• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Trump says he’s been indi…
    William on Trump says he’s been indi…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Trump says he’s been indi…
    Propertius on Trump says he’s been indi…
    Propertius on Trump says he’s been indi…
    Propertius on “Why should you go to jail for…
    Propertius on “Why should you go to jail for…
    thewizardofroz on Trump says he’s been indi…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on “Why should you go to jail for…
    riverdaughter on “Why should you go to jail for…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on “Why should you go to jail for…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on “Why should you go to jail for…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on “Why should you go to jail for…
    campskunk on Ping me when there’s news
    William on D-Day -1
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    December 2009
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

  • Top Posts

In defense of Jane Hamsher, Democratic party loyalist

Who could have predicted?

Jane Hamsher has taken a lot of heat lately from the likes of Booman, whoever the hell he is (we never read him).  Apparently, he wrote a post directed at the disillusioned party faithful who are now disappointed in President Barack Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress.  We know he must be talking about Jane and other bloggers like BTD because he sure as heck isn’t talking about us.  We were hep to that step and we didn’t dig it a long, long time ago.  We’ve been calling ourselves Democrats in Exile since about May 31, 2008.  Do we regret the fact that we no longer have a party to call home?  Heck no.  We know all about free milk and a cow.

But this is a painful lesson for people like Jane Hamsher, who has now been told by Booman that if she doesn’t stop voicing her discontent at the bill of goods that Obama failed to deliver, she isn’t a real Democrat.  I beg to differ.  Jane has indeed defended her party credentials quite admirably in a post today.  I advise everyone to go and read it in its entirety as well as the comments.  It seems some of the commenters are still confused about who supported Hillary, PUMA, both, either and why.  I’ll try to clarify that at the end.

It’s not my intention to dump on Jane Hamsher.  She really does mean well.  I will always admire her for what she did in CT for Ned Lamont.  It must feel like a real sucker punch to be sold out by her own party on the issue of reproductive rights too.  I remember that Jane feels very strongly about that issue.  FDL was also doggedly persistent on Plamegate and I sat riveted to my monitor throughout the duration of Scooter Libby’s trial.  Jane was barely out of major surgery when that happened.  But it was the quality of the journalism, not just Jane’s incredible resilience, that merited an award for FDL.

But something went terribly wrong in 2008.  Jane, the party loyalist, took the path most traveled and lost her way.  She documents some of the atrocities in her post today.  Most of it consists of pitiful excuses for why Jane stayed neutral during the worst of the primary abuses.  I’m sure she would like for the primary of 2008 to die an ignominious but quiet death somewhere so we can all let bygones be bygones and get on with it.  It’s not going away, Jane.

Some of Jane’s commenters and perhaps Jane herself think the problem with us “bitter” holdouts is the fact that Hillary lost.  When they notice us, if they notice us at all, they think it is all about Hillary.  But a couple of days before Hillary dropped out, I had a conversation with Peter Daou on the phone.  I was enraged by what the DNC had done and not just because of Hillary.  Of course I was angry with how they had betrayed her but I was more angry at how they had betrayed US, the voters.  I told him that it wasn’t about Hillary anymore.  It was about the Democratic party primary voters.

Let me address some of Jane’s excuses for doing nothing during the primary war of 2008.  Jane says that during primaries, it’s all about personalities.  Maybe.  But I have certainly never seen anything quite like the massacre I witnessed on DailyKos or the emnity between the campaigns that was generated by Obama’s people.  It was like the primary was taken over by the smartest guys in the room from Enron.  That was my first clue that something wasn’t cool about Obama.  His followers seemed too “ends justified the means”.  The campaign was very weak about reining them in, which eventually lead to the “Sarah Palin is a cunt” T-shirts. But the aggression didn’t stay on the blogs.  Nope.  It made its way to TV and print.  It was evident at every televised debate.  It got ugly when the accusations of racism were thrown at the Clintons.  I thought it couldn’t get lower than that.  That’s when Obama lost me for good, Jane.

But your site stayed neutral.

Then there is the issue of their voting records.  Yes, they were very similar.  So, I can’t understand why Hillary got branded as a “corporatist” and Obama didn’t.  On what basis was that label applied, Jane?  But it was even more illogical than that.  If there voting records were virtually identical, why in God’s name would you choose to go with a guy who had virtually no face time in the Senate and ZERO experience in the Executive branch? Then there was the whole Lieberman Resolution on Iran which Hillary was forced to vote for, because no one with an ounce of common sense would vote against what amounted to an opinion poll on whether Iran should be punished if they used terrorism.  But Obama was conveeeeniently absent that day.  Huh.   But wait, there’s more.  Remember the MoveOn Petraeus Ad motion that Obama voted present on?  How about all of the Illinois Senate votes on reproductive rights and abortion that Obama voted present on?  Or how about the fact that he rode to the WH on a speech he gave on the Iraq War Resolution but never had to vote on?  It was a missing data point.

But Jane’s site stayed neutral.

Then there were the caucuses that were overrun by bussed in Obama people and the caucuses in Texas where the fraud was documented and reported on at length by the likes of Pacific John, who witnessed it.  There was the RBC hearing of August 2007 where Florida and Michigan were punished.  Two whole states’ voters disenfranchised for no fault of their own simply because the politicians involved had a dispute over timing.

But Jane’s site stayed neutral.

