Let's faceit, Obama's biggest problem is he has a problem connecting to stupid people and poor people. Sorry but "uneducated voter" is just a nice way of saying moron who cant think critically and has to work at a steelmill because he's too stupid to get a real job and blames all his problems on affirmative action and immigrants.
That's Josh N. posting his offensive, but telling comments, in a Los Angeles Times thread that should have been moderated for language but apparently the same paper that went wack-job online not all that long ago still has no controls. That would explain the swearing, the b-words and so much more. There is no decency at the LA Times online. It's just a sewer and that's not pleasing out of state ownership.
Anonymous White Man supports Bambi with this 'unifying' statement:
Yes, white Americans are supporting Hillary but if you dig deeper into this statistic you find that it is low educated whites that support Hillary while Obama is getting the support of younger and more educated whites - like myself and all my friends - many of whom voted republican in the last election. My take is that many of the lower educated whites have some racial biases or are unable to see through the BS of Hillary - or perhaps a little of both.
The 'delightful' zadamaja shares:
Obama cant get midwestern white votes he will never get them they are racist pr**k down there.
I edited "pr**k" because, unlike the Los Angeles Times, we do have standards here.
The 'sophisticate" jrldev expresses:
Now Hillary brings back memories of Adolf Hitler.
Martin tries stand up and fails with:
It's unfair to say that Hillary is trying somehow to cast herself as the White candidate when it's clear that her strategy has been to focus on the Uneducated Moron vote and she is glad to find any Uneducated Moron who will vote for her. So give her credit where it's due, she's not seeking only white votes she's seeking to find people dumb enough not to see through her continual lying.
Silly Sylvia refuses to partake of the B-word, she goes for something different:
She has become the C word, and I don't mean Clinton.
Of course the post they're commenting on was written by Hillary Hater (and non-journalist, please, he's been the laugh of the paper for years) Donny Frederick. Little Donny. Little, tiny, small Donny.
Let's do some truth telling. Not about the soap opera that is the Los Angeles Times -- please, we can't work blue, we have a work safe policy.
Let's tell the uncomfortable truths. First of all, the above comments from the thread are brought to you by Panhandle Media. Bob Somerby's wasted this election cycle.
He's wasted eight years recounting Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore and rarely seemed to grasp what fueled the Gore hatred. It was Panhandle Media, Bob. That's where it feeds, that's where it breeds. It's where Hillary hatred bubbled.
He's so keen to go after Maureen Dowd and he can't even do that right. He's finally stopped using the hula hoop "framing" and gone with the journalistic term "narrative." Does Maureen Dowd drop facts to shape a narrative?
He dealt with a column of her's recently and she was dropping facts left and right to fit her narrative. She made a glaring mistake (especially for the one-time Premiere writer) and it sailed right over Bobby.
Maureen wanted to play 'cute' and her narrative was "screwball." Hillary was in Philadelphia speaking. Maureen wanted to include that. So she grafted on The Philadelphia Story and LIED and said it was a "screwball comedy." It is not a screwball comedy but Bobby didn't catch that, did he?
Maureen Dowd damn well knows The Philadelphia Story isn't a screwball comedy. Hepburn and Grant did make a screwball comedy: Bringing Up Baby. They made one that some try to include but it's not (Holiday).
There it was, the howler, the proof that she was shaping her narratives (again, Dowd does know that the film is not a screwball comedy, it may have sailed over her editor's head but she knew she was 'fudging'). And Somerby couldn't even find it despite devoting considerable attention to her column. Dowd knows films. You may or may not think she knows anything else, but she does know movies.
The Philadelphia Story not only is too late for the screwball film genre, it was also a successful Broadway play (with Hepburn in the lead) and, no, it wasn't considered screwball on stage either. It wasn't "a satirical comedy" (that season, 1938-1939, it would have been Clare Booth Luce's Kiss the Boys Good-bye). It wasn't an English school comedy (that would be Bachelor Born). It wasn't the unintentional joke (that would be the right-wing One for the Money). It was just a comedy. No "romance" or "screwball" prior to "comedy." ("Delightful" sometimes preceeded "comedy.")
But Dowd had built her column around the narrative that the Democratic presidential primary was a screwball affair and Hillary was speaking in Philadelphia so she attempted to graft The Philadelpia Story onto her column. It stuck out. It was glaring. And Somerby missed the best proof that Dowd chose her narrative and then assembled her 'facts.'
He writes from his strengths (and plays and movies aren't among them) as most writers do; however, he's unable to see too far beyond his own world. Dowd knows the film is not a screwball comedy. She knew it when she wrote the column, she knows it now. She had a column to turn out and she had a narrative she thought was priceless, so facts be damned.
Now the hatred on the thread at the Los Angeles Times didn't just appear. It was fueled and fed by months and months of Panhandle Media. If you wanted to pick just one person fueling it in various outlets, go with Lie Face Melissa Harris-Lacewell. She's done it all. She's threatened a brown-out (as far back as March on PBS). She's attacked Tavis Smiley online and then referenced the attacks on Smiley a month later on PBS without including, "Oh, I attacked him to. In fact, I got the ball rolling with 'Who Died and Made Tavis King?'" Her friend Amy Goodman first brought her on as an 'objective' professor -- months after she had began actively campaigning for (not just supporting) Barack Obama. So naturally, she and Goody thought it was 'fun' to pull one over on the audience and not disclose that fact -- even after the no-endorsement-of-a-candidate Melissa mentioned (at length) being 'wowed' by a speech of Barack's she happened to catch. Then there was LIAR Betsy Reed using her as a 'respected' source last week. Who played the race card? Mellissa said Bill Clinton. But of course, Melissa had already repeatedly played the race card long before -- most infamously in the set-up she and Goody staged on Gloria Steinem.
Bob Somerby deals with things in the mainstream and never tells you where they bubbled up or how they got started. The Nation can take credit for every hateful statement on the LA Times thread. It's no different than what Robert Scheer was saying on The Nation Cruise. It's no different than the race card Scheer and Robert Parry have repeatedly played.
USA Today printed an interview and the days when journalists were able to capture speech are long gone. These days, they're 'trained' and dialogue isn't one of the things they are trained in. Anyone familiar with a film script or the text of a play will grasp what Hillary said.
". . . Senator Obama's support among working" pause "hard-working Americans" grasp that someone in the Obama campaign is going to play the race card (probably Melissa or Mister I'm So Vain I Had Surgery To Lose 50 Pounds Jesse Jackson Jr.) "white Americans . . ."
But the writers portray it with commas when it's double dashes. There was no insult intended and Little Donny knows that but hates Hillary so he turns it into a question. (He's not always so reluctant to peer into her soul -- "peer into her soul" is probably a Somerby trademark to give credit where it's due.)
The Roberts repeatedly sneered at a 'victim competition' while creating one.
Without the race card (played by surrogates and Obama himself), he wouldn't have been able to challenge Hillary. The new tactic is to attack her White women supporters and make them fear they'll be labeled racists.
It only goes to the fact that sexism is so widespread. Betsy Reed thinks it is perfectly understandable for an African-American to support bi-racial Barack but that feminists shouldn't support a strong woman. So does the ridiculous Mark Karlin. Neither are feminists and both write with an appendage, Betsy's is a strap-on.
What they would be smart to do is live in fear. Bob Somerby's failed to document what really has gone done in this campaign season but someone will and it won't be pretty.
Mark Karlin is the man above racist remarks today but think back to how Rev. Jesse Jackson was repeatedly smeared throughout the Terry Schiavo incident. (Jesse Jackson firmly believed in his position. He did not sell out, he was not bought off or any other lie BuzzFlash offered in their non-stop attacks on him.) He's the man who felt the need, when Hillary won New Hampshire, to have a 'talk' with the 'little ladies' via an editorial. As if any woman needed a lecture from the Pig.
As if we were never supposed to notice that it was all glad handing and back slaps at Buzz for man after man but a woman had to break news or write 100 times better than a man to get a link from Lotta Links. As if we were never supposed to notice how women who did get links got them for every other column as opposed to every column. As if we're supposed to forget that women were regularly excluded. As if we're supposed to forget his insulting remarks that killed his chances to be an early Air America Radio star when he went down in flames on The Majority Report and had the blog chewing him out and calling him names.
Bob Somerby says he's a truth teller but he really hasn't told the truth this election. He's told it sometimes and if that hurts his feelings, I really didn't need his friend sending me one threatening e-mail after another every time I criticized Hillary. (For the record, they didn't bother me but I'm not the only working the public account. They bothered everyone but Ava and myself who laughed at them until it became a problem for everyone else working the e-mails.)
To his friend's credit, he saw many things early on that I honestly didn't see. And maybe if Bob had explored those topics, he could have salvaged the Democratic primary. I've often considered writing his friend and saying, "You were right about ___ and you were right about ___ and you were right about ___." However, after those e-mails and the way they upset so many reading the public account, I didn't want the hassle if he popped back up. But I'll state it here. Though rude and vile, he was right about a great deal and I was dead wrong.
If he could have found a way to make his points without threatening me, it wouldn't have been any different because I wasn't ready to hear some of the points he was making. However, he was correct on a number of things. And I'll gladly note it here because I make a million mistakes and am never afraid to own up to them.
The biggest mistake I made was taking people at their word. This thing, as Elaine has pointed out many times, did play out in Panhandle Media before. I was a sucker then as well. But I truly did buy into the lie that they had ethics. They didn't.
An e-mail came in (they do at least once a day) wanting to say, "Hillary's not perfect." I've never claimed she was. No one at any community site has. We were more than willing to explore her imperfections. As we were any Democratic candidate. But that's when we were under the illusion that a standard applied to Hillary would be applied to all. That never happened.
Panhandle Media revealed itself to be without ethics. It did so by stacking the deck against Hillary in roundtables where you wouldn't find a Hillary supporter but you'd find a whole crew of Barack supporters. Of course, you wouldn't be informed that they were Barack supporters or that they had publicly endorsed him. You'd just be lied to. Over and over.
Amy Goodman will hop on her high horse again as sure as the sun will rise. But her act's a little tired and her tricks are exposed now. She is no different than Judith Miller. She criticized Miller for being one-sided, for only getting one side of the story, for offering propaganda as news. Goody did all the same things this campaign season. She has no ethics and that's why she can't work in Real Media. Why she will never be able to work in Real Media.
I loathe Michael Gordon but even he has earned the right to laugh at Goody.
Bringing on a man who pens pieces like "Hillary's hearing voices" and presenting him as just a journalist and objective to comment on Nevada? That's as one-sided as Miller using only White House spin.
Amy Goodman's a pathetic liar. That's all she'll ever be. She trashed her own reputation. The press doesn't create (the real press), they go with what they're fed. Panhandle Media fed the attacks on Hillary non-stop, they continue to do so. They discarded John Edwards long before Real Media did. They got on board with Bambi because they just know he's a radical (he's a craven politician) and they sold and sold him. Over and over.
Patricia J. Williams had a snit-fit on KPFA when a caller had the nerve to correct Williams and point out to listeners that, no, Barack did not vote against the Iraq War resolution.
I guess it beats inventing eleven-year-old boys in a Paris suburb who know all about John Kerry for her ludicrous 2004 column.
If the Democrats go with Barack Obama as the nominee they lose. They lose in November or they lose when impeachment efforts are launched (Rezko would be the chief target) by Republicans or when he has one term and becomes another Jimmy Carter that the Dems have to work hard to shake free from.
These are comments that Bob's friends could have (but didn't) make in his e-mail. He also wrongly confused this election cycle with 1968. It's 1972. We passed the 1968 mark long ago. Panhandle Media wasn't able to motivate people to get into the streets but they were able to poison the well. They consider Barack their crowning achievement. As Winona says in Reality Bites, "That's not real much."
You've got the "anti-war" Barack who was against withdrawal when running for the Senate, when elected to the Senate, when giving his first town hall after being in the Senate, all the way through last summer. He's the one who's backed by the people who put together the Army's counter-insurgency manual. The ones who want war with Africa (sh, don't say AfricCom too loudly, it will shock the groupies).
They lie. They lie and then they take a breath and lie some more.
Bob's friend was correct that they would destroy the Democratic Party (they being the radical types -- 'in Panhandle Media' added by me). He was wrong about the year and how they'd do it. To have one standard for Hillary and none for Barack.
They repeat their lies about how feminists would be for Barack as if feminism suddenly decided homophobia was okay and that Barack's use of it in South Carolina was no big deal. That's a story The Nation and Goody never told you about. They couldn't, they were too busy selling.
But isn't it cute how they trot out homophobia against McCain. (I detest McCain and will never vote for McCain. But calling the man who attended Mark Bingham's funeral a homophobe is stretching the truth unless they have proof and, of course, Panhandle Media never offers proof, they just repeat charges.)
If he was writing me today, I think Bob's friend would probably point out those things and many more. And, being Bob's friend, it's hard to imagine that he wouldn't also point them out to him. A few times in writing about Al Gore over the years, Bob would start to tell the story of The Nation but then back off. He should have told that story. The Nation is nothing but Hillary Hatred. And today they hide behind "Women run it!" Uh, no. Queen Bees ruin it. That's how you get 491 men published in 2007 and only 149 women. And, if we're being honest, call out the feminists who stayed silent while that happened.
It was very well known but they wouldn't tackle The Nation. It was a 'friend.' They loved that we tackled it community wide, called out the systamtic sexism. But they wouldn't. Maybe, like I do now, they can admit they were wrong?
Hillary's a Democrat and in an exchange with a Green (non-community member) today, it became obvious that ___ just doesn't get it. By a Green standard, neither Barack or Hillary will live up to the ideal. That's fine. That's a good reason for someone to be Green. I started a reply tonight but ended up saving up because I don't have the time and also because pointing out basics seemed like it would be read as "You should vote for Hillary!" No one should vote for Hillary that doesn't believe in her.
But no one should hold a Democrat to a radical standard while refusing to do the same with another Democrat.
Yesterday, I-Need-Attention Benjamin showed up at a Hillary function to scream her pointy head off. It's as tired as her organization (one Bob's friend rightly called out, to give him credit). You'll note that she never called out Barack. You may also wonder what political party she's supposed to be a part of. It's all so confusing. Privately, she's one thing. For public consumption, she's a Green and she belongs to a political action group whose stated purpose is to get Greens to vote for Democrats. Who is she really?
Someone bound and determined to lie. I guess it beats whining -- while Iraqis and US service members die in Iraq -- that someone threw a pie at your pouty face. Yes, that was the great tragedy of our times: a pie-ing.
I have no problem with a radical critique, as long as it's applied to all. I have no problem with people being whatever political persuasion they desire, as long as they don't publicly pretend to be what they're not.
Panhandle Media lies because if it told the truth not only would the grants dry up but so would it's ability to influence. It's pathetic. During Vietnam, they could get people in the streets. Today they settle for creating the apperance of a 'movement.' They're such liars.
I was a dupe, I was an idiot. It's happened before and it will happen many, many times again. In this instance, I really thought they wanted to end the illegal war. But you'll notice The Nation moved on by 2005 (we called them out at Third), CODESTINK headed off to Lebanon the first chance they got and never returned Iraq to the forefront, Amy Goodman stopped interviewing war resisters around the time The Nation awarded the $500,000 grant, go down the list.
Today, Marla sent Bob's latest column. He's right and he's wrong. He's arguing that there's no money to be made, no place to go, for mainstream left and 'left' pundits that tell the truth so they play the game. Actually, there is money to be made. But you have to play the game, the one that landed Rachel Maddow her MSNBC contract (which Bob has called out though he's missed how in keeping that game has been with Maddow from the start). He's also ridiculously offering a defense (reposting it) of Arianna. Arianna as truth teller?
Maybe he was trying to make us all laugh?
Better laughs can be found in Tracy Ullman's parody of Arianna.
The original plan was to provide links to everything above but why bother? Panhandle Media's gotten away with it so far. Because they've not been challenged. Goody has to deal with NPR and that's why she's suddenly rushing to now say, "We contacted the Clinton campaign" and to put on Hillary supporters for her dissection along with Obama supporters. NPR doesn't look kindly on the stunts she pulled and, were she an NPR employee, she would have been fired. She's violated nearly every rule in their guidelines for broadcasters.
She set out to poison the well and she has done that. She doesn't care about the Iraq War as anything except a way to maybe get some mainstream attention. She loves to talk about things on MSNBC that she never covers on her show -- and loves to do those mass e-mailings to her groupies telling them to write MSNBC so she'll be invited back on. Makes you wonder about the pressure put on Sally Jesse which, in her first book, she plays off as spontaneous but probably was orchestrated by her.
Hers is the show that has brought you such 'logic' as Barack doesn't have to take big money from corporate donors but he does because he fears they'd come after him if he didn't. That's the sort of 'logic' never offered for Hillary. But she's the one who couldn't stop gushing -- during WBAI's pledge drive -- about Samantha Power being the next Secretary of State.
She doesn't like the Clintons and it goes to the fact that she almost got put into real journalism. The Pacifica fight. All the lies of Save Pacifica. Reality is Pacifica's done such an unbalanced job in the last two years that few will rush to save it now. And it will be under attack in the near future.
They've exposed themselves in Panhandle Media and they're just waiting for the vice squad to make an arrest. When it happens, it won't be pretty but consider the cast.
They couldn't end the war (and can't) because that's not their goal. They make that very clear with each passing day. They're settling old scores. And, just as we stopped trying to play it fair when they did, we may settle some old scores as well. None of the bodies are buried that deeply and, for a crowd that loves to regularly trot out what the New York Times did decades ago, they're all strangely silent on their own pasts. They're silent for a reason.
They've created an environement that allows the commentators on the Los Angeles Times thread to fill informed. All they've done is fuel hatred in the country. That's really all they're capable of. Ending the illegal war was never the goal. Poising the well was and they've certainly 'accomplished' that. Betsy Reed attacks 'mainstream feminists' and repeats baseless charges about racism. It's not about a political dialogue or political change, it's about enraging an electorate. It's not about logic, it's about distortions.
If you haven't noticed, we've gotten very selective about what we highlight and what we don't. Some aren't 'banned' but we're not highlighting their nonsense. Nonsense like leaving out details while 'reporting' on a crime.
One thing Bob Somerby has always been right about is that the charge of racism is used to quickly in this society and that it's very damaging. If you ever doubt it, read the thread at the Los Angeles Times -- but not at work where you may get written up. Barack is bi-racial and there were serious questions about his committment to helping African-Americans (resulting from his own speeches as well as his avoidance of the African-American community). Best way to shore up that was to scream racism over and over. The campaign did that.
Now radical Betsy is leading the charge on White women. How dare White women support Hillary. The next line of 'logic' if Barack gets the nomination is to lie to women and tell them that if they don't fall in line behind Barack, Roe v. Wade will be no more.
That threat's been used once too often. Barack has not supported abortion rights. He voted present and despite the LIAR trying to provide cover for him, it was not the local chapter of Planned Parenthood's recommendation or request. The LIAR was not a part of Planned Parenthood while he was voting "present." Barack is not a friend for abortion rights.
But, honestly, I think we're all tired of hearing that threat. They didn't block Alito or Roberts (they being the Senate). They do what they want and then cry, "Keep voting for our nominee or you'll lose abortion rights!" Abortions are not going away -- legal or not. And you can only threaten women so long before they get tired of it. They better think up a new strategy because that one's not going to work.
Donna Brazile told the base to get lost today. It's going to be really hard to recover from that for Barack should he be the nominee. It's going to be really hard to recover from the non-stop attacks quoted above which take place every day. Panhandle Media's latest attacks on women only further marginalize Panhandle Media. When it comes time for them to trot out the abortion card, women are going to remember that they trot it out every election cycle, that they failed to call out sexism, that they contributed to the sexism and they're really not going to give a damn that Katha Pollitt's writing her every-four-year column again on how the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. I actually think The Nation over-reached in 2004 when they dubbed it the torture election in one overheated cover story. They've amped it up and amped it up. They're so far from reality at this point that they really can't rally anyone come November. (They is Panhandle Media.) They should all be ashamed of themselves. Their hatred of the Clintons is no excuse for their non-stop lies that the Clintons have played the race card. Or for the attacks on Chelsea. Or for repeating right-wing spin long since disproven at The Nation's too-many blogs. None of which is on Iraq, but no one's supposed to notice. They can't cover what Congress is doing but watch them suddenly pretend to be interested in Iraq when the spending bill comes up.
We covered two hearings this week in the snapshots and that's probably all we'll do. But that's two more than The Nation did, isn't it? They'll want you to turn out for the spending, to be outraged. But a really effective media would be informing you of what Congress was doing before they gear up to vote. The Nation lost interest in covering what Congress did around the time Victor Navasky took over. That's when The Nation became The International. Today they have how many blogs covering elections? And not a one following the hearings. Many of which are broadcast on CSpan. They wouldn't even have to go to DC. But it would be work and it's so much easier to churn out their non-stop crap on the Clintons. Recycle from Moon's Washington Times. Or to play 'informed' by telling you what the papers are reporting. Katrina loves to do that. She's a reviewer wishing she were a reporter.
By the time the election cycle is over -- regardless of whom the nominees are as well as the eventual winner -- it's going to be obvious that Panhandle Media does not do journalism anymore than they try to end the illegal war. Veterans suicides were addressed this week. Who bothered to cover it? When 'independent' media can't even claim they did, there's your failure. There's your fraud.
But they 'care' about ending the illegal war.
It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goesNa na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)
Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4065. Tonight? 4073. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,206,950 up from 1,205,025 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the Iraq War.
And realizing that some Late to the Party will show up tomorrow with e-mails demaning proof, you can refer to the following for documentation (I'm just doing Third links because I can easily copy and paste those -- and the links in it without any extra work):
Radio: Panhandle Media
Dear Betsy Reed
TV: Democracy Sometimes?
TV: Charlie Rose by any other name would still be as bad
"Stop the madness!" cry the Goodmans, "You first," reply Ava and C.I.
And to be clear, they're not damaging feminism. Their actions are only fueling the next wave of feminism. (Real feminism, not the push-up bra set propping up Betsy Reed for letting them blog this year.) They're backlash practioners and the response to that nonsense is always a stronger feminist movement.
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.
i hate the war