When Will We Start Burning Books at Democratic Underground?

[McCamy Taylor]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/faux-obama-supporter-mayh_b_96379.html

(Joseph A. Palermo) According to her bio on the Huffington Post, Mayhill Fowler is a middle-aged Southern belle "born and bred in Tennessee" who moved to Houston, and later became a California resident.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14web-seelye.html?pagewanted=2

Mayhill Fowler “I’m a religious person, and I grew up poor in a very wealthy family -- sometimes we didn’t have enough to eat, but my larger family was rich,” she said. Her father was a hunter.

In my latest journal, I describe how I tracked down an account from spring 1996 of Hillary’s Bosnia trip. The article was published in People magazine. It was the only one listed in the 1996 periodical guide, which was notable for the many Hillary bashing pieces that were done as part of the RNC’s 2006 campaign Bill Clinton. I transcribed the pertinent parts of the article, since it was the closest thing to an unbiased, recent account of the journey that I had found. It was written by Linda Kramer, who now is the Washington Editor for Glamour, and it appeared in vol 45, April 15, 1996. The only significant part is that she refers to area they visited as a “war zone” in contradiction to the impression which some journalists have recently sought to give, notably John Pomfret of the Washington Post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5510599#5511261

March 25, Bosnia : As our C-17 air transport prepares to land in Bosnia, the flight crew warns passengers to slip on flak vests: “We have entered the combat zone.” Armed GIs in Humvees line the landing strip. The first presidential wife to visit a war zone since Eleanor Roosevelt, Mrs. Clinton comes bearing gifts. For the troops: a 50-inch TV, a VCR, 300 videos and 2,200 phone cards with credit to call home. For Bosnian children: art supplies, toys and cases of candy. The reaction to her visit: “I don’t know about the stuff she’s into, that trouble—not Watergate, what is it?” says Capt. Jonathan Boswell of Nashville later in the day. “It doesn’t matter. It’s really exciting to have her here.”

Unexpectedly, Chelsea proves to be a star attraction several times today. GIs at each stop request photos with the First Daughter. While the First Lady tours an outpost near the badly shelled village of Markovici, Maj. Gen. William Nash, commander of U.S. forces in Bosnia, insists Chelsea chech out an M-1 tank, which he describes as a “mean killing machine.” “That was just great!” says Chelsea afterward, emerging from the belly of the M-1.
Snip

March 26, Ankara, Turkey : After surviving a war zone, the Clintons must now brave the Turkish press…

I expected vitriolic replies from the Hillary bashers (some of whom I am convinced only pretend to be Obama supporter so that they can spread their Clinton hating filth on a Democratic board). I was a bit surprised by this.

16. OMG! A People Magazine writer is a Journalist? They would NEVER embellish a story!

Was there something I did not know about Ms. Kramer? Had she disavowed the story that had appeared in People ? Had she told the world that her editors made her insert the part about it being a “war zone” to jazz things up? I did a Google.

http://www.glamour.com/news/blogs/glamocracy/2008/03/another-view-fr.html

Glamour Washington Editor Linda Kramer Jenning was on the now-controversial 1996 trip to Bosnia with Hillary and Chelsea Clinton that I mentioned this morning. Reporting at the time for People, Linda tells me that she remembers a crew member announcing "We have entered the combat zone!" as the plane prepared to land at Tuzla. She says, "There was nervous joking about whether we were better off putting on the flak vests stored beneath our seats or if perhaps sitting on them would make more sense in case anybody was firing up at the plane. Always good to protect your butt. However, all was quiet when we landed.
Snip
One thing she doesn't remember—any sniper fire. Sorry Hillary!

Hmmm. Another journalist smeared----thrown under the bus---by someone at Democratic Underground without justification, simply because that journalist wrote a story 12 years ago that included a fact that the DUer did not want to hear. Now that the same poster knows that Kramer does not remember any sniper fire, I am sure that he/she will see her in a whole new light. She will suddenly become the most reliable of sources and her recollections will be quoted as gospel though her words written days after the journey will be discounted or forgotten.

This is a minor incident. Here is a more serious case. Paul Krugman

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4660865

Twelve people at Democratic Underground classified Paul Krugman---who has consistently criticized Bush’s policies even when it was not popular or safe to do so—as a “Right Wing Tool and DLCer” because he supports Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan over Obama's.

Then there is this

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/04/losing_paul_krugman/

TMP Café M.J. Rosenberg - April 4, 2008, 11:05AM

Krugman is making two big mistakes. The first has to do with his influence as a columnist. By constantly attacking Obama, he is turning off the 50% of Democrats who favor Obama as our nominee. People like me can no longer read him without thinking "What's up with this guy? Has he really developed such a personal animus to our likely nominee based on his differences with him on health care? What's his agenda here?"
In other words, I no longer trust him.
Then there is the larger issue. I no longer think that Krugman understands how our system works. So he likes Hillary's plan better than Obama's (as do I). So what?
Snip
In other words, Krugman's whole case against Obama is much ado about very little. He is losing a sizable chunk of his readership for nothing. What gives?

Pardon me if I scoff. Healthcare is “very little” but whether or not Hillary heard gunshots in Tuzla is an all important burning question? Only if you are 1) an Obama supporters or 2) a tool of the health insurance industry. The rest of the country thinks that healthcare is one of the most important issues this election.

I am not the only one who thinks that Rosenberg is full of it.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/4/123616/1412

Yes, Paul Krugman has substantive critiques of Barack Obama and he loses Obama fanboys like the ones writing a TPM. The shallow, fallacious and empty attacks on Hillary Clinton by TPM, not to mention the legion of Obama supporters from Senators on down, is sure to make for a wonderfully unified Democratic Party. Writing from the TPM glass house with its tattered reputation, Rosenberg chooses to throw stones at Paul Krugman?

This stuff isn’t just coming from the press and Obama supporters. Obama himself has attacked Krugman, a man who has done more for the country than Obama, Hillary and Edwards have as Senators. For all their tough talk, all three have made safe choices.

Here is what Obama claims about Krugman:
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/07/fact_check_krugman_didnt_alway.php

Fact Check: ''Krugman Didn't Always Think So Poorly Of Obama's Plan''

Note that Obama uses quotes taken out of context to claim that Krugman praised his healthplan in the summer but then criticized it in the winter. In other words, he uses a trick straight out of 2004 and calls Krugman a waffler .

Since Krugman is no waffler, I decided to check the sources myself.

Krugman 6-4-07

Obama in Second Place
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The title alone tells you that Obama’s plan is not going to be a winner. Krugman says some words of praise (the ones that Obama quotes on his site) but then he goes on with the criticism which Obama omits.

Now for the bad news. Although Mr. Obama says he has a plan for universal health care, he actually doesn’t — a point Mr. Edwards made in last night’s debate. The Obama plan doesn’t mandate insurance for adults. So some people would take their chances — and then end up receiving treatment at other people’s expense when they ended up in emergency rooms. In that regard it’s actually weaker than the Schwarzenegger plan.

I asked David Cutler, a Harvard economist who helped put together the Obama plan, about this omission. His answer was that Mr. Obama is reluctant to impose a mandate that might not be enforceable, and that he hopes — based, to be fair, on some estimates by Mr. Cutler and others — that a combination of subsidies and outreach can get all but a tiny fraction of the population insured without a mandate. Call it the timidity of hope.

On the whole, the Obama plan is better than I feared but not as comprehensive as I would have liked. It doesn’t quell my worries that Mr. Obama’s dislike of “bitter and partisan” politics makes him too cautious. But at least he’s come out with a plan.

Senator Clinton, we’re waiting to hear from you.

You got that? Worse than Schwarzenegger. “The timidity of hope.” Basically what Obama got was a C for turning his assignment in. Hillary got an incomplete.

Now, here is Krugman from November, 2007

From the beginning, advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn’t cover everyone. But they were willing to cut Mr. Obama slack on the issue, assuming that in the end he would do the right thing.

Now, however, Mr. Obama is claiming that his plan’s weakness is actually a strength. What’s more, he’s doing the same thing in the health care debate he did when claiming that Social Security faces a “crisis” — attacking his rivals by echoing right-wing talking points.

The central question is whether there should be a health insurance “mandate” — a requirement that everyone sign up for health insurance, even if they don’t think they need it. The Edwards and Clinton plans have mandates; the Obama plan has one for children, but not for adults.

Krugman then goes on to criticize the Obama plan for its lack of truly universal coverage---something he criticized in June—and Obama himself for using right wing talking points to criticize the universal health insurance plans of Hillary and Edwards.

Who is a liar now? Not Krugman. The Obama website makes claims which are irresponsible. Obama seeks to discredit one of the most powerful and well respected progressive voices in the world of mainstream journalism, because that voice has chosen not to join the choir that sing Obama’s praises.

Thanks to this blogger for pointing out the distortion at the Obama campaign site:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/7/22374/8663

Here is what happened at DU when Gore Vidal announced his support for Hillary---something that should have come as no surprise to anyone given the way that he has compared her to Eleanor Roosevelt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5367566#5367588

So this pretty much makes him just another hypocrite and a mere hack. Sad.

There are more posts like this one. Gore Vidal has been a progressive and a fearless critic of the corrupt capitalist system since before most of us were born.

I don’t need to tell you guys what is being done to Mayhill Flowers over the Obama “cling to their guns and Churches and antipathy” quotes. She has been accused of wiretapping of being an RNC mole, a Hillary mole. Although DU proclaims that Obama’s words were “true”, she has been branded with a T for traitor for printing them (how can a journalist go wrong printing the truth?). Here is the New York Times on the Obama backlash against this journalist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14web-seelye.html

Ms. Fowler told me in an interview Sunday night that she was initially reluctant to write about what Mr. Obama had said because she actually supports him -- which partly explains why she was at the fund-raiser in the first place and why there was a four-day delay between the event and the publication of her post. Ultimately, she said, she decided that if she didn’t write about it, she wouldn’t be worth her salt as a journalist.

Snip

Ms. Fowler said she held her digital recorder openly. The place was jammed with others using video cams and cell phone cameras. Among them, Ms. Fowler said, was a professor who was recording the event for his students. In fact, snippets of the speech have been posted on YouTube by others who were there.

snip

Comments on dailykos.com became so furious that one poster suggested that readers let Ms. Fowler off the hook. “No,” someone else responded, “if we let her go, others will do it... We’ve got to show the ‘journalist’ that they can’t manufacture dissent. This isn’t about Obama, this could easily be a story about Iraq or Iran. This is the type of disingenuous reporting that we have to stop. We need to make an example of her.”

Iraq or Iran? Give me a break. This isn't about Iraq or Iran. When the corporate media was playing DU for a fool with their "Pelosi knew" story, all DU wanted to do was bash our own Democratic House speaker, not question the motives of the Neo-Con press that was preparing to launch an attack on the Iran NIE. When the MSM manufacturers dissent, the people around here jump like well trained little puppies. Go check out my journals for exactly what happened that weekend when Mark Mazzetti of the NYT's conspired with the WH to discredit the CIA and the Iran NIE.

Manufacture dissent?

Here is what “Manufacturing Dissent” is all about.

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9501-journalism.html

In Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky argues that the media establishes and defends the agenda of the dominant privileged groups in society. "The media serve this purpose in many ways: through selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

But Chomsky believes journalists can try to do things differently.

"There's plenty of opportunities to do very good work," says Chomsky. "Take say Brian Toohey, he gets things through. There's plenty of other people.
"There's going to be strains, and you'll be pressing against limits. If you go too far they'll turn you off; if you keep at it too much you may be thrown out. But within that framework there are plenty of things to do.
Snip
Chomsky's message for journalists is that there is a way of bringing information to the public that many would prefer to see kept secret. His message, in the face of his own theories of media dominance by the powerful elites, is given with a surprising optimism.

But we at DU are not going to help those in the press who want to be the voice of dissent if we attack them whenever they say something that we do not want to hear. Our corporate masters are getting a hearty belly laugh out of this game of divide and conquer which they are playing within the progressive movement. Women versus men. White's versus minorities.

I quoted the abolitionist and feminist Angelina Grimke in my last journal. Here is an excerpt from her "Address to Our Soldiers of Our Second Revolution"

http://www.zetetics.com/indfem/agrimke.htm

This war is not, as the South falsely pretends, a war of races, nor of sections, nor of political parties, but a war of Principles; a war upon the working-classes, whether white or black; a war against Man, the world over. In this war, the black man was the first victim; the workingman of whatever color the next; and now all who contend for the rights of labor, for free speech, free schools, free suffrage, and a free government, securing to all life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are driven to do battle in defense of these or to fall with them, victims of the same violence that for two centuries has held the black man a prisoner of war. While the South has waged this war against human rights, the North has stood by holding the garments of those who were stoning liberty to death. It was in vain that a few at the North denounced the system, and called the people to repentance. In vain did they point to the progress of the slave power, and warn the people that their own liberties were being cloven down. The North still went on, throwing sop after sop to the Cerberus of slavery that hounded her through the wilderness of concession and compromise, until the crash of Sumter taught her that with the slaveocracy no rights are sacred.

Plenty of people in the Grimke sisters' days must have been mad as hell to hear them criticize the North, just as people nowadays get annoyed when they hear a progressive journalist criticize a Democrat---Hillary, Obama or Edwards. But no politician is perfect, just as the North was not perfect, and constructive criticism by one's allies can be helpful. For some reason, Obama and his supporters seem to feel that they are entitled to unquestioning praise from the progressive news media or at least silence. Why?

We need to make an example of her? And what the hell is up with this?

Consider that Dissent is a long running Socialist magazine.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=26B06D46-02EE-47B4-B526-87423572B735

Now, what does the United States do to commies and reds, especially in the press and the arts? Remember Joe McCarthy? It seeks to silence them. The US puts it jack boot down in the neck of anyone who dares to question the status quo and declares that individual a traitor, a mole, a danger to society. The free press and the open expression of ideas that question the dogma---Mussolini is the strong man, commies are a danger to the country, Christ is the only way to heaven---are too dangerous to be tolerated. The ultimate goal--peace and harmony and general well being---are too important to be risked on short term niceties like tolerance of dissident speech. The one who dares to ask questions or to criticize must be silenced. Publicly, we need to make an example of her . We will malign her. We will make it impossible for her to work. We will burn her books...

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WillyT]

2. Shhhh..... Calm Down...

and call me in the morning.

:shrug:

[2rth2pwr]

3. Burn the Witch at the stake!!!!!11!!!

[Catherina]

14. If you say so. n/t

[xchrom]

4. i'm not a hillary supporter -- but you do a hell of a job. recommend

[islandmkl]

5. all of this to make someone out to be a victim of potential action...

the same action we ALL potentially face with this government run amok...

i just can't quite see where clinton/mccain offer any fork in the road...

they are just more of the same, in the same old way...

people want a change...to infer/conclude/what-the-f**-ever you are trying to convey ignores what appears to be the growing support of a majority of citizens...

and it isn't clinton/mccain...those two are more likely to bring us to the very scenario you lay out in your cut & paste 'epic'...

[PoliticalAmazon]

50. 'Tis the Hillary mantra: "VICTIM"

[Jennos20]

61. If you honestly

think obama is going to bring big change, you are in for a HUGE disappointment. He is a politician. Don't forget that.

[McCamy Taylor]

83. Both Hillary and Obama will be better than McCain. I am fine with either of them. The Dem will win,

I am sure of that. But "what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul?"

I would have been happier with Edwards.

[papau]

99. Super post - just saying I agree is inadequate - thank you for writing it

[Bjorn Against]

6. So let me get this straight...

Criticism of critics of Obama is the equivalent of Nazi book burnings? Wow.

[LWolf]

56. No, I'd say that, in the current climate on DU, criticism of Obama

results in silencing, or discrediting: the "book burning."

If you don't like what you see, hear, read, or watch, burn it.

That's my interpretation of the OP.

[Bjorn Against]

63. Silencing? I have no power to silence anyone, nor do I want that power.

And if someone says something that is not credible then we should be discrediting them. People are confusing criticism with book burning when in fact it is the exact opposite. If we don't like what we see, hear, read, or watch we don't burn it we speak out against it. In a democracy people should speak out when they hear something they don't agree with, countering speech with more speech is not even remotely similar to burning books and to suggest it is is ridiculous.

[LWolf]

67. I think there is a big difference between

"speaking out against" something and using mob rule to suppress dissent.

[Bjorn Against]

68. Mob rule? You can't be serious. Please tell me you aren't serious.

But if you are serious then I want you to give me an example of Obama supporters using mob rule. And no, a whole bunch of people criticizing someone who says something stupid is not mob rule.

[LWolf]

105. Perhaps it's easier to see

when you don't have a pony in the race, and are therefore more objective, seeing it from the outside of both campaigns.

You want an example? Read the front page of GDP at any time on any given day; you'll find multiple examples.

[cali]

7. Wordy biased crap

what a shocker. I congratulated Hillary and her supporters when Vidal endorsed her. Do YOU have the slightest bit of intellectual honesty? Hillary supporters savaged Ted Kennedy, Caroline Schlossberg, John Kerry and too many others to mention. You ignore inconvenient facts.

[Pawel K]

26. Hillary supporters throwing democrats under the bus? No can't be.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=107825&mesg_id=107905

Maybe instead of wasting all that time writing that post (very well written by the way) the original poster could have searched around and found posts like that from Hillary supporters. There are idiots on both side, I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

[Shakespeare]

76. No. No. she doesn't.

But she apparently thinks that if she fills up enough space with enough words, somebody will buy it.

[McCamy Taylor]

91. Cali, you are not the problem. True Obama supporters are true Democrats.

There are some people here and especially in the press who pretend to support one candidate or the other so that they can use that as an excuse to attack progressives. Their agenda is to make a name for themselves and to divide and conquer Democrats.

How much more effective for right wingers to launch attacks at Paul Krugman whom they hate by pretending that they are doing it because he is criticizes the Obama healthcare plan. The problem is that there are not enough dedicated Obama supporters calling these people out. More people stood up for Gore Vidal, which made me happy. But on the other hand, I could not believe that anyone at DU would write those kinds of things about someone who has been such a founding father of the modern liberal movement.

I read articles that are written for some of the online publications by people of dubious credentials---one guy was a writer of horror nonfiction I think another was a NeoCon apologist. Both of them wrote Hillary bashing propaganda that would have gotten F grades in a creative writing class. They were poorly written. The pieces were loaded with inaccuracies. Neither was original or had any new material. And both were rated up here at DU, because of the Hillary bashing content that duplicated a half dozen other threads. These are shameless media whores trying to get attention for themselves by turning out "hate" product that will get them noticed.

I am sure that there are people out there doing the same for Hillary only no one posts their drivel at DU.

I know about the right wing crap, because I have done journals on it, but this bogus left wing tabloid garbage that tries to pass itself as journalism is just like the Black exploitation and women in cages movies of my youth. It makes Democrats look like fanatics. It is straight out of Buchanans 1972 playbook.

[WillyT]

8. You Have Got To Be Fucking KIDDING Me ???

We self monitor our shit for years making sure we don't insult the NAZI's by comparing them to Bush Inc., ... oops we self monitor blah blah making sure we don't insult the REPUBLICANS by comparing them to NAZI's...

And now YOU try to make a fucking book burning comparison between Dem's and DUers here ???

:puke:

[KoKo]

9. How do we know that "Mayhill" on Huff Post wasn't a PLANT?

Just because she was wealthy enough to give to Obama to get a "SCOOP" to nail her reputation down as an Indie Reporter?

How would we know...what her true motives are? She might have a House/Mortgage under stress ...needed cash and sold out? How would we know given these evil times where Dems will "rat out" and "turn" on their "own?"

I found her bio incomplete...when I read it on Huff Po....and even Jay Rosen's verification of Mayhill's report left me with many questions. Did she have so much money she could donate across the spectrum but saw her "MACACCA MOMENT" for "FAME" by taping Obama when he was just reporting his views of reading "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Obama made a valid point to his "SF" Funders. Obama is a Professorial Intellectual...he was saying what he saw. But both Dems and Repugs went after him on this...and even I had "pause" at his comments...

But...he was CORRECT for Progressives....in his comments...I think. And, I'm a Progressive Lefty...:shrug:

[JoFerret]

10. How do we know

that you are not the financial backer for Free Republic?

Or that you are not (fill in the blanks)?

[KoKo]

20. LOL's..........How do we know.........n/t

[JoFerret]

29. So - How DO you know?

How can I be sure you are not from the KBG?

Or a plant - say an aspidistra - from 1937?

[KoKo]

40. I know nutthing.........I just post here...in deese place...for yeers............n/t

[bowens43]

11. Nothing in this post or the prior post refutes that fact that she lied.

[Mags]

12. as soon as there is one bashing Obama. That will start it really fast.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. When we finish burning video games.

Burning flags, of course, is completely outlawed.

[Window]

15. When you write one.

[ProSense]

17. LOL! n/t

[ProSense]

16. You're linking to a RW rag (Frontpage) to make your point?

Are you embarrassed yet?

[Downtown Hound]

23. Why not?

Hillary has found friends and supporters among the right wing, why shouldn't her supporters?

[Bluenorthwest]

106. A pair of Senators

Right wing friends and surrogates...let's take a quick stop on the Hill and check out Obama's allies. Forget mentor Joe, let's talk about his work with Tom Coburn, of Oklahoma. Obama praises this nut to the sky, Coburn is most famous for his 'lesbians in the bathrooms' platform plank when he ran.
Let's look at the people Obama used to reach out to the religious people in the South. Of course Texas Evangelist Kribyjon Caldwell joined the Obama tour only after calling GW Bush on the phone to ask permission, as Caldwell is Bush's 'personal spiritual advisor'. Bush said sure, of course.

And Donnie McClurkin, the Obama selected host of the 'Faith and Family' tour, is as famous for his gay bashing as he is for his Bush backing. Obama's Master of Ceremonies also had the top slot at Republican National Convention 2004, where he sang to George W with tears in his eyes. Outside, Democratic protesters were being dragged away, inside Obama's pal wept for GW.

One major difference is that Obama's preachers attacked innocent Americans as part of the 'outreach', not the other candidates, not the Republicans, no, GLBT Americans, under Obama's banner, openly and without apolgy. Obama says he will keep using these people in the future. Right wing Bush backing people, used to attack Democratic citizens. Some people's religious bigotry is a symptom of bitterness, but McClurkin's is just 'Faith and Family'. Explain that contradiction and you win a cigar.

[Downtown Hound]

112. Make it a blunt and you've got a deal

Yeah, and Hillary dines with Rupert Murdoch, who's "news" organization not only played a major role in her husband's impeachment but also helped cost Al Gore the White House. And she hangs out with "The Family" that freaky religious organization that is one of the major forces behind the dissolution of separation of church and state in this country. God only knows how many anti-gay bigots they have in that organization. If you were to compare Obama's church with Hillary's, I think Hillary has much more to hide than he does.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich

As for Obama, I think if you were to analyze all of our lives, you'd find that we associated and perhaps did business with people who's views we might disagree with or even find reprehensible. Obama has said that he strongly disagrees with Donnie's views. But he's using him as an outlet to reach black voters and get them more involved in the political process. As long as Obama doesn't adopt that platform, then I'll forgive his association with him. To a point. I do believe politics is the art of compromise, to an extent. There comes a point where you have compromised too much, and if Obama ever starts preaching anti-gay stuff or sponsors anti-gay laws, then I'll be the first to admit he went too far. But I see no signs that Obama has adopted a right wing agenda, unlike Clinton, and if he uses a few people that can get him an audience with a certain demographic to get to the presidency and then does some good with that presidency, then I can forgive it. Find me a politician that has never associated with someone that is anti-gay, extreme, or holds views that you find reprehensible and you win a cigar. It's what they themselves do when they're in office that really counts.

[MADem]

123. How about the Crown Family of Chicago?

They're in business--the WAR business. It's most of what they do.

And seventy eight thousand personally, and hundreds of thousands, bundled...and COUNTING...is a LOT of money.

From a company that makes the bulk of their dough from WAR. http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/13/222812/971

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/michelle_obamas_hospital.html

There's this big fiction that his is a "little folks" campaign. It isn't. It's seeded by some BIG MONEY. There are plenty of "corporate candidates" in this race. If only people bothered to look.

Inconvenient truths: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/10/AR2008041004045_pf.html

[scheming daemons]

18. I'm ready to burn "It Takes a Village".....plenty of copies available for sale...

...

[LWolf]

57. Great job making the OPs point. n/t

[scheming daemons]

80. Great job not recognizing a joke and having no sense of humor... n/t

[LWolf]

104. My sense of humor is quite healthy, thanks.

I just don't detect any humor in your post.

[Evergreen Emerald]

19. Very nice. Thank you for that perspective.

DU is now nothing but a mob mentality and getting more and more frenzied in their vitriolic hatred.

Rational, reasonable thought processes have long since vanished replaced with distortions and lies. They nod and cheer as their enemies--the media--helps them destroy a great Senator from NY, never mind that they know the media is nothing but propaganda.

And in response to this reasonable post--you will see hatred and personal attacks personal against any supporter of Clinton and Clinton herself.

[Bjorn Against]

25. You call comparing Clinton's critics to Nazi book burners is reasonable?

If you want to see hatred and personal attacks look at the subject line of the OP and the picture at the bottom of the post. Comparing Obama supporters to Nazi book burners is a pretty vile tactic.

[Evergreen Emerald]

27. read the article before you make a mountain out of a mole hill

I am so so tired of faux outrage that replaces logic. What a joke your response is.

[Bjorn Against]

31. I did read the article, and it very clearly compared DUers to Nazi book burners.

The only joke is the OP, and it is a very bad joke.

[Evergreen Emerald]

32. Ignore everything in the article and jump straight to faux outrage.

So you can continue to hate.

[Bjorn Against]

34. Nothing in the article came close to an example of Nazi book burning...

If anyone is expressing hate it is the people who are comparing Obama supporters to Nazis. What did I say that was hateful?

[rodeodance]

79. Do you have this outrage when some Obama fans link Clinton supporters to the Nazi???

[Bjorn Against]

89. I haven't heard anyone do that...

But if anyone used the analogy in such an absurd way as this yes I would be outraged. I can even prove it, I spoke out when the hate Hillary thread hit the top of the greatest page a couple weeks ago. You can see my post here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5374477

I have been critical of both Hillary and Obama in the past, and I have defended both of them from unfair attacks in the past.

Now here is the question for you, if Obama supporters linked Clinton to the Nazis would you be outraged? Are you outraged by this thread? If you are trying to accuse me of being a hypocrite then I would hope that you would be willing to show your outrage at this thread.

[rodeodance]

96. What are you asking me?--isn't that what I just asked you???

.......Now here is the question for you, if Obama supporters linked Clinton to the Nazis would you be outraged?


Are you outraged by this thread? If you are trying to accuse me of being a hypocrite then I would hope that you would be willing to show your outrage at this thread.

[Bjorn Against]

101. Did you even read my last post? I answered your question, now you can answer mine.

I said I would be outraged, and I even linked to a post in which I did show outrage when someone got a post to the top of the greatest page in which she said she hated Hillary. I not only said I would be outraged, but I demonstrated proof to show I would be outraged.

I already answered your question, now answer mine. Are you outraged at this thread, or would you only be outraged if they accused Hillary of being a Nazi book burner?

[rodeodance]

102. thanks for your post........

your past post that is.-i had not seen it.

but. ..the OP is powerful and maybe extreme. But it fits in with context of the whole OP.

I know this is not the answer you wanted but, .......

[jettison]

73. You're not voting for the candidate of my choice

...and you're calling out a politician on her lies = You're a sexist! Oh no, wait... You're a book burner! Oh no, wait.... You're a fascist! Niiiice. And Hillary supporters accuse the Obama crowd of "drinking the Kool-Aid".

"It was a pleasure to burn with you." But even so, call me when the shuttle lands.

[Evergreen Emerald]

77. there you go, pretending the distortions are truth

They are not. They are twisted, distorted, and repeated as if truth. And then, she is hated because of your false definition of her.

Lies? BS


But, don't let the truth stand in the way of your hate.

[jettison]

85. And there you go again...

... calling someone you don't know a "hater". Go ahead and research every post I've made. No where in them will you find the word "hate". Not one time. But your distortion of my opinion fits your agenda so have at it. Pot, meet kettle.

[susankh4]

21. Just as I suspected, and stated here on D.U.

An Obama supporter, who happens to be a reporter... merely doing her job. And they all want to have her head on a platter.

Not at all surprised about the death threats. That's a recurring theme in this campaign.

[anonymous171]

22. lol Godwin's law.

[Taxmyth]

24. enjoyed reading your analysis of the current state of affairs at DU

and, indeed,other supposedly Democratic leaning sites. The immediate outpouring of criticism against you only reinforces what I understood you to be saying here. K&R.

[Bjorn Against]

28. Yeah, the OP compares us to Nazi book burners, But we should not criticize the OP. Got it.

[Taxmyth]

39. Ignore the message

and attack the source. That is what book burning is all about.

[Bjorn Against]

42. I am not ignoring the message; the message is clear and it is wrong.

If someone says something stupid I am going to criticize it, that is free speech and you think we are supposed to be silent and not "attack the source" then you are the one that thinks free speech should be silenced.

[Ichingcarpenter]

30. I find your analogy offending

and the same tactics that Faux news uses to call liberals NAZIS

Shame on you.

[GoldieAZ49]

33. When the books don't say what Obama & Co want them to say

Anything must be destroyed that is not blessed by O, be it books or people


Thank God he will never be POTUS

[AtomicKitten]

35. Um, after Clintonites picketed MSNBC calling for censorship, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[cbayer]

36. I really appreciate your work.

The responses you get often prove your points beautifully.

There is currently an OP up about Fowler receiving death threats. The majority of responses to this post basically endorse the idea and say that she deserves it. She is called a traitor and worse for reporting the unvarnished truth. Her piece was editorially reviewed all the way up to Ariana Huffington prior to its posting and was found to be sound and ethical. There is not a shred of evidence that she manipulated the situation. She was reluctant to reveal what she knew and she will apparently be destroyed because of it.

It is very unsettling to watch this absolute intolerance of any ideas that don't support a particular candidate. It is very unsettling to see individuals post using the word "We", as though there is a set of beliefs that they can assume are shared. It is very unsettling to see posts that make patently untrue statements as fact, even when the candidate himself has rejected these ideas.

I support Barack Obama, but everyday I become convinced that his supporters will cause his eventual implosion. This lack of tolerance and hostility towards those that think differently will be rejected by the democratic base and the party leadership. That's my prediction.

[McCamy Taylor]

37. Book burning image seemed more accurate than this burning witch image

Though now that I read the thread about the death threats against Mayhill, I have to wonder if that is what make an example of her was supposed to imply. I just thought that they meant take away her ability to write and get published.

The image of the famous bonfire of books was chosen as one of the more easily recognizable instances of censorship to defend an ideology. The burning of the Library of Alexandria by the Christians was worse but we do not have a photo of that. I am not suggesting that anyone here is a Nazi, only that the methods used to enforce uniformity of thought are always the same.

[berni_mccoy]

38. You're Quoting a CELEBRITY INTEREST Rag that runs the "Sexiest Man Alive"

As the basis of your evidence of fact. When criticized for it, you label me as a NAZI. McCamy, you've gone too far, you've come undone.

[McCamy Taylor]

44. No, I labelled the practice of attempting to supress the voice of dissent as fascistic.

There is a big difference.

I do not reject people, unlike KO who demanded that Hillary reject Ferraro (even though he accepted that Obama could not reject Wright the human being). I reject their actions. When people act in a way that is inhumane or is counterproductive, I will write about it, no matter what the consequences will be. Especially when it involves attempts to suppress free speech. Just as the angry mobs up North tried to silence the Grimke sisters when they spoke out about Southern Slavery, so angry people here get mad when I write about the unjustness of attacking the messenger---people like Gore Vidal and Paul Krugman---who have been powerful voices within the progressive movement, because they now find something positive in the "wrong" Democratic candidate.

When people do this, they play right into the RNC's hands. They allow themselves to be manipulated by the forces of fascism here at home the same way that people in Europe were manipulated. Whites against Blacks. Men against Women. Native born against immigrants.

The nature of the treats against Mayhill should give people here pause. No right minded Democrat should be able to countenance such threats against a member of the press.

[berni_mccoy]

45. There is a world of difference between inhumane and counterproductive. You are tying them together.

[guyanakoolaid]

41. What a huge load of crap... and STILL trying to defend Hillary's lies about the snipers!

I don't see how you haven't been called out for this yet - THERE'S F^$KING VIDEO!!! You are telling us we should believe a People Magazine report at the time of Bosnia being a "war zone" during Clinton's visit, over what we can see with our own plain eyes. Seriously, that is gumption. A girl calmly handing her flowers. No rush, no hurry, not an ounce of danger evident. We all saw it. You saw it. She got busted with video, there is no spinning out of it, at this point it looks beyond foolish to continue to spin it away. I'll leave it at 'beyond foolish'.

And even better is how you completely whitewash Hillary's continued pro-war voting record: "Iraq or Iran? Give me a break. This isn't about Iraq or Iran." Uhhh, when she voted for the IWR and helped send thousands of our citizens to die while killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, it was indeed about Iraq. And then, years later, instead of showing any kind of remorse for the illegal war she approved, she voted for Kyl/Lieberman, which is anything but an apology on Iraq (claiming they still have WMD!), and which is a trumpet-call to war with Iran.

She is a warmonger, and has waged a bitter, nasty campaign against Obama. This is why she will lose more than any of the peripheral reasons you try to spin us.

[SoonerPride]

43. HILLARY IS A LIAR.

Thanks for playing.

[OzarkDem]

58. Not too original

or accurate.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

46. The OP's thesis is proven by the fact that criticism of Obama is nowhere to be found.

There was no criticism of Obama in Nazi Germany either.

[smiley_glad_hands]

47. So you are equating the rightwing agenda with dissent? What does that make you? eom

[madrchsod]

48. book burning nazi obama supporters.....

thank you for labeling me as a "book burner" because i take a critical view of hillary and her staff.

[McCamy Taylor]

49. 12 Warning signs of Fascism , I worry because I see 5 signs at DU

Hillary is now THE ENEMY Anyone who does not declare her the enemy is also an enemy.

The right to free speech and expression is under attack. The message is if you will not carry water for Obama keep your mouth shut.

Secrecy is demanded. Why were Obama's "truthful" words in San Francisco not for public consumption?

Media controlled. We see this at Huffington Post itself where the other journalists turn on their own. Usually, journalists support their own. This shunning of a fellow member of the press is very odd. And the attack on Mayhill and the threats against her are an effort to whip the rest of the liberal bloggo-sphere in line.

Rampamt sexism. I have already demonstrated that in previous journals.


This is not state fascism or corporate fascism. It is fascistic tendencies within an organization. I believe that they are showing up at DU because of the excessive number of Freeper moles that have joined in order to disrupt the Democratic Primary and the reason that they appear to be coming from the Obama camp for the most part---but certainly not only from the Obama camp, there are hateful posts from the Hillary camp too---is because so many Freepers hate Hillary Clinton. And Freepers are schooled in fascist tactics.

[SoonerPride]

51. You have lost your mind. This site is not a state.

It's a private business enterprise.

Free speech doesn't apply here.

Thus, the mods can censor you. Or me.

You need a time out.

[McCamy Taylor]

53. That is why I said this is not a state. It is an organization,

[SoonerPride]

59. Look, sweetums, it is impossible for a business to be fascist.

It is, um, A BUSINESS.

It is run according to the whims and rules of its owners.

If you don't like it, YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE and take your BUSINESS elsewhere.

Maybe you don't understand how business works versus a fascist state, where you CAN'T leave anytime you want.

But comparing a private enterprise to a fascist state shows a fundamental lack of understanding and a heigtened sense or paranoia.

[McCamy Taylor]

74. Corporations use the same propaganda tactics that totalitarian states do.

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9710-mainstream-media.html

A lot of people were impressed by these achievements. One person impressed, and this had some implications for the future, was Hitler. If you read Mein Kampf, he concludes, with some justification, that Germany lost the first World War because it lost the propaganda battle. They could not begin to compete with British and American propaganda which absolutely overwhelmed them. He pledges that next time around they’ll have their own propaganda system, which they did during the second World War. More important for us, the American business community was also very impressed with the propaganda effort. They had a problem at that time. The country was becoming formally more democratic. A lot more people were able to vote and that sort of thing. The country was becoming wealthier and more people could participate and a lot of new immigrants were coming in, and so on.

So what do you do? It’s going to be harder to run things as a private club. Therefore, obviously, you have to control what people think. There had been public relation specialists but there was never a public relations industry. There was a guy hired to make Rockefeller’s image look prettier and that sort of thing. But this huge public relations industry, which is a U.S. invention and a monstrous industry, came out of the first World War. The leading figures were people in the Creel Commission. In fact, the main one, Edward Bernays, comes right out of the Creel Commission. He has a book that came out right afterwards called Propaganda. The term "propaganda," incidentally, did not have negative connotations in those days. It was during the second World War that the term became taboo because it was connected with Germany, and all those bad things. But in this period, the term propaganda just meant information or something like that. So he wrote a book called Propaganda around 1925, and it starts off by saying he is applying the lessons of the first World War. The propaganda system of the first World War and this commission that he was part of showed, he says, it is possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies." These new techniques of regimentation of minds, he said, had to be used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course. We can do it now because we have these new techniques.

Political campaigns do it, too.

[SoonerPride]

78. You have embarrassed yourself. Again.

I pity you.

This is a free enterprise and you are free to leave it at any point.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

55. Likening DU treatment of Hillary or her supporters to Nazi treatment of Jews

is a sign of loss of connection with reality.

[McCamy Taylor]

94. The photo shows a book burning. That is the only reference I made.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

95. What/who is depicted in the photo under "Enemies Identified"?

[Bjorn Against]

62. You are either seriously paranoid, or you are just plain full of shit

2. Enemies identified? Can you give me even ONE example of an Obama supporter holding a kid at gun point like the kid in that picture?

3. Rights disappear? What Constitutional rights have DUers taken away from you? Remember we have rights too, and if you say something stupid we have our first amendment rights to call you on your stupidity. The First Amendment does not make you immune from criticism, in fact if anything it makes you more susceptible to it. If we were throwing you in jail for what you were saying you would have a point, but I don't think you can find a single case of Obama supporters throwing his critics in prison.

4. Secrecy demanded? I never criticized the person who released the tape of Obama, but people have the right to criticize her for doing so. Nobody is calling for her to be arrested or anything like that, they are not demanding secrecy. If there were any threats against her that is wrong, and I am sure 99.9% of Obama supporters would tell you it was wrong.

8. Media controlled? By Obama supporters? Are you serious? There are five major corporations that control most of the news we receive in this country and they are run by mostly right-wing business interests. And journalists "turning on their own" is not an example of controlling the media. If a journalist writes something stupid, we have the right to call them on it. That is not controlling the media.

9. Rampant sexism. This one I will give you, there have been some sexist posts here by Obama supporters just as there have been some very racist posts by Hillary supporters.

And no not everyone who does not declare Hillary the enemy is my enemy, that is just ridiculous. If that were the case the vast majority of Americans would be considered the enemy to us, because whether people are supporting her or not most people are not declaring her to be the enemy. You are making a ridiculous assertion.

[jettison]

81. Always be weary of someone throwing out the words

"fascist" and "sexist". Most of the time, they are irresponsible exaggerations. Similarly, the most juvenile metaphor of all time is comparing someone to Hitler or else calling them a Nazi. You've managed to pull off the trifecta in a single, grossly verbose post. Congratulations.

[KSinTX]

103. Your #8 is flawed

"Media controlled" presumes a press acting in its role as watchdog. The media most people are seeking to silence, or are up in arms against, during this election are only nominally news outlets. They are rather entertainment vehicles which are not seriously dispensing objective information nor pretend to. The freedoms of the Fourth Estate are not without an implied social compact; the mix of this edutainment-"commentary" does not pass muster as meeting that end of the bargain. While this is not the first time in history that this relationship has been destroyed, it is now done with more regularity as a result of a 24-hour news cycle.

"Why were Obama's "truthful" words in San Francisco not for public consumption?"
They were for public consumption, as the attendees were members of the public. As a career journalist, with rare exceptions, we do our work openly and with identification. We do not blur our distinction as reporters as it leads to assults on First Amendment rights and is against our ethical canons. What that "reporter" did was unethical. Not because she did it to Obama, but because she attended as a private citizen then wrote as a "journalist." Had she openly identified herself as such and gotten the same story, she would have had a great scoop. Had she interviewed attendees and gotten the same story, again great scoop. Had she been engaged in an undercover operation, sanctioned by the outlet that ran it with rules of engagement set forth, again great scoop.

I found the cell phone leak of Bush singing at the Gridiron dinner equally unsettling. The rules everyone agreed to were clear, yet violated. Had a reporter taken an "off the record" statement and printed it, it would be just as unethical. The compact calls for mutual trust.

As you can see, I'm new here. I enjoy this site because it is much more civil than others I have visited recently. There was a predictability of who "hates" whom not by author, but by site ideology, both implicit and explicit. Here, you have a leadership attempting to keep a civil tongue in everyone's mouth and that's good. Trust me, DU's nowhere near Fascism.

[PVnRT]

113. Oh, give me a break

Whose rights have been taken away here? Who is "demanding secrecy," and about what? Care to answer that?

"The right to free speech and expression is under attack. The message is if you will not carry water for Obama keep your mouth shut."

Grade-A bullshit. I suppose Obama supporters are to shut THEIR mouths when he's criticized? Is that OK, because you prefer Hillary?

"Hillary is now THE ENEMY Anyone who does not declare her the enemy is also an enemy."

Really? Care to tell us who is calling for Keith Olbermann's head because of his criticism of Hillary?

Want to know another fascistic tendency? Believing that the things you deplore the other side doing are OK when you do them.

[susankh4]

117. Scary indeed.

[McCamy Taylor]

52. If everyone can see why "We need to make an example of her" is wrong then we are cool.

But I am not sure that people at DU are in agreement on that point. Not with the way that people are posting lately.

[SoonerPride]

60. Make an examploe out of her? What are you on about? People just want her to quit.

She isn't going to win and she needs to bow out with grace.

Is that so hard to comprehend?

[merh]

64. And you have yet to prove the Bosnia sniper fire lie was not a lie.

And you have failed to acknowledge that she admits to have "misspoken".

And you have failed to admit that Bill explained away her distorted version of the truth as what happens to a person over 60 after 11pm.

You continue to allege her Bosnia tales were true, they are not. Every time you include the Bosnia tales and any attempt to justify them or prove them true you prove how removed from reality you are and you damage any credibility the rest of your rant may contain.

And now you have the nerve to try to equate Nazi book burnings to legitimate challenges of your sources and their contents of their writings, or rather your distorted interpretations and use of the writings of others. May I remind you that this is America and freedom of speech is one of our most cherished rights. Dissent is freedom of speech and does not equate to book burning.

.

[OzarkDem]

54. Great post!

Obama supporters have become very scary indeed in their rush to distort facts and attack anyone who tries to defend Clinton or question Obama. Dkos has been a case study in how progressives can become intolerant of any opinion except their own.

[grantcart]

65. So using your 'objective indicators' on facism you would honestly have to conclude

that all of the talk forums that are exclusive to Hillary are more facist than DU? That would seem to be the logical conclusion because they are more exclusive in their membership and discussion requirements than DU.


Of course I may have missed the point of your OP because I refuse to spend more than a minute reviewing your tripe.

[Beacool]

66. Poor Mayhill Fowler.

She supports Obama and has given his campaign the maximum permitted by law and she's now accused of being a plant. Even if that were to be true, so what? She didn't put words in Obama's mouth, he shot himself in the foot al by himself. She simply reported it.

Excellent post, this board is far from democratic. Dissension is not welcomed and the few Hillary supporters who are here still here have to contend with very nasty posts about their candidate. I've seen here jokes, cartoons, articles and videos extracted directly from right wing blogs such as Free Republic. It seems that as long as something can be used to trash Clinton, it's fair game. Well, if this is what the Democratic party has become, then I just wasted plenty of time and money helping the campaigns of quite a few candidates. I'm beyond disgusted, I'll stay with Hillary until the end, but I will then bow out.

[jettison]

84. The problem exists in your last sentence.

You will stay with Hillary until the end... "no matter what" are the words missing. Hillary could come out on a platform advocating WW3 and Hillary supporters would still vote for her. It really doesn't matter how low she swings, what she says, how many lies she tells, because you're "a loyal person" and you "know a good person when you see one". Of coure you'll be there till the end. What the candidate happens to stand for at this point in the campaign is of very little consequence.

Currently, I am voting for Obama. However, should revelations come out that make me question his ability to lead this country, I would not be voting for him. See the difference?

- Rev Wright
- Uppity elitist
- Wouldn't be winning if it weren't for all those mindless blacks voting for him

Those are your talking points against Obama? No thanks. I'm passing until something more substantial comes along.

[Beacool]

88. Your first paragraph is more appropriate to Obama supporters.

Most of you would vote for Obama even if you were to find him with a smoking gun in his hand and a dead body at his feet. I don't buy what he sells and never will. He may yet win the WH, but I think that he'll be as effective as Jimmy Carter.

[jettison]

92. Where is the smoking gun?

I still haven't seen one. I haven't even seen a smoking nail file. You go on the assumption that there is such a gun when nothing even resembling a weapon has ever been presented. If the Rev. Wright "scandal" is your idea of such an instrument, our divide is clearly too wide to traverse.

[KoKo]

90. true....and folks seem to forget that the words came out of Obama's own mouth at fundraiser...

and even though he thought the words would be PRIVATE...what today is PRIVATE? Bushies are tapeing night and day...and modern campaigns mean one is "always on."

What's sad is that McCain get's to rest because the media doesn't dog him or follow up. It's our Dems who are being run ragged...but then it's just the way it is...and they knew how it works...or they should after two STOLEN NATIONAL ELECTIONS for DEMS..so far!

[AX10]

93. I will write-in Hillary.

I cannot in good faith vote for Mr. Obama.

[Beacool]

107. Same here!!! n/t

[PVnRT]

114. Care to tell us where "latte liberal" comes from?

Honestly, this tendency of one side or the other believing that their shit doesn't stink is ridiculous.

"...the few Hillary supporters who are here ..."

Were the others banned? Forced out at gunpoint? Or did they leave because not everyone supported her and couldn't stand to hear any criticism?

[dpbrown]

69. Now that's research

Well done.

[onehandle]

70. It's not that bad, but DU = Free Republic.

This political season proved exactly how politically naive DU is . FR has the same affliction.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

71. I'm not going to make the same mistake I did before by reading this.

Your disjoined cut-n-paste melange attempting to defend Sen. Clinton's sniper lie was enough for me.

[guruoo]

72. K&R - Great work, MT.

[rodeodance]

75. PBS had a special tonight Healthcare from around the World-the US sucks .....

It really was a good show--very informative.


Most countries have the mandates---all must be covered.
Keeps the population healthy and costs down.

[McCamy Taylor]

97. It's true! Only universal health care encourages investment in prevention.

I am pretty sure I have a journal on it. Public health is one of my favorite issues.

[nonoxy9]

82. YAWN..I hope your keeping copies of all these amazing tales and fictions

After your goddess drops out of the race, you can take all that free time and put them all together into one GIANT peice of fiction!

[rodeodance]

115. Yawn --

[Demeter]

86. When Hell Freezes Over--Cue Up Opening of La Boheme!

The sparks are kisses!

[KoKo]

87. K&R...Interesting Read. I figured "Mayhill" would take lots of hits for her piece...but didn't

realize it had gotten this bad...so many attacks.

About the Gore Vidal thing...I do know he wrote an Editorial supporting Kucinich. It's a far move from Kucinich to Hillary...but I'll take your word you heard it on Pacifica Radio. I do know that Vidal is a curmudgeon who loves to stir up trouble...so if it was a comment and not a full blown written Editorial supporting Hillary the way he did Kucinich...I will hold the "Pacifica Comment" open to just being Vidal's mischiefmaking...since his candidate had to drop out to defend his House Seat.

Rest of your article is interesting in the dynamics. Thanks for all the work on it. :thumbsup:

[McCamy Taylor]

98. Well, obviously I did not write this to win friends and influence people....

:hide:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

100. You certainly influenced people!

:* :radio: :tv:

[tomp]

108. well...

...it's working: not winning any friends or influencing anyone over here.

if your message is, "the media sucks," why don't you just say that? we all know you can find someone in the media to support any position you want. in the end, they're not telling the truth about obama or clinton, good or bad. you've cherry=picked media bites to support clinton. you're as bad as the media.

disclosure: not a supporter of obama or clinton.

[Vilis Veritas]

109. Persuasive Soundbite Journalism

That is a phrase I have been thinking of for quite some time. It reflects my abhorrence of the soundbite culture in which we live.

Images are used to convey meaning. An image speaks a THOUSAND words.

No one should ever be dashed on the rocks for a statement or OP taken out of context or not fully actualized.

How would any of us rate if the WORLD could take any ONE statement made by us and define our lives around that SINGLE soundbite?

Peace.

And for the record...Americans Have Burned Books for an Ideology.



A link to the retronews site article...

http://nodtonothing.blogspot.com/2005/09/monticello-book-burning-retronews.html

[sudopod]

110. tl;dr

Everyone who doesn't like Senator Clinton is worse than Hitler. K, got it. :p

[Tyler Durden]

111. Extremely Well Put.

Very well done.

And countered by one-liners and silly "YAWN"'s. I saw no valid re joiner in any of the responding posts.

Any real Party Supporter should stand up and CHEER when openness and free press expression is shown, no matter the side, given the foul and ingenuous practitioners who laughingly call themselves journalists.

[rodeodance]

116. this is key "But no politician is perfect,"

[JVS]

118. how do you burn books on a website?

[LowerManhattanite]

119. Kicked! Because griefer drama-queenery is damned entertaining.

[progressoid]

120. Umm...I'm not a doctor but it seems to me you might need to start a different regimen of meds.

[susankh4]

121. Yes. All women, as you know.....

need medication to control their "outbursts."

Ummhummm.....

I guess we can call it progress... that progressoids are no longer able to have us committed without our consent.

[progressoid]

125. Oookay...Actually I'm not aware of the poster's gender so maybe save that outrage for another post.

I was referring to the rambling, disjointed nature of the OP. Maybe a little Aderall would help? :shrug:

[susankh4]

126. It was not disjointed or rambling to me.

But then, being educated pre- "Sesame Street", my attention span is pretty long.

[Citizen_Penn]

122. If your facts are accurate, please explain

why a candidate for President of the United States requires a private citizen blogger to present them?

If she is not capable of accurately presenting her case on this simple issue, how in the world would I expect her to

ADEQUATELY DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION?

It is her very inability to present a rational case that I find unacceptable.

And, I can see that you would not understand that by the methods you chose to present yours.

[madmom]

124. I must be won of them thar uninformed voters cuz I think univerzal

health care is mor impotant than somethin that took place in 1996!

[EstimatedProphet]

127. Well done!

K&R