The Angry Left
April 15, 2006 8:48 AM   Subscribe

The Angry Left: The Washington Post runs a front-page feature about (in)famous Daily Kos diarist, Mary Scott O'Connor.
posted by empath (76 comments total)
 
Heh. I just finished reading a hardcopy of the article. It's pretty pathetic.

Coming next Sunday: "The Racist, Genocidal Right," based on perusals of LFG and Freep.

The latter would be kind of inflammatory and stupid, wouldn't it?

The Post is really going down hill (pun intended). Fred Hiatt needs to go away.
posted by bardic at 8:52 AM on April 15, 2006


Maryscott O'Connor says her liberal Web log, My Left Wing, is "one long, sustained scream."

Tell me about it. That woman (and her ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS!!) single-handedly dumbs down the Kos frontpage by about 50%.
posted by rxrfrx at 8:53 AM on April 15, 2006


Why would the Liberal Media use a picture that makes her look like a crazed drunk?
posted by interrobang at 8:54 AM on April 15, 2006


cast (by the right) as flip-flopping effeminate ninnies or marginalized raving radical loonies. can't win either way.

love the non-alcoholic beer detail. strong 'could slip back into insobriety at any moment' connotation there.
posted by pinto at 9:00 AM on April 15, 2006


And what interrobang said. Of course, as a librul, she's drinking red wine dontcha know. Real American bloggers drink Schlitz.
posted by bardic at 9:00 AM on April 15, 2006


I can't even read that article because of the photograph. It's the equivalent of the caricatures of hook-nosed jews that appeared so frequently in German newspapers during a certain era.
posted by digaman at 9:02 AM on April 15, 2006


I really, really dislike Mary Scott O'Connors screeds, but I do, for some reason, like her as a person, at least based on her work that I have read. "She means well", as they say.
posted by empath at 9:05 AM on April 15, 2006


It's the equivalent of the caricatures of hook-nosed jews that appeared so frequently in German newspapers during a certain era.

yay! godwin in 6.
posted by andrew cooke at 9:21 AM on April 15, 2006


Also, she's not drinking wine -- she doesn't drink. It's soda.
posted by trey at 9:22 AM on April 15, 2006


That woman (and her ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS!!) single-handedly dumbs down the Kos frontpage by about 50%.

Women browse the web one handed as well?
posted by srboisvert at 9:23 AM on April 15, 2006


Did she provide that pic? Through a webcam or something? It's the policy of papers (at least in our neck of the woods) to let the subject provide the pic or approve the pic if the paper's photographer takes it.

As it is, notice the pajamas?

She ought to sue the photographer. And if she did it, she should be mad as hell at herself.
posted by JB71 at 9:23 AM on April 15, 2006


What a piece of dreck (the article and Maryscott's rants). Although I had to laugh at the picture, as unfair as it is, because it captured "fraying liberal craziness" exactly how I would imagine it if I ever thought about it.

I can't believe there is a WaPo front-page feature that has a tedious recapitulation of an internet message discussion. Maybe the ombudsman will write a response by quoting our thread.
posted by Falconetti at 9:27 AM on April 15, 2006


From MSOC's diary:

At one point he brought out a camera (don't even get me started on my neurotic fear of having a horrible picture of me on the Front Page of the Washington Freaking Post)... but the light was bad. I asked if it would be better with the curtains open and he demurred; that, apparently, is creating the news rather than reporting it.
posted by empath at 9:30 AM on April 15, 2006


What I really, really dislike about this (hit-)piece is the way it trivializes O'Connor's motivation by psychologizing it - as if to say that the things that drive her to anger are something best resolved by therapy and/or medication, utterly detached from any shared experience out here in the public realm.

I find this kind of "journalism" to epitomize bad faith, and sadly enough it's more or less what I've come to expect from the WaPo.
posted by adamgreenfield at 9:42 AM on April 15, 2006


She blames her "issues" on Vietnam. Bleh. At her age, you'd think she'd be past that by now, what with all the therapy and the booze and whatnot.

Whatnot. Heh.
posted by disclaimer at 9:44 AM on April 15, 2006


Why was I so... "mean?

yeah, lefties are so "mean".
posted by matteo at 9:45 AM on April 15, 2006


Whatever Karl Rove pays this woman to discredit the left, he is getting a bargain.
posted by LarryC at 9:56 AM on April 15, 2006


read closer, disclaimer, there's a dead father in there. But you're right, whatnot can do wonders.
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:01 AM on April 15, 2006


Oh wow, ordinary people with ordinary bad habits and character flaws are getting others to care and contact their elected representatives? Quick, let's pathologize it. She rents? Oh my God, get her out of the national discourse.
posted by salvia at 10:15 AM on April 15, 2006


More than any other single "thing," KOS IS why, try as they may, the Democrats are doomed to be out of power for a long, long time. the KOS crowd is pandered to; a KOS-influence choses the D candidate, and "you think you hate the Republicans; then you realize how much more dangeous the Left is, and you start disliking the Republicans less, to the point where they have won, and will continue to."
posted by ParisParamus at 10:21 AM on April 15, 2006


Still, we achieved a sort of rhythmic normalcy as he observed and took notes for almost 12 hours. He came back the next day and we did it again, though we did manage to go out for lunch. The Post paid the tab; I was shocked to learn that Finkel would not accept a glass of water from me; he didn't want the slightest hint of impropriety, which meant not even using our bathroom, I discovered. Very strange, I thought.

Nothing in this rings true. He wouldn't accept a glass of water??
posted by Sassenach at 10:24 AM on April 15, 2006


That woman... single-handedly dumbs down the Kos frontpage by about 50%.

No small feat, that.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:42 AM on April 15, 2006


More than any other single "thing," KOS IS why, try as they may, the Democrats are doomed to be out of power for a long, long time.

You're so right, PP. It sure wasn't 9/11, which would have created a groundswell of support for a President named Daffy Duck. It sure wasn't FOX News, which was running crawls like "Is this John Kerry's second big lie?" right before the election. It sure wasn't the talking-point discipline of the GOP as marshaled by Karl Rove and Tom DeLay, which was somehow able to obscure the fact that their candidate drank his way through his National Guard service while Kerry was in Vietnam by claiming that Kerry's Purple Hearts were undeserved. It sure wasn't the explosion of right-wing talk radio, where pill-popper Rush Limbaugh can be heard daily excoriating Democrats for their lack of ethics. It sure wasn't phone-jamming campaigns underwritten by the White House on election day, it sure wasn't funny business involving Diebold and insecure voting machines, it sure wasn't the constant stream of terror-alert warnings from HomeSec Tom Ridge -- which he himself has admitted were pressured by the White House. It sure wasn't Tom DeLay's redistricting strategies. And it certainly wasn't Rove's mobilization of evangelicals to the polls by exploiting an alleged threat to marriage posed by, uhm -- a bunch of couples who want to get married. No! It was the awesome power of Daily Kos, and the tiresome anger of the left, with all their carping about "the Constitution" and "the bombing of women and children" and "freedom from surveillance." Shame on those Dems -- don't they know when to shut up?
posted by digaman at 10:47 AM on April 15, 2006


Nothing in this rings true. He wouldn't accept a glass of water??

i guess he was taking impartiality to the extreme? If it ever came out that he accepted her paying for stuff, the retort would be "and what ELSE did she pay for, I wonder, hmm? eh? EH?"
posted by slater at 10:49 AM on April 15, 2006


I agree that he shouldn't accept meals, etc., but a glass of water? I don't believe her.
posted by Sassenach at 10:54 AM on April 15, 2006


...nor was it the utter failure in Democratic leadership, constantly pandering to the "center" (read: right), buying into the myth of consensus, voting for war, voting for the patriot act, refusing to become an opposition party, not even having the balls to support a censure of the president (forget impeachment, that's a laugh!), completely unable to capitalize on gaffe after gaffe by the administration. No, it isn't any of these things that will ensure democratic defeat for a time to come, it is the poor, boring, outraged folks on dailyeffingkos that are the downfall of the dems.
posted by pinto at 10:55 AM on April 15, 2006


Sassenach, liberal elite WaPo reporters only drink Evian, not the municipal supply that the plebes must suffer.
posted by pinto at 10:56 AM on April 15, 2006


Oh and by the way, I am not letting the Democrats off the hook -- they have run pathetically unfocused campaigns distinguished by their candidtates' hesitation to call a spade a spade while America's former moral standing in the world plummets into the shitter and the Bill of Rights is gutted by Bush's handpicked errand boy Attorney General.

When the Dems recover their outrage and express it articulately, with the kind of on-message discipline the GOP has used so effectively, they're going to find out that more voters are on their side than they knew.

On preview: amen pinto.
posted by digaman at 11:00 AM on April 15, 2006


More than any other single "thing," KOS IS why, try as they may, the Democrats are doomed to be out of power for a long, long time. the KOS crowd is pandered to; a KOS-influence choses the D candidate, and "you think you hate the Republicans; then you realize how much more dangeous the Left is, and you start disliking the Republicans less, to the point where they have won, and will continue to."

That's the narrative (and a nifty little exercise in reverse psychology)...but very far from the truth.

To your first point...the blog-approved candidates have gotten generally hobbled by the establishment Dems (see Howard Dean, see Paul Hackett, et al).

Secondly, it is damn near impossible to be more dangerous than the wackos in charge of the Republican party. They're talking about nuclear first strikes. They ignore the advice of their top military minds. They undermine real intel and put fabricated narratives in it's place. They prey upon people's worst fears, and use each of their (almost pre-ordained) failures as justification for yet more power and authority.

As a Democrat...and though I may occasionally agree with her positions (on education, for example), I don't subscribe to MSOC's brand of ranting, it's vulgar and off-putting to people who should be with us. There's a lot at stake.
posted by edverb at 11:05 AM on April 15, 2006


You have to admit that "to what effect tough? what does it achieve" is a fair point, though. Ranting on a blog, left or right, and getting responses is not a substitute for political action.
posted by funambulist at 11:09 AM on April 15, 2006


More than any other single "thing," Rush IS why, try as they may, the Republicans are doomed to be out of power for a long, long time. the Rush crowd is pandered to; a dittohead-influence choses the R candidate, and "you think you hate the Democrats; then you realize how much more dangeous the Right is, and you start disliking the Democrats less, to the point where they have won, and will continue to."

For PP to have a point, you basically have to concede that the Left actually considers red-faced rage to be an undesireable personality trait, and the Right, not so much. Embrace your inner authoritarian!
posted by rkent at 11:10 AM on April 15, 2006


Holy crap: the article could be a gilt edged hagiography and that photo would single handedly turn it into a hit piece. Seriously unprofessional on the part of the Wapo. Would they run that picture of Bush giving the finger on the front page, or that old one of Kissinger picking his nose if they were doing an interview? Would they snap a quick candid shot and use that? Of course not. I could give a shit about this blogger, but wow that's quite a shocking choice for the paper.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:11 AM on April 15, 2006


No small feat, that.

yeah, of course.
please, hold your breath waiting for the Post to run a similar hit piece on the nice bloggers who said of Jill Carroll nice things like, she had "Muslim DNA on her face", and she needed a doctor because her kidnappers had given her various STDs.

because, you know, Kwantzar, the tone of the Internet's rightwing is so smart*, and nice.

* smarter than you are, that I concede, but that's not saying much

bah.

and speaking of DNA, one would assume that our MeFi right-winger boys, having happily -- if a bit unsafely -- swallowed Republican DNA all these years, would have more tolerance for gays and their demands for equal rights. but then, I'm digressing. and I'm probably being "mean", anyway.
posted by matteo at 11:12 AM on April 15, 2006


You make me ashamed to be on your side matteo.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:17 AM on April 15, 2006


More than any other single "thing," KOS IS why, try as they may, the Democrats are doomed to be out of power for a long, long time. the KOS crowd is pandered to; a KOS-influence choses the D candidate, and "you think you hate the Republicans; then you realize how much more dangeous the Left is, and you start disliking the Republicans less, to the point where they have won, and will continue to."

Oh please. Coulter, Hannety, Malkin, Limbaugh, O'Riley, Powerline. The angry, psychotic right is mainstream. The democrats are just catching up.

The left gets attacked and called traitors all the time by crazies and it's enraged them. What did you expect? That you could demonize a huge group of people for political effect day after day, year after year without any ill effect?

Don't be absurd.

I'm not a fan of KOS, but let's be realistic. That kind of BS motivates the majority of Americans who donate and ultimately vote. The idea that people will only vote for the 'nice' candidate, the one that everyone who supports has the same niceness is absurd. Bush is proof of it. People who complain about the left being angry without addressing the rights anger have no credibility.
posted by delmoi at 11:34 AM on April 15, 2006


I don't know, I think the photo's pretty accurate. I mean, I certainly feel like that every day.
posted by fungible at 11:38 AM on April 15, 2006


You could put up a picture of Tom Waits crossed with Charles Bukowski and that's how I feel many days. But for front-page photos in the Washington Post, that political-cartoon-in-the-form-of-a-photo was ridiculous.
posted by digaman at 11:52 AM on April 15, 2006


More than any other single "thing," KOS IS why, try as they may, the Democrats are doomed to be out of power for a long, long time.

Paris, man, it never takes you long, does it?

Think of the Kos crowd as the left's version of the anti-abortion crowd. Committed: you betcha. "The base?" Probably. Pandered to? No more so than the denizens of "crazy base world" over on the right are.

But the Post piece is all about making the left's base look crazier than the right's base. It's Hiatt's way of mollifying the wingnuts and saying, Look what a fair and balanced paper we run!
posted by kgasmart at 12:21 PM on April 15, 2006


Mega-dittos, kgasmart.
posted by digaman at 12:25 PM on April 15, 2006




I enjoyed the article. It was an interesting and entertaining piece. Period. I doubt that it was intended to convert anyone. All this teeth gnashing over one little article is a bit much.

And I do read and like Daily Kos -- at times. Yes, they do have their rants over at DKos...just like at MeFi. Big deal.

Lighten up before you give yourself a heart attack.
posted by bim at 1:47 PM on April 15, 2006


For me her comments about Vietnam strike very close to the bone. My family was very traumatically effected by the Vietnam War. My father served in country. The sense of shame and betrayal across the board effects all of us in the family in very deep and pernicious ways. I have similar rage to Mary Scott O'Connor. Whole gobs of it come from Vietnam and the abject failure of Bush to understand anything whatsoever about Vietnam or what it did to this country and our families. It absolutely terrifies me that an American President, or in this case psuedo-president, would do what he has done in Iraq. I haven't even begun to be able to express how obscene I find him.
posted by filchyboy at 1:51 PM on April 15, 2006




She's actually not an unattractive. She looked very professional and composed when she was on fox news, and nary an f-word in the entire segment.
posted by empath at 1:59 PM on April 15, 2006


Re: Greenwald's piece - good point, though I'd continue to argue that the Post's motivation, in addition to undercutting blogs, is to suck up to the administration/the right in general. If in fact the writer of the Post piece, Finkel, told her that he didn't know much about blogs, just had that line - "The angry left" - floating around his mind, I'd like to suggest that it was doing so because it had been put there specifically by an editor.

But as Greenwald points out the idea that the left is somehow uniquely angry is laughable (are you reading, Paris???) The right has been utterly unhinged for more than a decade, and it's hilarious to see the likes of Ann Coulter act all wounded as liberals irresponsibly drag the discourse into the gutter.

We're in the gutter, babe, because we followed you down there.
posted by kgasmart at 2:02 PM on April 15, 2006


I think most of the complaining here is just a case of sour grapes. MeFi and DKos are full of armchair experts (myself included) -- many of whom would love to get themselves in the media.

As for WaPo, most of the people who read it are political junkies anyway. Whatever side of the political spectrum readers are on, that's not going to change because of anything said in WaPo or the NYT or anything else. Not one iota. Get real.

Besides, the established media sold out long ago. Reporting is passe as the media sit and wait to be spoon fed "the news."
posted by bim at 2:18 PM on April 15, 2006


Um, bim, I'm a journalist. My comments about this article have nothing to do with sour grapes -- I'm already *in* the media as much as I want to be. And like many journalists, I work really hard to deliver stories that are not "spoon fed." And yes, I happen to believe that what gets printed in the Times or the Post can be very important. Newspapers are not about just about printing opinions -- though that's certainly the Right's talking point, because they don't want anyone to come in contact with inconvenient facts. Daniel Ellsberg's leaking of the Pentagon Papers, and the Times' courage in publishing them, went a long way toward stopping the Vietnam war. That's why Bush and company talk so loudly about how journalistic leaks give aid and comfort to the enemy. We need more Ellsbergs, more papers as courageous as the Times was then, and especially, more readers who don't believe that the world of politics is a huge static mass of people whose minds can't be changed just spinning in place.
posted by digaman at 2:32 PM on April 15, 2006


Um, bim, I'm a journalist.

Me too - which is exactly why I came to my conclusion re: why the Post decided to run with this piece.

Been there, have tried not to do it but seen plenty of it.
posted by kgasmart at 2:53 PM on April 15, 2006


Is she complaining about the article?
posted by funambulist at 2:54 PM on April 15, 2006


Or maybe the Post hit piece was the nexus of sucking up the right/taking down blogs; maybe it was payback for way in which lefty bloggers took down good old Ben "Did I write that?" Domenech:

In other words, liberal bloggers who dragged the Goggle swamp for the evidence of Baby Ben's journalistic offenses not only cost washingtonpost.com a few brownie points with the White House, they humiliated the editors in front of all their friends. And by God, they're going to pay, dammit! Do you hear me? Pay!
posted by kgasmart at 3:20 PM on April 15, 2006


"Oh please. Coulter, Hannety, Malkin, Limbaugh, O'Riley, Powerline. The angry, psychotic right is mainstream. The democrats are just catching up."

Oh, come on. Coulter is the most outspoken of the six mentioned, and she is more sensationalistic than extreme. Hanity and Rush are extreme? They're both slightly right of center, as is O'Reilly(sp?). Powerline? Not sure since I don't look at it.

It's not the extremeness of the positions (on either side) as much as the coarseness of the tactics and language used. That turns off people big-time. And the Left is WAY ahead on that score.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:37 PM on April 15, 2006


That turns off people big-time. And the Left is WAY ahead on that score.

Paris, you can say these things, but that doesn't make them true.

Tell you what: When Michael Moore suggests the next Timothy McVeigh drive his explosive-laden truck to the Fox News studios, we can talk about how that really isn't extreme, just sensationalistic. I suspect you'll be too busy shrieking like a banshee to do so, however.

Hannity is "slightly right of center?" Gee, didn't he write "Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism?"

But I suppose conflating terrorists, despots and liberals is a moderate position.

Only in your world, buddy.

Your problem, and that of the oh-so-offended civil discourse conservatives on the whole, is that while you may have forgotten all about that ancient era we call the '90s, everyone else remembers is.

So when the right suggests that the rhetoric of the left is uniquely uncivil, people say to themselves: Huh? Wait, didn't Jesse Helms suggest that if President Clinton visited his state, he might need a bodyguard?
posted by kgasmart at 3:51 PM on April 15, 2006


I think you're all mostly missing the point. This isn't about sucking up to the administration or helping the Repubs - this is about helping the inside the beltway consultant class Dems who fear the 'angry left' is going to steal their lunch money.

Republican insiders who loose big elections generally don't get a second chance. Democratic insiders who loose big elections get raises. The same insiders who lost the last election are all still there and will paid more for their services this election cycle - no matter what happens at the polls. Anything that threatens politics as usual threatens them.

This is about the cash cows, not sacred cows.
posted by Jos Bleau at 3:55 PM on April 15, 2006


No, funambulist (and digaman and kgasmart), I'm not complaining about the article. I enjoyed it. I laughed. And given the original post was a single sentence merely pointing out the existence of the article in the Washington Post, I really don't think that I'm off topic for commenting on it.

My point is that I'm amazed at all the uproar that folks here seem to be attaching to this one article in WaPo and its implications for the Democrats. That goes for Mr. Greenwald's comments too.

George Bush didn't win or lose the election because of anything ever said in the Washington Post -- or the New York Times for that matter. Folks in all those red states aren't reading the Washington Post and don't give a crap about it. And the days of the Woodward and Bernstein and the NYT printing Pentagon Papers are long past, IMO. Sad but true.

If the dems want to be more successful in coming elections they need to move beyond the insular world of the Washington Post and such. Otherwise, we're going to be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic come the next election.

And at least a teeny part of me wonders if there would be quite so much excoriating of MSCO if she weren't a woman. (But I will grant you that she does rant.)

And while I admit that I didn't notice that two of the posters here were journalists (though now I do recall looking at digaman's profile in the past because of some comments I liked), there are lots of folks -- journalists and non-journalists alike -- commenting on this thread. Journalists aren't the only ones who get to have opinions on this matter or politics in general. And for that matter, one could endlessly debate what constitutes a journalist these days.
posted by bim at 4:03 PM on April 15, 2006


Bim, wins. Why is Howard Dean heading the Party?! Talk about chairs on the Titanic!

Again, I am not a committed Republican. I am a disaffected Democrat! If you think the Democrats are about to sweep into office, its only because the whole dysfunctional DNC primary/election machine hasn't started up for '08 yet. it just ain't gonna happen. The Democrats will win some seats back this year, as the not-in-the-White-House party usually does, but that's about it. The DNC machine (I keep thinking of the blue ball YTDMN.com thing whenever I write that) will probably spit out Hillary, or Kerry again, and after an initial wave of joy, the will turn into a Dukakis--OY VEY.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:06 PM on April 15, 2006


OT: speaking of the Titanitc, I watched the Queen Mary II sail out of Brooklyn this afternoon from a nearby pier--glorious!
posted by ParisParamus at 5:08 PM on April 15, 2006


And for that matter, one could endlessly debate what constitutes a journalist these days.

One of the things that frightens the Post, I'm sure.

No one's saying you're not permitted to have an opinion, Bim. Ah, but liberalism is a many-tentacled beast, and if we reserve a few of those tentacles so that we might wrap them rhetorically around the Post's collective neck, it's not as if there aren't a few others to rearrange those deck chairs - or pick them up and throw them.

You might have noticed that the right has achieved great success in cowing the likes of the Post with its endless "liberal media" refrain. The left could do far worse than to counterpunch - and force the MSM to react to the fact that both sides are yelling at it.
posted by kgasmart at 5:19 PM on April 15, 2006


Ah, but liberalism is a many-tentacled beast, and if we reserve a few of those tentacles so that we might wrap them rhetorically around the Post's collective neck, it's not as if there aren't a few others to rearrange those deck chairs - or pick them up and throw them.

Good point. Then you won't mind me using the NYT as my personal punching bag. That paper has been on a downhill slide for quite some time. And being from New York, well, they deserve my full attention! Fire away with the deck chairs.

And I do think that Howard Dean hasn't been particularly effective and wish that we had someone else leading the DNC. Yes, my friends, we ARE sailing on the Titanic. Yikes.
posted by bim at 5:32 PM on April 15, 2006


Bim is right that swing voters don't read the WaPo or the NYT but he's wrong to say they don't matter: the big city papers set the agenda for the entire television news industry, and swing voters do watch television. (Do they ever!) As far as NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN are concerned, if it hasn't been reported in the WaPo or the NYT it hasn't happened.

What we've been seeing in the past few weeks is a ramp up to what we saw in late 2003 and early 2004, when the liberal establishment decided to destroy Howard Dean's candidacy. The NYT Sunday Magazine's hit piece on Mark Warner -- also notable with a piece of grossly-unattractive portraiture of an (in reality) good looking person -- kicked things off. The left blogosphere is very much in the sights, as well.

Expect to see more of this during the course of the year, including some very gloating pieces when Lieberman is renominated by 20 points despite a Cindy Sheahan vigil in Hartford (or someother blogosphere theatrics). However, when, as is likely, the Democrats come close, but fail, to capture either House of Congress this November, you can expect the gloves to come off, big time. Dean will pay the price a second time -- Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer will see him kicked out as DNC chairman before Christmas.

As unsavory as this may appear, it's in some respects good strategy on the part of the liberal establishment. They know, as the blogsphere either doesn't or just won't accept, that Hillary Clinton is somewhere between 90% and 100% certain to be the Democratic nominee for President in 2008. Hillary's nomination is going to infuriate the hard left, and thus the hard left has got to be weakened, and made into a marginal laughingstock if possible, to assure that they won't have the ability to put up a Nader-type spoiler.
posted by MattD at 5:38 PM on April 15, 2006


I've only visited MSOC's blog a few times, but on each occassion there has been a FPP taking a very negative tone towards DailyKos.

I've even seen a couple of posts on DKos from MSOC and some of her minions attacking DKos and suggesting Kossacks visit/move to her site.

IMO, self-promotion is first and foremost on MSOC's agenda... followed not too closely by promoting "progressive" values.
posted by pruner at 5:56 PM on April 15, 2006


Hillary's nomination is going to infuriate the hard left, and thus the hard left has got to be weakened, and made into a marginal laughingstock if possible, to assure that they won't have the ability to put up a Nader-type spoiler.

Great. Another Shining Path toward a Democratic loss after 8 years of the GOP wrecking the world and imploding in a blizzard of indictments. Because in the Cloud Cuckooland of American politics as refashioned by Rove, the "hard left" is defined as anyone who thought the Iraq war was a shuck and a hype from the beginning, and anyone who thinks that two women who want to get married should be able to. Thus the huge number of voters who know that there's something Very Wrong with the Republicans will vote for McCain, who will be presented as the sensible cure for the ills of the previous Republican administration, while Hillary twists herself into talking-point pretzels as she marginalizes the "hard left" while parroting Rovean babble.
posted by digaman at 6:40 PM on April 15, 2006


You beat me to it, digaman. :)

Hillary will not get elected president in 2008. She's got so much baggage that it's ridiculous. I'm not even willing to vote for her. But I do suspect that there's a good chance that she'll get the Democratic nomination and we'll go down in a ball of flames...again. Kerry is a loser, too.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again...and expecting a different result. That's the Democratic Party.
posted by bim at 6:59 PM on April 15, 2006


Of course this was a hit piece disguised as a "color feature" -- more's the pity. The WaPo has much to be ashamed of, from Domenech to Hiatt's "Good Leak" editorial to the continued employment of "Baghdad Bob" Woodward. To the extent that they speak as part of the so-called liberal media anymore, they represent the worst instincts of the Beltway crowd, which deeply fears any expression of populism.

And of course we have the tools in this thread as well, who denigrate and marginalize, telling Democrats that the powerlessness that feeds their anger is caused by their anger. It's a very calculated sort of talking point; the Freepers used it habitually back in the 90s and it's nothing new. The talking down of the extremism of Coulter, Hannity, and crew is also very calculated. Coulter's joked about the assassination of a Supreme Court justice she doesn't like! Did the right even edge slightly away from her for five minutes, to signal that such things go beyond decent discourse? Of course not. But let one nobody blogger in her living room use one capital letter too many, and gosh, that's just more than Middle America can take.

Greenwald is absolutely right, and even if the Democrats cannot get their act together, the Republican jihad state is doomed. It will have been their own undoing, too, which glib apologists (some of them from Jersey) will never concede. The thing is I used to think that Media Whores Online was over the top and misguided in its focus on press flackery -- but the more I watch this administration, and its lickspittles in supposedly "liberal media", the more I think that MWO was right before they were right.
posted by dhartung at 6:59 PM on April 15, 2006


There is no cabal.

But if there were, you'd think that they would take a page from the "winner's circle" and decide not to play fair either.

It's become apparent that we are not going to have any person in charge that can win on what the people really want.
We need dirt. We want sleeze. We have to have someone who will lie to our face, and then re-define what it means to lie.
Democrats will not win another election until they learn this fact.
9/11 changed everything, indeed.
It's almost that the republicans have completely taken over Webster's. What does lie mean? What does terrorist mean? What does torture mean? What does patriot mean? What does economy mean? What does job mean? What does war mean? What does dissent mean? What does pre-emptive mean? What does tax mean? What does liberal mean? What does conservative mean?

We need to re-define the whole of the english language in order to keep up.

If only the democrats had pre-emptively co-opted this. What does homeless mean? What does no healthcare mean? What does having a living wage job mean?

We're lost until we re-define everything.

And play dirty.

It's not about who is in power anymore, it's about who defines power.
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 8:34 PM on April 15, 2006


To the extent that they speak as part of the so-called liberal media anymore, they represent the worst instincts of the Beltway crowd, which deeply fears any expression of populism.

The P-word is at the root of why the Democrats will continue to fail at a national (i.e. presidential) level.

Traditionally, of course, populism signifies distrust of moneyed elites and belief in 'people power.' The GOP, perhaps recognizing that no matter what way you slice it, both mainstream parties are composed of elites, focused the ire of the American people not on political or economic elites--that would be 'playing politics' and 'inciting class warfare,' two of the most popular 'accusations' this side of all-purpose attack adjective 'shrill'--but on so-called cultural elites: those man-hating, abortion-having feminists; out-of-touch ivory tower academics; dingbat, America-hating Hollywood celebrities; snooty, atheistic and probably homosexual urban degenerates; the pink-tie-wearing, French-speaking New England liberals who represent them; and, of course, the liberal media.

By successfully redefining the nature of the hated elite and harnessing the rhetoric of populism, the GOP has made gains far beyond that which would seem possible by a party that follows a policy line that is essentially pro-business and little more. But as long as they promise to throw a bone to the populist base on abortion or immigration restriction or whatever the hot-button issue of the day may be--while never quite managing to get anything substantial accomplished, undoubtedly due to those despicable liberals--they will always have the Democrats' number in the presidential elections.

The Democrats need to undo all the damage of the 'New Democrat' Clinton administration and reconnect to their populist base if they ever hope to be viable on a national level again. It doesn't help that their national figures are either awash in a sea of mediocrity (Reid, Dean, Pelosi) or clever but too divisive to be viable (H. Clinton); those who seem as if they would be able to attract broad support are either relatively unknown (Warner, Schweitzer), not yet ready to throw their hat into the ring (Obama) or have shot their bolt and are now wandering in the wilderness (Edwards).

The presidency in 2008 looks like the GOP's to lose; the Democrats may have a chance to regain some traction in Congress. If they don't recapture either over the course of the next two years, they might as well pack it up and go home. At least that might get them outside the Beltway.

The first Democrat who can step up and project the anger and frustration of the average American without seeming 'shrill' and while articulating a plan that actually addresses the problems complained of will be the new hero of the party. A folksy twang and a few references to the Big Guy Upstairs wouldn't hurt either.

As a point in their favor, the Kos crowd almost kinda sorta get it, at least when they aren't pretending that Russ Feingold will be the next POTUS or that Joe Lieberman is going down in 2006.
posted by Makoto at 8:42 PM on April 15, 2006


100 years from now, depending on who writes the history of course, Americans of this era will be judged even more harshly than the German citizens of the 1930s IMO. Then they will be saying, why were people like Mary Scott the only ones full of rage? Didn't they see what was being done to them?
posted by any major dude at 9:24 PM on April 15, 2006


I agree with you, any major dude.
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 10:21 PM on April 15, 2006


But as long as they promise to throw a bone to the populist base on abortion or immigration restriction or whatever the hot-button issue of the day may be--while never quite managing to get anything substantial accomplished, undoubtedly due to those despicable liberals--they will always have the Democrats' number in the presidential elections....

The first Democrat who can step up and project the anger and frustration of the average American without seeming 'shrill' and while articulating a plan that actually addresses the problems complained of will be the new hero of the party. A folksy twang and a few references to the Big Guy Upstairs wouldn't hurt either.


What the Democrats need now - what the country needs now - is someone who is neither right nor left, conservative nor liberal, but authentic.

Neither party has it; McCain has it to a small extent, though he's pissing it away by pandering to "crazy base world," as Jon Stewart put it. Barack Obama has it.

Give me someone who knows what he thinks, knows what he wants, has valid reasons for it, can put it forth forcefully and in person, is not the sponge that George f*ckin' Bush is for everyone else's ego, someone who is not merely strong but smart.

We've had a lot of emphasis on strong in recent years. We have to kick ass; kicking ass alwyas feels good. But what if it's not the wisest strategy? I think Americans, tired of Iraq, alarmed by an administration that looks like it's poised to make another monumental aggressive blunder, is receptive to another idea.

The Democrats are either the ones who provide it or they aren't, and if they aren't they die off, because someone will - politics abhoring a vacuum, all that. There's a huge vacuum right now, people perceive it, people are ready.
posted by kgasmart at 11:20 PM on April 15, 2006


100 years from now, depending on who writes the history of course, Americans of this era will be judged even more harshly than the German citizens of the 1930s IMO. Then they will be saying, why were people like Mary Scott the only ones full of rage? Didn't they see what was being done to them?

So you're saying that the Republicans will lose power at some point in the next 100 years? Thank god.
posted by tapeguy at 4:58 AM on April 16, 2006


I'm deeply, deeply wary about the idea of pathologizing politics. That's a tactic of totalitarian states.
posted by empath at 7:42 AM on April 16, 2006


"So you're saying that the Republicans will lose power at some point in the next 100 years? Thank god."

LOL. Yeah, every regime you don't like becomes the Xth Reich in retrospect.

Hey, how about all those brilliant Democrats who supported invading Iraq? John Kerry, for example?
posted by ParisParamus at 7:45 AM on April 16, 2006


bim - I wasn't referring to you, the "she" was Mary Scott O'Connor herself, I was wondering if she was complaining about the article cos it didn't seem like it from her blog.

My point is that I'm amazed at all the uproar that folks here seem to be attaching to this one article in WaPo and its implications for the Democrats.

I share your amazement indeed.

I also am constantly amazed at what passed for "hard left" these days (and not just in the US), though I'm not surprised.
posted by funambulist at 11:09 AM on April 16, 2006


Makoto speaks truth.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:21 AM on April 17, 2006


So does Glenn Greenwald, for that matter.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:46 AM on April 17, 2006


I also am constantly amazed at what passed for "hard left" these days (and not just in the US), though I'm not surprised.

Refusing to take seriously the self-identification of those unleashed ids like PP who outrageously call themselves 'disaffected Democrats' might be a start. However, laughing in their twisted-up faces is often a better salve than writing screeds.
posted by holgate at 4:56 AM on April 17, 2006


Are all the posters and lurkers at little green snotballs "disaffected democrats?"
I never knew.
Would that make me a "disaffected republican?"

DailyKos rocks. As does Metafilter and any other forum that allows regular folks a soapbox for a moment.

WaPo sucks. The opinion editors don't even read the real news in their own f*cking paper. They're now officially as bad as the WSJ opinion/news split.

Definition of a real journalist: Hunter Thompson. 'nuff said. :-)
(not to disparage our own fine people here at Mefi and theri valuable contributions to our discussions)
posted by nofundy at 11:35 AM on April 17, 2006


that's great holgate.
s/theri/their/ above
posted by nofundy at 11:42 AM on April 17, 2006


« Older FURTALITY!   |   You forgot to include a title, please correct this... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments