The “screaming woman” who confronted Jane Hamsher on C-Span wasn’t actually screaming

Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake

I admit I have been warming up to Jane Hamsher a bit in the past couple of weeks because of her strong fight against the abortion language in the health care bill. But apparently I got fooled again. We’ve all read and discussed Jane’s post, “Shaking Off the Hangover of the Primary Wars.” Riverdaughter did a spectacular verbal takedown of Jane’s rationalizing yesterday.

The post itself is troubling enough, but Jane’s comments about Hillary Clinton and her supporters in the thread clearly demonstrate that she (Jane) is not yet ready to take responsibility for actions she took or did not take during the divisive primary fights of 2008.

Many of us were able to see through Obama early in the primary process–after doing our own research on his character and his political experience (or lack thereof). But Jane claims that her site remained neutral throughout the primaries because there were no significant policy differences among the top three candidates, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards.

It’s true that FDL did not publicly endorse a candidate, but the posts and comment sections certainly favored Obama. It’s possible Jane couldn’t control the Axelrod astroturfers and just threw up her hands, as Digby did. But she allowed her comment sections to be infested with abusive language toward Clinton and anyone who defended her. And she banned commenters who complained about the bullying.

Jane writes:

Sophisticated campaigns marketed the candidates as personalities and people became attached to them and felt like they knew them. Everyone who opposed them was the “enemy,” rhetoric was amped up and overheated, identity politics were exploited by both sides as strategic campaign elements and suddenly the blogosphere was a giant pie fight.

We made the decision to stay true to our charter and didn’t take sides, pledging to support the candidate that emerged with the nomination. We believed that once the election was over and we could get back to discussing issues again and evaluating politicians on both sides of the aisle with the same yardstick, we’d be back in our element.

She assumes that everyone who followed the primary battles focused on candidates as personalities rather than looking closely at their characters, policy goals, and personal accomplishments. She could not be more wrong. Most of us didn’t support Hillary Clinton for her personality. I actually began the primaries as an “anyone but Hillary” voter. But her performances in the debates convinced me she was the best candidate. It wasn’t about her personality or about her husband, and it wasn’t about her gender–although I admit I would have liked to see a woman President in my lifetime. I supported Clinton because she showed herself to be smart, knowledgeable, and most of all issue-oriented.

Obama, on the other hand, was all about Obama. He never was specific about issues, he never demonstrated any commitment to Democratic ideology. He admired Ronald Reagan, for heaven’s sake! He cozied up to fundamentalist preachers their anti-abortion, homophobic followers. Most damning of all, it became obvious from his many comments about and to Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin that Obama was a misogynist through and through.

I knew Hillary was more conservative than I am, and I knew I probably wouldn’t be happy with her Iraq and Afghanistan policies. But I was even more concerned about domestic issues. All I wanted was a Democrat in the White House who would fight for universal health care and would protect what is left of our social safety net. Instead, thanks to people like Jane and Markos, we ended up with a Republican pretending to be a Democrat–who, if anything is as bad or worse than George W. Bush.

In the discussion thread attached to her post, linked above, Jane posted this comment:

“I had a woman call up and scream at me when I was on CSPAN the other day for all the horrible things Markos and I had done to Hillary Clinton during the primaries, telling me that I had destroyed the Democratic party.

“And I’m like, seriously? I know some people you should meet, you guys would have an interesting fight.”

Many thanks to Gweema for posting the link to Jane Hamsher’s appearance on C-Span’s Washington Journal on November 26, 2009. I watched the whole thing, and right now I’m practically shaking with anger (want to call me a “screamer,” Jane?).

The women caller on C-Span did no screaming. She did not even raise her voice. Instead, she listed her credentials to confront Jane Hamsher and then did so very articulately. Jane responded with condescending lies and half-truths. I decided to transcribe that portion of the interview so we can dissect it here. The relevant section begins at about 25:50.

Elizabeth from Tennessee, calling on the Democratic line, wishes Jane and the interviewer a happy Thanksgiving and says she appreciates their working on the holiday weekend. Here is Elizabeth’s question:

To Jane Hamsher, I have been a lifelong Democrat, I was very involved in the health care battles of the 90’s. I was involved in actual implementing of town hall meetings back then in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois; so I don’t take a back seat to you.

But in the area of February of 2008, I discontinued reading your blog and also the dailykos blog altogether because of your extreme hatred and villification of another Democratic candidate, and that was Senator Hillary Clinton. [Jane Hamsher rolls her eyes at this point]

I don’t know how much you are aware [of]…how much damage you did and how much damage Markos did–

Hamsher interrupts the caller: “Are you sure you’re talking about our blog? We had Hillary Clinton on [patronizing laughter] …

Elizabeth says: I’m talking about your blog, ma’m, and you should know it. If anyone wants to know they should go read…from that time. [interviewer breaks in and asks when this was, but Elizabeth goes on with her points.]

“You mentioned today that Obama was an anti-war candidate. He was no such thing. In fact, throughout the campaign, he continued to say that Afghanistan was a good war…. “

[Jane Hamsher breaks in to agree with Elizabeth on this point.]

Elizabeth says: “You really caused a lot of people to leave the Democratic party during the 2008 campaign. And I’m telling you now, I’m sorry that you’re sick, I’m sorry that you’ve had three bouts with the cancer, but I’m gonna say this. You are going to be shown exactly what damage you caused our party last primary season, and I will never forgive you for that.”

Elizabeth was a bit harsh at times, but she maintained a level tone of voice and did. not. scream. In fact I’d have to say that Jane’s characterization of Elizabeth’s presentation as “screaming” verges on sexism. Perhaps Jane has some unconscious issues in that department.

Here is Jane’s response [highlighting is mine]:

I know that there was a certain class of women who decided that they would start supporting John McCain over what they thought was bad treatment of Hillary Clinton. In fact…I took a video at the Rules Committee meeting, a woman, Harriet Christian who said that…she was not going to support a party who would have an inept black man as a candidate, and that became a…rallying point for some people.

We didn’t take a position…in the primaries. We said that we would support whoever was the winner and in fact had Senator Clinton as a guest on the blog, so I think we represented all viewpoints. I think there were people their who were Hillary Clinton partisans; I think that there were people there who were Barack Obama partisans, and I think that each side…collectively saw the other side as the issue. But I don’t think we were unfair to Senator Clinton, and I don’t believe that the people who left the party to vote for John McCain, who was very much an anti-choice candidate, a pro-war candidate, reflect the same values that I have anyway, or reflect the values of Senator Clinton.

There is so much wrong with Jane’s response that I don’t know where to begin. You do need to watch the video–her facial expressions while listening to the caller and responding to her are unbelievably patronizing and condescending. It is evident from her use of the words “class of women” that Hamsher sees herself as superior to these working class (?), pathetic women (though we’re not all women by any means) who mistakenly think that Hillary Clinton was treated unfairly. In addition she twists Harriet Christian’s words in order to imply that Harriet is a racist.

And what the f&ck is it these people don’t understand about protest votes anyway?

I honestly think that Jane’s rationalizing is an unconscious defense mechanism. Now that she has seen what Obama really is–a DINO, a conservative hack, maybe just barely qualifying as a Rockefeller-style Republican–she has to go back and try to cover up her own behavior during the primaries. But Jane has a very very long way to go before she understands the damage that she and the other A-list bloggers caused. I sincerely doubt that she will ever take responsibility for her actions–or lack of actions. For one thing, Jane was at the Rules Committee meeting and apparently she had absolutely no problem with Obama being given delegates belonging to to Clinton or with Obama getting delegates from a state he didn’t compete in!

Obviously Riverdaughter demolished Jane’s rationalizing yesterday afternoon, so I don’t have to do it. I’ll just post these three paragraphs from RD’s righteous rant here:

People like me are pretty steamed at you and your buddies. You took away our choice. We didn’t get a fair primary season. We didn’t even get a floor fight. There was no unity, Jane. It was all an illusion. Your guy was forced on many, many Democratic voters because YOU decided that Obama was best for us. And many people swallowed that because they were convinced that Republicans were worse. So they voted for a Democrat and they got a Republican anyway.

Jane, how many times do we have to tell you that it wasn’t about Hillary after May 31, 2008? It was about choice. Remember Choice, Jane? The right to self-determination? The ability to choose your own destiny? If someone else took that choice away from you, you’d be on their doorstep with a bullhorn and wouldn’t let up. But because it was YOUR guy who won, it was OK? What about the choice of the rest of us, Jane? What about CA, NJ, NY, MA, OH, PA, TX, IN, NH, WV, TN, FL, MI and so on and so on? Those big, Democratic states did not vote for Barack Obama in the primaries, Jane. They deserved to cast their votes for the candidate they *did* vote for. I was one of those voters, Jane and I am not letting the Democratic party off the hook for its outrageous behavior towards me and the others. With a primary this close and disputed, the nullification of my vote was unforgivable.

That is why the primary of 2008 isn’t going to go away and why you are going to continue to get angry callers who blame you and your friends for the state of the country under Obama. You took our choice away. Your incredibly high handed and self righteous decision to support Obama and shut down the rest of the party for the supposed good of that party has lead us to this point.

Don’t come crying to me with any more of your action e-mails, petitions, and fund-raising drives, Jane. I figured it out. You think I’m in “a certain class of women” who are beneath your contempt. You won’t get another chance from me, Jane. You’re just not seeing reality clearly yet, and I’m not sure you ever will.

About these ads

312 Responses

  1. Lambert was making a stink for months at FDL and OpenLeft about the way the A-listers all dropped any mention of single payer from their front pages during the health care reform kabuki last year.

    For some strange reason Lambert was banned from FDL simultaneously with Jane’s conversion to single payer advocacy (she claims she was ALWAYS a single payer advocate)

    My account at FDL no longer works either, although I rarely ever commented there and I never violated their comment policy. It stopped working within the past 2 weeks.

    (I never violated the comment policies at MyDD, DU or TalkLeft, but I got 86’d from those places last year too.)

    • I rarely ever commented at FDL, but I read them religiously for years before the “great purge” took place. I haven’t tried to use my account recently, and I never will now.

      • I can still read what gets written on their front page and in the comment threads. Not being able to comment at other blogs forces me to post my reactions on the front page here.

        They can’t delete what I say over here either.

  2. Superb post, bb.

    I don’t want an apology from these people, but they really need to own up and take responsibility for their role here. Because it’s impossible to rationalize that they’re perfect and brilliant and the faultless intellectual elect and have great judgment and did nothing, nothing wrong with the mess we’re in. The only way those contradictory concepts can jibe and they can remain pontificating from their lofty perches is if they rewrite history and find a scapegoat. So, until they come clean and take responsibility for how badly they screwed up, they’re just going to duck and weasel and try to push the blame on to everyone else–us, Clinton, even Obama. It’s sort of a prerequisite for starting over, minus the arrogant assurance of their own infallibilty.

    • I guess we always knew that we’d be blamed when Obama failed spectacularly–even though we predicted it and fought to prevent this from happening.

      What’s so stunning is that Jane Hamsher, who really is an intelligent person, just assumes that she knows who we are and how we think. If she–or any of these self-satisfied “progressives” had ever made the tiniest effort to engage with us–during the primaries or even in the past year since Obama became President–she might have learned something. But that would have required a little bit of humility.

      But she couldn’t be bothered, and simply assumed (and still assumes) that we are stupid, racist women who aren’t worth bothering with. Well, in politics you can’t treat people that way and then expect to succeed.

      • I didn’t pay much attention to the Democratic primary race in 2007 because I didn’t see much point – I figured I would be lucky to have two candidates to choose from by the time I got to vote (I was right) and I expected to vote for whoever was the eventual winner. I was focused on Bush and the GOP race.

        Near the end of 2007 I was leaning towards Edwards (my bad) but found myself defending Hillary from Obots using recycled right-wing memes and brand new lies. Defending her required me to do research on her, her statements, votes, proposals, etc. The more I saw about Hillary, the more I liked what i saw.

        My original objection to Hillary was mainly that I didn’t want to relive the CDS 90’s and I was afraid if she was the nominee it would really motivate the GOP to vote against her. But she was so much better than any other candidate I decided to support her.

        I was hearing so much about Obama I took a good look at him expecting to be impressed but instead I was underwhelmed by what I saw. He was way too inexperienced and had no accomplishments other than getting himself elected. I thought he sounded like a good VP candidate and would likely be contender in 2016.

        This was before I learned he was a opportunistic fake with no core principles and was a puppet for Wall Street and the big money special interests. It was also before he started using the race card. But even before that it was his supporters that turned me off.

        They behaved like Nazi brownshirts (still do) and while Obama is no Hitler with followers like that he obviously wasn’t Gandhi either.

        • That’s exactly how I came around to supporting Hillary.

          • I’m used to voting in June for the primaries but 2008 we had a special nominating primary on Super Tuesday (the first Tuesday in February)

            But I knew from experience that by the end of January the Democratic primaries are usually narrowed to two or three choices. I figured once the field was narrowed down I could take a good hard look at the remaining choices.

            That’s exactly what happened. On January 1st there were 8 Democrats running. By February 1st there were only two remaining.

          • ditto, exactly how I came to support Hillary as well…the research turned me completely off of Obama…

          • Ditto. Hillary was last on my list. I guess all the crap from the 90’s just sort of seeped into my unconscious. But my conversion began when she was at the first debate of the primary season in Nevada (Carson City) – which Obama blew off, by the way – he had a fundraiser in CA to go to and flew over us while the debate was on, and we felt dissed.

            I was still on the Democratic Party staff at the time and watched her via teevee in the overflow room. Damn. She was good, and personable. I leaned over to my fellow 50-state strategy organizer and said, “But I don’t WANT to like her.” A month later the SEIU held their health care forum in Las Vegas which I watched on streaming video. Hillary was head and shoulders above them all. All the other candidates had a health care plan to offer, except for Barack. He talked all about getting a bunch of people in a room and coming up with a plan, but he had NOTHING to offer. I often refer to this as Barack “Bill and Tedding it.” As someone who has supported universal health care all my life, I knew at that moment that this was not a top issue with him and that he would not fight for it. In MARCH 2007. At that point, he went to the bottom of my list. First the diss of the debate and then showing up to a forum strictly dedicated to health care and he acted like this? Feh.

            But I still wasn’t ready to commit to Hillary. I looked around and entertained the idea of Richardson, Edwards, but by May, after doing lots and lots of homework on all the candidates and after I’d stepped down my position as a Dem Party organizer, I was ready to make a commitment.

            And yeah, his supporters from the get-go got under my skin. They were like nothing I’d seen in all my years of activism.

          • They were like nothing I’d seen in all my years of activism.

            Ditto for me, bluelyon. I kept hearing that “There’ve been hard primary battles in the past, this is nothing new”. Bullshit. I’ve been involved for more years than these idiots have been out of diapers, and have NEVER seen anything like the vitriol and hatred of the Obama supporters.

            Trying to paint us as naive personality-focused noobs who don’t understand that politics gets nasty, so we got our wittle feelings hurt, is just asinine. Give me a fucking break. I’ve been doing this shit for years, and know how the game is played. I’ve got a thick skin. This wasn’t politics as usual, it was pure gleeful vicious thuggery, with very violent overtones.

        • I have a similar trajectory. Specific details vary, but the jist is the same. Like you, it was Obama’s supporters that pushed me over the edge. I too felt their brown shirt oppression and wanted none of that.

        • I also began as an Edwards supporter, figuring that anyone who was that hated by corporate America must be a good candidate– you know– enemy of my enemy. When Edwards quit, I checked out the big two and discovered O’Precious was no Clinton. Since then, I have been and will continue to be a Clinton partisan. And I fit not in any of Hamsher’s boxes– well, except for that old box.

        • I also started out as an “anyone but Hillary” voter. I was angry with the way I felt she mishandled health care reform as First Lady. Her vote for the Iraq war and general “hawkishness” in the Senate also troubled me.
          I loved Kucinich but felt he had no chance. Biden and Dodd both had long records of achievement and I considered them carefully. But I liked Edwards for his focus on poverty and his plans for health care reform ( and because I admire Elizabeth – I admit that ). A mistake in judgement on my part there.
          When Edwards dropped out, I took a close look at Obama. His inexperience, lack of real accomplishments, and strange alliances ( from Ayers to Rezko to Wright ) disturbed me. His performance in the debates was unimpressive. His views on the issues were vague ( especially on health care ). I thought he needed a few more years to prove himself in the Senate before becoming a legitimate candidate for President.
          In contrast, as the primaries wound down, my admiration for Hillary grew. Her grasp of the issues was amazing. She had contrete plans for health care reform. And she was fantastic in the debates. She was by far the best candidate left standing, so the choice for me was obivious – HRC for POTUS.

        • My experience exactly.

        • what you said, and everyone else — my path to supporting Clinton exactly.

          I even remember thinking, back in fall of ’07, how could anyone actually get excited about Hillary Clinton? It seemed a bizarre proposition.

          Until I sat down and started the due diligence. Then it became very clear.

        • Amazing. Or Not? That’s more or less how I came to support Clinton for President. Never cared for her hawkish foreign views but had always admired her work ethic and humanitarian values. At first I supported Edwards and his “2 Americas” theme. What finally turned me off was the debate where Obama and Edwards tag teamed Clinton. If memory serves, it was shortly after that she won the New Hampshire primary.

          The more I watched the more impressed I was by Clinton and the more apprehensive I was about Obama, even as a VP pick, although I would have tolerated that.

          And yes, Christy Hardin posted once about sexism…and I wrote an email to thank her for that…then nothing. FDL went to the dark side and let Obots overrun their comments section. I deleted FDL from favorites and switched to Marcy Wheeler’s blog (Empty Wheel). She was the first blogger to win a prestigious journalism award for her work on the Libby trial, and since her posts drew me to FDL in the first place, I decided to keep following her. She is still doing 1st rate work with a minimum of deranged self promotion, nearly as I can tell.

      • Actually, I think the reason they continue to degrade the protest voters is they are simply doing what they know how in order to retain their feeling of superiority. Their regular readers appreciate them handing out the talking points they need to not feel stupid, too. The Jane Hamshers of the blogosphere know that not only were we not fooled by Obama, we took a tight grip on our principles and stayed true to our beliefs.

        You can only imagine how humiliating it must be for them to have to face the fact the people they dedicated so much time to berating are the ones who were right on every aspect.

      • bboomer, thanks for catching the class condescension in Jane’s body language and comments. I know it’s often pointed out here at TC anyway, but it needs to be highlighted because I think it is one of the fundamental reasons why 1) access bloggers like Jane could do so much damage while spinning self-aggrandizing tales of their keyboard ‘heroism'; and 2) why the “creative class” has lost its credibility.

        Jane makes much of herself on FDL — she makes it her business to ban many who dare contradict her (see myiq’s comments about the SP purges) — so the idea that she’s not responsible for outrages among her commenters would ring hollow, if she even took responsibility for that much.

        She really does put herself and certain fellow bloggers above the rest of us, and self-lionizes (and encourages the same among FDL commenters) — the message of which is really “I’m in this for me, oh and btw, I’m smarter and more worthy than all of you.”

        RD has recorded and lauded her great work on CT/Lamont and a few other issues, but at this point, based on Jane’s actions, I have to think those were almost accidental. Her methodology consists of the same bullying, cult-propaganda pushing methodology as the obots generally. Conceiving of a whole very large group (18 million) as lesser than oneself really puts her true colors out there. The attitude and method are wrong, even if she occasionally hits the right side of an issue or two.

        It’s a giant ‘tell’.

      • BB: great post!! These folks seem to have a “forgeddaboudit” attitude. The gift that is our democratic process is too precious to assign to selective memory. I’m not forgetting about Dubya being handed the presidency by the supreme court either! Any perversion of our voting/election process makes us all closer to losing our civil liberties and civil rights. Most of these folks were enamored with power and influence and didn’t take up the fight for what is right. They joined a causes célèbre as an ego dance. There were enablers as well as co-conspirators imho.

        • The funny thing is they’ve been telling us to forget about it since June 2008 and even before. It doesn’t look like it’s working that well for them.

          • it reminds me of what the Republicans kept telling us for four years after Dubya was annointed by the supreme court .. he won get over it!!! How you win doesn’t make a difference I guess … stealing, cheating, lying, whatever!

        • Yes !

  3. Boomer: brava.

  4. I also wonder how much yesterday’s guy from the Guardian and a B or C list blogger like Jane make to make stuff up. In today’s facts neutral reporting environment, I’d be happy to charge a lot less to remain in my jammies and fabricate all day long. And I promise it will be a lot more colorful than non-screaming screamers and sensationalized non-quotes.

  5. I’ll join in the actions…….if it suits me. I don’t feel compelled though to give money or get out the vote and I certainly could give two figs less about whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican in charge. Both parties suck and both are filled with self serving nincompoops. Most of my energy will be going towards scrying out a replacement choice for them both.

  6. Also, Anybody But Hill people started saying they would vote for McCain (and at the time I thought they were insane, thinking the Repubs would never nominate McCain) practically since the day Kerry lost to Bush. They freakin’ invented the PUMA concept, which made it a lot easier for some Hill people to vote McCain after seeing innumerable threats for years–not based on anything except we don’t like her and we won’t vote for her.

    • The head Blogstalker stated in May 2008 that if Hillary was the nominee he would not vote for her.

      • Well, it’s nice that he’s not in the handmaiden class and actually owns his own vote! What’s it like getting to be a Decider?

    • Ah, but remember the people who got on cable news and said there would be riots if Obama wasn’t the nominee? Obama was going to be the eventual nominee no matter what so they would have never had to actually vote McCain.

      • Yeah, but they started saying it long before anyone had declared, when lots of people (not me because I never thought in a million years a woman could be nominated, even in my ABH state, it just didn’t bother me because I couldn’t predict the scaryass misogynist tsunami) were thinking she had the best chance.

        • Oh I knew what you meant, sorry, I was just being snarky ;)

        • Same here. At the beginning I didn’t think a woman or a black man could be nominated, but I thought a woman was more far fetched. And I thought either would lose the general. That was before I realized that Obama had been annointed by Wall Street and the media.

      • The media kept saying he was “inevitible” starting back in February. They claimed his lead was “insurmountable” but it wasn’t.

      • Donna Brazile said there would be blood in the streets of the superdelegates decided the outcome, didn’t she? But when they did decide–for Obama–she was OK with it. And so was Jane Hamsher.

        The most fascinating aspect of this is how people like Hamsher are able to simply gloss over the facts about what the delegate totals actually were and what actually happened on May 31 and at the Convention. They will never face what happened. They can’t or they would have to face that they never really cared about fairness, equality, or democracy.

        • “They can’t or they would have to face that they never really cared about fairness, equality, or democracy.”

          Excellent point. DINOs. And very sad. I’m calling TC, The Reclusive Leftist, and Tom in Paine part of the Resistance. Allies are important.

        • I don’t see Jane calling Donna B. a racist. Can you imagine if Harriet Christian or another Hillary supporter threatened violence if Hillary didn’t win?

        • Donna Brazille said there would be blood in the streets and he also said “if they bring a knife, I will bring a gun.” Combined with the violent energy constantly coming from the obots. There was a non-stop violence about the entire process or lack of a process.
          Most people don’t seem to realize how irregular the primaries were that year, but I think it is because so few had followed politics closely over time.
          I think, so many were new to politics and that they thought you just play politics like it is a video game or Survivors. You go in to win at all costs.
          They approached the primaries with a scorched earth attitude and without a sense of responsibility to the overall wellbeing of society or a sense of fair play.
          Most believe Obama was/is not responsible for this brown shirt attitude, but I do not see how he can not be responsible for it. I have seen him feed it.
          I have had a few come to me recently to say “you were right”. Small, small, small consolation.

          • It was identity politics.

            The unprincipled, misogynist frat boiz of Left Blogistan recognized a kindred spirit in Obama. He didn’t tell them to wage a jihad on Hillary supporters but he didn’t have to.

            When the Senate Watergate Committee asked John Dean who ordered the cover-up, he replied “Nobody ever suggested that there not be a cover-up.”

      • Donna Brazile said “there will be blood” on This Week with George S….

    • But we never actually “supported” McCain, as Jane claims in her interview. Most of us struggled with the idea, but we felt in the end that it would have more of an effect to vote directly against Obama than voting for a Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader.

      It’s not my first protest vote, and the obtuseness of these people in pretending that don’t understand the concept of a protest vote is just pathetic.

      • Exactly. In fact, I went to the pols determined to vote Green that day. It was only after I saw B0bots calling a woman “Republican” because she was blonde, was wearing a suit and was voting in another district/machine then most that I decided to make my protest vote all the way. I recounted it all here

        http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/i-voted-my-story/

        • I also loved the way Jane talked about McCain being “anti-choice.” It would be hard for him to be more anti-choice in his actions than Obama has been–or more homophobic or more in favor of torture, or spying, or war.

          • Anti-choice is what you call the Democratic [sic] party, that tried to deny Hillary even placing her name in nomination so that her voters could have their choice and their say.

            Too many progs seem to think that being pro-choice is all about abortion.

            It’s about autonomy.

            The right to choose extends to the voting booth.

  7. By the way, it’s swell how Jane feels that she has the right to speak of who reflects the values of Senator Clinton and who doesn’t. It’s a female Booman(he’s the guy who gets to decide what a good Democrat is and isn’t dontcha know).

  8. They deserved to cast their votes for the candidate they *did* vote for.

    Hillary won 1,730.5 pledged delegates during the primary compared to Obama’s 1,747.5 (the post-RBC meeting total) but she only got 341.5 at the convention, even though many states require by law that the delegates to cast their votes for the candidate they are pledged to on the first ballot.

    There were also 32 delegates pledged to john Edwards, 908 uncommitted delegates and the superdelegates, far more than the 17 pledged delegate lead given to Obama by the RBC. Hillary got none of those.

    At first they tried to keep Hillary’s name off the nominating ballot, which has never been done to a male candidate who won at least one primary. Then they put her name on the ballot but forced the delegates to vote in private rather than publicly from the floor. But even after that they refused to allow a roll-call vote of the states in alphabetical order and made Hillary take the floor and request that Obama be nominated by acclimation.

    If the delegate voting had been fair and open Obama may well have won anyway, but the Democratic leadership selected him as the nominee and engineered events to make it official. In doing so they ignored the will of the voters, the majority of whom voted for Hillary.

    • How about all those Michigan delegates awarded to someone who wasn’t even on the ballot?

      Seeing Hillary having to hobble with TWO states less was heartbreaking.

    • How about changing the way they were counting the votes for awarding delegates? Up to 2008, there was a winner takes all policy – same as GOP still had. But for Obama they changed to a precinct by precinct. Add to that the rules they changed after Jesse Jackson’s first run – where urban centers votes counted more than the rural ones and you’ll see on how many levels this was fixed. I didn’t even get to the caucus system and the busing of B0bots in Iowa.

      • In California Obama got 43% of the vote but he got 48% of the delegates.

        And the delegate allocation to the states was not weighted according to population or Electoral College votes, so that smaller red states got proportionately more delegates than big blue states (which except for Illinois were won by Hillary.)

      • I read an excellent academic article some time in May 2008, which analyzed the fixing of the electoral calendar-can’t find it any more.

        • I’ve tried to find some of that stuff but it’s all been scrubbed. Even CNN’s delegate analysis is gone.

    • Hillary Supporters (“Why can’t she have a nominating vote?”-RD )

  9. She seemed so priggish in her reply, and also foolish.

    No idea of the issues whatsoever at the RBC meeting, but racism everywhere as far as she could see.

    • Which is ironic, considering that she is judging us all by the perception she formed of Harriet Cristian, while allegedly making that video (I still say, it was CNN, then Will Bower doing that). That event immediately followed the RBC outrage – so that’s all Hamsher seems to remember from that day.

      • I recall Harriet mentioning her work fighting for civil rights. How could Jane have forgotten that part?

        • Maybe it had something to do with this:

          I think Obama supporter Jack Taylor spoke for many of us when he said:

          Thank god this thing is almost over before I end up sounding as crazy as this person.

          In this race, Hillary Clinton managed to activate female voters that the Democratic party hasn’t been able to reach. They aren’t coming out for an issue (like choice) — they’re coming out for a person they identify with.

          If she mentioned that Harriet C fought for civil rights it would undercut the Obot meme that Hillary supporters were just a bunch of old racist “vagina voters” who were uninvolved and ignorant of politics until Hillary ran for POTUS.

          • Yeah–and it’s great to see how committed we are to voter outreach. Getting more women to vote would be key to Democratic electoral success–but stay home b——-, we don’t want you feels better! Those dumb old women aren’t half as smart as the issues oriented students who howl with glee when Obama blows his nose.

  10. This is Tbogg being “neutral” during the primaries:

    My point is, was, and will remain: I’m not going to reward bad behavior by voting for the person who would destroy the party unless they get the nomination. I don’t believe that she is going to get the nomination but if she were to somehow pull enough strings to basically rip it from Barack Obama’s hands, there is no way in hell that she could win. I’m not talking about people who are hard core supporters of either one of them, I’m talking about people who would be so disgusted by her actions and the process that they would sit on their hands rather than vote for her. I know it would happen and you know it would happen.

    To put it another way: Hillary Clinton is like a mother standing on a bridge threatening to throw her baby in the river unless she is named Mother of the Year.

    • tsk, tsk

      Don’t they realize in the electronic age that these things are archived and can be pulled up? Evidently they didn’t get a chance to scrub, scrub, scrub and now it is captured for posterity.

    • More Tbogg neutrality:

      We won’t vote for her. The reality on the ground for us is that we do pretty well for ourselves under a Republican administration and I would be willing to take my chances with a solidly Democratic congress, but without her. Sorry folks, but there are a lot of people like us. I know that we’re all supposed to join hands and pull together for a greater more progressive tomorrow and yadda yadda yadda…. but when it comes to Hillary Clinton, fuck that noise.

      This is stuff he wrote on the front page at FDL

      • *gasps* That doesn’t sound like Party Unity Forever! Does Jane know about this class of man?????

        • I believe he would be called one of the “creative class”. /snark

          • Apparently they aren’t creative enough to figure out how to get their guy to do their bidding. If I were them I’d be asking for some of my money back that was paid for that high falutin’ edumacation.

          • Thank you, creative class! I always thought, thanks to lectures from Armando, that I always had to vote for every dimwitted, useless, conservative loser dude with a D after his name. But when you Selectively changed your tune, with Hillary Clinton worse than Nelson/Casey/Baucus (yay 50 state strategy) being the one line you could never cross and demanding that I vote for a guy who’s weak where she’s strong AND weak where she’s weak, I realized the entire party is comprised of hypocritical, useless phonies, and I don’t have to vote for anyone I don’t want to based on one way street unreciprocated party loyalty! Yay! I’m free!

          • Or, the artist formerly known as young urban progressive.

        • It seems that Jane threw up her hands and let the astroturfers take over her blog. She was just as bad as Digby, but at least Digby admits she couldn’t handle confronting these people and let it happen.

          • I remember how Jeralyn dived headfirst into the Kool-aid after the convention. Is it a coincidence that she hung out with Jane the whole time she was in Denver?

            How many bloggers thought supporting Obama would lead to lucrative careers writing books and doing television appearances?

            How many found out the hard way he was only using them?

          • when Taibbi started calling Obama a sellout, the rest followed.

          • Jeralyn has been a friend of Jane’s for a long time. It’s that Hollywood celebrity element that Jeralyn just can’t control. The funniest posts Jeralyn ever did were during the convention….photos of Arianna, squealing like a kid at Christmas over the freebies at the HuffPo tent, complaining she couldn’t blog because the bloggers tent wasn’t air conditioned, photos of one of Frank Sinatra’s early wives, Caroline Kennedy, the CNN pundit team. Not a word about the actual political events.

            And, when she got back to work, the bannings began in earnest.

          • Something happened to Jeralyn at the convention. Maybe it was the invitations to hang out with the A-list bloggers at the HuffPo party and the promises of television appearances and lots of money and inside access once Obama was elected. I loved her 1 day of anger at the possibility of Joe Biden being the VP candidate. Another access blogger must have reminded Jeralyn that the promises of fame and wealth were too great to put her principles ahead of shilling for Obama/Biden.

    • Good analogy! Now what would happen if you made a similar one about Obama? Oh, right!

    • you know they took a page right out of the republican play book…. falsely accuse your opposition of doing what you are really doing. Now was tbogg one the those making accusations he knew to be false or was he just an idiot?

  11. I don’t believe that the people who left the party to vote for John McCain, who was very much an anti-choice candidate, a pro-war candidate, reflect the same values that I have anyway
    Vs. the anti-choice, pro-war candidate she pushed to the destruction of the Democratic party. Interesting values. And of course the sad joke is the very Obot readers she sided with would have voted for McCain if Hillary had one.

    Sadly, the twisted logic and rationalization and delusion points to one thing. Jane is bat shit crazy.

    • The even bigger irony is apparently now she’s okay with McCain supporters and wants to rally with them to change government……..the government she put in power with her vote. Apparently she’s willing to overlook their certain kind of classism. I doubt they’ll return her favor considering the disdain voiced in that video.

  12. Tbogg on the possibility of a “unity” ticket:

    I used to be an “elitist” but apparently, by not wanting Hillary Clinton on the ticket with Barack Obama, I have graduated to the “Creative Class”:

    [...]

    Personally I believe that, by placing Hillary Clinton on the ticket, the party would be opening themselves up to four years of TV gasbags and bobbleheads going Full Metal Heathers and nattering on about the Hillary/Barack “relationship”, as if they were Jennifer Anniston and Brad Pitt, further lowering our already stupid political discourse. We cannot have that.

    I realize that Hillary supporters are disappointed that she came in not-first, but really now, they’re slipping dangerously into ‘pity fuck’ territory.

    This was on May 13, 2008.

    • Did he say “pity fuck”? Really? Someone needs to take that boy out and pity fuck him good.

    • Heh, if this is what Jane calls neutrality I’d hate to see what partisan would have looked like.

      • Although the Obots claim (now) that there was virtually no difference between Hillary and Obama and they would have supported either one, at the time they overwhelmingly opposed the idea of a “unity” ticket.

        They wanted her completely out of politics.

    • Let’s not forget the post in which T-Bogg included a photo of JennforHillary and then opened up the comments for everyone to make fun of her body size.

      That was during the time when TC was up for best liberal blog.

      • Yeah – during the Wonktard War.

        That was when the spam filter was full of the vilest comments I have ever seen in my life.

      • That’s because for “feminists” like her, the only real women are Democratic sports illustrated swimsuit models with architecture degrees. No other females need apply.

        I must admit that seeing that dynamic has made me ashamed that I have not done more in the past to defend conservative African Americans. The same sort of “it’s okay to demean and use racist tropes, because you are teh enemy” has been done to them by the Left, for years. It makes me ill. I may argue and disagree all day long, but the dismissive “Uncle Tom, Oreo, house n**ger, Token” crap needs to be called out. I’m ashamed that I have not consistently done so in the past.

    • And to think, I used to read about his daughter and his damned dogs everyday! Bleeech.
      What a tool.

  13. Eureka, I finally get “creative class.” It’s when you’re creative in so much as you create a fictional world for yourself that has very little to do with reality. You create a fiction of someone being a racist when they’re not. You create an upside down world where an idiot, empty suite, woman hating, conservative moron who can’t say three words in a coherent fashion without a telepromter is a great communicator and will save us all. It’s where you create a fiction where you’re not a complete and utter useless arrogant idiot. That’s the creative class.

    • It’s only a matter of time till “creative class” finds its way into the DSMV.

  14. Still more Tbogg:

    I’d like to think that this is the reason that Hillary Clinton won’t accept the inevitable as opposed to staying in because of unchecked ego:

    [...]

    Which is, of course, bullshit.

    You can’t tell me that all of Hillary’s whores horses and all of Hillary’s men aren’t frantically searching about the room for the exits.. when they aren’t knocking each other out of the way in order to be the first to the bank to cash their checks before it bounces.

    With the Clinton brand name Hillary Clinton still has the potential of making her money back by writing another book; maybe something forward-looking with a high-flown title like The Millennial Village: A Blueprint For the Future. That is, if she isn’t too bitter about the whole Presidential campaign experience, because I’m pretty sure that Barnes & Noble won’t set up a feature window display for a book titled : You Elitist Assholes Can All Go Fuck Yourselves: A Campaign Diary.

    (I’m just scrolling back through his posts)

    • That was a particularly telling one. Charming to the end. Lots of talk about bitter and running for the exits. Kind of sounds like Obots to me. Meanwhile Hillary is a big success as SoS, way up in the polls, and doing quite well thank you very much. Something tells me she’ll do very well with books in the future. Funny how things work out.

    • He’s a regular one man Hillary Clinton fanclub. What a bleepin’ charmer. I hope Hillary deloused herself after spending time at that blog with him.

      • Yeah–spreading fear and disgust–err, I mean hope and change wherever they go. Who doesn’t want such beautiful specimens of humanity in charge of the country?

      • I think he might have really a major case of shrinkage. To be so scared of a woman, what else could be the explanation?

        I wonder if he ever read the polls that said Hillary would have beat MeCain by and extra fouiur points? So much for Joe Sixpack and his hate for Hillary huh?

    • Tbogg has class he’s never used yet.

  15. Tbogg:

    Hillary Clinton is going to win the West Virginia primary and, whether she wins by twenty five points or forty points, she is still not going to be the Democratic nominee for President. So the time that you spend reading posts or watching the bobbleheads talk about “What does this mean?” will be a complete waste of time that could be better spent trimming your nails or planting agapanthus.

    (she won WV by 41 points, after which Byrd, Rockerfeller and one of the other WV SDs promptly endorsed Obama.)

    • I hope Tbogg saved his 30 pieces of silver.

    • Lol That reminds me of Failbot gloating about how despite the fact that Hill won Nevada, Obama was going to walk away with more delegates. There’s nothing like reveling in the undemocratic nature of our selection process to inspire.

      • You obviously don’t understand “The Rulz” which are far more important than democratic principles.

        • Unless they’re not. To promote Obama was and still is a very tricky road to follow.

          • The RBC decision wasn’t in the rules.

          • If the RBC, or Obama, or the Obots do things, it’s by definition not against the rules. /snark

            Now I’m picturing Obama with his hands up in the air saying, “I am not a crook.”

          • I believe you have to be one of those flagella with the corkscrew tails.

          • To follow the tricky road to promote Obama, that is, Dandy.

          • You don’t understand. The Rulz were different because Obama “redrew Teh Map”

            Obama didn’t just have more delegates, he had more states.

            It was all part of his 57 + 1 + 2 (HI and AL) – 2 (MI and FL) or something stratergy.

            (If Hillary, Edwards, Palin, or McCain had made that 57 states gaffe, it would have gotten some endless loop treatment in the mainstream media. Hillary–the pundits would have said see she’s OLD and TIRED! Edwards–Two Americas, is that 57 states each? Palin–Can she see the 57 state from her house? McCain–Wow, did he add his houses to the union? )

          • Brilliant, Wonk! You can spin it.

    • It meant nothing that Hillary won Massachusetts either.

      Or New Hampshire.

      Or Ohio.

      Or Texas.

      Or Pennsylvania.

      Or Indiana.

      Every goal post that was set (“the only way Hillary can turn this around…”) she freaking met it, and after all that they didn’t even want to let her put her name in nomination. Disgusting.

      • Yep. They kept moving the goal posts and she kept meeting them, so they moved them again. Until she couldn’t manage to take the ultrasignificant state of North Carolina. Oh, and I guess she didn’t win Indiana by enough.

        • If Obama had not used public school buses to shuttle in high school kids to vote then he may not have won NC. She won my area but lost in the urban areas due to cheating– according to some reports from people in the area– it seemed like a modified Texas ploy seen from afar.

        • well after 1000 percent of the people in Gary voted for Obama, how could she win by enough to spin the spin?

      • Obama peaked in February when there was a run of red states and small state caucuses. From March through June Hillary kicked his ass.

        I still remember how MSNBC sat on the Indiana returns while they made a big deal about NC and for the 2nd or 3rd time (beginning with Iowa) they declared Obama had won the nomination.

      • She even won South Dakota! And while she gave her acceptance speech, Obama went on TV and preempted her with his idiotic “victory speech” in Minnesota.

        • All we wanted was a floor vote at the Convention, but the wouldn’t even let us have that.

    • Rockefeller and Rep. Rayhall had endorsed Obama before the primaries. (Rockefeller brought Obama to WV one or two times; and that was it – I don’t think O ever came back.)

      After the Primary, Sen. Byrd and Rep. Mollohan both endorsed Obama; Mollohan waited the longest.

  16. Yea, that was one neutral blog all right. /snark

  17. Jeebus!. In a post about Halliburton and the gang-rape of Jamie Leigh Jones in Iraq, Tbogg uses a graphic of “Sorority Slut Barbie” laying on a bed with her panties half-way down.

    • So that’s the company Jane prefers then.

    • The actual post wasn’t awful although he laid it on a little thick. Particularly since I don’t exactly see Obama out there pimping for KBR accountability after the lawsuit against them was dropped recently.

      • That was the wrong graphic for a post about rape.

        • It’s the wrong graphic for any post that wants to be taken seriously imo. One of the larger problems I have with obots is they think every topic has to have some cheap Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert type stunt to pull the reader in. I can almost hear him congratulating himself for the wittiness.

        • Oooooh, don’t dis my man Jon Stewart. He’s been the only thing standing between me and lunacy at times. Never bothered me at all that he’s an equal opportunity snark. Jane Hamsher never was.

          • Though she now wants to lay claim to neutrality. Give it up, Jane, we don’t all have Alzheimer’s, not yet, anyway.

          • Jon Stewart is a comedian on a comedy channel. He even tells people not to take him seriously.

  18. Seriously, how does she explain the phenomenon that literally 1000’s of people had the same experience over at FDL and DK of being raped, tarred, feathered, and run out on rails? This was no isolated incident.

    • I haven’t been going through the comments threads – just the front page.

    • I remember over at Political Animal when I made a timid suggestion that perhaps HRC was a pretty good candidate….something that I had not actually known before doing 100’s of hours of research….I was told, “get out of the way you old fart, it’s our turn”. And that was the general tone everywhere I went seeking sanity. Terrifying! There may actually be a grain of truth to the death panel thing. They certainly wanted to send everyone over 50 out on ice floes.

      • I got flamed at Balloon Juice for pointing out that Obama was not a political outsider but had come up from within the party with the help of friends like Ted Kennedy.

        My evidence was Obama’s own statements.

        • Thin evidence indeed. :-)

        • Oh, lord. He was supported by the entire political establishment, but they’re the renegade members of the Upper Chamber. They wear leather and are hep to the scene, Daddy-o.

          I never understood why I was supposed to identify with Obama on a generational level. Generation Jones thing? Yes, because the fact that he’s a boomer doesn’t fit with the ageism meme.

          • I suppose Ted Kennedy also had the youth appeal–arrested development Peter Pan syndrome is the new chronology.

          • Suddenly people born in 1961 weren’t Boomers any more. That was another argument I had with the BJuicers.

          • Yea, that one was a pretty good indicator of how delusional they all were (and are). Obama to them was in his 20’s. Seriously, they’re fucking nuts.

          • And don’t forget they had Scarlet Johansen and all the Movie Starz.

        • It was everywhere. There literally was almost no safe harbor for anyone to suggest anywhere in the blogosphere that maybe, just maybe, we should look at all this with a bit more jaundiced, mature, less prejudiced eye. I ended up over at Taylor Marsh and No Quarter until Larry Johnson went off the deep end with that birther stuff. That was it from what I could tell. Certainly not A/B-list blogs. Where was all this neutrality Jane was so scrupulously enforcing? The woman is delusional.

          • Oh, and Larry’s Michele Obama whitey tape. It was awful. There was no place to go anywhere…until I finally discovered TC during that conversation HRC had with bloggers. Am I remembering this correctly? Wasn’t RD there? Or maybe it was Anglachel? Anyway, that’s how I finally discovered TC and came in from the bitter, bitter cold.

          • Yep, it was very rough out there for those of us with functioning brains.

          • Larry was considered A-ok when he was bashing Bush and reporting on the Valerie Plame case. Lots of different people posted at NQ including former-PUMA/born-again Obot Chuckles Lemos from MyDD..

            By the time the “Whitey Tape” stuff started lots of people had stopped going there. But anyone who was EVER associated with NQ is considered tainted now (except former-PUMA/born-again Obot Chuckles Lemos from MyDD.)

            BTW – how is falsely/wrongly accusing MO of using a racist slur racist? If false allegations of racism are racist then the entire Obot universe is racist.

          • I quit Taylor after she drank the Kool-Aid. Is she still enamored?

          • DC-list blogger who shall remain nameless is reacting much the same way Jane is (it’s their “angle”) but to a much smaller audience.

          • angle = way to be relevant, get ad hits, traffic, etc.

  19. Tbogg:

    And if Obama wins Hillary Clinton will graciously step aside for the good of the party.

    Doubtfully. There is still a little more Earth that she and her “spokespeople” have yet to scorch.

    I haven’t even made it out of May 2008 yet.

    • Okay, that was Tbogg’s “neutral” posts from the first three weeks of May 2008.

    • Classic Rove talking points/propaganda. Say the other person is doing precisely what you’re doing. In this case they were doing the scorched earth policy and they were subverting the system, and they are the ones that were never and could never be graceful.

      These were the talking points we saw lots of places. FDL was simply a propaganda arm of the Obama campaign. Nasty. Cut throat. Relentless. Scorched earth. And destructive for the long term. FDL was part and parcel of the destruction of the Democratic party, and by extension, the country.

  20. Hey, that reminds me, anyone heard from our old Building and Loan pal, Kid Oakland, recently? Didn’t he used to post here when he thought Hill was trying to assassinate his nephew?

    • That sounds familiar. I was thinking that was some drug induced hallucination. Good to know it wasn’t just me. :-)

    • Kid Oakland completely disppeared from DK sometime during the campaign. I have no idea what happened to him.

  21. I don’t recall FDL or any A-list blogs making a big issue over the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan, nor did they object to the RBC decision.

    They just repeated the mantra that FL and MI “didn’t count” and other stuff about “the rulz” and Hillary agreed.”

    Rules don’t take precedence over principles, and the votes of those states weren’t Hillary’s to throw away.

    • Yep. That’s the bottom line of the primaries. They threw out democracy. They trashed principles. They were corrupt. They lost. The party lost. The country lost.

    • Another good meme was “Obama has more pledged delegates!!!” Yes, and Obama also has a world class collection of scrunchies. That and his pledged delegates won’t get him a cup of coffee. The significant fact is that he doesn’t have enough pledged delegates *to win.* They clung to this like it was a Holy Grail and if they made stuff up, everyone else was supposed to agree to pretend to care. “Obama has more balloons! More popcorn! More daisies!”

      • Always reminded me of Reagan in 1980. Reagan couldn’t say three words without his head falling off his shoulders or babbling on about we need ray guns in space to protect us from the alien invasion, and yet he was the great communicator.

        Obama looked that way to me. I guess I just wasn’t “creative” enough to create a delusional bubble around me like they all did.

    • And also, Obama would not agree to a revote! Don’t pretend you care about democracy when you straight up want to disenfranchise them. “A revote would be unfair to the people who already voted–so we should just trash the votes of the people who already voted, because we’re so committed to democracy.” well, since you put it that way….

      • All their principles returned after the RBC decision. (the one that gave Obama all of the MI undecided votes and 4 of Hillary’s pledged delegates.)

      • Right, and Obama’s argument at the RBC meeting for taking more than 60 votes from Michigan even though he wasn’t on the ballot was that we needed to be fair to the people who wanted to vote for him but didn’t get the chance!

  22. Just when I was beginning to think it may be safe to go back into the waters at FDL… this?

    Jane remains full of sh**. Like she has been since 2008’s primaries.

    Which is why I rarely read her anymore. (Though I admit lurking at her site for quite a while before she drank the kool-ade.)

    • Know just how you feel, SYD. Finally started tiptoeing back over to FDL, TPM, HuffPo…though never again in this lifetime to DK. Now this sh*t from Jane. Somebody shoot me now.

  23. The biggest irony, to me, of the used-to-love-Obama reformers is this:

    They were the biggest complainers that after the reasons to attack Iraq were shown to be lies, those who said they were lies BEFORE the invasion were STILL banned from the “serious” media.

    Similarly, they were the biggest complainers that after the financial meltdown, those who saw it coming are STILL banned from the “serious” media.

    So how hypocritical is it that they STILL ban those of us who saw Obama early on for the fake that he is?

    Carolyn Kay
    MakeThemAccountable.com

  24. where did we bring up race in any of our rants? AFAIC, race was not even a factor on our side. It was a factor on *Jane’s* side. I evaluated the candidates not on their personalities or race but exclusively on their qualifications.
    Jane should try it sometime.
    Harriet’s remarks could and were interpreted as racist even though I’m pretty sure she was trying to restate what Geraldine Ferraro had said, tho she did it inartfully. Ferraro also didn’t make a racist statement. She simply stated the truth: If Obama had been a woman with his qualifications, he never would have gotten a second look because he wasn’t ready and would have been seen as an impending disaster.
    And Ferraro was right.

    • Any recognition or mention of the fact that Obama is (half) black (by a non-Obama supporter) was/is considered racist.

      OTOH – Calling Hillary a bitch was just “stating the facts.”

    • Pelosi punted in June 2008 when asked whether there was sexism in the campaign. She said “probably..” “but I’d have to see some scientific studies” “plus being a woman has an upside!” Keith-O didn’t do any Spittle Comment about how pernicious a statement this was.

    • Harriet spent most of her time in her rant talking about equality for all–and her remark about Obama was meant to show that the party preferred anyone other than a woman for the nomination. She also didn’t use the term “inept.” I need to go find out what she did say.

      • Harriet is an single individual that hardly anyone ever heard of until the RBC meeting.

        I rarely see anyone around here ever mention her since then – it’s the Obots who keep bringing her up.

      • She said inadequate, IIRC.

        • She also said “black” which is obviously racist because Obama is biracial and even mentioning it was the same as yelling the “N-word.”

          (So was comparing his victory in SC to Jesse Jackson’s victories in SC or comparing him to Paris Hilton or saying “fairy tale.”)

        • That’s right. And in the context of her angry rant, she meant that the DNC would used race to trump the “historical” nature of a woman running a serious campaign for President.

      • Harriet, Clinton Supporter Kicked Out of Rules Committee Meeting!

  25. myiq2xu, you got that right

  26. RD i dont think we ever did but the O-sheep did plenty

  27. It never ceases to amaze me how all of Obamanation can turn on a dime and throw their old memes down the memory hole.

    The FISA revision:

    Before – “It MUST be defeated! Obama will vote “no” (especially if it contains retroactive immunity for the Telcoms) but you know the evil Hillary (she’s really a GOPer) will vote for it.”

    After – “That was smart politics, otherwise the Republicans would have used it against him. Pelosi/Reid pushed it, and he couldn’t vote against his own leadership (skipping over that he was nominally the new head of the Democratic party) and once he’s in office he’ll open an investigation into Bush/Cheney law-breaking. Hillary just voted against it to make Obama look bad.”

    • before his BO & his O-sheep were telling us how it was unconstitutional

      after when BO voted for something that he said was unconstitutional…
      they are its like its all good

  28. Here is a post from Dec. 2007, in which Hamsher attacks Hillary Clinton for working with Joe Lieberman. Oh the irony! Obama supported Lieberman in CT against her candidate Ned Lamont and Obama chose Lieberman as his Senate mentor–yet she excoriated Clinton for cosponsoring a bill having to do with video game violence with Lieberman

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/hillary-clinton-joins-joe_b_76133.html

    It’s pretty clear to me at this point that Jane Hamsher (and sadly Marcy Wheeler too) fall into the category of “feminists” like Amanda Marcotte who on an unconscious level really don’t like other women at all.

    • Like this “feminist?:

      Many of us didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary because the goal of electing a woman seemed less important than the goal of electing the best possible president.

      How any woman who calls herself a feminist could say that is beyond me.

    • I still do not get why wanting violence and sex to marketed to children is “liberal”.

  29. A bit off the race topic, I have to admit I do not understand why people have such visceral issues with Hillary, going back even to the 90s. Is it the financial stuff, the health care experience, the Iraq vote, what. She was always smart on econ policy and foreign affairs and genuinely empathetic and invested on social issues. By the time she started her run, she was by far the most capable, qualified and most committed candidate. Sexism I get, but what else makes her so polarizing. People either dislike her or make excuses for her, even within her own campaign. I was never infatuated with her emotionally in the way others became infatuated with Obama, but I’ve always been unqualified in my respect for her mind, her abilities, and her passion for basic human rights. For all the rigging in the primary, she would have prevailed easily if there hadn’t been these trailing doubts about her from both foes and allies. I suspect the same unease will keep her from being a factor in the 2012 general, not because she fears the competition but because she doubts her support. If that support existed, it would have mobilized by now with focus and size, without her engagement. So she’s not the desired candidate of the future, but we will continue invoking the candidate of the past as the basis for rejecting the party. She serves a useful purpose in that respect. As for her role and position as SoS, she is mostly wrong.

    • Three Wickets,

      Unfortunately, I think what these people mostly have against Hillary is that she is a woman who is very bright, competent and hard-working and can hold her own and more in a debate with any man.

      It’s just plain old-fashioned sexism, and women like Jane Hamsher and Amanda Marcotte have internalized a lot of unconscious sexism from our culture. Unless they face up to this, their egoes will continue to react to criticism with unconscious defense mechanaisms like denial and rationalization.

      • Yep. Other women have run, but *no other woman ever had a legit chance before.* So they were tolerated. If Napolitano or MacCaskell runs, they’ll get 1% of the vote, what we expect and accept. So they won’t be attacked, and Kerry and Reid will hug them and they’ll be part of the gang–look, who says we hate women? Hill is the flipside of Palin–she’s smart (oh not as smart as Bill or Kerry, you understand, women don’t have great intellects, they’re just grinds who work hard to appear as if they do–but she’s not totally stupid, we’ll give her that), so she can’t be the bimbo and must be the castrating b—-. The boys don’t like her and sneer at her and you can’t be the cool girl who hangs wit the boys if you don’t go along. In group, out group.

    • They hated Hillary (and Bill) long before they had any justification.

      Molly Ivins quoted a GOP operative who said it was his job to compile a list of bad stuff about Hillary before the 1996 election. This was in December 1992.

      • Sadly, Molly too said she’d never vote for Hillary. I wonder what she would be saying about Obama if she will alive today. I wonder if she would admit she was wrong. I like to think so.

        • Molly’s objection to Hillary was the triangulation stuff. I hardly think she would have preferred Obama.

          • Molly Ivins objected to Hillary back when a lot of us still hadn’t seen Hillary in the debates and had our “wtf” reactions trying to reconcile all the progressive programming against Hillary with what we saw with our own eyes in those debates.

            I would have liked to see how she would have reacted to Hillary by the end of the 2008 primaries.

          • Triangulation was my objection to Hillary as well. Nevertheless, anyone with a working brain could figure out she was the strongest candidate. What we have now isn’t triangulation, it’s prostitution. Sigh.

          • It most certainly wasn’t Carl Bernstein’s intent when he wrote A Woman in Charge, but reading that caused me to admire her as I’d never before. My God, she was committed. The real deal. The abuse she endured and still managed to thrive…and with dignity…would have killed a lesser mortal.

            I think a lot of people despised her for achieving true equality in her marriage. That’s something almost no couple ever achieves.Theirs was a contract hammered out between equals.

            It bugged people Bill’s bimbo problem was never a high stakes issue for her. She was smart enough and centered enough to know it didn’t reflect on her and she didn’t cause it. They had a shared life of committment. That was the important thing. To those among us addicted to Jerry Springer drama that looked cold blooded. Exactly the opposite, of course.

          • I think the Hillary we saw from 2000-2007 was someone who was trying to walk a fine line all the time. She was too cautious and too concerned with giving her enemies anything they could use against her. That was the packaged candidate Hillary.

            The Hillary that emerged during the campaign was the real deal.

        • Molly was a Naderite. They universally bought the Nader koolaid and couldn’t find an anecdote. Funny thing is that most of them went on to support Obama just because he was black… and not Clinton. And we wonder why our country is failing?

          I too was one of those people who started supporting Clinton because the hateful Obama Astro-turf was so funking stupid and obnoxious.

          • LOL! I think you mean antidote. Molly never had any problem finding an anecdote! ;-) Or did you mean it as a pun?

          • lol, you are right… antidote, though I would love to claim I meant to be punny

          • Molly never fell in love with any politician or let ideology interfere with stating the truth.

            She praised Bill Clinton when she thought he deserved it and bashed him when he didn’t, always in a way that made you laugh.

        • is it only me that thinks jane’s pic looks like Marcos with a blond wig and funny glasses?

    • My take on the reason Hillary was the polarizing figure is this:
      In the south at the time when she was first lady, the segregation proponents people held great power. Bill and Hillary were early civil rights supporters and openly marched with black in the early days. Bill appointed them to his state gov’t. That made a whole lot of people scared and mad.

      Hillary became an easy target. The little woman better watch her step,and pipe down, they said.
      Their aim was to discredit civil rights and put the Clintons in their place. The talking points were distributed and memorized.
      But the Clinton’s didn’t back down, but instead they ramped it up. Minorities were put in places of power and became part of the equation.
      That sure made a few folks angry.

      Now flash ahead to when she was First Lady. The GOP slammed her for her baking cookie comment ( I loved her comment) and from there through all the nonsense of the Christmas card list and on and on, and most of the people I knew at the time just absorbed all the negative spin and never took a close look at the woman.

      During the 08 season, my family of Democrats who drank the koolade, were spouting 90’s venom points against Hill. They were all programmed in the 90’s…it was easy for the
      Obots and O mouth pieces to awaken that.

      Early in the 07 primary run, I remember Bill talking about Hillary and was asked about the high negative rating Hillary had and he said, that when you get to know her, really know her and see how serious and dedicated she is, those people would change their minds. In fact, it was true. As folks got to see her and hear her and learn about who she really was, they changed their minds and loved her.

      Hillary really says what she means and means what she says. That alone must put her in the dangerous category for Washington.

  30. You read all this stuff and what it comes down to is that the Obots got a real hate on for HRC fired by the MSM and their “inevitability” meme, hate Big Dawg and other background noise from the right wing—they just can not get over that they were not just wrong about O, they were wrong about O because they were so full of venom and wrong about HRC. Our only hope is that they are going to reap the benefit of their ugliness by simply becoming irrelevant and meaningless. I think they are well on their way and that is the best end for them. Do not give them any more head space. They are not worth one sentence, one letter of the alphabet.

    • Exposing the duplicity is still important. But I agree that it’s time for coalition building where possible – and it’s pretty obvious where it isn’t possible.

      • It’s amazing to me that Jane Hamsher believes she will do better working with Grover Norquist than actually opening her mind and trying to engage with people like us.

    • A lot of the pro-Edwards people were filled with CDS too.

      I always knew the Republicans and the media hated Bill and Hillary. It wasn’t until 2008 that I realized the Democratic leadership hated them too. The Democratic voters still love them both.

      Many prominent Obots were Republicans in the 90’s (kos, Arianna, John Cole)

    • BINGO!

      Hillary hatred was stoked by the corporate MSM. Just as Obama love was.

      The Obots are a brand of Democrat that are wholly owned and controlled by the man-stream. Period.

      They will never admit it is so. Because they fancy themselves “independent thinkers.” But suckers is what they actually are.

      There’s one born every minute, ya know … And in Obamaland there’s one born every second.

  31. Brava Boomer, you hit the nail on the head with this post.

    I hate to nitpick, however I am a stickler for accuracy – wasn’t it Obama who won the Indiana primary? Though I do remember some monkey business with the results of that primary being held up a long time in Gary.

    • Nope – he won NC that same evening but Hillary won Indiana. The results were held up until after the east coast went to bed, so all they heard about that night was Obama’s big victory.

    • No, Hillary won Indiana, although the Mayor of Gary held onto his vote tallies until late at night in order to try to swing the state to Obama. But I didn’t mention that in my post. You might be referring to the quote I used from Riverdaughter’s post from yesterday.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Democratic_primary,_2008

      • Yes, it was from Riverdaughter. Sorry about that – I stand corrected.

      • From the wiki link:

        Further hurting Clinton’s campaign was the time-zone differences, with her double-digit defeat in North Carolina reported in prime time, and the news of the slim victory in Indiana had come too late. MSNBC’s Tim Russert said that Clinton “did not get the game-changer she wanted tonight” and “We now know who the Democratic nominee will be.”

        • NY Post had a headline the next day: “SHE’S TOAST”
          Nobody reported Indiana. I believe that one CNN reporter was responsible for the Gary’s mayor’s attempt to steal being foiled. The mayor was waiting to see the other results so he’d know how much to “count” his precincts. But that CNN guy kept insisting on the results and he was too much in the public eye at that point to be able to change them.

    • Clinton narrowly defeated Obama in Indiana – sorry, my bad.

      • It’s wouldnt have been as narrow a victory without the ballot box stuffing that took place in northern Indiana (near Chicago).

        • They could only stuff them so much, but they tried their best. Gary, Indiana is a suburb of Chicago.

          Obama only won 10 of 92 counties in Indiana.

      • Not your bad – the entire media worked very hard to create this misperception. The day of the election, the Daily Kos was posting imaginary audio from The War Room movie, where some Clinton staffer allegedly insulted all Indiana voters (rather than speak about Poppy as it were), and this went in the teevee too.

  32. Jane and her many compatriots are basically trying to justify the mistake they *know* they made. Let’s face it… Jane did not “remain true to (her) charter.” She was duped and screwed by the corporate candie date.

    It was not easy to really all that hard to see this trainwreck coming down the tracks either.

    Had any of the “progressive” bloggers that I used to read actually looked at what was happening… they could have seen as clearly as we did. Obama was bought and paid for. And he had no track record of standing up to ANYBODY.

    Jane and her kind bought the BS, backed the empty suit and I… like Elizabeth, will never forgive them.

    • Sorry. This should read “it was easy” or “it was not really all that hard” to see the trainwreck….

      My editing is not so good when I am angry.

  33. One of the things that still blows my mind is that after 8 years of railing against the corporate media, and their corruption, their being in the pockets of TPTB, people suddenly had ZERO problem with the fact that they slobbered all over Obama just as they did Bush.

    I mean, wouldn’t you think that would at least make one very suspicious, raise a red flag or two? It did for me. Anyone who had watched them sell Bush and his war should have been a bit leery of their selling of the Messiah. But nope – they deliberately closed their eyes, or took a stance like BTD that it was somehow a good thing – which is just insane on its face.

    The truth was there. But none of these so-called savvy investigative bloggers once questioned: Where is all that money coming from? How did he rise so damn fast from nothing? Who greased the skids of his meteoric rise in Chicago? How did he start out with such a huge warchest (before he even ran)? Why the hell is the corporate media pushing him so hard? They didn’t even ASK those obvious questions.

    • “Media darling” alone was a major red flag.

      But the Obots acted like Bill and Hillary deserved to be hated by the media, and the media really just recognized the wonderfulness that is Obama.

      • Yep. MAJOR red flag. They did not see it because they *DID NOT WANT TO* see it.

        Anyone who stepped back to purvey the MSM landscape would have recognized that they were being sold an empty bill of goods.

  34. Wouldn’t “Jane Hamsher is a fucking liar” be a better title for this post?

  35. Thank you so much for transcribing this and making it public record!
    I feel that keeping the record straight is one of our main duties these days with so much revisionism going around (see “superdelegates trying to swing it for Hillary and even here the perception that Obama won Indiana)
    I have been almost sympathetic to Jane lately – seeing how she was scapegoated in B0botland. But after this piece of information, I’ll go read those threads as karmic.
    I guess I am just that class of women! (I think I’ll keep this one, thank you very much!)

  36. Oh, one more thing: she didn’t take a video of Harriet Cristian either. Will Bowers did. She probably saw it on you tube like everyone else.

    • This was posted on YouTube by “firedoglake”

      • Thanks myiq. Harriet speaks best for herself. Doesn’t need an out of context rewrite by anyone.

        • The Obots focused on “old white woman” (as a stereotype for Hillary supporters) saying “inadequate black male” and twisted it into (what else?) racism.

          They completely ignored the bullshit RBC decision that Harriet was angry about.

      • I stand corrected on who posted it. Thanks for bringing that video here. It’s clear that what Harriet said was that they picked a black male to take down the white woman candidate. or as others have since wrote “they saw the propaganda value in his color”
        and for fair game, from the B0bots, Jane’s racist problem

        http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/joe_lieberman_blackfaced_jane_hamscher_redfaced/

        (notice the CDS is a constant there)

      • Jane/Firedoglake posted this video to “prove” that PUMAs and Hillary supporters in general were all crazy, white, old, and racist. Bullshit. Harriet’s words have been taken out of context time and time again as were Hillary’s and many more of her supporters who even brought up the word “black man”. Harriet’s anger was absolutely justified and I only wish Jane and her minions would express the same amount of anger towards that POS health care bill.

        • We deserve an apology from Jane Hamsher – she needs to go back to her archives and look at herself, her commentators and comments. She again reiterated this untrue talking point that Hillary supporters didn’t support Obama because he was black.

  37. Great post, BB!
    I can’t believe Hamsher said a “certain class of women” as opposed to a “group of women.”
    Boy, is that ever a window into her mind.

    • It certainly is. And she should either clean up her mind or close the curtains on that window. Right now she’s very transparent.

  38. Wasn’t Hamsher the one who threw a tantrum that the money was drying up for the B0bot-blogging – but she’ll bravely keep writing anyway?

    http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/b0bloggers-want-stimulus-toono-bow-and-fisa/

    “They come to us, expecting us to give them free publicity, and we do, but it’s not a two way street,” Jane Hamsher, the founder of FiredogLake, said in an interview. “They won’t do anything in return. They’re not advertising with us. They’re not offering fellowships. They’re not doing anything to help financially, and people are growing increasingly resentful.”

    • I forgot about that. LOL!

    • My ass bleeds for her. If TC is earning any revenue (from all high-priced ads you see here) then RD blew it all on a Happy Meal.

      I agree with Joseph Cannon:

      If you wish to operate without any censorship, you must sneer at stats. Free yourself from all thought of reward or result. Do for the sake of doing, and to hell with the outcome. All bloggers should run their sites with the mad glee of a guy trying to get fired from his job. The only truly free speech is free speech — as in unpaid.

  39. Thank you for posting this, BB. It clearly shows Jane’s condescending attitude and how dishonest she is. The caller did not scream at her. The very next caller called her a liar and was far more harsh than the alleged “screamer”.

    I was also stunned at Jane’s defense of herself when both callers pointed out that she said that Obama was an anti-war candidate when it was obvious from his own statements that he was not. Jane basically said that most of his followers believed that Obama was an anti-war candidate so that made him an anti-war candidate. WTF?

    • “Jane basically said that most of his followers believed that Obama was an anti-war candidate so that made him an anti-war candidate. WTF?”

      A star was born, a president made. Bush III cast as the anti-Bush. Great drama. Too bad it’s our reality.

    • More eveidence of the pure fantasy world in which the Obots reside.

  40. BostonBoomer — WOW – Great post. Thank you so much for the content, style and pizazz!!

    And to all commenters – this has been a great conversation. Every comment sings!

  41. Bingo on Free Speech. How can Arianna, DKos, Walsh, Hamsher etc. deride the MSM when they savor and crave face time on these media? Do they not see that they can not be “above” or “outside” the MSM with full critic rights while they appear on its outlets, get “media exposure”, take money? Do they not see that O bought them out and they sold heart and soul for cheap?

  42. “In addition she twists Harriet Christian’s words in order to imply that Harriet is a racist.” Yes, and that twist ‘n’ shout became the rallying cry for the anti-PUMA movement. After all, who gives a flying f*** about that “certain class of women.” They’re certainly disposable, n’est-ce pas?

  43. BB I really appreciate this and other posts here on this topic. But there is one comment you have on Hamsher that I really challenge—-that Hamsher is smart. I do not think she can be smart and be so far off the mark, so deluded. Part of intelligence has to be insight and she has none.

    Otherwise I am with you.

  44. Wow, just wow. This was a post to wake up to and read? I need medication now.
    Thanks BB and MyIQ and RD. This must all be documented for history. Thank you for the links and quotes. Thanks especially for the time travel through TBogg’s writings. Jane is full of shit. Her followers commenting on her blog are too, just like Digby, and she’s scared to piss em off . Don’t waste your time going over there. I certainly won’t contribute to her growth by participating in any Action Items. She can suffer along with the rest of us.

  45. When Obama won Iowa the media gleefully declared her campaign was finished. Then she came back and won New Hampshire.

    She won more votes in Nevada but because of the screwy delegate rules Obama got 1 more delegate than her so the Obots crowed that he “won” Nevada.

    Obama won solid-red SC by the same margins that Jesse Jackson did in 84 and 88, but the Big Dawg was a racist for pointing that out. The media talked about Obama’s huge victory, without mentioning that something like 55% of SC Democrats are African-American and that he won the AA vote with 90%.

    Hillary’s victories in Florida and Michigan were blown off by Obots and the media as “beauty contests” or “presidential preference polls.” No Obot or talking head would acknowledge that they were two state-sponsored elections and were considered official by the governments of those states. If you mentioned “disenfranchisement” you were laughed at because “The Rulz” was all that mattered.

    Going into Super Tuesday the Kennedy clan and Oprah put on a full court press with endorsements – Maria Shriver (wife of California’s GOP governor) endorsed Obama and appeared at Obama rallies. The Obots and the media (but I repeat myself) kept pushing polls showing Obama was closing the gap in California or even taking the lead.

    Super Tuesday – Hillary won California by 10 points. She won 10 contests to Obama’s 13, but he won the small red states and Hillary won the big blue ones. Suddenly size didn’t matter and 13 is more than 10 so Obama won Super Tuesday.

    Obama won a bunch of small and/or red state primaries and caucuses during the rest of February, and the Obots and the media (but I repeat myself again) claimed he was inevitable and said she was just trying to “kneecap” him to help McCain.

    Then Hillary came back and decisively won the Texas and Ohio primaries. Ohio was considered an important swing state until Hillary won it. The usual suspects pointed out that Obama won the same-day Texas caucuses (without ever wondering about the dramatically different results from the primary vote) and declared Obama “won” Texas because he got slightly more delegates from the combined process. Votes didn’t matter, delegates did.

    SNL made fun of the different way the media treated Hillary and Obama during debates. Hillary then kicked Obama’s ass in the PA debate (where Obama finally got asked hard questions and didn’t get his pillow fluffed) and afterward he refused to do any more debates with Hillary and pulled that “dirt off my shoulders” and cheek scratch stuff the next day. Obots talked about a boycott of ABC for the mean way he was questioned.

    Hillary won big in Pennsylvania, Kentucky and West Virgina. It was blamed on racism. Obama won NC the same way he won SC – the media declared he had won the nomination even though it was a virtual tie.

    • We will never forget because we can not forget. Even reading that clear, quick snapshot brings back the jaw dropping, I-can’t believe-this-f#$kd–sh%%.

      • OMG – I forgot to mention that it was when Hillary won NH that the Obama campaign blamed racism and began playing the race card every chance they could the rest of the campaign.

    • Oh yeah – during the ohio campaign Obama revived “Harry and Louise” to attack Hillary’s health care plan, the Obots claimed that unlike Obama Hillary was a NAFTA supporter (she wasn’t but Bill was) and it leaked out that Obama’s economic adviser (Goolsbee) privately told the Canadians to ignore what Obama said publicly about renegotiating NAFTA.

    • TL did an interesting report on Caucus states.

      One of its conclusions referred to the “unequal weighting” of delegates and states in the selection of the nominee:
      42% of
      Obama’s wins have been in caucus states wherein one-half have not voted Democratic since 1964, 70%
      voted Republican in 2004, 8 out of the 13 states had only 8,700 to 43,900 voters each and there is a total
      of 74 electoral votes for all caucus states.

      Obama’s 138 pledged delegates lead derived from the 12 caucus states he won is only 18 less than
      Clinton’s 156 pledged delegates won from all of these hard-fought, primary states: California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
      New Jersey, Massachusetts, Indiana, Tennessee, Arizona, Oklahoma, Arkansas, New Mexico, West Virginia, New
      Hampshire and Rhode Island.

      These Clinton-won states have a combined 220 electoral votes, 87.2 million eligible voters and cast a total of 18,400,000
      votes in these primaries. Compare that with the Obama-won caucus states with a combined 69 electoral votes, 21.5
      million eligible voters and only 944,000 total votes cast.

      http://www.talkleft.com/media/2008caucusreport.pdf

      Again about Obama’s red state appeal: (or Rove using G.O.P. crossover voting to take out Clinton)
      (from city edition June 2008)

      According to an article in Time magazine last November, Republicans were organized in several states to throw their weight behind frontrunner Senator Hillary Clinton’s principle rival for the Democratic nomination, Senator Barack Obama. While Rove’s name isn’t mentioned in the story, several former fundraisers and strategists for President Bush are identified. With the help of Wall Street investment firms, these gentlemen helped flush Obama’s coffers with cash early on in the race, something the conservative deep pockets had not done for any candidate in their own party. With receipts topping $100 million in 2007, the freshman senator achieved a remarkable feat, given he only first appeared on the national scene in 2004. In fact, the vast majority of Americans did not even hear of him until 2006.

      Obama’s red state appeal it seems was based on a Republican tactic called cross over voting. And in fact BO won 13 of the 17 open primaries.

      A website and discussion forum called Republicans for Obama formed in 2006. The executive director of New Hampshire’s Republican Party, Stephen DeMaura, later established “Stop Hillary Clinton (One Million Strong AGAINST Hillary)” on Facebook. At the same time, the Obama camp launched its own initiative targeted at Republican primary voters called “Be a Democrat For a Day”. The campaign included a video that was circulated in Florida, Nevada, Vermont and elsewhere explaining the process of switching parties for the election. In addition, many states nowadays hold open primaries, allowing citizens to vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. In Nebraska, the mayor of Omaha publicly rallied Republicans and Independents to caucus for Obama on February 9th. In Pennsylvania, Time reported on March 19th that Obama was running radio ads in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia asking Republicans to register as Democrats and then vote for him in the state’s April 22nd primary.

      • It is an article of faith among Obots that all the “Dem for a day” voters cast their ballots for Hillary.

        They have completely forgotten Teh Precious bragging about “Obamacans.”

  46. And then I went over to NO Quarter to find this link:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/democratic-commission-recommen.htm

    • That hadn’t better be the entire “fix” – bad choice of words considering that the “fix” was in for Obama in the primary and we’re now in a “fix” with Obama and the Bush leftovers.

    • Too little too late. The Dem party needs a truth and Reconciliation
      event.

  47. It is so painful to have to read this post and comments, but the 08 primary story should be told over and over again so that we will never forget how the DNC, MSM, and treated Hillary and her 18 million voters.

    During Valerie Plame court proceedings, Jane used to say that they were doing live blogging so that the real story would not be papered over by the Bushies and the MSM. We should do the same now to Jane and her A-list bloggers just so they cannot rewrite their own history.

  48. Here’s the bottom line, for me, anyway: if you’re someone who followed the 2008 primary closely, and if you’ve been paying attention to Obama’s first year, calling “bullshit” on Jane Hamsher might be the easiest thing you will do in the new year. You know what you saw, what you heard, what you read. You know who showed it, who said it and who wrote it. You remember the ugliness, and you remember how little was done to stop it – free speech and all, great stuff. You know and I know she’s full of it.

    The FDL public option campaign may have raised money – FDL loves that stuff; there’s a fundraiser going on all the time – but as a strategy in the health care reform battle, it FAILED. Jane should want to know why it failed, how it failed, what she did that made it fail, how to avoid making the same mistakes again. She should be asking her community to weigh in.

    Has anyone seen that kind of post-mortem on the FDL campaign? Me, either. Is it happening off-blog? I rather doubt it, not as fiercely as she is protecting and deflecting.

    Am I surprised? Hell, no. No one who bans those who question her strategy, question her out-of-nowhere, one-time support for single-payer, returns contributions to commenters who don’t bow and scrape enough, who gave an HCAN shill like Jason Rosenbaum a forum, was ever going to admit that she FAILED.

    No, better to stuff all that down and start a new campaign: Kill the Bill.

    Oh, and start re-writing the history of FDL while she’s at it; gotta protect the empire, you know. Has anyone else considered that this is all just a little too reminiscent of how the mainstream has always refused to be accountable for its own failures? Hmmm…me, too.

    As far as I’m concerned, FDL is little more than an arm of the mainstream now; there’s just no way to trust someone who would so blatantly distort the facts and take no responsibility for her blog’s role in where we are now. Who would so distort that Washington Journal caller’s comments and so sweetly and condescendingly trash a “certain class of women,” just to protect her turf.

    Speaking truth to power? Maybe back in the beginning, but now? Pssshhht. She’s too busy accumulating and cozying up to it to speak against it.

    • Oh, and start re-writing the history of FDL while she’s at it; gotta protect the empire, you know. Has anyone else considered that this is all just a little too reminiscent of how the mainstream has always refused to be accountable for its own failures? Hmmm…me, too.

      Yes, it has struck me as opportunistic, and well said.

      I don’t think Jane is a bad person or the “worst offender” in any of this but she played along to get along during the election, and she kept pushing for public option while not addressing the research coming out of PNHP about the bait and switch with the public option, and now she’s conveniently going Kill Bill at the 11th hour when nothing much can really be killed.

      • We need to focus on each A-lister one at a time and lay-out their role in what happened.

        We need to document the history before they can rewrite it.

    • In order to have a meaningful post-mortem of the HCR campaign Jane would have to disclose who decided that the A-listers would drop “single payer” from their vocabularies and only discuss the public option.

      Who set the agenda – the White House or an oligarchy of bloggers? (We know they followed the approved agenda, but where did it originate?)

      • The thing is, after years of doing insightful analysis of how mainstream media got co-opted (the entire raison d’etre for the liberal blogosphere in the beginning), they never applied that insight to themselves.

        Mainstream media were not all conspiratorial demons. Some were good honest people. The co-opting happened slowly and subtly, in ways that could always be justified. But the Access Bloggers were arrogant enough to feel they were somehow more pure, somehow IMMUNE to those same pitfalls. It couldn’t happen to them, because they were “special”, unlike those evil mainstream reporters. It’s pure arrogance.

        They have become what they despised, and until they wake up and realize that despite their inner feelings or good intentions, they have allowed themselves to be USED, they are no better than the corporate news whores whom they purported to be an alternative to. They need to admit that, and be very appalled at and afraid of how they were manipulated, before they can regain their principles. I’m not holding my breath.

  49. I’ve come to a conclusion that has now been confirmed by Ms. Hamsher. Clinton voters were those who knew what middle class struggling was all about and knew that her and Bill were the first in their lifetimes to make the world better for them and their families. Clinton voters were also those women who knew what it was like to be held back by their gender and saw in Hillary a record of someone who addressed that imbalance. And Clinton voters were those who remembered what a privilege it was to go to college and look forward to a comfortable middle-class/iupper middle-class future.

    • you know they are all little Mo Dos in training.

      • Jane is actually reverse of MoDo… Jane writes Issues with a capital I and once in awhile you get a true glimpse into how vain she really is when she drops comments like “certain class of women.” MoDo shows her vain side all the time writing trash loosely based on what’s going on in DC — except that once in awhile MoDo let’s the smart girl in her come out just to show everybody she’s no dummy, she just loves to play one for the money.

    • I agree with this analysis. Jane’s co-writer Christy, a former prosecutor, lives in West Virginia. She lives among coal miners and I think her family was a mining family. It is quite telling Christy did not participate in Hillary bashing and did not go with the flow of A-list bloggers. Now she stopped writing for FDL.

      Christy never forgot her roots and where she came from. And she went back to where she came from.

  50. BTW… new thread up above.

  51. I actually think all of this is part of something going on behind the scenes.

  52. From Universal Healthcare to Single-Payer to Public Option to nothing. They keep setting the bar lower and lower. I keep hearing people beg for the Public Option when I don’t even want to know what that is. I wanted Universal Healthcare. I am a single-issue voter and thats exactly why I supported Clinton. I never expected Universal Healthcare but that is where I wanted negotiations to begin. I really believe in my heart that is why Hillary had to be destroyed by the Corporate Media. It began in earnest in 2006 when we got that 60 vote majority and something could have really passed.

  53. Once again, I’m catching up late, but I am really glad that you did this post bb–thank you. When I read Mary’s comment from yesterday, explaining that Jane had intimated that all Clinton supporters were rac*st, and she mis-characterized the caller, I knew it needed a response. As you say, it’s obvious that Jane has issues. The eye-rolling and condescension is a dead give away for a guilty, defensive stance. To suggest that we imagined the vicious treatment of Clinton supporters is laughable. Also, when she suggested in her recent post that there was no discernible difference between the three candidates, and we were just choosing a “spokesperson,” that was another tell, revealing her elitism. In other words, she was infatuated with the Ivy League phony who condescended to the bitter gun-toting rac*sts with his teleprompter rhetoric.

    You were had Jane–ADMIT IT! Confession is good for the soul.

  54. Just watched that video and it boggles the mind how full of sh** Hamsher is!

    I have to be honest here, I had never read FDL until I read on this and other blogs, what was being said there. After one visit, I decided I was not about to swim in that Obot cesspool.

    Since then, I admit to having lurked there from time to time.

    Thanks BB, RD and today, Myiq( The facts man…the damn facts!) for calling Hamsher and her supposed “neutrality” for what it is…..BULLS$@*!

  55. The last 2 days have been electric. The posts were charged with passion and truths. It was a joy to read and digest. Thank you to all who posted and commented. We must never forget and nothing like ending and starting the year with a recap of the perfidy that the DNC and others inflicted on us and the country. Unfortunately, we were right. And now the country has to pay. I use to be a big lurker at FDL.. Until the insanity took hold. How does Jane return to the world of truth after being a party to the devastation? One can’t live with it and one can’t pretend it didn’t happen, and one can’t admit the truth. A conundrum of devastating proportions. I feel sorry for the hell that is Jane Hamsher.

  56. Here’s my personal thanks to Jane and her team: Because you refused to recognize Obama’s homophobia even while he was campaigning with Donnie McClurkin and kissing up to Rick Warren, you forced a homophobic candidate on this party. Obama took gay money and then laughed in our faces. He has no intention of repealing DOMA, even though he campaigned on it. Hillary only promised to repeal part 3 of DOMA, and that would have been good enough for me, because gay marriage is an *economic* issue for me. Obama promised pie-in-the-sky and handed us bullshi* He has no use for women or gays, obviously. And without marriage rights I can’t protect my family in our retirement years, which are coming up fast.

    It pisses me off that Jane paints herself as the victim of crazy screaming women callers, when the truth is that Jane and her blog contributed to electing this sell-out Republican, and that makes her a perpetrator not a victim. I don’t think Jane is going to do any real suffering under Obama, but those without civil rights and health insurance and jobs have to live with the consequences of her and her pal’s misogyny and stupidity every day. Aravosis Spalding, Marshall, Cheeto, Huffington, etc etc etc proved themselves to be the condescending arrogant elitists that Republicans run against so successfully. It’s so pathetic and disgusting. And it didn’t have to be.

    To quote John Lennon, Jane: How Do You Sleep?

    • They let Obama get away with lots of things because they were sure he was really a progressive and he was only doing it to get elected.

      He didn’t have a progressive record, but he was black so they knew he just had to be a real lefty.

      It never occurred to them that Obama could really be a conservative homophobe DINO.

  57. Thank you for following up with the video itself, BB.
    To see others feel as deeply outraged as I was when I watched Jane literally SNEER at the caller on CSpan , feels very cleansing.

    I guess Jane didn’t think very many people actually watch the CSpan morning show , and thought she could get away with mischaracterizing what she really said and did.

    Muchas gracias, bb. :)

    • Much like Obama hasn’t quite grasped the concept of “videorecording” and thinks he can get away with lying about what he actually said without being busted. “How will they ever know? It was months ago!” lol

    • I’ll bet it felt like screaming to her.
      That’s guilt, Jane.
      *****A

  58. I don’t recall Ralph Nader being pilloried for r@cism for his comments about Obama in June 2008:

    “There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American,” Nader said. “Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We’ll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards.”

    “I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law,” Nader said. “Haven’t heard a thing.”

    “We are obviously disappointed with these very backward-looking remarks,” Obama campaign spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said. . .

    “He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician,” Nader said. “He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he’s coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it’s corporate or whether it’s simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.”

    *****A

  59. People like Hamsher and Kos are poison.

  60. I see no evidence that Hamsher is an intelligent person.

  61. I started off supporting Kucinich but Hillary was my second favorite and I had liked her as First Lady for her strong support for women and children’s issues, and for being a feminist period. I had bought into the fauxgressive bull about her being “pro corporate” but as I researched her past as she became one the strongest candidates I discovered that was a lie, and also discovered just how strong her history was on all sorts of liberal issues- Civil Rights, Migrant Workers Rights, Union rights, Children’s Rights, etc… I also heard how she had moved more leftward on GLBT rights since 2000, even marching in the NY State Gay Pride parade the last couple of years- something she also did during the 2008 primaries too… The more I read about her the more surprised and happy I became with her, except on the war issue she was probably the most progressive candidate the Democratic party had ever had as a major candidate.

    Even before Obama started his major astroturfing campaign he made comments that had my progressive self going “nope, not him” The hosannas about Reagan while he dissed Carter and Clinton (and Johnson too for that matter) and the sneering comments about liberal activism of the 1960’s and 70’s (revealing his contempt for pacifists, Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, Children’s Rights, Migrant Workers Rights, Native Americans Rights, Asian Americans Rights, the Ecology movement, GLBT rights, union activism, etc…) This was back around January 2008, plus he was already throwing around Ageist insults too. I saw that and he immediately dropped down to second lowest next to Biden- who I knew was a corporate hack and a DINO from his voting record. Then I discovered the website Progressive Punch and saw all the candidates voting records. On every single progressive issue Obama was far less progressive than Hillary, on many he was down around the Republicans like Biden. Kucinich was the only candidate that was running in 2008 on the Democratic Party that had a more progressive record than Hillary’s. Edwards was less progressive than Hillary too, not as starkly as Obama but noticeably so.

    Then I watched the first debate and that decided me for sure for Hillary, although I liked Kucinich and thought the questions asked of him were deliberately made to derail his campaign- the UFO question in particular and I wasn’t happy about that at all, nor the sexist direction of the questions to Hillary, but Hillary trounced those questions and came off the clear winner.

    Then I read up on the one issue that troubled me about Hillary- her stance on war. I found while I disagreed with her stance she was no war monger- frankly Obama came off sounding more war mongerish in the early debates than Hillary. (his infamous bombing Pakistan response…) Hillary, although hawkish, sounded like a general who would use force only if she had to. I thought, well she might think “only if she had to” before I would but I can tell she means that she would seriously plan out any use of force before she did. So I could live with someone as president with that mindset.

    I was so repulsed by the Obama campaign and the fauxgressive Obots astroturfing during the primaries, and how the Democratic party leadership treated Clinton backers with contempt that when Hillary was forced out at the convention and McKinney won the Green party nomination (the way Hillary would have won if things had been “democratic” in the Democratic party) that I backed Ms. McKinney enthusiastically. The Democratic party leadership slimed McKinney in 2005 as a practice run for what they did to Hillary in 2008. McKinney had the most progressive record of a member of congress. I liked her, so my choosing the Green Party was made doubly certain when McKinney received the nomination.

    The Obots didn’t spare attacking McKinney either, the c word was used against her too.

    • Almost all of the negative spin about the Clintons was myth. Only people who accept unsubstantiated statements bought the lies. It’s good to know there are many out there like you who refused to just nod a head and embrace the lies.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 468 other followers

%d bloggers like this: