create the kind of content you find so lacking here, instead of seeking to invest mine; to be the change that you seek, as it were -- but unfortunately, the checks from Soros dried up long ago, and the checks I get from shilling for Hillary don't cover the difference.

Basically, there are two kinds of posts that I write. Some are indeed balanced and nuanced; revote wrap-up, for example, falls into that category.

Some are snark, and snark designed to inflict pain, at that (see the discussion of branding above). The snark posts occur for these reasons: (1) The development of invective has always been a purpose of the site, and the only way to develop invective is to invect; and (2) snarky posts are easy to write. (The wrap up post took several hours; this post took well over a day. And then there's the time to monitor the comments.) One of my responsibilities is to drive traffic to the site (and it's up by a third since, well, sites like TPM became, well, what they've become). That benefits not only me, but all the Fellows and the commenters as well. And to drive traffic, as I learned from Atrios long ago, there is only one solution: Post, post, post! And that responsibility, in turn, means that I need a successful formula. Snark posts are such a formula.

Now, I think that the snark posts are pretty easy to differentiate from the analytical posts. A title like "Pretty fucking sad" is odds on snark, and a title like "Obama stump speech strategy of conciliation considered harmful" is pretty likely to be analytical.

Therefore, if you wish only to read the analytical posts, and avoid the snark posts, I suggest that there are ways for you to "Take what you like, and leave the rest," as the slogan goes.

In addition, I could invent an "analytical" tag. Since Drupal permits readers to subscribe to RSS feeds by tags, you could then avoid reading that which you do not want to read.

Think of me as a Herblock with words -- doing the verbal equivalent of always drawing Nixon with a 5-o-clock shadow. And if you hate Herblock cartoons, then skip the page that those cartoons are on.

UPDATE I forgot to say: There's probably a post to be written on what happened to the new media, but events press. In any case, the occasion of the post was a transparent and collective "Why doesn't that bitch drop out?" campaign that began at Politico and metastasized rapidly through a number of sites I used to read, and I responded to that campaign with the respect that it merited. Of course, I could have written a letter to TPM, but that woudn't have done a thing; I would have had to spell "Jessy" "Jesse," or go "!!!" to get published. No thanks. As I said, it's pretty fucking sad. And for some of us who had different dreams for the country and the discourse, a source of great anger.

UPDATE The Media Matters link, BTW, is current. So much for "year old" links...

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

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

w/Obama--and it's for a wide variety of reasons--citing his resume doesn't answer that.

this might help explain--

"... Since declaring for President, this person has called Social Security a 'crisis', attacked trial lawyers, associated unapologetically with vicious homophobes, portrayed Gore and Kerry as excessively polarizing losers, boasted as his central achievement an irrelevant ethics bill, ran against the DC establishment while taking huge amounts of cash from DC, undermined Ned Lamont in 2006, criticized NAFTA while voting for a NAFTA-style trade agreement, compiled opposition research on the most effective liberal pundit in the country, refused to promise that American troops would be out of Iraq by 2013, and endorsed the central plank of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy doctrine, the war on terror.

How would you react? ..."

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

Note that Lamont and Kerry have endorsed Obama despite the claimed attacks.

The crisis remark on Social Security was part of a demand to end the cap on social security taxes - that is to make it less regressive and unfairly burdensome on the lowest wage workers.

"associated unapologetically with vicious homophobes" is an idiotic lie.

The ethics bill is certainly not irrelevant and is probably the core reason why so many thug congressmen are resigning.

The Peru agreement was nothing like NAFTA

And as for the endorsement on the war on terror, give me a break. What does that mean?

You supply a list of quarter and half truths, plain lies, and irresponsible slanders as basis for your uncomfortable feeling.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

there are links to back up every single thing i quoted from there--go read.

And there have been plenty more since.

People are listening to what he says--words matter, you know--and that's why many don't trust him. His campaign has also been just as slandering and dirty as Hillary's all along, while pretending not to be--it doesn't build trust. Now he wants a discussion on race, but Wright can't participate, nor any Clinton supporter? It's a crock.

And his supporters are always reinterpreting this guy and telling us what and why he says what he says--why is that?

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

Many voters have voted for other candidates. That's fine. I very much dislike Hillary, but that's the democratic process and anyone endorsed by Jim McGovern can't be all bad - I hope. It makes sense that people will disagree about the best candidate. But what is peculiar here is the conviction that Obama is "like W" or Enron or is some sort of manchurian candidate or other, frankly, wacky stuff.

Submitted by lambert on

"But what is peculiar here is the conviction"...

Corrente is a group blog. We all have different convictions. Your characterization is simply false.

Now, if you want to take issue with a poster's conviction as expressed in a post, then start with a link, and have at it. But vague statements like the one I cite above are concern trolling, pure and simple.

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

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

Obviously, you have frightened off most people who would be offended by your vitriolic attack on a candidate who has received the votes of a plurality of the democratic electorate.

Go ahead.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

As much as it seems there is personal animosity towards Kos, I can’t recall a time that he made the same kind of insulting nicknames towards Clinton or others in the blogosphere on the left.

Kos has been a bully for years, that is why so many women left the Orange Frat House. The Clinton supporter walk out is only the most recent blow up.

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

there are links to back up every single thing i quoted from there—go read.

And there have been plenty more since.

People are listening to what he says—words matter, you know—and that’s why many don’t trust him. His campaign has also been just as slandering and dirty as Hillary’s all along, while pretending not to be—it doesn’t build trust. Now he wants a discussion on race, but Wright can’t participate, nor any Clinton supporter? It’s a crock.

And his supporters are always reinterpreting this guy and telling us what and why he says what he says—why is tha

Oh please, that "reinterpretation" schtick is weaker than the Bush economy.

Lamont and Kerry DID endorse Obama, so it's kinda hard to believe that he was so terrible to both of them. Fact.

Edwards DID take Senator Clinton to task in a debate for differing on Social Security with the position that he and Obama took. Fact.

The ethics bill is widely considered to be very significant. Fact.

This is not reinterpretation - it is simple insistence on accuracy. If you want to cite this poorly researched litany as basis for your bad feelings in your teeth, go ahead. But it only serves to undermine your case more.

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

You know, the one about how Obama is really a sharia law candidate? I mean, if JMM's citation of Politico makes him radioactive, the IDB must be the king of seriousness credentials.

Submitted by lambert on

Waiting to be banned?

Rootless, this isn't Kos*. I've banned, IIRC, two people -- both of whom had, by reputation, been banned long before at other sites -- for content that was either grossly anti-semitic, or could have gotten us shut down.

Our immune system isn't administrative measures**, but, like the Piranha Brothers, "... sarcasm. [A]ll the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire." That's in keeping with the mission of the site to develop invective, see comment above.

Elevate your game. Add the links. Do the analysis. Do the work. Engage. Prove yourself. Don't make vague generalizations that characterize the site as a whole, and the Fellows, falsely. Don't recycle talking points. It's our job here to invent talking points. Don't act like a concern troll, and I won't call bullshit on you for it. I remember, back in the day, a commenter at Atrios called Erik (conservative). He had game, it was great. I wish we had him back, but alas, no.

Example: "Negative emotional marketing." That sounds interesting. That sounds like a useful analytical tool. But I have no expertise in the area. Assuming you're not just throwing the phrase out there, there's a good long helpful comment in there with links for others to use. Heck, it may call bullshit on something Hillary does, or I'm doing. Who the Fuck cares, if it's a useful analytical tool? How else do we evolve? But as things stand, the phrase is just thrown out there with no analysis, no links, no nothing, and I can't take the time to disentangle it from, well, trolling or useless gotcha. Again, again, again: Elevate your game.

NOTE * Caveat: Obviously, if the site is swarmed by the OFB, we'd have to take measures to deal with that. And it's a big world, and there are all kinds of trolls, as the long history of the Intertubes shows. So far, we've been pretty lucky. Second caveat: All content is here at the total discretion of The Fellows of The Mighty Corrente Building, and decisions by The Fellows are arbitray and final. Has to be that way. But, again, we've only banned two people.

NOTE ** Unlike TalkLeft, who have done very well with that strategy.

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

Submitted by lambert on

"Bring back" implies that one of the Fellows (not some random commenter) posted that Obama was the sharia law candidate. Can you link to the post where that was said (and not with irony or as snark).

Again, elevate your game.

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

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

Thank you for commenting. Your comment is very important to us. Please do not hesitate to comment again.

one of my all time favorite lines.

Submitted by lambert on

Truly, I'm trying to help the guy. That's why I'm investing the time.

I got that line from somebody over at Matt Yglesias's place, where I still check in occasionally.

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

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

“associated unapologetically with vicious homophobes” is an idiotic lie.

That Obama associated unapologetically with Donnie McClurkin, or that Donnie McClurkin is a vicious homophobe?

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

“associated unapologetically with vicious homophobes” is an idiotic lie.

That Obama associated unapologetically with Donnie McClurkin, or that Donnie McClurkin is a vicious homophobe?

* reply

It's a lie because because it carries implications that don't survive the following facts
(a) every democratic candidate "associates him/herself with homophobes",
(b) mclurkin appeared at a rally that obama did not attend - that's the limit of the "association".
(c) Obama's recorded position on gay rights is good.


Like the hysteria over Obama's religious "pandering" this attack requires the listener to either be or pretend to be absolutely ignorant about how American politics works. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you that that Democratic candidates don't refuse to have anything to do with homophobic figures! Oh my god! We don't want anyone to vote democratic anyways unless they agree with us on all issues in the approved language.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

You're dodging the issue and issuing a dodge at the same time.

Obama recruited McClurkin. McClurkin was at that time already known to say homosexuality was a choice and homosexuals could be 'fixed'. He also said homosexuality is a 'curse'. He's not the only anti-gay gospel act Obama recruited for the tour either.

In spite of these things, Obama benefited from the "crowd pleaser" aspects of McClurkin's stage performance.

Al Sharpton ran for President, and was in favor of letting gays marry.

Taylor Marsh has more.

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

Is it standard procedure for Democratic candidates to seek endorsements from and do joint appearances with homophobes?

Answer: YES. Senator Clinton did so repeatedly. That may not be a nice answer, but it is a true answer. Democratic candidates for President court the audience of homophobic preachers from Rick Warren to the Pope. Just how it is.

Did Obama either endorse or pass silently over McClerkin's homophobic views

Answer: NO. He was quite clear in his disagreement and went further to denounce homphobia as a serious problem during his sermon at Ebenezer Baptist church.

So does Obama's "association" with McClerkin constitute some sort of backing out of his gay rights platform or a nod and and wink to homophobes?

Answer: NO.

So this ridiculous slur just does not pass muster - and neither do the other ones that are put up here time and again no matter how many times they are shot down. Maybe you want to explain to me why Saint Edwards slagged Clinton for differing from the position on SS advocated by Obama and Edwards, when, according to what I read here, Obama wants to turn SS over to Haliburton.

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

Look, you claim Obama has done a terrible thing with his "association" with McClerkin. But you don't seem to want to deal with the fact that Senator Clinton actually sought the endorsement of homophobic preachers (as she should,in my opinion). Either you have a case, or you just want to throw slurs.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

Because, seriously, I wasn't just speaking of my emotions or my impressions. I was showing where I got my information. I was giving you the opportunity to refute my points with facts to back up your own.

You choose not to engage at that level.
So I'm done.

Call it facts and logic if you want, but what you're offering me to back up your contentions is ... well ... more than a little light on references.

Much like a certain presidential candidate: when one goes to examine the record, what one finds is disturbingly insubstantive.

Back to the original point:

associated unapologetically with vicious homophobes” is an idiotic lie.

That Obama associated unapologetically with Donnie McClurkin, or that Donnie McClurkin is a vicious homophobe?

You gonna answer the question?

Obama associated with McClurkin and Mary Mary.
Obama still hasn't owned up to how this looks to GLBT voters.
McClurkin remains proud of his anti-gay stance, as does Mary Mary.

The politics of convenience appear to trump principles here, at least to me.
Either answer the question you were asked, honestly, and back up your assertions, or take your marbles and bother somebody else. I'm tired of this game of yours.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

He wants to be noticed.

But he doesn't have the ability to pull together a coherent argument, so he snipes and taunts and tries to make someone angry - so he'll be noticed.

He wants to fancy himself engaged in wity, sophisticated political argument and banter.

But he is neither witty, nor sophisticated, nor skilled in the structure of rhetoric, so he jabs and he pokes and makes little forays that lead nowhere - so he can fancy himself.

He wants to be respected.

But he isn’t, not here or anywhere, and he never will be on the merits. So he's looking to be banned, as he finally got around to challenging Lambert to do. That way he can run around everywhere bragging that Corrente had to ban him and claiming it was because he was so devastating in his critique that the site couldn’t tolerate him - so he can respect himself.

He wants somebody to care that he exists, and he is so desperate for it that he doesn’t care why.

But nobody does, at least not for long. Eventually he’ll go away, and once he has no one here will care, or miss him, or think about him at all, because he will have left nothing worth thinking about or remembering.


Just so.

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

Which of the following do you doubt?
1. Obama distanced himself, unmistakably from McClurkin's homophobia and even denounced homophobia in the most important black church in America (something no other candidate did).
2. Every Democratic candidate seeks the endorsement of homophobic ministers.
3. Obama's association with McClerkin was that he was a performer at an event.

Did Obama own up to how this looked to GBLT voters? Apparently, he's received many endorsements from GBLT leaders and organizations.

As for the politics of convenience trumping principles - I wouldn't call it convenience, but I'd say that it is impossible for any pure candidate to become the US President. I don't hold it against Hillary Clinton that she preached a sermon at Rick Warren's church without confronting his homophobia and virulent wingnutism or that she is proud of her endorsement by Harold Mayberry. But if you think Obama's "association" with McClerkin is terrible - you need to explain why you don't feel the same about Clinton's associations.

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

And for the war to be stopped. What you want apparently, is to feel smug and outraged at the same time. Get therapy and stay out of politics until you can learn that your feelings are less important than results.

Submitted by lambert on

Thank you for commenting, rootless. Your comment is important to us. Please do not hesitate to comment again.

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