Fire Dog Lake charges a thousand dollars to be in their exclusive Gosprey Circle.

[LoZoccolo]

[Pholus]

1. And how much do you have to give to be considered one of the President's "Bundlers?"

Now stop being divisive.

[emulatorloo]

7. I did not know FireDogLake was running for President?

I am glad DU does not ask for that kind of cash.

[Pholus]

24. I was unaware that to read FDL I had to pay it either. Why was this even relevant again?

Oh yeah, Hamsher bashing as a break from hippie punching.

[emulatorloo]

30. You don't have to pay. I was curious about your comparison to "bundlers'. That seemed irrelevant.

I used to be an avid FDL reader, their Plamegate coverage was excellent.

I have seen Ms. Hamsher on the Lawrence O'Donnell show. To me she came off as ill-informed and more into hyperbole than rational argument.

[Pholus]

31. I admit, I was poking the OP'ers buttons. But I still question why the OP was relevant as well.

Lots of people have donation levels and let's face it most of us will never be giving at the top levels. It frankly isn't particularly clear that anyone *is* giving at the top level.

To me, the OP was just being a tut-tutter because FDL is, well, FDL. And that's just a waste of time.

[Rex]

67. Oh he hates FDL, thought you knew.

About every one of his posts is either bashing FDL or liberals in general.

[sudopod]

59. Does it have a company associated with it?

Companies are people, too, though it might not be old enough.

[polmaven]

2. Why doesn't THAT surprise me?

:rofl:

[SidDithers]

3. Suckers...nt

Sid

[MilesColtrane]

4. All that "political consultation" ain't cheap.

[Enrique]

5. right or wrong, Jane Hamsher backs up what she says

she uses her real name and she doesn't go around waging anonymous smear campaigns against people that disagree with her politics.

[emulatorloo]

8. True, her smear campaigns aren't anonymous.

[Enrique]

11. what smear campaigns?

[AtomicKitten]

49. +1

[Whisp]

10. well she does put her names to her lies.

got to give her that.

but I guess she has got her audience figured. lies don't matter, as long as they rip some flesh off of Obama, there will always be believers and payers.

[Enrique]

12. what lies?

[LoZoccolo]

15. Oh, like the one where Rahm Emanuel called all liberals "fucking retarded".

[Pholus]

32. I seem to recall an apology about him using that word. What were the exact circumstances again?

And how did Hamsher lie?

[LoZoccolo]

34. At worst, he was addressing people who came to threaten him.

[Pholus]

35. "came to threaten him" -- so these folks showed up at his doorstep and threatened him?

Are you SURE it didn't happen another way? And how did Hamsher lie about it again?

[LoZoccolo]

36. They threatened to run attack ads against incumbents.

[Pholus]

37. That's a bit different than what you were implying though, wouldn't you say?

[LoZoccolo]

39. I was assuming that you knew the story and would put the word "threaten" into that context.

[Pholus]

40. Sometimes lack of clarity in word choice can seem like a lie.

Especially if I had been unaware of the event.

So now that we've both established that let's get into Hamsher's exact lies.

What were they again?

[LoZoccolo]

42. There was a claim that he called all liberals "fucking retarded".

[Pholus]

43. Isn't it possible that you are implying the word "all" where it wasn't used?

And BTW before we go farther, there are more appropriate things you SHOULD be angry at Hamsher over, as she is guilty of practically the same crime she called Rahm out over. Why manufacture anger when the genuine article should do?

[LoZoccolo]

45. The headline was "Rahm Emanuel: Liberals Are 'F–king Retarded'".

[Pholus]

47. So when you read "Americans killed in auto accident" do you assume you are alone in the country?

I could read an "all" in there, but I'd be silly to do so. Americans is a plural, not a description of all.

Same as the Hamsher headline. Liberals refers to SOME liberals, not all. That's why you should always read more than the headline or the headline crawler.

Paragraph 2 of the story makes it completely clear that MoveOn got the Rahmbo toughtalk, not all of us.

Remember how I said that lack of clarity in word choice can be interpreted as a lie? Headlines are hard to write.

[LoZoccolo]

50. She used a verb form of "to be".

[Pholus]

53. Which is appropriate regardless of the number of liberals.

Seriously, there is a *real* issue instead of this deliberate misinterpretation. I even agree it is low and counterproductive!

[LoZoccolo]

54. The liberal blogosphere ran with the "misinterpretation", and she didn't correct it in the comments.

[Pholus]

61. I'm trying to understand exactly what required correction would be satisfactory here.

See, the 2nd paragraph of the article makes it clear that only a single liberal organization. MoveOn, was getting the Rahm potty-mouth treatment. Why lie only for the benefit of people who can't be bothered to read only 69 words past the headline (which at the reading speed of a below average college student -- 340 wpm -- takes just 12 seconds)? What was the plan that required that lie that would be apparent so quickly?

Parson me for saying this, but it seems like we are having a Cardinal Richelieu moment here. In this case, Hamsher is guilty of a "lie" only because the absolute most uncharitable, pedantic reading of the headline could be taken as a lie. To do this reading requires a willful ignorance of English and widely accepted conventions for headline writing as well as ignoring the full article behind the headline.

It smacks of desperation. Surely you have a better example?

[LoZoccolo]

66. The "most uncharitable, pedantic reading" was the preferred one by the liberal blogosphere.

[Pholus]

68. Once again, your use of "the" is an implied "all." By your own standards, YOU just lied.

You have just created a falsifiable, testable statement. In science we like that cause it gives us a target for an experiment. If I find an exception to your statement, you have made an false statement -- a lie, to be blunt. You have done so.

Method: Use Google advanced search. REQUIRE terms "hamsher lies rahm retarded liberals" restrict by site, using popular liberal blogs -- meaning I used a "top 31 list" and then picked just the most popular (i.e. names that I recognize). Restrict from reader generated comments except for DU because reader comments do not necessarily match editorial intent. DU has to be an exception because all posters have an equal voice - it is not a blog, it is a discussion board. Expect to find relevant result in the top 10 page results as they would match the terms more exactly. Your statement uses the weasel word "Preferred" which I would *generously* take to mean that at a minimum 50% of them will discuss and support of your interpretation.

Americablog - NO HITS AT ALL
Buzzflash - NO HITS AT ALL
Crooks and Liars - HITS, BUT NONE RELEVANT TO THE CLAIM THAT HAMSHER LIED -- JUST RELIVING RAHMS INDISCRETION
Daily Kos -- LOTS OF HITS, BUT "THE FEUD" MAKES THAT A GIVEN
DU -- LOTS OF HITS AS YOU SAY BUT AGAIN WITH SUCH A WIDE BASE OF POSTERS IT IS TO BE EXPECTED
Firedoglake -- ONE HIT -- DISCUSSION NOT OF THE HAMSHER'S VERACITY BUT OF HER DIVISIVENESS
Huffington Post -- NO RELEVANT HITS
Media Matters -- NO HITS AT ALL
Mother Jones -- NO HITS AT ALL
Nation -- NO HITS AT ALL
Op Ed News -- ONE HIT, ACTUALLY IS QUOTING THE HAMSHER ARTICLE IN SUPPORT OF ANOTHER PREMISE
Salon -- HITS IN SUPPORT OF HAMSHER, UNSURPRISING GIVEN THE JOINT SLAMMING OF GREENWALD ALONGSIDE HAMSHER
Talking Points Memo -- HITS ABOUT THE STORY, NOTHING DOUBTING HER VERACITY
Think Progress -- NO HITS AT ALL
Wonkette -- HITS, NONE RELEVANT TO THE PREMISE THAT HAMSHER LIED.

Let's conclude this. So two out of 15 popular sites in the liberal blogosphere say that Hamsher lied. This does not meet my VERY GENEROUS interpretation of what preferred means.

You have made a false statement of the sort you claim Hamsher made. In other words, you've just called YOURSELF a LIAR.

Remember, political speak depends on "the gray." Never commit to a statement that I can rip to shreds.

Your lesson is complete.

[LoZoccolo]

69. The liberal blogosphere generally did not believe that Jane Hamsher lied.

[Pholus]

76. Ummmmm okay? That seems the opposite of your previous post and the topic being Hamsher's lie.

[girl gone mad]

48. What lies?

Please be specific.

[gratuitous]

6. Well, what are you going to do?

You have to pay it if you want to be in their exclusive circle. It's not like there's any other choice, is there?

[Enrique]

9. how much does it cost to be in the DLC?

how much does one have to pay to have lunch with Harold Ford Jr.?

[emulatorloo]

19. Who around DU gives a shit about that. I think we can all agree Harold Ford Jr

is a joke.

[Enrique]

13. you should go look through her trash

that's a good way to dig up dirt on someone you want to trash anonymously on the Internet.

Go get her, guys! And in the name of Obama! It makes Obama look oh so good, and DU should be proud it is the home of your investigative campaign.

[LoZoccolo]

14. I'm criticizing the site, not an individual person.

[Luminous Animal]

18. It cost between $1000 and $25,000 to have lunch with Michelle Obama.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/06/michelle-obama-san-francisco-fundraising-lunch

[emulatorloo]

21. Again, I did not know FireDogLake was running for President?

FDL is an ad supported website, not a Presidential candidate.

FDL is more comparable to DU. DU does not ask for this kind of cash.

[TBF]

38. Michelle is not running for president either. Although I think I'd vote for her -

I bet she'd be tougher on the repubs.

[Whisp]

29. if I had it, I'd pay it. Michelle would be worth it.

the hamster can go fuck herself.

[cherokeeprogressive]

57. I'd sooner give it to a homeless shelter or food bank than waste it on a few minutes with

someone who probably wouldn't remember me by the end of the day.

[Major Hogwash]

51. That's a damn good idea!!

Maybe we could find corndog wrappers in her garbage can!!

[Luminous Animal]

16. You are a peach. Give us a kiss.

[scheming daemons]

17. FDL is the best ally the GOP has ever had

The GOP gets attacks on the President without having to get their hands dirty.

[Rex]

20. Yeah and posting garbage on DU is free.

:eyes:

[Bobbie Jo]

44. Dumping Hamsher's garbage on DU is free too....

Skinner should be billing her.

:eyes:

[Iggo]

22. I don't want to be in a go spray circle.

[Scurrilous]

23. Sounds elitist. n/t

[JackRiddler]

25. For just 2000, I'll take you to dinner in New York and listen to your bullshit for two hours.

What do you say? PM me to work it out.

[Swede]

26. Dumb motherfuckers.

To quote Jane.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Pholus]

28. Link to actual program, neglected by the OP

http://members.firedoglake.com/benefits/

Don't wanna pay $1000? You miss out on a tote bag, a T-shirt and a dinner. Big whoop.

I wouldn't pay, but then again I am starting a new program to save harder for retirement so that my peas don't taste so bad.

Kinda cuts down on all kinds of donations.

[Bluebear]

60. !

[Better Believe It]

33. So what? They try to raise donations from progressives, just like DU and other websites.

You can read all of their articles without donating a single penny to FDL so what's your beef?

[bluestate10]

62. I think of something that I can send to Firedog Lake with $1,000

printed in each corner. And the main event occupying the rest of it's surface. But I digress.

[whatchamacallit]

41. For shame!

This must really offend your socialist sensibilities. :eyes:

[mmonk]

46. Your point?

[Ikonoklast]

52. She also runs a PAC that gives very little of their money out.

Most of it ends up in her pocket.

[AtomicKitten]

55. links here

http://workbench.cadenhead.org/news/3604/jane-hamsher-spends-her-pac-money
http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2010/3/29/191518/637/Diary/Jane-Hamsher-Bought-And-Sold-
http://rootedcosmopolitan.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/jane-hamsher-republican-consultant/

[Major Hogwash]

56. So, she's like Christine O'Donnell??

What the hell??

[bluestate10]

64. Sounds familiar.

Teabaggers give their money to buffoons that pocket the money. Why do you think firebaggers want to change the dance of zombies?

[Pholus]

65. At $154000/year (2009) it seems she has no more than 154 of those oh so expensive $1000/year members

And honestly, even if her entire budget went to her pockets (which it obviously doesn't given a cursory read of the FEC statement) it would represent 2% of KO's salary at MSNBC in the same year.

Mountains out of Molehills guys.

[Bluebear]

58. And Obama had a 36000 a plate dinner

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/want-to-see-the-guest-list-from-obamas-35800plate-dinner/

[Major Hogwash]

63. They're expensive plates.

I think they're using Chinet now, but I'm not sure.

[Little Star]

70. Huh? Are you having random thoughts?

How about a little explanation of what the heck you are talking about?

[Fumesucker]

71. Next thing will be beer and travel money no doubt..

[Little Star]

73. I could never understand the point either were making.

It's probably just me.

[Fumesucker]

74. Random Thoughts never seemed to be deliberately provocative..

..And did occasionally say something intelligent.

[MadHound]

72. You sound jealous. You want somebody to buy you a ticket?

Or do you just wish that you could generate that kind of money and loyalty?

[NorthCarolina]

75. You're right, that IS cheap. In fact they even have a $45 membership too.

That's so low it's like why even bother? I mean like WTF.