• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Ga6thDem on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    bellecat on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    HerstoryRepeating on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    HerstoryRepeating on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    Seagrl on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    bellecat on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    Seagrl on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    Seagrl on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    Catscatscats on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    Catscatscats on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    William on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    William on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
    riverdaughter on Brief observations, Hillary Cl…
  • 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

    January 2010
    S M T W T F S
    « Dec   Feb »
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • What Protests in Lebanon, France, Chile and Ecuador Have In Common
      There’s some important events happening today: another Brexit vote, and the Canadian federal election (whose results are not obvious), but we won’t know how either of those end till later, so let’s discuss some popular protests of massive size. In France the protests were sparked by an increase in diesel taxes. The demands included an […]
  • Top Posts

  • Advertisements

Jane said Lieberman should have abided by the results of the CT primary

Yep. She was pretty steamed when Joe Lieberman decided not to abide by the results of the CT primary back in 2006. Jane was majorly pissed off. The woman just wouldn’t let up. It was an outrage when Joe Lieberman decided to substitute his judgment for the Democratic primary voters of CT in 2006. Jane was a woman on a rampage with missionary zeal. She would not stand for it. How dare Lieberman, Rape-Gurney Joe, ignore all of those Lamont voters and flip them the bird? How dare Chuck Shumer turn a blind eye to the innocent voters of CT?

Even before the primary, Jane was screaming for Joe Lieberman to do the right thing if he lost.  This is from Jane’s infamous blackface post:

E.J. Dionne repeats a piece of conventional wisdom that irks the hell out of me every time I hear it – if Lieberman loses the primary and runs as an independent it will distract everyone from the true villain, the GOP, and therefore we should just give him a pass.

Balderdash.  Lieberman has been an integral part of the GOP’s bully machine for the past six years, the Democrat useful for his willingness to dicipline his own kind.  Ned Lamont is running a legitimate primary contest and Joe is refusing to abide by the results of that primary.  As Lowell Weicker said the other day, when he became an independent he didn’t screw with the Republican primary first (my words not his) he just left.  Joe is mucking up the Democratic primary and then abandoning the party to attack it from the outside.  How this is the fault of Ned Lamont or his supporters I would very much like to know.

Tsk-tsk, Jane.  You sound bitter.  Odd, I remember defending your blackface post.  I thought it was a clever visual metaphor that perfectly illustrated the offensive nature of Lieberman’s pandering.  We all know now that not only is the definition of racism fluid but that it can also be used as a convenient cudgel to bludgeon your opponents into silence.

But wait!  There’s more.  Because Christy Hardin Smith, who I always liked, was practically joined at the hip with Jane back in 2006.  They tag teamed each other.  Christy was the legal, logical one while Jane lead from the gut.  What was Christy’s take on Joe’s Connecticut for Lieberman third party run for the Senate?

From Christy Hardin Smith in the post Lamont Wins:

Joe Lieberman is on C-Span right now thumbing his nose at the Democratic voters and the Democratic party, and announcing his run independent from the party. He’s saying he wants to “unite not divide.” This speech is right out of the Karl Rove playbook. Word on the street in Connecticut is that Lieberman will be running as an independent with Republican backing. Any doubts that his loyalty first and foremost is to Joe Lieberman, whatever it takes?

The question is: where will the DSCC and the party leadership be on this tomorrow? They had better be out in front and supporting the winner of the Democratic primary.

Jane called to say that Ned Lamont will be down to speak shortly. Here’s hoping that Democrats with some level of respect for their party, and with a healthy respect for the voters in the state of Connecticut, have a strong word with Joe Lieberman between now and tomorrow morning.

And here’s more from Christy from It’s a Win!:

Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary. And if he has so little respect for the voters in that primary that he will not abide by the results, then the party leadership must show him the door. To do otherwise would be to sanction cheating Democratic voters of their rightful say in the party process — and would render the party leadership moot.  That is true whether Ned Lamont won by one vote — or by several thousand.

I couldn’t have said it better myself, Christy.

This is almost exactly the problem we faced in the 2008 primary.  Let’s do the math.

Hillary Clinton went to the convention in Denver in 2008 with 1730 delegates.  Barack Obama went there with 1747 delegates.  He had a lead of 17 delegates.  That’s a difference of .97%.

Why did it look like Obama had such a commanding lead before he got to the convention?  It’s because of the way MI was apportioned.  Obama got 55 uncommitted delegates from MI and 4 of Hillary’s delegates.  But they and Florida’s delegates were at half strength.  So, Hillary’s numbers and critical mass always looked less than Obama’s.

But the party knew that it couldn’t go to the convention with Florida and Michigan’s voters at half strength.  That could have been an electoral disaster in November.  So, the Sunday before the convention began, they quietly restored the delegates of those two states to full strength.  Voila!  Hillary and Obama are almost equal in elected delegates.  But by then, the media narrative was set, which was all the DNC really cared about.  Even though Hillary technically won the primaries because Obama should never have gotten the uncommitted delegates from MI in the first place, she lost momentum.  The media put everyone else on mute.  The convention steam rolled right over the Clinton primary voters.

Know how I know?  Because I voted for her in NJ, a state she won by 10 points.  And here’s what happened at the roll call at minute mark 49:00:

Our former governor, who no one showed up to vote for last November, gave all 127 delegates to Barack Obama.  I don’t remember giving up my vote to Barack Obama.  The voters of NJ were not consulted. Hillary didn’t get a single delegate from New Jersey or New York or many other states that voted overwhelmingly for her.  Out of the 1730 delegates she went to the convention with, she got  341 votes at the roll call.

341 out of 1730 delegates.

As Christy said, failure to abide by the results of a primary ” would be to sanction cheating Democratic voters of their rightful say in the party process — and would render the party leadership moot.”

Obama didn’t win MI.  He wasn’t even on the ballot.  Why didn’t Jane tell Obama to stop playing games with the voters and abide by the results of the Michigan primary?

He lost Florida by 17 points.  Why didn’t Jane insist that Obama abide by the results of the Florida primary?

Even Jane knows that what happened at the RBC meeting was shady at best and outright vote theft at worst.  But Jane was OK with it when it happened to Hillary.  The old Jane would have been on fire about what happened to Hillary’s voters.  The 2008 Jane?  Not so much.  Because if Hillary’s voters had been treated fairly and with respect, there’s a good possibility that Obama might have lost.  OMG!  We couldn’t have that.

What did that “class of women” know about politics?  It was Jane’s responsibility to take the burden of self-determination from their slender shoulders and relieve their feeble brains from all of that stuff.

Bullshit.

Jane  has lost all credibility with us now.  Nothing she says or emails or pleads to us will make a damn bit of difference.  She was willing to overlook the smarmy, unethical, nasty, cheating tactics of her party and its Lightbringer who never protested once any of the disgusting things that party did on his behalf.   And for that reason, Jane will continue to fail at moving the Democratic party to recognize her or listen to her complaints or do anything she wants.  She gave it permission to ignore her and any voter who inconveniently gets in its way.

Jane is a world class hypocrite.

Of course, if she threw her blog to Obama just to keep the money pouring in, that would be worse.

Advertisements

220 Responses

  1. it is all about making money from your blog for many bloggers. Obama was paying and people’s greed took over.

    • Jane’s real motto: pennies before principles.

      • I just want to remind people how closely alligned Jane was with Arianna Hufpo back when the Scooter Libby trial was being covered. I went to the trial and saw Jane being escorted by Arianna in and out of the courtroom, as Jane was just recovering from surgery at that point. But Jane and Arianna were as thick as thieves…excuse the comparison…NOT. Jane felt she was benefiting from this alliance, I’m sure. And both trashed Clinton and sucked up to 0bama during the primary season.

    • How true Teresa.

      I found this small turd nugget from her “Primary Wars” post telling:

      Whereas most liberal blogs suffered a huge drop in traffic after the election, FDL didn’t (though I imagine this had more to do with the fact that we didn’t see the enormous rise that those engaged more actively in the primary debates did). But over the last six months, when the number of people engaged in online politics on the left have dropped and most of the big blogs have either seen traffic flatline or decrease year-over-year, ours is up by 40%.

      She is gloating her greed for all to see!

      • It’s all about vanity. They feel important, and do not want to lose that so she is revising history to suit her needs now. Unfortunately for her, like Obama, there is videotape and archives. Spin all you want, we are not fooled.

  2. a friend of mine insisted that Hillary had done something against the rules by leaving her name on the ballot in MI. obama supporters didn’t even know the rules much less understand which were being broken.
    Obama should not have gotten a single delegate from Fl because he campaigned there.

    • I would like someone to point me to the specific rules that Hillary broke in the 2008 primaries. Which ones did she violate? Which ones did the voters of MI and FL violate? How come they, and by extension the rest of the Hillary voters, had to pay and sacrifice for the rules that the candidate herself did not violate and why was it that when the rules were applied, only Obama came out a winner?
      The whole thing stinks to high heaven and the Democratic party will NEVER get my vote for president ever again until I see the whole primary system reformed.

      • Here is a copy of the “four state pledge”

        http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070831_Final_Pledge.pdf

        • If he took his name off the primary ballot in Florida he couldn’t run there in the general election.

          In MI his supporters were telling people to vote “uncommitted”

          • Makes sense since they already knew how the uncommitteds would be counted.

          • Yes, but the true tragedy wasn’t the loss to Hillary at all but the loss to the American voter. I’m from Michigan and I will always know that this election was rigged. I voted for John Edwards. My vote was awarded to Obama. In early May I had an opportunity to go see Hillary and I was amazed by her. There is no question, if there had been a new primary, who I would have voted for. May 31st was my beginning of life in the Twilight Zone. http://www.ksvoboda.com/?p=21

          • The Obots like to claim we’re just pissed because we lost. But i’m a Democrat, I’m used to losing elections.

            If Obama won the nomination fair and square I would have been disappointed but not angry.

            I’d still think he is a piece of shit, but I would have held my nose and voted for him on 11/4/08.

          • Obama opposed a revote in MI and by that time, all the other candidates had dropped out. With only two candidates, he would have done better than he possibly could have in the original vote. It’s so telling that even with the cards stacked in his favor, he refuses to take his chances and just demands everyone else’s votes be handed to him. Talk about an “entitled, spoiled child”!

        • He obviously felt he’d come closer in FL

          Actually, no. The rules in Florida are that if you pull your name off the ballot you are actually declaring yourself no longer a candidate at all for President. Ever. In any state. That’s why they all kept their names on the ballot in Florida. And yes, Obama’s national ad buy that ran in Florida was a violation of the rulz.

          What the Republicans did to the Democrats in Florida was put them in between a rock and a hard place, because while one part of the law “violated” the Dems primary rules, another part supported a rule that required the Democratic Party to work for a verifiable paper trail.

          • Those rules are DNC rules and as we’ve learned, they can be changed.

          • SOD – I completely agree with you about that. If Obama had won Florida, the delegates would have been reinstated, or in the lead up to reinstating them, you would have heard constantly about “disenfranchisement” and “echoes of 2000” from the Obots. But since HRC won, she “cheated” was “not playing by the rules” yada yada.

          • Had the MI and FL voters been counted in full as completed, Hillary would have had an irreversible momentum with voters. That was the whole point. No question about it.

          • PS – It was a state law that said a name could not be pulled off the ballot after a certain date without forfeiting ones’ candidacy in the state. That would mean, even if they won the national primary, their name would not appear on the FL general election ballot. That’s why no one pulled their names.

            And there was no requirement by the four state agreement that any candidate pull their name from the ballot, just not to campaign or have any paid staff in the state.

          • I could have sworn it was a DNC rule and that only the date change was legislative. In any event, look at how the cheetoes were frothing at the mouth over her being on the ballot based on the “participating” term yet totally ignoring that Obama was on the FL ballot AND ran ads.
            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/22/0226/35614/632/520082
            What a bunch of dolts

          • bluelyon – -here are the FL state ballot regs. It doesn’t mention what you’re saying. Do you have a link?

          • bluelyon – -here are the FL state ballot regs. It doesn’t mention what you’re saying. Do you have a link?

            http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0101/Sec151.HTM

          • I read it at the time. I will find the info again if I can.

          • SOD – found it- from the Florida Dems web site: http://www.fladems.com/page/content/makeitcount-faqs/#q17

            Can a presidential candidate remove their name from the ballot in Florida?
            Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Thurman, Senator Geller and Representative Gelber submitted to Florida’s Secretary of State the names of our Party’s presidential candidates for placement on the January 29, 2008 Democratic Presidential Preference Primary ballot. State law allows candidates who wish to withdraw from the Florida primary to do so by filing an affidavit stating that he or she is not a candidate for President of the United States of America. In other words: to get off the ballot in Florida, a candidate has to swear that he or she isn’t running for President.

          • Thanks, Not to be a bug but I like to have the verified facts.

          • Here is the link to the Florida statute. I misunderstood this originally, but taking one’s name off the ballot meant that you had no intention of being a candidate at the nominating convention. Therefore, it appears to me, that you would not be entitled to any “uncommitteds”either.

            (3) A candidate’s name shall be printed on the presidential preference primary ballot unless the candidate submits to the Department of State, prior to the second Tuesday after the first Monday in November of the year preceding the presidential preference primary, an affidavit stating that he or she is not now, and does not presently intend to become, a candidate for President at the upcoming nominating convention. If a candidate withdraws pursuant to this subsection, the Department of State shall notify the state executive committee that the candidate’s name will not be placed on the ballot. The Department of State shall, no later than the third Tuesday after the first Monday in November of the year preceding the presidential preference primary, certify to each supervisor of elections the name of each candidate for political party nomination to be printed on the ballot.

