Hillary Clinton vs. Moveon.org

MoveOn.Org is simply the most extreme of the extreme, Far Left Liberals. It is an organization whose main agenda is to destroy the country as we know it today. The sole agenda for MoveOn.Org is to bring about a socialistic government repleat with the old Russian ideals of communistic values.

It is the organization that supports the ACLU, Men and Boys an organization where older men rape and torture young boys, and of course the likes of William Ayers, Ward Churchill and all of the left liberal extremists that have overtaken our educational institutions

Hillary is smart to finally disassociate herself from this EVIL group of people. Obama is this organization's "Messiah". He is their messenger and leader to destroy America as we know it today.

Rev Wright / Obama '08, WRONG for America

The sole agenda for MoveOn.Org is to bring about a socialistic government repleat with the old Russian ideals of communistic values.

I think these would be the words of a McCain supporter. Russian Communism is what we defeated by staying in Vietnam forever, just as John McCain wished. If you look at any problem in the world today, you can see that Russian Communism is at the bottom of it. That's why we need a staunch anti-Communist in the White House. Electing a liberal runs the risk of permitting a withdrawl from Vietnam and an end to the fighting there. We shall never surrender to the Vietnamese Communists!

This is what she had to say about Move-On before they endorsed Obama.

Well again, I want to thank MoveOn for hosting the forum. And I also want to thank you for being such lively participants in American democracy. You started from the very fundamental premise that in our democracy everyone should have a voice and that given the power of the internet, we now have millions of voices that are part of our debates. I personally welcome that because for nearly a decade you've been asking the tough questions, you've been demanding answers, you've been refusing to back down when any of us who are in political leadership are not living up to the standards that we should set for ourselves and that you expect from us. I think you have helped to change the face of politics for the better, both online and in the corridors of power. So although some of your members may be a little surprised to hear me say this, I am grateful for your work. I remember when you started and how important it was and I look forward to continuing our dialogue in the years ahead on the important issues facing our country and the world.

It's bothersome that closed door comments by Democratic candidates get more play at Swampland than on the record Al Qaeda confusion by the republican candidate.
Not that it's the sole reason for McCain's campaign or anything.

So what!! And by the way, don't you think the world has changed a bit from the time Mr. Clinton was president?

Also,the Huffington Post is one of the many mediocre forms of what one might call modern journalism.

First of all, Rustydog is a classic sleaze merchant. And judging by his very frequent postings it suggests one without a life, like the Southpark episode an unwashed, overweight geek sitting at his computer trying to invent a life more rewarding than the hell he has gotten himself into. Now that we finished with that little detail lets talk about Move-On.

I have worked in political campaigns since the late 1960’s. I have worked for both Democrats and Republicans. In fact the last two campaigns I participated in (walking door to door, holding signs at street corners and at precincts) were both Republican state legislature campaigns. (I even changed my registration in 2000 to vote for McCain and would have worked for him in 2000 had his campaign not collapsed in South Carolina. No, I’m not working or voting for him in 2008, he forgot about Veterans – I am one- and cuddled up to religious right and abandoned his previous positions in an effort to get elected.)

I volunteered for Move-ON in the last election in a get out the vote campaign. One of the things that impressed me was that we were instructed in our meetings to focus only on identifying the Democratic voters and getting them out to vote. We were instructed not to debate or try to change votes, just identify and get the Kerry leaning voters out to vote in my precinct. Hardly Russian or communist ideals! And certainly not as Hillary suggests political bullies. The young organizers I interacted with were very patriotic, smart and really knew what they were doing. They understood experienced personnel when they saw them and just tried to stay out of the way and let us do our things. They provided excellent mentoring and hands on teaching for those volunteers without any experience in political campaigns. (Of course, I am sure not every office of Move-ON was as well staffed as the Tampa, Florida office, as we are all humans trying to adapt to life with out own set of skills).

Hillary’s comments about Move On is just another reason why I could never support her. I was the biggest Hillary and Bill Clinton fan until South Carolina. The problem is that she has now behind closed doors tried to slime a progressive Democratic “get out the vote” and anti-war organization machine as unpatriotic. This is unforgivable and places her in the realm of Senator Joe Lieberman with his Marxist comments. It is obvious that the Republicans are going to try to make this a Communist/Terrorist scare campaign of painting our young volunteers as socialist revolutionaries who are trying to overthrow the United States. The new target is to turn older Americans against younger Americans who are politically active. To make political activity a negative, reactionary activity in an effort to win election so they can continue to loot our country’s treasury and ignore the middle class. Hillary’s comments false comments about Move-On's support of the Afghanistan war and veiled comments about intimidation and her disagreement with their positions will be played over and over again and twisted by Republicans into even more hideous comments, which of course some will believe.

I believe Hillary Clinton is done as a Democratic politician after these comments. I am sure she will face a very strong candidate should she choose to run for reelection as a Senator in New York and will have lost most of the black and liberal vote because of her actions in this election. Maybe she can go back to being the Goldwater girl she always wanted to be.

MoveOn.org Political Action, one of the largest Political Action Committees in the country, brings real Americans into politics to fight for a more progressive America and elect progressive candidates. It conducts major campaigns, from its work to protect the Supreme Court from a hard-right justice to its campaign to defeat the right wing and elect moderates and progressives in 2008.

MoveOn uses its fundraising clout to push the Democratic Party to the left. This game plan was enunciated most clearly in an e-mail that MoveOn PAC Director Eli Pariser broadcast to the group's financial supporters on December 9, 2004. Regarding MoveOn's role in the Democratic Party, Pariser wrote, "For years, the party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base. But we can't afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers. In the last year, grass-roots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it's our party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back."

MoveOn has received financial support from numerous leftist organizations, including the Tides Foundation, the Shefa Fund, the Stern Family Fund, the Steven and Michelle Kirsch Foundation, the Compton Foundation, and George Soros's Open Society Institute. Following a September 17, 2003 meeting between Soros and Boyd in New York, Soros and his associates gave nearly $6.2 million to MoveOn over a period of six months. The contributions included $2.5 million from George Soros personally; $2.5 million from Peter B. Lewis of Progressive Insurance; $971,427 from Stephen Bing of Shangri-La Entertainment; $100,000 from Benson & Hedges tobacco heir Lewis Cullman; and $101,000 from Soros' 34-year-old son Jonathan Soros, an attorney and financier recently promoted to deputy manager of Soros Fund Management LLC.

Operation Democracy: This project sought to "Fight the Right and Elect Progressives" with "a national network of neighborhood teams to take our progressive message to every town in the country." It focused on "critical issues like Supreme Court nominees, Social Security and the war in Iraq."

I can hardly wait for next week's Dead Tree when KT writes
"Senator Clinton called every Democrat not supporting her thugs and and Commies"

And when asked about it KT will reply
"What I was trying to capture was a sense of the argument that has occurred, rather than the specifics of what happened,"
A sentence that describes what passes for journalism today almost perfectly.

I really don't see how this hurts her in Penn. The lefties were all going with Barack anyway. No one wants to be reminded of the "General Betrayus" ads, that sure wouldn't help Barack outside the cities.

Posted by Floridian | April 19, 2008 7:40 AM

First of all, Rustydog is a classic sleaze merchant. And judging by his very frequent postings it suggests one without a life, like the Southpark episode an unwashed, overweight geek sitting at his computer trying to invent a life more rewarding than the hell he has gotten himself into.

Your 3rd grade tactic of attempting to use playground name calling is very indicative of the far left liberals ability to not engage in real discussions, "Floridian". Your inability to point out the real facts behind the agenda of extremist ideals of PACs like MoveOn.Org are pure examples of how rotten to the core secular progressive organization such as this are all about.

It is no surprise that when other views are presented, people like you who are so far into the slime gutter of Larry Flint and Hustler Magazine, are the first ones to scream "foul" when your true identies are exposed.

Grow up Floridian. America is NOT ready for your type of Government!!!!

To Paul-no ... LOL, that was nearly perfect. Now can you explain to me how the dead-tree KT can be so different from the sentient and thoughtful KT we see on this page. I am truly confused by the disconnect.

wvng-No I can't. Interestingly neither can/will KT.
My original suspicion was that JNS "contributed" a LOT to that piece but the more I think about it the more I suspect my affection for KT is leading me to lay the blame elsewhere.
It was KT's byline after all.

I think candidates should assume that they would be reported. MoveOn has taken an anti-Clinton line and blogs such as DailyKos and Ameriblog have been attacking Clinton forever. Markos, who has become so self important is asking if Clinton is a Democrat. My take: it is okay for Clinton to criticise those who attack her from the left. Any reasonable look at the way the caucuses have been run will show up some forms of pressure that bordered on intimidation.

All I need note is that the Clinton campaign has engaged in the same things: lots of heavy breathing. Hey Pot: where's Kettle.

Let's move one on please and leave MoveOn to do what it does best: whack Republicans.

KT here--

WVNG and P-NNTO: Guys, I know you didn't like my lede. But we are talking about one lede in what are literally thousands of stories I have written over the years. I'm sure that in those thousands, there are probably many, many other sentences you wouldn't like. I get it. But can we agree that the fact that you didn't like one lede doesn't mean that i am "different from the sentient and thoughtful KT we see on this page"?

And by the way, there have been lots of times when I have written things on this page as well that people haven't liked.

Paul-no, perhaps there are two KTs? Just like there are two Jesus; the kind, non judgmental, protect the powerless one I read about in the New Testament, and the stone-throwing, torture loving, rich man enabling one so popular in RW circles.

Just a thought. It would explain so much.

KT here again--

PS: Though I appreciate the affection, and feel it likewise.

KT clearly we have done a poor job of explaining our position. It isn't that we "didn't like (your) lede" but that it was dishonest.
I don't like what Scherer often writes but he isn't dishonest.
And that it was for the magazine and not just a post here makes it worse.
Now as people sit waiting for a haircut paging through Time they will read a dishonest story about one of the three remaining candidates for president.

We're always toughest on the ones we like KT

nice theory wvng! I'll take it.

KT here--

You have done an excellent job explaining your position.

KT here--

Jesus? Please promise me, wvng, that you are not standing anywhere where there is the slightest chance of being struck by lightning. A few "Hail Marys" wouldn't hurt either...

and KT, you have done an inadequate job explaining yours. Paul-no nailed why it is so imnportant: "And that it was for the magazine and not just a post here makes it worse. Now as people sit waiting for a haircut paging through Time they will read a dishonest story about one of the three remaining candidates for president."

I would add they will be sitting in barber shops, doctor's offices, Jiffy Lubes reading your lede for the next six months. In many cases, they will read only the lede - because they aren't the relatively high information/interest people who subscribe to Time, they're just killing time waiting to get a filling.

KT, I am indoors at the moment. Thanks for your concern.

But more seriously, I would have no fear being utterly exposed outside under the only tree on a flat, otherwise featureless plain - because the RW version of Jesus bears no relation to the Jesus described in any Bible I have ever read. It seems unlikely that God would find my standing up for his Son's good name at all objectionable.

I might worry a bit about an unmanned drone with a laser-guided missile, however.

Echoing stringer on the other thread, will we be seeing coverage of last night's huge rally in Philadelphia for Obama?

I do not recall a candidate getting this kind of grass roots support. It seems indicative of broad dissatisfaction with what Obama describes as the politics of today.

Kinda off topic, but I have been stewing on Charles Gibson's fantasy average $200,000 earning middle class family. The 95th percentile is $187,000. About 4% of the population make as much as Chuck thinks a middle class family is doing.

The traditional media for the most part loathed John Edwards. I think his discussion of class was the underlying pathology. I am speaking of the Washington media here, not Joe Blow reporter making $35,000 a year at the Eureka Daily Whatever.

Class is not allowed to be discussed. You are engaging in class warfare if you object to the fact that our economy has shafted the many in favor of the few over the past 3 decades. You try to talk about class and you get $400 haircut stories done instead.

I doubt if Edwards had decided to go to Supercuts instead that the media would have allowed him to discuss class at that point.

There is a class war going on in this country. The middle class and the poor have lost, but the revolution of the wealthy, won't be televised. They buy the ad time after all.

I never thought I would say this, but it will be extremely painful -- though necessary -- to vote for Hillary in the general should she secure the nomination. Which is just one more reason to get behind Obama now.

KT here--

Trifecta, you point on Charlie Gibson reminded me of something I saw a few years back. I was doing the "Charlie Rose Show" from time to time, so Charlie (Rose) invited me to be on a panel at a conference that was being held by some of his sponsors in Deer Valley, Utah. The whole thing involved me being there for less than 18 hours, but I was able to get in about two hours of skiing.

Deer Valley is the fanciest place I have ever seen. (Mitt Romney has a place there.) It is so fancy they have people whose job it is to take your boots off when you come off the slopes. Anyway, one of the ski instructors rode up a lift with me, so that he could point me to a few easy runs that I could do in the short time I had, and on the way, was pointing out some of the huge houses and telling me who owned them.

The biggest one on the best spot with the best view? You guessed it ... Charlie Gibson.

At least, that is what the ski instructor told me.

The thousand injuries of Hillary I had borne as I best could; but when she ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge.

It's time to get her out of the race.

It's great that some journalists are paid very well. Perhaps it is romantic nostalgia, but I think back to the big city journalists who used to come from the city, with ethnic last names, one generation removed from immigrants who identified more with the working class than the people.

No matter how many times Tim Russert mentions Big Russ or Buffalo, some of us know where his summer house is.

On MoveOn, it seems to me that any of these stories should include a footnote somewhere that MoveOn was founded in response to broad grassroots opposition to the Clinton impeachment. The idea was that we needed "move on" from a sexual peccadillo to other more serious and important issues.

As for its "leftism" I think Floridian is a much more typical member. It's true that the grassroots views of the democratic party are largely to the left of the Congressional delegations. MoveOn's continued success can be attributed to identification and support of grass roots issues, particularly, right now, Iraq and the environment.

It's difficult to characterize any organization as large as 3 million members as extreme. There are some single issue groups that large, like the NRA, but one has to conclude that they reflect views held broadly in the US.

I must need coffee. I missed the sentence referring to MoveOn's origins in the post. Sorry.

Over at the Atlantic, James Fallows posted an excerpt from his justly famous article Why Americans Hate the Media

When ordinary citizens have a chance to pose questions to political leaders, they rarely ask about the game of politics. They want to know how the reality of politics will affect them—through taxes, programs, scholarship funds, wars. Journalists justify their intrusiveness and excesses by claiming that they are the public's representatives, asking the questions their fellow citizens would ask if they had the privilege of meeting with Presidents and senators. In fact they ask questions that only their fellow political professionals care about. And they often do so—as at the typical White House news conference—with a discourtesy and rancor that represent the public's views much less than they reflect the modern journalist's belief that being independent boils down to acting hostile.

Well, having read Karen's version, I can't see anything dishonest in it. It seems a reasonably sober account of Clinton saying something profoundly foolish behind closed doors. I think most Democrats knew that Hillary was never at ease with the activist wing of the party, largely because of a compromised record in the Senate.

The lie about the caucuses was offensive, but again, fits with the ridiculous claims the Clintons have made over the last two months or so. Remember that ludicrous and pathetic incident where Bill claimed to see voter suppression while he was strolling through a hotel in Nevada?

Overall, I doubt that anyone would be surprised to learn Hillary's true feelings towards the committed Democrats, just mildly amazed that it took so long for this to surface. My guess is that a disillusioned fundraiser had taped the event, and has now decided that it's time for Clinton to quit the stage.

On a related note, Karen, please will you ban rustydog? I think anyone who has read his/her comments will agree that they are abusive, homophobic and slanderous. This board would be far better off without such a vile presence.

goldencrumpet, people aren't saying KT was dishonest in today's post. The complaints are about her dead-tree article about bittergate, in particular the lede.

jay, it's often having skin in the game that matters.

If your job won't get outsourced, if you have great health care benefits, if you have no family in the military, your perspective is often different.

Or, if you don't have working class concerns, you don't feel the concerns of the working class and you think flag pin questions are more important than health care, Iraq, and the economy to a facttory worker with a nephew in Bosra, who has lost hours at work because of the slow down in the economy.

My health care premiums went up 32% this year. 32%! It's tragic in every sense of the word what Charlie and George did this week. People are hurting out there. I don't give a crap about McCain's BBQ skills, Obama's bowling skills, or Hillary's accumen with a shotgun.

Enough already.

I'm still very disappoined by the lede but I will endeavor to (ahem) Move On past it now....

I will note with irony that what inspired the formation of MoveOn was the press' obsession over personal issues and gotcha politics.

32%!

And your copays went up too.

This is something that I do not think has penetrated the Beltway experts who say that it is impossible to remove the insurance companies from the process. It's not just the people without insurance who are upset. It's everybody,l doctors and patients alike.

KT mentioned Charlie Rose a bit ago, and it reminded me of how I no longer enjoy his interviews with politicians. He is far too deferential in his style. It works better for journalists and authors, and those interviews I find much more fruitful.

As for the Moveon stuff, I can't imagine it will hurt Hillary with PA voters. Not sure any more supers will be happy she is dissing the activist base, but they can't be too surprised by these comments. I wan't.

She is well past making any arguments to voters. Her job is to convince undecided supers and that is it. And comments like these are not helping her case to them.

Continuing on jayackroyd's thought about doctor's being upset with the current situation, Ezra Klein had a post a month or so ago comparing US and Canadian health care "systems." In a list of revelations, this one stood out: doctors in Canada work an average of 35 hours per week, have low stress, and enjoy their jobs. Doctors in the US work an average of 70 hours per week, of which nearly half is spent arguing with insurance companies about care their patients need, and are stressed out. Also, the typical doctor in Canada has one office assistant who does all the administrative tasks, including billings to the state system - bills that are paid without question and on time. The typical doctor's office here has at least one staffer dedicated to understanding the minutia of billing requirements for over 100 different insurance companies. (Sorry, I can't find the link.)

Here's the story Ezra Klein linked to:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i

Paul-no, perhaps there are two KTs?

Nah. Remember, there's also KT's editor. And there's KT's deadlines. I would have liked a better lede too. But life can be an imperfect thing, but hopefully improving over time...

By the way, one thing I've noticed, frequently, Moveon is made to be a stand-in for the whole Internet. The Freedom's Watch people specifically mentioned themselves as a counterbalance to Moveon. And here Clinton is talking about Moveon as a "gusher for money."

Is Moveon the sole source of money and activism over the Internet? Hardly. I don't think every member of Daily Kos is a moveon member. Not every Act Blue contributor is a Moveon member. Was every hacktivist type who supported Howard Dean a Moveon activist? I don't think so.

Maybe I've got this wrong, but it seems like the Washington establishment uses Moveon as shorthand for left Internet activism, which is passable shorthand as far as that goes, but they're confused if they take the shorthand for what's actually happening.

Here's one example: take the recent science debate initiative that some science bloggers helped start:

ScienceDebate2008 might not have emerged if not for the collective efforts of individuals largely outside of science... The initial announcement came not from the major media (which initially paid little attention), but rather via the organization of a large coalition of science bloggers and other Webbased forums, such as the launch of a page on Facebook.com, coupled with a robust Web presence that tracks daily progress. At a time when scientists are greatly dissatisfied with increasingly fragmented media and their moribund treatment of science (9), "netroots" efforts provide a new means of outreach. Future initiatives to bring science into a closer relationship with society and the public may benefit from a similar approach.

This aint Moveon. Moveon may have been some of the first activists on the scene, but they hardly represent everyone who organizes or gives money over the net. If Washington really wants to understand the left leaning activist Internet, it should look at the government of George W. Bush. It should look at it's bankrupt culture of hacks, "think" tanks, and corporate McMedia. It should look at what it had before the internet, which was highly connected big donors, who politicians were desperately afraid of offending.

Whatever Clinton thinks about the activist base, it pales in comparison to the vile attacks launched daily at her and her supporters by MoveOn, Kos, and the netroots.

Remember, it was Clinton who had the spine to send Wolfson on O'Reilly to defend Kos. Remember, too, that it was who Clinton voted against censuring MoveOn, while Obama skipped out of the Senate just minutes before the vote was held.

Yet, despite these efforts, Clinton has received nothing but scorn from these thugs.

Further, Clinton supporters are quite familiar with the nastiness and small-mindedness of the netroot's thought-police.

We have been threatened, attacked, and banned across the internet from the beginning of this campaign. The bullying of Clinton supporting caucus-goers is well-documented. They believe that they alone can judge who is and isn't a "real Democrat", and woe to those who dare to advocate against or exercise their right to vote contrary to their draconian precepts.

I cannot speak for how Clinton really feels about the activist base. As for this life-long Democrat, they've done little to earn my respect, and much to earn my disdain.

It occurs to me, reading some of these comments, that I now understand better what the Jeremiah Wright thing was about. We agree Karen did a bad thing. It was one thing. Let's not take it out of the context of her whole work, or condemn her to answer for it from now on as if represents her only point of view.

Ann L. I don't think it will make a difference in PA either. Complaining about party activists is probably not going to win points with the superdelegates though, which is where these comments will come home to roost.

Floridian,

Thank you for your past service, and I hope that veterans get some love from politicians even on years where's not an election involved. Too sad that they need an incentive in order to help those who sacrifice for us (and them).

I hear that health insurance premiums go up one percent every time a politician doesn't wear a flag pin in public, bowls poorly, cackles during a TV interview, or gets a blowski.

It won't make any difference in PA indeed but as we know, she is not running for the voters anymore (as seen on Wed.). She is running with the superdelegates. And pissing off the base is hardly the way to make oneself look electable.
Let's turn this around and say that John McCain had express scorn for Christian Conservatives at a private fundraiser.
It may be true and it may be a given he is not fond of them (like Hillary with MoveOn) but there is no way he (she) can win without them. And insulting them is hardly the way to go, even if swing voters aren't particularly fond of them either
Besides, wasn't she supposed to be the one that rallies the BASE of the Democratic party ?

Hey Karen,

It's off-topic, but I have a question about the practice of political journalism. I'm reading the NY Times this morning and in an article about McCain and Iraq, I see the following quote from McCain:

“Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It’s called ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq.’ My friends, if we left, they wouldn’t be establishing a base. They’d be taking a country, and I’m not going to allow that to happen.”

But later in the article, the authors make this claim:

"Few, including Mr. McCain, expect Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a Sunni group, to take control of Shiite-dominated Iraq in the event of an American withdrawal."

So McCain has explicitly made the claim that if we withdraw, Al Qaeda will take over Iraq, a claim that's as crazy and out of touch with reality as it is baseless. But the authors claim, providing zero evidence, that McCain doesn't really believe that claim.

Are they saying that McCain is lying? Or are they covering up and excusing his own craziness? Which do you think is worse?

Karen:

Thank you so much for responding to commentary!

KathyR: "We agree Karen did a bad thing. It was one thing. Let's not take it out of the context of her whole work, or condemn her to answer for it from now on as if represents her only point of view."

I agree, and also think highly of Karen. but I also want her to not do it again. The headline and the lede are singularly important in delivering the take-away message from any news article (the majority of her article was ok). These things resonate. For magazines like Time and Newsweek, they resonate more than newspapers because of their considerable ripple effect downstream of the subscriber - doctor's office, etc.

You may remember the Post article (Page A-1) some months ago that was, ostensibly, intended to debunk the Obama is a Muslim email campaign. But the title was he sad-she said ("Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him"). The opening three paragraphs 0- and really the entire article, never said the rumors were false, just that he denied them. Fortunately, the Post was widely slammed by the netroots for this story, including internally, and the story's failings became the story. There is a pressing need to press back on this stuff.

And rephrasing JoeCHI, as for this life-long Democrat, Hillary and Bill Clinton have done much to earn my profound respect and consistent support over the years, and much to earn my disdain in recent months. Their actions are among the many the reasons I've shifted my support to Obama.

What rubbish the first commenter says. Moveon.org has NEVER supported Men and Boys, or defended the terrorist actions of the Weathermen. Time's moderators should remove the comment, simply because it has no basis in fact.

And for Hillary supporters to criticize moveon.org for the "General Petraeus or General Betrayus?" ad is pretty hypocritical, especially when she accused the general herself of the "willing suspension of disbelief" in his findings... which is essentially legalese for calling someone a liar.

The simple fact is that she didn't just attack MoveOn.org, but specifically attacked all "Democratic activists"... a group which, incidentally, includes the bulk of the undeclared superdelegates.

I hope that Edwards and Kucinich -- and their supporters -- will take this opportunity to back Obama's candidacy, because when Hillary Clinton attacked the Democratic Party's activists, they attacked darn well every one of them.

I find it amusing that the only requirment for being an 'extremist' is be called one.

It appears that MoveOn membership and Time Magazine readership are in the same order of magnitude.

Shall we start referring to Time readers as the "looney center"?

Wvng - agree with you thoroughly about the importance of Karen's mistake - and she's made it clear that she doesn't think it was a "mistake," (oops - maybe it's Hillary we need to compare her to). My "let's not" comment is future directed. I certainly don't think it's been beaten to death, and of course some folks haven't weighed in at all yet. But sometimes these things take on a life of their own here, and I tend to think we're more likely to influence her to avoid doing such a thing again if we can disagree vigorously and then let it go.

wvng,I think Karen may have misread the issue of Obama's bitter comments, and I suppose can be criticized for doing so. I don't think she is being dishonest in the article, but offering a position that she believes to be correct. Personally, I suspect that the flap over bitterness may have actually helped Obama against Clinton, aided by Clinton's pollyanna approach to the good, happy voters of Pennsylvania. I think his counterpunch to Clinton's attacks was excellent, and has probably resulted in more favorable attention from those who are genuinely hurting economically. In this, I disagree with Karen, but it is an interpretative disagreement - not a question of honesty.

I would say, as Karen does, that Obama has had trouble winning the old-guard Democrats away from the Clinton brand, which is not surprising, given how well established it was, and the machine that was in place. What the article misses, I suggest, is a question about whether that will still be the case against McCain who lacks those advantages, and whether Obama's numerous union endorsements, plus a bad economy and the weariness of Iraq will not translate into a winning constellation.

Overall, and as a general note, not directed at anyone specific, before saying Karen is "dishonest", I'd suggest that commentators post some pretty detailed factual, not interpretative, refutation. If not, then using words like "dishonest" around is uncharitable and unhelpful. There's quite a difference between differing interpretations, and eg. channeling Hoekstra while pretending to analyze FISA. I would condemn that latter case absolutely, but I don't see anything like that in Karen's piece. If we want better media analysis, we can help the process along by being analytical and offering a more rounded perspective. I doubt that throwing unjustified accusations of dishonesty around will achieve anything.

JJ

The characterization of the grassroots movement going on in the party, and the country, as loony lefties and associating that with MoveOn is first, a republican talking point. O'Reilly is a progenitor of this attempt to marginalize the participants in this grass roots uprising. The reason you see dittoheads like RustyDog spouting that attempted association, to try to use the 'liberal as a smear' tactic to marginalize the movement in the eyes of independent voters. They do that to the organizations and movements they fear. Clinton adopting that line is disappointing, but, in the second place, unsurprising.

Realize that this movement is deeply threatening to the Beltway's business as usual. If Donna Edwards can outraise Al Wynn, then the K-Street party is over. MoveOn has "gushers" of money because it has extremely widespread support for its agenda of citizen lobbying and of forcing politicians to be more responsive to their constituents than to their donors.

Obama has been able to outraise Clinton and the Republicans through a sort of open source public funding program, small sums from large unidentified supporters, rather than bundlers, PACs and lobbyists.

I've been working on this stuff for a while, but with almost no impact. My US Rep's office knows who I am. I've met with Clinton and Schumer staff. I helped stage a publicity stunt (http://ctgproject.blogspot.com/). I helped organize one of MoveOn's Town Hall flagship events in NYC, and was at the venue Eli hosted for the Iraq Town Hall.

But this is all inconsequential without large numbers of people joining in. And that's not possible without candidates like Donna Edwards, Darcy Burner, the Responsible Challengers and, yes, Barack Obama who are compelling and willing to challenge the way things work now. Because without good candidates, there's no fulcrum.

The horrifying things happening, wrt the Constitution, the rule of law, imperialism and even torture, are going on because citizens are not being represented. There has been a fundamental breakdown in the representativeness of our government that Bush has ruthlessly exploited to loot the Treasury for his cronies.

They're also going on because of the media distracting [great frame by Obama there] us with trivia. We should have been spending this week reading and watching about Condaleeza Rice's job being at risk, now that we know she chaired meetings that approved violation of international laws that are especially sacrosanct. Instead we, and I include the blogosphere that is not supposed to fall into this trap, have spent it on a few trivial campaign trail items that Sean Hannity wants to make central to this year's election.

Because he certainly doesn't want it to be about Iraq, foreclosures, jobs, health care and the environment.

So Obama is messing with Daou's triangle. Bush went around the national media in a number of ways--all essentially involving cutting off access or threatening to do so*. Obama is going around the national media with open source campaign organization and direct, very cheap, electronic communication. The goal here is (and I'm sure there are plenty of staffers fighting against this--like the guy who was afraid of him getting caught putting Grey Poupon on his cheesburger) undermine the media's narrative, to remove that leg of the Daou's triangle from having its effect.

You have 35,000 person rallies happening without a peep in the national press, organized without any big visible ad campaign, not even any special celebrity involvement.

This is a big deal, and is very threatening to everybody from Tweety to Mark Penn. And would not be possible without this alternative medium that let us all find out that we weren't alone when we were throwing things at the television.

Sorry. Didn't mean to go on like that.

goldencrumpet, I used dishonest to describe KT's Time article not her.
Hate the sin love the sinner kind of thing.
I agree with you that a charge like that should be supported, I would encourage you to read the 100+ comments relating to her piece for specifics rather than rehash them here.

I don't think she is being dishonest in the article, but offering a position that she believes to be correct

Not to beat a dead horse.....but!

One of Joe Klein's worst blunders here was when he accepted one source's version of events and then when called on its inaccuracy basically stated that he "had neither the time nor inclination" to get at the truth.

KT is continuing to defend the tone of her article while conceding "a poor choice of words". I suspect (though again I'm speculating) that she too allowed third-party interpetations of what was said color her judgement. I detailed on the other thread why both 'dismissed' and 'gun-nuts' were inapproriate ways to describe what was said.

What I find more frustrating is the knowlege that the one grossly inaccurate sentence will be the main thrust most people get from the article. Yet all the hand wringing over it will only reach a tiny fraction of those thus affected.

Florida--

That NYT article on McCain lying about the role of al qaeda and his frequent mistakes about its presence in Iran, co-written by BBQ attending Michael Cooper, was, for the Times, a hard-hitting indictment of McCain's behavior. It is simply a violation of their style to say, baldly, that McCain has been lying about this. But with all sources other than military propagandists, AEI and Kenneth Pollack (who concedes the lie, but excuses it as campaign simplification) saying that it's a lie, the paper is saying as strongly as it can that McCain is lying.

This is a problem with their style that Republicans have been exploiting for this entire administration. They "balance" stories with this tone, trusting readers to take away what they mean to be saying. Unfortunately, they sometimes forget about this balance, as with Judy Miller's reporting, and with Howell Raines' Whitewater obsession. Oddly enough, these lapses of memory always seem to break the same way, poltically.

Of course it was a mistake to openly criticize the "activist base," in general and MoveOn in particular - although it's interesting that with the groups Clinton alienates the risk is that they'll stay at home in November, but with the groups Obama alienates the risk is that they'll vote for McCain - but she was just speaking the truth. And this is really the perfect timing for the release of her comments. MoveOn has just started a petition to protest the last debate, but they did absolutely nothing when Clinton was the target of absurd bias in the earlier debates. MoveOn is no longer a pro-Democratic progressive organization; it's pro-Obama at all costs. And that's after he skipped the censure vote, and she voted against it.

My only real criticism of her comments is that she should have said "the so-called activist base."

Since this thread has already been hijacked, I'd like to jump in here in defense of KT, sort-of.

I don't think the lede was dishonest - or rather, I just don't think KT has a dishonest bone in her body. Her writing has always refelected quite a bit of integrity.

But that doesn't get her off the hook for such a horribly inaccurate lede - particularly when the inaccuracy feeds right into an ongoing disinformation campaign. There is ample background in Obama's interview with Charlie Rose, the video of his response in Indiana, the two books he has written, etc, to understand precisely what he was getting at.

While I am certainly a strong supporter of Obama, I don't think he's perfect, or above criticism. Far from it. I disagree intensely with his views on trade, and I am uncomfortable with how public he is with matters of faith.

But it really, really drives me crazy when we can't criticize his candidacy based on facts, rather than mischaracterizations of those facts, whether through sloth, ignorance or malice.

goldencrumpet. I don't think KT was being dishonest, and would never use that term for her lacking specific evidence to the contrary.

However, based on the objective evidence from the full (and even narrow) context of Obama's statements at the SF fundraiser, and other instances where he has discussed the issue at length, her lede was wrong on the facts readily available in the public record.

It is a good thing, a liberating thing, to have these discussions. My take on the progressive side of the blogosphere is that it wants nothing more than for journalists to be better at their jobs. To get facts straight. To avoid "balance" where no credible competing facts exist. To provide balance when competing credible analysis does exist (such as Knight-Ridder/McClatchy did in the run up to the war). And to admit it when they get something wrong and take corrective action.

I'm a scientist, and believe strongly in the contribution peer review provides in producing defensible work. Journalism has no working peer review system (editors are not the same thing), it has a defensive crouch when someone notes a serious mistake. Just witness the last few days: for every media slam of the Gibson/Lil Stephie debate the other night, there have been numerous defenses of the indefensible.

Karen's engagement on these threads is a very good thing, because as soon as she gets past the reflexive RustyDs, she gets that peer review of her work. The fact that she was aware of how Swampers would respond to her bittergate story is the first step in the process of fixing the problem. Next time she just might ask herself how the swampers will respond, then take the next step and ask herself if they are right.

Nuff lecture. It's a pretty day and I've got bees to tend.

Like mother, like Conan O'Brien hybrid...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-chelsea18apr18,0,7934751.story

No matter.

When old, battle tested Billary relents and realizes she/he/they/it have been trounced ala Gore in an election she/he/they/it easily should have won, they'll bite the tainted forever legacy bullet and hop back on board the Move 2 France bus when McCain gets inaugurated in January 2009.

Not that Reverend Wrong and all the other anti-American MLK idles haven't made that somewhat simpler, when doing the difficult triangulation of NATO against the Pentagon, or the Guard & Reserves vs the regulars, or Canada against Mexico.

= MONDALE ACCOMPLISHED =

"MoveOn.Org is simply the most extreme of the extreme, Far Left Liberals. It is an organization whose main agenda is to destroy the country as we know it today. The sole agenda for MoveOn.Org is to bring about a socialistic government repleat with the old Russian ideals of communistic values..."

Well obviously.

But when has ingrate freedom ever stopped an agent of evil from temporarily donning the flag of America, in the name of "peace and justice" or some other such lib-speak for involuntary redistribution of wealth and results?

Jesse Jackson and Ted Turner would have been out of work years ago, lacking the availability of media play feigning as patriotism.

Oh well.

OBAMA HAPPENS.

as soon as she gets past the reflexive RustyDs

Actaully even RustyD provides a valuable feedback mechanism because he represents what people will be led to believe if deprived of accurate vetted information.

MoveOn.Org is simply the most extreme of the extreme, Far Left Liberals. It is an organization whose main agenda is to destroy the country as we know it today.

This is of course nothing but paranoid fantasy, but absent any contact with the wider world where one may actually encounter and talk to liberals, this is what a steady diet of RW radio peppered with MSM he-said/she-said will result in.

Rose,

I think that's a fair characterization, but you need to keep in account the very high bar they set for endorsement.

Also, we will not be able to come together if the other candidate's endorsers are trashed using republican talking points.

Also, "she was just speaking the truth" is not quite right. Saying things like this is not merely an observation. It's a threat.

KT is plainly acting dishonestly, attempting to deflect the substance of the overwhelming criticism of her hit piece on the "dislike" of one sentence. This is not a matter of taste; it is a matter of ethics. A highly experienced writer like KT cannot reasonably claim not to understand the meaning of her deliberatly malicious paraphrase of Obama's comments. This was a cold, calculated hit.

We will never get a straight answer out of KT about why she wrote this sentence, because she will never be honest in this matter. It is not her job to be honest; it is her job to be effective.

KT acts toward us the way Bush acts toward the press in his news conferences. We are supposed to josh and be friendly no matter what is said or no matter what happens. Polite laughter and bonhomie are mandatory. But the facts are plain: Karen Tumulty wrote a hit piece on Obama and will not admit it. That is no laughing matter.

Not to change the topic but I see that John McCain's tendency to call anybody and everybody Al Qaeda® is finally drawing some well deserved attention....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/us/politics/19threat.html?_r=1&ei=5090&en=31622d97f8ca33e3&ex=1366257600&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1208610892-5kgXTxhfWsuMijfOUhGptA

Who do you think will pick it up here?

Joe? I have nether the Time or inclination.
Karen? It's only two words out of thousands...
AMC? It never occurred to me that it might be intentional!
Micheal? But I said something like that 3 weeks ago!
JNS? But it's not what people want to hear...

Actually to be fair, Joe could pick it up. He has after all, acknowleged Sen. McCains annoying tendency to oversimplify a complex situation..

Regarding McCain's disconnects from reality, the public has moved over to his side, preferring his free-floating military courage stories to scenes of ruin from Iraq. McCain is America's death wish, and there does not appear to be anything that will keep us from being sucked into his cataclysmic whirlpool of madness. Why would we expect Time Magazine to do anything but sell advertising and repeat plutocratic lies as we head into the maelstrom. That is their job.

Well Paul Dirks, Joe did write this-
"And those who spent the past seven years as propagandists for the one of the worst, and needlessly blood-soaked, presidencies in American history, have such a fabulous record of self-righteous wrong-headedness that they needn't be taken seriously at all.
Joe Klein 4-6-08"

I think that should apply to more than The Cornerites

Since we are indeed beating the dead horse:

The lede sentence of the Obama piece was dishonest, untrue, whatever, because: (1) it mischaracterized what Obama said; (2) asserted (in an extremely tricky and unverified and unverifiable way) that any attempt by Obama to explain hismelf would simply make matters worse. The dishonesty of the lede was established by the fact that this "thesis" sentence was contradicted by the content that followed it. The analysis was not consistent, making it a real head-scratcher.

The honest lede for the Obama piece would have read: "Despite the flap over controversial comments Barack Obama made about a "bitter" electorate during a private meeting with his supporters, Pennsylvanians -- and the rest of the country -- oddly -- generally don't seem to be put off by them; in fact, Obama may be seeing a surprising bump in popularity coinciding with the media's close attention to the flak."

There, KT: A true sentence, that is just as interesting an angle, and you wouldn't have to change much in the rest of the piece. But, my, what a different entree for the reader who only has a few seconds to scan. . . .

The whole KT issue could have been eliminated simply.
Print the quote in the article.

Rose - I rather think Hillary may have been speaking the truth about move on. But then, Barack was speaking the truth in his "bitter" comment, and that didn't keep Hillary from turning the comment into something else, now did it. I appreciate, BTW, the civility of your discourse, which must sometimes be difficult with the preponderance of Obama supporters here. I'm glad you're here contributing.

Paul Dirks--

That Cooper piece in the Times may be the beginning of the end of the McCain Rules. The public editor does read his mail, and I know he's been getting some.

I've never believed that he could sustain this image given the depth of the public record. They could pull it off with Bush and Reagan because they had no records on foreign affairs.

He's also terrible in public settings. He may be great on the Bus, but he's gonna have to spend way too much time outside it.

And, of course, there's

McCain. Iraq. 100 years.

Which you repeat to all your maverick touting friends and relations.

Jarackroyd - no time for that, because we now have to cover "fingergate."
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15267.html

The whole KT issue could have been eliminated simply. Print the quote in the article.

Another little oversight. Another little slip up. Another unintentional lapse. Yeah, right. Read KT's academic and employment credentials and tell me she doesn't know what she is doing. This is not the local middle school student newspaper. Time knew effing well they wanted to run a hit piece on Obama, and they turned to their steady Texan to do the dirty deed.

Watching the cognitive dissonance here is mildly amusing. Dad can't be an alcoholic! Bush Can't be a torturer! KT can't have told us a lie! She is better than that. She is a straight shooter. She could never write a deliberate hit piece! Look at the facts. Read her story again. Get used to what the world really is, and stop pretending that people are what they say they are.

Gallup today has Hillary up 1%, the first time she's led in a month. It was clearly a mistake for Barack to agree to that debate. He had nothing to gain from it, and even the possibility of this happening was a large risk.

Pretty soon nobody is going to be watching at all.

Did you see the WaPo article where the rubes and the hicks all said that they don't understand what all the fuss is about.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041803024.html

It's just like the waitress in Clinton's TipGate, or the story about the dijon mustard from Michael's post. They just look kinda dumbfounded that these people can be such tools, and move on.

"It's petty squabbling," said George Watkins, 57, a postal worker.

"The whole thing is ridiculous. It's quite comical, actually," said Bruce Arnoldt, 45, co-owner of one of the few large employers in town, a company that makes components for heating and cooling equipment. Arnoldt, a Republican, said he would consider voting for Obama in November, but not Clinton.

At the Chamber of Commerce, it has become a source of banter. "I say, 'I can't do this or that today, because I'm bitter,' " said the chamber's director, Debra Keefer. "I feel bad -- they have to speak a million words a day, and then they say something and they have it blown out of proportion."

Note in this last quote that the people being derided for being elitist and out of touch are the media.

My favorite graf is this one:

Residents took issue with that, noting that it was hardly irrational for them to put less stock in economic planks, given that such promises produce so little.

Which is exactly what Obama was saying. While it has to be irksome to the campaign that the media has managed to reverse the message, that doesn't mean he can't undo it with direct communication.

wvng, I have to say, that I can't see any real difference between calling someone dishonest, and calling their work dishonest. I mean, if I say you are telling lies, most people would agree I was calling you a liar, no?

Peer review is a fine and good thing, although it's hardly the model that applies here. What we offer is audience feedback, not a response by professionals of equal standing in the same field.

I also would say that I thought the article was mistaken in its interpretation, but that it was "factually" mistaken in a way that was dishonest or deliberate simply does not seem to be the case. I doubt that one wins many friends by using language like dishonesty. I would also point out that Karen does respond to her readers, which is something I appreciate.

I doubt that one wins many friends by using language like dishonesty. I would also point out that Karen does respond to her readers, which is something I appreciate.

I am not here to win friends. I am here to speak the truth. Can KT say that? Her thundering silence in this matter should tell you what is going on. Read the sentence in question again. In it, KT flatly asserts that Obama has a low opinion of small-town voters:

It's hard to know which was worse about Barack Obama's dismissal of small-town voters as narrow-minded, churchgoing gun nuts: the original arrogance of his remarks or his repeated attempts to explain them.

Obama does not "dismiss" small-town voters, and KT knew this when she wrote the article, because of Obama's many efforts to reach out to all segments of the working poor electorate. Yet even after receiving a torrent of criticism here, KT expresses no regret whatever for this article, and she stands by her words. That is dishonest conduct.

jayackroyd, that's a fair point. I still think that MoveOn has essentially become only pro-Democratic insofar as that helps Obama - and I'm not saying that it's always been that way; it did a lot of good work in 04. In fact, the whole issue is quite bizarre because Clinton did definitely use some of the false Republican talking points about MoveOn, but those talking points are also based on the idea that MoveOn represents the Democratic party. And MoveOn's completely different responses to the anti-Obama debate and the anti-Clinton debates is just one example of how they are really no longer a Democratic organization.

The truth is that the Republicans have unfairly criticized MoveOn - and Clinton took a stand against those attacks when she voted against the censure motion - because it's anti-Republican, but at the same time MoveOn isn't actually a Democratic organization either. As a Clinton supporter, this whole thing is bordering on a the enemy of my enemy is my friend thing.

And I really don't see how that was a threat. Like Obama's bitter/cling comment it was intended to provide an explanation for her losses. I'd like to know your thinking on why it's a threat.

As an aside, it's sad to see grass-roots groups get co-opted by a candidate, whether they are progressive organizations like MoveOn, or the Evangelical Christians whose concern for the environment and eradicating poverty has been completely ignored by the Republicans who exploit them. I think Emily's List has crossed the line in this cycle also, although it was probably never as much of a grass-roots organization.

KathyR, thanks. Obama definitely benefits in some ways from his supporters dominating the internet, but in other ways I think it really hurts him because unfortunately many of his supporters misrepresent his campaign. Of course there are just as many Clinton supporters who do the same thing, but there are way fewer of us on the internet! And I can understand what you're saying about his remarks being mischaracterized. I think that his original comments were insensitive, but everyone is going to express themselves poorly sometimes (I know I do...). Yet his campaign was happy to exploit Clinton's Bosnia gaffe. Honestly all politicians do this, and I won't complain when the Obama campaign raises money off the MoveOn comments.

"Gallup today has Hillary up 1%, the first time she's led in a month. It was clearly a mistake for Barack to agree to that debate. He had nothing to gain from it, and even the possibility of this happening was a large risk." - No one will expect me to say this, but I actually think doing the debate will help him in the general. If he loses the nomination - which is almost unimaginable at this point - it would mean that he has major electability problems that wouldn't be effected by one debate. And assuming he does win the nomination, it's much better he first face the full onslaught of media bias now rather than in a debate with John McCain. This debate can make him a better general election candidate if he learns the right lessons.

HH, what you present as absolute truth was far from clear in the comments. They did come across poorly, and many Obama supporters have accepted that. I think Karen might have framed things better, as indeed Obama might himself, but I don't see your charge of dishonesty having much merit. I'd also suggest you lose the sanctimonious utterances about your mission to speak truth. You are offering an opinion, no more, no less.

Rose - I think Barack has become a better candidate as the season has gone on. But I just don't get the bit about Democrats using the attacks Republicans will use in the general. How nice of us to do their work for them. It somehow fosters the idea that of course the Republicans get to set the agenda for how campaigns are run; it legitimizes their tactics. It will be galling to hear the Republicans say "but his Democratic opponent said the same thing!", and pretty hard to refute.

shut the hell up goldencrumpet! you are not worthy to read, let alone comment on what the most excellent and prosiac comrade HH has to say. how dare you? how dare you? you must be an idiot hillary supporter to post something like that against one of the most, if not the most, brillant minds in all of swampland, our beloved comrade HH. you are a troll and trolls are not welcome here.

Oh, and Rose: It was largely the media that drove the Bosnia story, though Obama's people didn't mind, and nudged it now and then. But it was largely Hillary who initiated and drove the "bitter" story, though the media helped it along(witness KT's piece). When Hillary knows, as you point out, that it's "almost unimaginable" that Barack won't be the nominee, but she says he's an elitist and will have the same problem as John Kerry, then she's intentionally scorching the party's eventual nominee for the sake of a miniscule chance that she'll be the nominee - unless of course she's planning on his losing, as some have suggested. I actually think she'd be doing better and have more of a chance if she had stayed upbeat and positive. She always manages to have a smile on her face ( how does she do that) but her words don't match the smile. Oh well. I'm about to take an outdoor break. Yesterday was the first day it hit 70 in Vermont this year, and I need to be in the soil. Will check in later.

StewieZ, if you were trying to be funny, you failed miserably. If you were attempting an argument, you need help. Either way, stop pestering the adults in the room.

the only thing funny goldenstrumpet is your lack of respect for the elder statesmen of this room and thus you need to be called out for your abject moronocity.

Goldencrumpet. Most of us ignore the troll, who goes by multiple names. Troll is clearly bright, but sadly does need help.

Without piling on too much, my problem with the lede (which I stayed quiet on because so many others had chimed in) with all due respect was the defensiveness you sometimes exhibit Karen.

Now I know it's natural, and we all do it, but having seen in the past few days many of the columnists I respect, read and admire the most grow increasingly defensive ever since the Gibson/Stepho debacle brought well-deserved criticism down on the media has disturbed me.

Every journalist out there seems to agree that a large percentage of the mainstream media is doing a terrible job. But when you point out to them this might include whatever medium they are a part of, be it the blogosphere, print news, cable news or even nightly news they all grow instantly defensive. (Andrew Sullivan is part of this growing defensive trend, as is Gibson, Williams, Richard Wolffe and the entire NYT staff. The only media outlet that seems interested in self-examination lately is the Washington Post.)

Look if public approval of the media is this low, and you all pretty much admit you were duped into any number of bad stories, please understand that bad journalism IS being practiced somewhere. And some of the people we are going to criticize are going to HAVE to be your collegues. All of you aren't doing a good job. You're just not. And instead of always growing defensive you should all try to at least understand what your mistakes are and do a better job.

The posters here at Swampland on the whole have always been very honest and practiced the best journalism they can given the circumstances. I understand it's tough being behind a campaign bus, or on the bus, or in a high school gymnasium or crowded in a men's room trying to do your job. We respect that. And we respect and appreciate your always answering our concerns promptly. God know ninety-nine percent of us couldn't do it. But it still doesn't mean there aren't areas where all of you can improve.

The best example of actually examining their own faults lately, strangely enough, is Joe Klein. He did a column not too long ago examining honestly and frankly the mistakes he made in his own coverage leading up to the Iraq War. Frankly whenever this Democratic Primary ends the entire press needs to do the same thing with respect to the election. So hopefully next time we can get better and less sensationalized coverage. I wish we would see more of this.

Yes, we try to ignore him but he/she/it just keeps on coming back. I hope that you goldenstrumpet are not a troll like he/she/it is because we here at Swampland defeat all forces of trolldom and especially republican trolls like QH and Obamish on a daily basis. Do not make us dissect you with the same razor sharp insight and political knowledges we commenters on swampland have.

StewieZ is a no-brained twit like his big brother HH.

From an editorial in today's WSJ:

The facts about capital gains rates and revenues are well known to our readers, but we'll repeat them as a public service to the Obama campaign. As the nearby chart shows, when the tax rate has risen over the past half century, capital gains realizations have fallen and along with them tax revenue. The most recent such episode was in the early 1990s, when Mr. Obama was old enough to be paying attention. That's one reason Jack Kennedy proposed cutting the capital gains rate. And it's one reason Bill Clinton went along with a rate cut to 20% from 28% in 1997.

It is in fact possible to give the accompanying chart such a reading (I'd show it here but, as a blogger working for a major media corporation, I'm a little worried about the copyright thing). But it's only possible if you believe that financial market fluctuations (and with them capital gains realizations) are driven entirely by changes in the tax code. Which just can't be true. There's been a huge rise in asset prices over the past quarter century, and there are just all sorts of reasons for it apart from the decline in the capital gains tax rate. We're currently in the midst of major drop in asset prices, and you certainly can't pin that on any change in the capital gains tax rate.

So I'm starting to think that Clinton or Obama, if either is elected president, ought to keep the danged capital gains tax rate where it is, at least for two or three years. Because capital gains realizations are going to be way down, no matter what, and capital gains tax receipts with them. Why let the WSJ editorialistas blame that on the higher rate?
Posted by Justin Fox

Here is some fodder for the SNObamabots, any more great ideas from your great "Messiah" to screw up???

Which just can't be true. There's been a huge rise in asset prices over the past quarter century, and there are just all sorts of reasons for it apart from the decline in the capital gains tax rate.

Can you say real estate bubble?

I knew you could.

While we're discussing journalism and honesty, there are few things more capable of illustrating the larger point of corporations having difficulty serving the public interest than a WSJ editorial.

I rather recall quite some fondness for the Iraq invasion in their circle.....

Yet his campaign was happy to exploit Clinton's Bosnia gaffe.

The problem with characterizing her remarks on Tusla as a "gaffe", is that it's my understanding that they were prepared remarks, which she delivered on more than one occasion. Thus: not a "slip of the tongue", but a deliberate falsehood.

KathyR:But it was largely Hillary who initiated and drove the "bitter" story, though the media helped it along(witness KT's piece).

The bitter story existed because an Obama supporter (!) recorded his remarks at the fundraiser and pubished them on a website for citizen journalists. (Forget the name at the moment.) It was then picked up by the Huffington Post and off it went. Hillary did not initiate and drive. After it took over the headlines, she commented, but it didn't originate with her.

But I just don't get the bit about Democrats using the attacks Republicans will use in the general.

They are actually being used now and if they are answered enough will be old news by the time the general comes along. That's how it will help. People will have heard the questions and answers over and over and they lose their shock value.

As I have said, I wish Obama had responded better to these questions, he seemed very ill at ease and has given far better answers at other times. Perhaps now he will get a pat response to give for the next fifty times he is asked.

rusty brain is a neocon loser who loves mcsame and million years war in iraq.

you will lose to our Obama!

comrade HH has said so and thus it will come to pass!

I hope you make a lot of money rustybrain (though I doubt it) so we can take more of it from you to further our social agendas!

ha ha ha-ha ha!

love, stewieZ

Perhaps now he will get a pat response to give for the next fifty times he is asked.

Recall Ronald Reagan's "There you go again...."

Ironically I think the ABC debate has done more to raise awareness of just how 'out of touch' the media have become.

File under things I learn while looking up other things.

Hillary's problem with "activists was picked up at the time:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/11/clinton-dismisses-weekend-losses/

My reaction at the time:

http://phd9.blogspot.com/2008/02/if-this-quote-is-accurate.html

And here I was just trying to remember which primary race the press had gotten totally wrong because the voters came out to specifically to stick it to them....