• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    campskunk on Oh yes Republicans would like…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Memorial Day
    eurobrat on One Tiny Mistake…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Evil people want to shove a so…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Evil people want to shove a so…
    riverdaughter on Evil people want to shove a so…
    campskunk on Evil people want to shove a so…
    eurobrat on D E F A U L T
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Tina Turner (1939-2023)
    jmac on D E F A U L T
    jmac on Does Game Theory Even Help Us…
    William on Does Game Theory Even Help Us…
    William on Does Game Theory Even Help Us…
    jmac on Does Game Theory Even Help Us…
    William on Does Game Theory Even Help Us…
  • 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

    February 2010
    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

Chris Bowers opens mouth, inserts foot. Again.

We're not laughing *with* you, Chris

So, someone wrote an editorial at WaPo asking why liberals are so condescending and Chris Bowers wrote a post upholding the right of liberals to be condescending jerks.  He cites scientists as his models of excellence:

Less than 10% of scientists consider themselves Republicans or conservatives.  Why shouldn’t liberals consider their positions to be based on fact and reason, and see conservative views as largely illegitimate?

And the public largely praises the efforts of scientists, too.  Only 6% of Americans think science has had a negative effect on society.

Science is both the most popular, and the least conservative, institution in America.  What the public doesn’t know is that a very small percentage of scientists consider themselves to be conservatives.  But, it is something that should be pointed out whenever conservatives whine about how condescending and “fact-based” liberal positions are.  Without liberals, and their emphasis on science, reason and facts, conservatives couldn’t even use things like the internet, or even television, to continue their whining.  They would still be stuck in the frakking middle ages, which is maybe what they wanted all along.

Ok, I’ll handle this.

So, 9 out of 10 scientists do not consider themselves to be Republican or conservative, eh, Chris?  Let me tell you something about the scientists I know, since I am one and work with them all fricking day long.  Most of the scientists I know voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary of 2008.  Yeah, they used their abilities to reason and examine the facts to determine that when it came to a choice between Obama and Clinton, the choice was clear.  There was NO DATA TO SUPPORT OBAMA.  We looked and looked and looked and all we could find were missing data points.  He was tofu.  You and your creative class wannabes slapped some progressive special sauce on him and called him a savior.   We looked at his anti-war creds, which is all you guys seemed to care about, and there was no there there.

New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, states with a high number of extremely bright, scientific people, did not vote for Barack Obama in the primary of 2008.  Asian scientists, and they are the bulk of our scientific minds nowadays, went for Hillary by landslides.  And the ones I talked to told me the same damn thing: they thought he was a phony.  They knew in advance that he was a sweet talker because(and this is just my theory) English is not their native language.  So, they paid attention to body language and really spent time deciphering his words instead of being bowled over by his image.  I had colleagues stopping by my office throughout the primaries telling me the same thing.  They had concluded that Obama was a charlatan who was not in Hillary Clinton’s class.

It was all about presentation with us, Chris.  We spend our lives listening to our colleagues present their work and we know when they’ve actually got game and when they’re just bullshitting their way through their slides.  We ask questions about what presenters say.  We ask questions about what presenters *don’t* say.  We know when the data supports what they’re saying and when it doesn’t.  That’s why we didn’t vote for Obama.   You should have been paying better attention to us in 2008, Chris and you wouldn’t have made such a bone-headed mistake.

You are not a scientist, Chris, as your stupid pick of weakling president shows.  Please don’t try to be one of us.  And as for condescension, the country doesn’t venerate us or give a damn what happens to us.  We are losing jobs left and right.  Our scientific infrastructure is being decimated.  Pretty soon we will go the way of the dinosaurs as we wait for Democratic lawmakers to get their shit together and stop the hemorrhage of our jobs to India and China.  And the last thing we needed was for snotty, know nothing Chris Bowers types to act like we working class scientists are somehow above it all.  We are one with the rest of working class America, Chris. Get a clue.

And get off your frickin’ pedestal.

120 Responses

  1. Thank you, RD. Excellent, as usual.

    For all the discussion of why liberals are not condescending on the blog today, I think you nailed it.

    The Obama “liberals” are incredibly condescending, arrogant, pr*cks. PERIOD.

    I think the author of the “Why are liberals so condescending” article was speaking of the Chris Bowers and Markos Moulitsos and the Arianna Huffingtons, who seem to represent the Obama Democrats.

    If that’s the case, condescending as hell.

    But don’t mind me—-I’m just bitter and clingy. 🙂

    • All three idiots you name are not scientists, but opportunist, shallow jerks.

      • And two of three are reformed Republicans. Kos might be a libertarian, but he is into making money. Arianna used to worship at the feet of Newt and loves attention. Her web site Huff Poop is mostly an online movie magazine, but it does have a Palin obsession.

    • Like I tried to argue yesterday … the big talking Cheeto, etc. aren’t liberals. This new brand of “progressive” isn’t liberal as far as I can tell. And if you consider economists scientists, most of us are Democrats too, and most of us voted for Hillary.

      • To you, they’re not liberals.

        To Independents, they represent Obots and Obama’s most rabid supporters.

        Every time they post such arrogant drivel—-and it has nothing to do with whether they’re scientists or not—-they paint the Obama Demcoratic Party as condescending.

        Every time they sneer and snicker at “other people” being ignorant (ex: Sarah Palin people can read??), they drive another American voter away from the Democratic Party.

        To those people, Dak, YOU don’t even matter.

    • Christ Bowers is not worth reading …. and quoting.

      Same goes for the Moulitsoses, Huffingtons, and their ilk …. they should be ignored and never quoted. They are not worth my time.

      ” Why shouldn’t liberals consider their positions to be based on fact and reason …. ‘

      Obviously FACT and REASON went completely out of the windows of their brains when all these “progressive” bloggers (and pundits, celebs, etc etc.) “scientifically” looked at BO and considered him THE One. So What was their scientific and scholarly position based on?

      Nothing but
      Pure Vilification for Hillary,\ and simple uninvestigated glorification for the messiah, fake Obama (and earlier phony John Edwards ina big way.)

      Are the Obamabots Scientific scholars? Hardly. Numskull ignoramuses … thats more like it.

      And if any of these “fact-based” people actually understood fact and reason they would hide under their beds with Embarrassment right now and the whole last year – and wouldn’t come out.

      btw. “Fact-based” was such a popular Obot word on dkos during the primaries. Appeared in post after post in defense of the One.

      Blindfolded witless unawares: Hide!

  2. *sssssss. Smoked him RD! *high five*
    Seriously, I wish Chris Bowers and every other Obot would fall off the face of the earth. But that will likely remain a wish.
    I do agree with him about how much conservatives whine, though.

  3. Thank you very much, Riverdaughter. You just made my brain explode.

    • KB! you need to get all those pieces back in there for Tuesday!

      • (nodding) And my husband is really pissed off — The blood splattered all over his side of the couch!

        • LOL. That just reminded me of the car scene in Pulp Fiction when they hit a bump and Travolta’s gun goes off.

          • It reminds me of the scene in Fargo where the Sherrif (Deputy?) comments that that must be the bad guys partner in the wood chopper — with the blood spaying for yards on top of the snow.

  4. Why shouldn’t liberals consider their positions to be based on fact and reason,
    What a fucking ass-hat. When I presented data and “facts”…what few there were, on Obama, I was run off of “creative” class web sites. The mindset of creative class Obots is more in line with fundie wingnuts than anything remotely resembling “science”.

    • Yeah, SHV, I watched it, lurking from the shadows although I did pipe in a few times. It reminded me of the Hound of the Baskervilles.

  5. Also, there is no good reason in the world for speaking condescendingly to people. Unless you are deliberately trying to drive them away from your viewpoint.

    And “reason” tells me that’s an ineffective goal.

    • He’s completely out of touch with the working world. Utterly clueless and an insufferable jerk.

      • Thanks, and you forgot the “creative class” bullshit, a classic from Chris Bowers.

        • The “creative class” bs – I remember it well.

          Megalomaniac Bowers and his ilk were lucky that the “uncreative class” didn’t read their blogs. Had they done so, Hillary would be in the WH today.

      • That sums it up pretty well. He’s also way too young and inexperienced to be pundit. Maybe he should go back to grad school.

    • Speaking in condescending fashion is intended to tell the person their opinion is neither welcome nor needed. It’s to shut them out of the conversation. People who use the tactic don’t care if the person shares their viewpoint, they just want them to go away.

      There’s a hysterical example of this over at TL. Friday night’s open thread.

      • People who use the tactic don’t care if the person shares their viewpoint, they just want them to go away.

        Donna B’s message to the base: stay home

        • Exactly. Obama uses a condescending tone fairly often, as well….the press secretaries are known for it IMHO.

          Funny, Jeralyn deleted most of the garbage on yesterday’s thread….

  6. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. All Obots are projectionists.

  7. He was tofu.

    {{{registers complaint}}}

    I know tofu. I’ve eaten tofu. He is no tofu. a poorly constructed meat analog maybe…but not tofu.

    Why do these people always try to pretend as if they are part of the “club” and no one else is?

    {{bangs head on table}}

    • erzatz tofu, maybe? I can’t even imagine how bad that tastes. And I *love* tofu, especially with shitake mushrooms, red peppers and peanuts.

      • more like a veggie dog. Man, they have not figured out how to make those things edible.

        • Thanks for the warning. I’ve always wondered about those suckers at Wegmans.

          • blech. I’ve tried every brand imaginable.

            Now seitan is excellent — have you ever tried it? I know Wegman’s carries it. I make a Seitan Picatta that is to die for.

          • Never tried it but one of my Chinese colleagues makes an aged tofu salad that is to die for. I keep meaning to get her recipe.
            In my department, we have people from China, India, France, Ukraine, the Czech Republic and Germany. Only 3 out of 20 of us are Americans. Pot luck lunches are FABULOUS!

          • I love seitan. It’s the one food that I will get the most intense cravings for. Please post your Picatta recipe.

          • I love tempeh.

          • Yum! cornmeal crusted tempeh with avocado and mango salsa is scrumptious!

        • Just a warning about Seitan. My vegan daughter cannot tolerate it, because its full of gluten, so for anyone that is gluten intolerant (Daughter has Celiacs), Seitan is a kiss of incredible pain and suffering.

          • Jeez, a vegan with Celiac? What can she eat?
            Celiac is found among people on the fringes of Western Europe. They have some weird haplotype and wheat doesn’t grow very well there anyway. Why not eat a Celtic diet?

          • RD, Celiacs is far more common than most people know and is not just confined to people from a certain area. I do not have the problem, nor does my son nor does anyone else in my family. She is an anomaly – but then again, most of my family have encountered dietary problems of one kind or another, so perhaps gluten intolerance could be part of it.

            And as far as being Vegan with Celiacs, there are rice, tapioca flours and potato starches. (As well as soya and a variety of bean flours) and as long as agar or xanthum gum is involved, it’s almost as good. When your life depends on it, you change your taste. I’ve worked through a number of recipes – testing, tasting yadda (and I’m not a vegan) in order to give her a decent diet. It’s been illuminating, to say the least.

          • From wiki:
            “The vast majority of coeliac patients have one of two types of HLA-DQ.[20] This gene is part of the MHC class II antigen-presenting receptor (also called the human leukocyte antigen) system and distinguishes cells between self and non-self for the purposes of the immune system. The gene is located on the short arm of the sixth chromosome, and as a result of the linkage, this locus has been labeled CELIAC1.
            The frequency of these genes varies geographically. DQ2.5 has high frequency in peoples of North and Western Europe (Basque Country and Ireland[24] with highest frequencies) and portions of Africa and is associated with disease in India,[25] but is not found along portions of the West Pacific rim. DQ8, spread more globally than DQ2.5, is more prevalent from South and Central America (up to 90% phenotype frequency).[26]”

            It occurs with greatest frequency in Basque country and Celtic areas. That doesn’t mean it can’t occur elsewhere. I suspect that it’s a really ancient haplotype. I like looking at this kind of stuff and tracing human populations over time. It’s fascinating.

  8. Thinking like Chris ::

    Scientists are Liberals
    I am a Liberal
    Therefore I am a Scientist

    I am condescending
    I am a Liberal
    Scientists are Liberal
    Therefore Scientists are condescending

    People Like Scientists
    Scientists are Condescending
    Therefore people like condescending people


    Is that how it works?

    • LOLOL!! oh the fallacies that found the fauxgressive movement.

    • Nice combination of haiku and syllogism you’ve got going there.

    • It’s a whole hot mess of fallacies of composition.

      • Why are they trying sooooo hard to run away from the working class? Is it fear? Wouldn’t it make more sense to admit you are one of them and add your strength to their number?

        • They think their creative classiness somehow insulates them from the plight of the working class. Not sure why they think that given the mounting evidence. Some scientists they are.

          • That hasn’t worked out very well for white collar professionals.

            Nevermind the “evidence” though. The creative class doesn’t need no stinkin’ evidence.

            They are scientists in the same way Creationism is a science.

          • Exactly. In their own minds, as long as they remain “creative class” rather than “working class”, they are safe from our Social Darwinist economy.

            To wander a bit off-topic: Speaking of SDism, isn’t it ironic how so many USAmericans who reject biological Darwinism as impious [BD hence becomes another “inconvenient truth”] embrace Social Darwinism? That is, they think low-income people are just lazy and irresponsible and need the pain of their poverty to make them do right, or else perish–even if they are one disaster away from poverty themselves?

        • because we smell in the summer, and cling to our guns and bibles. Didn’t you get the memo? Please update your records

          • Between that and Lanny’s memo that if Obamacare passed we would never have to worry about “getting or losing” health insurance, I think the filing space for bullshit has reached capacity.

        • Isn’t it what they say made Obama sooo great?

          There’s a an old post from Chris Bowers (I think) you linked to not too long ago where he was drooling all over himself how much Obama would remake the Democratic Party. It was something like “Out with the Bubbas, In with the Creatives”.

          I don’t know if you remember which post I’m talking about. It was a real magnum opus (i a painfully ridiculous way).

          • Somewhere, I have that saved to my hard drive. It always makes me chuckle.

          • Bowers on 5/8/08:

            Here are the three major changes I expect:

            1. Cultural Shift: Out with Bubbas, up with Creatives: There should be a major cultural shift in the party, where the southern Dems and Liebercrat elite will be largely replaced by rising creative class types. Obama has all the markers of a creative class background, from his community organizing, to his Unitarianism, to being an academic, to living in Hyde Park to shopping at Whole Foods and drinking PBR. These will be the type of people running the Democratic Party now, and it will be a big cultural shift from the white working class focus of earlier decades. Given the demographics of the blogosphere, in all likelihood, this is a socioeconomic and cultural demographic into which you fit. Culturally, the Democratic Party will feel pretty normal to netroots types. It will consistently send out cultural signals designed to appeal primarily to the creative class instead of rich donors and the white working class.

            2. Policy Shift: Out with the DLC, up with technocratic wonks. My sense of Obama and his policy team is overwhelmingly one of technocratic, generally less overtly ideological professional policy types. We should see a shift from the more corporate and triangulating policy focus of the Democratic Party in the 1990’s, and see it replaced by whatever centrist, technocratic policies are the wonkish flavor of the month. It will all be very oriented toward think-tank and academic types, and be reminiscent of policy making in the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s. A sort of “technocratic liberalism” that will be less infuriating than DLC style governance, but still not overtly leftist.

            3. Coalition reorganization: Out with party silos, in with squishy goo-goos. In addition to a shift in culture and policy focus, I also expect a different approach to coalition building. A long-standing Democrats approach of transactional politics with different issue and demographic silos in the party shift toward an emphasis on good government (goo goo) approaches. We will see lots of emphasis on non-partisanship, ethics reform, election reform instead of on, say, placating labor unions, environment groups, and the LGBT community by throwing each of these groups a policy bone or two. Now, the focus will be on broad, squishy fixes that are designed to appeal to several groups at once. George Lakoff wrote about this a couple months ago.

          • Yup! Myiq found it.

            That is so great. I suggest each time Chris Bowers does something stupid, he should be forced to read that post in public as punishment.

          • Ahh, yes, squishy goo-goos.
            Well, he was absolutely right about what happened to the party and Obama.
            Surprise! Nobody actually likes what happened to the party and Obama.
            And the working class did not miraculously go away. No, they’re still out there- pissed off for being ignored.
            Imagine that. Well, it’s not hard to imagine, unless your a Chris Bowers type.

          • Out with the people who look down on the working class and then presume to know what’s best for the working class.

          • That should be brought up and reprised every single time the creative class loses an election.

          • Bowers was certainly wrong about point #2. The 0bama @$$ministration has been as good for Corporate [Un]America as the Chimperial @$$ministration was, maybe better for Wall Street. In short, just what the DLC would want.

        • Because seeing the intelligence and reality of the working class is like a mirror showing them for what they are: shallow, entitled, over-educated idiots devoid of any real skills or value. They make their living by peddling bs that is not even original to them.

          They are running from discovering the truth about themselves.

    • Simply great, Katie.

    • Brilliant!

  9. People like Chris Bowers give liberals a bad name. What a piss poor argument! Which begs the question: why would the Washington Post publish such drivel?

    But then, we know the answer to that, don’t we?

    Let’s try this: anyone paying attention took the full measure of Barack Obama and knew the man was clearly style, not substance. The classic empty suit. There was and is no comparison between Obama and Hillary Clinton. It didn’t take an Einstien to figure that one out. Merely a clear-headed, rational voter.

    And btw, Obama is no liberal. It’s laughable to even suggest that. And as a liberal myself, it makes me frigging insane to read and hear the liberal tag attached to the man.

    Obotitis and liberalism are not equal. Obotitis and deluded are. Stupidly childish also fits. And the condescending meme is merely a Republican talking point, which, of course, the likes of Bowers fall right into with a hopelessly inane rebuttal.

    Will these people ever grow up????

    • Obama has outright said he IS NOT a liberal. I don’t know what it is that is required for people to stop giving him a label that doesn’t fit and that he doesn’t want.

      • When did Bowers suddenly become a liberal. I thought he was a “progressive.”

        • The problem is that the activist left made him Obama the face of everybody to the left of right–they handed the RW the opportunity to brand Obama’s terrible policies as “too liberal” and the RW is using it every opportunity they can. It sucks but that’s the political reality.

      • A position based on fact and reason is required.

        But all that Obamaspin on that blank slate has verhext them to such a degree that Obots have only one thing left: hope (for change).

  10. Damn, that was like a pissed-off Benihana chef doing a circumcision.

    {{runs from room with hands covering manly bits}}

    • Circumcision’s too good for him. I am sick to death of colleagues shedding tears over lost jobs and fearing the ax to fall on their middle class lives. Chris Bowers is part of the problem, not the solution. He has no idea what heartbreak he and his ilk have caused with their unity pony.

  11. because “us working class” aren’t working anymore???

  12. The misuse of the word “liberal” in both the WaPo piece and the stupid retort has my brain hurt.

  13. Okay, this is what the stupid Chris Bowers of the world have wrought:

    I had a problem with my gas furnace this week, so my repair guy showed up today. I had one of the morning news shows on the TV, and he was listening while he worked, there in his stained coveralls.

    He looked up at the TV, shook his head, and said, “You know, I disagreed with Reagan on a lot of stuff. But right now I miss Reagan. At least he didn’t talk down to us like we were all stupid.” I kind of shrugged and said, “I don’t want Reagan’s policies, but I understand about the stupid part. I’d rather have good policy AND the respect for the common man, myself.”

    Oh, and he is second-generation Mexican-American – not a group that usually feels kindly toward Reagan conservatives. But if the Dems don’t stop this elitist shit, I can guarantee that many people like him will vote for a conservative just to stop being talked down to. Just to say “Fuck you and your sneering at me.”

    That “where else are you gonna go” card is going to bite them in the ass in ways they don’t expect.

    • It already is.

    • Hey, remember this from primary 2008?

      Strange…I can’t seem to find the video where Donna lays out who is in the New Coalition and who is in the Old Coalition. It’s almost like it’s been wiped off the face of YouTube. Now, who would want to erase history like that? That was the moment we working class people of all education levels joined the unterbussen. That moment should be saved for posterity.

      • It was scrubbed. It was from an exchange between her an Paul Begalia. Paul was removed from the CNN pundit panel after that and until the primaries were over.

      • Transcript:

        BRAZILE: Well, Lou, I have worked on a lot of Democratic campaigns, and I respect Paul.

        But, Paul, you’re looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

      • I always like to brag about how I stood up to Donna Brazille and ended up revealing her deviousness to everyone. What would you all do without me? *preens*

        New thread up!

        • I’ll never forget that, LI. That was my first introduction to you, when I read that blog post.

          • Yup, and I was only seventeen when I did that. Seventeen, and all ready exposing the corruption of the DNC via Donna Brazille. (also, I was a lot more modest back then :p)
            Now I’ll be turning twenty in a few months. Time sure flies.

          • Gosh, you’re getting ooooold.


          • Happy future birthday, Little Isis. You have a great future ahead of you 🙂

      • Found this Huffpo write-up mocking Begala – and the video is gone from it
        TL has an actual transcript
        money quote

        BRAZILE: Well, Lou, I have worked on a lot of Democratic campaigns, and I respect Paul. But, Paul, you’re looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

  14. Anybody (DK?) know what the turnout is like today in the NOLA election? I read that the early vote turnout was high the other day.

    • I haven’t gone yet, but I’m going to go poll dance in about an hour and I’ll vote before I leave. i think it’s going to be fairly typical –like 40-50%

  15. Mad hatters getting smart:

    During WorldNetDaily Editor-in-Chief Joseph Farah’s Friday night dinner speech, which spent around 10 of its forty minutes on questions about Barack Obama’s citizenship, Andrew Brietbart was among the conservatives in back of the room grumbling audibly about what he was hearing.

    After he introduced the evening’s closing entertainment — a film titled “Generation Zero” — Breitbart walked outside to the convention hall. There, I heard Breitbart criticizing Farah, and briefly talked to him about it before I noticed that WorldNetDaily’s Chelsea Schilling was already talking to him, holding up a voice recorder. I backed up to allow her to continue her interview, which consisted of questions on why Breitbart didn’t think Obama’s citizenship was a legitimate issue.

    “It’s self-indulgent, it’s narcissistic, it’s a losing issue,” Breitbart told Schilling. “It’s a losing situation. If you don’t have the frigging evidence — raising the question? You can do that to Republicans all day long. You have to disprove that you’re a racist! Forcing them to disprove something is a nightmare.”

    “Wouldn’t you say,” asked Schilling, “in this case, that Farah is asking Obama to prove something rather than his disprove it?”

    Breitbart rejected the premise. “When has a president ever been asked to prove his citizenship?”

    We banned birthers from TC back when the subject first came up. It’s friggen loonytunes.

    • Hot Air:

      HA commenter Knucklehead says that Carl Cameron at Fox reported a few minutes ago that other Tea Party organizations will hold a presser later today to condemn Birtherism and distance themselves from it.

      • It is a good move and should have been done sooner but it made me think of the spectacle that was staged for Obama to throw his pastor under the bus.

      • Wonder if some TPers will leave the fold as a result.

      • If they are smart they’ll tie it up by saying this kind of thing isn’t the most pressing thing the country needs to deal with right now anyway.

        Why pummel Obama with citizenship when there are so many other ways to pummel him on bailouts or jobs?

      • Seems like I read a press release similar to this from the Vatican right before Galileo was fit for his ankle bracelet and house arrest.

      • Do you ever get the idea that they get all of their best ideas from reading TC and then put their own special fascist spin on it?

  16. It was Chris Bowers who proclaimed, “Wow, we nominated the black guy!” after his cohorts had spent months calling Hillary supporters racists.

    I don’t know why anyone pays any attention to this kid.

    Carolyn Kay

    • I read the comments on that thread. There is some classic bostonboomer there.

    • That post is dated 5/9/08

      Bowers was declaring victory when the RBC hadn’t selected Obama as the nominee yet.

      Okay, maybe he knew something we didn’t, because the RBC hadn’t announced that they had selected Obama as the nominee yet.

      • It was part of the haka- AND the fact that they knew the math was on their side after they deep sixxed Florida and Michigan before the primaries began. They couldn’t have made that claim without Florida and Michigan. Which just goes to show that Chris Bowers and his condescending asshole friends were perfectly OK screwing the rest of us out of our votes LONG before the RBC hearing delivered the coup de gras.

      • The NC/Indiana primaries were on 5/6/08. The Obama party was declaring victory after that.

        • You know, sometimes it really is malice over stupidity.

        • The punditry had changed the goalposts. Every time it would be “oh if Hillary won Texas and Ohio… If Hillary won Pennsylvania, If Hillary won Indiana..” And, they’d say it like there was no way she would. But she did.

          The night of NC/Indiana was so bad. They took forever to declare Indiana for her.

          • On purpose, the scumbags.

          • I remember that night. The mayor of Gary was holding everything up. Mayors from the surrounding cities were on TV complaining that they turned their vote totals in at 7:30 or so, and the numbers still hadn’t been released come midnight. The Gary mayor made some weird statement to the press that he was confident that Obama would win Indiana and that Gary would put him over the top. In response, Jeffrey Toobin at CNN and Chuck Todd at MSNBC were openly starting to wonder if the ballot boxes were being stuffed. A few minutes later, the Gary mayor had released the numbers for the country or district or whatever and Hillary had won the state.

            I’m speculating, but something tells me Axelrod got on the phone with Gary’s mayor after he heard what Toobin and Todd were saying on the air.

  17. RD: I think you handled him very well. (claps hands in dismissive gesture and leaves stage).

  18. I thought this comment from that Brazile/Begala dust up was really prophetic given where we are today:

    Presumably you will have all sorts of new Libertarian and Independent voters to make up for all the alienated, traumatized “formerly lifelong Dems” who will be fleeing en masse.

    That is the point of deliberately insulting and trashing and opposing the issues nearest and dearest to the working class, the old people, and women. Driving us out of the party is exactly what is going to attract all those Libertarians. Then we’ll have two Republican parties instead of just one, and nobody at all to stand for the working man. It’ll be great for rich people.

    • Exactly. The new, “improved” DINOcratic Party is just the GOP for affluent folks who are NOT obsessed with what non-affluent folks do with their genitals.

  19. I lurk around here learning on a daily basis for which I thank all the talented writers.

    Thank you so much for wxploding Bower’s balloon head with that dart! I am just a poor working class stiff- not a creative class person or a scientist. You know- one of those “old coalition (former) life long Dems. But I knew Obama was a snake oil salesman without an advanced degree- nice to know that lots or scientists feel the same!

  20. Chris Bowers=the dull thud of ignorance and mediocrity. His views of the field of science as the single holder of the one great objective truth that will save us all have long ago been thoroughly debunked. Clearly, he didn’t bother to engage with philosophy, feminism, ecology, postmodernism or persons situated in developing countries before dribbling out his uninformed nonsense. Only a Western, white, elite creative class male would feel comfortable writing for the public from a place of such abject ignorance. And, therein lies the problem with so many claimed progressives in the blogosphere!

  21. Off-topic again: I allowed my subscription to Rolling Stone to expire a month or two ago, but they keep sending me copies, along with the occasional warning that they’ll have to cut me off if I don’t send that payment. 😛

    I decided to quit RS because I got PO’d at Matt Taibbi’s snotty, Bowers-like attitude toward Hillary–and by extension, toward me–and I decided to quit paying for the dubious privilege of being insulted. 😡 My subscription was going to run out in Dec. 2009, so I decided simply to let it expire.

    I take a similar view of Taibbi as I take of unrepentant Commie Alexander Cockburn–he serves useful purposes sometimes, but I don’t like him. 😕

    • You know, Bill, your attitude toward RS is quite similar to why MSNBC, and especially Olberman, is in the tank.

      Did you know that Olberman only gets about 300,000 viewers a night? Stunning, really, that he’s still on TV at all.

  22. Riverdaughter,

    I’m also a scientist. And my experience is completely at odds with yours.

    The vast, vast majority of scientists I know went for Obama. Only a scattered few that I knew favored Hillary. I and my best friend – who is also a scientist – were two of the few. In my experience, the ratio was at least 20:1.

    I saw this not only at my home institution (UW-Madison), but also at the conferences I went to. Obama by a landslide – and anyone who spoke negatively of him was viewed as demented (and ostracized)

    I’m wondering why our experiences were so different. Two of the things I can think of:

    1. Academia versus private industry. (Do I recall correctly that you work in the pharmaceutical industry?). Perhaps academics were much more Obama-prone.

    2. Fields of research – I’m in Evolution and Ecology. Most of the other scientists I had contact with were in this field. Perhaps this field was more Obama-prone.

    I don’t think it’s entirely field of research, since other academic scientists I encountered, from other fields, also strongly favored Obama. But I had relatively minimal contact with scientists from private industry (though those few I did have contact with – primarily geneticists or people in information technology – also seemed to favor Obama).

    • Being male, looking good in a suit, and having the “street cred” of giving a speech against the Iraq War worked in 0’s favor.

      Imagine if Jesse Jackson had been able to attend the Hyde Park rally? (Obama was a stand-in.) Result: No speech that Axelrod could recreate and video after the fact with an audience (when the war became unpopular).

      Imagine if Obama had been in the Senate and there was an attack aimed at his state. How would he have voted? (Of course, the Congressional vote was simply to explore the possibility of an attack if Sadaam didn’t capitulate, was it not?) Later we found out that Sadaam tried to capitulate, but the 5-4 Supremes President wasn’t interested in fairness. It was all about Daddy.

      Also, the media sold Obama like he was Bush against Gore, Bush against Kerry, or the Iraq War. Anyone who didn’t bother to do independent research, bought into the myth of Obama that was being sold by the consolidated main stream media. Again, he is male and looks good in a suit and did have a record of being available and for not that much money (consider Rezko). He was the machine’s second-best after Gov. Blag.

      Nothing in terms of actual accomplishments that indicated he would be an average president, however. One just had to “hope,” which is not too scientific.

  23. Brava!

    Could not have said it better myself.

    Carry on RD!!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: