#1 rated diary at Daily Kos: "How to Change the Subject: Manufacturing Hatred of Jane Hamsher"

[brentspeak]

Diary entry has lots of links illustrating the point.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/22/817876/-How-to-Change-the-Subject:-Manufacturing-Hatred-of-Jane-Hamsher-(updated)

by odum
How to Change the Subject: Manufacturing Hatred of Jane Hamsher (updated x2)
Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 05:52:11 AM PST

Gotta have an enemy to rally around. A villain to loathe which can coalesce and coordinate your allies through the shared loathing. It makes life easier for organizers on the one hand, but it also makes the messaging simpler. If people are motivated by hatred, they won't think too much about the quality of the rhetoric they're encouraged to regurgitate. The argument is, after all, about this evil person, and less about the actual issues.

We fell into this pattern in the Bush and Cheney years - and still do. It's easy to do and helpful in some ways. The downside is that when you come out the other end, you don't necessarily have a well coordinated positive message to rally around. In the case of right-wing furor over the likes of the Clintons and Al Franken, I think to large extent this dynamic was manufactured from on high.

What's blowing my mind right now is watching this happen over health care. It started happening towards Howard Dean, of all people, but it now seems to be all about Jane Hamsher (going after Dean was looking overly ambitious, I guess).

This is a woman who, for years, has been one of the leading voices in the progressive new media - and in the face of personal adversity directly relevant to the health care debate. Even a casual glance at the user diaries here of late makes it clear that many, many self-dubbed liberals or progressives have made the entire health care issue about her personally - and both the timing and the uniformity of the arguments and attacks suggest to me that this, too, is an instance where this outrage is being deliberately manufactured - or at the very least fanned. Hamsher is being turned into some kind of demon with consistent messaging, and too many Democrats are eagerly responding to having their buttons so pushed...

[EFerrari]

1. Ha. Someone gets it.

[dreamnightwind]

54. self-delete, posted in wrong place

[berni_mccoy]

2. Calling out Hamsher's hypocrisy isn't manufacturing hatred. It's exposing her for what she is doing

Her petition is now linked on Fox News website following her hypocritical interview on Fox News, has openly enlisted teabaggers to support her and she is dividing the party to achieve her agenda.

How is exposing that hatred? She has decided to work with Republicans to attack Democrats. I don't hate her for it, but I'm going to call her out on it.

[brentspeak]

5. You resent that she's not some mindless, non-critical-thinking party loyalist n/t

[berni_mccoy]

7. If you don't have any facts, please don't tell me how I feel. It makes you look stupid.

[brentspeak]

12. Holy cow. You just got finished telling all of us here "how you feel"!

[berni_mccoy]

14. Really? I think I called out some hypocrisy and that I never considered Hamsher to be a

real progressive. That's not at all how you categorized my feelings. Glad to see you deleted your idiotic statement anyway.

[brentspeak]

20. Doing a search, I saw that you were the tool who posted the anti-Hamsher Fox thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7298148

Almost a hundred responses, and yet still un-rec'd by the majority of readers.

[berni_mccoy]

21. Truth hurts about Hamsher, doesn't it?

[brentspeak]

46. .

[jefferson_dem]

8. I resent who she is...and appreciate those who have exposed who she isn't.

Here's a kos diary for those who are interested - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/20/817242/-Update-2:-Sorry-Miz-Jane-Hamsher.-No.-

[tridim]

10. That's not at all what Berni just wrote.

Read it again.

[karynnj]

31. No, I resent that she distorts anything to fit her agenda and makes

dishonest statements and attacks on leaders who disagree with her.

It is perfectly valid to make the point that you are ok only with a plan with a public option - or even just a single payer plan or even free national health clinics in every town, but to repeatedly lie about what is in the bill is just wrong.

[brentspeak]

44. Considering that she "lies repeatedly", you must a long list of them ready

Well...?

[karynnj]

53. Without doing any work

1) Her screed against John Kerry was essentially dishonest. Kerry's contributions were from individuals and they included a Presidential election. The truth is that Kerry has been an advocate for campaign finance reform since he came to the Senate. He ran his first 4 Senate campaigns with no PAC money and Wellstone and he sponsored the campaign finance reform bill that Kerry authored.
2) If you read Klein's analysis of her reasons to kill the bill, you'll find a few whoppers there.

[Hieronymus]

63. Exactly, radio and TV are running one tape after another of Obama

saying he wouldn't sign any bill without a public option, and another in which he didn't support a mandate.
No one is so blind as he who will not see... close to the old quote.

[grytpype]

6. The Naderists are splitting off from the Anti-Bush Coalition

[GreenArrow]

26. More like the principled Democrats

are splitting off from the team color Democrats.

[grytpype]

30. No, the irresponsible libs are splitting off from the pragmatists.

And the pragmatists are winning, thank God.

[Armstead]

37. You mean the same "pragmatists" who wrecked the finbancial system, helped Bush go to Iraq, etc.

Ya mean THOSE pragmatists?

Oh yeah that brand of "pragmatism" has served us so well over the years.

It is also NOT the only version of "pragmatism" possible.

A real pubklic option, for example, would be extremely pragmatic. But apparently that was too "way out" for some people who prefer to support conservative ideology and call it "Democratic pragmatism."

[GreenArrow]

48. Don't mistake pragmatism

for expedience, cowardice, and either tacit or outright support of the status quo. So-called "pragamtists" are winning nothing and instead are simply buying themselves more trouble down the road.

[carolinayellowdog]

11. "Dividing the party to achieve her agenda"

The same charge could be made against those who attack "leftist" Democrats on behalf of the alleged "centrists."

[brentspeak]

13. Thank you.

[berni_mccoy]

15. That is true, and I have not defended them for that either.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Armstead]

38. Pony -- ConservaDem Mantra Number 5

Whining -- Conservative Republican Mantra Nujmber 2

[spiritual_gunfighter]

40. You think Hamsher divided the party? Really?

You dont think it is conservative Dems and a president that doesn't advocate liberal principles? Oh yeah you obviously dont.

[carolinayellowdog]

41. "Obviously"? You completely misread the post

WTF is up with putting words in someone's mouth that are diametrically opposed to what s/he posted?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

43. Sorry responded to the wrong post n/t

[girl gone mad]

33. No hypocrisy.

As I've already explained to you, Hamsher's quote applied to elected Democratic officials, of which she is not one.

[Cant trust em]

3. My goal is to not throw anyone under any bus.

I can just ignore them and move along if I don't like what they have to say.

Notable exception is for republicans. I'll gladly toss them under the Greyhound.

[jefferson_dem]

4. Lying about the health care bill. Proposing "progressives" team up with "teabaggers".

How could anyone be really outraged by that? Surely, any outrage would only be manufactured.

[girl gone mad]

36. Obama teams up with Republicans and anti-Democratic sellouts..

on an ongoing basis.

Why is it okay for him to do it, but an outrage worthy of endless hysterical and malicious invective when Hamsher reaches across the aisle?

[ima_sinnic]

61. I wonder why they never answer that

she (& I agree with the tactic) is just following Obama's example--whether the whiners realize it or not, the teabaggers, progressives, and any sane American all have the same "enemy": the corporate greed monster. Note that I said "sane" Americans. We know who that does NOT apply to.

[BeyondGeography]

9. Hamfisted deserves everything that's thrown at her and more

[Jennicut]

17. I think every person who criticizes must be able to withstand some criticism themselves.

Why must anyone be allowed to be a sacred cow? President Obama sure isn't. I am very critical of him on several issues. So why is a journalist (or blogger) not allowed to be criticized? If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. I like Dean, Hamsher has some interesting things to say. Doesn't mean they are always right (or wrong).

[TwilightGardener]

18. I respect her opposition to the bill. But when you make it your personal

mission to defeat it, in various media outlets--well, your blog loses credibility and you will lose some fans. That's the choice she made by overinvesting in defeat of this bill.

[brentspeak]

22. If it's a crappy bill (which it is), why shouldn't she try to defeat it?

[TwilightGardener]

23. She can do whatever she wants. But I won't look to her blog as

anything more than a vehicle for her extremely narrow agenda. When you become so very wedded to a position and can't concede even a bit of ground, you have no hope for objectivity.

[OregonBlue]

24. It may be a crappy bill and maybe it should be defeated but she chose to go on Fox And Friends, not

Fox News Sunday. She made it obvious that in her mind, the ends justify the means. Fox and Friends is one of the most disgusting hateful racist shows on all of TV. I no longer have any respect for her. She might just as well have gone on Glenn Beck. Maybe she still has plans for that. I for one have no respect for her any more. She has betrayed her principles to gain attention.

[GreenArrow]

50. see post 46 n/t

.

[OregonBlue]

57. have you watched Fox and Friends? Do you know who Steve Doocy is? If not, stfu.

[GreenArrow]

68. fuck you hypocrite asshole

Do you know who Bill O' Riley is asshole? You Lose.

[OregonBlue]

75. Doocy makes O'Reilly look like Snow White.

[karynnj]

34. If she were honest, it would be less a problem.

[GreenArrow]

51. I think if our elected officials were honest

we wouldn't be talking about Jane Hamsher.

[impik]

19. The entire rec list is about this woman

Who the hell cares???

[berni_mccoy]

25. It's not #1 anymore.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted sub-thread

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

[treestar]

28. I don't care what the pundits have to say

They are all about drawing attention to themselves.

[dionysus]

29. leave jane alone!!11!1 it's not like she's going on fox or anything to spre--

oh wait...

[Armstead]

32. Good for her if she did...Not like Centrists and ConservaDems never go on Fox

[GreenArrow]

52. You might enjoy post 46. n/t

.

[amborin]

35. she's hated for reminding people that Obama campaigned AGAINST a mandate:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x69122>

[Jersey Devil]

39. Who is Jane Hamster?

Just kidding.

So let me see. You are complaining about people who are attacking her rather than addressing the real issue, the HCR bill, and, to make sure HCR is not discussed but Jane Hamscher is you brought the KOS post over here to discuss what? Jane Hamscher? Is there anything illogical about that?

[ProSense]

42. Here's another Kos diary

First Do No Harm: Jane Hamsher Cavorting With Fox And Friends

Also on the rec list.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[nemo137]

47. So, when someone takes a strong position and sticks her neck out

And becomes, for the past week or so at least, the face of opposition to the Senate bill, the fact that people are drawn to a shiny new target is evidence of manufactured outrage?

[bvar22]

49. Jane has remained TRUE to her "Progressive Credentials",

AND continues to carry the Progressive Message.
I can see WHY this upsets Centrist/Corporatists.
The coordinated group personal attacks are revealing.

I stand with Jane.

[OregonBlue]

58. Today she allied with Grover Norquist. Who's next, Dick Cheney? Would you support her then?

[dreamnightwind]

55. Thanks, great post

I love Hamsher, she rocks. Her opponents are the same type people who accuse Kucinich of being a Republican because he's willing to reach out to disaffected people on the right.

There's an anti-corporate movement building, that's where we're at. Dick Armey knows it, so he setup the astro-turf Tea Party to redirect this energy to somewhere harmless. Jane knows it, and she's reaching out to these same people in a more meaningful way. As should we all.

The progressive left is too small to win power, and the center has been co-opted by corporations. This is part of a huge dynamic just now unfolding, where all of this angst is looking for somewhere to go. People like Jane and Kucinich are trying to provide a meaningful alternative. People like Obama represent the corporate interests the angst needs to be directed against. It pains me to write this but it's the truth.

[OregonBlue]

59. Kucinich, Feingold, Dean, they would NEVER ally themselves with Steve Doocy or Grover Norquist.

No problem for Jane. As long as it keeps her on the front page and on TV.

[dreamnightwind]

64. Misrepresent much?

That's just such a misrepresentation of where Jane is at. Is it really necessary to phrase it that way?

She's not allying herself with those people. She's willing to work with anyone on reigning in corporate power. Her position is from the progressive left. Regarding work to reign in corporate power, she appears to be willing to accept help on this issue from anyone who's sincere about bringing about this change.

And what's wrong with that? You'd rather let the corporations continue to divide and conquer? You think the left can reign in the corporations all by themselves? I don't, I think we need every person who's willing to help, it's the fight of a generation, maybe more. All other reforms are only possible if we can get the corporations' hands off our policy-makers.

Corporate control of our political system affects all of us, not just people on the left. As much as people on the right are willing to wake up to this, we should welcome it.

[OregonBlue]

65. You're kidding right? Norquist "sincere bout bringing about this change"

she appears to be willing to accept help on this issue from anyone who's sincere about bringing about this change

Do you know who Norquist is? This man is the scum of the earth. He has devoted his entire life to expanding corporate power, destroying regulation, enabling Wall Street corruption, destroying all social programs. This is the guy who wants to "shrink the government until he can drown it in a bathtub". This slime is one of Abromoff's boys. This crook never saw a war for profit he didn't love. This filth believes that ALL functions of government should be privatized or eliminated all together. The only government he believes in is fire, police and postal services and he believes those should all be private. He is a big supporter of a private military and wants to abolish the Departments of Health, Human Services, Education, and the FDA.

This is who she chose as her ally. Don't try to tell me she has the interests of the American people at heart. She has the interests of Jane Hamsher at heart. Or she's too naive to understand just who the devil she's dealing with is. It makes my skin crawl just to think about being in a room long enough to put this letter together.

Please don't tell me about what a wonderful, sincere crusader she is. Seems to me she is acting like "A woman scorned".

[dreamnightwind]

72. Wow

You're way over the top with this, I have no idea where the hatred towards Jane comes from posters such as yourself. I don't know you or your beliefs, if I did maybe I'd understand better.

I do know quite well who Norquist is, though thanks for beating him up in your post, nobody can ever do enough Norquist bashing. He's the ultimate "man behind the curtain" of right-wing policy.

Here's my problem with your Jane attacks: you say things like "this is who she chose as her ally". The implication to anyone reading this is that the alliance extends beyond this one issue, which it does not. Also statements like "she has the interests of Jane Hamsher at heart... ...a woman scorned", what the hell is that? What are you basing that on?

We're all human, we all have our own interests, and maybe Jane is enjoying the limelight, but she's fighting the good fight, against the right forces, and she's doing it with all her might. A few hundred more prominent people doing this could put a serious dent in the powers that be. I don't think you have any basis on which to make these negative motive assertions.

Now, regarding Norquist, you've heard of working across the aisle, right? By your logic, Obama in the Senate chose Tom Coburn as his ally. No qualifications, that's it, he chose him as his ally. That's how the logic you applied to Jane works. From the statement, I'd think Obama and Coburn ARE allies, working on the same team, on a wide variety of issues, rather than that they co-sponsored some legislation. Yet that's a ridiculous statement, as is your similar statement about Jane.

I can name a couple of other people who are worthy allies on certain causes. Check out Bruce Fein and Bob Barr, and their work with the American Freedom Agenda. These are NOT my kind of people, but they've taken some serious stabs at restoring the limits of power of the executive branch, and they did so while W was still solidly entrenched as POTUS. They went against party on principle. Well, that's a little fuzzy since Barr I think now calls himself a Libertarian, anyway they are some people who are very useful and principled in some areas, the kind of issue-based allliances we need to establish to bring about any real change to the power structures in this country.

I doubt that Norquist's role in this issue (investigating Rahm's involvement with Freddie Mac) is principled, so I'll concede something there, there is some legitimate discomfort with aiding Norquist's partisan goals. I don't have any problem, however, with going after Rahm with all we've got, that guy is one nasty MF'er (to use his own term) and should have no role in the Administration, any more than someone like Norquist should. Rahm is a corporate hatchet man, plain and simple. In my opinion any partisan gain Norquist could make from jumping on Rahm would be more than worth it to rid ourselves of having Rahm running the show.

I don't like the tone our back and forth here has taken. Apologies for my part of that, though I don't think it was only me. I'm a big fan of many things Jane has dfone and I find your attacks on her very offensive. I imagine that we're at least somewhat on the same side of many issues, whatever our differences here. I'd ask you to understand that the same can be said of Jane, she's working towards real, positive change, and she's not willing to accept bogus corporate reforminess as a substitute, something I greatly admire when it's so much easier to just take the crumbs they throw us and mutter platitudes about the perfect being the enemy of the good.

[OregonBlue]

74. I'm over the top but Hamsher choosing Norquist as her ally is not? Sorry but I seems to remember

just recently she went after Bernie Sanders over health care. Wow. I think she has gone off the deep end. I think she is exhausted from her HCR battle and is desperate. Norquist does not have our, or her, best interests at heart. She has made a deal with the devil and it's gonna come back to bite her big time. When you are willing to do anything in order to make your point or get your way, you have already lost. Desperation is not a position of strength and I think she just proved her desperation.

Does Jane think that if she can take down Rahm, or the Obama administration itself we will then be in a position to elect "real Progressives"? Because the more she weakens the Obama administration, the more she makes it possible to put Norquist and Abramoff and the Bush cronies back into power. She went after Bernie Sanders for Christ sake.

It's not me who's over the top, it's Jane and her defenders.

[ima_sinnic]

73. so what? Obama allies himself with all kinds of creeps. Remember JUDD GREGG?

yeah, Obama wanted to put a virulent hardcore right-winger in his cabinet! Someone SO right-wing, even he (Gregg) couldn't fathom it. Obama has stacked his administration so far to the right, it IS falling over. So get over your "indignation" at Jane Hamsher and direct it toward the true "traitors" to "democrats."

[depakid]

56. Just a strawman for their disgusting sell out to the insurance industry

Nothing more- nothing less.

[KrR]

60. Her 15 mins are over...

she will go down as one of the tools who fought to KillTheBill.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

62. Repost this in GD. Thanks!

A lot of Hamsher fans over there who would enjoy this.

[Cali_Democrat]

66. Got Grover?

:rofl:

[saltpoint]

67. Uh, no, Jane. If you're playing footsie with Grover Norquist, you ain't no

Progressive.

You may, however, Jane, be an egomaniac. subject to an exaggerated notion of your own political prowess, inasmuch as you doesn't seem to have any.

Are your films the work of a genuinely gifted soul? Yes.

Do you have a clue in hell on politics? No.

[dave29]

69. She's doing a good job all by her lonesome

.

[firedupdem]

70. I do hate her...she's aligned herself with teabaggers who hate me. n/t

[geek tragedy]

71. "Leave Grover Norquist's new fling alooooone."

Maybe she'll share a hot tub with Dick Cheney next.

[ipaint]

76. Don't you know, the left must play the victim role.

The right is allowed to use the left to advance their agenda but the left is not ever allowed to use the right. EVER.

The DLC says we are victims and must act like it!!! Or they will send their hoards of talking point faithful out to attack the "angry leftist messenger" while conveniently ignoring the message.

A little heads up to the DLC, neo liberals and conservative centrists....it's not working and with every compromise in every reform coming- education, entitlements, jobs and whatever other "problem area" you want to hand over to private enterprise, you will dig a deeper hole for yourselves. And more people will come to understand the extent of corporate control over our government and the cost in stolen taxpayer wealth it took to get to this point.