Blitzer's Blogger attacks Jane Hamsher and "firedoglake" Website

[KoKo]

Just now! Disgusting ...they blamed the website and "Liberal Bloggers" for Painting Lieberman in "Black Face" without giving any background.

The bigger issue is not Hamsher giving the "background" of the photo but that CNN went after LIBERAL BLOGGERS and that means, folks, the PIT BULLS are out against us!

SHUTTING DOWN BLOGGERS will be their PRIME FOCUS!!!! Look at the BIG Picture and NOT the photo...because the explanation for the photo is what they want written in BLOOD and NOT WHY Lieberman is GOING DOWN!

[EST]

1. The battle lines really are being drawn-

all over the place.

[thepurpose]

12. Where is the picture?

[DURHAM D]

2. My, my - never heard Wolfie go after the junk yard dogs on

the right. Do you suppose -- could he be a hypocrite.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. It also means, in some manner of speaking,

...that they fear the left blogsphere. Ignore and marginalize didn't work. Brace for more attacks and a renewed push for a new telco spearheaded fast lane/slow lane internet where we can and will be effectively silenced.

[Kagemusha]

4. Dumb question. How's a white Jewish face "blackface"?

That I don't really get. I'm no expert on the subject because I'm white, I don't make it my business to know what the joke's all about.

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. It was a picture of Joe Lieberman

in blackface.

The freepers saw it and went nuts.

[Kagemusha]

7. I saw it extensively because I'm a regular FDL reader.

I guess I don't get why they call it blackface at all.

Edit: I just looked it up on Wikipedia. How the hell can you have blackface if the face isn't black?

A friend told me it looked like a Where's Waldo parody...

[Tinksrival]

5. Wolf has no bite.

He doesn't even have any sheep. Just ignore and he doesn't even exist.

[rinsd]

8. It was incredibly stupid by Hamsher.

It was a dumbass attack on something that had already backfired.

But I don't think it will be nearly enough to save Joe-mentum.

[Rose Siding]

16. It was a lapse. She apologized.

Last night, PBS had a special about Edward R Murrow, and I thought of Jane -not to equate them, but because a woman on the show who worked with Murrow was talking about what she felt was See It Now's great advantage. The entire show was really built around, and cast with, regular people. And they were "guileless", she said.

Guileless. TV was in its infancy and no one had any compunctions about representing their viewpoint in front of the camera. They let it all hang out. That's changed mostly, and politics has suffered for it, especially. But blogs -as well as other places that fledgling efforts to develop a participatory democracy will touch- will go through that stage too. A bad call like Jane made is the down side of what keeps the dialogue fresh. I'm still enamoured of the lack of guile.

[rinsd]

18. I should have noted her apology.

I just thought it was dumb because Lieberman was getting killed for the flyer.

Again, doesn't really matter if Lamont wins as exepected.

But will it crop aagain if he runs Indy?

How bad do you think Joe needs to lose to abort his indy run?

[Rose Siding]

20. I don't know if he'll bail at all.

He's flush with cash and Republican support. His indy bid threw me so I'm all out of predictions about him. He's a loose cannon.

[thepurpose]

9. Let's say Hamsher did it. Does that rise any where to level of Coulter

and the other right wing crazies they let on to say anything they want about people without challenge? The news is a joke has been a joke and will only get worse if the democrats come into power.

[Kagemusha]

10. Michelle Malkin's been leading the charge. That says it all.

Having said that, I don't 'get' the picture, never did, probably never will. Like I said above, I don't understand how you can have blackface without a black face.

[thepurpose]

11. It goes back to the days when white people would protray black people

on stage and it was real popular for at least a hundred years here and overseas way before you and my time. It was racist yes, but in those times a lot of shit was racist and it wasn't just blacks bearing the burden. Other races got their share in different ways.

[Kagemusha]

13. I understand that, but it's hard to square that with this picture,

which has a lot of colors but black is nowhere to be seen.

[thepurpose]

15. Where is the picture? I trying to figure out what they are talking about

too. Because I search a couple days of post and I don't see a picture of a Joe in black face.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. This thread is useless without pics.

:shrug:

[Kagemusha]

17. I could post a link to it but I don't dare, mods might be offended.

Not worth the trouble to me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. It's relevant to the discussion...

post away.

[Kagemusha]

21. If I post it the Freepers will be all over it.

Best to let it lie I guess :( I don't want to get Jane or people like her in even more trouble over this.

[KoKo]

22. one has to be careful about being BANNED on Du..these days...no pix

I don't want my post "locked."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. I'd have a hard time imaging a mod having a problem with it.

Given that it's relevant to the topic of this thread.

Alright, found it on Slate. If anybody else is interested:



Sure, it's racist... if you complete divorce it from its original context.

[Kagemusha]

24. ...What? THIS is the pic?

Okay, I thought everyone was whining and crying about a completely DIFFERENT pic.

I "get it" now. But it looks like someone just decided one racist flyer deserves another or something.

Edit: The thread I saw on FDL which had the Where's Waldo type pic had all sorts of comments pleading for "that" pic to be taken down, and at the time I didn't even see it on huffpost anymore so, I got confused. Apologies. And damn, I agree, not a smart move at all. I know what they're saying, but no need for the dumb prop.