Hamsher Proves She's Not Progressive - Violates Principles to Go On Fox

[berni_mccoy]

Jame Hamsher has promoted herself as a leader of the progressive movement and supporter of health care reform. In her recent claims to want to kill the HCR bill and suggest siding with teabaggers to do so, she's now promoting her message on Fox News. Video here (sorry, it's a fox link) http://video.foxnews.com/12731977/first-do-no-harm.

This violates her very own principle that she used to attack Democrats with when she accused Clinton of legitimizing Fox:

http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/05/clinton-agrees-to-fox-debate/

Fox is not a news outlet, it’s an openly partisan opinion factory and the Democrats should not be legitimizing them (and allowing them to recruit Democratic viewers to propagandize to) by doing this.

So it's ok for progressives like Hamsher to legitimize Fox, but not for Democrats. I wonder who she thought she was talking to via Fox when she went on there. Was it progressives who watch Fox? Democrats who watch Fox? She probably thinks it's ok to legitimize Fox since she probably doesn't consider herself a Democrat. I never have considered her one either. Then again, I've never felt she's a progressive either. Maybe that explains why she's willing to side with teabaggers and Fox to attack the progressive Democrats who are now saying we should pass this bill.

[dionysus]

1. shit man, she wants to get on TV!

:rofl:

[timeforpeace]

116. Was that an Obama imposter who was on Fox a couple weeks ago?

[Neecy]

2. These attacks on Hamsher make me laugh

She's clearly the Enemy of the Day, here and at Kos. It's just silly.

[berni_mccoy]

4. Her attacks on Democrats make me laugh.

[stopbush]

73. Jane is a heavily compromised spokesperson for the Ds.

People don't like to admit it, but that photo-shopped "Bill with Minstrel Joe" picture she ran three years ago gave any and all critics an albatross that will be hung around her neck forever. The more exposure she gets, the more her self-inflicted wound will come back to haunt her.

We Ds need to get away from compromised spokespeople like Jane and Eliot Spitzer. They have good things to say, but Ds are held to a higher standard by the public than are Rs. In Jane's case, she offended two traditional D constituencies with her black face picture. With Spitzer, he blew his straight-n-narrow-law-respecting-and-enforcing image by seeing prostitutes and resigning as governor.

People like Jane make a name for themselves by lobbing hand grenades into the body politic. But lob a stink bomb - as she did with her Joe picture - and there is a heavy price to pay. Same goes with her setting standards for others - like not going on Fox - and then feeling free to break your own standards when a chance for a few moments in a spotlight become available. Same with Spitzer acting high and mighty going after people's vices while breaking the law himself.

We need better spokespeople than this.

[avaistheone1]

125. Who cares.

[stopbush]

130. Another worthless response from avaistheone1

[avaistheone1]

135. How fitting

especially in response to your worthless post about Jane Hamsher.

[stopbush]

140. Whistling past Hamsher's credibility graveyard.

And the worst is yet to come.

[avaistheone1]

141. Let it roll

LOL. Let's see your best shot.

[stopbush]

144. I don't need to take a shot.

Lanny Davis took Jane apart last week on the TV by referencing her Minstrel Joe photo on The Ed Show. She started out with her usual spiel, and Lanny went for the jugular and hammered her black face faux pas. From that point on, Jane was reduced to stammering about "that was three years ago" and badgering Lanny with a "who's paying your salary?" assault that made her look desperate.

If a corporate shill like Lanny Davis can so easily toss a monkey wrench into Jane's schtick, then it won't be that difficult for other, more adroit opponents to do so as well.

And if you think Davis' type of counterattack doesn't play in the heartland, you're deluding yourself.

[avaistheone1]

146. Oh, but you do.

Seems like no one agreed with you. Everyone felt like Jane Hamsher handed Lanny Davis' ass back to him on a plate. Bwah hah!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x415128

[stopbush]

150. We can all count on the DU echo chamber's response.

Doesn't have a thing to do with the reality that exists outside of our little blog.

"Everyone" is a relative term - and a meaningless term in any discussion that moves outside of DU's self-congratulatory loop.

Bwah hah indeed...

[kayla9170]

147. K/R..... Both this Post and Your Reply!!

I totally agree!!

[stopbush]

153. Thanks. And welcome to the minority report on DU!

[joeybee12]

3. Still doesn't mean the Senate's HCR isn't absolute crap, though...n/t

[DJ13]

5. The defenders of this crappy bill would rather make this about personalities

Anything to divert attention from the bill itself.

[berni_mccoy]

9. No, self-proclaimed progressives made it about personality a long time ago.

[DJ13]

17. Yes, personalities of Blue Dogs and the DLC, but not other liberals

If that fits you, thats your problem, not mine.

[berni_mccoy]

20. Glad you admit it the shallowness of your own cause then.

[DJ13]

21. So liberalism isnt your cause?

Thanks for admitting you're a corporate lackey.

[berni_mccoy]

31. It's not yours apparently.

[girl gone mad]

49. I know you are, but what am I?

:eyes:

[berni_mccoy]

50. Wow, you really have gone mad.

[girl gone mad]

61. Is that the best you've got?

For someone who wiles his days away crafting personal attacks against internet posters, I can't say you're very accomplished at it.

[berni_mccoy]

62. Apparently it's all you've got.

[girl gone mad]

68. Not even close.

[avaistheone1]

126. +1

[avaistheone1]

127. I love Jane Hamsher. She kicks butt and takes names.

She got more audacity and brains than all of Washington DC put together.

[Chan790]

136. +1. n/t

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[girl gone mad]

47. +1

laaaaaame. :boring:

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Echo In Light]

94. Precisely

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[Dappleganger]

6. Geez, I read this as "Hamster to Go on Fox"

I really need new reading glasses!

[EFerrari]

7. Well, you're right. By going on Fox, she is herself legitimizing them.

That's true.

[berni_mccoy]

33. Thanks EFarrari. We may not see eye-to-eye on every issue, but at least we both

can admit when the other has a point. I truly appreciate and value that in you.

[EFerrari]

100. I'd much rather have an honest disagreement with you

than a dishonest agreement with anyone, berni.

Thanks and ditto. :)

[Cant trust em]

8. Color me unconcerned.

unrec.

[CBR]

10. That is how she reaches the teabaggers to form that major alliance. nt

[firedupdem]

15. +1 n/t

[girl gone mad]

52. Alliances are good, right?

Or is that only when they benefit the robber barons?

[KoKo]

111. Both pictures worth a thousand words....

The emotion of Lieberman in that second hug... It reminds me of something from "Godfather II."

[KoKo]

143. BTW...I will NEVER get OVER both of those Photo's

Look at them for a long time...what does that say about Lieberman..........?? And, the Democrats who DEFEND the POS!

[golddigger]

117. LOL, beautiful smackdown!

[bvar22]

122. She SHOOTS....and she SCORES!

...AND from the 3 point line!

Well Done.
+3 for girl gone mad.
:patriot:

[CBR]

134. OK. I will spend my time passing legislation and you

can spend your time creating the next great populist movement:

[ima_sinnic]

129. it's called "bipartisanship"--isn't that what we're all supposed to want now? (nt)

[Blasphemer]

11. LMAO! Wow... there are no words... nt

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[Blasphemer]

103. "No" kidding?! nt

[Name removed]

109. Deleted sub-thread

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

[AlinPA]

12. Hypocrite. Say one thing, do another. nt

[girl gone mad]

57. Kind of reminds me of someone else..

hmmm.. who am I thinking of? Promised a public option and no mandates while on the campaign trail... now says it was just "symbolic"...??

But he's just a powerful elected official, so we aren't supposed to hold him accountable. Let's attack bloggers instead!!

[Name removed]

71. Deleted sub-thread

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

[still_one]

13. If she wants to side with the teabaggers, then she is a fuckn'g moran, and will destroy any

credibility she has

[girl gone mad]

67. Maybe she should just hire a few dozen Republicans..

you know, to help her administer her blog.

I hear Judd Gregg, Ray Lahood, William Gates, Dana Perino, John McHugh, Jon Huntsman and Howard Schmidt are available.

Or is bipartisanship only allowed when it benefits the powers that be?

[ima_sinnic]

137. +10000 like she's somehow "unique" in "reaching out" to republicans

she's doing exactly what Obama wants, isn't she?

[librechik]

14. Oh, crap. Do we need a purity test now?

let Jane debate anybody anywhere she wants. Until they name you as the chief inspector for progressive/liberal alignments. IMO, you should save your critiques for when she posts here, or go over to FDL and give her a piece of your mind.

[berni_mccoy]

18. Right over your own head eh? You must have missed the irony of Jane failing her own purity test.

If she's going to set standards for Democrats, and then violate those standards, she's failing her OWN TEST.

[librechik]

92. yeah, I missed that part. Can you point out her purity test?

never mind, I see what you are saying--but once again, extraordinary events call for extraordinary methods. If Jane feels like violating her own list of principles, then who am I to blame her? They're hers to violate.

[Windy]

34. Jane loses crediblity by distorting the facts. I have problems with the bill too, but distortion

is a RIGHT WING propaganda method that shouldn't be used by anyone with an ounce of intelligence who wants to participate in meaningful debate.

[sabrina 1]

101. What has she distorted? Can you link to something

she has said that is inaccurate? I don't follow her particularly but the few articles I have read relating to this bill, coincided with what I already found out for myself from other sources.

[mmonk]

16. I stand with Jane.

There wasn't anything wrong in the interview and she remained true to the cause she has been fighting for.

[berni_mccoy]

19. As a hypocrite and hand-holder of teabaggers then.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[mmonk]

28. Sure, she is a tea bagger hand holder.

She has been promoting them and Palin a long time.:eyes:

:sarcasm:

[Donnachaidh]

22. we're seeing the birth of the jackbooted centrists with these attacks on Jane Hamsher

The handful of vitriolic attacks on progressives here just proves how desperate the PTB are to push their POS bill through the Congress.

[girl gone mad]

70. Pathetic, isn't it?

Who do they think they're fooling?

[jonnyblitz]

81. whackjobs all. nt

[Cleita]

24. A lot of our pundits go on Fox to get their message out. Hamsher is not

unique. Stephanie Miller does, Thom Hartmann does as well.

[girl gone mad]

72. Hamsher is enemy #1 today.

She must be destroyed, logic, facts, reason, ethics and humanity be damned!

[bvar22]

124. The "Talking Points" for Rahm's "Message Discipline" team...

...went out yesterday.

[Don Caballero]

25. She is spouting disinfo

I don't know who is paying her, but she is clearly being used to spread disinfo and discredit the Democratic leadership. She needs to join the crazies who attack our President and leave us alone. She is vile.

[EFerrari]

32. Really? What did she say that was untrue? TIA.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[gratuitous]

27. What office has she been elected to?

I must have missed where Jane Hamsher is in any recognized position of elected leadership in the Democratic party. I also have a sneaking suspicion that Hamsher is going on Fox fully aware of their editorial policies, whereas the elected Democratic leaders she was scolding back in February 2008 were treating Fox as a legitimate media outlet, trying to play a sucker's game and lending Fox a credibility and gravitas that it didn't and doesn't deserve.

It's an admittedly fine point, but defensible, I think.

[berni_mccoy]

30. Ohhhh, I see, she doesn't have to live up to a standard of legitimizing Fox News

simply because she's not a politician. But as a self-proclaimed political advocated, it's ok. Got It!

[gratuitous]

48. Not sure where you're coming from

Hamsher wrote her piece about appearing on Fox News in February 2008, 22 months ago. At the time, it was a bold and audacious statement, jarring the peaceful comity between politicians and their pals in the media. It was shocking to say that one outlet over the others was not legitimate and only served as a propaganda mouthpiece for one party.

In the time since then, the prescience of Hamsher's statement has been borne out by events and particulalry by Fox News itself. Yes, she's going on Fox, probably as an invited guest. It's also been 22 months since she wrote what she did about Fox, and folks inside and outside the Beltway are far more aware of the agitprop aspects of Fox's alleged reportage.

I'd be interested to see what you have to say directly to Ms. Hamsher, as well as any response she might have. As it is, it appears that your screed here is designed for only one purpose that I can discern.

[berni_mccoy]

64. So between Feb. 2008 and now, Fox News has reformed it's ways and is a perfectly acceptable medium

for Progressive views.

Rrrrriiiiiggghhhhhtttt! I got some swampland you might be interested in purchasing.

Simply amazing the lengths at which people like you here will go to change reality in order to support your outspoken leader.

[girl gone mad]

75. I am self-proclaiming myself to be a political advocated!1!!

what now??

[frazzled]

35. She's not progressive because she's ...

arguing from this strange perspective of individual rights versus the common good ... and that definitely ain't progressive. In fact, they sound like right-libertarian talking points -- and they are not even factually correct, to boot. They're misleading scare tactics.

e.g. Hamsher: "Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations -- whether you want to or not." "If you refuse to buy the insurance, you'll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS." etc. etc. etc.

The anti-tax, me-me teabaggers couldn't put it better or be more deceptive. This is NOT liberal.

I don't care if she goes on Fox or not. I do care that people are being fooled into thinking hers is somehow a "progressive" position. Look, my disaffection with JH's politics goes back about 4 years. She's kind of like the Bev Harris of the left right now, and I predict that either the mask will slip off or she'll become our very own Christopher Hitchens within the next few years.

[berni_mccoy]

36. Well said and a clear argument as to why she's not progressive.

[girl gone mad]

76. Progressives promote progress.

Having the government force you to give part of your income to a corrupt, crooked industry in hopes that they might give the money to a third party so that you can get health care is not progress. jmmho.

[jgraz]

37. Uh oh. Did someone's Obama Binky get threatened again?

:nopity:

[berni_mccoy]

38. No, but it sure sounds like Hamsher's milk is spoiling for you. Time to eat some real food.

[jgraz]

39. Berni, you really don't want to start a discussion of who's swallowing what.

Cuz you're gonna lose.

[berni_mccoy]

41. OMG JGRAZ! I'm GONNA LOSE!?!1!1

How old are you? Really?

But at least you admit your on the sauce. That's good of you.

[jgraz]

54. You've still got a bit on your chin, Bernie.

Go on, lap it up.

[berni_mccoy]

56. You're not even an adult are you?

[berni_mccoy]

42. delete.

dupe.

[damntexdem]

40. Why would a hamster want to go on Fox?

Doesn't she realize that foxes eat hamsters?

[mcablue]

43. That's illogical

your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. You should analyze her views, rather than the channel she visited.

[berni_mccoy]

45. Thanks Spock. The funny thing about hypocrisy is...

it's not logical.

[sabrina 1]

44. She must be effective. Every time someone on t he 'left'

starts making an impression, the operatives crawl out of the woodwork to slap them down. The vitriol and hatred against their latest target, Jane Hamsher on DK, would make anyone sick.

And what she is doing is what everyone ought to be doing. This bill is giving over more of our health care funds to the very people who let Americans die, for profit.

Personally I don't care what channel anyone goes to to get the message out at this point.

Where's the outrage over all those dead Americans, and the re-hiring of the criminally negligent, for-profit Big Business Corps who are responsible for it? That SHOULD outrage any decent person. Enough to set aside former principles, like not going on Fox and using every available means to do something about it and to let these weasels in DC know how angry we are. Because they WON'T let us take part in the debate.

How angry are Hamsher's attackers at the secret meetings between Obama and Big Pharma? I thought that was a rightwing rumor at first, but it's not.

People need to get their priorities straight if they really do care about health care and not 'their guy winning'.

Compared to who Obama decided to talk tohe tried to keep it quiet as he gave them some real power over OUR lives, and Hamsher going on Fox, really, is there any doubt which of them deserves the most focus.

Attacking Progressives who don't toe the party line is par for the course now on so-called progressive boards. Ever since the net-roots decided to be insiders, real progressives have been constantly attacked by multitudes of operatives, riling up the mob. And it is ugly.

I remember the Impeachment wars, progressive told to 'stfu', the Iraq war supplementals again, 'stfu' unless you are 'with us' and on and on on every important issue.

Go Jane keep on letting them know we are not fooled and ignore the DLCers! The gloves should be off right now, this is our last chance to influence Congress. And only one thing does that, when they become more afraid of us than Big Business.

But as always we have the apologists willing to smear anyone who is at least trying to get a hearing for the people Rahm and Obama do not want to hear from. Jane is effective at that.

[jgraz]

53. How many on this thread actually WATCHED the video?

It was a good interview. Douchey almost seemed like a real journalist for a minute there.

I realize the nuance is lost on people like Bernie, but a progressive blogger going on Fox to present a left-wing critique is not the same as a former President of the United States granting them an interview. She was right to criticize Clinton and she was strategically smart to give this interview.

[berni_mccoy]

55. You have to spam a thread you don't like and make personal attacks, don't you jgraz?

I ask again, how old are you, really?

[jgraz]

58. It's not a personal attack to state a fact.

You have never demonstrated an ability to deal with anything but black-and-white thinking, often to your embarrassment. This thread is a great example: you can't intellectually process the real issue, so you draw a bogus comparison between two superficially similar situations and act like you just discovered gravity.

It's sad, really. You'd think Rahm could find better lackeys.

[berni_mccoy]

60. The only facts here are that Hamsher is a hypocrite and a failure as a progressive.

What's embarrassing is that you can't admit it.

[jgraz]

63. Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

As usual.

[berni_mccoy]

65. Now you're talking to yourself. Out loud.

[jgraz]

66. Now you're not even making sense

Go grab a towel. There's still a bit in your hair.

[berni_mccoy]

69. This issue has really crawled up inside you man. Better put the keyboard down and come back

later when you can stop exposing what a juvenile you are.

[jgraz]

74. "crawled up inside". Interesting imagery

especially from someone posting from inside Rahm Emanuel's ass.

[girl gone mad]

78. and that's how that's done.

Now you know why jgraz makes the big bucks, Berni. ;)

[berni_mccoy]

80. Not really. How it's done is by sticking to facts and not getting personal. You and jgraz have

much to learn.

[jgraz]

83. Good point, Bern. You should really talk to the OP about that.

Oh wait...

[berni_mccoy]

84. What personal attacks were in my OP exactly?

[girl gone mad]

86. "Hamsher Proves She's Not Progressive"

:eyes:

[berni_mccoy]

88. I guess it's a personal attack to point out when someone isn't living up to their own standard

of being progressive.

[jgraz]

96. It's the *definition* of argumentum ad hominem

Made worse by your EPIC FAIL at understanding the most basic political concepts. Hamsher's original post was about holding a presidential debate on Fox. Are you incapable of seeing the difference here? Really?

[girl gone mad]

107. Did Hamsher say that by appearing on Fox, Democrats.

Prove they're not progressives?

Or did she take a sharply more refined position?

Her argument seems to me to be that elected Democratic officials, men and women with actual political power and clout, give Fox an air of authority and respect by appearing on Fox.

It's quite possible that Hamsher doesn't see herself as an important or powerful enough person to be bringing any prestige to the channel.

[jgraz]

113. She was even more specific than that.

In the post that Berni links to, she defends Obama for going on Fox (more proof that Berni never reads what s/he links to). She was specifically talking about holding a presidential debate on Fox.

[jgraz]

87. No, you aren't serious, are you?

You didn't mention A SINGLE issue that Hamsher talked about. You just attacked her personally on some jumped-up hypocrisy charge stemming from your failure to understand basic political concepts.

[sabrina 1]

77. Rahm hates her, that means she must be doing

something right. She refused to take orders from him when he ordered Liberal Bloggers to 'STFU' about the Blue Dogs. And she told everyone what he was doing. Not that it was a surprise to know he was twisting the arms of progressives rather than Blue Dogs. But confirmation of that was nice to have. Kudos to her for not letting 'having access' shut her up.

And what did the silenced progressives get for their willingness to play along with Rahm? Not even a discussion about some real competition for the Private Insurance Companies. So much for that.

And today one of those Blue Dogs has announced that he is switching over to become a Republican. How about a thread on that? Nice work Rahm, coddling those Blue Dogs while trashing real progressives. His discipline message strategy didn't work on Hamsher at least which is why she is being targeted.

[berni_mccoy]

79. I'm glad you have a deep understanding of Rahm's emotions. That doesn't change the facts

Hamsher is being a hypocrite by going on Fox News
Her petition is now linked on their site
She's openly enlisting the aid of teabaggers.

I also do not support the current Senate bill, but I'm not going to teabaggers to help kill it.

[girl gone mad]

89. The President has consistently championed..

reaching across the aisle to make comprises to achieve goals.

You can't criticize Jane Hamsher for using a tactic that the President, who you support, routinely advocates.

[berni_mccoy]

91. You know, when you have to spam a thread over and over and over again

with the same baseless attacks, it shows what you are really up to.

[girl gone mad]

93. It's not an attack, just basic logic.

What makes it okay for Obama to work with Republicans and party sell-outs like Joe Lieberman to water down regulations, legislation and reform, yet wrong for Hamsher to try and recruit Republicans/Teabaggers/Independents to help her oppose a bill that she believes is not progressive?

[berni_mccoy]

95. Right, because posting a Pee Wee Herman pic and high-fiving jgraz over juvenile insults

is just basic logic.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[girl gone mad]

99. No, that was sarcasm.

[sabrina 1]

97. When Rahm told the world to 'ignore the left' the gloves

came off. I would go on Fox now if I could reach people who are not fully aware of what this bill would do, and I have always been in favor of Democrats staying away from Fox. Things have changed, and if we get to a microphone, that's what has to be done.

She did a great job in that interview. She also will reach many Democrats who also watch Fox, like some of my friends (drives me crazy but they do).

She is enlisting AMERICANS. To say she is with the tea-baggers is a distortion of what she said.

As far as her site being linked by Fox, I couldn't find it there. But maybe if some stupefied Faux viewers actually read her site, they might learn something.

Bernie, it is no longer about partisan politics. It is about how betrayed people feel. About not allowing everyone to participate in the debate. We had a right to have representation and were shut out.

This was extremely bad strategy aside from anything else. You are blaming the wrong person if people feel left out of the process. I have never really agreed much with Hamsher's tactics in the past. But I am willing now to admit that we need people like her, who are willing to fight hard, even if I did not like her personally. All that compromise and playing nice, has gotten us absolutely nothing. They laugh at the left, but they are not laughing at Jane Hamsher, so I'm willing to give her a pass.

As far as what I know about Rahm, I judge him by his words and actions. I am happy to say I do not know him personally, nor would I want to. The question is why does our president have so much respect for a man like that? He's helping to ruin his presidency.

[bvar22]

128. Well Said. Sums it up nicely.

I agree.
:patriot:

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[bridgit]

85. Wow! Jane Hamsher makes Steve Doocy look fair & balanced who could have thought

Oh well, time trundles on

[berni_mccoy]

90. If that's what you think she did, then you either didn't watch the video

or don't understand what was said.

If Jane can suddenly turn Fox News into a progressive medium, more power to her. But I don't think that's what she set out to do.

[bridgit]

102. Of course I watched the vid, and others here have expressed the same thing so it may...

now be incumbent upon you, to explain what you, would have us 'think', as to what has just been observed within your OP, including your rather continued, pointedly personal protestations against other DUer's smart enough to discern matters for themselves

I'm not the one tasking your ass for this & that, that was being done far better by others. And before I got here. Doocy did come off as more reasoned than usual and if you don't see that then you're not looking either, perhaps most of all, or...*or*

Do you actually think "Jane can suddenly turn Fox News into a progressive medium"?

[berni_mccoy]

108. It was your claim she made Doocy look fair and balanced

And you are unable to defend it. Doocy is a mouthpiece nothing more and Fox, through Doocy, is USING Hamsher's lack of principles to divide us. You can't see that because you can't see Hamsher making a mistake. The incumbent is upon you to realize that maybe Jane isn't all she claims to be. That's what my OP is about.

[bridgit]

123. Oh Fiddledeedee, you need to pick one side of your own OP and maybe stick with that...

[FarLeftFist]

104. SELLOUT.

Loyalty and standing for your principles is everything to a so-called "leader". Especially from a progressive. Hamsher went corporate.

[jgraz]

106. You're so right. It's as bad as if she'd sold out the entire nation to Big Health and Phrma

Oh wait... no it's not.

[FarLeftFist]

110. Really, what is your alternative. Please share your strategy of.....

Convincing 300 million people this administration aren't socialists but they all have to give up their private HC for a Govt. run HC. That spells impeachment. That spells GOP victory for generations to come. Your post spells ignorance. I'm for single-payer, 299 million+ other people aren't. Please share your secret.

[jgraz]

112. Oh, FFS. Have you been paying attention AT ALL?

The majority of the country is IN FAVOR of the Public Option. Polls range from 60-80 percent positive. What the hell are you talking about that all 300,000,000 people think Obama is a socialist?

That is some seriously weak excuse-making, even by the OP's low standards.

[FarLeftFist]

114. I'm not saying...

300 million DO think Obama is a socialist, but take away their private HC and replace it with a Govt. run HC system and that's what you will have. Your right, the majority of the country is FOR a public option, I am in that majority too, but it can't be passed using reconciliation, and these "NO" vote senators are not budging. In an attempt to not let these debates go until 2012, 60 votes must be needed. Sure they sold-out to the Ins. companies and Pharma, but who else could they sell-out to.

[jgraz]

115. OK, you need to try to stay consistent from sentence to sentence

You *agree* that most people want a public option, but you *think* that they don't want their private healthcare taken away which is proven by the fact that a few Senators are obstructing the bill which means we totally had to sell out to the corporations.

:wtf:

[FarLeftFist]

118. Many people may want a PO as a scare tactic towards the industry.

As another form of cost control. I agree that most people polled want a PO, I don't believe most people in America are willing to drop their private plans for a PO that the CBO estimates would not be deficit neutral. I could be wrong, but that's how I see America at this current time. We have not progressed far enough. This bill does hold these private companies dirtier practices a little more accountable. This is not a win-win for the Ins. companies.

[jgraz]

119. Now you're just making things up.

The CBO scored the *weakest* Public Option as a deficit WIN. None of the Public Options forced people to give up their existing plans. Nothing ever proposed could be construed as a "government takeover" -- I only hear GOPers call it that.

You sound like a kid spewing excuses after being caught breaking a window: "It was broken when I got here AND I saw somebody else do it AND it was totally an accident."

:eyes:

[FarLeftFist]

120. Please don't use quotations on govt. takeover

Those weren't my words to be quoting. I think your the one being childish with your quips and emoticons. So now were all for a weak PO? Whatever then, so am I. Ok, but still, how does one pass a bill with a PO without 60 votes? Seriously, I would love to know. I think your "Kill the Bill" attitude sounds more like something GOP'ers say. I'm not against you, I'm just wondering your secret strategy to passing the bill with a PO.

[jgraz]

121. "take away their private HC and replace it with a Govt. run HC system"

Yeah, that's totally different from a "government takeover". :eyes:

Again, you only offer more excuses, none of which make sense. Since you were dead wrong on the CBO score, now you ask how you get 60 votes. Do you see the glaring inconsistency there? Let me spell it out: you CANNOT complain that something is not deficit neutral and then pretend we need 60 votes to pass it. If it affects the deficit AT ALL, it can be passed in Reconciliation with 50 votes + Biden.

[FarLeftFist]

138. Your preaching to the choir

If I'm wrong on the CBO score it's likely due to the fact that I don't give a shit about the CBO score. I'm FOR a PUBLIC OPTION. Stop trying to convince me, my point was convincing the other 300 million people, plus these "NO" vote senators, who have already heard every positive angle of a PO and are still not budging. If reconciliation can be used to add a public option to this bill sooner or later, (not to a non-existent bill) then you prove my point as to why we should pass this bill. Sure they can use reconciliation now, but will that be spun to a disadvantage come 2010 for the Dems by the GOP, definitely. It would be a Dem massacre and all hopes of Obama's 2nd term will be gone with cries of 'tyranny' and 'socialism'. More reality, less fantasy. Regardless, your use of quotes is wrong.

[defendandprotect]

105. Yeah . . . I'm really worried about Jane Hamsher . . . !!????

Unfortunately, a bill this wrong -- this corporate -- will bring opposite sides together.

[bvar22]

131. This coordinated group attack on FDL is just BOGUS.

Jane Hampshire remains true to her "progressive" credentials, and continues to carry the message of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

The White House?
..not so sure anymore.

[berni_mccoy]

132. Yeah, we got her the invite to Fox News and insisted she go on there.

:wtf: This kind of response is typical of late. Paranoia anyone?

[bvar22]

139. Jane is a "private citizen".

She is NOT a "Democratic Party Official".

Your OP is NOT valid, no matter how many times you INSIST it is.

[devilgrrl]

133. lame

:boring:

[depakid]

142. Since Obama, Clark and Dean have been on Fox- guess they're not progressive either!

:rofl:

[RainDog]

145. when the democrats ignore the base, this is what happens.

Hamsher is trying to pull conservatives away from the teabaggers to form a larger group that will force politicians to answer to the American people and not just the corporations. She can offer the right wingers some needed corrections to their impression that the republicans are any better - they're just as bought and sold.

People can believe it or not, but I'm "on the street" and I hear the discontent. People are finding common ground in their disgust with politics as usual via the wall street bail out that has ignored main street -- and via the insurance and pharm co cash cow about to pass.

The democrats set this up by their actions.

They should have recognized that they cannot shit on the base and laugh about it because they have no where else to go. They will go elsewhere.. most likely to libertarian candidates or to sit out the next election. Democrats could have muscled Lieberman - they could have made him a pariah (he already is to a lot of people) in the realm of political power. But they didn't. They could have asked why Nelson's state should get public services but not the rest of the nation when that was the only way he would sign on. The religious idiots are going to attack democrats anyway.

I'm not condoning anything - but, as I noted before, this is what will happen. The two party system is broken, or rather, both are owned by big biz and people who are pissed about this are going to try to find ways to gain clout by numbers. Try to make both parties have to pay attention. Apparently the political class does not understand just how bad it is for people now, how scared they are of losing their middle class standing, of worrying if their young adult kids can find jobs, of wondering why the richest of the rich never pay for anything to help the poor while the middle class is expected to bail out both rich and poor.

Whether you think those things are true or not, that's the feeling, and it is not getting any better for people.

If the democrats don't want a populist movement to grow out of the decisions the democratic party has made, they should address the issues that are so devastating to liberal voters.

[bvar22]

148. The Democratic Party is leaving a strong vacuum on the Left.

As the Democratic Party continues to lurch to the Right on every major issue, someone WILL step in to fill the vacuum on The Left.

History IS the teacher.
Look at 2000.

[ipaint]

154. Yes, finally.

30 years of this and I am more than ready for new voices, ideas and strategies from outside the wealthy neo-liberal beltway. I'm not alone.


I can't wait for the next so-called reform. Watch them dig the hole deeper for themselves.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

149. 1889 views, 156 posts, Zero recs.

just saying.
Merry Christmas anywho!

[Nikki Stone1]

151. Bernie, you're an ass. And you fart excessively.

Those accusations make about as much sense as yours does of Jane.

[Junkdrawer]

152. Not flamebait....

:eyes:

[azmouse]

155. kick