            Note, there was also “timing” involved in removing one’s name from the ballot.

            What I find interesting about the FL Dems link is how many states began EARLY voting before the Feb 5th marker and yet were not penalized by the DNC.

        • And just in general, what with the whole “democracy” thing, should a major political party be running a protection racket for two tiny, unrepresentative states? Hell no! I understand why IA and NH want to go first, I just don’t understand why anyone else should care. That’s their problem. Let the states determine their own calendar without interference. If that means a state where people actually live gets to actually have influence for once, the world will survive.

      • The votes belong to the voters – not the candidates or the party.

      • RD,

        Just found the youtube of you in Denver, and you have stayed consistent through and through…it was always about honoring the Voters and the counting their VOTES.

        I guess it just can’t sink in that the VOTES would have had a chance via a ROLL CALL VOTE at the convention and she deserved one for POTUS and VP. Maybe one day the fact that she was blocked, had the rules changes and had her hands ties behind her back will reflect hopefully the last leg in the SUFFRAGE Movement in the US. Yes, her rights as a candidate were violated and the Voting Rights of the Voters on May 31st, 2008 and at the convention again!

      • It’s not just that Obama came out the winner “when the rules were applied,” because as Ickes so eloquently pointed out, they violated their own Party Charter by giving him delegates from another candidate. They also gave him delegates from a state where he was not on the ballot–another rule breaker. Obama also campaigned in Florida and should have been disqualified from any delegates there, according to their own Rulz. No, when Donna B gave that smarmy speech about her “momma and the rulz” I wanted to smack her in the face. Now, there is a world-class hypocrite!

        • By “campaigned,” I mean they ran ads for 2 weeks prior to the primary. The excuse that the ads were bundled in a national package they could not alter is complete b.s. and was irrelevant anyway if you were claiming careful application of “rules.”

          Don’t forget: they also gave him the delegates in MI of the other candidates who had dropped out, and delegates based on UNOPENED absentee ballots, and how voters “might have voted if he had been on the ballot.” Puh-leaze–anyone with an objective perspective can spot the utter bullsh*t in this methodology.

          • The argument Levin gave was that voters who had wanted to vote for Obama but stayed home because he wasn’t on the ballot needed to be taken into consideration.

            But voters in the states who voted for Hillary, like my state didn’t need to be considered. A group of women politicans here in MA made the argument to Kerry, Kennedy and Patrick that as long as MI and Fl didn’t count MA voters were being cheated. They were ignored.

            Now it’s our turn to ignore the bleating of people like Jane and Markos who are disappointed with the guy they forced on us.

          • He was awarded 59 delegates from a state where he was not even on the ballot.

          • In Nevada, Hillary won the caucuses and then ended up with less delegates.

          • the caucuses in TX were messed up.

          • Pacific John documented the caucus fraud in Texas

          • Wonk, Regency wrote a beautiful (ly written, I mean, Reg is amazing) but heartbreaking post about her experience in the TX caucuses.

  3. I am still getting e-mails from FDL asking for support for one of Jane’s inane “Actions” or asking for money. My latest and representative response to FDL’S:

    “Re: Obama: “I didn’t campaign on the public option”

    “A day late and a dollar short….Where were you in the Dem. primary??? Barack Obama hasn’t changed, he is the same politician who did the same bait and switch as a State Senator in 2004. Where were you after the Barack Obama’s back room deals were exposed??? Totally off the mark with Jane ranting about Blue Dogs, Lincoln, Lieberman, etc. This massive transfer of public wealth to the Insurance Companies was negotiated before Barack Obama stepped into the White House…Why didn’t you try and stop it when it was stoppable.

    Such poor judgment is the main reason that I gave up on FDL during the Dem Primary. The continued poor judgment by FDL, as demonstrated during the Health Care Scam, confirms that my decision to eliminate FDL as a resource was correct.”

    BTW, I never get a reply..at least when I send an e-mail to the ACLU asking why they don’t call Bull shit on Obama by name, they send a reply.

  4. There were also 908 pledged delegates that were designated as “uncommitted” at the convention.

    That’s approximately 20% of the of total pledged delegates, with Obama having a RBC-engineered lead of less than 1%

    I remember back in 1980 and 1984 how the nominations weren’t decided until the roll call vote at the convention. All the delegates voted publicly, not secretly in their hotel rooms with DNC representatives pressuring them.

    • These supposedly “smart” people (you know, that *other* class) sure missed a whole lot of glaring bits of evidence that the primary was rigged.

    • Oops, my bad – there were only 114 “uncommitted” pledged delegates – the other 794 were superdelegates.

      There were also 32 delegates that had been awarded to John Edwards.

      • And from our sources at the convention, at least 8 Edwards delegates asked to be able to switch to Hillary and were denied.

        • During the roll call California “passed” because if they cast their votes as allocated by the primary it would have put Hillary temporarily in the lead.

          I’m trying to figure out if there was a single state where Hillary got all the delegates she won. She got zero delegates from Arkansas, even though she won her husband’s home state with 70% of the vote and earned 27 delegates.

          72 delegate are listed as “not voting” so I guess not everyone drank the Kool-aid in Denver.

          http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D.phtml

          • It’s interesting that that link has Hillary winning the popular vote. And we’ve been told so many times by Obots that we’re lying about that.

          • My vote was tossed in the trash can. We never even got to the microphone. I waited 8 years to cast that vote.

          • You two obviously don’t understand “THE RULZ”

            You’re probably uneducated “vagina voters” who only got interested in politics when you identified with Hillary who is an old white woman like yourselves.

  5. I was up till 3am watching my National Parks: America’s Best Idea DVD

    • You’re probably right
      I actually think all of this current blathering is part of something going on behind the scenes involving the administration coming down on her because of her HC stance. The Rahm/Fanny think reeks of knee-jerk counter attack, and the “it wasn’t me during the primaries” is part of her narrative.

      I watched the lynching in B0botland and some of the feathers are “She never had anything good to say about Obama, not even in the primaries”

  6. But but but…RD — you can’t cheat voters out of voting for anyone the “creative class” chooses. Those hillbillies however,…those “other classes of women,”…need a more guided democracy dontcha know?

    • Jeez, my chemistry degree don’t mean s%^& to the likes of Jane and her film school crowd.
      Oh, and she’s a fucking ingrate when it comes to pharma. She owes her life to the work we do.

      • And my Ph.D in psychology just reinforces that I’m “a certain class of woman.”

        • What’s a correspondence school JD mean?

        • Maybe we can sell them as a two-fer on ebay and get enough to buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

        • Has anyone actually done any demographics research on Confluence readers? I think the results would be REALLY fascinating.

          • I think most of the regular commenters here have college degrees and many of us have graduate and professional degrees. The only people who should be deemed uneducated are the ones who didn’t examine the voting records and experience of each democratic candidate. You don’t need a degree to use common sense to figure out when someone is bamboozling you for your money and support.

      • SNAP!!!!!

        I just said that to my wife!

        Ingrate indeed!

      • That’s an insult to ingrates.

      • Don’t feel bad I am the lucky individual who spent 12 years in uniform so that she could look her nose down at me for my contribution towards this country.

        Evidently I only counted enough to protect things like free speech, not to actually be allowed to have or voice an opinion in the democracy I swore to protect and uphold.

    • Now RD, you know a science degree doesn’t trump an MBA. Didn’t you get the memo? How are you going to get a job at Goldman Sachs with that useless thing?

    • All those years at Stanford. Can I get my money back?

      • Do they even give a “certain class of women” men degrees from Stanford? Are you even allowed on campus? Don’t you drool when you talk?

        • a “certain class of women” men
          Good point about men there. How come Jane assumes only women were upset that the new dem party abandoned democracy and went the way of total and complete sell-out corruption? There are actually some males that care about such things. And what’s more, some that even care about human rights including full personhood and equal rights for women. Amazing as that seems.

          Don’t you drool when you talk?
          Mostly depends on who I’m talking to. 🙂

  7. Guess who supported Lamont while Obama took the cowardly way out and “stayed neutral?”

    http://firedoglake.com/2006/08/25/when-ned-met-hillary/

    http://firedoglake.com/2006/08/15/good-on-ya-2/

  8. Here is Jane Hamsher’s report after she attended the RBC meeting and heard from Harriet Christian.

    As Craig Crawford noted, the outcome made it clear that Obama was flexing his now quite formidable political muscle:

    Make no mistake about it. The decision rendered today by the Democratic National Committee’s rules panel showed that Barack Obama has displaced Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, as boss of the party.

    The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee gave Obama exactly what he wanted – a firm decision on seating Florida and Michigan delegates.

    Clinton wanted a punt, a decision that would have kept things vague and lacking in finality. Her husband Bill had signaled in late May that Hillary was interested in the Vice Presidency; by all accounts Obama would rather lose a limb. Rumors began circulating last week that Obama had enough superdelegates to secure the nomination, which he would announce after the last primary vote had been counted. During this race, the candidates had split the Democratic party virtually down the middle. Would Hillary be able to make her case to the Democratic party, and to the public, that Obama needed her on the ticket?

    She was OK with Obama using whatever stormtrooper tactics he had to to get those Michigan votes.

    • As Craig Crawford noted, the outcome made it clear that Obama was flexing his now quite formidable political muscle:

      {{sigh}}

      • I haven’t heard mention of Craig Crawford in nearly a year. I almost forgot who he was. I remember he used to be on MSNBC occasionally (since I no longer watch MSNBC I can’t say if he’s been on recently) but Tweety made him disappeared during the primaries because I remember him defending Hillary Clinton when the rest were trashing her.

        • Others (pro-Hill) have disappeared too-that’s what reminds just how nasty the whole thing was.

          And there’s Hamsher oozing over his muscles.

  9. I suggest that you take “firedoglake” off your links.

    Any blog that allows those sexist tblogg posts about Hillary isn’t neutral or truthful.

    • FDL also links to the blogstalker blog on their blogroll.

      • Well, since the Blogstalkers only blog about us, that’s kinda like being on the FDL blogroll, ain’t it?

      • I don’t know what you mean, bb.

        • There is a Obot blog that has been cyberstalking us since the 2008 primaries.

        • It’s the blog that shall not be named. Their denizens are the ones who obsessively ridicule us and who have trolled this site with ugly comments again and again over the past couple of years.

        • I found a definition of “blogstalker”. I agree that Jane would not be interested in anything said here.

          I’ve read back to an LA Times book review of her “Killer Instinct”. This book’s account of the production and filming of Stone’s “Natural Born Killers” was considered accurate by Stone’s production designer; he objected to the snide, dismissive tone.

        • I remember 2 of the nasty ones now that I’ve recalled their comments and their undeserved win in that year’s contests. I shut all that crap out.

      • FDL was pretty shitty last year but I at least thought they weren’t as slimy as some of the sites I see on their blogroll.

  10. If Jane has a shred of dignity she will throw in the towel and admit that she had lost her bearings. Deep grovel would be her best response to this post.

    We all get wound like a top over some crazy idea or another occasionally. Admit it, ask for forgiveness and we all move on
    together.

  11. A comment posted by Paul Lukasiak on Jane Hamsher’s RBC meeting post, linked above.

    lukasiak June 4th, 2008 at 12:50 pm 24I think that this whole discussion of us ”passionate” Clinton supporters misses the point.

    First off, those of us who are ardently for Clinton didn’t start out that way. Most of us chose Clinton when the only alternative left was Obama — and it was not because of any antipathy toward Obama — he lacked experience — and with the mess the country is in, we don’t have time for on-the-job training — and one look at his past made it clear that he was extremely vulnerable to right-wing attacks. Clinton was the ”safe” choice we settled for.

    And we’ve watched with admiration as Clinton turned into something far better than we’d imagined, and Obama turned into something far worse than we’d feared. ANd as a result I think most of us are sitting out november as of right now — McCain will be a short term disaster that will permit a democratic recovery in 2012, Obama will be better than McCain in the short term, but will be a long term disaster for the party (we’ll lose Congress in 2010, and the white house in 2012, and it will be at least a decade before the party recovers from the Obama debacle.

    But the point is that most of Clintons support isn’ people like us — they aren’t people who were lost sleep over the idea of not voting for the Democrat. And Obama lost a large chunk of those Clinton voters already, and is poised to lose more.

    And that is what the Villagers (and apparently, the blogosphere elite) either don’t understand or don’t care about — the millions and millions of regular voters that Obama has alienated over the last three months. These include EVERYONE who was part of the ”Bill Clinton coalition” except for African American voters — everyone else was thrown under the bus… and they know it.

    This is why Clinton kept winning… huge numbers of Democratic voters were telling the party that Barack Obama was NOT acceptable to them, even though he was the ”inevitable” nominee, then the ”presumptive” nominee. They were told that it was over, and they still came out to vote to say NO!

  12. Lookie what I found at TGW:

    • She should keep doing that. Just stop the rewriting of history. What Hamsher is doing now is fine.

      • I agree, but the problem is she has this need to cover for what she did before She isn’t going to be able to control her condescesion toward those who saw through Obama.

        • Her attitudes don’t affect me in the least. I could care less what she feels, thinks, whatever. I’m sure not going to donate any money to an FDL cause.

          I simply think that in this case anything to kill the current HCR disaster, especially the mandate for private ins, is laudable.

      • No it’s not. The most successful health care policies in the world require a mandate. There’s nothing wrong with a mandate. The problem is that there are no controls on the monopoly that insurance companies have on profits or what hospitals and doctors charge.
        I’d be the first person to step up, take responsibility for my fellow uninsured Americans and pay a tax if everyone had to be covered. But before I do it, I want to make damn sure that the system I’m paying into doesn’t make me a sucker. It’s got to be as good or better than what I’ve got and it has to be equal for everyone.
        The Democrats failed my test on this and the issue of mandates is moot. There has to be a mandate for a real reform to work. What we got ain’t real reform.

        • The Social Security tax is a mandate. But it doesn’t go to private pension plans that take 30% in profits off the top.

        • Yes, it is. A mandate in the current case is disastrous and should be killed. You want to mandate something, then make it a tax and let the government provide the service.

          Both of you are arguing to kill the current mandate and so am I.

          • Yes but there’s too much lack of clarity on the issue.

          • SOD, That’s certainly true and I have no problem with a mandate under the right circumstances. It is necessary to get everyone covered.

            In this case, “kill the mandate” just happens to be the major point of vulnerability to the whole debacle. If it can be killed, the insurance companies will never go alone with the rest and their lobbyists will insure the current HCR goes down in flames.

            That leaves open the possibility of starting over and doing it right. That is a worthwhile goal.

          • Framing is important.

  13. I don’t remember all the procedural ploys of last year (PTSD!) but I remember enough to know Hillary Clinton was screwed..

    Since you guys are much more knowledgeable than I am, how would the following DNC proposal help?

    http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/dnc-announces-new-rules-presidential

    • Hey, Susie! Happy New Year! I plan to do another Jane post on what she can do to redeem herself and make herself a force to be reckoned with and it all has to do with the primary system.
      I doubt that she’ll take us up on it.
      We can save your proposal for that if you’d like or you could maybe do a guest post?

    • If the new rules make it so the voters determine the nominee it will help a lot, but there are other changes needed as well.

      • There are still caucuses and superdelegates clustered around DC, so it’s way too little.

  14. Don’t say whe ws 17 delegates behind. She would have been delegates ahead if her delegates hadn’t been stolen in Nevada, Texas and other places. Not to mention the caucus fraud in electing the delegates in the first place.

    • I happen to agree with you but by the time of the convention, many of those delegate disputes were resolved. It was shortly before the convention that the delegates started to get pressure from the Obama campaign. I think the reason Hillary lost so many was because, and this is just speculation on my part, she was totally broke and couldn’t afford to staff delegate whips. Also, the DNC made them fill out some very personal questionnaires under the guise of getting to know them better or security or something. We have heard stories from either West Virginia or Kentucky that some Hillary delegates were threatened with job loss if they didn’t switch their votes.
      It was really ugly.
      But did Jane report on any of the delegate shenanigans? Nope. Not a peep. She was all cool and groovy with it.

      • RD,

        I’m still grazing through the comment thread on Jane’s June 2008 post. A lot of Obots on the thread are upset that FDL didn’t put up a “Congratulations Senator Obama on winning the nomination” post. They also accused Jane of trying to push for Hillary for VP.

        I still think that both Digby and Hamsher would have supported Hillary if they handn’t wanted to hang on to their A-list blogger cred. That makes them even more culpable. I don’t believe for one minute that Marcos really believed Obama’s bs either. He was motivated by money and CDS.

        • Let’s think about what would have happened if Jane had supported the voters: She would have sucked the life out of PUMA. She could have taken the moral high ground and become a hero to sooooo many people. What she would have lost from the Dkos advertisers she would have more than made up for in subscriptions and hits from our crowd. We would have stuck by her through thick and thin and as a result, there would have been a rebalancing of the blogosphere. She could have been the beacon for a lot of female bloggers too. Digby might have had the balls to tell her commenters to STFU. BTD might have stopped waffling. Taylor Marsh might not have lost her mind. Even Jeralyn might have gotten a clue.
          Would Jane have lost her media access? mebbe. But if she had stuck by the voters right after super Tuesday when Hillary still had momentum, who knows what Jane Hamsher might have accomplished?
          But no, Jane took one look at the advertising money and the insider crowd and decided that they were more important than throwing away every principle and gut check she had.
          Why shouldn’t we be hard on Jane? She could have been a contender and she threw it all away and slit her own throat in the process.
          Jane needs to rethink her strategy.

          • Not one A-lister took a principled position on FL/MI – at best they waffled on revotes until it was too late.

            They could have declared that they supported Obama but the RBC decisions (the original and the one on 5/31) were wrong and demanded that either the primary results be honored or revotes held.

          • I know! Isn’t incredible how they all went so willingly to their deaths? They became voluntary eunuchs for Obama and they *still* don’t get it to this day. They think this is all Obama’s doing or the Congress’. That they emasculated themselves just never even occurs to them. They should stay out of rooms with sharp pointy objects.
            Right now, we holdouts are more of a threat to the Democratic party than the A-listers will ever be. And look what happened to Corzine. There is a price to pay for not acting like a Democrat. People won’t vote for you. They’ll remember in November and stay home. The race card was a one-trick pony and it will not work again. Obama is going to have to deliver or try something new. Democrats are a lot tougher to herd than Republicans. He’ll see.

          • Obama stopped needing the blogosphere after 11/4/08.

            They won’t be a factor in his renomination (he’ll run unopposed by any serious candidate) and in November 2112 the Obot bloggers will still vote for him no matter what he does between now and then.

            After all, where else are they gonna go?

          • I can recall very early on that Kos said FL and MI would eventually have to be counted. It was assumed that it would be worked out. I think that was before all of them were offered a ride on the Obama gravy train.

            At some point the consensus switched to “the rulz” and that FL and MI shouldn’t count at all. It had to be coordinated. Of course they all do have that secret e-mail list they all participate in.

            The funny thing is that FDL started because Jane and whatshername left DK after the pie fight. The whole thing really is like high school.

          • Yep, that’s it in a nutshell. They’re completely useless and irrelevant. Some are still being used a bit right now, the ones that will take the pay for it, to push a bit more propaganda about how we’re racists and how Obama is not that bad, or how Hillary would be the same, etc., etc. But I think only because it’s such an easy channel for propaganda and they come so cheep. But if they all started making noise, it would only be a big funny joke at the white house.

          • Obot dad used to go on long rants about how the Democrats were out of their minds and couldn’t do this to these major states without dooming themselves in the general. Then one day he changed his tune. I swear he didn’t go on the Internet and he’s not one for actual real live on the ground involvement, yet he was absorbing the talking points as well as any paid astroturfer.

        • They lost in the end anyway. They realized it was an opportunity missed and now that they are speaking up a little more they are getting counter attacked by the obot blogs they tried to keep alliances with. Taylor Marsh is a perfect example of someone who was too ‘fraid to abandon the A-listers and now obots are up in a tizzy over her recent statements. Same thing with Jane and Digby and so many others – Just look at their websites… they are barron – so much so that I think I saw a few tumbleweeds fly by on them. They are stuck in the wilderness and can’t get out because they really, like riverdaughter says need to find a way to rethink their strategy or else they will lose their voices quickly and completely if they can’t break away from this a-list cred thinking.

          • Taylor really fucked herself.

            She had a loyal following of Hillary supporters but lost them when she drank the Kool-aid.

            Meanwhile the Obots never forgave her for supporting Hillary, she had no readership at all.

            The same thing happened to TalkLeft to a lesser degree.

          • Taylor didn’t drink the koolaid, she was a mercenary. She went with the winner and expected to reap the benefits. It was a cold hard cash and power and cred thing. She sold her soul. She didn’t drink the kool aid.

          • If all the hopeful Hill supporters realized from the start that nobody likes a turncoat and the fanatical Obie true believers were sworn to forever hate them…..

          • TM went full Obot for a while. She might not have drank the Kool-aid but that’s only because she spit instead of swallowed.

            She sold her soul but she got fucked because she never got the cash.

          • I don’t think TM drank the kool-aid like some of the Hopium addled who really believed Obama was the second coming. TM knew Obama was an empty suit but she chose to ban and insult the very people who donated to her site during the primaries in order to keep her blog on HuffPo and remain in good standing as a C-list blogger within the liberal blogosphere. I remember the mean things she said about Heidi Li Feldman who I believe held fundraisers for TM’s blog and donated possibly hundreds of dollars to keep her site and radio show going.

    • Yes and if caucus delegates were given proportionately to the voter turnout etc. she would’ve been ahead. Hillary got less delegates than Obama even when she would win huge states and he would win caucuses with less than 25,000 votes. http://www.lynettelong.com/2008DemPrimary_ThePeoplesVote_10-22-2008.pdf

      • Thanks for that link. We will probably do a primary reform post soon.

      • GOP still kept the old form. It was written after Super Tuesday, that had the Dems kept the same system, Hillary would have been wrapped the primaries already. Which was ironic as I remember dean giving the reason for changing it “to wrap things up earlier”

  15. Fl and Mi delegations were always going to be restored to full strength by the eventual nominee. Therefore the RBC theater was never about apportioning convention delegates, it was about sanctioning the selected candidate. And, one of the most odious, yet under-reported aspects of the shenanigans was the deal to ditch Jeremiah Wright Obama made during that lengthy, rule breaking, extended “lunch.”

    Just looking back at Plouffe’s recent “revelations” and Ambinder’s take at the time is kinda interesting. From TPM quoting Plouffe’s book:

    “We were by no means in league with the Edwards campaign. But on this issue, we had common ground. Edwards would have even more trouble competing than we would if additional large and expensive states were suddenly relevant early. I suggested to the Edwards rep that it would box in the Clinton campaign more effectively if we waited a day to announce our intentions. If we all said we would sign the early-state pledge on the same day, she could say no, and though she would undoubtedly get grief in these states, it would be easier for her to wriggle off the hook.”

    • But it’s even simpler than that, Cinie. All Jane had to do is say, “Abide by the primary results, Senator Obama” just like she insisted that Lieberman do. It was the exact same situation. Obama lost both primaries. The voters rejected him and in Michigan, what he did by taking his name off the ballot should NEVER have been rewarded with unearned delegates let alone someone elses.

      The whole thing just makes me sick in a disgusted kind of way. The Democratic party should just die a slow painful death for what it did in 2008. The more I think about it, the more I conclude that the only way to save the country is to form a third party. But I suck at organizing anything.

      • I agree, RD, but, it’s just interesting to see confirmation of how things played out just like we thought they were being played at the time. Why so many others pretended not to see it, and later, that they never did, when it was so obvious, is…strange. The boys were so clearly colluding against Clinton and being aided and abetted by the major and minor league media, that it always seemed to me that there had to be a bigger, invisible hand pushing the pawns around.

        • Add to that the huge amount of donations Obama received early in 2007 from Wall Street and other big-money special interests.

      • The RBC should never have been allowed to impose a 100% delegate penalty on a state. The primaries were set by the elected representatives in those states, many of whom were Republicans. An unelected party committee should not be able to trump government officials.

        Penalizing the voters by depriving them of their right to participate in the nomination process is undemocratic.

        • They knew what they were doing in August 2007 when they sanctioned FL and MI. The goal was to derail Hillary as the strong frontrunner voters be damned.
          Mission accomplished.

          • I still remember how the media and the Obotosphere refused to acknowledge FL/MI as legitimate primaries. Tim Russert announced the GOP results in FL then said “On the Democratic side there was a presidential preference poll.” He wouldn’t call it a “primary.”

            Even if no delegates were awarded Hillary won the votes in an official election.

      • I agree and the audacity of it all seems even more sickening now. Count me in as someone who will never vote democrat again until Hillary Rodham Clinton is on the top of the ticket and the primaries are reformed.

    • “We were by no means in league with the Edwards campaign.”

      Obama eliminated Edwards the same way he eliminated his opposition in 2004.

      It was in December 2007 when somebody started spilling the beans about Edwards’ pregnant mistress. The National Enquirer was the only one to report on it but that was also when lots of Edwards’ establishment supporters suddenly abandoned him.

      Axelrod had worked for Edwards before and had ties to many of JE’s staff.

      Do the math.

      • I’m always suspicious when the disclaimer comes before the accusation.

      • Those “leaked” emails made me suspicious.

      • I believe the Obama camp had Joe Trippi on salary of some sort. He did more work for them than for Edwards. He is a slime-ball and always was.

        • I researched Trippi/Obama a lot. Obie hired Trippi’s boyz at Blue State Digital right off the bat. They did the 1984 You Tube video and lied about it. They co-opted Joe Anthony’s mybarackobama.com Myspace page, too.

  16. I see that RD’s posts on JH are being discussed at Alegre’s Corner.

    • Alegre and I go wayyyyy back. Pacific John is doing a terrific job picking up the blog after Alegre had to put it down for work related reasons. They are good and principled people who never let us down and stayed faithful to the end.

      • Alegre dropped by AC to say HNY to everyone the other day.

        • I saw that. Does anyone know who she’s working for these days? Whoever it is, Alegre is the best of the best and hasn’t been compromising her employer in any way, shape or form.

          • Alegre didn’t want to reveal her employer but if you know Alegre’s real name you can find her on LinkedIn.

      • I always read Alegre but noticed she hadn’t posted anything herself recently. There was about a month or so that I didn’t read any blogs and that must have been when she found work and PJ took over. I’m glad to hear that she is working again.

  17. I live in CT. I voted for Lamont in the primary and I was damned pissed when Lieberman went and made his own party. He’s always hedging his bets like that–run for VP and keep your Senate seat…

    It was pretty clear what went on in the General, once the returns were in. Hardly any Republicans voted for their own Republican candidate. That really got my last nerve.

    I’m pretty fed up with Republicans picking Democratic candidates, like B0.

  18. Oh boy, this brings back memories. Not only were we outraged that Lieberman disregarded the primary results though in CT the rules allow him to do so–what can I tell you, I didn’t understand that principles are for chimps and realpolitik is where it’s at back then–but, um, member how Liebs had to collect signatures to run as an Indy while running in the primary, as he had to have them ready to go immediately and would not have time, post primary, to collect them? That really didn’t go over well. I can’t remember if it was legal of him to do that or not (probably, as he’d have to request and be given the signature petitions), but either way, what were we so upset about? If you can get away with it, do it. Corrupt friends in high places in high places are nothing more than a plus on the way to power!

    • Chumps, not chimps. Damn you, iPhone!

    • To me, that election was about “voters vs both parties”. A fit prelude of the 2008 abuses. That Cheney and Boxer were campaigning for the same candidate was a lesson I never forgot.

      • It’s so telling–the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot by supporting not only the primary loser but a thorn in their side who backstabs them at every turn. Then they backstab the ultimate party loyalists and the most popular Democrats in America. It makes sense if they’re deliberately sabotaging themselves.

  19. Lost Decade:

    There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.

    • And now we get to continue those same policies that led to that lost decade because of Jane and her Obot cohorts. And now she’s whining about how things aren’t going the way she wanted. That’s just very pathetic.

      • “And now she’s whining about how things aren’t going the way she wanted.”

        Reminded me of this.

      • I am very liberal in policy, but I’ve come to the conclusion that I really don’t like the “culture” of left blogistan. The big blogs have just become like the MSM. They scoff at the idea of anyone holding them culpable for selling Obama. They point at laugh at a certain class of wimmenz with their certain class of cooties.

        And, then they want to bump fists with Grover Norquist? WTH?

        Glenn Greenwald wrote a brilliant, genuine column about the overlaps that the left and right have when it comes to opposing the oligarchy and Jane rode in on her pony and tried to capitalize on that. Again, she just wanted to do something flashy. SO FAR what Jane is doing doesn’t look like it’s gonna kill the bill and bring healthcare back on track or change the trajectory of much else policy-wise with Obama but yeah makes for one of those “strange bedfellows” footnotes of politics.

        • Yep, I’m with you. The culture of left blogistan is very alien to me these days. I guess that when I got kicked off of DailyKps, I started to see who I really am. I’m a working class girl. Always was, always will be. I identify with blue collar workers as well as creative class workers. And the truth is, if you make a living from a paycheck like virtually all creative class people do these days, ypu’re working class and your fate is no different than all of the factory workers who have lost their jobs in recent decades.
          The difference is that the left blogistan is still under the impression that it is somehow special.

          • It does take someone pretty special to be manipulated so easily. They were manipulated by BZero and Axelfraud and now they are being manipulated by anyone who needs a voice from the perceived left to be critical of the Lightbringer. They are so ambiguous in their ability to manipulated they might as well be “ShamWows.”

          • Hey Prolix!

          • When the Left Blogistan was a bunch of unpaid “amateurs” blogging in opposition the Bush/Cheney it seemed like everyone was on the same team.

            But lots of people weren’t real lefties, they were just anti-Bush. They are haters looking for a target. That is the core of Obamanation.

            They don’t really care about HCR, civil liberties or abortion rights. It’s “our side” versus “their side” and winning is all that matters. They adopt and discard arguments, policies, principles, etc. as needed. The FISA revision is an example – they opposed it until Obama voted for it, then just like that they supported it.

            The Blogstalkers are a microcosm of that – they’ve spent the last year bashing PUMAs (who they consider to be anyone on the left who doesn’t unquestioningly support Obama) and have ignored the whole HCR debate. They really don’t care what Obama does, as long as he “wins.”

          • Seriously, hiya Seriously.

          • Well said MyIq.

          • But lots of people weren’t real lefties, they were just anti-Bush. They are haters looking for a target. That is the core of Obamanation.

            Dead on, myiq. It’s laughable that people who are Johnny-come-lately “democrats” are the ones who think they can decide who the “real” democrats are.

          • Exactly. I never understood why any of these people stopped being Republicans. They have no principles, all they care about is “winning” an empty, hollow soul destroying victory, well, Republicans are a lot better at winning. The only thing I can figure is that they were so far down the Republican pecking order they felt ignored and figured they could get more attention (and, I imagine they supposed better jobs–whoops!) by switching sides in name only.

        • It just looks like more posturing, frankly. Nothing will come of it, but she’s positioning herself to be “in the right” so she can keep her condescending edge. It’s amazing that things are so screwed up when the creative class is so prescient!

          • To be a member of the “creative class” you must be susceptible to flattery, even if you are only flattering yourself. No thank you.

        • The culture of Left Blogistan seems to be an authoritarian neo-liberalism more than a real Left. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised, and some of us aren’t, that this is leading to even greater power in the hands of an oligarchy.

          What the current “new” democratic party seems to stand for is a corrupt corporatism more than anything else. There is no expansion of liberty or self determination. It’s corporate fascism with a cute smile.

        • Wonk, I’m a Liberal, but honestly? Most of my more centrist to conservative friends are much nicer, more respectful, and kinder people than most of the liberals and progressives I know. Not all, but most. I know there are wingers out there who are selfish a-holes, and I’ve met some. But just in my personal experience, they are outnumbered by the a-hole progressives I know.

          I agree with the progressives more. But I like the moderate and conservatives more, as human beings. (Speaking of persons I know, not the public mouthpieces for the right.)

          • I spent most of the 90’s arguing politics with conservative Republicans ( I live in a blue zone) but even though they despised Bill Clinton they never talked or behaved like the Obots do.

            It was never personal – sometimes we’d have beers together while we argued.

          • I spent most of the ’90s doing the same thing (in a red zone) with the same results. At bottom, most of the conservatives I know didn’t dislike Bill Clinton all that much, other than the womanizing angle. They thought that mattered a lot while I just thought it was personal, and not my business.

          • Really? You guys must live around west coast conservatives who listen to jazz with a cool time signature. The ones in central PA were hardass wingers with a vengeance. In 2006, I served one of them a sausage stuffed peppadew at my sister’s summer barbeque and he made a sotto voce comment about liberals and target practice.
            It got so bad that at one point, my entire winger family and I didn’t speak to each other for a couple of years. I couldn’t talk to them without wanting to smack them. I swear the shock of 9/11 caused severe brain damage and made them stupid AND obnoxious .
            They’re coming out of it but they still think Obama is a socialist. If that were true, I might have voted for him for kicks. It’s a never ending struggle to get them to see him as the self-centered opportunist he really is. It’s hard to show them that having no political philosophy at all is much more dangerous.

          • Yeah, I just found the twitters of a couple of wingnuts I know. They may be nice-ish to your faces, but if you could see the scary messed up stuff they’re saying about you on Twitter. 😉 Not to mention the scary messed up stuff they’re saying in general.

          • Heh, during the first 6 years of Clinton’s presidency I lived in Plano, TX which was maybe the reddest of Dallas suburbs. I think I was the only person to ever be a Democrat in my neighborhood.

            Though most of my neighbors weren’t natives, they were definitely conservative but not religious wingers. They were the more libertarian economic conservatives and I think that is what was different.

            For example, the religious right elected a slate to the school board and started in with their nonsense. One of my neighbors led a campaign to recall them and kick them out. It succeeded and the replacement school board contained not a single wingnut. I thought of them as conservative but not crazy.

  20. Someone up-thread said the Obama debacle. I think that’s a good name for the era that was the primaries and his presidency.

  21. Oldie but Goldie-“Bush’s Third Term” dated Summer 2008 (Rosemary Regello)

    http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Summer08/BushThirdTerm.html

  22. creative class workers????? Self-indulgent, self-inflating, ego driven, Bull shit, IMHO.

  23. Another great post. Thank you riverdaughter for not letting it rest. You are my hero. All of you guys BB, Dak, SOD, myiq and everyone else make this a great place. Now I go back to lurking.

  24. BTW, we’re at 7.9 million hits…on the way to 8 million

    • Not bad for a handful of paranoid shrieking holdouts who aren’t on a single A-list blogroll.

    • Large round of applause for TC and RD!

    • We have tons of lurkers, just not as many commenters.

      *waves at the lurkers* Come on in, the water’s fine! We’re not perfect, and signals get crossed at times in spirited discussions, but we don’t go out of our way to hurt people’s feelings, or belittle the newbies (Kos was horrible for that one) or be all dogmatically superior.

      • Some of our most dedicated lurkers have been banned from commenting here. It’s part of our zero tolerance for Kool-aid policy.

        But according to our stats we have been getting lots more visitors than commenters lately. There just ain’t that many Blogstalkers in the universe (praise be to Koresh)

        • It’s an election year. The operatives are looking for weak spots and possible trigger words. Digby says they’re going to trot out the “employment hasn’t grown in 10 years” meme and try to pin it on the Republicans. We need to get a handy dandy chart together that shows that most of the drop-off happened in the past couple of years.

          Wave to the paid political consultants!

          • Remember the GOPers who were showing up before the election? The ones who kept telling us Obama was a socialist?

            They really couldn’t understand why that argument didn’t gain any traction here.

            But they weren’t as bad as the “sweeties.”

            “I liked Hillary too, but she ran a bad campaign and Obama ran a great one. If McCain is elected he’ll appoint Supreme Court justices that will overturn Roe v. . . Hey what . . leggo of me . . . wait . . augh!”

          • I liked the people who were like, “Oh noes! If McCain wins, then Palin will beat Hillary in 2012! Hillary will never be President! Look how popular Palin is! Hillary has no chance! Vote Obama so Hillary can be President in 2090!” Wow, convincing. If we were stupid enough to fall for that, we’d be Obots.

      • One of the things I love about the Confluence is that even though I don’t have a Harvard or Yale university degree or even if I disagree from time to time with people here I am always treated as a respected and valued voice. Contrast that with the treatment of “a certain class of women” style behavior and you can see why I would log in daily here and only spare FDL a passing glance every once in a while.

        It really is about respect and how you treat people.

        • Well, if you have aunts of a certain age who just missed the summer of love, you will know that there were a lot of women who should have gone to college but got sidelined by their family’s dedication to educating their sons.

          Most of my aunts can think better than some Ivy League PhDs I work with and are not disabled by lack of a college degree.

          • When someone trots out their alma mater in an argument (as opposed to a relevant degree) their shit is weak.

            Facts and logic don’t belong to any university.

  25. […] now that the Conflucians are discussing the many ways the will of the voters was thwarted  in th last election as well as […]

  26. Ya know, even the moron wingers can see what the stubbornly blind A-list bloggers can’t. Moe Lane at RedState had this to say, and one can poo poo it as
    GOP 11th dimension chess and reverse psychology, but I think he was just telling the damn truth:

    *Time for some unsolicited advice to the netroots: I understand that none of you want to hear this, but if you want to be taken seriously, you have to start punishing your would-be representatives when they tell you one thing and do another. Bluntly? A particular senate candidate broke her word when she fell into line with Senate Democrats on abortion language. You know this. But you will go nowhere until your legislators fear you and yours more than they fear me and mine. In fact, I’ll tell you right now: they don’t fear you at all.”

  27. Thrilled to see that the spirit of outrage burns brightly after all this time! Don’t carry a grudge, nurture it. I’m totally looking forward to meeting up again for the primaries.

    The DNC is up for re-election / reorganization as well.

  28. Disclaimer: If I had written this song, I would have left out the tasteless verse about the wig.

  29. Hey, today’s a palindrome. Happy Palindrome Day!

  30. More fuel on the fire in a new thread up top!

  31. Can somebody tell me when the Progressives defined themselves and signed up for the club? I never read their Charter or anything. Why don’t they start a Progressive Party, young and hip? I know Arianna and Jane aren’t young but they could be Den Mothers.
    Just leave the Democrat Party to be repaired and replenished with Democrats.

  32. Well, Conf. & Co. Just like RD’s state, Hillary won my state too!
    CALIFORNIA and we are damn big, as voters go.

    So?

    Thanks to all the concerned Dems who kept track of things around here? We remember. We do.

    Day by day we watched, pulled out our hair and screamed as we saw what happened.

    We did.

    And the proof is all here, in the writing, huh?

    Yep.

    My big thing was the war and poverty in the country overall. I saw “divisiveness” coming and now we really can feel it. Did we as a country need that after the Bush years? No.

    It was what the Democratic Party did this time around in order to win that is so irksome to women who DID WANT HILLARY!

    Geez.

    Most of us are just watching and every day another news piece goes by that we can’t believe, no?

    The way it looks from here is like one giant party with movies and sno-cones. Ya know?

    I can hardly look at the news in Google. Too scary, lately.

    hugs RD & Conf & Co.

    Remember how the Repubs won back in 2000 — well Dems didn’t forget all that and that is how we see what our own did to Hillary. We could have gotten two for the price of one in a way? We needed two thinking HEADS after the last 8 years, and all.

    But, what is even worse is that there is this great bunch of broken promises that happened and so? It is sad to see younger Dems learn the hard way about all of it. What are the Dems to do now?
    Who will we vote for? How did we get Repubs instead of Dems?

    At least with the Clintons we knew they were Dems. We did, Because when all the young Dems were growing up that is who was running things and those were healthier years for the country financially — we were there, working…

    Now?

    Geez.

    Happy New Year.

    We could all use a sno-cone about now, huh?
    We could.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: