Progblog censorship.
Yes, I've deleted a (rather small) number of comments. Some of those comments should have remained; their authors have my apologies. I don't regret getting rid of the quickie "drive-bys" -- the mindless, two-line insults from anonymous cowards -- but I do have respect for the more thoughtful pieces, even when offered by people who hate me and/or are hated by me. I have spent a great deal of time answering the more substantive arguments offered by Obama supporters. Those debates came at no small personal cost, since hours spent writing detract from the earning of lucre. Alas, the only alternative is to let the smear merchants commandeer my blog. Ain't gonna happen.
But if you think I'm bad, hip thyself to what's going down on the larger progblogs. If you do not parrot the party line, you become an unperson.
To repeat a point I've made often in the past: This humble blog is the equivalent of a private home. I write for the sake of writing, not to please an audience. The high-traffic sites -- Huffington Post, Buzzflash, TPM Cafe, and the Mighty Markos Money Machine -- are public places. Different rules apply.
Josh Marshall, alas, is one of the worst offenders:
Veteran political writer Linda Hirshman says she was cut as a TPM Cafe contributor for “not making the case for Obama.”More on that here.
This graphic speaks for itself. But perhaps a few further words from Larry Johnson are in order:About a month ago I had an exchange with Markos concerning troll rating Susan Hu (SusanUnPC), who had the audacity to try to defend one of my posts. He said (and I can’t give you the exact quote until I get back to my puter in Maryland) that Susan was being “disciplined” for not allowing the community to punish me for my anti-Obama postings. The little fucking twerp obviously has never read nor understood George Orwell’s Animal Farm. For the cultural illiterates (and I hope there are none on this blog), Orwell described an oppressed society of farm animals who took control of an overbearing farmer’s property. And before you could say, Barack Obama is incompetent, the pigs began punishing the other farm animals. They assumed the worst traits of the humans they vanquished.This post elicited some even more revealing comments:
Well Markos and crowd. Orwell was right. Fuck you people. I won’t post and I won’t read. But most of all, I won’t apologize. I have nothing to apologize for other than making the false assumption that you clowns gave a shit about freedom of expression or liberty. You guys are John Bolton and Dick Cheney in drag. You are welcome to kiss my ass.
Yes I agree! I’ve been censored over at Huffington so I appreciate the freedom here.
Agreed Larry. All my posts have been removed from Huffington and everything scrubbed but oddly…my profile. Over fifty posts totally removed.
Viva Free Press/blogs as long as it’s pro Obama.
yes, me too, every time I put something up at Huff po is never gets approved and I never use bad language, (I love your title by the way) or misleading statements. Anything questioning Obama or pro Hillary disappearsThose of you who believe that my readers should have the liberty to turn this site into a forum filled with Hillary-killed-Vince theories -- those of you who want to spew hallucinatory prog-blog propaganda about the supposedly all-powerful DLC -- those of you who want to turn my blog into a chapel within the Church of Barry -- my answer is this:
Yeah. Sure. You'll have the freedom to say whatever you like here....
...just as soon as everyone has a similar freedom on Kos, TPM and Huffington Post.
Otherwise, screw you.
Alas, the potential blowback of bullying never occurred to the people now running the left-wing web forums. Previously, I was under the impression that those folks had some political savvy. If they did, they would understand one simple rule: Running a smear campaign in a primary has drawbacks, which is the reason why the GOP instituted their 11th commandment. Bullying breeds resentment. You can't insult, outrage, and marginalize the millions of Hillary voters throughout February and March and then expect those exasperated, infuriated, belittled masses to rally around the Chief Smear Beneficiary in August.
Many people now see voting for Obama as unacceptable, because an Obama victory will reward these outrageous tactics and thereby encourage their repetition.
Kos and Kompany fucked up. Irrevocably. They will pay in November. We will not forgive.
Oh, and for those of you say that we cannot blame Obama for the things done by his surrogates -- well, I sure as hell blame Bush for the smears against McCain and Gore in 2000 and against Kerry in 2004.
What Bush did then, Obama does now. Check out the facts:
To top it off, they have blanketed big states with false radio ads and negative mailers — ads and mailers that experts have debunked time and time again. They have distributed health care brochures using Republican framing. They have tried to draw a nexus between Hillary’s votes and the death of her friend Benazir Bhutto. And one of Senator Obama’s top advisers (who has since left the campaign) recently called Hillary “a monster.”If you click on that link, you will see that most of the key propaganda terms used incessantly in the progblogs come directly from Obama staffers and Obama-supplied talking points.
This “full assault” on Hillary comes from the very top of the Obama campaign, not surrogates and supporters.
Barack Obama and the progbloggers are personally responsible for the filthiest campaign in the history of the Democratic party. If Obama prevails, then -- in the future -- all campaign managers will tell themselves: "Hey, running a smear campaign against a fellow Democrat worked for him." At that point, every primary race henceforward will become a battle of the smears -- and the victim in 2012 or 2016 may well be someone you like more than you like Hillary Clinton.
The only way to prevent that outcome is to punish Obama, Moulitsas, Arianna Huffington, and Jesse Jackson Jr. for their vile reliance on what was, until recently, a right-wing playbook. Barack Obama must not become president.
(Note: For those of you think that I am being hypocritical in squelching dr. elsewhere while decrying what Marshall did to Linda Hirshman, I had better free a couple of cats from their bag. In public and in private, the doctor called me both racist and sexist for saying that I preferred John Edwards to either Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. She would not back down from this assertion, even after I quietly, through gritted teeth, suggested that she do so. Despite this personal insult, I encouraged Brad Friedman to give the good doctor a forum on his site, which is more popular. So how have I been unfair to her?)
43 comments:
Joe, I've posted it dozens of times in the last few weeks - Obama is running the dirtiest campaign I have ever seen a Democrat run in my lifetime.
Now, I'm not as old as you, but I've been following politics closely since Bobby and Hubert in '68, so I do know something about what I am am talking about.
A short list of his sins:
Phony racism charges
Harry & Louise-like flyer
Republican for a day flyers
Rezko lies
Wright filth
Not a real Professor
Voted for Cheney's energy bill
Lied about his Iraq stand
As a committed Democrat, I have no choice but to vote for him against McCain. We cannot and must not have 4-8 more years of right wing rule.
But if I have to vote for him, I swear, I'll be yelling "fuck" out loud when I vote or something, because for the first time ever, I will be voting for someone I cannot stand.
I used to think he was something special.
But he as phony as anyone to ever come this close to the presidency.
John
SluggoJD
pot, this is kettle, though his friends call him Joe.
or, in the immortal words of Homer Simpson, "yes Lisa, two wrongs do make a right".
Good luck trying to overcome the effects of empty intellects, emotional and social immaturity, and pathogenic narcissism (luck and lucre are cognates).
My impression was that dr. elsewhere's fave was Edwards. Whatever (as Krugman says).
Joe, you say Barack Obama must not become President... what of John McCain? Should he?
Should we really choose an option that increases the likelihood of war with Iran, simply to spite the Democratic candidate for his or her campaign tactics? Should we accept the flip-flopping, hypocritical pandering of McCain in order to prove our disdain for Obama's treatment of Clinton?
I've started reading MyDD (at your suggestion) every day to try and get a taste for the logic behind your recent arguments, and I don't yet feel it. I'm certain my blog-reading footprints wouldn't overlap yours entirely, but... why am I missing this clarity on the subject of Obama's negativity?
And of Edwards... if Edwards was your original candidate (he was my original too), and if (a big if) he were to endorse Obama... what then? Would he change your mind? Would Hillary? Could anyone?
According to a piece I read not long ago, Obama slighted Edwards at the time Edwards dropped out of the race. Edwards probably would have endorsed Obama by now if not for that incident.
I don't think Obama has run an extremely skilled campaign. He knows how to have surrogates use his the fist -- that's his one trick.
Joseph, your blog is a breath of fresh air in these putrid times. This post is shocking; only my incurable and congenital naivete makes it a surprise. I can't agree with your conclusion however. I am with john on this and will hold my nose and vote for Obama in November. And considering that I begged you on this blog not to vote for Obama in the California primary it is somewhat ironic that our positions have reversed. Your argument is sound; there will indeed be horrific fallout from my action, but McCain in office would be worse IMHO.
Does anyone have a theory as to why Obama is garnering so many endorsements? A friend touted them to me on the phone tonight as proof of Obama'a wonderfulness (eyeroll)...I just assume that arms are being sharply twisted, but I have no evidence and could be wrong.
This site sucks.
john said : "Phony racism charges
Harry & Louise-like flyer
Republican for a day flyers
Rezko lies
Wright filth
Not a real Professor
Voted for Cheney's energy bill
Lied about his Iraq stand"
Who are you folks? Really? You've come completely unhinged. Hillary has done ALL of this and worse. WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE? You act like Obama is about to come round you all up and throw you in Gitmo or something if he gets elected. Why all the paranoia??? I don't like Hillary but I don't go around talking like a paranoid lunatic as if her election would end the world. This whole site has become a weirdo forum lately.
I like Obama and I'm going to vote for him. No offence but I was never going to vote for Hillary, I would have gone 3rd party.
"This whole site has become a weirdo forum lately."
You don't get it. In order to fight attacks on Hillary, you need to do exactly the same against Obama. It's logic, no ?
anon, I am going to allow your comment to stand, just to show what filthy, disgusting liars you Obamabots are.
"Phony racism charges
Harry & Louise-like flyer
Republican for a day flyers
Rezko lies
Wright filth
Not a real Professor
Voted for Cheney's energy bill
Lied about his Iraq stand"
You say Hillary has done all of these things. First, take a class in logic: Tu Quoque is no defense. Second, the fact is that all these sins can be laid at Obama's door. I
've explained at length, for example, about how he lied about his Iraq stance -- and did so on the occasion of the 3004 DNC convention. Hillary never resorted to flyers like those. Never brought up Harry and Louise -- the campaign which ended health care. Obama DID lie -- provably -- when asked about Rezko during the debate.
And the fact is, Obama DID vote for Cheney's energy bill -- and Hillary Clinton did not.
Stop reading the progblogs. At this point, they are just as bad as -- if not worse than -- the Free Republic.
Joseph,
I am so glad for your site. I am grateful to be kept informed and am particularly pleased that the truth is coming out before the Primaries are over.
I have been trying to find out if "all that happens in VI stays in VI". I couldn't find out if Obama went there alone and left his wife and daughters with his mother in law?
Why was he pulling the "I just want to be alone" gamit while in VI. Doesn't he reailze that POTUS is not entitled to "be alone" in a public setting? Or is he really like Lil George and the Dick Cheney in his arrogant look at the rest of the world?
If anyone can look into the trip to VI and see if he was alone, and if not why did his traveling companion/s have to remain hidden. Is this where his "assault" was planned?
Karen KB
John, just GO AWAY.
Allow me to repeat myself:
"Yeah. Sure. You'll have the freedom to say whatever you like here....
"...just as soon as everyone has a similar freedom on Kos, TPM and Huffington Post.
"Otherwise, screw you."
What part of that don't you creeps GET?
I certainly agree that the Obamania on some of these sites is ridiculous. So is the Hillarimania at No Quarter and other places.
The Democratic Party has 2 remaining candidates for the nomination, neither of whom is really anti-war, both of whom are in the pocket of Wall Street interests, and both of which run bitter, divisive campaigns. It's a recipe for Republican victory.
Every time Clinton or Obama or their surrogates bash each other, they provide fodder for the Republican fall campaign. Every time they pull some dirty campaign trick, they reinforce the notion that all politicians are crooks and liars and that it makes no difference which one you vote for. Couple that with the media's love affair with McCain and....
Is that Daily Kos or Daily Hos? It's hard to tell.
Welcome to Bizarro World, where everything is backwards from what you'd expect.
The take on Hillary among her detractors in the Democratic Party is a right wing Republican take, accusing her of monstrous ambitions, uniquely bad personal character and Machiavellian scorched earth tactics. (A massive personal repudiation of the former odds-on front runner.) What she's mainly done is a compare and contrast argument about BHO's admitted lack of experience, which is fair game, and a staple of ordinary campaigning.
By contrast, the uplifting and inspirational campaign of BHO went immediately to the bad character well and has been drawing out that poisoned water as a main tactic, while claiming the high road, and touting a new politics.
When the 'she's a lying b!tch who should be kicked to the curb' wasn't a strong enough 'argument,' they added 'racist' to the ad hominem attack. However false this seems to be on the merits of the history of the Clintons, it has proven effective in muddying the waters and lessening support for her, while dramatically if irrationally raising the anger levels among the Clinton detractors.
Now, we find out the progressive supporters of BHO have gone fascist in the level of thought control they demand of their site participants.
These are bizarre and unwelcome developments for anyone who wants a fair campaign and an honest choice on the merits of the candidates. What they portend for the chances of the Democratic Party's nominee in the fall is not entirely clear, but the Clinton supporters poll as more likely to switch party support if their candidate loses than their opposites.
I hope they do not. I plan to vote for the party's nominee, whoever it is. I lost my first choice right after I voted for him in Florida.
On balance, I urge this same action to all Democrats or those further left, because the alternative is a warmongering thug teetering on senility. And perhaps we should also plan to give BHO a substantial and dedicated opposition once in office when or if he displays some of his worse policy ideas.
I'm of two minds towards the BHO campaign tactics. Oddly, I am somewhat assured that he can handle himself in an alley knife fight, and has proven to be no naif, taking down the fearsome Clinton machine with a clever slime campaign. I was always worried that should he win, he wasn't prepared for the rough and tumble of a race against the Republicans. He's showing signs of being ready.
However, it is one thing to trash HRC, with the very helpful background of all her detritus, and vast media scorn towards her and her husband. It will be another to get similar results against the media darling McCain, who has no similar back story to feed that campaign narrative.
...sofla
sofla,
No, people don't like Hillary Clinton because she comes off as more flakey than Obama. Her take on the Iraq war is flakey, her teaming up with Rupert Murdoch for a fundraiser is flakey, her giving that interview to Scaife was flakey, her Bosnia gaffe was flakey, her "The Heavens will part" jab at Obamans was flakey. For some of us, this appearance that she will do and say anything to get elected is a huge turnoff and why so many have jumped ship. You can blame Obama all you want but Hillary is solely responsible for why people dislike her. People don't believev they can trust her to do anything she says when she takes office. If Hillary hadn't come off as such a mean-spirited flake a lot of people would still be in her camp.
You guys just keep piling on Obama supporters and ignoring what Hillary Clinton has done to put herself in this position. She is not going to beat McCain. No way in hell. No one wants her for president. Many Democratics don't like her and and no Republican will vote for her in a matchup against McCain. She's lucky to be getting the chaos votes from Rethugs that she is getting now.
It's like Hillary and her supporters live out there in magic lala land... completely in denial about how they got where they are. That alone is enough to say to me that she doesn't need to be running the country.
Is Obama perfect? No. But better in my opinion that Hillary Clinton for the presidency.
JS
JS --
At this point, I am fairly well convinced that neither candidate can beat McCain. But after what I have been finding out about Obama -- MASSIVE corruption, unending lies, racial politics, and serial plagiarism -- there is no way in hell he can beat McCain.
I have not yet begun to discuss what's really out there -- but I will. You certainly won't find out about it on the progblogs.
Click on the video in the upper right hand corner. Believe me, that is just a taste of it. You'll see soon enough -- Barack Obama will go down in history as the worst disaster ever to hit the Democratic Party.
"Barack Obama must not become president."
He won't, goddammit. The thing is Barack Obama must not become the nominee! He. is. being. used. to. (try to) stop. Hillary.
The blowback will help get rid of him, that's all. So it's not a problem to anyone but the cattle who are being herded to the intended end of stopping Hillary.
They are having their immortal souls ripped out. They have the potential (because they are just as human as anyone else) to be functioning human beings, like a creative little child. But they are being carried along in their fishbowl imagining they are free.
So few have a sense of history and the tragedy that is being played out here.
Am I wrong in assuming that if the Florida voters be counted (and Ohio? It's way way past my bedtime here, can hardly keep my eyes open), Hillary would have the numbers for the nomination? Am I wrong in seeing a connection between that and all this orchestrated dividing of the Dem voters?
I think instead if squawking about the little stuff, we should clear our heads and think about something like Lincoln's Gettysberg Address and what the hell is going on here. wlym.com, I say. Please!, I say. Step back and use your minds.
Gary McGowan
Joe, good article again!
I'm sure many of us realize what's obvious but it's always a good idea to mention it again. We're smack dab in the middle of an "Information War"! But why?
The answer is it's actually another version of the Refermation! The first Information War that I'm aware of started when Gutenberg's Press was printing out Bibles for Luther's Prodestant following. Since then there have been many others according to a History Channel Sepecial entitled "The Prodestant Refermation".
What's been noticed is the clarity of this new level of information exchange which supports Political Transparency. And what's been the result? Just look around at all the corruption issues surfacing on a daily basis and think about how little you knew before the Internet was around!
But there's another side that's surfacing as well. This is an obvious clarity of suspicion regarding questions of why the News Papers haven't been telling us all of this stuff in the first place. News Papers are supposed to INFORM but what they are really doing is CONTROLLING. But controlling for whom?
One answer I can offer is that in the Chicago area, I know from being in a family for more than 26 years who have professed to being a CIA ASSET that both the "Tribune AND Sun-Times" are involved in "protecting" a huge Laundromat that includes the Big Banks and others. My family's job has been and may still be to launder Drug and Gun Running money straight into Property using Big Bianks with Martgage Fraud Schemes. Articles done by a Tribune Investigation makes the Mrotgage Fraud problem appear to come from "little guys". Whereas I know first hand from the family that the Bank Admin are directly involved.
Also, my attempts to post on arious sites about this including the Tribune has been and currely is BLOCKED.
Remember, my ex-sister-in-law's brother is Clyde O'Connor and the money man behind him is her husband, my ex-wife's brother, but to this day, Clyde and his brother-in-law are at large!
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
Karot asked, "Does anyone have a theory as to why Obama is garnering so many endorsements? A friend touted them to me on the phone tonight as proof of Obama'a wonderfulness (eyeroll)...I just assume that arms are being sharply twisted, but I have no evidence and could be wrong."
I think your sniffer is not failing you. Go to larouchepac.com and watch the flash video or click on the 25 minute "weekly report" just under it.
Gary McGowan
Joseph, hard to get that youtube video in the upper right corner you refer to. Could you give us a tinyurl or something as an alternate route? Thanks.
Gary McGowan
Randi Rhodes called Hillary a "fucking whore" and Keith Olbermann is an Obama lapdog. I used to think these people were real but they have shown that they will sell themselves to the highest bidder( whoever is popular at the time) integrity be damned. Are they going to be the Limbaughs of the future if Hillary should happen to win?
So Barry became a US Senator and he reaps $$ bennies, so what? What difference does it make where the $$ comes from or how dirty it is? If he committed a felony, lock him up; otherwise chill. Why do public office holders have to be like Calpurnia?
Anyway, America sucks - warts, moles, birth defects, and all. If you were POTUS on 9/11 you'd also show the world what a woke-up sleeping tiger will do lest anyone think about doing it again. You know, a case can be made for Bush/Cheney restraint.
The Democrats can smear each other, wrestle in pigshit, and still win in a landslide because of the tanked economy. Voters always vote out the bad money. Not that a change will make any difference. More people than you can count won't bother voting because of how much gas it will take to go to the polls.
I'm betting on Hillary. And if she shows up one day - or night - wearing nine-inch heels, you'll be betting on her also.
If you're reading this, Hillsie: The stilettos will protect you against the inevitable first-term impeachment since your VPOTUS Russ Feingold - who no one dare ever fuck with - isn't any insurance.
Hypocrisy:
"the practice or an instance of stating or pretending to hold beliefs or principles that one does not actually live by"
"Who are the real censors?"
I'm always a respectful poster - I was asking a genuine question about the difference between a private and public forum. I personally think that any privately-owned message board - including this one, Dailykos, HuffPo, etc. - should be able to moderate posts. I was just curious why you labeled those forums public, and this one private - they are all private, regardless of how much traffic they receive. I think that you should delete some posts - unmoderated message boards are filled with garbage - but I don't know why my post got deleted.
Dermot,
My rough hypothesis:
"Public forum" = electric fence mind control / control of consensus is in operation. That's the intent and trajectory.
"Private forum" = Human beings in communication. Ideally in some sort of Socratic dialog, seeking to test their hypotheses through interaction with other people. That's the intent and trajectory.
As to your post in question, I didn't see it and I simply don't know what happened, but I note that your query to which I am responding is there / was not moderated off the board.
Hope this tends to help. (In no way do I presume to speak for Mr. Cannon.)
Gary McGowan
mjed and JohnM, I've also told you that I don't like you guys personally. Guess I should add a rule in there about "Don't get on the host's wrong side." Once you do, you're disinvited from his home, even when you're acting nice.
LOL!
Post a Comment