Fitz! (?)

We just have to keep beating on these people (metaphorically, of course) until it sinks in.

Barbara has never seemed to me to be an intellectual powerhouse- but she’s one of our best allies in the senate.

I don’t expect any dems to come out in favor of Lamont.

I’d say “give her a break”.

Sounds like she’s just clueless.

Ever since Boxer wrote a novel (recently) I’ve wondered about her. I mean, is this a good thing to be doing while you in the Senate?

Barbara is not an idiot. She’s on the correct side of many, many of our issues.

“aids” s/b “aides.” I like Barbara Boxer on the whole, and I’m disappointed that she’s so out of touch on this issue. I hope that YK is a learning experience for her. I do recall reading once about her and Joe skipping out of a meeting of Democrats, arm in arm, abandoning an attempt to build a party position on some issue. Don’t recall more than that, though.

yes, what rwcole said.

OT: I’m way late with this, but I didn’t get online yesterday. Here are my favorite quotes from the Plame panel yesterday (some may be slightly inaccurate, I’m not great at taking notes):

Wilson:
“This is about war and why we wage it, not about Wilson.”

“What I did was not an act of moral courage or political courage, it was an act of civic duty.”

Murray Waas:
“What other stories are you *not* being told?”

emptywheel:
“The reason I got involved with this is that I didn’t want to happen what happened with Iran Contra. We never figured out how to explain it to people… [Iran-Contra figures coming back into government.] I want to tell it so these people won’t be around in twenty years.”

Larry Johnson:
“I’m a not a liberal, I’m a lifelong conservative — I don’t know what “conservative” means any more in light of this administration.”

Christy, on Rove (as good at snark on the fly as in writing):
“It is my understanding that the investigation is ongoing. That’s because Pat Fitzgerald said in his press conference that the investigation is ongoing.”

“I read in The Note today that Mary Matalin is hosting a $500 a plate fundraiser [for Libby’s legal defense], if anyone’s interested…”

Wilson:
“I have great faith in the institutions that underpin this democracy.”

Jane, about the contributions to the legal defense funds:
“This would be an appropriate subject for investigation, unlike the contents of Hillary Clinton’s underwear drawer.”

Wilson:
“I learned from Time magazine that my wife was the best shot with an AK-47 in her class at the CIA. Let me say that it has changed the nature of our relationship.”

Oops–wrong blog address in above post–I’ve moved from Blogger.com to WordPress.com, and I’m delighted that I did…

Also, I think the question needs to be more focused. She doesn’t have to disown Lieberman, but it would be great if she could scold him for not ruling out a run as an independent.
Forget trying to get a Democratic Senator to endorse Lamont, per se, I think.

sadly, i’ve come to the conclusion that bush isn’t the only one living in a bubble. sigh.

OT – jane, i saw earlier that you were looking for someone who’d tivoed the plame panel. sorry it wasn’t me, but i did rip an mp3 of it. thought it was all great – you can be very proud of your intro.

thanks to everyone who’s posted updates from vegas. i can’t even find the time to read them all… but i’ve enjoyed those i have read… wish i was there with you-all… hope there is a next year.

It’s obvious to me Barbara Boxer is clueless about the blogosphere or she would have never asked that question. Out of touch politicians kept in touch by talented staff. Guess who reads Wapo and the Times exclusively.

Redshift- you picked out some great comments- those are surely some of the ones I remember as classics!

I really think it would be a remarkable thing for any Senate Dem to come out in favor of one of their colleague’s primary opponents. I mean, she has to work with the guy, you know?

Let’s not harsh on Boxer. She’s the best friend we’ve got in the Senate next to Feingold.

I doubt her endorsement is going to impact Lamont’s chances. CT voters probably don’t want a Californian telling them how to vote, anyway.

Vegas!!!

Jane -
Thank you for reporting this. It makes a big difference whether politicians are here because they think it is good for them or if they are here because they agree with us. On the last thread, I asked the following:

I’m curious about the Warner party.

I think its great that he and other politicians came. I don’t think that it is fair for us to laud the fact that some politicians have shown up for the convention and then criticize them for doing so.

I think it is great that Warner showed up. Even better that he didn’t just come in, make a speech, and then leave.

Was he at the party? If so, did he really talk to people there? I mean, real conversation, not just photo ops? How familiar was he about the blogs? Did anyone speak to him? Please tell us about it.

How about the other candidates and their parties?

It didn’t get answered but doesn’t quite meet the criteria for EPU’d status. I’d be very interested in hearing from those of you fortunate enough to attend “live”!

Comment 0 sighting — I’m still seeing the “Sorry There Are No Comments Yet Posted” message. I’m guessing Comment 0 may be related to there being no comments when you first view the post, and refreshing before you comment, if that’s any help with tracking it down.

Is Boxer’s apparent cluelessness an indication that our message isn’t getting out in the manner we were hoping?

editorial note: backed up moments later in the hall

OfT – my nomination for the most apt (aptest? aptitudinest?) description of Ann Coulter, from Driftglass: http://driftglass.blogspot.com/

…the millions of rabid crab lice that have, until now, kept their arms linked in solidarity to form the blond bile delivery system known as “Ann Coulter”….

coulda sworn I typed “quotation marks” instead of %u201 – how forgetful of me….

I wonder if the point is to get to the staffers and interns that work for the members of Congress.

It’s a trusim that if you want to see the head honchos you make friends with their receptionists and secretaries. You make a note of appreciating how important they are, rather than treating them as nobodies.

It seems to me that some staffer is probably the one who has made up a dossier on Joe and his “support” among CT women for Boxer.

Couple that with an understandable unwillingness to dis a sitting memeber of her own party, I am not surprised with her statement.

But there is nothing to say she isn’t working behind the scenes or won’t come out, if Lamont wins the primary and throw her support behind him.

Since Lieberman won’t commit to supporting the Dem candidate, even if he loses, perhaps someone could ask other Dems what their view is of the situation.

Will they support whomever the Connecticut people choose to represent them as the Dem candidate?

Same applies for Tester in Montana.

You’re not going to hear any Democratic Senator endorsing a primary challenger to another Democratic Senator. No Way. No How.

And tonight I expect Harry Reid to be asked the same question and give a similar answer. Or something like “I’ll support the Democratic candidate on the ballot in November, whoever it is.”

I’m sorry to be OT, but does anyone know the time that Reid is speaking? I can only find TBD-to be determined at the AAR site, and no specifics at the YearlyKos details site.

sigh

On topic – I think Boxer is clueless, which is rather discouraging, any way you cut it.

Jane, you are so, everything, the Democratic party needs.

Basically, FDL and the rest of the liberal blogosphere, have created/assembled/educated a rapidly growing community that is a lot more fluent than the empty suits Democrats posturing as liberals. What’s normally “safe” for her to say at a political gathering isn’t very smart at YKos. She hasn’t caught up to that. She’s so much better that DiFi, Schumer, Joementum and all the Republicans, however, I think your position is very appropriate.
I guess she and the others have gotten so beaten up over the past few years, it takes time to realize that the political landscape is changing.
Did you get to see the replays of your panel?
As a Hollywood producer, I am sure it was not up to your standards, but I thought that was one hell of a panel. You had some heavy hitters and they all delivered. If anything I thought Ambassador Joe was the weakest and then maybe Larry. They are strong speakers, but in that competition, I thought they brought up the rear. Waas is killing, absolutely killing Byron York, with absolute kindness. Froomkin, how does he survive at the WaPo? Did you catch the shot he gave Harris? Christy, with that deadpan, dry sense of humor, “Fitzgerald said the investigation was ongoing.” Then emptywheel, “I would take any FDL reader over ABC’s the note.”
I hope you are having a great time.

Terre: he’s on the sked for 7:30

Hope the primary battle in Connecticut doesn’t end up being so divisive that it pits Lamont supporters against most dems in the party. That would be a nightmare- about the worst possible outcome.

To misquote Murray Waas: If Boxer was not aware of the netroots opposition to Lieberman, what other stories aren’t being told to her?

I think this gaff is more of a warning for us to not overestimate the influence we are having on politicians than a sign that Boxer is either an idiot or a liar.

No, no, let’s be harsh. Real harsh. We’re not spared by these motherfuckers. EVER. So why should they get a passfrom us?

Boxer’s not “clueless” — she’s an idiot. A Useful Idiot. Not to be trusted from here to the door. The sooner that fact is understood the better, if only for our own sanity.

Yes, I know Kos is trying to transform politics from the inside, but take it from an old outsider (who’s not getting any younger) transformational politics is a contradicion in terms. And the terms are enunciated by Boxer and her ilk.

How can she claim that Holy Joe is good on women’s issues after his Beyond Disgusting remarks about rape victims?

Simple.

“It’s all politics, darling — and we’ve got to be practical after all.”

This is reason why whatever “alternative” might arise to stve off the Hillary juggernaut won’t be any much different from her.

This is the reason why I’m an anarchist.

(Insert Maureen Stapleton in Reds. That’s me, folks! Different outfit of course. But. . .)

JC- probably a mistake to get into ranking the panelists. I thought that the different perspectives were so complementary. And really, what did more did you expect of Wilson? He was gracious and humorous. And, he *does* read FDL. I thought everyone was top notch on that panel. And, re: an earlier comment of yours- I too thought when I watching that Jane had a superb sense of “timing”.

This is unfortunate because I saw Boxer’s speech at YearlyKos and she had many good points to make.

I’ll assume she hasn’t been quite informed about Lieberman’s horrible stance on gay rights and contraception medication.

But what is actually troubling is that she would chide a reported for asking a valid question of her. If she was awake for any of YearlyKos and has any sense of the progressive movement in America, she’d realize that we are very much dedicated to debate and discussion, rather than just spewing preformed opinion.

Renato, rwcole — I’ll just shut up with my girl issues and stand over in the corner. I realize there are much more important things, I’m probably just having a bout of PMS. I should’ve asked you boys first. My bad.

OfT Mark Warner’s Nukes
by emptywheel
“Well, it appears to be all Warner all day today.
Someone mistook me for a bigtime blogger and I got invited to attend Mark Warner’s post-talk blogger chat. I asked the first question, which went something like:…”
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.c…..rs_nu.html

Ah….the little rooters get a spoonful of….Adult Medicine. That line is more sarcastic than intended; but perhaps conveys a point. I think it’s “pie-in-the-sky” thinking to expect a sitting Senator to come out and endorse another sitting Senator’s opponent. Boxer MUST work with Lieberman…unless or until he is defeated, or retires. And no, I respectfully disagree with Ms. Hamsher’s comment that it’s the “incumbency protection racket”.

Change the facts. It’s 2010. SENATOR Lamont is asked about fellow Senator “X” who’s in a battle with some challenger. Senator “X” has a spotty record on women’s issues. Do you REALLY expect Senator Lamont to come out and “dis” Senator “X”???? Trust me….Lamont won’t. There are battles to be fought….and there are battles which are little more than rabbit trails.

Slamming Ms. Boxer is a rabbit trail. Just how much goodwill do you earn from this Senator by calling her clueless? Look, I think Ms. Hamsher is correct on her facts about Lieberman’s record with women…but I disagree with her choice to battle Boxer over this.

Pick and choose your battles wisely. You can be real loud, and a loser. OR, you can be wise, and check fire on occasion, but still win the war. Boxer, in my opinion, is a friend. I encourage all to treat her as such. Yep, she’s WRONG on Lieberman’s record. So….execute her, or keep her around?
Ghostman

There’s one thing everyone at Kos must understand. A sizeable portion of the Democratic Party is more than happy with its minority status and is highly resistant to putting it in the driver’s seat.

Graft gets paid, the “trains run on time,” and all’s well — with them.

Us? Well we can go Cheney ourselves.

I’m perfectly serious about this, folks.

Point well taken VG.

“Just how much goodwill do you earn from this Senator by calling her clueless?”

Who gives one withered shit about her “goodwill”?

Jane!!!!! No, no, please don’t shut up!!!! *some* guys are a tad or more sexist, and they don’t even know it.

THANK YOU Lina!!! :)

So tired of hearing “Please tune back during broadcast hours.” pffft

coming to the defense of Senator Barbara Boxer: she is one of 2 Senators from a hugumongous state and her instincts (voting and talking) have consistently been good over the years. She has two staffs to keep her going: her official Hill workers and also a political campaign staff. Both staffs are supposed to keep her informed on things she will have to deal with. Somebody should have briefed her on the Lamont/Lieberman kerfuffle as a hot netroots issue. Bad aides fell down on the job!

pacifica 16: I’m unclear how much Warner talked with people. Unfortunately, the top of the Stratosphere wasn’t a very good space for talking to more than a few people. It was basically a big ring around the outside of a tower. I only saw Warner once (other than on the way in, when he said hello and shook hands), when he and Markos were talking to as large a group as could gather, but that could have been because he was circulating in the same direction I was.

Warner didn’t take questions after his speech, but he did talk to bloggers outside afterwards (intentionally, not because they cornered him.) There were some podcasters recording, and the press around, but he was specifically talking to the bloggers and not the press.

The Plame panel was one of the most refreshing things I’ve seen in a long time. Great minds, eloquently seeking a return to America as it should be.

I think it’s great that OldMedia is there. We’ve got their attention, but they don’t seem to know what to make of us. Neither the York piece nor Maureen Dowd’s came out as the smack-downs I’d anticipated. I think they’re confused – looking for the angle – what is it that YKos is really about? They gottabe angling for something – everybody does – in their worlds, anyway. They really just haven’t figured out what to make of people who are pursuing something selflessly instead of selfishly.

Mommybrain’s son just asked op99 about her button, and she explained that it was a picture of George Bush kissing Joe Lieberman. His understandable reaction: “Eeew!”

Clearly, the kid’s inherited good political instincts!

Josh Marshall is starting to track Senators on Net Neutrality — Monday needs to be day one of a netroots fax bombing offensive. The Senators who think they can huff and puff and take the cash stuffed envelope from the telcos are sadly mistaken.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..008702.php

Starting Monday — faxes, emails, and phone calls. Let the “Honorables” know the internets belong to everyone.

I don’t think any politician should be let off the hook or “given a break” for anything. If you are against anything they say, you should let them know. Because of the extreme suckiness (suckitude? high suckosity factor?) of most politicians, they need to be called on the carpet every chance there is. We essentially hire them (except chimpy) and pay their salaries. When you are at a restaurant, you wouldn’t say “well, I really like the burger so I’m not going to complain about the pubic hair in my fries.”

I think I’ll go give Lamont another donation.

Redshift: either that or the kid’s a Junior Homophobe ! (i’m still feeling the buzz of 6 hours today at Indy Gay Pride)

jayt,

“The Plame panel was one of the most refreshing things I’ve seen in a long time. Great minds, eloquently seeking a return to America as it should be.”

C-SPAN agrees evidently. They’ve showed it THREE TIMES so far and a 4th is coming up Sunday!!!

So C-SPAN viewers get to hear Jane’s Susan Schmitt = Steno Sue once again! LOL

sigh: Babs, Babs, Babs….
and she’s our good Dem Senator.
Wish she was a bit more in tune with all this.

Great comment jayt at 6:24.

Redshift 40 – Thank you! Would love to hear from someone in that conversation!

I think it’s “pie-in-the-sky” thinking to expect a sitting Senator to come out and endorse another sitting Senator’s opponent.

Boxer said Lieberman is good for women, which is idiotic. She could back Lieberman without saying something so stupid.

Keep up the fight, Jane!

ck 43 -

Yeah ‘net neutrality is HUGE.

And you can be sure The Deciderer, tired of all the “opinionating” that goes on (he used that word the other day, LOL), would love for the highways of the internets become more few.

Bet good money that Boxer’s comments are a symptom of a problem. Boxer may not be the actual problem, but she’s the only one who can change it.

We’ve got a similar problem here in MI with a certain pol, out of touch with the people and going to get a serious *sswhupping based on the feedback I got today from voters. Great person, very smart, been with us on the issues, but definitely has been out of touch with the facts on the ground.

What’s the problem? Agressive staffers who screen everything for the pol — and I’ll bet you that’s Boxer’s problem. They help the pol here stay focused and on task, to the detriment of understanding what’s really going on around them, to the detriment of the people believing in her and what’s she’s done for them. They really can’t see it from where they are at; they simply don’t see her.

Which brings me back to Boxer: how can anyone who’s savvy enough to post at DailyKos NOT understand what’s going on with Lieberman?? This is a disconnect – unless the staffers have been handling the posting work, and/or Boxer and staff are only using DailyKos for a mouthpiece instead of using DailyKos as a two-way intelligence system.

Boxer’s the only one who can fix this. She’s got a great opportunity to play catch-up right now, what with a great post on the front page at DailyKos by Georgia10 on Lieberman at this very moment. Boxer needs to realize in a hurry she’s rallying behind an Independent and NOT a Democrat.

Babs needs a swig of the Cool-Aid
she’s Cool-less in this instance

Hello everyone. Can I just say how grateful I am that not only are Jane and Christie, Pach and so many others, working at this conference but they’re also managing to log in here, too? Multi-tasking squared.

Barbara Boxer probably has done some good stuff in her day, but like so very many other people in Washington who have been occupying the same seat for lo these many years, she is painfully out of touch with what’s going on. That she can’t know what lots of Democrats are feeling about Leiberfutz is just unforgiveable at this point in time. NOT to have a staff that gets around and NOT to have anybody’s finger on the pulse is completely stupid. “Why are you so focused on Lieberman?” Geeze, does she really need someone to connect those dots? Why was she there?

They’re ALL clueless. Why does one bother???

I think I’ll just maybe mention exemplary candidates like Lamont when I write my Net Neutrality reminder to BB on Monday. I drop Russ Feingold’s name a lot, too.

John Casper -

thanks very much for that emptywheel link – very appropos of this thread -

always been easy to appreciate her mind here among the Plameologists, but yesterday, her heart made me cry (”Mom, what’s the matter ?”) when she spoke of her reasons for working on Plame

would love. love. love, to hear Jerome’s opinion on that Warner answer, I know he backs him bigtime, but that’s a serious red flag – guess I’ll have to do some reading about the good Gov., sounds a little too Shrummy for me

Jane:

I didn’t see your earlier post, but I did TiVo the Plame panel.

I’m sort of a techno-dud, but I do know how to burn a DVD of it.

Just ask, and I’ll provide.

Jane Fish

Rayne, I agree. I think she’s more exhibiting ivory tower syndrome and figures Lieberman’s the best they can do. Plus, he’s the incumbent so why make a big deal of it?

I think a good response to “Why are you so focused on Lieberman?” would be “Why do you *think*?” In fact for politicians, since their job is to represent their constituents, perhaps the best way to get it through her head is to let her remain clueless and feel out of the loop. THAT is something that we all know politicians will respond to.

with the exposure FDL gets, I am sure some staffer soon will brief Senator Boxer about her gaffe.

When ‘push comes to shove’ the NeoCons hang together. Barbara is another one of those Senators who believes we should be remaking the Middle East…even if we act as barbarians in destroying one of the great cultures in this world.

This is a disconnect – unless the staffers have been handling the posting work, and/or Boxer and staff are only using DailyKos for a mouthpiece instead of using DailyKos as a two-way intelligence system.

Well, there are gradations between posting a daily diary and knowing how to troll-rate and not being able to tell the internets from a fishing net.

How involved was Boxer with her fellow Kossacks?

Or did she only appear in the role of Senator?

Did any of the “big (but not blogger) names” get down with “jes folks”?

JAne you are RIGHT ON…..If Boxer makes a gaff and doesn’t know what the hell is going on…she needs to be told IMMEDIATELY, what is up…How could she NOT know Rape gurney Joes record on women and gay rights?…GEEEEEEEEEEEEezzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
She made a good speech and she is a pretty reliable ally, but like the rest of them NEVER TRUST HER!!!!!! Keep her in line by letting her know we know what is going on, and YOU JANE KNOWS what the hell is going on…..
Got yer back!!!!!!!

OT – but important.

I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic in saying that if we lose Net Neutrality we lose FDL.

Maybe not right away, but shortly.

Free exchange of ideas is too important, and dangerous, for “them” to allow it.

That being said, I have no idea how I can make a difference. I make my calls, and faxes, but is that all I can do?

I feel so fucking powerless, and I’m terrified that we could lose this vehicle, and any shot of true democracy.

Guide me fellow ‘pups.

“I know you probably look at Washington and think it’s impossible to develop a consensus in Washington, D.C. It probably seems that way, doesn’t it, when you pay attention to all the sharp elbows being thrown and, you know, the people opinionating and screaming and hollering and calling each other names…”

The Decider

Digby has a great post on GOP Bid’ness — pushing the legal envelope, in the same way the Mafia pushes the envelope.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com…..4068518357

Californian here, a little miffed with Jane. Out of touch, I would’ve used, I’m okay with railing at Boxer for self-destructive oldboyism. But idiot, that got my back up a little. Does she deserve no credit for how she went after Rice during her confirmation hearing? Standing up and, to her face, questioning her ‘commitment to the truth?’ I thought the number of Dem senators putting their chins that far out was small enough that we wouldn’t throw insults like this at one of them lightly, over an offhand boilerplate remark like that.

*ilson- I hope so, but there have been plenty of FDL posts by Jane and others on this issue, before now. Were they not paying attention?

Ed Deevy: Senator Boxer voted against the War Authorization and has long opposed the War on Iraq. True, she has been an over-enthusiastic supporter of Israeli policies but she’s no NeoCon !

I think I will call Boxer’s office on Monday and ask them to explain how she could be so unaware of the netroots position on Lieberman that she would openly support him at Y-KOS.

People, we are way past the need to make nice. I’m not interested in parsing empty “endorsements” or trying to understand the yes on Alito and the yes on Hayden and the fucking faux outrage about Bush when it all boils down to watching this messed up Congress do their time. I’m not a moderate and I don’t pretend to be a moderate. I’m not going to go along with a politician because it’s a calculated risk. If someone wants to choose Liebermann when there’s Lamont, well, I can’t get on that bus. I want to completely believe in the person I vote for. We are in deep shit and I will definitely harsh on the mellow when the chips are down. There are ISSUES and nothing these nibs can say will distract me from their actions.

Urban Pirate 66 -

Yep. The Bush Crony Suits wanna turn the ‘net into a cable TV business model. Content control will not be far behind price tiering. Read Lessig’s latest OpEd in WaPo the other day.

What is Plan B if net neutrality doesn’t pass?

Is there an opening for a new ISP that doesn’t limit the flow of packages or whatever it is that streams the information we get?

I appreciate the best option is not to have to have a plan b but does anyone know a workaround?

I think we have an obligation to be as harse with Dems as with everyone, and simply because Boxer is a women and said this, I agree with Jane totally.

The only thing for Boxer to do is to correct herself immediately, and I’m sure she will. Give her time.

From firedog central in the halls of the Riviera Convention Center, we have discovered our new best friend. She is Natasha who blogs at Pacific Views on national and international issues. In contrast to some of us (me) who tuned out half of what Warner had to say, Natasha actually paid attention and has a really insightful post just going up at her blog. She has blogged extensively on Venezuela and Iran, and took BIG exception to some of the crap Warner had in his stump speech. Hop on over if you want to see the most substantive reaction I have yet seen to Warner’s speech.

Boxer needs to show up every damn day!

cbl at 58:

I have another question I’d like someone to ask Jerome about Warner.

I could swear I heard him say on a radio interview that he didn’t support single-payer health insurance – - or maybe it was universal health insurance. I can’t remember for sure, now.

I’d sure like to hear that confirmed or debunked, because I just can’t see a Democrat being a serious candidate without putting universal health insurance at the top of his or her list.

Bionic at 64:

I don’t know about the others, but my husband found himself chatting with Wes Clark the first night. I’m pretty sure he was mixing and mingling.

How hard is it to tell a staffer to read one of the blogs a couple times a week?

Bionic 75 -

We will have to fight long and loud to assure that this doesn’t happen. The two prevailing analogies of “cable TV” and “gated communities” are quite apt. It’s not about some “new ISP” coming in to save the day. It’s about control of “the last mile,” e.g., which, for me, is Cox.net, my cable TV/cable modem provider. They are the only option I have as a private consumer at true broadband speed. DSL sucks by comparison, and no one’s gonna run a T-1 into my house (at any practical cost).

What are the implications of the net neutrality issue for how the whole rest of the (non-U.S.) world experiences the net?

Ed at 62:

Didn’t Boxer vote against the war? Seems like that would disqualify her from being a NeoCon.

I know BobbyG.

It would shut down the “idea marketplaces” in no time flat. Blogs, Usergroups, etc would be monitored and controlled by someone whose agenda may differ. Someone who could prevent what you and I are doing right now.

Fucking terrifying.

They never saw this coming, and its got them shit-scared. They want control back.

Where does that leave us?

Jane,
I’ve been wanting to delurk about the phrase “Rape Gurney Joe” for a while. Even though it neatly sums up the entire reason Lieberman needs to be ditched, it made me uncomfortable, because it reminds me of some of the rhetoric used by the anti-abortion crazies. (They use a shorthand which is damn near unintelligible, i.e. mill = abortion mill = abortion clinic.)
I’ve been rethinking this lately, since I’ve been talking to my mother-in-law, who lives in CT, about Ned Lamont. Because you refer to Lieberman as Rape Gurney Joe every single time you post about him, I was reminded about his outrageous statement about emergency contraception, and passed it on. The MIL was appropriately shocked, and is now fired up to go vote in the Democratic primary for the first time in her life. This is really the first time I’ve personally observed the netroots in action, from FDL to me to MIL to the voting booth.
Finally, Barbara Boxer is neither an idiot nor a liar. She has worked tirelessly for women for many, many years, as well as opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. (Remember her questioning of Condoleeza Rice at her confirmation hearing?) I think she may simply need to be educated. She is savvy enough to recognize the importance of the netroots and reach out to them, but most likely simply does not know what some of the most important issues have become. I have a feeling that will change.

I haven’t read the comments yet and am about to.

But my reaction to the post: this country is fucking finished, it’s done and what we’re all talking about here is what’s going to be built on its ashes by thinking humans.

There is simply no saving any of this in its present terminally sick context.

jlr -

We wanna end up with a China-esqe internet, probably even worse?

WRT Boxer I think it is the common sense test, if any of us had gone to this convention to give a speech and to connect with political bloggers, we would have had staff brief us on, oh say, what political issues have been showing up on blogger screens and what their take was. We’re pretty much used to Bush and everybody else in his Administration never doing their homework. It would be nice if one of our own showed some aptitude in that direction instead of being blindsided by the obvious.

I don’t know if this suggestion has been made before, but it would be nice if there was a daily or weekly progressive blog executive summary that interested parties could have delivered by email. I’m thinking 3-5 short bullet points with the issues that are hot for the combined blogosphere. Could include links to significant posts.

I think it would be more realistic to think that Boxer could keep up on an executive version of the blogs. We would not be so dependent on middlemen (aides) to keep her informed. If she needs more information on a topic, she can ask her aides for it or read the actual blogs.

It would be great to have a slightly more expanded version of this in the MSM. In the 9 months that I’ve been reading FDL, I think that of the 100 or so people that I’ve tried to get to read the blogs I’ve had one success. Many people believe that they just don’t have the time.

“If someone wants to choose Liebermann when there’s Lamont, well, I can’t get on that bus.”

Time to throw her UNDER that bus!

This notion that Boxer’s staff has created a bubble for her is hilarious. The woman is a politician who lives in the same spacio-temporal dimension as the rest of us. She’s not stupid.

She is immoral.

I can’t stop listening to “Sing Your Life” by Morissey. My favorite song ever, I think, and definitely my anthem.

“Does she deserve no credit for how she went after Rice during her confirmation hearing? “

No.

She’s too savvy to be clueless, IMHO. She’s hedging her bets and not bucking the party line as long as Lieberman still looks like he could win against Lamont. These guys CAN’T be seen as speaking out against Lieberman, unfortunately, because it would look like the Dem party had completely ruptured.

I guess my question wasn’t clear – Can American legislation against net neutrality affect how the rest of the world experiences the internet? It would create a Chinese-type internet for Americans AND the rest of us?

Pacifica — Have you visited or thought about recommending http://www.memeorandum.com — it provides key news stories and links all the blogs reporting on the different stories — and it updates every 5 minutes. I think it is a good introduction and way to find an overview of what’s happening.

oops that’s Morrissey with two r’s, sorry

Did someone say Morissey?

“Take me out tonight
Where there’s music and there’s people
And they’re young and alive
Driving in your car
I never never want to go home
Because I haven’t got one
Anymore
Take me out tonight
Because I want to see people and I
Want to see life
Driving in your car
Oh, please don’t drop me home
Because it’s not my home, it’s their
Home, and I’m welcome no more
And if a double-decker bus
Crashes into us
To die by your side
Is such a heavenly way to die
And if a ten-ton truck
Kills the both of us
To die by your side
Well, the pleasure – the privilege is mine
Take me out tonight
Take me anywhere, I don’t care
I don’t care, I don’t care
And in the darkened underpass
I thought Oh God, my chance has come at last
(But then a strange fear gripped me and I
Just couldn’t ask)
Take me out tonight
Oh, take me anywhere, I don’t care
I don’t care, I don’t care
Driving in your car
I never never want to go home
Because I haven’t got one, da …
Oh, I haven’t got one
And if a double-decker bus
Crashes into us
To die by your side
Is such a heavenly way to die
And if a ten-ton truck
Kills the both of us
To die by your side
Well, the pleasure – the privilege is mine
Oh, There Is A Light And It Never Goes Out
There Is A Light And It Never Goes Out
There Is A Light And It Never Goes Out
There Is A Light And It Never Goes Out
There Is A Light And It Never Goes Out
There Is A Light And It Never Goes Out
There Is A Light And It Never Goes Out
There Is A Light And It Never Goes Out
There Is A Light And It Never Goes Out”

Boxer made an ignorant, ill informed comment and was rightfully slapped for it. Isn’t that part of what we do here???

BobbyG –

It seems Cox.net has been blocking Craigslist for several months; it doesn’t want a free service competing with paid classifieds.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Foremski/index.php?p=86

One of the planks of the neocon agenda is uncritical support for Israel. Another is the use of American military might to accomplish our foreign policy objectives. Boxer shares the first of these with many politicians on both sides of the aisle. She does not support the second.

Renato, rwcole %u2014 I’ll just shut up with my girl issues and stand over in the corner. I realize there are much more important things, I’m probably just having a bout of PMS. I should’ve asked you boys first. My bad.

jane, would you bear my children for me. I think I love you even more now!

Barbara Boxer is probably not ill-informed, probably not an idiot, and only occasionally a liar. That Lieberman is on the wrong side of history about the war and about societal issues that affect women is not something she is unaware of. I think all elected officials in this country end up becoming isolated from “the rest of us”. As the progressives become noisier (at least as noisy as the far right), she will pay better attention. And until she feels she needs to be more worried about “us” than she does about Lieberman supporters in her party, she will exhibit signs of defensiveness like she did at YK.

1. “how could Boxer not have known this is a focus of us being here?” (the Lamont thing)….well….is it??? I thought this is a convention to energize progressive Democrats, NOT the “Lamont Does Vegas” convention.
2. Several folks have pointed out Boxer’s damn good record on many other issues. I think she deserves some credit.
3. And Pacifica….that is you who is referred to earlier by “my dear friend” (yes, I’m being sarcastic) op99? (chuckle)….Anyways, I think your idea above is good. Some sort of “hot sheet”. Good idea.
Ummm…I did go over and read your post. Don’t agree at all with your thoughts on Chavez, and Mr. “A” (the iranian guy, his spelling befuddles me)…but that’s another conversation for another time!
Ghostman

Matt Stoller on Craigslist being Coxed –

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/6/8/144357/7525

If you want to energize progressives I’d suggest that insulting them by backing Lieberman is not the way to do it.

Pacifica @27

I’m with you, and Jane.

When I read Jane’s description of Boxer as “clueless” I kinda winced about how that word could be taken out of context, but if you read the post as whole, it is clear that Jane is amazed (not in a good way), that Boxer was unaware
1) that progressive Bolostan does not love joementum

2) that Holy Joe has a dreadful position with repsect to woman victims of sex crimes

While I would not expect her to publicly repudiate a fellow Dem Senator over a plicy difference, she sure as hell should have come to YKOS prepared for the question.

I know that Jane can speak for herself, but I think we share a disappointment(that was not the first word I typed, I’m being diplomatic here) that Boxer would be so disrespectful as to show up so unprepared.

In a weird way I think this is a good thing though. It is a reality check. YKOS generated so much adrenaline that I think we were all starting to believe our own press.

Yes the message is STARTING to get out, but no, it is not ubiquitous, YET. We will get there. This is a great start. But it is only a start.

Also, those of us home on our comfy couches should realize how tired, how wired and how overstimulated all our “live” attendees are.

So shuld anyone reading these late posts. Everybody is tired. Me, I got a fever of 103, so the goddess only knows what I am writing.

It all can’t be perfect all the time.

This year politicians and MSM came, unprepared and “clueless” to find out what we are all about. Next year, they will come preapred to engage us in constructive dialogue, if we don’t tune them out or turn them off before they get to know us and find out why we are so worthwhile.

I could understand Boxer not being critical of Lieberman if the Democrats like the Republicans had some common stand on the issues but they don’t. How hard is it to say then that she disagrees with Lieberman on many of these issues but that she is willing to stand by the choice of the people of CT whatever that might be? She is a politician, isn’t she? She does know how to say these things, right? Maybe she was the one with PMS.

Boxer’s response shows the arrogance of the DC crowd and the need to clean house. If they don’t understand their constituency and aren’t willing to respond to a straight question addressing a real concern, then get them outta there.

alton,
IMO, the “rape gurney” is very accurate about a woman’s situation after she is raped. She has to climb off the gurney and drag herself to a place where she can get emergency contraception. None of that is rhetoric it’s an attempt to avoid pregnancy.
The socalled pro-lifers paraded around bloody bottles filled with full grown fetuses which is completely inaccurate, because that’s not what a zygote looks like. It wasn’t rhetoric either, it’s just plain wrong.
You wrote: “Finally, Barbara Boxer is neither an idiot nor a liar.”
If you’ll read Jane’s post, “I like many things about Barbara Boxer so I’m going to assume here that she’s an idiot and not a liar.”
Jane’s post doesn’t debate Barbara Boxer’s record on these issues. The problem is Joe and Barbara’s decision to support him in such an unqualified way when a quality alternative exists.

I think if you, or her staff, took her aside, she would understand. Or maybe she does already. It’s putting an elected Senator in a weird position to rat on a fellow incumbent. If they really don’t like the guy, you’re likely to get a tepid endorsement for him rather than enthusiastic support. Part of it is caucus solidarity. There’s a way to go before November. They don’t want to be seen as stabbing a colleague in the back, or if they do endorse Lamont, it will be when they think the Joe is damn near dead. You fight in solidarity with the caucus what brung ya. She’s already said it’s the war. She’s at YearlyKos. The unspoken messages are clear. Boxer is no clear ally of Joltin’ Joe.

WE DON’T WANT NO FUCKING “UNSPOKEN MESSAGES” !!!!!

I think you are all being too harsh on Boxer.
The senate Dem protocol is to support all incumbent senators until the primary. That is the spoken and unspoken rule. In fact, Chuck Schumer said that a couple of wks ago. He said – DSCC is an incumbent club. If Senators go against one of their own, then the whole DSCC apparatus falls apart. They all know this. So Boxer is singing the club tune. Nothing wrong with that. Lamont shouldn’t be looking to sitting senators for help until he wins the primary.

Now re the MSNBC reporter, Boxer was doing a push off to get him out of that line of questioning. Nothing wrong with that too.
Senators go through this stuff everyday. So let us not magnify this and focus on the game.

The game is: Lamont has put Leiberman in a box.
L’man has to either leave the party before the primary to run as indy, or suffer defeat.

I am surprised Lamont has not been too aggressive. How come he does not challenge Joe for a debate? Why doesn’t he ask Joe to say unequivocally that he would not leave Dem party? Why doesn’t Lamont ask publicly DSCC leader Schumer, Harry Reid and Howard Dean to force Leiberman to say publicly he will not leave Dem party?

That’s the way you play this game. Boxer was great at ykos. Jane may be going through hubris, coming off of the plame panel, but she is not seeing or thinking clearly.

They really do live in a bubble, don’t they…?

Of course, Boxer is one of the handful of Senators running the DSCC with Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, so I suppose she gets her “facts” from Schumer and friends. [As evidenced by her lamentable Patriot Act reauthorization vote, for which she caught it but good on DailyKos, when she innocently posted there about something else shortly after her disingenuous vote.]

It just goes to show, though, how infrequently these Senators are ever put on the spot by reporters or constituents. Any infrequent “town meetings” they hold are often just scripted speeches (with the notable exceptions of people like Russ Feingold and I believe Ron Wyden). Tom Curry just did us all a favor, by educating Ms. Boxer — something the correspondence from citizens POURING into her office, and to that of every other out-of-touch Senator, is desperately tring to do, but apparently all for naught.

Thanks Tom – score one for the big media.

oh david E 98 – thank you – that’s REALLY my favorite beautiful one ever – Smiths, greatest band ever – The Boy With the Thorn In His Side – anticipates and explains McVeigh, Cheney, bin Laden, Chimpy, the whole sick human bunch -

Hey folks. Jane and Christy – I just feel so proud of you. As for Boxer, well, I just saw a real public servant on film — yeah, saw “An Inconvenient truth” last night in Minneapolis. It was great. Made me cry to think that we have Preznit instead.

Barbara Boxer isn’t perfect, that’s for sure, but she’s one of the best we’ve got. We should push her on the issues but I think we also need to show appreciation for the many good things she’s done, sometimes all alone. If we’re going to call Boxer names, then I think we should have no mercy at all for people like Warner or Clark. I was here at Warner’s speech today and it sounded just like you’d expect a politician who was kissing up to the netroots. He sounds dangerous on Iran and untrustworthy on other issues (although I have to admit I still need to do more research to learn about his stands–this opinion comes solely from the speech). Clark is a war criminal, that’s hard to move beyond. Anyway, I don’t think we should trust any of them but we need to work with them so should keep our attacks in perspective.

If you’re going to game every fucking thing you say, then I’m probably not going to feel like voting for you. It’s just way too late for this BS.

Again I could see Boxer standing with Holy Joe if the Democrats had a platform, any platform. But I’m not sure that they agree even on something as simple as “We’re not them” or “Throw the bums out”. On top of this, in Joe’s case, he is more one of theirs than one of ours. So for Boxer to slobber all over him is inexplicable and disappointing given as John Casper points out there is a viable alternative. Solidarity is all fine and good but shouldn’t Boxer and Lieberman have something more to their solidarity than that they are both incumbents?

You’re welcome, sharkbabe. Moz is currently in Italy pursuing a new boyfriend and recording with Ennio Morricone.

I’m 59 years-old, ecoast. I gave up “playing the game” when I was a high school freshman.

Needless to say I attended Communist Martyrs High (aka. The High School of Music and Art, class of ‘64)

*ilson, if you on the mod com gig right now, could you please check in at mod com?

I agree with Ghostman #33. Boxer has been with us on most issues. Let’s not get crazy with this – she was most likely unaware of Joe’s position on this topic. She’s not stupid and I really think her heart’s in our corner on this. Let’s see what she does now that she knows. Though she still may not be strong and independent enough to say so, I’ll bet she’ll think differently about Joe, so I’m willing to wait and see.

It’s not necessary to cross someone off our x-mas card list for all eternity if they make a mistake or seem uninformed on something we are aware of. It seems to me our purpose here is to build a community, educate the populace, and increase awareness. So, let’s see what effect we’re having rather than savaging those who seem willing to listen.

We need to keep our eyes on the ultimate prize (a return to governmental sanity with real ethics and conscience) and not drive off support. Sometimes we have to be pragmatic. I doubt we could find even one politician (or even one person in the blogosphere) that all of us could agree with on EVERY issue.

Most of all, we don’t want to become like those we hate – self-righteous and mean-spirited. There’s enough of that on the right.

How could she have been “unaware of Joe’s position” and attend the Yearly Kos?

FYI, for those watching the Air America footage, Room 1 has just come online. I’m assuming it will be showing Reid’s speech.

Calling bullshit when we hear it isn’t being “self-righteous and mean-spirited.”

She can’t be in her own corner and Joe’s corner at the same time. Dig?

“FYI, for those watching the Air America footage, Room 1 has just come online. I’m assuming it will be showing Reid’s speech.”

Thanks for the heads up!

Whew…been busy! This afternoon I videotaped an interview of Ned Lamont making what I think is the first public challenge to Joe Lieberman to debate. Now that Joe’s campaign has announced that Lieberman will be campaigning in Connecticut every Thursday, Friday and Sunday from now until primary day (August 8th), you can bet some of us Nedheads will show up to hammer him on when he’ll agree to debate Ned.

Video here:
http://ctbob.blogspot.com/2006…..amont.html

Barbara Boxer got herself admitted to the game, has ultimate pension and healthcare for life, trust me her loyalty is to this thing that bought her this.

Sharkbabe and David E. Huge Smith’s fan here. Memories somehow intertwined with New York and my first real love

The bomb, the bomb, the bomb
the bomb will bring us together

I heart Jane — There has been this strange movement on “women’s issues’ that I am too tired to explore right now. Equality and other such old fashioned standards are no longer the premier issue of the day. Women, particularly poor urban women and almost all rural women are having their lives taken from them — both by government and by men. It’s like people — and I am including Boxer — are 1976 femenists when many have been forced into a 1938 reality. I don’t know all the ins and outs of the issue, but besides his mouthed generalities on choice, in what way has Lieberman ever been “good for women?” His world view seems more “six steps behind your man” than “walking hand in hand.”

The punishment for an unwitting error should not be the same as that for studiedly obnoxious mendacity. (Probably not safe for work)

;>)

Jane,

First thing I thought when I read this post was, ‘more of this, please’, and ‘thank you, jane hamsher’. You don’t mince words here and it’s a lifeline.

Hey, Boxer did what a politician does. I would’ve hoped for better but it’s no surprise. Thank you.

Hmm. Wonder if this will post, I’ve never commented here before, though I’m a regular reader. We’ll see…

How could she have been “unaware of Joe’s position” and attend the Yearly Kos?

David E – And Kos flat out stated in his opening that lieberman was going down, to huge applause! Didn’t Boxer speak shortly after? Either way, it defies credulity.

A female senator who works tirelessly for women ought to know, or be aware of, or be in tune with, issues facing women not just in her own state, but across the country. I read several newspapers every day. I read this blog and others. I watch the news. My eyes and ears pick up when I see or hear something on an issue that is of particular interest to me. I pay attention to stories about states that are looking to make abortion more restrictive. I pay attention to stories about Plan B and about pharmacists refusing to fill preoscriptions for birth control.

And I’m not even a Senator – I’m just an over-50 married working woman with two daughters and an insatiable curioisity and thirst for information. One doesn’t have to go looking for these stories – they fairly leap off the pages, for crying out loud.

For me, there’s a disconnect in Boxer’s statements about Lieberman, something “off” that bothers me. I get that he’s her friend, and that they have worked together for years, but this is a woman who is an unabashed liberal, who doesn’t make any attempt to run from her liberal positions. Joe lieberman is not a liberal, and his positions – which even folks who are not from Connecticut, who don’t work with him – are not friendly to women, are decidedly conservative and so NOT the way Boxer described them.

She’s been at this too long to have made a rookie mistake; she must have forgotten who she was talking to, and that – unlike the MSM – we tend not to just roll over for a tummy rub. We follow through.

Will be interesting to see if she has any response in the coming days.

Maybe Jane could get her to guest blog – that might be fun!

I am in dangerous EPU land, but I would like to remind the community to look at the top of each post where the “Feingold Censure Resolution” is located. I see three “Lions” there and the names include Feingold, BOXER, and Harkin.
I am not going to argue about Boxer’s comments today, just, that as RW Cole points out, we need to pick and choose our battles and Boxer is not one of them now.
I cannot stand Liebermann, but the Primary has to happen first before Lamont will be taken seriously as a future Senator in the midst of all the present sitting Senators. I want Lamont to win with all my heart, but Boxer has to hedge her comments IMHO, at this point in time.
Looseheadprop made a very good assertion today when he suggested that instead of vilifying the opposition that is at the conference, engage them in conversation, discuss the differences, someone suggested buying a pitcher of beer instead of a bottle and then sitting down to have a frank, honest, discussion of the issues. These people are at this convention to see what is going on. This is a great time to cross some bridges instead of burning them.

IowaDem

What is exasperating is that Boxer had many other acceptable answers that she could have given and did not. Yes, she stands with us on many issues but is it too much to expect for her to act with some sense of professionalism precisely because she isn’t a wet behind the ears politician and give an answer that shows that she is at least minimally aware of the venue in which she chose to speak?

I think the unspoken fear for many of us is that if the Democrats win control of one or both Houses, we may only have replaced the corrupt with the inept. It’s a step up but not much of one and could pave the way for the return of the crooks who run things now.

Cozumel at 127:

Are you getting any sound from the AAR feed?

All I get is a silent, still picture of Joe Wilson.

I think we are hearing a rehearsal on the Air America link. I wonder if they know we can hear them?

Pacifica (90) — there are a number of ways fro folks to get content aggregated so that they get what they need. Even a site like Salon provides a hyperview of the buzz with the DaouReport (http://daoureport.salon.com/).

But I note even in the DaouReport at Salon that there is not one single word about either Lieberman OR YearlyKos featured right now, save for Daou’s own “The Triangle” post on YKos.

That’s a problem; it could mean the grassroots are still not getting their message across to elected pols.

As for all the folks upthread encouraging us to take it easy on Boxer: hell, no. SHE’S A WOMAN IN OFFICE — one of a very few women in the most exclusive nearly all-boys’ club in the world, the U.S. Senate. By virtue of being a female Senator, she represents the needs of a far greater constituency than the one that elected her, a constituency that is a clear majority. If she is not on top of one of the biggest reasons why women aren’t supporting Lieberman, there’s a problem here that demands attention. If she doesn’t grok that the constant sucking up to BushCo. by Joe-mentum fails all Americans in CT and out, this needs attention. She could have and should have handled this far better.

Frankly, she’s lucky it’s us on the left and not the rabid right who are questioning her. We’ll at least cut her slack if we see some corrective action.

AirAmerica: I am getting audio only, thank yous to the volunteers.

Are you getting any sound from the AAR feed?

The link has gone dead for me. Perhaps a premature start.

Anne #134 – well said.

Somebody should ask Boxer if there’s any political stance a sitting Democratic Senator could take that would cause her to endorse a primary challenger.

If she admits there might be, they could ask her how she can support Lieberman when he agrees it’s fine to deny sexual assault victims Plan B emergency contraception because they had the bad luck to land in a Catholic hospital’s ER.

“Cozumel at 127:

Are you getting any sound from the AAR feed?

All I get is a silent, still picture of Joe Wilson.”

I was, on Room 1. It wasn’t Reid so I turned it off. lol I’m not sure what it was but they were having audio problems.

My audio is gone…

Condi’s a WOMAN IN OFFICE too, ya know.

Darkblack! 707

Or should I be worried about your dark life?

Curious in Central Texas @ 96 -
Thanks for the tip. I will check out the site for a few days to see what I think.

And Ghostman @ 104 -
Maybe I misunderstood your point, but I do not blog and I am not Natasha. And I am not in Vegas. I’ve been home all day streaming video on the conference. (And I admit, I’ve been in my pajamas!) But glad you liked my idea about the “hot sheet”.

Ah, commenting twice in one night…the margaritas are kicking in!

John Casper, my discomfort with the phrase “Rape Gurney Joe,” is not its accuracy. (Please reread my post; I am rethinking this since it has turned out to be such a good mnemonic aid.) It’s that we begin to use a shorthand that is unintelligible or offputting to those outside our group.

What do we as progressives want to accomplish? I hope we want to reach out to those who only receive predigested news from the MSM. Like Barbara Boxer, many of them just need to be educated, and you do not do that with insults.

As far as slapping her around or throwing her under the bus, why should we savage a proven ally? That’s a job for Bush’s Favorite Democrat. (Now THAT’S a self-explanatory phrase…)

Cheers!

IMHO Barbara Boxer is not an idiot although she’s no power house either. However she’s surely just about as good as it gets in the current crop. Compare her to Feinstein and it’s clear that we should try to educate her not alienate her. “Throw the bum’s out” is a nice sentiment and completely understandable but let’s reserve our real efforts for worse offenders than Boxer. After all she was there at least and she’s is making some attempt at real communications. It’s not reasonable or useful to hold the fact that she hasn’t instantly adopted all our positions against her. Neither is it reasonable to blame her staff. The California roots project met with aides of both Boxer and Feinstein and Boxer’s definately seemed more aware and interested in engaging but it will not happen over nignt, at a single conference or even over a single election cycle.

I think her support of Lieberman just goes to show what an insulated club the Senate is, not to mention an incumbent protection racket. Not good but we can’t in fairness lay all that on Boxer either.

Jane- Guess I irritated you- sorry- didn’t mean to. I still have the same opinion- but I guess you don’t want to hear it. That’s OK.

ck says:
June 10th, 2006 at 7:10 pm

Matt Stoller on Craigslist being Coxed –

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/6/8/144357/7525
_____

Interesting. I’m on Cox cable modem in Vegas, and have never had a problem reading/posting to Craigslist. I link to the Craigslist musicians board on my blog.

Ann,

“unlike the MSM – we tend not to just roll over for a tummy rub. We follow through.”

LOL Well put ; )

Valley Girl # 5

Barbara Boxer employed a SF bay area ghost writer.

Sorry fellow firepups but my senator should have known she was heading into Lamont land before she boarded the plane for YearlyKos. just sayin’ we may be stuck with her but we need not suffer her senatorial arrogance.

Darkblack, that is a brand spanking new take on a very bitter end.

Jane,
There is something wonderful about a woman who is a democrat when talking about another woman who is a democrat, uses the word fuck correctly makes me proud to be an American.

Run for something! You know you can do it and so do we.

I have to say, I think this is a tempest in a teapot. I think Boxer deserves better than what’s being said by some here. Nobody in the party could be expected to endorse a primary challenger, especially three thousand miles away. What really matters is how she votes on things and she consistently votes the right way. We won’t agree with everything any given senator has to say. I think we should save the heat for people more deserving.

David Ehrenstein (145) — I’d really like a second and third medical opinion on that one.

I think my African-American friends would also like a genetic workup, because Condi may not be African-American either.

Which may be why Condi is so popular with white winger males…

With very few exceptions, I have never known Democratic Elected Officials to support opponents of a collegue in an endorsement or primary situation. It is a courtesy they mutually extend. Likewise, I also believe very few are good predictors of outcomes based on collegues difficulties. In fact they prefer not to know about potential difficulties, because they don’t want to have to deal with the dynamics.

But if you want to “ask the question” — the best thing to do is make it specific, for instance one could ask Boxer what she thinks about CT NARAL and Planned Parenthood endorsing Lieberman’s opponent, Lamont. She can get out of answering by not knowing about the endorsement — but she also won’t cross the critical interest groups.

What one really wants to know about legislative candidates is how they will vote on things that matter — and what they will invest in when deciding what legislation to sponsor. Likewise with President one wants to look at Executive qualities — how will they administer what matters, what kind of appointments will they make from what universe of the population? Beyond that they really are not “movement leaders” — and that level of creativity should not be really expected.

146, pacifica…..ooops! looks like this is my mistake. There was a reference to a “pacifica” blog, as I recall…and then you posted a comment, and so I thought “that…was you”.

I guess I need to do the church-lady thing: nevermind! Peace.
Ghostman

Sara at 7:51, are you Sara, the tnh poster of fame about General George Marshall’s HUNT Report?

alton,

“As far as slapping her around or throwing her under the bus, why should we savage a proven ally? That’s a job for Bush’s Favorite Democrat. (Now THAT’S a self-explanatory phrase%u2026)”

Jane’s post was issue specific. I don’t recall any mention of “throwing her under a bus” or are you referring to a commenter’s post?

I want to like Boxer because she’s not as horrible as the rest of the whores and she’s halfway cute even. But it’s not to be. She is part of a thing that can’t be redeemed or retrieved. She is in the dustbin and IS the dustbin. Everybody here, you are it, prepare to think and take charge and dance on the political graves of Barbara Boxer and Steny Hoyer and this entire whorehouse that would appall the Founders. We are fucking It. These supposed political “leaders” allies/heroes who have supposed power and whose actions we await, sorry but fact is they have sucked Bush idiot murderous dick for six fucking years. Boxer included. Who has stood up an screamed? Only us. We thinking feeling ordinary people are the leaders now, and the only leaders.

Anne Holliday- thanks for that info re the ghostwriter. But putting out a novel while in the Senate still doesn’t make sense to me. Do you have any idea why she did this?

Agh. So frustrating. Boxer’s mingling with a mess of highly educated, extremely well-informed voters from across the entire country, speaks after Kos makes comments about the ‘roots taking out Lieberman, and this is what Boxer says?

There’s something else going on here. Not only does Boxer need a better grasp on positioning, but WE as activist ‘roots Dems need to figure out how to do a more effective job of cleaning house. We need to be cutting through the barriers that staffers put up, stop getting into pissing matches when it’s clear our elected officials have an issue, and get this job done. It’s integral to the very necessary job of cleaning our own house.

If we cannot clean our own house — teach wayward Dems and purge the unteachable — how will the greater American public at large trust us to clean the House and Senate??

Barbara Boxer earned my eternal gratitude and respect when she stood with a number of the Representatives that knew that 2004 was stolen and would not endorse (ratify? or whatever the procedural term is) Bush’s nomination. She showed courage and good sense. She’s not going to be with you on every issue but I agree with Boxer’s defenders and some of the earlier comments about picking your battles, there are just so many to be had.

If this was a pattern or there were other glaring deficiencies, I might be less inclined to defend Boxer (not that she needs it), but she has consistently been on the side of democracy. If I’m missing other egregiously bad votes or positions, I’m all ears.

Clueless, in my opinion, does not apply to Barbara Boxer. Clueless on Lieberman, perhaps.

I like Senator Boxer. She’s been on the right side of a lot of issues that I care about and she isn’t afraid to take a strong stand on those issues. I’m gonna cut her just a little slack here on Lieberman because she and Lieberman are probably friends. There are only 45 Democratic Senators and both of them have been in the Senate together for quite a few years and she probably has a blind spot where he is concerned. I know that sounds wishy washy of me but even the best folks have a hard time being objective about everything.

While no one expects one sitting Senator to break ranks and endorse another sitting Senator’s primary opponent, I think we do expect – and should expect – Barbara Boxer to not insult the intelligence of women all over the country by trumpeting Lieberman as a champion of women’s issues.

She may have thought her comments would help her friend Joe in an increasingly tough primary race, but she seems to have hurt her own image in the bargain. She will recover, I’m sure, but what irks me is that her help isn’t going to benefit the women of Connecticut in any way, shape or form.

Rayne and Sharkbabe –

It all boils down to, how do we become more tha “volunteers” and ATMs? We have energy and collectively a good deal of cash. But the mainstream Dem pols still treat this (netroots/activism) as some cute thing that can be “managed.”

They, however, are not the boss of me.

But it’s not to be. She is part of a thing that can’t be redeemed or retrieved.

This is true. I hate the focus being on her ‘preparing’ for the progressive convention. She was posed a question and she gave her answer, which was horrendous. Boxer knows how to evade and box around a reporter’s question, she’s practiced and no dummy.

We’re long past the point of doing the same old dance. Maybe politicians never before have dissed a fellow member of their party before a primary, whatever, this country is fucked up and we need radical change from the way things have always been.

That’s the most disheartening aspect of Jane’s post. Even our best is sadly lacking.

As the thread evolves, I think the question some are asking, is whether Joe is really a Dem and still deserving of that respect that Dems, such as Boxer afford him.
I don’t pretend to know that answer in terms of what’s best going into the November elections.

All the good things that Boxer has done are things she SHOULD have done. Things they all should have done. I don’t think we need to genuflect because she did the right thing.

John Casper 170. Well said.

Rayne @ 138 -
Although I originally found FDL through the Daou Report, I don’t find it a particularly useful site. There is a lot of content and it is hard to dig through it on an ongoing basis and find what is significant and new.

I think this was a great topic for Jane to post. I think it is shocking that Boxer would say what she said with Jane standing within hearing range. While we could debate whether Boxer is a liar or an idiot (I don’t think she is either), it is completely incomprehensible to me that she would make those comments at YKOS if she even had a clue how we felt about Lieberman.

It took a lot of work to get Connecticut Naral and other local womens organizations to relook at Lieberman’s positions. But how much of that debate took place outside of local media and the blogs? I think you would need to look pretty damn hard to find it. I am also sure that I didn’t make any calls to Boxer’s office to let her know how I felt about Lieberman.

IMHO, the most logical explanation is that Boxer is unaware that the controversy exists. To me, that is the shocking take away from this posting. It is a red flag that we need to find additional ways to get our message out. My suggestion about an “executive summary” of our positions is one suggestion that I’ve been thinking about for awhile.

The AAR Room 1 video is back up. :)

Wasn’t there an entire chapter in Crashing the Gate devoted to how single-issues movements have to do what they do, but they can’t be the Democratic Party? Or is that part invalid?

Boxer’s wrong on this issue, and we’d all like to see her come around. She might be putting her friendship with Joementum ahead of her very long-standing commitment to sane reproductive issues, or maybe she doesn’t know the details of his stance. Could someone maybe find out what’s behind these apparent disconnects before consigning her to the nether regions for all eternity?

It’s us, people. Shall we ponder our place in sucking up to those in a meaningless absurd destroyed system. Or shall we do something else.

Can I say how great it is that we are NOT an echo chamber?

Comments on this thread are all over the continuim. How great is that?

Much as we love and admire Jane ( Jane B/C I engage Redd on legal issues more often, I don’t get enough opportunites to tell you haw much i LOVE how much VINAGER you use to give your post verv)no one felt the need to fall in line, to echo the position of our hostess.

Does that happen in a lot of other places? I don’t think so.

Sharkbabe #162

I would not have put it in your inimitable way but I agree with the sentiment and the concern. Boxer and the whole of the Democratic caucus have had six years to stand up and say no and they haven’t done it. That does not bode well for the future even if the Democrats win back control.

I also find it unsettling that the one thing that the Democrats have borrowed from the Republicans is this Trust us mentality without giving us any reasons to do so.

AAR: Sinatra and a slide show…must be nearing the Reid keynote….later FDL folk.

Hear ya, Hugh. Boxer’s comments were distressing and I certainly expected better, too. I’m just saying I’ll give her a chance to see if she’s learned anything. She had a snafu and showed she wasn’t totally on top of what we’re up to. Despite being a long-time politico, I’m guessing she’s a bit of a novice on the blogs and isn’t as aware as she should have been about the many subjects we’re discussing. I’m hoping the response she got on this has opened her eyes a little wider and will encourage her to tune in more often. I’m betting she was surprised by the in-depth awareness of bloggers.

I agree that we could exchange the cruel and incompetent admininstration we have now for our own brand of clueless and incompetent. I certainly hope not, but some of the votes that have gone down over the last years worry me, that’s for sure. That’s why I think what’s happening on the blogs is so important – the MSM certainly is no help in educating or influencing the conversation and directing the course of our representatives in any positive way.

OT

I have the news on in th ebackground and the tropical depression we have been monitoring, if it gets big enough, they are going to name it…….wait for it….

ALBERTO

I shit you not

new thread: “Getting Lucky in Vegas”

Jenny at 169

That’s the most disheartening aspect of Jane’s post. Even our best is sadly lacking.

Boxer may not be the best, but she seems to be someone who is trying to position herself through the blogosphere. I have seen a fairly decent number of Boxer ‘ads’ on blog sites a few months back.

I’m consciously suspending cynicism regarding her approach. The question in my mind is how cognizant is she of the constituency she is trying to cash in on. Is there any condescension on her part in reaching out the the blogosphere. Is she approaching blog discussion cynically and manipulatively, or genuinely listening and showing respect for the people finding a voice.

I find myself wondering if she is coming to progressive blogospheric politics to speak, or to listen.

This will probably be EPU’d but in Georgia10 front page diary she quotes:

BRISTOL — Reacting for the first time to a new poll showing he could win election as an independent, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman said Friday he remains focused on winning a Democratic primary, yet refused to rule out an independent run.

“I am not going to close out any options,” Lieberman said.

Now the thing is, I heard that in order to run as an independent Joe would have to file to do so before the Dem. primary.

So what’s going on here?

Is Joe or Joe’s machine or the DLC or whatever is pushing this, simply blowing smoke up everyone’s ass? That there is really no point in voting for Lamont in the primary because Joe is gonna win regardless?

Or have the rules been changed in order to accomodate him?

Barbara is like every other Senator in that she is enveloped in staff who, unfortunately, keep her dreadfully uninformed. She does not (apparently) have time or the inclination to follow every topic and interest in front of her on her own.

Her reliance on staff has had some interesting consequences in the past, as it will now. But she is no idiot. Nor is she deliberately lying.

She just doesn’t know.

The other thing about her Lieberman commitment is the same as with Schumer. The Senate, as he said, supports incumbents. Is there any Dem Senator who has denounced Lieberman and supports Lamont?

Bionic — just a factoid, Lieberman would have one day after the primary in Conn. to file as an independent, but he would need to start collecting the necessary signatures weeks before the primary….

Barbara Boxer is freakin’ endorsing Liebermann because she believes that he’s good on women’s issues. She is helping him to get re- elected. Can it be any clearer?

Cozumel,
Yup, it was the comments (including yours):

David Ehrenstein at 91:
“Time to throw her UNDER that bus!”

Cozumel at 99:
“Boxer made an ignorant, ill informed comment and was rightfully slapped for it. Isn’t that part of what we do here???”

Hopefully I’m not taking these out of context. FDL really is the only site I visit where some of the commenters (commentater? tater tots?) are as good as the original posts. (Yours are one of the ones I look for, by the way.)

What I’m trying to say is that when Senator Boxer asked “Why are you so focused on Lieberman?” that was an opportunity to answer that as a legitimate question, rather than slap her for it.

Eech, more drinking, less typing! Now I remember why I lurk!

Sophist @ 184 -

Is she approaching blog discussion cynically and manipulatively, or genuinely listening and showing respect for the people finding a voice.

I wonder as well. I also don’t give a fig about the briefing abilities of her staff. And I’m not sure if she’s there to speak or listen. What really worries me is, well, how can she not know how bad Leiberman is for the party and for the future of our country? I am mystified! She’s in a position to know exactly how wrong Leiberman is, and that he needs to go… now.

I’ve always liked Boxer. I’m one of her constituents and I will no doubt vote for her again. But this is a rude awakening, for sure.

Che Pasa #186

Boxer doesn’t have to denounce Lieberman. She just doesn’t have to endorse him or lie about his record on women’s issues.

Jane,

I am a fan of yours for months (even if I think you get out of hand at times, I usually find you entertaining), but this post was a terrible mistake, and you should apologize.

Your post really makes me question why you help fun FDL. As I understand it, you are trying to build an institution — not run a personal blog.

I agree with the goal of citizen discussion places as an alternative to the corporate media. I want to see those institutions grow.

Posts like this are very distructive to that goal, as a practical matter. Furthermore, your post was mean and not very savvy.

Let me explain why I think so.

First, you seem to not have any appreciation that Boxer has a job. Or any appreciation for what it takes to get anything done (when it can be done) in the lunatic world of Capitol Hill. Do I wish Capitol Hill were a different place? Of course. But in the meantime, anyone serving as a senator there cannot ignore reality.

The reality is that Lieberman is a fellow senator. Moreover, in the clubby world of the Senate, you cannot come out and bash a fellow senator — unless you want severe reprecussions.

Besides, get real, what upside is there to endorsing Lamont and bashing Lieberman. No swing voter in CT is going to care — and those are the ones Lamont needs. A few committed Lamont supporters would cheer. How would that help?

Or is the point to give “loyalty tests” to the most liberal senators in the Senate? Wow, another important goal.

Boxer lives in a real world. She tries to be effective. I respect that.

So, you, Jane, are the one who was clueless tonight.

But forget that. We all make mistakes. The reason that your post was such a terrible mistake is that it was so mean. Including the picture — as you know, and intended. (Admit that, at least.)

One of the things hold back the development of liberal blogs as an alternative to the mass media is a lack of trust by establishment folks. Believe it or not, there is a lot of info about what goes on in the govt that never gets serious coverage in the media. It should.

I have gone to MYDD and to the Next Hurrah ranting that some universites should set up a permanent blog (rotating students) to try to bring organized information gathering. Not likely to happen any time soon.

But some issues could get greater coverage if establishment folks would trust the liberal blogs enough to send info out. But they are cautious and traditional and probably a bunch of other things.

Outbursts like tonight — viciously attacking a senator for not attacking a colleague publicly — just discredit you and, by extension, other liberal bloggers trying to establish a certain institutional role.

In short, if you are going to have a role in the public discourse, you need to adopt a public role. FDL is not just your private rant space.

Or, if it is, FDL will be less than it could be.

I’m sorry about that. I check this site many times every day.

Sharkbabe @ #162:

We aren’t alone. The entire Congress isn’t worthless. Think of reps Henry Waxman and John Conyers. Both have been working tirelessly and thanklessly against the dark side for a long, long time. I say we need to embrace our friends and work with ‘em. They are some good minds and hearts we don’t want to throw out.

immanentize (168) — Heh. I’m one helluva long ways from being a mere set of hands or a piggy bank now, and so are my peeps. It takes a shockingly small amount of effort to OWN the process locally and begin to shake things up at state level. It takes only that and a fundraiser to make someone or a group a “valued partner” at state and national level. I think what’s needed here is a connection between the things that need to be changed and what we know works.

And we definitely know who is supposed to be on the appropriate end of the boss-underling equation. Maybe it’s time to wave the paycheck under their noses…

Jenny from the Blog (171) — you go! It is an incredible shame that we have arrived at a point when an elected official doing the right thing by the American people is such a damned rarity and requires such hot house cultivation.

Pacifica (173) — I’ll point back to my comment upthread; there’s something wrong when a Senator like Boxer is smart enough to post at DailyKos, but doesn’t actually read the content at that site. Begins to look like pandering…

The hot sheet is a great idea, but I point to DaouReport as an example of how one both works and fails. I just checked memorandum.com, and it also has nothing on the front page on Lieberman OR Lamont. Means we have another issue at work here that needs to be addressed.

al-Scooter (175) — Boxer’s friendship with Joe-mentum cannot come before her loyalty to her constituents and the American people. It cannot come before her obligations to a majority of Americans who are women, to a majority of voters who do not support this war, both issues on which her friend is clearly wrong, let alone his laser-like focus on supporting the POTUS.

jwp

I might agree with you if the Democratic Party had acted like an opposition party anytime in the last 5 1/2 years but they haven’t and that includes Barbara Boxer. No one says that Boxer needs to bash Lieberman or endorse his opponent but neither does she have to overtly endorse him or compromise her own record by misstating his.

Sen. Boxer has put quite a bit of herself into some pretty serious issues like, for example, the war. If you folks think that the big thing on her mind is the CT primary, then you’re the ones in the bubble. Was it a poorly-chosen response? Indeed it was, but I think that a woman who has won a California senate seat and been right at the forefront of some progressive issues deserves quite a bit better than what she’s gotten here. Harry Ried is pro-life, right? What’re you going to smack him over the head with?

Jane,

It was great to see you and Christi on C-Span….after reading your posts for a while its nice to put a face and voice with the online personality……and I think its great that you can be so sweet and yet tell people to fuck off when needed. I absolutely think that when we disagree with a postition of someone like Boxer….on Lieberwarmonger, we need to let her know.

I’d side with the “out of touch” view on this. You’d be amazed just how much our representatives in Washington don’t know about what is the “hot topic” amongst the online set. That doesn’t mean they are idiots. It just means that they have a lot of things vying for the attention and sometimes things just slip through.

OT *ilson check updated mod com.

This has been such an interesting discussion. Brings out the conflict of how change will in fact happen. With the representatives we have playing politics as usual? Or with reps who are willing to break the rules and speak the truth? They’ll have to break the age old paradigms and that takes guts. In the short term they could lose their jobs.

It’s always play along to get along. Maybe I’m a dreamer but change has gotta come and I’m sorry, but I don’t think it’s gonna come from this bunch. I like this site and I’m gonna come back here for the great commenters.

jim preston (196) — a single, poorly worded comment may have been enough to lose Francine Busby a tie if not a win in CA-50. Seasoned pols understand this.

Chris Andersen (198) — ditto that. Imagine my shock, when calling my Senator on the Real ID Act, asking him to vote against it in spring 2004, finding out I was the ONLY Democratic constituent in a state with 10 million residents to call and ask about this bill, that only one Republican had called and asked them to vote FOR the bill…means we aren’t doing a good job of getting through. And as you’ve said, they don’t always know about concerns, have also found when calling my Senators that I know more about the issue than they do.

I’ll accept that when it’s an arcane issue, but not when it’s one that affects more than 50% of Americans.

Jane, what you’re facing is whether or not it’s possible to make headway under the two-party system, which has outlived its purpose in dealing with america’s problems & needs — if you implicitly accept the way things are, you’re going to be stuck with defeat — for instance, look at alito, who passed through the senate as if he walked on water.
Our constitution, which everybody treats as being sacred, was never signed: it was witnessed but not signed — moreover, it makes no mention of a two-party system.

I listened to Boxer on C-SPAN. She was unprepared, appeared to be reading he remarks for the first time, and was in “Let’s not go after the President when there is so much more important work to do” mode. She’s spoke like a politician, not like the fighter she can be. That crowd deserved a lot more.

Rayne #194:

Before prescribing therapy, it usually helps to have a diagnosis.

I said that Boxer was wrong, so we want her to change. The question is how. It might be that she needs more/better information, or it might be that she needs to be confronted about her priorities. Those are different responses with different requirements.

IMVHO, throwing a tantrum on a board that she and her staff obviously don’t read isn’t likely to improve the outcome. But that’s just me.

I think, based on some of the posts I have read here tonight, that Boxer is not the only one who is clueless.

jwp at 192:

First – we all have jobs to one extent or another. We all function within some kind of environment where we are expected to get things done – and yet: we all somehow manage to be informed on issues that are of great importance, and I venture to guess most of us do not have aides and assistants and people who can devote their time to helping us do our jobs and stay informed.

Second, no one – that I am aware of from what Jane posted – asked Boxer to bash anyone; her remarks appear to have been totally voluntary. There were a universe of things she could have said about Joe Lieberman that would not have showcased her lack of information about her fellow club member.

Third, no one asked her to endorse Lamont, and I have yet to read anyone who has taken her to task for not doing so. But a swing voter might be swayed by a female Senator touting the incumbent as strong on women’s issues. That Lieberman is shockingly weak in that area is where she let the voters of Connecticut down.

Fourth, what loyalty test? She flunked a pretty big question on the reality test – the one where she’s expected to know how her good friend positions himself on women’s issues.

Fifth, I live in the real world, and so do the majority of the people who post here. Boxer probably has to work harder to stay in touch with the real world from the bubblicious club that is the United States Senate, but that’s part of her job.

Sixth, if there’s one thing Jane has a great supply of, it’s clues.

Seventh, what struck you as “mean,” was righteous anger that after the hard work of so many who advocate for women every day, Boxer opens her mouth and wedges her foot in it. The picture may be of Boxer just prior to the foot insertion. Mean? No – a striking visual.

Finally, I can’t speak for the rest of the folks here, but I would happily chip in to help buy the clues you so desperately need.

/rant

Harsh on Boxer. She represents, on an only slightly smaller scale, what we’re fighting to remove from the governance of the people of this country: thoughtless allegiance to a destructive status quo. Fuck ‘em.

Jane,

People like Boxer live in the Washington bubble, and are probably clueless about just how dissastisfied the blogosphere is with Joe Lieberman.
I think we are going to have to accept that in many ways we are ahead of the game here, better informed and a step in front of even our best elected representatives.

Um…..question for the lawyers here. Does not the first Amendment cover political speech…I know it says “the right of citizens to peacably assemble…” But would it not then make a slowing down of the net (unless you could pay the freight) an unconstitutional law, afterall, what is FDL but political speech? In this company (not kidding) I feel pretty stupid asking a question like that, but anyway, I just did

Hi Anne!!! Late and I am tired, but I just wanted to give you a wave. Nice comment.

Jane, your comments are just plain mean. Boxer is not probably glued to your posts on Lieberman, so don’t fault her on this. She is busy serving HER constituents, not following CT politics, peobably. You would get further with her understanding about Liberman if your language were less hostile. It was a bit too personal, and doesn’t serve the argument, which is to find a way to enlighten her. You catch more flies with honey…….

Hey, VG – back at ya!

Will be on in the morning, so I am heading off to bed (if I keep reading here, I am going to be too jazzed to sleep).

What is Plan B if net neutrality doesn’t pass?

Is there an opening for a new ISP that doesn’t limit the flow of packages or whatever it is that streams the information we get?

I appreciate the best option is not to have to have a plan b but does anyone know a workaround?

Bionic at 76

There is no plan B. The issue is the backbone providers. While I purchase my DSL service from Covad, my traffic rides on Verizon copper and Verizon fiber. If Verizon discriminates against packets, then there is nothing I can do. Even if you’re coming in from a more obscure source, your packets end up on traveling on the backbone.

Longer term, one could imagine Google buying up and lighting dark fiber. One could imagine a gradual build-up of public wi-fi leading to a government funded backbone. But those are 5 to 10 year projects, at best.

You should also keep something in mind. Losing net neutrality doesn’t, IMO, endanger blogs, which serve mostly text. It will hurt advertising revenue, though, if they’re not allowed to keep up with embedded video. And all these keen embedded videos that are popping up all over might be in danger.

But, without question, this is a seriously important issue. The only people who benefit from eliminating this fundamental tenet of the internet–that all packets are equal–are the national telecommunications companies. There is absolutely no public benefit to eliminating net neutrality.

Anne,

I think the world of you, your insights are excellent and I always enjoy reading your posts, but….

Unless we’re ready to mass along the Mall in D.C. and storm the gate with pitchforks (which I’ve endorsed here wholeheartedly on several occasions btw), we’re going to have to work with the shitty elected Democrats that we’ve got. Barbara Boxer is among the best of that bunch. Calling her an idiot (instead of a liar) is going too far. Jane throws bombs and I love her for it, but this one went too far. IMHO.

David at #125

Oh, I agree that calling bullshit for what it is is vital. Didn’t mean that telling Boxer she was WRONG big-time was mean-spirited or self-righteous. What I meant was I don’t like to see us insulting her (or anyone) and savaging everything about her character on the basis of one comment (that could have been an uninformed mistake) the way the right would. Uproar? Yes. Flogging? Not yet. If she comes out and says we’re full of shit for calling her on this then we have more reason for showing ire, but I’m willing to see what happens now that she’s been set straight. I’m hoping (but not expecting) that there will be something conciliatory from her on this.

If Boxer doesn’t know how she feels about Leiberman without reading the blogs, well, that’s kinda sad. Doesn’t give her much credit either. I don’t really think she believes Leiberman is good for women. She just didn’t think anyone would catch on to the ridiculousness of that statement.

If there’s a reason for her to read the blogs, this is it. Not to figure out what Leiberman stands for or how to couch her opinion of him when she’s addressing a progressive group.

Eh, she’s a political animal like I said above. One of our best, sadly.

who is JWP?

and what is this nonsense about apologizing, as if….as if barbara boxer is some kind of mafia don who needs to be shown ‘respect’? certainly, as an elected public official, she should be big enough to countenance a little public criticism.

or must we all kiss her ring?

i don’t see anything inappropriate about the “clueless” post. the author is not wrong in what she is expressing, is she? quite right, in fact. besides, she will pay the ultimate price when she doesn’t receive an invitation later this year to barbara’s inevitable free booze for bloggers bash.

this site is great because it is so honest – that’s where the real power of it all resides. letting political calculation impact how you express yourself really just puts you in the same camp as the MSM.

She’s my senator and I reminded her that I’ve supported her in the past, but on “Rape Gurney” Joe, we part company. In the letter to her, I explained why Connecticut NARAL and Planned Parenthood was critical of Liberman.

I also pointed out that Liberman was the reason I won’t donate to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and that what I would have given them has gone to folks like Ned Lamont (Ciro, Bernie, etc). Even if we loose his seat–I don’t want one dime of my money supporting the bastard.

I pointed out that we were better off with an enemy (a Repug) in Joe’s seat, than an extremist the press could call a moderate and then use him to club the rest of us. He has repeatedly stabbed all of us in the back and gives them an excuse to hammer those of us who don’t agree with him. Needless to say, none of us need to remind her that he voted to invoke cloture on Scalito.

For the life of me, I just can’t figure why she’d do this, or be this stupid. Today, she lost alot of respect, in not just my eyes.

al-Scooter (204) — then in the interest of waiting for a diagnosis, let’s not attribute the puzzling oddity of Boxer’s behavior to friendship with Joe-mentum.

I’ll point again to my comments upthread: if Boxer’s savvy enough to post on DailyKos, but doesn’t read the content there, is she willfully ignoring the netroots/grassroots on Lieberman and pandering at the same time?

The biggest single Democratic website and forum on the entire internet (with a daily readership that rivals NYT or WaPo) that also acts as an aggregtor, makes it all too clear there’s a major problem with Lieberman on a regular and systematic basis — and she’s not on the same page? Diagnose at will, but it’s still not looking good for Boxer.

“It’s not looking good for Boxer.”

I agree.

So what are you going to do about it? And why that course of action and not some other?

rayne 218 -

if Boxer’s savvy enough to post on DailyKos, but doesn’t read the content there, is she willfully ignoring the netroots/grassroots on Lieberman and pandering at the same time?

I doubt she spends any time reading the blogs, but her staff should. She knows how we feel — you can bet the farm on it. I’d have to go with choice (b)… she’s pandering.

pointedhead 216 -

this site is great because it is so honest – that’s where the real power of it all resides. letting political calculation impact how you express yourself really just puts you in the same camp as the MSM.

That’s what I was trying to say earlier, but you said it better!

Renato, rwcole %u2014 I’ll just shut up with my girl issues and stand over in the corner.

good lord was that called for??

why are you dragging that into this?

Would someone mind telling me how you indent the someone’s comment when you want to reference? I always use the italic, but I like the neat look of the boxed indent.

Don’t forget that Joe Lieberman has a history of hedging his bets. He ran for VP and Senator at the same time, to assure himself of a job whether Gore won or lost. To me it showed lack of commitment, and after election day he undercut Gore at every turn as Gore challenged the results. Why not? He got to keep being a senator, and Gore was out of work.

I like Barbara Boxer, though she’s wrong on Lieberman. I think that you can make an argument that Lieberman used to be good on women’s issues; in the past he was more strongly pro-choice than he is today, now he just wants to be a player, which requires him to position himself half way between the two sides and try to get everyone to suck up to him. Despite his obnoxious politics and his Holy Joe persona, word is that Lieberman is quite a nice guy in person, and I’m sure that Barbara Boxer considers him a friend. Her staff let her down in not alerting her about the strong pro-Lamont leanings of the YearlyKos crowd.

Try block quote

might work….does work, but not the way it says it does! I put something between the quotes, and it didn’t show. This did.

Joe Buck 223

Her staff let her down in not alerting her about the strong pro-Lamont leanings of the YearlyKos crowd.

Not to be argumentative or too purist, but I’d prefer a politician not come into a certain setting armed with a tailored view just for the occasion. That’s why I’m wondering what all the fuss is about Boxer not being ‘briefed’ about the Kos community’s feelings about Leiberman.

She must have formulated an opinion about Joe’s views and the damage he’s doing to the party. Sure, we’d all be feeling better about her tonight if she had been a bit more circumspect about her support for him, but I’d really like to know what she thinks.

I think she said what she means. She thinks Joe is A-OK.

Cynic 224 -

Thank you. I’ll try it sometime soon!

Jenny:
blockquote works, but the block seems to be what follows it, not what follows cite=”" so use the previw button, because at this time of night, I’m too tired to gin up an example of the syntax.

Lieberman is the kind of person we were warned about as children. The man of the world who purports to be a man of God.

He is poison; the kind of thing you find underneath a rock. And if the abortion issue were not bad enough, is it not worse that he voted for this monstrous piece of venality, treason, and cynicism that is the war – and that he continues to justify his support for it?

That being said, how in the world can Boxer show up at a blogosphere convention in support of… Joe Lieberman? What’s fucking wrong with her? All things considered, I think “clueless” is probably a very generous way of putting it. It’s like showing up at Woodstock in defense of Henry Jackson.

Right on, Barbara.

More to the point, why should she be spared criticism? Just because she flattered the blogosphere by showing up at their event? I would think it’s much more Barbara Boxer’s responsibility to get back in touch with humanity then it is J.H’s responsibility to keep her mouth shut.

Besides, I like J.H. best when she is mean.

And foul mouthed.

Cynic -

I’ll ask again when we’re all refreshed, ha!… because actually I don’t know how to do a block quote! I’ll limp along with the italics for now…

/chagrin

al-Scooter (219) — could ask you the same thing.

My immediate problem is making sure my two Senators aren’t going to make the same gaffes. I’m pretty damned certain that one of the two of them is aware of the netroots/grassroots position, having an excellent net strategist on board. The other is a question mark and will get a phonecall early Monday morning on this matter and on net neutrality.

And I’ll also be asking the question mark if he’s got any suggestions on how to handle the Boxer sitch…which just might tell me how to handle the same problem with them, if it should happen.

Mr.Murder (230) — with all due respect, the grassroots in CT have already been trying to get throught to Joe-mentum, but his own staff admit he hasn’t been “home” for six years. How does this give evidence of respect of representative democracy to his constituents?

Joe-mentum has also heard often from his constituents — albeit remotely — in protest of his position in alignment with the White House. His comments on emergency contraception should have drawn a hailstorm of angry feedback, let alone his continued support for the Iraq War.

And Boxer just plain gets his back automatically, when he clearly is not in alignment with much of what she stands for?

Commentary at this site could have been far, far worse.

Boxer could have simply said she believes in the democratic (little d) process, and in the constituents of CT — or changed the subject with the reporter, by asking why they weren’t concentrating on the netroots and grassroots. This wasn’t her first rodeo.

Jenny from the Blog – If you’re still here, you use the blockquote tag same as you’d use the italics tag:

<BLOCKQUOTE>text here</BLOCKQUOTE>

Just remember, when using tags, always use Preview.

I’m one of her constituents. She’s not the sharpest tack on the corkboard, but I vote for her nevertheless.

I hear Satan is a really sharp guy.

I’m inclined to cut Senator Boxer some slack here — this is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.

While it would have been nice if Boxer had parsed her language in a way that would make us happy, in doing so she could have created an even bigger problem. There is no way a Democratic Senator can openly diss a fellow Democratic Senator by supporting a primary rival, without creating huge problems.

Better that she slice it on the side of decorum and take her lumps from us, than blow up the comity of the DSCC caucus. It’s our job to transform the DSCC from an incumbent protection racket to a Democratic core values interest group — but that will take time, and if Lamont is the real deal, he will win no matter how many endorsements Lieberman corrals.

Remember — only two US Senators vote in Connecticut.

My two cents . . .

Murder, Inc. – FDL is not a political party. It is not about co-opting, or triangulation, or building allies. It is about honesty and best effort interpretation of the world. It is a blog. And if politicians are starting to court the people behind it, albeit awkwardly, it’s only because they are terrified of the brutal honesty of the medium. They want to feed it with sweets, liquor it up, befriend it. They want a friend in the blogosphere. But this is a match made in Hell.

My advice to everyone, in light of this, is to give up on the delusions of power and influence and go back to telling the truth. In the end, that’s the only place you’ll find your power anyway.

JWR -

Jenny from the Blog – If you’re still here, you use the blockquote tag same as you’d use the italics tag

Well, thank you!

ck – good point, but she still has to take her lumps.

JWR –

I copy pasted your blockquote thingy, and got this:

text here

how did you make it appear as text and symbols, without the arrow key blockquote conversion?

ck 235-

As Rayne says, This wasn’t her first rodeo. She really is a media pro. I’m not sure why she said what she said in the way she said it – She could’ve done a lot better by her progressive constituency without seeming to ‘diss’ Leiberman in the process. Clueless is the best explanation. Although it’s hard to fathom, there it is.

Barbara Boxer is one of the most progressive and outspoken Democrats we’ve got. I am not sure what your goal is by calling her an idiot or a liar, but frankly it troubles me. It may be that I have just grown tired of the intellectual purity demanded by Republicans and am loathe to see it duplicated on the Left, but please stop it.

Jenny –

As I tried to say, for Boxer to slice the salami in a way that would have made us happy was far more dangerous than saying she supports Senator Lieberman. Holding the Democratic Caucus together is paramount — making bloggers happy is secondary.

I posted my response at the President Boxer blog.

ck -

I understand what you’re saying about slicing the salami and I don’t know the answer. Certainly Boxer was being politically expedient and she’ll deftly handle the blowback from the blogging community. All in all, this episode will be forgotten quickly.

And btw, I’d help you with the blockquote thing but I put it together in a really primitive way, with a copy and paste of BLOCKQUOTE on each end. I’m sure that’s not the way it’s supposed to be done. Quite cumbersome….

ck- I harken back, once again, to Cujo359’s lessons one Late-Nite:

Typing &lt; will get you a < symbol

Typing &gt; will get you a > symbol

I hope that’s clear enough. If not, see the link above for a more thorough discussion. (Or just ask. ;-)

she can’t have her cake and eat it and she shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it either.

if she didn’t think she would be able to throw holy man under the bus, she should at least have been prepared for the consequences.

and if she is surprised by the consequences, then it seems fair to call her clueless.

quod erat demonstrandum.

in either case, the real apology seems to be owed to JH.

what bothers me about all these “calls for apologies” is that it is exactly the same kind of slutty, servile, power worshipping censorship that you see in the MSM.

PointedHead 247 -

Nobody should apologize to Boxer! That would be horrific and it won’t happen — she’ll have to find her own way out of it.

She made a snap judgement who to toss over the side of the boat and it was us. We’ll be watching her wriggle her way out of this mini PR disaster in a flash.

Mistah M # 178 – Forgive me but your name/handle has me so-on-red-alert I cannot even spell it out.

Just so you know I like Senator Boxer, for whom I never fail to campaign for, enrich her campaign coffers and all that good stuff. I am a democrat to the bone & was delighted she visited YKos.

After all, she represents me oh so much more than Di-Fi ever has, at least to date. Knowing her so long it won’t surprise me if she nudges one of her trusted staff to poll the Joe/Ned issue and make a decision.

BTW, I am happy she had professional help for her novel….not only employed an experienced writer she kept her focus on her day job in these perilous times…err Senate…errr nation…errr planet.

Like many in the U.S. Senate she has a lot of explain’ to do and at the least, it will be interesting to watch how long it takes for her to pull herself out of the doghouse and fired-up netroots.

Is the entire Democratic party suffering from Stockholm Syndrome?

I’m just asking, you know, because if not, then there is no known universe — not even an evil parallel one — in which Boxer’s endorsement of Lieberman makes any sense whatsoever.

Lieberman has spent the last 3 years defending the indefensible. He is now fully vested in both the policies and the crimes of George W Bush. That Lieberman should be thrown under the bus is indesputable.

So I can’t believe all this is news to Boxer. Boxer’s endorsement of Lieberman is likewise indefensible. If she didn’t really mean it, she shouldn’t really have said it. If she did mean it, then she really is, as you say, clueless. Either way, it’s not good. So what to do?

Well, the question I have is this: Can she be rehabilitated? Will she listen? I really don’t have much patience for such remedial education at this point but I’m willing to let others try.

But I have to tell you that it is statements like Boxer’s and parties like Warner’s that make me think the Democrats have come to Las Vegas not to court the bloggers, but rather to assimilate them.

I’m not sure why she said what she said in the way she said it

Are you referring to the she who asked “Why are you so interested in Lieberman?…” or the she who wrote “… she snapped.”? I think Jane is mistaken to say that someone who was asking for more information “snapped” and is “clueless”. I think Jane has also made a mistake because she has further marginalized supporters of the morning after pill because she has called one of the supporters of the morning after pill “clueless.” I wonder if Jane has thought about the impact of Boxer supporting Lieberman’s opponent would have on her working relationship with Joe (which is hopefully short).

Anyways, Jane, forget that I called your choice of words into question. Will you blogroll me?

yoo hoo….full moon folks. Take a breath and look out, look up.

Ed N Sted:

Very… Well Sed!

In the end, what’s the point of supporting a Democratic Party that, in turn, supports someone like Joe Lieberman?

Stockholm Syndrome made me laugh. But the truth is, this is much more like Vichy under Petain.

I do believe turning on her colleague would be awkward for Barbara.

As Barbara and DiFi are both working for the people of California, Barbara couldn’t turn on DiFi without dissing her own employers.

Barbara and Gurney Joe work in the same building.

Gurney Joe works to destroy the freedoms of Barbara’s employers.

If Barbara sacrfices her employers’ well-being in order to help her co-worker, does she expect a bonus?

Thanks, Jane and firepuppies. I wish Barbara and DiFi (and Nancy) were reminded of their collusion every friggin’ day.

In public. At every Yearly Kos. On Daily Kos every day.

Wherever they collaborate with the pollution-pimping war-loving hate-spewing corporate-fellating apocalyptic nut jobs who have conspired to steal elections and subvert the Constitution.

Good on ya’ firepups for educating my Senator. (Will y’all please get after my Rep. Nancy? … she can be found in the remedial section for Majority Leaders)

If Barbara doesn’t like what she finds in the mirror we hold up to her, she’s the only one who can change it.

[ps - this may be an fdl temporal paradox (textual paradox?), but this comment was lifted from the thread above. no anti-tachyons were harmed in this reversal of epu threadtime.]

Kirk #255

Bravo maestro!

You do wonder how smart these people are. Surely the sensible thing is to say that while you like Joe and have enjoyed working with him over the years, the matter is entirely one for the people of CT to decide?

Politics is the art of the possible. I want impeachment of the war criminal Bush now but hardly any Democrats are willing to go out on that limb at the moment (It might change by next summer). Vinegar. Honey. Flies. Asking Sen. Boxer her opinion on the pharmacist “morality” cop-out and then following up with asking her if she knew the difference between Lieberman’s and Lamont’s positions is a grassroots form of push polls and more likely to convince her to your way of thinking. A couple of questions could have convinced Sen. Boxer of why she needed Lamont. Combative and leading questions made her voice support of a colleague out of courtesy – a Lakoff no-no btw. Yes, it is politics but she is a politician. She didn’t want to be the sound bite that Connecticut Republicans use in October if Rape Gurney Joe is the candidate. No one pays attention to me so I can say Rape Gurney Joe all day and Connecticut Republicans won’t quote me.

Also, keep in mind, the Senate is the most highly paid debating club in the world. She gave you the sound bite she would have to defend herself against and the best you could come up with is “clueless.” You failed her; she didn’t fail you.

Finding fault with Boxer for endorsing a sitting colleague elected by his constituents is missplaced criticism.

You want to dump Boxer because she isn’t sufficiently progressive for you? Those same Connecticut women voted FOR Joe Lieberman, not against him. Their votes put him in office, not Barbara Boxer.

There is a feeling among some progressive bloggers that politics is a drive-thru experience, and that if you don’t get served what you personally want, the whole world is to blame.

Such bullshit. Show a little respect for one of the exceptional U.S. Senators. A lot of progressives in red states would kill to have someone like Barbara Boxer representing them.

Smarmy headline, petulant attack on an outstanding woman.

Can I say how great it is that we are NOT an echo chamber? …no one felt the need to fall in line, to echo the position of our hostess.
Does that happen in a lot of other places? I don’t think so.

That’s why this is my favorite progressive blog, though I read about 4 in all daily. I think there’s a subtle difference in a blog that’s run by women – a bit more welcoming, a bit less hierarchical.

I was also musing this weekend about YKos, and dKos, which I’ve been active in for several years. It’s unfortunate that the blog (and now the movement, essentially) should be named/branded after an individual. This isn’t about any one person, in the long run; it’s a community. And it could never sustain itself without the ongoing participation of its community members. But we can’t seem to break away from our interest in the celebrity culture, even here in the blogsphere.

Some of you seem to have missed the point that Boxer’s exchange took place not with someone from “our” corner of the playground, but with Tim Curry from MSNBC, which I think is still MSM.

FDL is a place of honesty; we get it from Jane and Christy and Pach and TRex and all the guest bloggers, and we strive to maintain and preserve that honesty in our responses. When that is the environment in which one functions, incidents of dishonesty, or ignorance, are not well-tolerated. If we call each other on it, why would we not call Boxer on it? Should we hold her to a different standard? Try to find ways to excuse or rationalize her comments?

It isn’t that we don’t appreciate the good work she has done – not at all. For me, anyway, I worry that in making the factually incorrect remarks she did, she diminishes – in some measure – her own credibility. I don’t want the few Senators with backbone to lose any ground in this fight, not now that there is hope for a change.

Senator Boxer’s e-mails are much better written than the speech she gave which was somewhat disappointing but I’ve cheered her remarks many other times on various issues.

OT to Ed Deevy (62), yours’ is the first mention I’ve heard about we barbarians destroying one of the great cultures in this world. More people should realize how shameful this is, like everything we have done to Iraq and Iraqis.

Can we hope that Sen. Boxer or one of her staffers has read all of the above — a free and open, fact-based debate? This is the educational window she needs and we can provide. But are we getting through?

Can we hope that Sen. Boxer or one of her staffers has read all of the above %u2014 a free and open, fact-based debate? This is the educational window she needs and we can provide. But are we getting through?

I’d much rather the Senator or her staffers be sent links to one of Jane’s excellent prior posts outlining Loserman’s positions on issues relevant to women and the reactions of groups such as NARAL, PP, etc. This one is deeply disappointing.

Pointhead is quiteright. In fact the entire DLC is Vichy under Petain.

The real question is this: Why did Boxer come to the Yearly Kos?

Simple.

SHE THINKS WE CAN BE PLAYED!!!!!!

Props to Hillary for at least having the decency of staying the fuck away.

She arrived as modern day Senator and left as a out of touch Washington insider geek.

I had this terrible dream last night that FDL was hijacked by a bunch of Democratic political operatives – you know the kind, the ones that destroyed Al Gore’s campaign.

How can anybody seriously expect the hostess and creator of this site to keep her mouth shut about Barbara Boxer’s support for that monster, Joe Lieberman? Is FDL supposed to be some kind of platform for Democratic party talking points, the way Fox News is for the Republicans?

Besides, what does FDL need Barbara Boxer for? If anything, it is Barbara Boxer who needs the blogosphere, which is why she took the time to crash their event. FDL is not a wing of the Democratic Party and has the glorious luxury of saying whatever it wants.

You want to give that up? For what? Proximity to power? Proximity to Vichy DLC?

“It profit a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for Wales, Richard?”

Pointed Head,

with all due respect, I think you are having a Ralph Nader moment.

By the way, how did that exercise in purity work out for you?

JWP, the pen is mightier than the ballot. You want FDL to become another WaPo or NYT, just with a different political agenda behind it? Honesty, real investigative journalism, telling the truth – this is more revolutionary then anything you could hope to accomplish by posturing and compromising yourself in the political arena.

In my version of history, the whole point about the blogosphere is that it is, first and foremost, a response to failed journalism in this country. The fact that it has a pro-Democratic party patina to it just seems to be an accident, mostly, of time and space.

For me, the point is that Boxer has won me over by taking principled stands on a myriad of issues. She’s become something of a hero to me in the milquetoast world of Senatorial comity and bet hedging. As I asked earlier in the thread, if someone can add more to the list against Boxer than this single incident, I’d like to hear it. I can’t recall many, if any issues on which Barbara Boxer didn’t side with peace, justice and democracy. Now people are pissed that she’s not prepared to publicly abandon Joe Lieberman for the upstart (and superior candidate) Lamont? In the process, she’s been called an idiot. That’s bullshit, and it annoys me that folks that have been paying attention since our ship of state started to sink are ripping one of our best allies.

Look, I know that the legislative branch is a gravytrain of whores and liars, but we don’t have a viable third party and the Boxer’s of the institution are the least of our worries. Let’s stay focused on ousting Lieberman.

I think it is a mistake to make Joe Lieberman the litmous test for the purity of a Democratic Senator. This singlemindedness of issue (abortion rights, which I, by the way favor)is what kills dialogue about the Common Good. We Democrats simply have to be better than the Republicans who are so shrill.

Jane has a tendency to get too hot, at times, and I stopped reading FDL for a time, because of the language which I felt didn’t serve communcation, but interferred with dialogue. I may get flack for saying this, but Jane almost sounded like Ann Coulter’s rants in her post, and it shocked me, because I have such a positive feeling about Barbara Boxer, a real friend to women and the country. Jane should save her venom for Hillary, or the Republicans, who deserve it.

” if someone can add more to the list against Boxer than this single incident”

That reminds me of my all-time favorite Carol Burnett spoof, Mildred Fierce. In the last scene Mildred (Carol) asks the cop (Tim Conway) if he’ll let Vida (Vikie Larence) off for killing Monte (Harvey Korman) because “After all,it was just her first murder!”

As for “a Ralph Nader moment,” that would involve fucking Grover Norquist, would it not?

Margaret you’ve said the magic word — “shrill.”

That means Jane wins.

I’d much rather the Senator or her staffers be sent links to one of Jane’s excellent prior posts outlining Loserman’s positions on issues relevant to women and the reactions of groups such as NARAL, PP, etc. This one is deeply disappointing.

See above, that was done long ago (last night).

But, and this is my only criticism of Jane or bloggers in general (including me), who of us had contacted Boxer in advance to educate her on this issue? I had assumed she knew, and suppose everyone else did too. We should be better organized than that and plan ahead and win! And be prepared for what happens when we win because we had better be.

Let’s learn from this and move forward.

Why should we assume she needed to e brought up to speed on the issues, toys?

Jay, nobody should be spared criticism. That’s what she wants and it’s why she attended the event – to make friends, look like an ally, and – in the end – be spared criticism. Our hostess’ post was a shot across the bow – and a very effective one at that. Thank God she at least gets it.

Boxer’s public support for Lieberman demands public excoriation, regardless of how progressive she is on every other issue. It’s as if McGovern were coming out in support of Scoop Jackson. It’s something that is completely out of step with the moral universe.

By the way, what harm can come from this? Really. Can somebody explain it to me? Barbara Boxer gets angry letters from constituents every week. Why is this any different? If it is because of any pretenses the FDL crowd may harbor about getting in with the kool kidz and the power elite, give it up. It is only the slutty, servile MSM that censors itself in this manner.

Maybe it’s me. Maybe I’m not seeing what some of you are, but let me try to frame this so that you understand what I think the point of Jane’s post was, as well as the points of so many others.

The point was not to try to take down Barbara Boxer. Nowhere in Jane’s post did I see any indication that Jane thinks Barbara Boxer has been bad for California, or bad for her constituents.

There is a pivotal primary race underway in Connecticut. In it, Ned Lamont is challenging Joe Lieberman for a chance to be the Democratic candidate for US Senator. Boxer did what all friends do – she came to the defense of her friend Joe. What is too bad is that she did it by making statements that do not reflect Lieberman’s positions, and cast him as someone he is not. One would think that before Boxer issued her opinion on why Lieberman is facing such a challenge, she would have done her homework. As a woman, especially, she should have made sure that her comments about his stand on women’s issues was factually correct. You’d think that after as many years as she has spent knowing that whatever comes out of her mouth can show up anywhere, she would not have been so careless.

No one expected her to throw Joe under the bus; the “clueless” aspect of this is that she seemed shocked to find out why there was so much interest in Lieberman. My opinion is that if she had known what all the fuss was about, her statement of support would have been more generic.

Boxer’s appearance at YKos wasn’t a spur-of-the-moment thing – she’s been on the schedule for a long time. Did she not prepare beyond a speech? Did no one on her staff brief her on what issues might come up in impromptu interviews in hallways?

It just defies comprehension.

But, just so we’re clear – this was not about how Boxer is representing California.

David,

Boxer not being up to speed on the significant energy and effort that the netroots have put behind placing a bullseye on Lieberman’s back (and that seems to be the big gripe here, that she was not adequately versed on the “war on Holy Joe” being waged by YKos), is being compared, albeit rhetorically, to Vida killing Monte. Sheesh. I’m done with this one, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Good debate though, and I agree with David’s earlier statement that this is all working quite well for the “minority” party as the big checks keep rolling in. It’s enough to make you want to grab these feckless creeps by the shirt and start shaking.

What Anne said.

For my part, I’ve gotten carried away with my contempt for war mongering Joe Lieberman and for a Democratic Party that countenances these kinds of quisling infiltrations.

But Anne is right. The issue here is simply that Boxer made a remark about women supporting Lieberman – which is really clueless in light of what is going on up there. That’s all.

Why should we assume she needed to e brought up to speed on the issues, toys?

Only because Boxer was factually wrong on the issue. See what Anne said in 278.

I like Boxer and will vote for her again. If her seat was at risk I may have a different opinion on whether this post was a good idea.

PointedHead,

I agree that criticism is warranted for every elected representative. This is a democracy and the push and pull of the opposing wishes of constituents is what all elected officials need to balance. This one got to me though because “idiot” and “liar” cross the line from fair criticism to personal attacks and name-calling. Boxer deserves better, I think she’s earned it.

“Boxer’s appearance at YKos wasn’t a spur-of-the-moment thing – she’s been on the schedule for a long time. Did she not prepare beyond a speech? Did no one on her staff brief her on what issues might come up in impromptu interviews in hallways?”

BINGO!

“It just defies comprehension.”

Actually it doesn’t — for reasons that I’ve already mentioned.

Boxer’s pretense that Lieberman is good for women is sickening.

“Boxer deserves better, I think she’s earned it.”

She’s earned precisely what she got from Jane.

Jay – Boxer purportedly says that “all of the oppostion to Lieberman is just based on his support of the war” as if this is some kind of trivial non-issue? As if the war is just an abstact talking point that lacks any direct bearing on our lives, our Treasury, and the lives of millions of others around the world? That’s the first problem.

Regarding the idiot/liar remark, I still find the logic difficult to escape. Either Boxer didn’t know how women felt about Lieberman, or her staff didn’t do their research and inform her, or she is lying about it.

In light of this, “incompetent” would have been a better choice of words. But it’s all just as bad in the end.

How dare Boxer not genuflect before the power of prominent lefty bloggers? A shunning! I call for a shunning! And a pithy rebuke from celebrity-suckup and part-time contrarian bomb thrower David E.

we do need to be careful about the rhetoric we use. it can drive away people we need for the cause. we can be more consistent and measured in our critique, especially when it concerns people who have a generally progressive mind bent.
that said, boxer did defend jomentum with false assertions. her’s was somewhat a kneejerk reaction. this could be a caught-off-guard identification with the subject response. surely there must be a way to reach people inside the beltway in a meaningful way. that should continue to be a very high priority for all of us to work towards sorting out.

cultofpersecution – what is this strained orwellian inversion all about? it is precisely the other way around.

besides, boxer’s remark didnt’ reflect an unwillingness to suck up; it was just plain stupid.

We’re really not asking for genuflecting – just for Boxer to know what the facts are would have been sufficient.

how in the world is the blog going to ‘drive away’ someone like barbara boxer? think about it. whether or not the blogs are nit-picky with the likes of barbara boxer, they are still – at the moment at least – the greatest ally that most of these democrats have.

the honesty and directness and mercilessness of the blogs will pull democrats and others up. it is not the other way around.

286 followed me in here from Cathy Seipp’s blog.

Do him a favor and piss on him.

The Democrats are perhaps the most pathetic opposition party the world has ever seen. I say this with sincere conviction. I say this as a person who has voted mostly Democratic for more than 30 years. For the past several years, the Republicans and their media infrastructure have led the Democrats around like a pig on a nose ring. The Democratic leadership then smears lipstick on this sickly pig and declares it to be a viable alternative when nothing could be farther from the truth.

To those of you who have pointed out that it would be difficult if not impossible for Boxer to pick a fight with a fellow Dem committee member, I understand that. However, it would not be too much to ask that she demonstrate an understanding of the issues and not give a blanket endorsement to Lieberman. Lieberman must go.

We don’t have to throw Boxer under the bus but we do have to let her know how we feel. Because asking all of us who are offended at Boxer’s remarks to remain silent is like asking us to now kiss the this lipstick enhanced pig. And speaking strictly for myself, I don’t kiss pigs. Change will not come until we demand it.

SING OUT LOUISE!!!

We are so deep into fascism at this point that you cannot excuse a single mistake by a senator at this point. How many times have we seen senators vote against what the people want? Do you remember the first year of Obama? How about Salazer? Remember it was Salazer who orchestrated the coverup at Columbine in conjunction with Reno. Listen to the latest interview with the Columbine victims over at http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Piper/0….._Piper.mp3

BTW, congrats on your success. I remember when you were lucky to get 10 comments. Now you’re getting 200! Wow.

Boxer isn’t running for anything, so slamming her like this doesn’t make any difference in her “chances” at the ballot box, unlike the episodes of going after Dem candidates for their congenital foot in mouth disease, which most certainly do have an effect, if only marginal, on the Dem candidates who are chewed up both by the hate media and our own forces.

And Barbara is a very sturdy politician. She can take it, and she can dish it out. Hard, hot, and heavy. Thank goodness.

So everybody who is into trashing her, just take note. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

But more to the point, if Barbara is wrong about Lieberman, as I believe she is, it would be a lot better to educate her than to insult her. While she has obviously not been brought fully up to date on the Lieberman Crisis, she and her staff actually do pay attention to minimally polite (it doesn’t have to be suck up) discourse on things that are important to her constituents and to the nation, and I’m sure she or her staff would listen if they were approached about this with somewhat less rancor than we see in some of the posts here.

On the other hand, keep it up and don’t be surprised if she flicks those who insist on insulting her away like flies.

Really.

Let me think of the ghastly possibility that Ned won’t unseat Lieberman. The netroots won’t be happy about that, and are not going to be knocking on the doors in Connecticuit. Will people urge his defeat? Support a third-party candidate? Sometimes, you have to just focus on the fact, I suggest, that he has a (D) after his name, and in that way, if we take back the Senate by 51-49, say, that “D” is not an ideological mark — if our favorite senators were all we had, there’d be, what, 12 D’s in the Senate? Um, the way you play the game, if there’s 51 of the same party as our favorite 12, we get to run the committees and draft the bills and all that stuff. Sure, work for better candidates. I’m with you 100%. But the moment netroots starts putting everybody to an ideological “test,” then I seen all this before in the ’60s. If a Lieberman votes the right way even 70% of the time, that’s better than if he was Tom Delay.

And yes, Go Lamont!

Boxer is like all the incumbent Democrats. They are seriouosly frightened of what they are up against. They have never seen opposition so hateful, so viscious, so willing to destroy the constitution, so eager to steal elections.

The elected Dems aren’t sure in their hearts that they can beat these people. That’s why they rely on the sorry-ass consultants who will say what they want to hear in soothing tones. “Don’t worry, we can triangulate this. Don’t step out of line, follow the talking points.”

But the people of this country have had enough of that kind of lilly-livered leadership. Either the incumbent Dems stand up and fight honestly for what is right, or they are going to lose their jobs. And I say that as a life-long, major-donor Dem.

I understand why Boxer might be loyal to Lieberman. But I do not accept it. Her loyalty should be to me, her constituent and to the constitution she swore to uphold.

This isn’t a tea party, and I’m not afraid to hurt her feelings. There are serious issues at stake here – hell the whole future of this country is at stake. She and the rest of the Dems need to understand what is going on. Now.

#299, I see that you are angry at the state of our country right now. On that I agree with you. However, many of us, especially here, including Boxer, believe in what created this country and will continue to fight for the ideals our forefathers believed in and died to create.

You have some bad info for sure. Maybe if you informed yourself you could join in and help in the just cause we are fighting for.

Members of “the most exclusive club in the world” (the U.S. Senate – 100 members) do not crab about their fellow members. Who among the Club do you think is going to hang out a fellow Clubber to dry? Please cite me one U.S. Senator who has said anything – something – negative about their fellow Clubberion, Lieberman.
Put another way: “You can only sell out your friends.” That’s right folks, we don’t get sold out by our opponents. So please stand by to get sold out in Connecticut, among other places.
Sad, sad, sad…but more than likely true.

The fact is that women in Connecticut are NOT happy with Joe Liebeman on their issues. In fact the head of Connecticut NARAL and Connecticut Planned Parenthood are EXTREMELY upset about Rape Gurney Joe telling rape victims to take a hike (literally) . . .
Women in CT who have heard that are definitely not happy about that. In fact, most Catholic women I know–who have heard– think Lieberman’s statement is disgusting. It just goes to show how Joe likes to swing dangerously with the extremists and is *not* a middle of the road kind of guy.
Heh! Will Boxer be sending constituents a letter on Joe’s “fabulous” record with seniors, while he talks about privatizing social security and tangoes with Big Pharma and all that . . .? I wonder.

considering Lieberman’s wife is a lobbyist for Big Pharma, one can actually say that Joe is in bed with Big Pharma !

I can’t help but think do OUR Democrat leaders hear us at all?
We have been saying the same things for MONTHS now and it makes me feel like they have not heard a word we’ve been saying!

To me, the issue with Lieberman is not birth control (although his is the home state of Griswold v. Connecticut), but a question of loyalty. I would like to think of my senator, any senator, as having his/her ONLY loyalties to the United States and the state s/he represents. Unfortunately, with Lieberman, Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer, etc., there is the question of dual divided loyalty to Israel, which may supersede loyalty to the state or the United States. And anyone who says they see no conflict between loyalty to Israel and to the United States really means they expect US policy to bend to Jewish dedication to their tribal religious myth, under which a bunch of slavic opportunists inherit the mideast and displace the locals, who have ten times as much Abrahamic DNA. Oy vecchhh!

The bottom line is that Boxer is part of the top-down hierarchy of the Democratic party. She is a senior Democratic officeholder, so that makes sense. Except for the fact that the grassroots have had their fill of really bad top-down strategies. In fact, we are unwilling to participate in them any more. If the Dem leadership, including Boxer, don’t understand our disgust with their current strategies, so be it.

Meanwhile, we should take a page from the Texas playbook and run reformers to take over the state party system. That, my friends, is how politics is played. You get respect based on winning elections. Period. If Lamont wins, we will get more respect. It’s a process.

I wish Boxer were on our side. She could be a POWERFUL reformer. But she seems content to play the game by the old school rules – been coopted by all that fawning and status I guess. Too bad.

Leisure Guy was right!