Amen!
Posted by The World's Turned Upside Down at March 19, 2008 10:48 AMWhy why why does the mainstream media report on talk radio reactions to anything? Yesterday on CBS news, they had Rush Limbaugh's reaction to Obama's speech. Who cares? I've even seen Ann Coulter reported on at ABC news. CBS news should have the reaction of their own political reporters and maybe people on the street not right-wing talk radio.
Posted by CG at March 19, 2008 11:06 AMBreaking my silence to say that I agree with you, Turkana.
Posted by JenBreier at March 19, 2008 11:17 AMThe corporate MSM works to help spread the Conservative Noise Machine's official talking points, CG, to make sure they are seen by the crucial independents who never acquired a hankering for the direct injections of Rushbo & Co's vile sputum.....plus it's also important for the corporate MSM to burnish Rush's image as a "respected" opinion leader, whose views can be "trusted".
All part of the coordinated propaganda. Why ELSE would they do it?
Posted by euzoius at March 19, 2008 11:36 AM.....plus it's also important for the corporate MSM to burnish Rush's image as a "respected" opinion leader, whose views can be "trusted".
I always assumed it was more of a Michael Jackson or Lindsey Lohan type of thing.
Ya know, "Look what the freak did today."
Posted by snark at March 19, 2008 11:41 AMCan I have Hallelujah?
Posted by blogtopus at March 19, 2008 11:45 AMEven crazies are right sometimes. You just need to look for independent verification beyond the unreliable source.
Well, that was a silly thread. Especially since Kos is probably celebrating the publicity. He'll no doubt get a bunch more speaking gigs on the other news shows to discuss the "writer's strike," so it's all good to him. You gotta admit, he's been awfully clever, building up his career on the writings of others who he never has to pay! And people are clamouring to give him more free content daily! How cool is that?
Posted by iamcoyote at March 19, 2008 12:02 PMA fucking men.
I always assumed it was more of a Michael Jackson or Lindsey Lohan type of thing. Ya know, "Look what the freak did today."
If assumptions were reality, no one would be an ass.
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 19, 2008 12:37 PMA day after his obligatory defense against fear and bigotry, Obama has come our swinging against the bizarre Commander in Chief test.
His speech lays out his views of what needs to be done in the next 4 years and, surprisingly, it's fairly articulate. He paints Clinton, McSame and GW with the same brush of experience and uses many of their previous claims to mildly ridicule them.
A McCain spokesman has already retorted cleverly, his speech fails National Security 101". OUCH! That's gotta hurt!
He said McCain will bring American forces home when U.S. interests in Iraq are safe, when al Qaeda is defeated, when Iran's influence is contained and civil war in Iraq is remote.
"That, I think, is what is called 'making us safer,'" Salter said. "Senator Obama's plan, if it can be charitably described as one, would do the reverse."
Wow! I guess I was all wrong about Barack. Well, I sure do want to be safe!
Never mind!
Posted by DeminNewJ at March 19, 2008 12:42 PMAs your nice people serialize these opinions, the youth in Iran are speaking, and much louder than you...
TEHRAN, March 19 (UPI) -- Many Iranian youths rallied in streets across the country, shouting "Death to Ahmadinejad," in celebrations marking the end of the Persian calendar year.
...
In the western city of Ahvaz, angry mobs declared "Freedom is our legitimate right" while demonstrators in the western city of Sanandaj shouted "Death to (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad," Ynetnews reported Wednesday.
Fascinating that our president's name wasn't mentioned. One would wonder where this expression would be without our investments in the neighboring countries. These are the voters that Obama would seem to be reaching in our primaries...these kids. Our president seems to be reaching them in Iran.
Then there's the problems Democrats have with "counting every vote". No do overs in Michigan and Florida, and Texas Democrats can't get a result from the evening caucus. The two leaders, Clinton and Obama are losing the will of the American people...WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama's big national lead over Hillary Clinton has all but evaporated in the U.S. presidential race, and both Democrats trail Republican John McCain, according a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.
While the two Nero's are feuding, McOld is looking more and more presidential by the minute.
Posted by peter at March 19, 2008 12:43 PMThere's no reason for celebration of the credibility deficit at Daily Kos. It's just sad. And it's disgusting that anyone should be happy because O'Reilly is able to get in his digs against progressives.
Daily Kos and Olbermann could have helped us in the general. They still might -- though I won't be tuning in to them.
'Daily Kos and Olbermann could have helped us in the general.'
This is why Dems are sucking right now...
please let us not forget that Kos, JMM, Arianna, and Olbermann made a conscience decision to act the way they have during this primary.
Actions, have consequences.
If one of those consequences is a public e-flogging then so be it and we'd probably all be better for it.
Plus, gloating feels good.
HA!
Posted by willyjsimmons at March 19, 2008 12:53 PMAnd more from the Wright case...let's compare it with the Imus fracas from last year...
Obama — who in a major speech Tuesday decried controversial remarks by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. dating back to 2001 — called for Imus to be fired just one week after Imus made the remarks in April 2007, two months after Obama had announced his candidacy.
“There’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude,” Obama told ABC News in an April 11 interview. ...
Obama said in the 2007 ABC interview he would never appear again on Imus’ show.
“He didn’t just cross the line,” Obama said. “He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America.”
One has to wonder...judgment, what judgment?
The only two blogs that I actually visit a great deal are:
The Left Coaster
and
Crooks and Liars.
I visit occasionally Orcirus, Fire Dog Lake, and Talking Points Memo. And James Wolcott.
And I read Huffington Post, although a lot of what I see over there is hand-wringing, so I don't bother reading those op-eds very often (the headlines they post at times is ahead of everyone else). And I check out the headlines over at Rense.com. (Rense has excellent coverage of our economic meltdown, from many perspectives, and is also tracking the Bird Flu epidemic also very decently.)
The rest of it, I don't even bother with.
So all of the stuff about Satan's Chamber Maids (Rush and the woman who apparently illegally voted in the wrong precinct in Florida) I give barely a look at. And the DailyKos meltdown, I am conpletely ignoring that. It has no effect on anything. Except perhaps on Obama-anians.
I agree with a lot of what Steve Soto says. Which surprises me. (I don't agree with everything, though.) I agree with a lot of what Turkana says too. Which also surprises me. (ALthough I don't agree with everything that Turkana writes down, either.)
I usually don't agree with anyone. LOL
But I think that the Progressive pulse is most accurately taken here, at this blog, consistently, daily.
Posted by Troubled American at March 19, 2008 01:04 PMHere are the dKos owner's exact words about Hillary Clinton:
"...as far as I'm concerned, she doesn't deserve 'fairness' on this site..." - Markos "Kos" Moulitsas, 3/17/08
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/03/kos-clinton-doe.html
Posted by KnowVox at March 19, 2008 01:16 PMWho's he going to support when CLinton becomes the Democratic nominee? What is MoveOn going to spend their $400 million budget on, if not for Clinton?
Posted by peter at March 19, 2008 01:23 PMIf the past year tells us anything, it's that Kos and MoveOn are better in the opposition. So, they will set themselves up to counter Hillary or McCain. It's an Obama presidency that would really speed their irrelevancy, IMO.
Posted by Joelarama at March 19, 2008 01:35 PMYes, Turkana, I finally had my bubble burst: it isnt just the GOP that has stupid people glued to the teevee screen and dissing anybody who dares to have a thougtful comment that contradicts their narrow world view. Both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters (of whom I consider myself) have goofballs amongst them running rampant. Frankly, with few exceptions, I am not bothering to even read the comment sections of some sites.
Much as I promote free speech, the sites wherein the moderator ruthlessly controls the discourse tend to be the only ones that people of limited time like me can get value from reading.
Thanks for readable commentary.
JudithR
Posted by me- Judith at March 19, 2008 01:45 PMAgreed. I still have every faith that the dailykos community will come together once our nominee is determined, and be a mighty force in re-taking the WH in Nov. I would never cheer anyone on - ESPECIALLY the likes of O'lielly - if they're calling dkos a hate site.
We're all still Dems and O'lielly is STILL the enemy in all this.
Let's not ever forget it.
Posted by Alegre at March 19, 2008 02:03 PMI was a Biden supporter before, but I'll say this: When Hillary supporters take a brilliant speech by Obama, criticizing his pastor yet showing empathy for people of all stripes in the USA, and turn it into a hatefest against him-- they only look like fools. Hateful, embittered fools.
I defended Hillary Clinton when Ferraro made those comments especially when Hillary herself criticized them. I took her at her word, and realized she wasn't responsible for what everyone around her says.
Wright isn't even on Obama's team-- he's a pastor, who like other pastors says a lot of things that may be inspiring, and other things that are condemnable. Obama has disagreed with many of the things Wright had said (though he did not hear the specifically damaging comments that get mentioned so much, which were issued at a university), and as his own man, he's intelligent enough to distinguish the good from the bad.
All of the people trashing Obama for this-- JUST STOP IT!! You are only dividing our Party with this. Nobody can be responsible for everything that people around them say, and when someone forcefully denounces those comments, as Obama has, I take them at their word. The truth is that Obama is very far ahead right now in pledged delegates, popular votes, states, any metric, and we should probably be rallying behind him if for no other reason than that he has a popular mandate, a lead that's insurmountable. We cannot risk a division of our party and the destruction of our coalition.
Posted by Old Boar at March 19, 2008 02:08 PM“He didn’t just cross the line,” Obama said. “He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America.”
Yet he exposed his daughters to Rev. Wright every Sunday. He admitted the same with his speech yesterday.
Posted by peter at March 19, 2008 02:15 PMI wish I had your faith, Alegre. But credibility cannot be recovered.
Posted by Joelarama at March 19, 2008 02:17 PMPeter, no personal offense to you-- but it's negativistic people like you who are feeding so much of this division. Probably every one of us has gone ourselves, and taken our children, to a church, a parent-teacher conference, a talk or some other occasion where the person in authority said some dumb things. Are we bad parents merely because the person up there has said them? (And BTW, these especially objectionable comments by Wright were made at a university address, not a sermon-- they weren't things Obama was "taking his daughters to hear")
We can't control everything that other people say but we can control how we and those around us respond to them, by expressing our approval or disapproval. And it's clear from Obama's statements that he disapproves of them and says so. Just like we do with our own kids when they hear things that are objectionable, we criticize the things that shouldn't be said and convey these lessons to our kids, while embracing the things that are better to hear and follow. If all of us were to be held responsible for everything our kids hear, we'd all be terrible parents. But we filter them and teach our kids tolerance.
Obama clearly chastised Pastor Wright for his comments in his talk, and just as we did with Hillary when she criticized and disavowed Ferraro's comments, so should we for Obama. That he used the opportunity to encourage empathy among the races and emphasizes his own mixed heritage, only makes it even more helpful for Democrats overall, and for the country in general.
I got tired of the Obamaites piling on Hillary for Ferraro.
And I'm just as incensed at the Clintonites who are piling on Obama for things that his pastor said, which Obama was not aware of, and which Obama has unequivocally repudiated. (And can we please stop with the Rezko crap? Both Dems have problems with fundraisers-- Obama with Rezko, Hillary with people like Norman Hsu and the Riches. That Peter Paul trial against Hillary is set for October-- could there possibly be worse timing for this?)
The GOP is going to beat us over the head enough with this stupidity, so why we do we hit each other? Why do the work for them?
Sometimes I could swear that our Party has far more than a circular firing squad-- we have a Death Wish.
The only lesson we should be drawing from the Wright affair is that Obama had a pastor who said some very dumb things, in the midst of other things that maybe weren't so dumb. Obama called him out for it and criticized him, made a speech in Philadelphia that was potentially historic for its nuance and the way that it addressed the resentments of many people while encouraging us to come together-- and that we should just move on from this.
We are in a war in Iraq that is bankrupting us, our economy is going down the drain, we are becoming a ruined country overnight. There are far more important things that pissing contests over dumb statements made by Clinton or Obama associates.
Posted by Old Boar at March 19, 2008 02:22 PMOld Boar...
Obama — who in a major speech Tuesday decried controversial remarks by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. dating back to 2001 — called for Imus to be fired just one week after Imus made the remarks in April 2007, two months after Obama had announced his candidacy.
“There’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude,” Obama told ABC News in an April 11 interview. ...
Obama said in the 2007 ABC interview he would never appear again on Imus’ show.
Yet he took to his appearance in Philly to disavow things the Rev. Wright has said. "There's nobody", nope, there was somebody and he kept him there until it become politically expedient to cut him loose. Criticize Imus and allow Wright, two peas in a pod, the same pod, both offensive. And this guy's been around Obama for twenty years.
Posted by peter at March 19, 2008 02:34 PMOld Boar, peter is a right wing troll who gets a kick out of stirring up arguments. He pretends to be for Obama or Clinton, depending on who's in the comments and tries to get us to go after each other. Ignore the asshole, he has no other agenda than to see people fight, as do most righties. They're too cowardly to fight on their own, they have to watch others do it, either on a battleground or a blog, they don't care as long as someone's getting hurt.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 19, 2008 02:35 PMJust stop.
And I'll add an A-men to the choir here turkana!
Posted by emal at March 19, 2008 02:38 PMCoyote, I don't pretend to be for either.
I'm not for either one.
I've stated this more than once here.
Until yesterday, Obama said the only thing controversial he knew about Rev. Wright was his stand on issues relating to Africa, abortion and gay marriage. …
His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright’s sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.
But yesterday, he told a different story. “Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes,” he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.
His speeches are fabulous, earth moving, intoxicating, but, they are only speeches. There's nothing behind them. And being intoxicating, there's always a morning after, the hangover. We don't need the hangover.
Posted by peter at March 19, 2008 02:48 PMMarkos is a progressive ideologue-follow his lead or be criticized as not Democratic enough. Markos wants a little teepee, not a big tent.
That is most sensible post I have read in a long time....
Posted by Dem08 at March 19, 2008 02:56 PMbillary cant win. she should quit while obama still can beat mccain.
Posted by at March 19, 2008 03:12 PMJust stop. You stole that from Digby.
But I agree with you. It is quite dumb.
Can we also agree that Democrats who use the word "Billary" are silly, silly asses, even though they think they are very clever?
Posted by chris at March 19, 2008 03:51 PMgee pants pissing peter, weren't you supposed to personally report on the bike race in Fallujah?
truth and honor are concepts utterly alien to right-wing trolls
Posted by gay veteran at March 19, 2008 04:52 PMI think that Obama would not have given the speech that he did, hadn't the Wright videos been available to be sold to anyone who had the money to purchase them from that church.
When one sells their rants for money, that tells me that they wanted to be noticed. And to spread their poison everywhere. And that everyone knew what the content was--all the parishoners knew.
(And I think that Obama knew about their content prior to his speech in Philadelphia, and prior to the claim he wasn't there when some of these "homilies" were given.)
So, people are noticing. The Reverend Wright's rants are now everywhere.
But that caused (and is causing) a problem for Obama. He had to stop the damage (The Reverend Wright actually put a huge torpedo in his campaign's vessel amidships, and he is taking on water.)from the most unfortunate hate speech. Time will tell if Obama can contain the damage, and pump the water back out of his ship.
But this is just one glaring mistake of a neophyte campaign, in a continuing series of mistakes. I truly think one needs a great deal more than good speeches. And cute ears. And Oprah. And Zbigniew Brezhinski as a foreign policy advisor.
One needs a record of not dissembling in the glaring hot lights, and not dissembling when up against the complex, byzantine bureaucracy. That's why I looked at Obama's voting record.
I just don't think Obama is ready to be President. And I personally think Obama is not personally ready to be a Democratic Presidential contender.
He needs to, as I said in another thread, fulfill his first term as a US Senator, and also to take care of his subcommittee that he allegedly is the head of, and start doing some of the people's work in the Congress that he has been elected to do with that subcommittee.
Everyone should know now that just because a politician says that they are a representative of a specific party, doesn't make them actually a member of that.
Just look at Bush/Cheney. Can you really say that they are authentic Republicans? Do you think that they behave like Theodore Roosevelt or Eisenhower? Or even remotely like Richard Nixon in his first term? I think we can say that they are Totalitarianists, masquerading as Republicans.
But I dislike all Republicans. They are all, more or less (with perhaps one exception--the one that has been urging zero earmarks from Arizona or New Mexico)very much have the stink of Tom Delay, or Newt Gingrich.
And so when Barack Obama says he is a Democrat, I reacted by saying, "Oh really? Let's take a look at what you say, versus what your actions demonstrate. Let's take a look at your voting record." And so on.
Obama doesn't strike me as being a Democrat.
Yes, he is a Harvard-educated attorney, with the gift of oratory. But not much backing that up in the actions department. (As in, following through on what he says in his speeches.) And not much backing up the notion of does he know how to manage a complex, byzantine bureaucracy.
He isn't managing his campaign very well. The people who are aiding him in running his campaign I don't think are doing for him the competent work that he does deserve--and yes, needs.
The true Progressive, the true person who had engaged in acts of Redemption (and truly evolved from where he was in the 1950s to where he was in the mid 1960s) was RFK.
And to me, Hillary is most like RFK.
And that's why I am voting for her next month in the PA primary.
Posted by Troubled American at March 19, 2008 06:03 PMThe words "credible" and Democrat (Party) have not belonged in the same sentence for many years now -- unless, of course, you modify the word "credible" with the word "not."
P.S. Have I mentioned that watching Leftists destroy each other is very entertaining!
Posted by Bagley at March 19, 2008 06:10 PM"...Can you really say that they are authentic Republicans?...."
conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed
and bagless bagley, in the Age of Bush you can be a good American or you can be a good Republican but you cannot be both
Posted by gay veteran at March 19, 2008 06:26 PMI've decided to imagine that "peter" is really Tucker Carlson trolling the blogs.
It helps.
(and it's sort of believable)
maybe "peter" can get a slot on MSNBC.
I wonder if he's cute like Tucker- in that spoiled frat-kid, not-really-gay kind of way.
Posted by snow-moon at March 19, 2008 07:42 PMNo SM, I wouldn't say I'm that cute. I'd love to have that youth again, but, I've earned where I am today. Network news isn't for me, on camera readers, no thank you.
“Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes,” he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.
Didn't he say something different on Friday? Didn't he say something different a year ago? Ah, the ever 'changing' story, just like that TR guy, ever 'chsnging'. Thay must be what 'change' means to him.
Posted by peter at March 19, 2008 08:48 PMIt is what it is. It's mission accomplished time for the corporate suits who run the American news/entertainment media.
What's foolish is to blame the people who comment on the various sites. The real culprits are the people who run those sites.
A case in point, DailyKos worked when the people who run the site made it their mission to promote the election of Democrats of whatever stripe. They chose to marginalize their influence when they chose en masse to alienate the supporters of a Democratic Candidate that was not their own. Period.
I think the damage is irreparable. I know, I won't be visiting DK or TPM anytime soon, and this just a few short months after I had found them and marvelled at the important work that was being done on those sites.
The reason I think it can't be fixed is because of the issue of trust. I can't trust them to counter the idiocy of MSNBC and CNN which if you're a Clinton supporter are worse than Fox who is at least fair in their hatred of all democrats.
If anyone thinks that MSNBC and CNN are any better than Fox for promoting a Progressive Agenda then, he/she is just as delusional as anyone who looks to Fox for their coverage.
It's actually ironic that you're calling us fools because we're just anonymous voices in a comment section, most of our commentary will be ignored or not even seen. It's the actions of the people with names who run the sites that have the real impact by what you tollerate and choose to emphasize with your posts.
Let me suggest that you look in the mirror and recognize the really destructive foolishness. Because of your own actions, to me your voice is now just as suspect as Bill O'Reilly and Drudge. The action that I'm talking about is calling us fools for listening to fools because they're saying what we want to be heard. You probably don't care what I, some anonymous commentor in your thread, thinks, which is my point. It's not my voice that is marginalizing your importance, it's yours.
I don't think it's foolish to listen to just about anyone and make up my own mind based on my own experiences. I used not to sprinkle salt on your musings, Turkana, but calling us fools for amplifying the voices of people who are saying what we agree with...well, that shows something about your lack of ability to ask the right questions.
The right question is "Why are Democrats choosing to amplify the voices of people whose agenda it is to destroy them?" The answer, of course, is that the message is much more important than the messenger.
Posted by Whatever at March 19, 2008 08:58 PMwhatever,
i agree with you about the meltdown at other sites, but if we are so alienated by those sites that we seek solace in the arms of the drudges and o'reillys, yes- we are fools. we can find people of like mind and like values with whom to keep company. the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend- and o'reilly is certainly no friend to anyone with a functioning brain and a living soul. he would gladly welcome the support of people with brains and souls, but we should deny him such.
Posted by Turkana at March 19, 2008 11:35 PMI don't understand why progressive democrats should not be disturbed about Rev. Wright and Obama's long and deep relationship with him. Are we supposed to be so blinded by candidate support that we abandon principles?
Obama fails to live up to the principles that he espouses in his speeches. His words and deeds are contradictory, and that is deeply disturbing to me. Obama's campaign blamed his loss in NH on racism - are those the deeds of someone who wants to unite us all? Obama's campaign perpetuated the lie that Clinton distributed the photo of him in Muslim garb - are those the deeds of someone who wants to unite us all? And so on. Countless examples.
I have come to see him as someone who publicly preaches lovely sentiments, but underhandedly goes along with some hateful actions. I did not see him this way in the beginning and, frankly, it has broken my heart.
Now he wants to prevent voters from voting. Why can't MI and FL re-vote? Because he wants to win at the cost of the fundamentally democratic principle of letting every voter have their say?
Bottom line - he has failed to do what he says he can do - unite us. Just look at us - we are now deeply divided. One has to ask the question why he didn't succeed if that was truly his goal.