Then there was the RBC hearing of May 31, 2008.  We keep coming back to this but Jane doesn’t get it yet.  The issue was not simply Florida and Michigan, Jane.  The issue was CA, NJ, NY, OH, PA, MA and all of the other big and little primary states where voters did not vote for Barack Obama, sometimes by more than 10 points.  We covered that hearing, Jane.  We had boots on the ground too.  We saw Amy Siskind giving an impassioned speech about what it meant to her to be disenfranchised simply because she voted for Hillary Clinton and didn’t like being called a sweetie.  And then we watched when Donna Brazile had the nerve to call Hillary Clinton a cheater simply because she wanted to keep four of her delegates and leave the rest of the uncommitted delegates at that status.  Clinton’s position, as communicated by her representatives, was extraordinarily fair.  Instead, that same committee gave Michigan’s votes to a man who wasn’t even on the ballot and by doing so, wiped out every other Clinton voter in every other state.  They knew this is what they were doing.  They threw the game to Obama, in front of all of us.

But Jane’s site stayed neutral.

Then we went PUMA, which simply meant that we were going to withhold our votes from the Democratic party because we could not reward this outrageous, undemocratic and fraudulent behavior.  Since the convention hadn’t taken place and Hillary hadn’t officially withdrawn her name from the race, we felt there was time for the party and the party faithful to come to its senses.  We hoped that the party loyalists would put principles before party.  We thought they would be alarmed by the amount of money pouring into Obama’s campaign.  Where was it all coming from?  What did the money people see in a less than one term senator who had almost no legislative experience?  Then there was the FISA vote.  We were glad to see Jane as a signatory on a sternly worded letter in The Nation.  But when we got to Denver to protest the shameful way the party was treating Hillary Clinton and her voters, where was Jane?  I swear, Jane, if you had woken up and smelled the coffee and joined us, I would have followed you to the ends of the earth.  What did a full time working person with a new blog and a ferocious out-of-the-blue insurgency know about organizing and making a scene?  I could have used a Jane Hamsher.  If Jane Hamsher had stood up and demanded a real roll call vote for Hillary Clinton, if Jane Hamsher and her followers had insisted upon fairness and against delegate intimidation, Jane would have little to complain about today.  Jane could have said, “Well, at least I tried.  At least I did *something* to keep the party together.  At least I stood up for principle instead of letting a tidal wave of accusations and incrimination destroy the good intentions of the people who voted for Clinton.  At least I could say I stood up for the working class instead of the bonus class who controls us now.”

But Jane can’t say any of those things because Jane’s site flipped from neutral to pro-Obama as soon as the Convention was over.

This in spite of FISA and primary voting improprieties and Obama meeting with evangelicals and promising them God knows what.  In spite of the overt misogynism of the media that Obama never decried or the fact that the candidate barely called himself a Democrat or that he lobbied for the first TARP bailout bill- before the election- Jane was happy to climb aboard the Obama bandwagon and buy into the scare tactics on abortion to whip the rest of us into line.  We were all supposed to come together in unity and support Jane’s Democratic presidential candidate.

And now Jane doesn’t like her guy or the Congress he rode in to town with. Who could have predicted that he’d turn out to be a corporate loving, weak president with an equally craven Congress behind him?   The nation was in such dire straits last year that only a skilled and experienced politician with a quiver full of well developed policies ready for action could have *maybe* put the country and its financial sector straight.  We got Obama and his billion dollar campaign backers instead.  And BTD is still citing the DLC as the reason why he couldn’t get behind Clinton.  Oh, please.  When Bill Clinton was president, the center was where the left is now.  To centrists back then, the Left was a bunch of tree hugging, Birkenstock wearing, Alfie Kohn loving, Noam Chomsky pacifying vegans.  We’re not the new Centrists, the Lieberman types.  We former Clintonistas, Democrats in Exile, last year’s PUMAs are FDR style liberals.  You would think that Jane and us would have a lot in common.  But Jane has some weird mental image in her mind about who we are and who we support.  We are not Palin people.  We’re not birthers.  We’re not tea partiers.  And we sure as hell aren’t racists.

We are Democrats who were set free from the party or set ourselves free to go our own separate ways.  We put principle before party.  That’s all.  We saw what the Obama campaign and the DNC was willing to do in order to get him elected and suspected that big, corporate money had a lot to do with it.  It was the neo-feudalists flexxing their muscle and we wanted no part of it.  So, yeah, we are not Democrats anymore.  For us, the primaries told us everything we needed to know about Obama.

But one thing you can’t say about Jane is that she is not a Democrat or loyal to the party.  She is the most loyal of them all and she is facing an uphill struggle.

My condolences, Jane.

131 Responses

  1. michigan and florida were disenfranchised because of a dispute over timing, true, but they stayed disenfranchised because hillary kicked obama’s ass in florida by 17 points, and he was so scared of looking bad in michigan that he dropped out.

    i remain disgusted. when i read this week that the democratic party’s going to “reform” the primary process, my laugh was bitter indeed. i guess that means you need to put me down as still bitter.

    • What is this “bitter” shit anyway? I’m not bitter. I’m mad as hell. I wanted a Democrat in the WH and all I got was Obama. jane and BTD and booman and Kos need to take responsibility for either staying on the sidelines and thinking they were above all of us wretched masses or participating in the poo flinging.
      They got EXACTLY what they wanted- Obama. Jane and BTD went into it with their eyes wide open. They saw what was happening and they did nothing. That’s how bad things happen.

      • Riverdaughter,

        When you are a woman and you are mad, by definition, you are ‘bitter’ or ‘bitchy’ or something like that. You can’t be outraged; that’s reserved for male members of the creative class.

      • Great post, RD! These people are just now finally waking up to the reality of Obama, but they still feel superior to those of us who saw the truth two years ago and opted for principles over party unity.

        It wasn’t about Hillary for me. I realized I couldn’t vote for Obama early in 2008. God help me, I supported Edwards until he dropped out. After watching the debates in Iowa and NH, I realized that Hillary was smart, organized, knew what she wanted to do as President. I would have liked her to be more liberal, but it was obvious that she was a lot more liberal than Obama.

        I read his book and realized he didn’t really have a commitment to women’s reproductive rights, or even to Social Security and Medicare. He came right out and said he was in favor of privatization. He didn’t even have a health care plan until he realized both Clinton and Edwards were getting traction with theirs.

        It wasn’t hard for me to look up Obama’s donors and realize that he got most of his money from Goldman Sachs and other investment banks, big pharma, and large health insurance companies. I read the Chicago papers and learned about Obama’s corrupt dealings and his pay for play scemes. Anyone could have done the same research we all did.

        I’m just glad I registered a protest vote rather than vote for Bush III.

        • I also realized that Obama wouldn’t support GLBT rights after the McClurkin episode and most of all, it was obvious that there was no issue he wouldn’t compromise on. He has no center, no ideology, no core beliefs or values–there is no issue he will draw the line on and stand and fight.

          And now we’re seeing what happens when you elect someone like that.

        • You guys have been on fire even more than usual lately. Awesome, awesome, awesome. Obama supporters are not quick on the uptake and act like everything is a big mystery no matter how many times it’s explained to them–it’s great having it all covered in one post for easy referral.

          Personally, I remember Sen. Clinton asking, “Was it all about me?” And many people who professed to be horrified by the whole top to bottom mess seized on it as an excuse to go to let’s pretend this was indicative of nothing land, but for me, well, no, it wasn’t all about you, that’s why I can’t support this party anymore. You’ll be okay regardless, it’s the rest of us who are screwed for the foreseeable future.

          • The Google doesn’t lie. It reveals all.

          • For me, it was never about Clinton. It was about Obama. I supported Clinton because she was the only thing standing between Obama and the nomination.

            I had hipped myself to some of the man’s lies — especially the NAFTA lie, which has found a permanent sticking place in this man’s craw. Also, there was the Iraq war lie: He claimed to be a consistent opponent of the invasion, yet he had refused to criticize it during his senate run and did not denounce it until the polls had well and truly turned against Bush’s war.

            I took these as clues that the man would turn out to be a disastrous president.

          • Funny, RonKSeattle had the same take on Obama that you did. When I first started TC, I thought that the problem was with Obama’s crazy supporters. He wasn’t my first choice because I had seen the presidential candidates in Chicago at YK2. She really was the best. But if he had won the nomination fair and aquare, I would have voted for him when I first started here.
            It was when the accusations of racism started to fly that I just had to reevaluate any support for him at all. That was just crossing the line for me. Then, Ronk laid out the dogwhistle economics theory about Austin Gooslbee and the rest of Obama’s economic team and it all gelled for me. Ronk implied that voting for Obama was possibly worse than voting for McCain and not just because Obama lacked experience. Obama was backed by some pretty ruthless people.

          • And the racism shtick wasn’t just a tactic. The campaign said it was so, and the followers believed. Anyone and everyone who did not embrace the word of the one was a racist. And if you truly *believe* someone is a racist, the hatred knows no bounds. Quite the indoctrination.

          • Obama caught my eye at the 2004 convention. I anticipated him being a good future candidate, but certainly not before 2016. His experience was so thin that he wasn’t even on my radar to watch in 2007-08.

            The first debate I watched showed him unprepared and dependent upon the experienced people to give him the answers. Then, the speech on race. Not only would I support Hillary, I would actively campaign against Obama. That condescending speech proved he was running his own agenda and not listening to the people.

            He takes on the persona of the people around him. Hillary would have been a terrific mentor.

        • I just want to add my 2 cents. This is a great, great, great, post ! And to end the year summing up the insanity that 0bama has wrought is perfect. Thank you for the banquet of written words to relish.

      • Jane’s post today nearly put me to sleep. She loses me by not thinking the primary misogyny and reports of Obama’s campaign election abuses weren’t issues. She talks about keeping her following during and after the primary? That must have been an “issue” with her. Power in the primary was influencing its outcome and she sat that out.

        She obviously didn’t care which dem won the primary as long as the dems took over the WH. Her explanation is a crock. She indeed can weep over what she helped sow.

        • Jane believed, like so many, that Hillary and Obama were interchangeable and it didn’t matter which one won the primary. She needs to learn that the character and the record of the candidate can be read with some accuracy. She did nothing for the best candidate; I hope that haunts her over Obama’s presidency.

      • riverdaughter, you just coined a perfect t-shirt slogan: “I wanted a Democrat in the White House and all I got was Obama”

    • Hello, my friend!!

      Is the ‘reform’ of the primary system similar to the ‘healthcare reform.’ I suspect so!

      • hey, ghost. yeah, you got it. they’re all concerned about superdelegates voting the way they want to. sure didn’t bother obama back during the primaries, once he got the muscle machine rolling. remember the job they did on john lewis? fuckers.

        here’s a link:


        i guess i’m resigned to obama’s corporate buddies carving up the goods and leaving us citizens with the short end of the stick, in a continuation of the bush years. as you may have noticed, i’m not posting much anymore. more power to RD and those of you who keep raising hell, though. my imminent retirement has me in a don’t-give-a-shit mode, with lingering resentment over what might have been. we could have had a real president, dammit.

        • All I had to read in that link was this:

          The Democratic Change Commission, which is led by House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn of South Carolina and Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, was established at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver.

          to then know it’s bullshit.

    • Many delegates were disenfranchised too. There was a video clip of Gloria Allred at the convention, asking why did she bother to come if she was being told how to vote. It is disgusting, but not surprising, that the msm didn’t cover that and 5/31 theft.

  2. For us, the primaries told us everything we needed to know about Obama.

    …and the Democratic Party.

  3. Great post.

    Let me single out this part:

    BTD is still citing the DLC as the reason why he couldn’t get behind Clinton.

    And despite the fact the I sometimes like to read BTD, this really describes in a nutshell the problem with many ‘establishment’ and especially male bloggers. Many times, BTD sees the problems and the realities, but his response to them are completely half-ass. Recall his reason during the primary? A loose quote would be,” there isn’t any difference between Clinton and Obama in policy, but Obama will be more successful in implementing those policies because he is a press darling.”

    Yeah, right.

    BTD never asked himself why Obama was a darling of the press and wall street and fat cats in the first place. Why they preferred him to Clinton anyhow. Why they were willing to shred her to pieces everyday, with a ferocity never seen before, if there was so little difference between the two.

    I have seen him backtrack. But really he should *man* up and apologize.

    I am also itching to use his own logic in the Gates-Crowley controversy. Unfortunately, the search function in talkleft sucks, and I am unable to unearth a specific case of the many times that BTD said that of course Crowley is a racist, because everyone by definition is. By his own logic then, BTD is a sexist jerk.

    • The media is not our friend.

      So why would we want to elect a “media darling?”

      • It’s like Charlie Brown & Lucy’s football. They fall for the media propaganda every. single. time.

        • It’s simpler than that. Clinton’s people were portrayed as losers. That’s the picture everyone wanted to see. Obama’s people were Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Models with PhDs in Architecture while Clinton’s were old, stupid, uneducated, working class sino-peruvian Lesbians. Which group would YOU like to be associated with?
          Peer pressure: the oldest trick in the book.

          • And yet…

            And yet even with the 4-1 spending (money from the Fat Cats), the media full-tilt boogie (paid for by the Fat Cats), and the Blackwater Bloggers (paid for by Fat Cars, on blogs with ads paid for by the Fat Cats)…

            And even with the caucus fraud and the 5/31 BS…

            And with the SDs carrying him over the finish line with “Oh, he’s such a wonderful man. He has such good judgment.”

            Even then, he barely squeaked by. They had to kill the whole meaning of the convention (counting delegates) in order to close the deal.

          • Nicely said Sophie. That should embarrass the hell out of anyone thinking Obama is anything but a POS. That just showed how lame and full of it he and his machine really was. They suck. They’re nothing. They’re empty, hollow, shallow, and frankly, quite stupid.

            And what does that make the losers that ever followed his sorry ass.

          • yes, and even with all that “going for him” she still beat him handily with eighteen million votes.

      • Fauxgressives just wanted to win, so the media became their friend.

        • Wonk, that is truly the bottom line –

          they just wanted to win

          they didn’t care how, why or where it would take them – even to the netherworld, they didn’t care about what would follow.

          To quote Myiq there’s a lot of stupid going around

      • Mainstream media is now gasping for breath, Wall Street has its legs and bonuses back, that was the plan and that is the outcome. After the last two and a half years, no way in hell am I still a Democrat. And one of these days, someone needs to explain what being a Progressive means besides being an Obama fanboy or cheerleader for Axelrod talking points. What clear principles do said progressives exactly stand for. Not for the Iraq War? Yes we can all agree on that. What else.

    • Obama was the darling of the DLC until the Black Agenda Report publicized it and he was forced to take his name off their website. That didn’t mean he wasn’t still one of them.

      • Thank you! A few people noticed this and wrote about it — yet nothing could stop the Kos kids from talking about the DLC as though it were the Illuminati. They loved to pretend that Obama had no link to it and that Hillary was the grandmaster of the group.

        In real life, I fail to see how the DLC wields much power.

        • From what I have read, the DLC mainly lines up corporate donors for their chosen candidates. I think that’s how Obama got so much corporate support early on. He did have other big donors behind him though. George Soros had a fund-raiser for Obama in NYC very early on.

          Don’t you think these guys saw Obama as an easy mark? He had no real principles, he needed their backing–so he would be easy to manipulate.

        • Hey, do you have any idea how much time we have spent behind the scenes defending your naked tits pic on your site? We have a whole “community” of people who are demanding that we delink their own sites from our blog rolls because of you.
          We told them to grow up.

    • He is not a sexist, though he is certainly biased. He supported Sotomayor, just not because she was a woman. He openly supported her for her Hispanic heritage. He feels he has been discriminated against because he is hispanic.

      I believe he would have supported Hillary had her challenger been pure white. Between the two candidates, he saw Hillary as the one who had the easier time opening doors.

      When he did the big bannings after convention, it was just like all the others had done…only a chosen few Hillary supporters were allowed to stay…all the rest were banned.

      • You probably won’t see this reply, but it’s worth a try.

        Note that I called him a sexist based on his own logic. He wasn’t being charitable. He was bullshiting his way to his stupid conclusion. And I will throw that logic in his face every time.

        But really, I think he is sexist. Lots of men have a lot of sexism underneath, and they just look for lame exuses to justify it. Is it a coincidence that Markos, BTD, and Kevin Drum all found really stupid rationalizations to vote for Obama? Don’t remember Kevin Drum’s reason, but BTD’s was, “he is the press darling”, and Markos’s was, “I can’t stand Terry McAuliff”.

        Unfortunately, I can’t find my comment at the time to BTD (it was on Mydd.) I told him, “the circle of idiots is now complete.”

  4. Thank you for that statement Riverdaughter. I await any inkling of recognition for you and your writers from FDL and other “progressive” sites.
    Besides the primary stuff, I read some of the most comprehensive information about our economy and its actors right here.
    The primary here wasn’t just talk. There was alot of people deeply involved on the ground among the people here. Alot of conviction and work, not just bloggers in their mother’s basement slinging insults.
    Happy New Year and thank you. I look forward to the awakening.

    • I so want to go back to my posts two years ago at FDL where I was continually harassed and disparaged by Obama supporters over there. I even begged Jane to say something about the name calling. She wrote me back a nice terse email basically telling me to endure it like a grown up. I like Jane loads, but if letting folks act abusive to others on posts is her idea of staying neutral than we need a new definition of the word. I did not find it a haven at the time and the focus on the issues was gone as the primary season drug on. It was not as bad as KOS and it wasn’t like your comments were deleted like HuffPo, but the tolerance level for abuse was unbelievable and I left.

      • Interesting how many of us came from abusive blogs.

        • I came from BuzzFlash. I was physically threatened. I had someone say they were going to hunt me down if I dared to criticize “the one”. It was nasty and hurtful. I cut and pasted the remarks and sent them on to the main asshole and for some reason I got the emails he sent to his staff about this problem, but never answered me though. I assumed that the abuse had approval from the BuzzFlash Chicago obsessed goons. I had supported that blog for years. I hope they rot in hell.

          • I’m so sorry. It hurts to be tossed out of your tribe for no good reason. Almost all of us have had that experience.
            Hey, Rico is serving champagne in the new thread! We’re partying.

          • I was a BuzzFlash refugee also. When I chided them on their preference for Obama over Clinton, all I got were denials. They kept saying they were neutral. I finally had to leave because of the lack of integrity. Sorry you received abuse there. The thing they rely on is criticizing Republicans. That’s not enough to contribute to the well being of our country!

          • I used to read Buzzflash every day and gave them money and bought premiums. They were so horrible during the primary and ignored every complaint. Haven’t been to that site for over a year and until mentioned here, had completely forgotten about them. So they must still exist? Pity.

          • Apparently, the owners of Buzzflash are coming to realize
            the reality of BO.

  5. Must really suck to be Obama, having known all along that the whole thing was one big fraud, that he sold his soul to the Fat Cats so he and Michelle could play Camelot, and how in doing so, he prevented America from having a good and decent President when we really, really needed one.

    • yep. we really, really needed one.
      It’s a crime.

    • Must suck to be Michelle too, because part of that deal with the Devil is that she doesn’t get to use her own brain–least not publicly–lest someone compare her to some other first lady with a brain.

      • I think she is busy lobbying for the hospital industry. Sooooo, yeah, she’s betraying us on two fronts: healthcare and working women.
        I never liked her since she criticized Hillary’s “tone”.

        • She was toast with me the moment she said, “I’ll have to think about it.” (Sucks for her, because other than her attitude towards Hillary and common women like me, she and I might have hit it off.)

        • I never like her since she made that sexist statement about Hillary not being able to run her own house… meaning If you can’t keep your husband for cheating, how can you be president.
          The women was instrumental in denying health care to poor people in Chicago, arranging to make it all right for Rezko to buy their yard for them and she is a asshole. Sorry, Michelle Obama is far down on my most admired women list.

    • I always assumed he did it just to get another book deal.

  6. Glad you keep that history alive for us RD. We must never forget. With time some of the details begin to fade, then you come in an set the record straight. Stay with us. We need you.

  7. Wretched masses, I like that. It would make a good third party name. Perhaps I am the only one but I still say I am going to be LMAO when Obama care passes and young Democrat women realize that abortion is forbidden to them along with any contraceptive that might be called an abortificant as well as Plan B. All the while their taxes and insurance plans will be covering Viagra. I really wonder if they have the capacity for outrage, oh wait they are women I mean bitterness and bitchiness.

  8. I am clueless. Why is C. Rice’s picture heading up this post about Hamsher and primary history?

  9. Hell, yeah. What a great post.

  10. Excellent commentary. I think you speak for many Dems who were disenfranchised last year. And you’re so right. It’s not all about Hillary Clinton [although I’m still mad as hell over what happened]. It was our party, the Democratic party resorting to slug-like behavior, telling the working class they could win without us, insulting women and anyone who wouldn’t fall in line and the constant and ultimate meaningless charge of racism. And Donna Brazile openly and brazenly admitting the Dems were taking a page out of Karl Rove’s playbook.

    How dare they spit on a generational legacy. For what? To win at any and all costs? Sell your soul and what do you have left?


    When I closed my eyes, I could have sworn the “New” Democrats were born-again Republicans. And as it turned out I wouldn’t have been far off. The so-called Progressives became petty and regressive. And they ruined, utterly destroyed the Democratic brand, stripped it of any and all meaning.

    As I’ve written elsewhere: this is not the party my grandfather, a typesetter for the Philadelphia Bulletin, broke his hump for.

    This is not a party I even recognize.

    And for that and that alone, the Obamatrons and the DNC should hang their heads in shame.

  11. OT: My neighbors from Switzerland just arrived to spend the rest of the winter here in desert relief. They arrived via Toronto. They report that the security clearances were just insane and they are priority frequent flyers. They said it took 9 hrs to get through US customs. The crowds were overwhelming. Everyone was subjected to a full body search and to a full luggage search. On the flight, last hour, no one could move.

    SOP in the US—too much of the wrong thing too late to do any good. Just make people suffer so they may think you are doing something.

    • Interesting how someone doesn’t do their job following up the father’s phone call and they’re going to solve it by harassing regular people.

    • It is interesting that the one thing that prevented disaster was two men getting out of their seats and putting out the fire and tackling the nutcase. Now they want everyone to stay in their seats……. for the last hour. What am I missing? Are they hoping the incident would happen earlier in the flight…over water? This story has a very odd smell to it!

      • {{snort!}} If it weren’t so serious it would be funny.
        I think travellers were getting sick and tired of the ridiculous shoe checks and five different security check points. They were letting their guard down. So, here comes Nigerian terrorist guy to jazz things up. That’s not to say he was a plant. Only that he’s really conveeeeenient.
        Ironically, as you have pointed out, these restrictions are unnecessary and counterproductive. The passengers of any flight will never again let a terrorist take them to their deaths without doing anything. Soooo, why the authoritarian orders to sit down and not move?

        • This is the way I felt on 9/11 2001. I said at least this is the end of hijacking of airplanes because the passengers wouldn’t stand for it. They could no longer count on just being diverted to Cuba, etc. I thought the solution was to supply a sawed off baseball bat or billy club in seatback magazine pouches for the use of passengers if someone tried to take over the plane. All the airports had to do was prevent explosives from being brought onboard. Instead we got the failed screenings and weekend warriors with unloaded weapons walking around in camo uniforms.

  12. The blue moon tonight is hanging right outside my bedroom window and it is spectacular. I am going to take it as an omen from Mother Nature that good times are coming.

  13. Who was the “divisive” candidate, again? Seems to me, with Hillary conveniently on the virtual sidelines, Barry and the Obacolytes, with their top-down wishy-washy faux-indecisiveness, have managed to split the party irreparably all by themselves.

  14. RD, simply brilliant.

  15. There’s been a lot of buyer remorse going around the blogosphere lately. I should have known it wouldn’t last. There’s only so long people can feel guilty for ruining a perfectly good country (like a week) and then they need to rationalize it away and/or blame others.

    Still RD, this was an excellent post (among many other excellent posts here).

  16. Maybe Jane was neutral, but my recollection is that there was a great deal of antagonism toward the candidate that I supported early on from bloggers that are represented as part of Firedoglake.

    This, for example, is amazing:

    Is that representative of the neutrality of the Firedoglake team?

    In fact, I stopped visiting Firedoglake because of the how antagonistic Blue Texan’s posts were toward HRC (complete with the most unflattering photos of her he could find) during the primaries, and how brutal the commenters were. I simply do not remember neutrality being a feature of Firedoglake.

    • Exactly, and TBogg bordered on sadistic.

      • Well he got an endorsement from the head of the Stormfront of Sexism:

        And BTW, that mother on a bridge line is solid snark gold.

        If the Blogstalkers are cheering him on, that’s all you need to know.

    • From the post: cc cited:

      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.


      • And of course if you made a symmetrically nasty insult towards Obama, you would have been called…. And when you complained, the bullies couldn’t seem to fathom the imbalance.

        If I didn’t know better, I’d say all those Obots, then and now, are completely, hopelessly, insane. Oh wait, I don’t know better.

    • You got that. I don’t remember neutrality. I was outraged by their Obama position. I couldn’t believe it for a while. I had been a real devotee of the Lake…and then insanity set in. It boggled my mind.

    • FDL was “neutral” the same way Donna Brazile was “undeclared.”

    • That post (and the preceding) and thread were frightening—how could their reality be so at odds with theirs?

      But I gotta say, in their own way—in vowing never to vote for Hillary—they were PUMAs, too.

  17. Is Rico coming to this thread or should we just begin without him?

  18. “Or how about the fact that he rode to the WH on a speech he gave on the Iraq War Resolution”

    Actually not. He rode to the White House on a speech he said he gave on the Iraq War Resolution. No copies of that speech existed, no news media reported it, no recordings or videos were made, no audience members could recall its contents. Axelrove had to recreate the blasted thing ex nihilo in order to get footage for TV ads.

    • What? Are you doubting the brilliant oratorial skills of the lightbringer/ There are no copies of the speech because he made it up on the spot and it wasn’t taped because no one could focus their cameras through their tears. Afterwards, everyone stood in a circle and sang Kumbaya. It was inspirational. If you weren’t there, you just couldn’t understand the magic.

  19. I think, the road has been a long one for many and I send my support to Jane…she has a good heart. Stay strong Jane.

    • She does. That’s why in some respects the path that Jane took has been the hardest to watch. She had the capacity to really make them listen to her but she decided to be a good trooper instead. She should have known better and I think she *did* know better.
      Very sad.

      • and doesn’t it seem that when we take the path most traveled it is too get permission to join the boys club where we can make the coffee and served the sandwiches?

  20. Great summation of the atrocities RD. Thanks

  21. Thank you riverdaughter and Happy New Year to everyone at TC

  22. Jane could speak out to her own people who still throw out the insults for a start whether she has a good heart or not. I’ve noticed many commenters missing over there since she’s spoken up. And thank you to Joseph Cannon who explained to me what the lightbringer term was all about after these many months. “Just words”, lets not forget that speech.

  23. I don’t know if the Anne at Corrente is the same brilliant Anne who comments regularly on TalkLeft but her take on Jane Hamsher is excellent: http://www.correntewire.com/popcorn_deux_electric_boogaloo#comment-158692

    And frankly, there just wasn’t much difference between the leading Democratic candidates when it came to issues. The voting records of Clinton and Obama were almost identical, and although Edwards voiced more concern over the issue of poverty, it was hard to know if he represented a real difference or just a slightly modified marketing campaign.

    Really? Not much difference?

    You’d think someone who can’t stop patting herself on the back for being so smart and prescient might have taken the time to look beyond what Candidate Me-Too! was saying, and how he was being marketed, and might have questioned whether there was a real commitment to issues over and above his easily-identified commitment to winning. What I saw was someone who, once he won whatever it was he was running for, quickly lost interest and bullshitted his way to the next contest. Her disingenuousness is stunning.

    I also have a bit of difficulty understanding how Jane could be so self-congratulatory about FDL’s efforts on behalf of health care reform, when one aspect of it was completely embargoed from the conversation – and as we all know, it was because SHE decided it was not feasible politically. I wonder if she ever asks herself what the effect would have been had she gotten FDL behind single-payer, lobbied to get single-payer advocates into hearings, sounded the clarion call on whatever media outlets would have her, BEFORE taking the conciliatory fallback position on “the public option.” Her reaction to the comments in the Tasini fundraiser were perhaps a little more revealing of the real Jane than she might have liked; she may claim to be a long-time sinlge payer supporter, but if that’s the case, what happened to it after that fundraiser? Anyone seen any signs of it? Anyone? Bueller?

    She’s right that you have to go to the people who actually have the power to change things, but I still do not understand why it was such a brave and wonderful thing for her to have accepted that she could not change those people with forceful single-payer advocacy. Jesus, any fool can set the bar low enough that it can be stepped over – where’s the courage in that?

    I really, really just need to stop reading her; she may be tickled pink to have a booming blog, but I don’t trust her motives and I don’t trust her tactics. There’s a reason for the general obsequiousness in the comments there, and it’s because she can rip people’s heads off, chew them up and spit them out in a heartbeat if she doesn’t like what you’ve said, and no one wants to get the Jane treatment.

    It’s obvious why the post was written: she’s being beaten up in parts of the blogosphere and her counter to it is that if she’s so wrong, how can she and her FDL empire be so much more popular now than ever before? So much bigger, so much better, so much more traffic? It totally avoids discussing whether her positions and methods are the right ones, and instead veers over into psychobabble, wherein she divides people into issues v. personality, claims issues as her high ground, and dismisses everyone else. Does she read her own comments sections?

    Jesus Christ on a crutch.

    Sorry for the rant.

    • 🙂 That’s great. I’m getting really sick of this meme. It’s pretty much like saying there’s no difference between Pauly Shore and Eleanor Roosevelt. Maybe it’s just me, but when you have someone who’s dedicated to public service and extremely knowledgeable versus a dilettante who has never accomplished anything in his life, right there, qualitative difference. If he’s seriously ethically challenged, another distinguishing characteristic. If we truly can’t see daylight between Pauly and Eleanor, then maybe we should just pick a random name out of a hat. Eleanor would have to really work overtime to screw things up as much as Pauly, he has a different skill set.

      • Yeah but Pauly’s an actor. Who knows what he’d be capable of in real life.

  24. Terrific post. and over view, RD. It seems this history has to be gone over and over each time someone supposedly smart finally gets Obama was/ is a set up job. Because while they are at last, forming a clue, it seems the urge to re-write history over comes them…. Thank you for keeping the story straight yet again.

    For me, it was the press not missing one heart beat between Bush man crush to Barry leg tingle love. The national Barry build up started in earnest ’04 after that Dem convention. Kerry was never going to win and frankly, didn’t try (though the long suffering Dem base worked non stop of course) Many articles came out afterwards and never stopped about how fabulous Obama was.The drum beat was on. The 2008 nomination theft was a crime long in the planning.
    We went from a two party system to a one political party set up….The Upper Crust Party.

    Sometimes I think the Dem party died long ago and only Clinton cattle prodding kept the illution of a living party going until the Dems could finally rid themselves of Bill and Hillary. I will forever thank Hillary for trying to keep the Dem process legal and fair. We now know it was an impossible task, but how she tried !

    I reading Russian history right now and this “who is a true Dem and who isn’t” is very reminiscent of the who’s a “true revolutionary ” question often posed there etc. The answer is , whoever serves those in power is the “true “whatever of the moment . The Janes Hamshers have to understand: there are no principles whatsoever beyond power..that’s it in the Obamalshevik party. If you insist on an actual personal principle , even one, well clearly you aren’t a “true” party member.

  25. The bloggers who happily bulldozed principles for Barry in 2008. They were either too stupid to see what he was and who was behind him or they were paid.

    That’s the choices…of course they can’t admit to either. Thier ego won’t allow them to say, ” yeah I was idjijt . ” Because for some reason , they are supposed to be the smart people . And they can’t admit to the the 2nd choice because again of ego…because that would be admitting to the pittance it took to buy them off . Hey, if you are going to sell out, at least sell out fore a bunch…jeesh

    So since they cannot admit which or both reasons for their Barry goose stepping , we get this constant weaselling rewrite of history, the calls to ” forget it ” , the bleats of” …. well Hillary” … ugh

  26. For me it was being obliged by the Party to vote for someone whose records were closed, who had never worked a full day in his life, but who was yet the target of the most amazing media spin.

    However the list could go on and on and on-starting with Michigan and Florida.

    With all that I could have accepted him if he had stood by electoral finance reform.

  27. ..If there voting records were virtually identical, why in God’s name would you choose to go with a guy who had virtually no face time in the Senate and ZERO experience in the Executive branch?… …set ourselves free to go our own separate ways. We put principle before party. That’s all…!

    excellent points also why she is not PUMA and that entire group will never admit they were wrong, ever, they instead believe they were victims of course …lied to misled

    ….always the victim of some bad persons (groups) never responsible for choices

  28. RD, that is about it in a nutshell. Damn, you’re good!

    Happy New Year to you and all! Be safe, happy and healthy!

  29. I can’t seem to paste it in. Can someone go to RBO and copy the “super delegate” toon? So appropriate for the conversation here.

  30. Beautiful, RD, great summary – unfortunately, it would probably take at least 5 years on a couch for some of these folks to come around.

    And I too am not just bitter – I’m downright f@ckin’ mad at what they’ve done to my country, to the system and to our citizens. People have lost their jobs, homes, relationships – we’re in a shambles.

    I don’t understand how folks can make jokes about it – I know, I know – “what else can they do?” Good grief, I don’t see anything funny in all of this. I’m 67 years old, I was looking forward to some retirement after years of both of us working, but our retirement funds have been shot to h#ll and, and, and – I’m furious, not bitter, just downright angry when I think of what we could have had if the DNC had played by the rules.

    Thanks for this, having a reason to rant now and then helps me let off steam. I love this place and everyone here – HAPPY NEW YEAR Conflucians.

    Hey, it’s snowing on TC!

  31. I was a proud Democrat for 36 years. After witnessing last year’s primaries I will not vote for another Democrat until the entire party leadership is purged.

    Obama was installed by corporate America to destabilize liberal voters and break up the Democratic Party. His first mission was to end any chance that there would be campaign finance reform, mission accomplished. If Obama does nothing else for the assholes controlling our political system this was enough. But, as we’ve seen already, he’ll do a lot more.

    Look for “reforms” in Social Security to be on the way. Watch what happens after the Dems get slaughtered in 2010. Obama will cut more “bipartisan” deals with the Republicans and the Blue Dogs. Official DC insiders will praise his “statesmanship” and the people will get royally screwed.

  32. I don’t post very often, but I love,love love RD and the Confluence.
    Happy New Year!

  33. Before we plant, we need to clear the ground. This post clears the ground.


  34. When I heard Obama make his much applauded speech at Kerry’s convention in 2004 I turned to my Significant Other and said,”Better hope that man never gets the Democratic nomination.” The post-partisan trap Obama was setting was in full evidence (imo) even back then.

  35. Another thing – Hillary and Obama’s voting weren’t “virtually identicaL” Not by a long shot. I kept pointing Obots to Progressive Punch where it showed on EVERY SINGLE PROGRESSIVE ISSUE Hillary’s voting record was SIGNIFICANTLY MORE PROGRESSIVE than Obama’s. Their pre US Senate backgrounds reflected this as well if anyone bothered to look. Certainly none of the Obots were. Nor the fauxgressive media people on Air America, MSNBC, CNN, Michael Moore, Arianna Huffington, Markos, etc… Jane at FDL and Jill at Feministe went full on Obot. Jane made nasty comments about Hillary during the primaries, she’s just rewriting now to pretend she was “neutral”. She wasn’t, and I’ll not forget that, none of us should.

  36. To be fair to Jane, she didn’t jump on the Obama wagon either. And there was quite a bit of pressure to do so. Yes, she supported Obama after the convention, but she would have done the same for Clinton, had Clinton won.

    Personally, I wound up in Clinton’s camp mostly because the whole Kennedy thing was so stupid and unfair it pushed me over the edge. Plus she was more liberal on domestic issues.

    There were plent of a-list bloggers who went completely in the tank for Obama (Aravoisis, for example, most of Kos, etc…) Jane wasn’t one of them. Perhaps she could have, should have, chosen sides (I argued for doing so) but still, she is hardly the worst offender.

  37. Phew! Just read this again three days later. This is Marc Antony’s eulogy to Julius Ceasar. As Corrente said, “Every word a gem.” Damn! I would commit a crime to write that well.

  38. …to think that well.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: