I braved the mesothelioma and hip implant litigation ads to watch Jane Hamsher’s appearance on Morning Joe a few minutes ago, and I heard this:
Joe: First of all, are you surprised that the White House came out and attacked you by name?
Jane: Ah, well, yeah, I think they attacked bloggers, yes, that was kind of surprising and I think it indicates that they pay way too much attention to what’s going on (laughs).
Joe: It was you, it was Glenn Greenwald, and I forget the third name …
[crosstalk]Jane: …I think some people have been privately expressing those names, but I don’t know why they decided this was a good idea by any means. It just handed a bigger megaphone to people that they feel like have been critical of them. And, you know, in the grand scheme of things, you have to explain to most people who we were.
I can’t find any evidence of someone in the White House saying anything about FDL or Glenn Greenwald. I think Joe was quoting this post by Jane:
Although journalists won’t say so publicly because they’ve been told such things “off the record,” they well know who gets under the skin of people at the White House. And that’s why things said by Glenn Greenwald, or John Aravosis, or on FDL consistently get picked up in the media as prime examples of the “professional left.” We hear about it when they call us for comments, or when they want to book us to respond.
Does anyone have any evidence that the White House has ever singled out those three for criticism, or is it all third-hand rumor?
TR
That’s how you know you’re doing God’s work for the cause of progressivism — a true friend like Joe Scarborough will give you his shoulder to cry on.
stuckinred
It’s self promotion by Joe and Hanoi Jane!
WyldPirate
You’re problem, mistermix, is that you watched fucking Scarborough in the wrong frame of mind.
This morning from 6 am to 7am was aa perfect example. Never have I seen such a bunch of useless out-of-touch horseshit from a bunch of millionaires. The all yakked about how Obama “didn’t know how to create jobs and business community had quit supporting him. Ridiculous horseshit. The Business community is sitting on trillions of dollars. Then that idiot Mika mentioned that “OMG, Mcdonalds is going to cut healthcare for its employees”. Yeah, Mika, that MickeyD’s health care plan is a real good deal. Fucking stupid, priveleged, rich cunt.
Morning Joe should be watched with a soft object in hand to throw at your teevee machine in the morning as part of an exercise and stress relief program. Much swearing at their idiocy and retrieval of the soft object will make you feel refreshed and give you a good workout.
geg6
@WyldPirate:
Though I generally disapprove of using the c-word, I can only say that in this particular instance, I endorse everything you say here.
Pancake
Actually, “Morning Joe” picked it up from one of the bloggers posting nonsense on Balloon Juice…..maybe.
Ash Can
Our blog host has caught Hamsher making shit up about him. Who says she’s not making more shit up here?
4tehlulz
>Jane Hamsher’s appearance on Morning Joe
Mission accomplished! If she works a little harder, she might score an appearance on Meet the Village.
WyldPirate
@geg6:
Thanks geg6, and my apologies to those that might be offended by my use of the “c-word”.
I rarely use the word even though I’m a swearing machine when I post (mostly as a form of stress relief). However, Mika B. is so unbelievably stupid–and most often in a grossly offensive manner–that I feel like I’m letting her off easy by not embellishing the “c-word” with even more offensive adjectives or adverbs to illustrate what a repulsive piece of human scum I feel she is.
The best part of Mika B. rolled down her Momma’s inner thighs years ago….
Ash Can
Michelle Malkin along to nut-pick this thread in 3…2…1…
mistermix
I hardly ever watch Morning Joe – but I saw Greenwald tweet about her appearance and thought that it would be interesting to see what she had to say.
Mika wasn’t present and the other two guys on the panel (Jon Meacham and someone else) didn’t say boo, so at least there weren’t about 50 annoying interruptions to deal with. On the few times I’ve watched, it seems like half of that show is crosstalk between Mika and Joe.
That all said,
@WyldPirate, I don’t see why anyone would bother to watch the show if they think Mika is really that bad. There’s a big old Internet out there to keep you amused.
Jim
Hamsher was a godsend next to Halperin breathlessly urging Bloomberg to run.
WyldPirate
@mistermix:
I’ve never denied to anyone that I have a big old masochistic streak embedded in my personality, mistermix. ;)
Suck It Up!
Hence the word “professional” in “professional left”. Riding Obama for money and fame – just like those on Fox.
“they pay way too much to what’s going on” – says the bunch that runs around yelling ‘look at me!’
Linda Featheringill
@TR:
Excellent! I laughed out loud!
You just eased my entry into what looks like a yucky Monday. Thanks!
[chuckle, heh]
kay
Ugh. Morning Joe. Professional pundits interviewing each other.
I think the creepiest part is the forced laughter. “HA HA HA”
That, or the “news” segment, when Mika reads the newspaper to viewers.
Nutella
To answer the original question: No. Joe Scarborough was wrong. What else is new?
To Hamsher’s credit, if this clip is accurate, she did correct him by saying ‘bloggers’ were criticized by the White House.
homerhk
I really don’t like that woman – something visceral I think. What is really annoying to me in that post of hers is something that is repeated endlessly amongst liberal complainers – that the complaint isn’t that Obama hasn’t changed things fast enough it’s that he’s gone back on his promises. There are three very good rebuttals to that:
First, those same people are the ones that list the following disappointments: failure to close Gitmo (ongoing, not reversed), failure to end DADT (moving forward, definitely not reversed), immigration (ongoing, not reversed), environment (cap and trade stalled but lots of regulations by EPA ongoing) – all of which are not changes in Obama’s promises by works in progress.
Second, of course failure to keep promises is only a betrayal if it’s a promise these guys agreed with; promising to try bipartisanship and to achieve consensus? fogedaboutit; promising to focus of Afghanistan? fogedaboudit
And third, a promise broken does not mean that it was a lie all along and there was machievellian plot (i’m talking to you, public option). why is there a constant need to define a broken promise (something which is far from uncommon for any politician, whether they be Obama, Kucinich or the most green of the green party) as a deliberate and cynical betrayal?
Suck It Up!
@Nutella:
Sounded like she pulled a Mitch McConnell to me.
marcopolo
I can physically feel my brain cells die when I watch Morning Starbucks. That and the fact that a tsunami of the stoopid manifests in the program’s “banter” about every three minutes or so curtails my watching it. I’ll stick to Morning Edition on NPR which still has its low points vis a vis presenting inside the beltway hackery as some kind of thoughtful analysis, but which doesn’t string said idiocies together like a glass bead necklace ala Joe & enablers.
A friend said Larry O’Donnell (apologies for any misspelling there) was on a lot recently in an effort to punch up the debut of his new show and thought they could see him cringing from time to time when he looked around and remembered where he was.
Suck It Up!
@homerhk:
yep. a thousand times.
Jim
I know this will get chalked up to Dear Leaderism by the usual crew, but it is always worth stepping back for a minute to realize that, while certain bloggers provide very significant and worthwhile criticisms online, the idea that there is this massive base uprising against Obama is a complete fantasy. His approval ratings among Democrats are over 80.
4tehlulz
Couldn’t MSNBC save some money on transcripting by noting the entire dialogue of morning joe as “[crosstalk]”? It’s not like it would be any less accruate by doing so.
The Raven
It appears that the remarks were made in the infamous Gibbs “professional left” interview, which The Hill does not seem to have published in its entirety, or in one of its sequels. The Hill did, however, go to Hamsher for a response.
Why not ask in a polite letter to Joe Scarborough? He’s a conservative, and I doubt he’d give Hamsher free publicity.
sgwhiteinfla
The funny thing is that the media continues to portray those three and others in the “professional left” as speaking FOR the left. But the polling continues to tell another story.
http://www.examiner.com/dupage-county-conservative-in-chicago/obama-s-approval-rating-at-45-bad-news-for-democrats-midterm-elections
If you turn on Morning Joe or just about any other cable show Hamsher et al are the ones they have on to speak for the left but they aren’t speaking for the 75% of self identified liberals or 79% of Democrats who still support him and that leads to an alternate reality where the 25% or so of liberals or portrayed as THE left at odds with the White House. And so if you are a Democrat or a Liberal watching at home you almost have to ask yourself why you are still supporting him when “everyone else” isn’t. Stop for one second and try to come up with a liberal who is on Tee Vee on a consistent basis that actually put forth a point of view of still supporting President Obama.
Don’t worry, I’ll wait.
But conflict sells and gets eyeballs so as long as there are folks who say they speak for the left, no matter if they do or not, who are willing to bash President Obama we will continue to see this over representation of the minority of the Democratic Base and the narrative will continue to be about “hippie punching” and the lefts “dissappointment” with Obama. It is what it is.
Jim
And I should add that one thing that annoys me is when certain pundits conflate their own disillusions with Obama with the reasons why the Democrats are going to lose big this November. It’s one thing to castigate Obama for not moving on DADT, but don’t act like there’s even a single Congressional race in the country that was hinging on him doing so. Likewise, you should feel free to note that Democrats in swing districts are going to be thrown out AND you should feel free to criticize Obama’s failures on civil liberties… but don’t seamlessly segue between the two as if there’s a correlation. The very reason someone like Greenwald is such a worthwhile voice is precisely because there are about 8 people in the country who actually care about civil liberties issues.
cmorenc
Why is there this recurring obsession with Jane Hamsher here on BJ, when she’s an obscure unknown to all but a relative handful of blogger-insiders? This reminds me of kids at some middle school talking social smack about each other, and has just about as much impact on the big picture.
FlipYrWhig
@cmorenc:
I dunno, maybe because she gets invited to go on the teevee and get treated as an important voice?
FlipYrWhig
@sgwhiteinfla:
I think Rachel Maddow strikes a good balance between support for Obama’s accomplishments and criticism where he, in her eyes, has fallen short. I often wish she were _less_ critical, but that’s because I’m an O-bot.
mistermix
@Nutella: It’s hard to tell by just reading the transcript, but my take was that she was happy to foster the illusion that these remarks are actually being made about her. I assume the video will be posted somewhere so you can check yourself.
nepat
@sgwhiteinfla:
Is there anyone whiter than Jane Hamsher? Hamsher, Greenwald, Digby, Joan Walsh, Dave Sirota, etc. are an exclusively white, educated, elitist phenomenon – who have in common a long standing hatred of Obama that pre-dates his election. They were all either Clinton or Edwards supporters in the primary. They get so much air time because their narrative reinforces the corporatists larger anti-Obama narrative. Pawns in a bigger game.
geg6
@FlipYrWhig:
Seriously. I mean, the stupid beyotch even cozies up to FOX and her minions and others wonder why she needs smacked down as often as possible?
When I see Steve Benen being invited on these shows just as regularly, I’ll quit bitchin’ about Hanoi Jane.
IM
More or less on topic: Has anybody read this?
http://peterdaou.com/2010/09/its-not-the-economy-stupid-its-obamas-character/
One of the funniest lines:
Nuts. It is a real fine cross between blog-triumphalism and mindless Obama-hate.
stuckinred
@cmorenc: What do you care? We talk about dogs, cats sports. . .
FlipYrWhig
@IM: You know it KILLS Peter Daou not to include himself in that list, too, because he’s been blogging for a long time.
ETA: It’s very interesting to me that Markos Moulitsas had definitely started to climb up with the FDLers On The Roof, like with the health care bill… and then he reined himself in. I’m curious to know how that came about. When was the last time he was on Olbermann? He used to appear periodically but IIRC it’s been a long time now.
geg6
@mistermix:
OT, but I’m in moderation in the Cannell thread. Can you fix?
jwb
Jane’s a tool of Grover Norquist. What do you expect?
IM
@FlipYrWhig:
It must be hard to have only a tenth of the influence of a bunch of powerless bloggers.
On a good day Dailykos can influence the result of a house primary. And it is not even mentioned here.
Tonybrown74
@nepat:
Oh, fer Christ’s sake!
Digby was NOT a Clinton supporter. She actually voted for Obama in the primaries. What digby has done (just as John Cole has done), was defend Clinton from the sexist and misogynistic attacks that were coming from the media.
IM
Re MM: The theory is that he is banned from MSNBC because he reminded Scarborough in a tweet of his dead intern.
nepat
@IM: Daou still grinding that axe since losing in the primary (he was a paid shill on Hillary’s campaign and had high hopes for himself. haha.). Most of his posts are about his favorite subject – Peter Daou.
Again, an exclusively white list. Take a look at the photos from the One Nation event on Saturday and tell me if you still think this crowd represents the base. Wake up, media bookers.
geg6
@FlipYrWhig:
Here’s your answer:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/07/markos-moulitsas-banned-f_n_639777.html
Turns out that even the liberal Keith Olbermann doesn’t like it when his buddy Joe’s fee fees get hurt. And Markos has, maybe, realized that even the liberal KO and Calamity Jane are not really activists, but are desperate attention whores who only care about how much face time they get on the teevee.
FlipYrWhig
That would be interesting if true. But I kind of imagine the DC reporters saying, “People keep asking about criticism from the left. WTF are these people talking about? Maybe one of the kids in the office reads the ‘web logs’ and can tell me who they mean.” Then those names go into the Rolodex.
In other words, I _highly_ doubt that Gibbs, Emanuel, and Obama sit around discussing why Hamsher or Greenwald is exorcised about something that day and how they’re going to address it.
Tom Factor
@FlipYrWhig: Kos was banned from MSNBC for hurting Joe’s feelings.
Rook
It really does not matter if those bloggers are named by the White House, it has now become part of the record (that is the media record) and soon enough, where once many conservative media types ruled the air waves, progressive media types will rule the internet strands.
If anything, this signals the shift in power from the conservative media to the progressive media. Politically, the progressives have made good strides. Not perfect, but good none-the-less. However, it seems that first the people shift ideologically, followed by the government, and finally, the media steps in line.
However, it is not that the old members of the media shift, it is that the media of record shifts. TPM, FDL, and many other of the progressive bloggers are becoming more prominent, reflecting the actual voice of the electorate. Again, not perfectly, but still generating a gestalt of the population.
cat48
@cmorenc:
If Hamsher would stay off my TV, I would never mention her; but her ass is on Cnn or Msnbc almost everyday whining OBAMA FAIL, wah! Twitter exploded with disgust this morning when she went on MJ & I didn’t tweet anything. Sample: Jane Hamsher does not speak for me! They were being retweeted by everyone.
Martin
I wouldn’t be surprised if in their world, John Cole was an online hit man paid by Obama, so yeah, the government is attacking them.
Remember Obama is a Marxist Kenyan colonialist that wants to kill your grandma as part of an elaborate plot to raid their slice of the Medicare pie and give it to gangstas as reparations for the things done to hippie Vietnam activists. Cole as blogger assassin is way less of a stretch.
Suck It Up!
@IM:
that would be true if no other world existed outside of the bubble.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@Jim: I think Halperin is dumber than Mika B. Why? She just parrots JoeScar. Halperin is supposed to bring something to the table. Does he forget about Unity ’08 so soon?
mikefromArlington
I imagine Jane Hamsher will be the next Dick Morris that Fox will tout as why the Dems are failures. She’s already being used by the right to highlight friction.
She attacks, attacks, attacks, then feigns defenseless victim, much like the right does. But in her case, she calls herself a hippy. The right just calls them selves real American’s.
It’s all about being anti establishment to her. It comes natural.
What floored me during the interview was how she attacked the Dems and specifically this Admin throughout the interview to Joe’s glee, then when Joe asks her if she wants Dems to control Congress she smiles and says of course she does.
No doubt her blog will be pushing for a primary challenger. You can bet that will be FDL and OpenLefts next big agenda to further damage the Democrats chances in 2012.
El Cid
If Joe Scarborough weren’t continually spewing complete fucking nonsense with no evidence, all in his ridiculous image as some sort of tough-talking guy who plays hardass on both sides, the question wouldn’t have been raised on TV in the first place.
Martin
@FlipYrWhig: I don’t know what caused it, but when Kos jumped on the kill the bill bandwagon for a few days there, a LOT of people got on his ass about it, and a LOT of people left the site – many regulars just up and vanished, including a lot of their biggest GOTV organizers. He had to have noticed that.
Svensker
@nepat:
I don’t know about the others, but Glenn a Clinton/Edwards supporter? Nevah. Or if he was, he certainly never mentioned it. He was a very vocal Obama supporter after the primary, that I do remember quite clearly.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@Tonybrown74: I don’t know who any of them voted for, but I can tell you that all of them except Joan Walsh(only because I have no idea what her personal beliefs are besides being a Democrat) though some of them might have voted for Clinton in the primary, they didn’t care for any of the three of them. Why? Because they were/are all DLC’er/Third Way. Did any of those you listed actually endorse anyone before the primaries started?
cleek
this needs the “navel-gazing” tag.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@Svensker: And do you remember what he said about being an Obama supporter? He even quoted Chomsky about it. ;-)
Binzinerator
Nice VU reference.
wonkie
@mistermix:
That’s a trick Republicans use a lot: give a quote about themsleves, then after a week or so refrence the quote as if it was from someone else. It’s a way of manufacturinng fake gravitas.
nepat
@Tonybrown74:
Links?
I guess I got confused by comments like this from Digby in 2006:
4jkb4ia
You watched that when the Ryder Cup was on!?
I don’t know of any White House references to these bloggers by name. IMHO it would be counterproductive because the WH wants voters to be fixated on the other guys being worse rather than that they insulted someone the voters may know and trust. And Jane and Glenn are not above running with being called out by name ad nauseam.
El Tiburon
All in all this seems like a rather trivial thing to nitpick on.
It was Joe who was in the wrong, but by his normal standards of gas-baggery, it was nothing.
Otherwise I feel this set-up here was to try and launch yet another attack on Jane.
Some of you people really need to relax and take a dose of whatever calms your nerves.
Tom Hilton
Well, that just sums up poor idiot Jane’s career arc right there: used to appear on Maddow; now appears on Morning Joe.
ruemara
@Rook:
ah, lol.
It is not a shift towards progressivism in media. It is the use of a “progressive” to fit a meme within the traditional media. Do you seriously think them coming on to bash about the most progressive president we’ve had in a while, while never pushing for any actual progressive actions or causes, fully explaining a progressive position, is somehow presenting a convincing cause for the things we’d like to have happen?
pRick Sanchez
El Tiburon: But what would satisfy the Juicebaggers’ craving for outrage then?
I, for one, am shocked to find self-aggrandizing douchebaggery on Joe Scarborough’s Very Serious television show. It’s almost as if they were toying with
peoplesuckers.joe from Lowell
@WyldPirate:
Mika reminds me of the news anchors on South Park. She has exactly the same vacant, staring-at-the-camera expression.
Tonybrown74
@nepat:
That was in 2006. She didn’t mention who she was supporting because she thought all the candidates were viable. That said, she came to Hillary’s defense on many occasions due to the rampant sexism coming from the media.
Digby’s archives are difficult to search, but I will try to find a link.
Tonybrown74
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle: @Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle:
I can only speak for Digby, since I used to read her daily back then. She did not want to endorse anyone, because she believed that their policy positions were near identical.
El Tiburon
@pRick Sanchez:
Hamsher giving Grover Norquist a reach-around while Greenwald writes a 12,000 word post describing it. With multiple updates.
fraught
A perfect way to characterize John Aravosis…a no-where-man with a blog no-one reads.
Mnemosyne
@The Raven:
You’re kidding, right? You really don’t understand why a conservative loves to give airtime to an Obama critic from the left so he can spend all of his time talking about how Obama is clearly a complete failure because even his own people hate what he’s doing?
Mnemosyne
@Tonybrown74:
Of that list, the only person I respect is Digby, because she’s always said she was never that fond of Obama. The others drive me nuts because they (often) love to pretend that they were big Obama fans and became disillusioned, but Digby’s never done that. She never really liked him and she still doesn’t, and I can respect that.
I don’t mind honest criticism like Digby’s — it’s the other, dishonest, “I used to be a fan and then he sold out, man!” stuff that drives me nuts.
morzer
Poor little Jane Hamster, running her furry little self around the wheel of her obsessions, and never quite understanding why she never quite gets there.
LT
@homerhk:
Well, I guess she won’t be your prom date.
John, I know you don’t want this site to become about the latest letter you got for your jacket. This shit is horrible.
LT
Watching Juice threaders descend into a contest about how ugly Jane is and how there’s no way their BFF Digby would ever be friends with her.
Ouch. Embarrassing.
morzer
@LT:
Not much of a speech for the defense. Still, I’m glad even you aren’t going to try and defend Hamsher’s serial idiocies and acts of betrayal.
Cris
What can we say, Jane. There’s always going to be some evil mothers going to tell you that everything is just dirt.
LT
Acts of betrayal. Good god, grow up.
Hamsher does stupid shit sometimes. The headbanging rage it induces, unfortunately here, is beyond understandable.
And while I am totally behind John on the “misogynist” thing Jane did last week – I bet even he’s not comfortable with the “cunt” thing going on in his thread right now. (And if I were a woman and saw it in a thread about me – would I let the word fly? I sure as fuck might.)
DougJ is the business and economics editor for Balloon Juice.
Shouldn’t this be “anyone who *ever* had a heart”? It’s a Sweet Jane reference, right?
monkeyboy
A lot of the discussion here is really childish worthy of what is found in middle school cliques.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs attacked the “professional left” without naming names. People rightly assumed he meant Greenwald, Hamsher, and others.
Joe Scarborough made up things in his question “are you surprised that the White House came out and attacked you by name? ”
And Jane Hamsher corrected him: “I think they attacked bloggers,”
pRick Sanchez
monkeyboy, LT: What else would you expect from the fratboy’s blog? Go Team! We’re #1! W00t!
El Tiburon
@LT:
A big double This. Also.
Pavlovian response to anything that sounds like “Jane” or “Hamsher” and the Mean Girls and Cool Boys who rule the Lord of the Flies Island are out for blood.
It really is childish.
Admiral_Komack
“That’s how you know you’re doing God’s work for the cause of progressivism—a true friend like Joe Scarborough will give you his shoulder to cry on.”
Alledgedly, if you are an office staffer, he’d just kill you.
Mnemosyne
@LT:
Huh? I think the voices in your head are telling you something other than what’s actually, you know, been written in the thread.
MattR
@LT: Ah yes. The whole “cunt” thing whereby a single commenter calls Mika a c#nt and one other commenter approves. And maybe you can explain why c#nt is misogynistic but dick, prick etc are perfectly acceptable.
eemom
@LT: @monkeyboy: @El Tiburon:
Look, why don’t all you Grown Ups go play over in Hamsher’s yard? You’ll find all kinds of mature discussion going on there. You know, like Hamsher calling a fellow blogger a “bottom feeding troll”……attacking Caroline Kennedy for “wanting a pony” after “getting her nails done”……putting up pictures of Joe Lieberman in “black-face,” just to name a few highlights.
Srsly. Go pick on somebody your own size.
pRick Sanchez
eemom: Hey, you’re the one with the Hamsher obsession, why don’t you FOAD.
morzer
@LT:
No, you grow up. Hamsher has done nothing but bash Democrats and comfort Republicans since she failed to her way, and has done so in public fora on repeated occasions. If she ever had principles, she’s shredded them in pursuit of self-promotion. You want to shill for her, be honest and admit it. Until then, acts of betrayal are precisely what she and her pitiable cultists have been undertaking, with, admittedly, their usual ineptitude.
morzer
@El Tiburon:
Which is why even you can’t offer a rational defense, or any defense at all, for her despicable conduct. Surprising, how true that always is of the Hamsher cultists. They have nothing to offer but playing the victim and poutrage – which, no doubt, is why they now find the GOP so congenial.
eemom
@pRick Sanchez:
and why don’t you take your clever little screen name and write it in big-boy letters on a bathroom wall? That seems like something you’d be good at.
lol
@eemom:
Don’t forget “sandpaper snatch”.
Tecumseh
@IM: I liked this part
I’m sure the phrase “…the story of how the left turned on him” pretty much happened to every Democratic President since FDR as well as every Democratic office holder from Obama down to some member of the Board of Education in Iowa.
morzer
@Tecumseh:
Well, ever since Jefferson there’s been an incoherent radical tradition that did its best to interfere with good government and progress in the name of woolly ideology and grandiose pronouncements – until it got power and promptly discovered the appeal of authoritarianism.
El Tiburon
@morzer:
See, this is why you people are so goddamn childish.
Now I’m a Hamsher cultist. I’m not defending her; just calling out all of the bullshit and immature behavior over here whenever her name is mentioned.
I’m on the record her for calling her out for some of her bullshit. But I’m also on the record of respecting her fierce advocacy for progressive positions. I could give a rat’s ass if she ate a cherry off of Grover Norquist’s pimpled ass in the pursuit of her goals.
@eemom:
ZOMG!!! The horror of it all! My God! I had no idea that Jane, as a blogger, could be so offensive. I really hope you are in therapy to get over it all.
I hope Atrios names her “Wanker of the Day” NO wait, that’s too offensive as well.
Must be time for another vaunted “Bloggers Ethics Panel” wherein Hamsher is told to sit down and STFU.
morzer
@El Tiburon:
So in sum, you are a cultist and you still have no defense of Hamsher’s actual record of failure and betrayal. Instead, you’d rather pout, whine and express your fascination with sexual acts involving your intimate knowledge of Grover Norquist’s bottom. How amazingly impressive! What a progressive we have among us!
Note for the Hamsherites: bashing Democrats and achieving nothing except to help the GOP is NOT a progressive stance. How many times do we have to school you ignorant fanatics in Politics 101?
LT
@El Tiburon:
It’s what’s so dumb about all this. Not to mention that people going after her are acting like government is their friend. Ever. Jesus.
Ailuridae
The worst part about Mika’s on-air personality is that she’s plainly playing stupid because that’s what the overwhelmingly male septuagenarian audience of Morning Joe demands of her. It’s nice when her Dad is on because you can feel his sense of embarrassment and disgust that she’s playing the dim spokesmodel to three genuinely stupid, loathsome men in Joe, Willie and Barnicle.
When her and Banfield co-hosted that afternoon show before 9/11 on MSNBC both of them asked incisive questions and when she did blurbs for Joe’s night time program she used to openly mock him for being such a meat head. And that got her nowhere.
And it’s not a coincidence that until Griffin plucked her out of relative obscurity Mika wasn’t getting big time gigs precisely because she wasn’t dim or lazy. That got her nowhere – doing this Gretchen Carlson imitation* has her hosting Morning Joe and getting book deals. This isn’t a defense of Mika it is just worth mentioning that because of Rachel Maddow’s prominence a lot of people think that cable news viewership and executives are willing to let a smart (and in Rachel’s case snarky) woman run an hour of programming while being openly smart. But Rachel is the exception that proves the rule not the way things actually are.
*And the irony here is that Carlson isn’t remotely stupid either as the Daily Show went to some great lengths to demonstrate.
MattR
@LT:
And yet you and El Tiburon are acting as if Grover Norquist is a friend. At least the government occassionally does things that are good for the majority of its citizens.
morzer
@LT:
Sure. Let’s destroy the government. Let the corporations take over, and then they can bar-code you, and your transformation from brain-dead citizen to brain-dead serf will be complete.
Ailuridae
@El Tiburon:
First time I have ever tried to block quote – let’s see if it works.
I can’t speak for anyone else but my objection to Hamsher has always been that she is willing to adopt the most dishonest tactics of the right-wing to further her arguments. So for the weeks leading up to the passage of PPACA her and her front pagers were making plainly dishonest claims about the bill that were trivially easy to disprove and continued to make them day after day after having people correct her by quoting the actual legislation. Specifically, that the bill had inadequate provisions to protect those with pre-existing conditions. Sorry, I just don’t see any difference between telling an outrageous lie like that in hopes the bill will be more progressive and the “death panels” of betsy mccaughey. As someone who defends Jane here on occasion maybe you can explain where you see a difference there or why that behavior doesn’t bother you.
LT
@MattR:
No, we’re not, actually. And hell yes, government does good things, some really good things. It means nothing to me regarding the relationship between citizens toward government, which if you’re not old enough to think should always be adversarial, then well, enjoy your innocence.
LT
And some companies are now trying to drop childrens coverage to get around it.
El Tiburon
@morzer:
I’m rubber and you’re glue…
I am not here to present a defense of Hamsher. Listen to me one more time: my complaint is with the childish antics of people like you.
@Ailuridae:
Let me be very clear: Although I visit FDL daily, it’s mainly to catch TBogg. I don’t read that much Hamsher and mainly skim the other front page post.
Saying that. I disagree with you 100% with your assertion that anyone at FDL were making “…plainly dishonest claims about the bill…” And, and if they made any claims that weren’t true, then it was by mistake.
Look, HCR was a hotly-debated issue even amongst the liberals and progressives. I tend to fall more in line with the Greenwald/Hamsher claims regarding the 60-vote issue than I do with Coles take on the issue. Both sides make compelling arguments and I value that neither side is willing to back down. I also know that both sides (and I just call it that for ease of the argument) want the best health care bill possible.
Well, here is the problem right here. If you don’t see any difference between the ‘Death Panels’ lie and the debate if the bill has inadequate provisions, then I don’t know what to tell you.
I can say that if you truly, honestly believe that this bill, which is very industry friendly, has enough teeth to combat pre-existing conditions, then I have some swampland for you. Seriously, I think it is an honest accusation to make about ANY bill that is written into law: how big are the loopholes and how many are there. It’s a little different than accusing the bill of killing Granny because she is old.
MattR
@LT: If you don’t think Norquist is a friend, then perhaps you should be concerned about the fact the Hamsher was allying herself with him instead of supporting it. I have no illusions that the government is generally not on the side of the little person, but I also know that Norquist is on that side even less often (if at all).
Ailuridae
@El Tiburon:
Well, here is the problem right here. If you don’t see any difference between the ‘Death Panels’ lie and the debate if the bill has inadequate provisions, then I don’t know what to tell you.
I can say that if you truly, honestly believe that this bill, which is very industry friendly, has enough teeth to combat pre-existing conditions, then I have some swampland for you. Seriously, I think it is an honest accusation to make about ANY bill that is written into law: how big are the loopholes and how many are there. It’s a little different than accusing the bill of killing Granny because she is old.
This is a strange argument. So if the bill had a public option I could make an argument that the public option didn’t actually exist because there may be big loop holes in it? Really?
I almost feel like I am sometimes talking to a denier about climate science when I talk about parts of PPACA with people who wanted to kill the bill. I would point to the language of the bill that clearly demonstrated they were wrong and they would try to turn it into a “differing equally valid” opinions issue. That’s not the case, though. The language of the bill is the language of the bill. It is certainly adequate to guarantee those in the individual market will have protection against pre-exisitng conditions and recission and that only age and smoking preference will be used to determine pricing.
And I see the situation as very comparable with the death panels lie because what is at the heart of both of them is being openly dishonest to create fear among vulnerable people that the government cannot meet the needs of the governed. Again it is standard conservative practice and, frankly it is loathsome even when our side does it and even the reason why he is well intentioned.
LT
@MattR: WAAAAH.
If you have time to be worried about things like that, you really have to check your priorities.
El Tiburon
@Ailuridae:
Whoa now, you are veering severely off course. No one is denying that any of these provisions exist; only if they have enough teeth to do their intended job. I am not making an argument one or another as I’m not really sure what you are referring to. My point is that it’s an honest debate as to whether a bill, once it becomes law, will do what it is supposed to do.
So, assuming there was a public option now signed into law, then an honest debate could be is it truly a viable public option that could replace private insurance.
I don’t doubt what you say, regardless, it is still no guarantee to do what it says you say it will. This is called a debate. I am not calling you a liar or health-care bill denier. I am just not sure, regardless of your assertions, that you are correct and the bill will truly protect those with pre-existing conditions. Just last week it came out that some insurance companies would stop writing new-child policies to get around not being able to drop kids. So my point again: how big and how many loopholes?
Again, don’t know what to say here. Those on the right want to kill the bill regardless. Critics on the left want to strengthen the bill. Those same critics are also upset that so many on the left were willing to be satisfied with a watered-down, and some would argue useless, bill. I understand both factions and don’t accuse one side or the other of being deceitful.
MattR
@LT: That’s a heckuva argument that leaves room for a single retort. If you don’t have time to be worried about things like that, you really have to check your priorities.
Ailuridae
@El Tiburon:
Whether or not the bill is properly enforced has very little to do with whether it is a good law. Under Bush the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department largely stopped enforcing the provisions of the Civil Rights act of 1965 and focused on trying to accuse ACORN of vote registration fraud. That doesn’t speak ill of the Civil Rights Act; it just means conservatives are largely racist ass holes who don’t think blacks deserve to have their votes counted.
The bill is written in a clear way and the language of the bill plainly protects those with pre-existing conditions in the individual market. If ten years from now Ben Nelson III is Insurance commissioner of Nebraska and elects to not enforce the law that’s on the voters of that state, not on the authors of this law.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@cmorenc:
I’ve suggested that the front pagers create the tag “Hamsher Derangement Syndrome” so that the non-deranged among us have a bit of a heads up.
morzer
@El Tiburon:
No, you are a small peanut and I have a big hammer.
Let’s deal with facts, since you seem to be ignoring them:
Hamsher has achieved precisely NOTHING in the last six months. ZIP. NADA. ZERO.
All she has managed is to try and fail to destroy health-care reform, while hopping into mad Grover’s government-sized bath-tub and try to get her hot little hands on the lever of power. Subsequently, having made an arrant fool of herself, and achieved NOTHING (yet again), she decided to undertake an extended promotional tour of any talk-show that would have her, bleating on about how her demands had not been met, so we ought to regard the bill as evil, a disaster etc etc etc. As usual, she has achieved NOTHING.
In real terms, the reform is not perfect, as no reform is first time around – but it is a hugely important bridge-head to a better future. The GOP knows this, and hates it, which is why they ignore its good points and try to pretend that it’s a socialist plot with death-panels. If you and Hamsher want to turn a real victory into defeat, go ahead and keep whoring for the GOP. Just don’t pretend that you have achieved anything by doing so. The rest of us, on planet earth, will work to improve the law and keep irresponsible children like Hamsher a good long way from any sort of power or influence.
morzer
@El Tiburon:
No, you are a small peanut and I have a big hammer.
Let’s deal with facts, since you seem to be ignoring them:
Hamsher has achieved precisely NOTHING in the last six months. ZIP. NADA. ZERO.
All she has managed is to try and fail to destroy health-care reform, while hopping into mad Grover’s government-sized bath-tub and try to get her hot little hands on the lever of power. Subsequently, having made an arrant fool of herself, and achieved NOTHING (yet again), she decided to undertake an extended promotional tour of any talk-show that would have her, bleating on about how her demands had not been met, so we ought to regard the bill as evil, a disaster etc etc etc. As usual, she has achieved NOTHING. Do you notice a theme here, just possibly?
In real terms, the reform is not perfect, as no reform is first time around – but it is a hugely important bridge-head to a better future. The GOP knows this, and hates it, which is why they ignore its good points and try to pretend that it’s an evil plot with death-panels. If you and Hamsher want to turn a real victory into defeat, go ahead and keep whoring for the GOP. Just don’t pretend that you have achieved anything by doing so. The rest of us, on planet earth, will work to improve the law and keep irresponsible children like Hamsher a good long way from any sort of power or influence.
Odie Hugh Manatee
For the freaking maroons out there who hyperventilate and fall over in a faint whenever anyone disses their Saint Jane, remember that in this country Jane gets to say what she wants and we get to comment on it. The neat thing is that you get to whine about our comments! Everybody wins!! I have to say that you folks are doing a pretty good job of whining today, so congratulations are in order.
Kudos.
Carry on.
El Tiburon
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Hey odie, why don’t you point out one of these freaking maroons who are hyperventilating over st. Jane. I would really like to see one person over here doing it.
Or better yet, why don’t you call out the freaks like morzer who are absolutely having a coronary over this person. These people don’t know whether to shit or wind their watch due to their JDS.
Otherwise you are just as full of shit as the rest of them.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@El Tiburon:
Oh yeah, I forgot about the Calamity Jane supporters who attack anyone who has the audacity to say that Jane is full of shit by claiming that they are just being childish and acting like some kind of mind-hive or high school clique (see: O-bot). The childish name-calling is just icing on the shit cake they are baking.
Yer doin’ a great job! Kudos!!
Carry on.
John Bird
I don’t know, man, I don’t come to this blog for a daily dose of news on Jane Hamsher.
Dick Hertz
If there wasn’t a Hamsher on the left pushing Obama, wouldn’t they have to invent one? Otherwise what would the administration use to justify policy positions that don’t poll out well after they are passed? The media seems to think Obama is a Marxist Socialist Communist Atheist Muslim who goes to a Black Panther Church Liberal who is simultaneous a superman and a spineless sea cucumber of mushy liberalism.
With that kind of noise they need a reference point on the left to serve the purpose of Sister Soulja.
Bernard
obviously, criticism of the the so called Health care bill is not permitted by some. and Jane was also against what it apparently ended up as.
i do remember Gibbs criticizing Bloggers for being “critical”against the Big O.
of course anyone who sides with Norquist is a Quisling, lol.
how anyone could help the Devil is beyond me. though i have to admit the scuttling of the Health insurance subsidy bill, otherwise called Health insurance reform, would have been a good thing. While there are some good things in the Bill, it is a “gift” for the Health, Pharma, etc industries. the same old arguments. the Bill passed and we will soon see the “realities” of the kind of “reform.”
how anyone could support Obama is beyond me, nor Clinton for that matter. Tweedle dee and dum, in my opinion. both out to be king/queen of the Corporate Masters scam on America.
so i see the Circle firing squad has Jane, Glen, etc as the reasons for the self inflicted injuries.
oh how i love the stupidity and aim of Democrats, like Obama, who have helped the Republican return to their heyday of power. with Democrats fighting internecine purity contest, Republicans can watch from the sidelines as the Democrats sideline themselves. lol
thanks to the self inflicted fighting inside the so called Democratic “left,” Gibbs hatred for the “left” continues to rage on. something about good vs. perfect. like i should be happy Obama hasn’t come out as a closet Republican, though his actions would make St. Ronnie proud. oh wait…