Journalist Steve Leser in 2008: Hillary voted for Iraq war and has a horrific record...

[jfern]

Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war and has a horrific record of voting to continue to support and fund it at nearly every opportunity. During the campaign, she has been the least decisive on ending the war and bringing home the troops making me doubt if she really intends to do either in the first years of her Presidency.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080202_obama_endorsement__96_.htm

[BooScout]

1. ...

More views on Steve's articles! Thanks for supporting a DUer!

[Sheepshank]

75. Insane jealously is all I see here

Steve has a very public voice, one that leans HRC and its aired to millions. Providing an option to Millions of mostly Republicans, trying to help them see the flip side of their usual talking points.

It's only ever been Bernie supporters and a smattering of other non Hillary supporters that attempt this type of slime. You know why? It has nothing to do with Steve and his Dem creds, it really has nothing to do with the platform he has for voicing that opinion. The bottom line......... They can't stand that Bernie isn't getting the same type of exposure. It drives them absolutely nutty.

As mentioned here and previously by Steve, when in the media, there's no such thing as bad publicity, just so long as they keep talking. It's actually great.

[hrmjustin]

2. You guys never quit!

[jfern]

3. He just posted that her vote was no big deal and Iraq wasn't her fault

I prefer the Steve Leser of 2008.

[hrmjustin]

4. So address it in that thread. Don't start this crap here.

You are trying to embarrass him and it stinks.

[mindwalker_i]

25. So, you're saying that repeating someone's views embarrases them?

You are blaming the person repeating Leser's statements instead of blaming the source of those statements. What htis smacks of is supporting a person because they're "on your team." The alternate view is to support the ideas of someone rather than their brand. It's the reason I'm not in favor if Hillary: her views aren't what I think will be good for the country. I don't care whether she has a "D" next to her name, an "R", or "~". What matters are the values one has.

Think of it this way: how many people are Christians vs. how many actually follow his teachings?

[hrmjustin]

27. I have no issue with you criticizing him.

I have an issue starting an op to embarrasa member.

[mindwalker_i]

41. Except, what you actually said was...

"You are trying to embarrass him and it stinks."

So what you're saying, if I can paraphrase, is that the author of the OP is trying to embarrass him ("him" being Leser), and that doing so stinks, as in it's mean, uncalled for, or otherwise not fair or not right. This is at odds with the claim that you have no issue with someone "criticizing" him.

Your mutually exclusive statements stink.

[hrmjustin]

42. Whatever. You guys are going to do what you are going to do.

[mindwalker_i]

61. That's an interesting way to get out of an argument

[bvf]

65. Well, *something* stinks, eh?

Nothing wrong with embarrassing someone who needs to be embarrassed. That's what transparency pages are all about, right?

[sabrina 1]

7. Hey, you want to be a 'public figure'?? That makes you 'fair game'. Too bad the public

isn't buying this. Overwhelmingly the public wants Money out of Politics because most people actually do care about these kinds of flip flops.

[hrmjustin]

8. This is not about him being a public figure. This about shaming him off DU.

Sorry but i don't buy your attemot to spin this.

[Divernan]

11. If the truth shames him, that's his problem, as well as yours.

[sabrina 1]

14. Hey, I don't want to leave DU. We need to KNOW how these things work. Or were you thinking of

Will Pitt who was driven off, or maybe he, like eg, Thom Hartmann and a few other Liberal writers just didn't feel welcome on a forum that appears to have changed to the point where so-called 'lefties' are using the McCarthyism era 'Red Card' to slam people like Sanders and his supporters with?

I don't recognize this place anymore. We used to represent the LEFT. What 'leftie' would use McCarthy's Right Wing memes against someone who holds real Democratic viewpoints on almost all of the issues DEMS CLAIM TO CARE ABOUT?

So many have moved on. It's a big internet now and I've met many of the DUers who used to frequent this forum, elsewhere, where they have bigger microphones and don't have to up with the old Right Wing 'Commie' garbage dredged up despite it's failure, on a forum where once it would have been inconceivable.

If you supported running Pitt off or didn't speak up about it, I fail to see your problem with what's left of the Old DU correcting the record this 'journalist' has brought here.

[Godhumor]

15. I represent the very old DU

And it is certainly not the Bernie supporters being driven off.

[sabrina 1]

47. Oh yes it is. But I wouldn't say 'driven off' more like LEAVING to go where they are

welcome, the Left of the Party appears to not be welcome here anymore. Fine, as I said, the internet it a lot bigger than it once was. And Bernie supporters who have left DU are thriving elsewhere.

Left is a bad word here these days.

Maybe this shift is a sign of things to come. The Left no longer welcome on 'liberal forums' currently over run by right wing memes, such as the old McCarthy era 'commie' Red Card once seen only on Right Wing forums.

[ablamj]

53. Where are they thriving?

I'd like to go there.

[Godhumor]

55. And yet, demographically, DU about 90% Sanders supporters

So if they're choosing to leave it is because 90% just wasn't enough.

[hrmjustin]

17. I was not in favor of Pitt being runoff.

It happened during a time I stopped posting on DU.

And DU is a big tent for Democrats. Unfortunately many fanctions try hard to poke the other.

No side is innocent.

[sabrina 1]

48. Bit Tent doesn't include right wing McCarty era cold warriors, to my knowledge.

They have their own party, no? The Left is rising, kept down by the Third Way/Right Wing of the Dem Party for a while. But the Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders wing of the party is reinfiltrating our Party and I would think any Democrat would welcome this turn around.

[hrmjustin]

50. So what is your solution? What group or grouos would you remove from DU?

[sabrina 1]

56. I believe I addressed that question already. I'm actually for mixed forums where both right and left

participate. In fact one of the best forums I was ever on did include members across the political spectrum.

However, those who propose Right Wing memes, such as the old Right Wing 'Commie' Red Card for the Left should declare who they are. As was the case on the forum I mentioned.

No left Democrat would EVER use that horrendous right wing meme to attack a Democratic Candidate with.

Obama and Hillary were called 'Socialists' still are. The old McCarthy era right wingers are free to use that old, historical meme, it didn't stop Obama from winning did it?

So if you are into those Right Wing attacks on the Left, then declare yourself as a Right Winger. I'm fine with that, and with them remaining here just so they don't pretend to be something they are not.

[hrmjustin]

57. I know what you mean. I hate when people use RW memes and sources to attack

Hillary.

[840high]

60. +1

[virtualobserver]

20. Priinting articles that he wrote about Hillary constitutes SHAMING him?

Amazing.

[hrmjustin]

22. Starting ops about it yes.

If you want to challenge him go to his ops and responses but don't call out a member like this.

[virtualobserver]

23. The OP is about the truth.

the OP does not criticize him or say anything negative about him.

If the article itself is not shameful either.

[hrmjustin]

26. Don't buy this at all. This is an attempt to embarrass him.

If he wasn't a member you guys would not even bother.

[virtualobserver]

32. He is a member who links to his own blog

He wants us to read his work, this is his business.


His positive description of Obama is perfect. That was why I supported Obama.

It is not about shaming him....his work describing Hillary in the past is accurate,
It is his current work that I disagree with.

[hrmjustin]

33. You guys are going to do whatever you wnt so it is pointless for me to argue with you.

Good night.

[kath]

34. So are you done being a Thread Nanny? For other threads too?

[hrmjustin]

36. Could you please correct this post?

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=672685


I did not send the alert and don't want my name associated with it.

Thank you.

[truebrit71]

43. Highly doubtful....

[sabrina 1]

49. How is it shaming a paid journalist to link to their work? Unless he is ashamed of course.

[hrmjustin]

52. Iam done arguing this.

According to someon in this thread I am acting like a hall monitor so i am done.

[sabrina 1]

59. Will Pitt's work and Thom Hartmann's work is linked here all the time. You are asking for special

treatment for Leser. Either no one's work is linked, or everyone's work is linked. I have no problem with this discussion at all. I am willing to listen and respond to anyone's pov. But I guess I understand your reluctance to continue. You are asking for special treatment for someone who has attacked the LEFT, I now, I was the recipient of some of it, consistently. We want to KNOW what this forum is about. Because it sure has changed.

[artislife]

30. Well this is his choice

99% of the people, more or less, on this site are not using their real names. But when you are ....gosh, I will be generous and say...forthright with who you are and what you do, you have made a choice. You made a choice to self promote. His promotion? His punditry. He promoted it every time he posted an OP or sent in a comment. His name, his content and especially his sig line.


So, live by the sword, die by the sword.

[kath]

31. Exactly. Nt

[sabrina 1]

51. Most DUers are not paid either for their comments here. When you become a 'professional journalist'

that means you are paid for the work you do. Most of us are just ordinary people who have never been on anyone's payroll politically.

The sad thins is, I thought these forums were FOR ordinary people.

[rhett o rick]

62. He is responsible for what he said. If he wants to refute what he said, fine. But reporting

what he said then is not attacking him. He said it, he owns it. The reason that it's being brought up again is, IMO, because a lot of people agreed with him then and wonder what happened now.

I notice that HRC doesn't want to take responsibility for her vote to give Bush carte blanche to kill Iraqis. How ironic that Steve doesn't want to take responsibility for what he said.

How sad that some will follow people that flip-flop so drastically.

[hrmjustin]

63. Enjoy the debate.

[whatchamacallit]

5. "Journalist" Lol!

[HooptieWagon]

6. Using the title 'journalist' is a stretch.

Maybe propagandist, public relations person, spokesperson...if money has changed hands there's a few more terms that fit.

[treestar]

69. Journalists work for free?

Who knew?

[azmom]

9. LOL

[JaneyVee]

10. Steve must be pissing off the right people.

Opinions, everyone got one.

[Marr]

39. And some people have multiple, conflicting opinions...

depending on who they're supporting that week.

[treestar]

70. over 8 years you have not changed your opinion of anybody?

[Marr]

71. Have I ever condemned a politician on a specific point, then turned around

later and claimed that same point was a virtue?

No, I can honestly say I've never done that.

Besides, you know very well this isn't simply about someone 'changing their mind about somebody'. This is in the context of a presidential campaign, from a person who describes themselves as a journalist. It speaks of political expediency and shilling, not some kind of cognitive evolution.

[treestar]

72. You don't say what the point was

but over 8 years of time you have never changed your philosophy of what is and what is not a virtue?

This helps Bernie not at all. It's some kind of gotcha that does not even work, as it requires one to take the position no one should ever change their views or be affected by any of their observations or have any new thoughts, all of which sounds like right wingers to me.

[Marr]

73. Funny how these 'philosophical changes' coincide with the needs of his chosen campaigns.

Hypocrisy is not a virtue, but good luck selling it.

[treestar]

74. He did a full explanation

of his change of mind over a period of eight years. If you have not changed your mind over long periods of time on any issue, then good of you but the motive might be the same. Why do you assume his chosen campaigns are merely some type of expedience? Why should we take anyone at their word about their motives? When your motive is to cut everything down that you consider "the Establishment" or whatever, that will also lead to "expedient" choices. I bet a lot of Bernie's biggest here weren't talking him up the same amount a year ago. Why did they change from Warren to Bernie?

Steven can support who he wants and change over that no matter what anyone else says or whether or not they insist others must have nefarious motives of some kind. The idea you can never change what you think over time is narrow minded.

[Marr]

76. lol, yes-- when 'changing his mind' became politically expedient, he had a retroactive explanation.

Confirmation bias is strong, I understand that-- but I would think even a Hillary Clinton supporter would look at that progression and say, 'that's awfully convenient...".

Also, I never said a person can't change their mind on a topic, as you keep insisting. It happens all the time. But this sort of sudden about-face exactly when it's needed is just insulting to ones intelligence. I can't believe anyone would buy it. He's clearly putting support for a candidate first, and just adjusting all of his 'principles' to line up with that support.

[stillwaiting]

44. What a lovely thing to say. Pure loveliness. Lovely. nt

[rhett o rick]

64. Do you mean when he called her a liar or now when he thinks she suddenly gain integrity?

It would be one thing to change your mind about an issue, but he was brutal in his assessment of her personally, and now he adores her. This is an integrity issue.

[demmiblue]

12. I don't care about his opinions. Journalist Steve Leser is a proven hypocrite...

why even concern yourself with him? Seems like a waste of time to me.

Shite, it seems I have to even put that name on my trash by keyword list.

[kath]

16. The alert (by justin or whomever) was a FAIL:

On Tue Oct 13, 2015, 05:26 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Journalist Steve Leser in 2008: Hillary voted for Iraq war and has a horrific record...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251672627

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is a disruptive call out of another DUer (Steve Leser). These kinds of disruptive call outs just lead to a hot mess. Let's keep DU civil.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Oct 13, 2015, 05:42 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not a call out. Steven Leser is a professional writer. Posting past writings is hardly a call out. Methinks the alerter is more upset that the OP pointed out Her Majesty's politically inconvenient on votes she cast that are in the public record. Leave it.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Though I believe this information is pertinent, I question why it wasn't posted in the thread where Steve Lester made the endorsement or why the poster doesn't just come out and ask him with a simple reply. Agree with alerter. The intent of this thread is a call-out and an attempt to disrupt.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The civility horse left the barn long ago. Bringing one's own words to one's attention is not a call-out. It is merely a reminder of one's past.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No, this post is about a blog post by a "journalist"; it is NOT a call-out concerning a DU post. Stupid alert. LEAVE IT!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Since when is posting an article written by a DUer a "disruptive call out"? Did I miss that meeting?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Discussing written, authored pieces of journalism is EXACTLY what this forum is about. I would have not known the author was on DU, and apparently if he/she chooses to put their name as their handle, they have no problem with their presence in the public square for discussion, good or bad.


Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Reposting an op-ed is not something i would consider alertable. He may be a DUer but he’s also a journalist so fair game (to say nothing of his penchant for criticizing people NOW for the same opinion he held THEN).

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[hrmjustin]

19. It was not me so I respectfully ask you to take my name off your response.

[tomm2thumbs]

21. very insightful 1-6 to leave it

I guess that says it all

[guillaumeb]

18. Leser, and HRC have "evolved" from previous positions.

Validation that evolution, rapid evolution, is possible.

[Go Vols]

45. :/

[slipslidingaway]

24. I would prefer to post in this thread instead of driving traffic to his blog ...

he said the other night that he was happy for all the "internet attention" so I am reluctant to even post in this thread.

[slipslidingaway]

35. Could be, but in my 11 years on DU I have only put one person on ignore ...

and they were banned a couple of hours later.

Nice to know what they are saying.

[AtomicKitten]

28. Made me laugh out loud ...

It's not (most of) us who've changed our minds.

Thanks for posting this gentle reminder. k&r

[aikoaiko]

37. FWIW: One host chimes in.

I voted to LEAVE this OP because I differentiate between professional pundit Steve Leser and DUer Stevenleser.

Citing web published pieces is not calling out a DUer. On the other hand, creating OPs based on DUer Stevenleser's posts that do not reference/cite his web published work would earn a lock vote from me. Of course it is the same person, I understand how he or his friends might feel about this.

I am just one host and I always defer to the majority.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Good call.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. I guess principles get old, like news, for some people.

War is peace, etc.

[HereSince1628]

46. Imagine how --bad-- Leser thinks the other candidates are

to be see H> as so clearly the best candidate

[morningfog]

54. Too fucking funny. Steve cracks me up. lol.

He just keeps on giving.

[ucrdem]

58. I'll say this for Leser: he became DU journalist-laureate without breaking a sweat.

Whereas others have had to huff and puff for years. Call it the Biden technique.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

66. New DU mantra:

Denigrate long standing DUers and prominent Democrats.

OP, you make DU suck.

[Capt. Obvious]

67. He was apparently on Fox News Cavuto yesterday

Along with Newsmax Tv.

Did anyone watch?

[treestar]

68. There is a whole thread where stevenleser explained

his change of mind over an eight year period.

This one is a fail. You can't change your mind about people after an 8 year period? Good grief. By that measure, everyone who ever got a divorce is as bad. That's changing your mind about a person.