When Jane Hamsher wanted to insult Lieberman, she painted him in blackface.

[pnwmom]

Literally.

This is the Jane Hamsher of Firedog Lake, and of Common Sense Media -- the "neutral" media firm, with Republican and Democratic clients. Jane Hamsher, the darling of progressives.

http://www.slate.com/id/2147117/


Ned Lamont wants to be a senator from Connecticut and that means reacting quickly to issues that get overblown by bloggers and the media. He got his first test Wednesday. Right as Lamont was busy campaigning with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, one of his most strident supporters in the blogosphere posted a picture of Lamont's opponent, Joe Lieberman, in blackface. Go!

Joe was first out of the gate. "This is one of the most disgusting and hurtful images that has been used in American history," he said of the image posted by Jane Hamsher—the founder of Firedoglake and a Huffington Post contributor. "It's deeply offensive to people of all colors, and it has absolutely no place in the political arena today." He called on Lamont to ban Hamsher from traveling with the campaign, refuse to take any money she has raised, and remove any links to her postings from his Web site.

Then it was Ned's turn. "I don't know anything about the blogs," he said according to Dan Balz in the Washington Post. "I'm not responsible for those. I have no comment on them."

SNIP

Lamont, who thus far remains the "not Lieberman" choice, is also missing a chance to be senatorial. His spokeswoman denounced Hamsher. Why didn't he? The campaign asked Hamsher to take down the image from her post; she did, and then offered the non-apology preferred by loutish boyfriends—I'm sorry if I made you upset. Lamont should have gone further to show some spine.

[hlthe2b]

1. So, you felt the need to post a five year old story now, why?

While surely a stupid thing to do, she apologized for that five years ago. Has Jane done something to disturb you today?

[pnwmom]

2. Jane is working against the Obama administration every day.

And too many people take her self-serving blogging -- blogging in support of her Common Sense Media company -- at face value.

[hlthe2b]

3. Something specific must have spurred you...

I rarely go to FDL and haven't in some time. But, lots of progressives nip at Obama on a daily basis. :shrug:

[Electric Monk]

4. I think it's probably a spinoff of this other thread smearing her

Here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1337889&mesg_id=1337889

[KoKo]

63. A flash mob attack in the early stages?

[TheWraith]

66. So Hamsher getting questioned about being on the Republican payroll while slamming Obama is bad.

But the constant drumbeat of fact-free anti-Obama spin coming from FDL and those like it aren't at all suspicious, it's just "honest reporting," right?

[KoKo]

69. You would have to give real evidence and proof that Hamsher is on

the Republican payroll to be taken seriously. Then I would check your sources...just to make sure.

[TheWraith]

70. Her media firm works directly for Republican clients. What do you call that?

Oh, and also for greenwashing companies like BP.

http://rootedcosmopolitan.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/jane-hamsher-republican-consultant/

[KoKo]

123. "Rooted Cosmopolitan" is hardly a Credible Source. "FAIL!"

Blech.

[MilesColtrane]

145. The salient quote...

Jeff Cosgrove, managing director of the CommonSense Media online advertising network, which has clients in both parties, said a growing number of campaigns book ads in connection with television appearances or other public events.

comes from a Washington Post article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michele-bachmann-others-raise-millions-for-political-campaigns-with-money-blurts/2011/06/16/AGROkubH_print.html


But, don't take WaPo's word for it.

CommonSense Media Advertising brags on its site about matching the content of right wing websites and blogs with "advertisers and campaigns".

Be they positioned to the Left, Right or Center, political news, commentary and issues websites and blogs are exploding online. People worldwide are increasingly turning to the internet for their news, commentary and issues "fix."

This contextually aggregated audience personifies “engagement.” CSMAds works closely with political news, commentary and issue-specific websites and blogs, matching their highly desired professional content with quality advertisers and campaigns.

http://csmads.com/index.html

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You don't think they're matching right wing blogs and sites with ads for the ACLU, PETA, and the Bernie Sanders reelection campaign, do you?

[Luminous Animal]

91. Really? Republican payroll? You have any evidence that she's on the Republican payroll?

[TheWraith]

96. Did you even glance at the message right above yours?

Hamsher's media company works for Republicans. Also BP, doing greenwashing work.

http://rootedcosmopolitan.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/jane-hamsher-republican-consultant/

[Luminous Animal]

104. I call that no different than Obama taking donations from Republicans.

Hey! I sell wine to Republicans! Does that mean I'm on the Republicans payroll?

I see ads on DU for Republicans all the time... does this mean that Skinner is on the Republicans payroll?

[eridani]

114. This is what firedoglake has to say about BP

http://www.insurancemaking.com/politics/962-jane-hamsher-why-should-we-trust-environmental-groups-who-take-bps-money.html

But the Sierra Club isn't alone. The Nature Conservancy is one of many environmental groups who have received enormous funding from the oil companies. The Sierra Club and the Audobon Society have also formed partnerships with BP. That money is there expressly to buy their good will at moments like this.

And then there's the National Resources Defense Council:
"I think that made people plenty angry. Every time you see a picture like that, it breaks your heart," Deans said. "Certainly, we're outraged, but it's not our job to generate outrage. It's our role to try to focus that sentiment on priorities we need to make our country stronger."

Some say that even though environmental groups aren't dominating the debate, their issues certainly are --and are driving huge swings in public opinion against drilling and in favor of action on climate issues.
Well those swings are being channeled by the Center for Biological Diversity, the group that was out there proving that the administration's actions didn't match up with its words, and that MMS was still granting offshore drilling permits, even after Ken Salazar promised they wouldn't. Meanwhile other groups were sitting on their hands, or doing what veal pen outfits do -- reaping the benefits of a catastrophe by expanding their memberships and fundraising.


The oil industry has done a good job of buying the silence of many "environmental organizations." PBS has been virtually mute on the spill, as sponsorship of its major shows is largely dominated by oil money. Media outlets that likewise depend heavily on advertising from oil companies have provided pathetic coverage of the spill and its consequences, focusing instead on completely stupid distractions like "has the President shown enough emotion."



http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/05/14/will-salazar-make-bp-pay-for-destroying-businesses-of-louisiana-fishermen/

Campo says the business has been in his family for over 100 years: it’s not just a job, it’s a way of life. LeBouf says he can carry himself for 5 months without going out of under. Meanwhile, according to the NYT, BP is using dispersants in the gulf that are made by a company with which it shares close ties, “even though other U.S. EPA-approved alternatives have been shown to be far less toxic and, in some cases, nearly twice as effective.”

When Salazar went to Louisiana earlier this week, Glynn Wilson of the Locust Fork News Journal followed him to Gator Lake for a press conference. Cameras followed Salazar as he put on waders helped workers place booms and dispersents, and assured them that BP was on the hook for all costs (6:30):

SALAZAR: We are committed that the United States of America will not spend any taxpayer money in terms of the removal or the cleanup or the compensation costs. Those are the responsibilities of British Petroleum under the law. Those are responsibilities that BP has assumed, that they have articulated they will be assuming.

In fact, when BP Chairman Larry McCay was questioned by Democrat Maria Cantwell in a Senate hearing, he refused to say:

LAMAR McKAY: We are paying legitimate claims right now, and so, yes, I am. And obviously we can’t keep from being sued, but, yes, we have said exactly what we mean. We’re going to pay the legitimate claims.

SEN. MARIA CANTWELL: OK, so if it’s a legitimate claim, a harm to the fishing industry, both short term and long term, you’re going to pay?

LAMAR McKAY: We’re going to pay all legitimate claims.

[eridani]

112. Sounds like information coming from Breitfart to me n/t

[bluestate10]

118. The Breitbart stuff as an excuse is tired, give it up. nt

[bluestate10]

117. The article shows what Hamsher is about. A true progressive never

works against progressive causes. Hamsher actively support those that would send progressive causes to the stone ages if they could make that work.

[pnwmom]

6. Another thread, in which her ties to Common Sense media were discussed.

And through the Common Sense Media, she has ties both to Republican clients and to many of the other "progressive" groups that are "nipping" at Obama on a daily basis.

[G_j]

8. then maybe post something about that? nt

[hlthe2b]

10. Yes... That is my point... I hadn't seen the other thread...

Between the threads that offer nothing more than a link and those that provide no meaningful context, I feel lost (and frustrated) some days.

[JackRiddler]

16. False. The Obama administration works against the promise of 2008 Obama every day.

You would like to defang and preemptively (and permanently!) smear precisely those commentators who are most incisive in pointing that out, like Jane Hamsher.

[pnwmom]

18. Not defang her, just unmask her. She has been working in tandem with Republicans

to attack Obama and other Democrats. People should take anything she says with a large grain of salt.

[defendandprotect]

44. Believe me, Koch Bros. DLC Dem Party/Obama are the problem ... not Hamsher ...

[sufrommich]

74. Are you comparing Obama to the Koch brothers? Really?nt

[JackRiddler]

92. A list is not a comparison.

And you can compare anything to anything along any number of variables.

Example:

This banana weighs a quarter pound.

This Dodge Ram Penisprop 2.0 weighs more than a ton.

See? Even bananas and SUVs can be compared!

Comparisons, amazing.

Similarly:

This Koch has it in for the teachers' unions.

This Obama-Duncan, unrelated to the Koch, also has it in for the teachers' unions. Oh look, so does this Gates-Broad thingie. Maybe all for different reasons, but there you are.

If that bothers you, sorry.

There are plenty of ways in which they're different, too.

But none of them has the integrity of a Jane Hamsher.

[defendandprotect]

134. I'm saying the Koch Bros. funded the DLC, influenced the party and its selection of candidates...

do you have some inside knowledge of its being otherwise?


2010 should have also given you an indication that Democratic voters

stayed home because of Obama's corporate agenda and not because of Jane Hamsher!


For one specific --

which Koch Bros/DLC Rahm Emmanuel "crowed" about, citing how business should be

"GRATEFUL" to Obama -- because they 'PRESERVED THE PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM'

while trampling MEDICARE FOR ALL --




:nuke:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

53. Just like she worked against Bush -

every day when HE was engaging in illegal, immoral, or otherwise wrong activities.

Jane has been consistent in her objections.

Too bad others haven't followed her lead -- we might actually get somewhere as a country/Party.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

7. I did decide to google her after I read that other thread about Common Sense Media.

That doesn't make this a conspiracy. Just an enlightening few minutes, for me.

[noiretextatique]

111. She has Republican clients? So do I

I'm an accountant, and as as long as republicans have green money, i will do their books and taxes.

[sufrommich]

"When a bunch of threads smearing the same person all hit at the same time"

It happens every day here on DU, except it's usually threads about the President.

[CrossChris]

11. I should have qualified--when it's a minor player who's not usually in the news...

It could certainly work that way, if all of the smears were as baseless and nearly simultaneous as the ones against Hamsher.

[hlthe2b]

14. Are they baseless?

Has she addressed these questions anywhere?

[CrossChris]

20. I believe they're incredibly distorted. Think Progress was also in the mix.

That subject warrants further discussion. This thread is just piling on, IMO.

[JackRiddler]

15. Yup.

[snooper2]

21. DAMN! you unravled our conspiracy..

Now we are going to have to re-think strategy all over again :P



Swiper no trolling :rofl:

[dionysus]

34. why, that happens here every day with obama. funny how the turnabout makes some folks angry.

[CrossChris]

40. Yeah, he's the President, so he'll make the news alot. When it's a minor blogger, it sticks out .

Just my observation.

[dionysus]

41. to be fair, FDL stuff going after obama gets posted here gleefully damn near every day

:hi:

[CrossChris]

48. Is that FDL specific? Maybe if Obama didn't oppose the Democratic platform, that wouldn't happen.

I like watching you guys try to bash Jane "Hamster" at her every association with Republicans, when most of her criticism of Obama is for his consistently taking Republican stances against his own base!

[dionysus]

52. we dont just bash hamsher, we also laugh our asses off at her bitter act. cheers!

:toast:

[JackRiddler]

54. Yes, because ad hominems don't make you right, but as Karl Rove teaches, they win.

[dionysus]

61. yes, laughing at jane on a message board is EXACTLY like what rove does...

:spray:

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

68. "the Rovian way is to attach labels to people,", you mean the way people call obama a rw republican

all the time? this goes both ways.

[JackRiddler]

81. I have never called Obama a right-wing republican.

I have noted certain undeniable harmonies in his policies and decisions with those of the prior government, yes. The consolidation of the surveillance state and the unitary executive doctrine (under different pretexts) is an obvious one.

Labeling Obama the person, or any other politician is irrelevant.

What matters is what they do, not who they might be deep inside.

[dionysus]

84. whether you did personally or not is irrelevent, it's done here on a daily basis.

[JackRiddler]

87. Well I object to personal labeling in general, and that includes your ad hominem labeling of Hamsher

Although I'm sure you can catch me doing it sometimes; we're all imperfect and I'm sorry about it if I have done that.

[TheWraith]

62. Problem is, Hamsher cuddles up to Republicans far more than Obama ever has.

Like, you know, teaming up with Grover Norquist to protect the insurance industry from the reforms Obama was trying to force on them.

[CrossChris]

85. Like when she formed the Debt Commission, kept Gates on, kept Guantanamo open, went after MMJ, etc.?

I remember how disappointed in her we all were when she did those things.

[JackRiddler]

93. Surely it was very Republican of her to point out these things. If only she had just shut up!

[Luminous Animal]

94. Norquist was invited to testify in front of Obama's very powerful debt commission.

[sufrommich]

82. What part of the Democratic platform is Obama opposed to? nt

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

45. Especially vs Obama's 3 new trade agreements selling out America ....

Obama approving yet more "Drill now - think later!" --

Pushing new subsidies for nuke industry --

and Obama/Duncan's continued push for Charter schools and dismantling public

education in America -- teachers and their unions --

Doing ZIP about Unemployment at 15% --

And having betrayed seniors by ending COLA's -- something that even Bush didn't do!!

On and on -- on and on -- you know the song --?

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CrossChris]

58. +1000. Excellent quote. Perfectly applied.

Honestly, I feel the same way against criticisms of Obama that are not issue based. Unfortunately, he provides those opportunities with each new disappointing day.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

102. It means we've been PISSED OFF for a long time about her constant attacks on Obama. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

105. Another person who cannot distinguish between policy and personality.

[eridani]

115. Amazing how hard it is for some people to distinguish between

--personalities and policies.

[JackRiddler]

13. "Has Jane done something to disturb (OP) today?"

Yes of course.

Hamsher is a brilliant, often razor-sharp daily dissector of empire and of political hypocrisy, including that of Team Democrat (the "Faces"). She is on a list of those who must be preemptively discredited for that reason. That would include Glenn Greenwald, Ralph Nader and anything published in WSWS, Russia Today or Counterpunch (regardless of author, although the latter especially has perhaps the most diverse line-up of any web publication). Also, Jason Leopold. If you quote something that happened to be published in these or other venues suspect to those who care only for party line, or by one of the hated authors, it will never receive a response dealing with its factual content, argument or logic. The thread will always be swarmed by a Pavlovian response and pushed down into a swamp of hateful name-calling directed against the hated venue or author. It will become impossible to have a discussion on facts or argument.

You see, it's fine to quote the newspaper that brought you Judy Miller and is still sometimes working to facilitate the neocon war plans for Iran, our American Pravda, decades-long voice of empire, the New York Times. And why shouldn't it be? An article or an author might be very truthful and insightful, even if published in the NYT. Or it might be important, even if propagandistic, and worth discussing.

It's also fine to quote the original war-hype network, CNN, which features paid Pentagon spokespersons pretending to be independent analysts and once had an Army psyops unit working in the control room (during the Kosovo war). CNN is criticized hereabouts, but it never produces the Pavlovian swarm response, in which several posters instantly arrive to attack an OP merely for quoting CNN. You only see the swarm response with Hamsher and others on the "non-party leftists" list.

But a certain faction is going to hate "the left" before confronting the beast on the right. For some people it's much easier, for example, to blame Nader for getting himself on a ballot in a legal and legitimate fashion, than to confront the reality that gave birth to Democratic Underground: Gore won the 2000 election, and won the vote in Florida, but the GOP and the Bush mob committed election fraud to fake the count in Florida, and the Supreme Court stepped in with an unconstitutional decision to terminate a recount that would have given the election to Gore. That was a coup d'etat by the nation's most powerful, ruthless and dangerous factions. Some people, rather than acknowledging this frightening reality, prefer to attack scapegoats on the left, because these are not frightening. Also, these are the ones who are telling it like it is. So you get a double bonus: a non-frightening scapegoat to blame, fairly or not, and your denial is reinforced against those likeliest to pierce it, like Jane Hamsher.

[SidDithers]

26. "Hamsher is a brilliant, often razor-sharp daily dissector of empire and of political hypocrisy"...

Sid

[JackRiddler]

31. Thank you for underlining my point about swarm behavior activated by Pavlovian stimuli.

I'd have trouble simulating examples of stupid gang behavior, so it helps to have a genuine illustration.

Also, thank you for properly quoting an important and true phrase from my post.

Also, I do get your underlying and highly Orwellian "message," such as it is: that a defense of Hamsher is just another cover to facilitate her "Republican" line. Remember that the next time you dispense wisdom like, "never attribute to malice" and such.

[SidDithers]

37. Dude, I'm just laughing at you...

there's nothing ganglike or Orwellian about it. I just happen to find your post ridiculous.

Sid

[JackRiddler]

39. Okay, fine: childish and void of anything to say will do.

[Youth Uprising]

29. Incredibly well stated.

:applause:

[Gin Blossom]

33. Thank you. n/t

[dionysus]

42. !

:spray:

[JackRiddler]

Just keep raising the noise to signal ratio, I'm sure that makes you a winner.

[dionysus]

51. you guys are raising the comedy gold ratio, thats for sure.

:P

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[defendandprotect]

56. Terrific analysis ... esp re noting faction here who hate the left and ignore beast on the right-- !

But a certain faction is going to hate "the left" before confronting the beast on the right. For some people it's much easier, for example, to blame Nader for getting himself on a ballot in a legal and legitimate fashion, than to confront the reality that gave birth to Democratic Underground: Gore won the 2000 election, and won the vote in Florida, but the GOP and the Bush mob committed election fraud to fake the count in Florida, and the Supreme Court stepped in with an unconstitutional decision to terminate a recount that would have given the election to Gore. That was a coup d'etat by the nation's most powerful, ruthless and dangerous factions. Some people, rather than acknowledging this frightening reality, prefer to attack scapegoats on the left, because these are not frightening. Also, these are the ones who are telling it like it is. So you get a double bonus: a non-frightening scapegoat to blame, fairly or not, and your denial is reinforced against those likeliest to pierce it, like Jane Hamsher.

And despite all they have to ignore about elite takeover of the nation, for many

this is still "conspiray-free America" --- !!!


:evilgrin:

[TheWraith]

60. Yes, and Hamsher is one of the leaders of hating the left and supporting the right.

She throws baseless smears at Obama on a daily basis, while cuddling up to people like Grover Norquist.

But I'm sure it comforts some people to create a mental world where everything is a big conspiracy, black is white, right is left, and the most extreme of the right wing are allies while a Democratic President is the enemy.

[KoKo]

76. Didin't I ask you above thread for evidence of your statements?

"Crickets...." Just more of the same. ZZZZZZZ.....

[KoKo]

67. +!

[proud2BlibKansan]

107. That's one of the best comments I've read here in a long time

Thank you.

[snooper2]

19. Is that you Jane?

:rofl:

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[hlthe2b]

146. Weak

very weak...:eyes:

[MineralMan]

28. I'm glad it was posted. First I knew of it.

Now, I'm aware of the incident. Sorry it upset you. It's one datum I did not have. Now I do.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[bluestate10]

116. The articles shows that Hamsher has a twisted view of race. nt

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Whisp]

127. and another overused phrase I'm sure I'll be sick of hearing in about an hour.

flash mob! FLASH MOB!!!! f•l•a•s•h m•o•b!! F..L..A..S..H....M..O..B..S..T..E..R...!!!

[KoKo]

131. lol's...even thought I know you are trying to

trash me. :D

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Why do the Democrats pay her? Why do the Democrats take Republican money?

Bi-partisanship?

[hlthe2b]

12. Why does no one confront her and ask for an explanation...

on her own website?

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[no limit]

17. Lol: "This is one of the most disgusting and hurtful images that has been used in American history"

Give me a fucking break.

[JackRiddler]

24. It makes me think of an even more disgusting and yet appropriate one...

which would be Lieberman cruficied, or rather, pretending that.

[SidDithers]

23. LEAVE JANE ALONE!!!...

:rofl: :rofl:

Sid

[Vanje]

25. Go Sid! nt

[no limit]

27. Wow, so there are people that think this meme from 4 years ago is still funny

[mitchtv]

30. Got something new?

shoot

[no limit]

38. The point isn't that I don't have anything new. The point is seeing this same meme...

...especially from the same person each and every time...isn't funny nor original.

[JackRiddler]

50. Funny, original, these are foreign concepts. All that matters to some people...

is to raise the noise far above the signal, since argument in facts and logic can't possibly win the day for them.

[dionysus]

43. vaht? if the ODS... coupled with the hamster lady... poshts too many threads... SHTRIKE!

:hi:

[SidDithers]

46. Not even enough time for a bowl of soup!!...

hehehe :hi:

Sid

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

64. The Koch DLC Dems are worried we might decide to stop voting for the lesser evil ... !!

Lots of money involved as well --

DU members alone gave $280,000 to Obama as they sent him off to the White House!

Buy there's no "affiliation" between DU and Democratic Party? Really?


How many members knew that Koch Bros funded the DLC?

And have infiltrated and influenced the Dem Party over a 20 year period --

i.e., Bill Clinton was probably our first Koch Bros/DLC Dem president -- !!


Lots of worries that as liberals drop out they will no longer fund the Dem Party --

why would I fund a Dem Party that has been infiltrated by the Koch Bros?

And as liberals fall away here, lots less $$ for the website --

[SidDithers]

72. Oy vey...nt

Sid

[Chimichurri]

77. Pathetic.

[SidDithers]

80. Craptastic...nt

Sid

[Chimichurri]

75. We are in this mess BECAUSE Clinton deregulated the media and the banks. The Telecommunications

Act of 1997 huge conglomerates to gobble up all the media turning it into a giant corporate marketing machine.
He also deregulated the banks by dismantling Glass/Steagall with Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 which fueled all the both the tech bubble and the housing bubble.

The Republicans couldn't do it without the help of the complicit Democrats. With the exception of a few, like Bernie Sanders, all of them should be voted out on their collective asses whether they have a D after their name or not. I don't believe their is a dispute about any of this except with the DC operatives sowing decent here and elsewhere. It's starting to really piss me off to say the least.

[defendandprotect]

95. We are here because Clinton was our first Koch Bros. DLC Dem president ....

and Gore would have been the second --

We are here because of Clinton's corporate agenda --

and we stand in shock and awe at Obama's corporate agenda --


"Bipartisanship is another way of saying one party rule" --



Let's draft Bernie Sanders -- he can run on a Dem ticket --

Tom Hayden for VP -- two strong anti-war candidates --


And recall Pelosi on video the morning after '06 --

"Democrats were elected to end the war" -- !!

Now we have Democrats who can only support this MIC/CIA complex?

[sufrommich]

101. And Kerry would have been the third. There doesn't seem to

very many democrats who you would actually support.

[defendandprotect]

103. Also consider that ....

Poppy Bush was perhaps our first CIA president --

corporations/CIA work closely together -- corporate/fascism --

Would the CIA let go of the presidency?

I wonder?



but we have been watching Obama's corporate agenda unfold and repeat itself

daily -- while we stand in "shock and awe" -- !!

[dionysus]

71. anti-dem OPs get posted all day long, and you're going to get all offended over two hamsher threads?

funny.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[CrossChris]

98. You're confusing "anti-Dem" and "anti-Dem acting as anti-Dem"

You see critiques of Obama as "anti-Dem" instead of seeing that he's usually being criticized when HE is the one going against the traditional Democratic platform in an "anti-Dem" fashion.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackRiddler]

78. Heh. Pavrovian. Funny. Thanks.

[xocet]

83. A story from 2006?? At least, get the facts right....

Here is some information concerning the inaccurate, leading statement that is present in this OP:

• the Huffington Post article that had the graphic: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/on-the-ground-with-lamont_1_b_26316.html?
  
• the "non-apology" apology: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/about-that-graphic_b_26391.html
  
• the Lieberman campaign's behavior: http://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/liebermans-shameless-race-baiting.html.
  

The graphic was removed from the article, and she apologized for the graphic.

How does something like this work though? Did she have editorial control over the graphic that was placed with her article? Did she commission "DarkBlack (sic)" to compose the graphic? I do not see any reporting on these topics in the OP's article from Slate. Does anyone know the answers to these questions? Did anyone care to find out? The reporters at that time did not. The OP did not.

Here is more background information:

• the apology but from FDL this time: http://firedoglake.com/2006/08/02/about-that-graphic/
  
• darkblack's comment regarding the image on FDL: http://my.firedoglake.com/darkblack/tag/blackface/
  

Now that all of this has been found, the first statement of the OP is shown to be "literally" false.

darkblack: "News flash, Beck – Jane Hamsher didn’t make or commission that graphic to be made, I made it.
She merely used it, without permission – once, on Huffington Post – and pulled it the same day."

(http://my.firedoglake.com/darkblack/tag/blackface/)

So...

pwnmom: "When Jane Hamsher wanted to insult Lieberman, she painted him in blackface. Literally."

(from the OP)

is not, as it is written by the OP, a factually accurate statement.

If one wishes others to care about a six-year old story, please, at least, get the facts straight before exaggerating them to make a point. This is as bad as the AP's story that states:

"Tritium is relatively short-lived and penetrates the body weakly through the air compared to other radioactive contaminants. Each of the known releases has been less radioactive than a single X-ray."

(http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&Date=20110621&ID=13798537)

Clearly, the reporter does not or cannot articulate the difference between radiation and radioactivity, and he conflates the two separate things for his readers.

In the spirit of trying to get things right, maybe the OP would care to correct the original post...

[JackRiddler]

86. DING DING DING!!! EVERYONE READ IMPORTANT...

Sorry if I'm being loud, but xocet really nails some important FACTS and as this thread grows to 9000 posts, I'm doing what I can to draw attention to xocet's excellent post!

CLICK NOW!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1338480&mesg_id=1339191

In short: The OP has miserably misrepresented the facts of a 2006 incident (including the fact that Lieberman was race-baiting the Lamont campaign and that Hamsher didn't create the graphic) for the purpose of burning Jane Hamsher at the stake, not for any reason related to the 2006 incident, but because of party-line ideological opposition to Hamsher today.

[Electric Monk]

89. +1 nt

[Luminous Animal]

90. Given Lieberman's race-baiting, the black-face image seems appropriate.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackRiddler]

109. +1

[defendandprotect]

106. Thanks -- making clearer a distorted and non-factual attack on Jane Hamsher ...!!

[slipslidingaway]

120. Best way to combat a smear, post the facts - thanks! n/t

[xocet]

137. On Edit (a mea culpa):Checking that date again, the story is from about five years ago, not six. n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

88. What is this, bash Jane Hamsher day? n/t

[wndycty]

97. She deserves it

:kick:

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MineralMan]

99. I don't think two posts about Jane Hamsher constitute

a Jane Hamsher bashing day. It's just a couple of posts. :shrug:

[JackRiddler]

110. Golly gee, happened on a little witch-burning, what's all the fuss about people?

[MineralMan]

125. Jane Hamsher is not a witch.

She's the owner of a website that's read by some people. That's all she is.

I often disagree with stuff posted on her website. I don't consider her a witch, nor do I think she has all that much influence on US politics.

She's who she is.

[JackRiddler]

126. Now that is the opposite of what I said. Hamsher's not a witch, but this thread is witch-burning.

And you're the one who wandered in and says he didn't notice that. Well good for you for being such an innocent in the woods.

[MineralMan]

128. You can't have a witch-burning without a witch.

Jane Hamsher is not a witch or anything that rhymes with it. She owns a minor political website.

[JackRiddler]

135. That must be a joke, right?

I daresay the vast majority of real-world burnings of witches never involved any actual witches!

Or maybe you think so? Perhaps you support the practice as a way of dealing with the witch threat?

In the meantime, the OP has been exposed as full of bullshit -- a sorry smear job selectively recycling in part false facts about a five-year-old case.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1338480#1339191


And aimed at an official enemy of sorts to those who scapegoat the left for the failings of the Obama White House. In other words, a witchburning.

Care to comment on that?

[MineralMan]

138. I don't know. Did she use that image?

Shame on her for that. That's my only comment on that. Today was the first time I heard of it.

Jane Hamsher is a minor political player and voice. I don't really concern myself about her all that much. If you noticed, I posted one post in that thread, saying that I hadn't heard about the Lieberman blackface thing. I found it interesting, in a minor way. Everything after that was off topic.

In the other Hamsher thread, I also posted a single post.

I don't know who you think I am, but I believe you've confused me with someone else or something else. I consider Jane Hamsher and FDL to be irrelevant to anything I'm concerned about politically. My emphasis is in getting Democrats to the polls to vote for Democrats. I work locally, in my own precinct and districts, along with statewide offices. In the process, I campaign also for the Democratic candidate for President every four years.

Jane Hamsher and FDL are irrelevant to those things. So, I pay little attention to her, commenting from time to time in threads that deal with her and FDL. You won't find lots of posts of mine in those threads. I don't have time for that.

So, no, I don't really have any comment on your question. I don't see witches. I don't believe they exist. I see minor political voices trying to speak loudly. Hell, I'm a minor political voice. Very minor. But not in my precinct or Congressional district. There, I can influence voters. Anywhere else, I'm just blowing in the wind. I have time, so it interests me to do so. In 2010, my precinct had a 60% turnout and voted 60% for Democrats in every race. I take some credit for that, since I walked the entire precinct more than once and talked to a helluva lot of people. That's who I am.

I am not who you appear to think I am. I'm just one guy who's active in local politics. I doubt you're any more influential than I am. So, you're just another DUer, posting away on an Internet forum that also has very little influence in national politics. You want to know where I'm coming from. See my journal. It's about local stuff, not national. I have no influence nationally, just like you.

[Luminous Animal]

140. Did Lieberman race-bait Lamont? Yes he did. Was her column a response to that race-baiting,..

yes it was. And the response to the image was like chickens with their heads cut off.

[KoKo]

133. OOOOOHHHH You don't think so?

Really? :rofl:

[MineralMan]

139. Yes. That's what I said. I'm glad you're amused.

:shrug:

[JackRiddler]

100. Obviously! So let's all go see what's going on at her excellent site, Fire Dog Lake dot Com!

http://firedoglake.com/

[slipslidingaway]

121. Just did - more real news. n/t

[Raine]

113. More CRAP and old CRAP at that, geeesh. nt

:eyes: :thumbsdown:

[bluestate10]

122. No. The OP raises legitimate questions about Hamsher. I question

her pure commitment to progressive causes, I am a moderate.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slipslidingaway]

141. The OP posted an article from 2006 without doing any additional research ...

just because, in her own words...

"Jane is working against the Obama administration every day."

If you are curious about the background then you should at least read the links posted here.


"A story from 2006?? At least, get the facts right....
Here is some information concerning the inaccurate, leading statement that is present in this OP:"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1338480&mesg_id=1339191

[xphile]

147. You don't think progressives should vote unless they vote the way you say they should.

So your "concern" for progressive causes is suspect at best.

[JackRiddler]

136. EVERYONE: Don't miss xocet's decisive debunking of this nonsense in Post 86!

The OP has been exposed as a sorry smear job, selectively recycling in part false facts about a five-year-old case.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1338480#1339191

[slipslidingaway]

142. ************** +1,000,000. ******************

smear jobs should be exposed.

[JackRiddler]

143. Now post your favorite Hamsher columns in the new thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1340401

[CrossChris]

148. Yes--it really shows this meme for the witchhunt that it is. (and it's post 83)

I think someone's still sore at Jane b/c she called for a very valid investigation into Rahm's ties to Freddie Mac blocking an investigation.

[flamingdem]

144. The Hamster, Bust-ed

wow!:popcorn: