I ♥ the 90s

Until three weeks ago my biggest regret was an epic failure to hop aboard that Barack Obama bandwagon back in February 2007 or even January ’08. Whether you supported him, or whether you’re creepily infatuated with him, is irrelevant. Undeniably there’s a lot to like about our 44th president—namely his charmed past smokin’ ganja in the island paradise of Hawaii and his awesome off-the-rack Burberry suits. In the interest of fairness, however, he’s also a egomaniacal naïf with a long and unfortunate history imbibing the insane doctrine of black liberation theology. Not that I care about any of that. While I have learned to shroud my contempt for the president in serious policy talk, the cynical truth is that I was simply convinced the man couldn’t win.

But that’s all been eclipsed by my inexcusable failure to purchase Newsweek for all of $1 (and the assumption of some small liabilities) this past Aug. 2. Fuck! My first order of business would have been to saunter into my newly-acquired Manhattan headquarters of our Washington bureau—like my idol Charlie Kane—and immediately cashier Howard Fineman. My goodness, imagine the shivers down the spines of that entire clique of lazy, capricious but very serious establishment reporters it would have triggered.

Alas, I struck out. Consequently, Howard Fineman is still safely ensconced in his Newsweek sinecure and free to trot out sycophantic nonsense like his most recent piece: “The Resurgence of Bill Clinton.”

Le sigh:

If you’re President Obama, here is a galling fact: most Democrats would rather have Bill Clinton campaign for them this fall than, um, you.

“Part of it is that Bill Clinton is, at this point, a sympathetic story and has always been a likeable guy,” says Eric Schultz of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. “But his appeal right now has to do with the fact that voters associate him with a time of prosperity. You can’t say that about either George W. Bush or, unfortunately, Barack Obama.”

… As a Democratic campaign operative who spoke on background says, “Somebody’s got to get out and make the case nationally for a Democratic Congress. And who is that going to be? Not Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. If you’ve got Clinton, you’ve got to use him.”

Grassroots folk need to very clear about what’s happening here. Recently, we spoke repeatedly about the budding rehabilitation of Mr. Clinton’s successor, George W. Bush, and that’s basically the story here. In the lame, cyclical brains of reporters like Howard Fineman, Obama’s breathtaking failure necessarily vindicates his two immediate predecessors.

As Obama’s fate (one-term miserable failure) becomes unavoidably clear, we can surely anticipate the begrudging talk of how Shrub possessed a certain certitude and ruthlessness tragically absent in Mr. Obama. Likewise, Bill Clinton will be canonized as the last great Democratic president. Black people—the president’s biggest boosters—are pretty fickle, too. Once he reaches those Nixonian levels of unpopularity, we might even see the first black president and Carrier of the Dream morph back into that awkward, blackish fellow that once got his ass and his pride handed to him by Bobby Rush on the South Side.

And when Clinton is “out” there, don’t expect him to fill his speeches with personal praise of Barack Obama. As a lawyer and salesman, Clinton knows that touting Obama as The One is a nonstarter given the president’s plummeting job-approval numbers. But permit me a moment of Machiavellian thinking to suggest that Clinton loves to be in a situation in which he has to make the Democrats’ case by damning with faint praise a man whose campaign he once dismissed as a “fairy tale.”

I always love listening to Bill Clinton. If you listen carefully, you can see all the gears in motion: he makes himself clear to people who bother to take him seriously. So what is he saying? That this president has “done a better job than he has gotten credit for so far.” (Which is not the same thing as saying that Obama has done a good job.) And: “All elections are about the future, so what is the alternative?” (Pay no attention to Obama, look at those scary Republicans!) And: “Give us two more years—two more years until another election. If we fail, you can throw us all out.” (Hillary will then be free to pick up the pieces!)

I can’t imagine the mischievous former president having an appreciable effect on the outcome of these hot contests, but Fineman’s analysis concerning the Clintons’ ulterior motives is admittedly expert.

It wasn’t long ago that some consigned Hillary Rodham Clinton to a toothless existence on the periphery of the Obama administration. I never bought it. It’s understandable why Hillary’s decision to join Obama looked unwise, but context is critical. Had she remained in the Senate, Hillary would have certainly been a yea on every unpopular legislative item that will sweep Republicans back into both houses of Congress this November. ObamaCare? The linchpin of ObamaCare is the individual mandate that Hillary insisted upon during the campaign while Obama made significant gestures against it. Porkulus? What justification would Hillary have had to vote no and antagonize the president as soon as February ’09? The list goes on.

Instead Hillary took a much-needed reprieve from the acrid arena of domestic politics that has defined her political life. As Clintons occasionally do for strategic purposes, Hillary put her head down, focused on small bore initiatives and surrendered all the, well, serious stuff such as the Middle East peace process, Iran, AfPak, etc., to Clinton stalwarts like Dick Holbrooke and others. And she’s only vaguely associated with this rudderless administration as a result.

The problem with Mr. Fineman is that he will never understand why we mustn’t allow the Clintons to get by with this. Progressives who are committed to a primary challenge of some kind to President Obama must know why the possibility of Hillary taking her case to the voters is treated with intrigue while speculation around Howard Dean, for example, is often met with dismissive howls.

It is because the Clintons are more of the same. They’re soulless practitioners of politics. I once wanted to forget this all the time but Hillary cynically (!) voted for Bush’s Iraq adventure, and true to form, she’s been on the hawkish side of the Afghanistan deliberation in this White House.

And since President Obama is so concerned about Republican designs for Social Security, if Hillary runs, his supporters would be wise to pick up Steve Gillon’s The Pact. It details one of the most unappreciated stories of our time: So obsessed was Bill Clinton with cementing his New Democrat bullshit in the annals of mythological greatness, he formed a devilish alliance with Newt Gingrich over Social Security “reform.” (At least ObamaCare was a compromise within the sellout Democratic caucus; Clinton wanted to include Gingrich Republicans!) Thankfully, FDR’s legacy survived because of Monica Lewinsky’s busty pulchritude.

President Clinton is, and always will be, an addictive political thoroughbred. And I suppose if he wants to waste this awesome upcoming fall (politics notwithstanding) in places like Missouri and have the hell kicked out of him by Roy Blunt’s eyebrows, that’s his business.

Lord knows I love both of them but I’m done being lured into the eternal psychodrama of the Clintons. It’s sooo 90s.  

Tags: Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, snark, newsweek, howard fineman (all tags)



Obama's Already Done More in Two Years than Bill Clinton Did in Two Terms

I choose to jump on the bandwagon early (as you failed to do before) and reject the meme of Obama as a failed one-term president RIGHT NOW.  Mark your calendars.

by Reluctantpopstar 2010-08-23 03:58PM | 1 recs
RE: Obama's Already Done More in Two Years than Bill Clinton Did in Two Terms

I'm curious, is this consistent with your original forecast on the midterms? Or did you take a mulligan on that one 'cause some of us saw the upcoming massacre way last year. Obama's fate will likely be no different. :)

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-23 04:02PM | 0 recs
Yeah, but the things that Bill Clinton did were GOOD

You need to study your history. Among President Clinton's many accomplishments:

Welfare Reform, NAFTA, Reducing the Capital Gains Tax, and the second greatest decade of economic growth in modern history (Reagan's 80's being the greatest).

Obama declared that the economy and "jobs, jobs, jobs" would be his #1 priority.

How's that working out for ya?


by BJJ Fighter 2010-08-24 11:04AM | 1 recs
RE: Yeah, but the things that Bill Clinton did were GOOD???????

Not so fast.

Saying that among Clinton's many accomplishments was Welfare Reform (signing off on Gingrich's Personal Responsibility...Act, which I suppose was the culmination of his campaign rhetoric, 'changing welfare as we know it,' a bone to Reagan's anti-Black racist agenda),

and then reigning over the second greatest decade of economic growth in modern history (possibly true), but that Reagan's 80's was the greatest, is ridiculous. Reagan's 80s the greatest? Most of us thought that the greatest period of economic growth occurred post WWII until the mid-60s.

by MainStreet 2010-08-24 01:46PM | 0 recs
RE: Yeah, but the things that Bill Clinton did were GOOD???????

Check your statistics: Reagan grew the economy by a third ($4.9 to 6.7 trillion), and created 21M new jobs. And he accomplished this AFTER inheriting an economy with 18% interest rates, 13.5% inflation, and 7.6% unemployment. Just to get you in the habit of doing some real research, why don't you check what those three metrics were when Reagan left office in 1989?

Eisenhower had three recessions during the 50's, which was not a stellar period. JFK (like Reagan) initiated agressive tax cuts, which got the economy moving again in the early 60's.

Finally, tell me what you mean specifically by "Reagan's anti-black racist agenda". I suspect you're as ignorant about domestic policy as you are about foreign affairs. My guess is that since you got smacked down pretty hard in your debate with Lakrosse, you've wandered over here to try to debate economics. You're not off to a good start.


by BJJ Fighter 2010-08-24 03:09PM | 1 recs
RE: Speaking of ignorance.

This alone qualifies: "tell me what you mean specifically by "Reagan's anti-black racist agenda"."

Are you kidding? That statement not only acknowledges ignorance but is pretty dumb. Lakrosse is pretty dumb also, coming on a liberal Democratic blog, preaching right wing Likudnik, anti-Islamic bigotry.

No, Reagan's alleged economic growth was based totally on climbing out of the deep recession the country was in when he took office. It's pure statistical artifact, and most people understand that, except you, I guess.

by MainStreet 2010-08-24 05:07PM | 0 recs
As usual, you won't debate, and won't be specific

"Racist" is a loaded word, and when you use it, you ought to be able to back it up with specifics.

That's what I challenged you to do, and as usual, you failed miserably. So I'll try again: give us specific examples of what you call "President Reagan's racist agenda".

Your inability to engage in any real debate or discussion is why you end up with silly little posts, where you have to comment on your own articles. It amounts to talking to yourself. Maybe we'll give your activity it's own term: "masturblogging". Hope you enjoy it.


by BJJ Fighter 2010-08-24 06:43PM | 1 recs
is it no surprise to me that

the leftists who hate Israel the most also seem to hate Bill and Hillary Clinton almost as much? This is no coincidence. If you're not on the far-left, you're evil.

Thanks for giving me props on my debates with DetourStreet. He epitomizes how everything is "racist" to him like everything is "communist" to some conservatives. Now he comes on here calling welfare reform "anti-black." Yet after ending welfare as we knew it, and before Obama smeared the Clintons as racists, Billary was loved by the blacks, as they truly empowered them, and temporarily deracialized politics, until Obama re-racialized it.

by Lakrosse 2010-08-26 04:11AM | 0 recs
RE: is it no surprise to me that

Amen, brother. Like many other centrists, my first ever vote was for President Reagan, although I vote Democratic in most elections. There are still a lot of Reagan Democrats out there, who basically value pragmatism over ideology. Obama stands for the reverse, and it's wrecking this country.

I've read over two dozen biographies on President Reagan, and as always, I strive to read authors who come from the right as well as the left. Not one biographer that I've read---at either end of the spectrum--- accused Reagan of being racist. In fact, liberals Richard Reeves, as well as Lou Cannon (who was a writer for the Washington Post) went out of their way to emphatically dispel that accusation, which is often born out of ignorance, but more often, jealousy at his accomplishments and leadership.

Not only the Clintons, but many of their supporters have been smeared as racists by this crowd, I can attest to that. But to paraphrase Reverend Wright, "the chickens are now coming home to roost".......I really fear for our great country.


by BJJ Fighter 2010-08-26 05:26PM | 1 recs
RE: Yeah, but the things that Bill Clinton did were GOOD???????

Ummm, inflation is not called "growing the economy". You yourself point out that inflation was high during the early 80s, so why use dollar terms rather that gdp numbers? Except for '84 Reagans economic legacy is pretty anemic. Unemployment also remained stubbornly high right until 1988. Reagan in fact has one of the worst job growth performances of any modern president. Actuals figures are 16 mill for Reagan, compared to 22 mill for Clinton and 24 mill for JFK-Johnson.

Real Growth of Gross Domestic Product

1973     5.2
1974    -0.5
1975    -1.3
1976     4.9
1977     4.7
1978     5.3
1979     2.5   
1980    -0.5
1981     1.8
1982    -2.2
1983     3.9
1984     6.2
1985     3.2
1986     2.9
1987     3.1
1988     3.9
1989     2.5
1990     1.2
1991    -0.6
1992     2.3
1993     3.1
1994     4.1
by vecky 2010-08-24 07:42PM | 2 recs
RE: Yeah, but the things that Bill Clinton did were GOOD???????

btw, in case you wanted a benchmark, the Carter years alone saw 10 million new jobs. 

by vecky 2010-08-24 07:48PM | 2 recs
Were those real jobs, or "Barry" jobs?

I (and most economists) like to look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics---which show that Obama has lost 3.1 million jobs since he took office. On the other hand, Obama likes to use made-up numbers, which he calls "saved or created", to substitute for the official ones which show him failing. Henceforth, we're going to call those fictitious numbers, "Barry jobs."

Either way, I'm not sure that the number of jobs that Carter created was worth 18% interest rates and 13.6% inflation. That's too high a cost. Give me a President Reagan, who created jobs while REDUCING inflation and interest rates. It's called balance---or as others might say, a "Goldilocks" economy. What Obama is giving us is the "Terminator" economy---everything in site gets destroyed.


by BJJ Fighter 2010-08-26 05:40PM | 0 recs
RE: Were those real jobs, or "Barry" jobs?

I actually doubt you did look at the BLS data because if you did you would know your claim of 21M jobs under Reagan was bogus. So your lying at some point.

And it's difficult to even credit Reagan with reducing inflation because as you should know inflation is handled by the Fed Reserve, not the WH. And Volcker was appointed by, drumroll... Carter.

It also sucks that Reagan, despite the low inflation, increased public debt as a share of GDP from a post ww2 low of 33% under Carter to a amazing 66%. Goldilocks is an apt term - because your description of the 80's is as close to a fairly tale and as far from reality as one can get.

by vecky 2010-08-26 06:11PM | 0 recs
Funny how you omit both Obama's proclimation of being a New Democrat or the Catfood

commision he convened to tackle the deficit. Frankly at this point I'd take Clinton triangulation over Obama's apparant weakness.

by Jason Moreland 2010-08-23 04:00PM | 0 recs
RE: Funny how you omit both Obama's proclimation of being a New Democrat or the Catfood

Superficially, I like them. Substantively, I disdain both Obama and Clinton. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-23 04:04PM | 0 recs
Why the sidelines?

You know there has been all this talk about Cheerleaders for Obama and then the detractors.  What I think seems to be lacking (and this post is a perfect example, as is MyDD lately as a whole) is two-fold:

1) That neither side (Cheerleaders or Detractors) seems to be able to convince one another to just work together.

2) That no coherent planning seems to be going on with either side.

Personally I agree with most of the criticisms of Obama from the left, but WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO?

MyDD used to seem like a place where we could have a good debate that usually ended with some actionable uptake.  Do we like Obama or Clinton (or Edwards or...) or which one is "electable?"  Who should we be helping in the Congressional Elections and how should we be applying the most pressure in the right places to any and all of our elected officials.

This post echoes the current trend here that seems to be wholly cynical.  Sure you say what we shouldn't like -- the resurrection of Clinton -- but what about who should we be looking at or drafting for a progressive challenger to Obama (assuming that we're even on board with doing so)?

I love everyone here, but lets get off the sidelines and start getting in the game.  Even if we need to spend some time drawing up a playbook that's better then bitching in the bleachers.


by jlars 2010-08-23 05:19PM | 3 recs
RE: Why the sidelines?

Well, some people just like to gripe. I mean there is not really a call to action or common ground in the diary. That's not unintentional.


by vecky 2010-08-23 05:40PM | 2 recs
RE: Why the sidelines?

How stupid is this, and you? MyDD, as far as I know and I am new, isn't the war or strategy room in a campaign. It's a political blog. Obviously--and you very well know this--every diary or even most is not be some five point action for progressives to take action. We can't just have fun and muse about politics, which we love? Um, yes we can! Whether you like it or not. lol. 

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-23 06:47PM | 0 recs
RE: Why the sidelines?

That's exactly my point - it's a political blog, with not much politicking happening (at least in this diary). That was jlars point too. Griping is fine and all but in the end politics is more than that.

by vecky 2010-08-23 08:02PM | 2 recs
RE: Why the sidelines?

It most certainly is. For my education, and inspiration, you mind presenting your credentials? What other parts of politics (It's more than griping, of course) have you heroically engaged in? Today?

I'm sorry, but shut up. Wasting time to whine about someone else griping (when you could be something, lol) is even more useless than anything I've been accused of. You sound like all of those establishment liberal reporters during the Bush administration. Who the hell wouldn't agree with a self-evident statement like "there's more to politics than griping." You're upset about the content, not the mere act of critiquing and skewering.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-23 08:12PM | 1 recs
RE: Why the sidelines?

Your the one writing the diaries, if you can't take the criticism maybe you shouldn't be so touchy? All of jlars points still stand, you haven't bothered to address them other than throwing around innuendos. Really comparing folk to liberals under Reagan and Bush - how out of touch can you be? 

by vecky 2010-08-23 10:28PM | 3 recs
RE: Why the sidelines?

Heavens no, I'm not being touchy. I'm being combative.

All of jlars points still stand, in your opinion! You can't be this dumb, right? "Comparing folk to liberals under Reagan and Bush" means that I'm out of touch, ok. That's your perspective! I'm giving you mine. I answered brother jlars' inquiries, and to the extent my answer didn't satisfy a reputable long-time commenter such as yourself... that's nothing except your interpretation. As I said before (talk about not answering someone's points), you're upset about the content.

God bless and good day. :) lol.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-24 02:56AM | 0 recs
RE: Why the sidelines?

You are not being combative.....you are being a douchebag. Which is all fine and dandy, just surprising from an FP writer (one who, presumably, is supposed to set the tone of discourse on the blog).

I don't know if you are Jerome's 'Hail Mary Pass' or what ("hmmmm...maybe if I get an asshole to try and piss people off on the FP they will pay attention again") ....but, credit where credit is due: You got me to comment for the first time in a long time.

Don't get too proud about that feather in your cap though, for it will be the first and last comment you see from me (I know, you are heartbroken).

Good luck to you, young man...may you enjoy gettin' your rocks off being 'combative'. Guess you need to somehow.

by Kysen 2010-08-24 03:22AM | 2 recs
RE: Why the sidelines?

Come back anytime now.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-24 04:11AM | 0 recs
RE: Why the sidelines?

Actually I don't comment here very often, I just stop in a few times. The fact that you say you supported Clinton "right up to the very end" while railing against the rest of the democratic party as corporate sell-outs pretty much says all I need to know. The crack about Reagan ofcourse gave it away, but confirmation is always appreciated. 


by vecky 2010-08-24 10:51AM | 2 recs
RE: Why the sidelines?

Like practically every other progressive that had profound misgivings about Barack Obama, I loyally supported Hillary Rodham Clinton until the end. Was there really any substantive difference between Obama and Hillary? No. Was our fervent support of Hillary intellectually-dubious at best? Yes, it was. I know that and I'm man enough to admit it now, but those were very confusing times. I have no problem admitting that my previous support for Hillary was precisely analogous to the situation with the Obama lemmings. The most important thing is that I don't intend to make the same mistake twice. 

As I said before, as people I actually like Bill (he seems like a lot of fun, and he's very smart), Hillary (I see myself in her--a bit of a misanthrope who swears a lot in private), and Barack (over-hyped, but very cool, elegant brother). But I'm trying to learn to separate personality from the politics. 

The crack about Reagan (senile reactionary patron saint) was less about Reagan and more about what must have been a pretty bleak situation for grassroots liberals in the 80s. Carter? Mondale? Dukakis? And yet despite how bleak things were, you didn't have the complete domination of the Democratic Party by Wall Street (which is why jlars' overly-positive spiel sounded so retrograde--before I understood where he was coming of course). Not yet. That process began with the Clintons and the New/DLC Democrats. 

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-24 02:07PM | 0 recs
RE: Why the sidelines?

lol, I feel like I wanna hug someone that was so warm and positive. Unfortunately, it's not a reflection of reality. With due respect, you sound like some sad-sack liberal activist in the 80s or something agitating against Reagan. 

People who think as you do act as if these are normal times. It's not that I like most of the president's policies, and I really wish he'd stand up the reactionary Republicans and all of this. The truth is far more serious. Barack Obama is a Wall Street puppet. Pure and simple. He's not a normal, persuadable politician. He's a wholly-owned subsidiary of the left-wing oligarchs who are financiers and who own this current Democratic Party.

In terms of solutions, I'm new and so you may not have read all of my posts but I've been about as clear as can be about the solution to Obama: primary the shit of him. It's a bit too early for folks to start publicly campaigning. But with the current trajectory Obama's on, we may have a few choices to select from in 2011.

Is that action enough for you? I'm doubtful. Because when I hear people like you talking down to non-conformists, I can't help but shake the feeling that you're not serious. Obama's been such a disaster that folk like you are forced to begin their critique with, "Well, I agree with a lot of the left's criticism but..." But what? I like him on some level but it ain't like that. We need to send this corporatist asshole back to Hyde Park, and he can take those Clintons with him. I can't be any more clearer.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-23 06:13PM | 0 recs
RE: Why the sidelines?

This was directed to brother jlars.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-23 06:14PM | 0 recs
RE: Why the sidelines?

Now we're talkin'!

I'm not trying to make you conform to anything.  I'm trying to get something -- anything -- happening.  Lets "primary the shit out of him!"

My original questions still stand:

1) Who would you like to see run a primary on Obama? Why?

2) How do we get as many people on board (this is where cynicism works against us.  I know -- all the hippies still love each other, blah blah blah)?  If you don't think this matters please watch The Wind That Shakes The Barley (2006).

3) What should we do in the interim besides sit around and talk about how much harder things are now than they used to be and how our old sad-sack liberal ways won't work.  What WILL work?

4) What agenda and/or policies and/or legislation do we think are a part of a platform that a challenger should have?  What messaging and narrative is important to us?

I'll look up the rest of your posts to see if you've already answered these, brother Jack Landsman.  I'm not saying we shouldn't be critical of the President.  Quite the opposite.  But it isn't enough to pout, no matter how frustrated we are.

by jlars 2010-08-24 12:21AM | 1 recs
RE: Why the sidelines?

1) There aren't many options right now in terms of challenge to Obama. In that vein, Howard Dean sorta wins by default. On the one hand I'm certain Obama will have a few challengers (because I'm thinking he's gonna be radioactive by this time next year) but for the life of me I can't figure who it's gonna be besides Dr. Dean. Hillary, who I stood by until very, very end in '08, is not an option.

You'd think Russ Feingold would an alternative but he made a terrible miscalculation in the Obama era. Rather than being willing to kill Obama's corporatist measures, Sen. Feingold's tendency has been to express great misgivings (and he's correct, btw) and vote along party lines anyway. Now he doesn't have any anti-Obama street cred and he's probably gonna defeated this fall by some random reactionary. To make matters worse, the senator has doubled down on our failed president.

Ed Rendell is a political heavyweight but he also has a very close proximity to the establishment. I could be very, very wrong about this but Gov. Rendell seems like one of those types that will betray the president and facilitate a challenge. That doesn't mean he'll run himself.

2) Every diary I've written so far contains the answer to this. Obama has to be roughed up, for one. The mythology among average Democratic voters who have been conned has to be broken. And naturally as his popularity falls (especially after this year; some Democrats still think there's a chance in '10), the thirst for an alternative will be unmistakable. No president with an approval in the low-40s can seriously expect to be given the nomination.

3) Well, the first thing we have to do is stop attacking non-conformist progressives who have awaken to the dramatic truth that this Democratic president (and the last one as well, if we want to be fair) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street. That's why I responded so forcefully to charges of being someone who didn't understand that "politics is more than griping." You'll never hear those words pass the lips of one Obama supporter to another. Because substantively, they agree. Attacks along of lines vecky's thinking are ostensibly above the fray but they are simply tactics for squelching dissent. It's the same thing progressives were told by the Democratic establishment, the media, and the entire Republican Party for eight years.

"We can't oppose the war; it's not politically-feasible! Politics is more than griping, ya know."

"Obama had to shamefully reverse every one of his primary promises in a matter of weeks after being nominated. He had to select the New York Fed administer of the bailout as treasury secretary literally the day after being elected. Politics is more griping, liberal bloggers."

"Even if we wouldn't have gone to war knowing what we know now, we're there. And war is a lot more than griping."


I'm a writer. I'm a polemicist. It's no different than all the political commentators and columnists we rely on for perspective outside of the straight news. The only difference is they're getting paid, and that's not very important to me. But to be sure, everything I've said so far will be common conventional wisdom by this time next year. I know because after I incorrectly supposed Obama couldn't win the nomination or the general election, I've been right ever since. Some who of us said he was Chocolate Jimmy Carter. Some of us saw the justifiable rage at the town hall meetings (suppose we had been able to get some massive anti-war movement going and Republican politicians have behaved that way with their constituents) and predicted the Republicans were on the cusp of something big in the midterms. Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, I could go on and on. I know that for the Obama lemmings they've existed in a vacuum. They thought politics were going to be completely realigned because Obama won 52% in that election, and I do feel sorry for them.

4) I'm mostly a populist liberal. I want Medicare-for-All, and although politics is all about compromise (not griping), health reform should not have degenerated into a mandate to buy private insurance written by the insurance lobby, with roots in Republican policy circles.

Financial reform is the same thing. Dodd-Frank doesn't end bailouts; it institutionalizes them. And while the Obama lemmings were somewhere worrying about Sarah Palin, Rahm Emmanuel, Dodd, and Frank were busy excising every progressive or worthy feature from the bill. And sure enough, progressives can't even get Elizabeth Warren appointed to that little agency they created and housed within the Federal Reserve. That's not even regulatory capture--it's surrender. We need Glass-Steagall protections and a financial transactions tax, among other things.

Unfortunately, I'm not "green" by any stretch of the imagination. And it's not because BP has me on the take (although I'd some of dat BP money--jk). The crash of '08 was a seminal moment of clarity for me. It helped me understand corporatism is not only a province of right-wing politics. In terms of the entire climate change thesis, that's something heavily supported by the left-wing oligarchs (and boy is there such a thing), not the right-wing oligarchs which is why it seems like such a "progressive," obvious thing. I don't want cap-and-trade and all of these things. Nor am I interested in remonstrating against skeptics with a quasi-religious fury.

I could go on and on, but that's what the front page is for, I guess.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-24 03:43AM | 0 recs
RE: Why the sidelines?

Thank you!

What do you think about Alan Grayson?  I don't have much background with him really besides loving his liberal populist messaging on the floor of Congress.  Has he really done much besides talk a big game?  Not sure.

If I were writing a fictional tale I'd make my challenger a Westerner with a miltiary record and maybe even Hispanic.

Anyway, right on with all your points in this comment.



by jlars 2010-08-24 05:38AM | 0 recs
RE: Why the sidelines?

I must admit I had to learn to stop worrying and love Alan Grayson. I had been listening too much to some of my bright right-wing friends. That's something else I've learned: a lot of right-wingers are smart and have bright insights—you just have to tune them out once they veer off into "socialism" and "free market" talk. Likewise, I had to tune them out about Grayson.

Is Alan Grayson a provocateur and reckless bomb-thrower? Yes, and so am I, lol. Has Alan Grayson voted the appropriate way in the past year and a half? No, but that's because the president/leader of our party is a Wall Street puppet, and his chief of staff is a ruthless shrimp of man.

I've learned to love Alan Grayson because he's a normal, persuadable, and sympathetic politician. Not all congressional Democrats are naked puppets; they're just cowardly, run-of-the-mill public officials. Assuming we can put the screws to this Obama fellow (a tall order) and elect a progressive to the White House, people like Alan Grayson will forget the entire bizzaro Obama era like a bad dream. He will fall right in line because he's a normal hack politician. But he's our hack.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-24 06:26AM | 0 recs
RE: Why the sidelines?

I actually agree with this is part. I admire the work that Jane Hamsher has been doing in this regard with the Just Say Yes campaign, and wil work with them there.

If you semi-know Portuguese, you can go to a couple of sites we've launched with the Netroots DNA, of which this version of MyDD was the first beta, and get into the "mobilize" section:



Am doing a dozen statewide campaigns in Brazil with it. I've a couple of campaigns and sites here that are close to having it but not yet. Anyway, there's lots of action campaigns on the NDNA now, including adding phonebanking. We are gonna be doing a lot more actions around here once Kyle can get around to migrating the data here to from the beta to the released.

We'll see what happens with 2012, no promises yet.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-08-23 07:27PM | 1 recs

While the cash transfer price was nominal, the deal also required the assumption of the Newsweek's liabilities which are substantial. The terms of the deal were not disclosed but Newsweek's liabilities likely run into the tens of millions of dollars plus since the magazine is likely cash flow negative additional cash is required for on-going operations. However, Business Week put the deal at $71 million. 

Not sure what Sidney Harman is thinking. He's 92 for starters. Few people read Newsweek or even Time. Ten years ago, circulation was 3.14 million. By the second half of 2009, that dropped to 1.97 million by YE 2009. Newsweek does have a few good young writers, Andrew Romano comes to mind but also a number of influential writers like Jonathan Alter.

Ad pages are down for the industry now going on half a decade. Perhaps Harman will remake it more into a publication like The Atlantic or Harper's (both monthlies) but the weekly newszine format in the US is beleaguered. The news cycle moves too fast and you really need a plethora of top-tiered writers not just a couple. The Economist is the only weekly that is successful and that's because it is a) informative b) has an ideological point of view that is clear and consistent c) has a global market d) has numerous ancillary business such as the EIU and e) is read by movers and shakers.

The name of the game isn't print but online. And The Atlantic right now dominates that segment in the US with its list of heavies. Salon is other media property that does well and does so from a rather leftist position. Newsweek and Time try to be fair and balanced, I think they would be better served by carving out a niche. US News & World Report, Morton Zuckerman's property, was once a great publication because it had a more serious bent even if it was conservative in orientation but Newsweek and Time too often resemble People so it's hard to take them seriously given some of the inane cover stories they have had. 

by Charles Lemos 2010-08-23 05:32PM | 2 recs
RE: Newsweek

mentioning the debt deal for newsweek would be dealing with facts, which apparently have no place in that diary

by bay of arizona 2010-08-23 11:34PM | 0 recs
RE: Newsweek

God, you're stupid. The Newsweek bit was snark. No one else made this mistake, right?

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-24 02:33AM | 0 recs
The press is doing a Dinkins on Obama

I'm referring to how David Dinkins, former Mayor of NYC, was basically torn down and ripped to shreds by the NYC press corps and then we ended up with 2 terms of Giuliani. 

by LionelEHutz 2010-08-23 08:20PM | 1 recs
RE: The press is doing a Dinkins on Obama

C'mon, now. What does the press have to do with unemployment rate or Obama's cynical escalation in Afghanistan? Or progressives' inability to even get Elizabeth Warren appointed to some toothless consumer protection agency thing they just created?


by Jack Landsman 2010-08-23 08:25PM | 0 recs
You asked for Vecky's background..

I am curious about yours.  


This is not meant as a snipe; because I like some of your diaries (not saying I agree...just like).  I have a small history here, but I am no political activist by any means; and my contribution is going to be elsewhere.  If you care to dig through my record here, you will find that I have been fairly sceptical of Obama.. but I still would like to see him succeed (I said the same of Bush, btw).  I can rant on and on about Wall street vis a vis manufactring jobs; but I dont have the time and Charles Lemos is a much better writer and so I enjoy readign his rants on the topic.


Given all that, I am curious as to what your background is.  You have a "lets blow it up and start over" attitude; which is similar to mine (except I would blow up a different set of things); and I would like to know where it is coming from.

by Ravi Verma 2010-08-23 08:49PM | 1 recs
RE: You asked for Vecky's background..

I'm a young progressive writer and local activist who grew up, since at least '04, off of MyDD, DailyKos, and Huffington Post. Prior to Jerome letting me write for his blog, I had become estranged from my blogosphere bros because they after eight years of Bush, they began imitating applause gallery that is the conservative movement. Ever since Obama came on the scene, I can't tell you how many formerly pleasant people lost their critical thinking, tolerance for differing views, and sense of humor, most importantly.

I am a "let's blow it up and start over" type because this Democratic establishment is rotten to the core. However, as dire as things are, I'd like to think I haven't lost my edge, sense of humor, my appetite for politics. That includes, dear critics (not you, Ravi), snarky, irreverant writing. For Christ's sake, I can't even believe I have to say that.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-23 09:01PM | 0 recs
RE: You asked for Vecky's background..

And I'm black, which is awesome because it permits me to talk much reckless shit about the president and not be accused of carrying some racist Tea Party id. I am vulnerable, of course, to charges of being an Uncle Tom, but in 2010 that's become unintentionally hilarious if anything.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-23 09:04PM | 1 recs
RE: You asked for Vecky's background..

You called the stimulus "porkulus" - a republican frame which neglects to mention that 40% of it was tax cuts (the most ineffective part, by the way).

In fact, you have a lot of conservative talking points in your diary. And you have the nerve to personally insult a longtime commenter.

by bay of arizona 2010-08-23 11:32PM | 2 recs
RE: You asked for Vecky's background..

And you have the nerve to personally insult a longtime commenter just for asking a respectful follow up to your diary.

by bay of arizona 2010-08-23 11:36PM | 1 recs
Hmmm, You think being Black but anti-Obama is a novelty?

Don't be overly confident that your skin color gives you cover for Obama-bashing. An interesting side effect of Obama's "post racial " world is the hordes of African-Americans who are clammoring to be identified as Democrat, but anti-Obama. And no one is calling them "Uncle Tom" either.

At the end of the day, you would do well to have a better plan than what the President is doing as opposed to being just "anti-Obama". It's been the Republican's battle call for the last 2 years, and you see how it's working out for them....



by xodus1914 2010-08-25 08:54AM | 0 recs
RE: Hmmm, You think being Black but anti-Obama is a novelty?

To be perfectly honest, I haven't seen this interesting side effect. And again being black inoculates me from the demagogic criticism lobbed at the Clintons and other white Democrats who have dared to rough up Obama. I'm not saying the Clintons (and others) haven't engaged in crass behavior. But that's politics. It's not necessarily racist to be a strident critic of the president. But like I said, I don't have to be concerned with that at all.

As far as presenting substantive alternatives to the policies of Rahm Emmanuel, of course this is necessary. That self-evident admonition is akin to people shouting down critics with "politics is more than griping!" It's just a way to shut down debate. Progressives who oppose this president have obvious alternative ideas (public option, Medicare-for-All, Glass-Steagall, larger stimulus, etc.) A more convincing argument against us purists would be zeroing in our inability to sometimes appreciate the political realities of DC. But to seriously suggest we need to be reminded about having better plans is a case of projection. We know there are better ideas. That's why we're opposed to the president! The people who comprise the liberal applause gallery are the ones who must think there's no alternative.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-25 10:47AM | 0 recs
So, I have a few questions.

In your list of things to blow up, you include (elsewhere) "primary the shit out of them".

Given that in 2008, we had an incumbent (sort of--in HRC...a Clinton who is a wall street hack) who did get primaried; and we ended up with Obama who is also imperfect (as per your own statement...another wall street hack); it would appear that the primary process is not giving us the result you desired.  So, is something wrong with my framing it this way; or are you claiming that past performance is not an indicator of future success.  If it is the latter, do you have any reason to believe that a future primary process will give you a different result ?


by Ravi Verma 2010-08-24 12:07AM | 1 recs
RE: So, I have a few questions.

yeah, that's kinda my problem with the "primaries" strategy.

For now, I'm going with the "you incumbants better listen to progressives and make us happy or else we will stay at home during your reelection and you will be out of a job" strategy.

by jeopardy 2010-08-24 12:15AM | 0 recs
RE: So, I have a few questions.

As good a strategy as that is it does suffer from the drawback of forcing us to suffer through 2-4 years of a conservative nut in government. I mean it's fine if the conservatives were moving left like in the UK, but over there they're getting worse and worse. So it's a bit like cutting off your hand to spite your face.

by vecky 2010-08-24 01:13AM | 1 recs
RE: So, I have a few questions.

the GOP is going to come back into power sometime. If not this election, then the next or whatever.

Menwhile, if progressive remain an automatic vote for Democrats who sell us out, we will forever keep being sold out.

So it's a choice between never getting listened to by our representatives v. letting the Dems know they can't just do the bidding of their corporate masters and hastening the inevitable GOP resurgence by a few years.

Not the choice I wanted, but the Dems and GOP are forcing my hand on this one. They've made it quite clear that they will not do what we want so long as they think we have "nowhere else to go".

by jeopardy 2010-08-24 01:31PM | 0 recs
RE: So, I have a few questions.

We should stop thinking about it in terms of votes on legislation so much as moving the overton window in public discourse. Politicians always react to public pressure, even between elections. Most of the public discourse in the last 2 years has been coming from the conservative side rather than the left (other than online). Besides to whole concept of being "disappointed" in the dems vis a vis progressives is way overblown. There are at last count about 170-180 progressives and progressive-leaning reps. If we want more progressive legislation we should probably be electing more reps to get closer to the 50% mark rather than being disappointed. 

by vecky 2010-08-24 04:00PM | 0 recs
RE: So, I have a few questions.

I agree to some extent.

In fact, perhaps the biggest dissapointment I've had with Obama is that he hasn't changed the public discourse like I thought he would.

He praised Reagan for doing it, and said that's why Reagan was a transformative president. I thought Obama was going to do that like Reagan, but for good causes. For instance, I thought he would be able to make a better case for smart, sensible, good government, and why it is needed. He's done a poor job on that.

Meanwhile, He steals Boehner's talking points and crows about the tax cuts he signed into law.

by jeopardy 2010-08-24 06:21PM | 1 recs
RE: So, I have a few questions.

Oh I do agree, the lack of communication from someone whose communication skill was his biggest asset is frustrating.

However I will caution with the historic references. Reagan's popularity plummeted to 38% despite a far shallower recession within his first 2 years. Also the public discourse was changing anyway regardless of Reagan (see Thacther in the UK). In the end both went with the flow as much as they 'changed it' themselves.

by vecky 2010-08-24 09:08PM | 0 recs
RE: So, I have a few questions.

So, your strategy amounts to a game of chicken; but with a twist.  

You want to bluff the wall street hacks into becoming more progressive.  If you bluff works, you have a wall street hack who gives some amount of lip service to your credo in order to get elected.  And if your bluff fails, you have a wall street hack who pays no lip service to your credo, and still gets elected.

Sorry for nitpicking, (because I dont have any better ideas myself), but that doesnt sound very well thought out.


by Ravi Verma 2010-08-24 01:29AM | 1 recs
RE: So, I have a few questions.

no, I don't want to "bluff them". I want their to be real consequences for screwing over the American people. Until there are consequences for that, we are screwed.

What's clear to me is that continuing to be an automatic vote for Dems isn't working. I'm tired of continuing to bang my head against that particular wall.

by jeopardy 2010-08-24 01:32PM | 0 recs
RE: So, I have a few questions.

ugg, typo. yes I know it's "there". I changed the sentence and neglected to change the word.

by jeopardy 2010-08-24 02:01PM | 0 recs
RE: So, I have a few questions.

It's more than the past not necessarily being an indicator of future events... it's that we have no other recourse. What in God's name can we do besides mount a progressive challenge to the president? Even primarying congressmen is tenuous because the Democratic brand is so abysmal. 2010 is a fait accompli, and deservedly so. (There's a reason Republicans have experienced resurgence and it has nothing to do with Republicans, lol.) Immediately after the midterms, we go to work on the next election: 2012.

There may eventually be a party realignment with a possible third party or independent bid (who course you have to be careful with those--Wall Street puppets come in all sorts of outfits) but the 2012 primaries will be a Hail Mary for now.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-24 03:57AM | 0 recs
RE: So, I have a few questions.

Like I said, I dont have any better ideas.

However, I do have a different diagnosis of the underlying problem.  Your approach assumes that the fundamental problem is corrupt pols, or pols who are wall street hacks.  My diagnosis is that the fundamental problem is pols who do not "get" the importance of manufactring (being a wall street hack sorta comes with that), and citizenry who are easily corrupted or distracted by nice shiny objects.

That said, I cannot prove that my diagnosis is better than yours; so I can only wish you luck with your primary strategy.

by Ravi Verma 2010-08-24 10:34AM | 0 recs
RE: So, I have a few questions.

There are quite a few things one can do - organize and develop grass-roots organisations with an agenda and action-plan. Find common ground and motivate political support. Get people out there to actually demonstrate for what they believe in. Supporting one candidate or another is not an answer since the "problem" is systemic and not limited to individual actors.

by vecky 2010-08-24 10:59AM | 1 recs
Pick a candidate

If you could choose a candidate for 2012, who would it be?

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-08-23 09:38PM | 0 recs
Holy christ.

Are you seriously THIS crazy?!?

by sricki 2010-08-24 01:15AM | 1 recs

you are a terrible diarist in general terms, but as a FP'er, you are truly abysmal.

by sricki 2010-08-24 01:32AM | 3 recs


Holy Christ. I'll put my writing chops up beside yours any day of the week. I want you to help me with something: I was invited to by the owner of the site to write on his front page, so in that sense this isn't some worthless endeavor. Your motivation, on the other hand, doesn't make much sense. Do you actually think you're going to have an effect on my opinion or willingness to front page? Talk about waste of time; how idle was this?

I was one of those mischievous kids that would probably poke the dangerous animals @ the zoo if I could. So you can count on to front page every single day if it pisses off a miserable little person such as yourself. #icantmakemyselfanymoreclearer

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-24 02:41AM | 0 recs

Ohhhh, is being invited to FP on MyDD supposed to be an honor these days? What a shame that the Big Blue bar has been lowered so far that someone lacking any semblance of maturity (or writing talent) has procured an invite, simply by sucking up a bit.

My motivation makes no sense? Perhaps because I have none beyond stating my opinion -- one that seems to have gotten your panties in a bunch. You might think about growing some thicker skin if you are going to continue your driveling here.

As far as your diarying is concerned, feel free to post daily on the FP (yes, you have my permission). Hell, post multiple times a day -- it will increase viewership to this dying blog by not one iota. And, that, my little friend, does not piss me off. It makes me laugh. Heartily.

(Why am I not surprised to find out you were a brat as a child?)

by sricki 2010-08-24 03:18AM | 5 recs

I love it when people say these things that aren't true. I never sucked up. The opinions I've expressed are my own, absolutely. Shit, if I knew Jerome thought the way he did, I would have came sooner. So that's that.

Yes, your motivation makes no sense. You're a troll, basically. MyDD is a dying website, I have no writing abilities, and I'm immature, apparently. And yet you've expended how much time responding to me? That's what I mean by FPing to spite people like you. You're obvious not serious or even consistent. Where's your blog, DCCC campaign you're managing, or anything? Am I correct in assuming these things don't exist for you? Would it that much of a stretch to determine that you're some bitter loser who's so consequential that he feels compelled to tussle with some immature, bratty writer on a dying blog?

This would be utterly ridiculous if it weren't so f'n funny.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-24 04:08AM | 0 recs
So if I'm a bitter, inconsequential loser,

why are your panties still in such a bunch over my comments... hmmmmmm?

by sricki 2010-08-24 11:33AM | 2 recs
RE: So if I'm a bitter, inconsequential loser,

What are you, nuts? My panties aren't in a bunch over this nonsense. I'm cooler than a cucumber. Fucking lol.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-24 11:46AM | 0 recs
Yeahhhh... You sound it.

I think you know where I'd advise you to stick that cucumber, Jackie-boy.


I hope you've enjoyed our interaction, Jerome... rankles... Jack, because it is certainly our last. Like most people who still visit this blog on occasion, I only come here to read Charles. Rest assured I'll be skipping any further pointless bleating from you.


Jerome, I know things have gotten pretty bad around here, but I still didn't realize MyDD had sunk this low. Couldn't you have gotten someone more polished and professional to write for your FP? You know, someone like engels or MumbaiBurns?


I'm bored of this and have been for a while, so I'm out. I'll leave you boys to abuse the few commenters you have left.


by sricki 2010-08-24 12:13PM | 2 recs
RE: Yeahhhh... You sound it.

We've got to get some better commenters. 

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-24 12:19PM | 0 recs
RE: Yeahhhh... You sound it.

Better commenters, too, I meant. 

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-24 12:20PM | 0 recs
RE: Yeahhhh... You sound it.

And who would that be, exactly?


1. Commenters that agree with you?

2. Or commenters that disagree with you, but aren't quite as smart and witty , so you can shut them with your one-liners and snarkiness?

by xodus1914 2010-08-25 08:57AM | 2 recs
RE: Yeahhhh... You sound it.

No, not at all. I encourage you to look at the couple of FP entries I've done before this particular one. I don't any problem whatsoever with people who disagree with me. All the people who I've maligned here took some pretty tough shots at me. And that's fine. That's what I've always loved about us "vituperative" bloggers. But this is the first time I've ever witnessed people being so sensitive about it. You want me to eat people's shit? Will you at least help me because it tastes pretty gross.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-25 10:32AM | 0 recs

I look for a diary, whether on the front page or not, to do one of three things:

a. Present information and analysis

b. Structure productive discussion

c. Both of the above

This diary does none.

I'll take sricki's writing any day.  So would anyone else trained to evaluate writing as a skill or art.  You might think that Jerome's invitation for the front page is evidence that you can write (though even rudimentary mechanics of commas seem to elude you), but it really functions as evidence of Jerome's disregard and/or mismanagement of this blog.  The only reason to check in here from time to time is to read Charles.  The rest is amateur hour.  This diary on the front page and the petty and petulant way you interact with commenters all confirm that. 


by Strummerson 2010-08-24 07:51AM | 6 recs

Are you typing with your eyes close? Who do you possibly think is that interested in your criteria for a worthwhile blog? Was your opinion solicited? What is your purpose? Life much? 

(btw, your point about my commas is a valid one that I absolutely accept. I'm workin' on it. But of course I never suggested that Jerome's invitation was proof of my writing abilities. The projection is blinding me, dude.)


by Jack Landsman 2010-08-24 11:51AM | 0 recs

I had to come back and point and laugh once more. 

Honest to God. Jerome was very careful to warn me that you people would become unhinged, but I thought he meant tedious and circular arguments about the content at least. The notion that someone would presumptuously walk in and literally list their criteria for a Front Page entry is pretty fantastic. 

And we're talking about an old entry, too! I came ready to get crackin' on today's FP post and folk are still carrying on here like mental patients. 

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-24 12:04PM | 0 recs

Strummerson is a pedant who is excellant at grammar and spelling, but whose content is empty and leaves much to be desired.

Strummerson, I thought that you were here to monitor the assholery of Lakrosse, as he represents your pro-Israel camp with such obvious idiocy as to make Israeli hasbara laughable.

by MainStreet 2010-08-24 06:20PM | 0 recs

Tell me about it. Who injects themselves into a brutal flame war only to say--in all seriousness!--something like, "Even rudimentary mechanics of commas seem to elude you"? That's even more ridiculous than Olbermann doing his Edward R. Murrow impression unironically.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-24 06:54PM | 2 recs

Not to nitpick, but can an apostrophe be used on a gerund? I know one can use the apostrophe on a noun before a gerund but not necessarily on a gerund itself. I'm curious about your usage of I'm workin' and crackin'.

by louisprandtl 2010-08-25 12:08AM | 2 recs
RE: Hmm...

Those instances of "workin'" and "crackin'" you alluded to is slang. Just simple dropping of the g. I wouldn't dare present my snarky, contemptuous writing style as virtuous grammar.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-25 11:10AM | 0 recs

I will also take sricki's writing any day of the week.  Reading this guy is no different from reading Jerome, with the exception that Jerome is more respectful and substantive when it comes to engaging with commentors.  Charles, on the other hand, is a fascinating guy who deserves a better platform.

by Steve M 2010-08-25 06:34PM | 3 recs

Feel free to come back after Barry breaks your heart. I'll be here.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-25 06:49PM | 0 recs
Barry ? Hah...

The last time I read that name in these pages were by listed by PUMAs, now found mostly in the pages of Confluence or the defunct pages of Alegre's corner.  As a MyDD's frontpager you're trying to fill in shoes of bloggers of the likes of Todd Beeton or Chris Bowers or Charles Lemos or even a Jonathon Singer. If you're trying to be an Armando or Dana Houle by merely being rude and offensive, then you're doing an awfully poor job. I never heard or read a Frontpager of frontline progressive blog asking a regular reader to eat faeces.

It's not my place to judge your place as a frontpager. Normally I trust Blogfather's choices but yours' is befuddling.


by louisprandtl 2010-08-25 10:56PM | 2 recs
RE: Barry ? Hah...

I forgot we weren't allowed to call him "Barry." Even though he occasionally refers to himself that way...

By all means don't me or the clear record of what I actually said (it's right here in this FP entry, dude) intrude upon your self-righteous blather. I asked the reader did he intend for me to eat shit; because clearly he does if thinks I'm going to abide this lunatic behavior you guys are betraying. You think this should be a one-sided wallop where you people storm into here--a dying blog, as you nice folk are always careful to note, btw--and just spout off?

Let me be clear: It ain't gonna happen.

And as far as me wanting or attempting even to filling the shoes of those fine bloggers you mentioned, this couldn't possibly be any further from the truth. Like I said before (in this entry, I think--how long has this thing been going now?) I grew up off blogs like these, but that doesn't mean I'm as obsessive as some of y'all seem to be. The people I'd ever be able to distinguish are Jerome, Kos, Hunter (the smart dude who once wrote for Kos, I believe), and I am aware of Chris Bowers. So you can cool it with the name-dropping.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-26 01:06AM | 0 recs
I expected no less of an asinine reply.

For your edification, President Obama himself asked to be called Barack instead Barry because he didn’t like that nickname. Continuing to call him the same is offensive. You’re just revealing your PUMA spots by your insistence of calling him so.


Further, Hunter is still a DailyKos contributing editor. He goes by the name Michael Lazzaro.
Given your claim that you grew of these blogs, your ignorance about  them is profound. That some of those frontpage bloggers didn’t ring a bell for you seems very surprising. As a frontpage blogger of a premier progressive blog like MyDD, you do step in those big shoes. A certain level of knowledge and decency comes with the package.

Lastly please point out where I claimed MyDD is a dying blog.  As for your proclivities about human excrement, please keep that to yourself.

by louisprandtl 2010-08-27 12:57AM | 2 recs
RE: I expected no less of an asinine reply.

It must be embarrassing to be so wrong, no?

As far as my ignorance, this may actually be an advantage. It obviously made your attempt to make me feel bad fall flat on its face. I like that.

I apologize for that last line. Indeed you haven't parroted the line frequently given here about MyDD not being this and that. But that has certainly been the tone of your fellow commenters.

Lastly, with regards to my "proclivities about human excrement," we can skip over that since you've already demonstrated you haven't the slightest idea as what you're talking about. And that's understandable; this has been an extremely long dialogue.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-27 07:42AM | 0 recs

Doesn't this just prove my point?  A classic Jerome response... anyone who criticizes him must be some kind of Obot. 

Does anyone want to venture a guess at how many thoughtful, or maybe even not so thoughtful, anti-Obama diaries I have written?  Oh wait, no one is reading this site.

by Steve M 2010-08-25 11:00PM | 3 recs

Yes, sir, you're absolutely correct. Hypocritical self-righteousness notwithstanding, you are marvelously correct.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-26 01:09AM | 0 recs
Lynchpin is spelled L Y N C H P I N

First, Jack is a breath of fresh air to this blog. Its format changes effectively killed off the diaries - and its editors are now completely clunky and a whole lot of no fun - so it's nice to see someone suffering through the technical issues with myDD and launching a new diary and front page thread.

Jack is, however, failing to point out that his (misspelled) 'lynchpin' of healthcare reform - to wit, individual mandate - is a strong point of the package.

Hillary campaigned on it in 08 and LOST.  People don't like the individual mandate - and with good reason. Why are we being forced to consume a product from a private company? Yes, we all have to get insurance to drive down the road. I understand this.

But this is a far cry from a cheap alternative to the price gouging that is going on for all of us.  The exchanges that were supposed to be set up ,are being blocked on a state level and the indvidual mandate itself will soon be the focus of a supreme court battle.


So it's not like this was a strong point of the package. The key to healthcare reform is a single payer system.



by Trey Rentz 2010-08-24 10:47AM | 0 recs
RE: Lynchpin is spelled L Y N C H P I N

As much as appreciate the compliment (I do), I must also say that "linchpin" is absolutely fine, bro. Look it up.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-24 11:52AM | 0 recs
it took a while...

but i think after reading this blog, and especially the snotty, childish comments below, i'm done with MyDD.  on to something more insightful.

by dasmeer 2010-08-24 01:51PM | 1 recs
RE: it took a while...


by Jack Landsman 2010-08-24 02:11PM | 0 recs
RE: I ❤ the 90s

I won't be doing this very often but here goes...

For those who may wander into this FP entry and wonder how this gigantic shitstorm came to be, I'd like to point your attention to a few quotes. Like I said, Jerome was very careful to explain what was around the corner because of my controversial viewpoints. I understand how ahead of the curve us strident critics of the president are but I've been more than willing to respectfully engage those commenters who cared enough to respond. The comments in every one of my previous FP entries bear that out.

However, I'm also a combative person and as long as Jerome allows me to write for his blog, I'm not gonna eat shit sandwiches and abide obvious shots. I'm fightin' back! [/Michael Moore]

Well, some people just like to gripe. I mean there is not really a call to action or common ground in the diary. That's not unintentional. -- This ignited everything. I think I responded disproportionately because vecky does seem decent. However, this was anything but the "respectful follow-up" someone described it as.

mentioning the debt deal for newsweek would be dealing with facts, which apparently have no place in that diary -- This nice person misinterpreted my snark and felt compelled to back themselves on back and lob an insult.

Are you seriously THIS crazy?!? you are a terrible diarist in general terms, but as a FP'er, you are truly abysmal. -- Yeah I'm confused, too. I've never been a diarist here; only a brief commenter and FP person.

I look for a diary, whether on the front page or not, to do one of three things: a. Present information and analysis; b. Structure productive discussion; c. Both of the above. This diary does none. -- This tedious, unnecessary, didactic comment was my favorite.

Doesn't seem like much of a big deal when you put in proper context. Three people. I insulted all of three people--in response to shots taken at me. lol. Don't pull the thang out unless you plan to bang, dear friends.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-24 02:49PM | 0 recs
RE: I ❤ the 90s

Four people. Ugh. I meant four people.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-24 02:51PM | 0 recs

It's been two years now!  Are Hillary supporters really still this mad at Obama for winning the election?

by Drummond 2010-08-25 11:21AM | 0 recs
RE: Really?

Don't get hung up on the title. It's ironic. Even as a past supporter of Hillary's, I'd be against her because I've realized that there's really no substantive difference between them. Obama's corporatist policies are the matter. And in terms of policy, Hillary's presidency would have played out as Obama's has.

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-25 11:24AM | 0 recs
RE: Really?

That's the really funny thing about this. The real idiots among the loyalists think that anyone complaining about Obama is just mad that Clinton isn't there instead. No, the argument made repeated was that they were just the same. The ONLY argument in favor of Clinton was that at least she wasn't disillusioned about being the holy gift to DC of bipartisanship embodied.


Anyway, this was plain back then in July 2007 too:


by Jerome Armstrong 2010-08-25 10:42PM | 0 recs
RE: Really?

And the most astounding part of all of this is that people refuse to actually read what they're rushing for the 'reply' button to bitch about. The whole point of this FP post was to lay out the case against the Clintons despite the fecklessness of Obama! wtf? That's how I know they're just enraged by the criticism of Obama. It's nothing more. (And look how these crazies been roughing up John Judis--a guy who's as thoughtful as anyone.)

Complaints in the blogosphere about the lack of civility Marquess of Queensbury rules? Are those folk for real?

by Jack Landsman 2010-08-26 01:33AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads