FITZ!

Hm, wonder how long the comments section will be available? I doubt he can take the heat for long…

Jane!

Oh man, …..

I knew it. A few weeks in D.C. hanging with the media elite, and our Jane has gone all wobbly. ;)

I’d hate to think that he’s leaving the ugly comments there, just to gather verbal ammo as to blogs = swampland

Please… don’t encourage him. It only makes it worse.

Swopa @
5

I knew it. A few weeks in D.C. hanging with the media elite, and our Jane has gone all wobbly. ;)

they got to her.

OT,
noted this video on the last thread, but got EPUed.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gm…..d_son.html

a remake of Cat Stevens featuring Poppy and Junya. Well done, the guy does a good Stevens and the slide show behind him is great (the Wilsons make an appearance)

Joe is a dick. Nothing else needs to be said about him.

OTOH, Jane, have I told you how beautiful you are lately?

Now that needs to be said.

Contrarian opinion: I think the length of time the jury has been out bodes poorly for all of us. This is not a matter of deep analysis in most thinking people’s minds, and the more they think about it, the more “reasonable doubt” comes into play. We’ve heard this song before.

Prepare for OJ Part 2, and hope for OJ The Movie.

I’m more worried by the day. This one, like OJ’s, isn’t that hard.

I had to cruise over there…. they really do need some moderation.

Is there any indication he or anyone else is actually going to provide some liberal commentary, and not this faux liberalism that looks like conservatism to the rest of the world?

Or is it the filtering process we’re seeing? Will networks *hire* anyone that doesn’t gargle Broder?

Is it just schtick that only program directors know about?

I remember a comment from Al Franken about when he went up to Alan Colmes and asked him why he didn’t push back harder. Alan said that wasn’t their “thing.”

When do we get Cliff Schechter on a real channel, all the time?

Think I’ll stick with Hamsher.

I suspect thet they leave those really disgusting comments up just so Joe can use them to bash all of us. Sad.

Give jokeline some props?

oooohhhh……all right….I really hate to give him any kind of credit but maybe he’ll learn something….and besides, if Jane is willing to ignore his inherent tendency to be a d**khead I’ll respect her opinion…

besides I always give beautiful women their way…\

hizzhoner

Obviously,I’m very immature but I found some of the posts to be hilarious.Kleins such a dumb ass

porgy tirebiter @ 13

I suspect thet they leave those really disgusting comments up just so Joe can use them to bash all of us. Sad.

Well, of course. The blogosphere is SOOOO vulgar, don’t you know?

jane, as much as i dislike JK, you’re correct. we need to offer whatever guidance we can to the brave journos on their first steps outside the bubble, it must be pretty disorienting

god i feel dirty just typing that

judeanpeoplesfront @ 17

jane, as much as i dislike JK, you’re correct. we need to offer whatever guidance we can to the brave journos on their first steps outside the bubble, it must be pretty disorienting

god i feel dirty just typing that

cred where cred is due, I suppose

i need a mint or something..

Joe Klein was one of the few national writers to ever respond directly to my emails. During the big Social Security fight, Joe and I exchanged a couple of emails disagreeing about SS’s solvency. He’s always been willing to engage his readers. Most of the hacks on the local papers don’t respond to their email (even when I try to be nice).

MarvyT @
21

Joe Klein was one of the few national writers to ever respond directly to my emails. During the big Social Security fight, Joe and I exchanged a couple of emails disagreeing about SS’s solvency. He’s always been willing to engage his readers. Most of the hacks on the local papers don’t respond to their email (even when I try to be nice).

I’ll give Joe a few props. He’s already quoted me twice in updated posts. Of course I don’t use this moniker over there. ;-) For those that go over there, I use a reference Joe would know well, and it’s not a Clinton reference.

Well Joe Klein – our fearless founder Jane has just handed you a rare gift and while I hope you have the good sense to realize what an honor it is she even mentions you but to listen and learn from her. I’ve never liked you very much as a “news” man. But then my late father was a great reporter and a gentleman and if Jane can take the time and trouble to school you I’ll watch without further snark and see if are wise enough to listen and learn.

Who the hell knows, maybe you will surprise me and others who keep a keen eye on the main stream media whores and their slow but sure decline.

You can start by heeding the generous firedogs advice and take charge and delete the professional vulgarians and as we are so fond of repeating – don’t feed the trolls.

Oh, and while I’m in a generous mood allow me to give you one last piece of free advice – you owe Big Bubba a public apology for not having the guts to publish your book about him in your own name.

And lastly, if you really want to impress this ole newspaperbrat you’ll buy and give a careful read to Anatomy of Deceit – How the Bush Administration Used the Media to Sell the Iraq War and Out a Spy by Marcy Wheeler (Vaster Books 2007). I’ll look forward to your review on your new blog.

I’ll welcome help from anywhere. Including Klein. From Hillary too, if the Senator ever gets her head on straight about the Middle East.

Fair enough about Klein. Even a clock is right twice a day. Comments section… yes that’s better than many right leaning pundits but still… Joe Klein is an a**.

bdu @
2

Hm, wonder how long the comments section will be available? I doubt he can take the heat for long…

At the beginning, they did moderate it. I think someone got tired of reading all the posts, so they just let it go. I think they could take down the vulgar posts and the obvious spam(a Hillary hater).

Oh sure, I think he’s still pretty much full of shit (and himself) but I don’t see any of his peers who spend their spare time taking pot shots at bloggers willing to stand up to that kind of unmoderated comment section.

How do we know it’s even him?

Maybe this is Time’s version of a MySpace fanboy page named after their favorite group or adult ’star’ – “Da Real Joe Klein… (tribute)“

;>)

Neil @ 25

Fair enough about Klein. Even a clock is right twice a day. Comments section… yes that’s better than many right leaning pundits but still… Joe Klein is an a**.

Favorite quote of mine along those lines is:

Even a blind chicken gets a kernel of corn once in a while.

hizzhoner @
15

Give jokeline some props?

oooohhhh……all right….I really hate to give him any kind of credit but maybe he’ll learn something….and besides, if Jane is willing to ignore his inherent tendency to be a d**khead I’ll respect her opinion…

besides I always give beautiful women their way…\

hizzhoner

Hizzhoner,
And to think she’s close to 50. Some things do get better with age ;-)

Posted By: I.F. Thunder (1/18/2007 at 9:57:19 PM)

Comment: Howard, have you ever heard of Bob Somerby, or the Daily Howler? I’m just asking because you have just proven everything he has ever written about the pundit class (and that definitely includes yourself) is true. So very sad. Have you no sense of shame?

That was a comment I left for Howard Fineman. A week or so later, I could not log into make comments.

I guess I’ll give credit to Joke Line for not going the chickenhawk route, but he still is a comfortable, well-paid turd, ever more watchful of those on the left than the people actually driving the country into the ditch.

Jane is right. Joe deserves credit for blogging without a net, for subjecting himself and his writing to such public criticism on his own blog. It does not change how nutty his third way ideas are or how ridiculous his smears of the liberal left tend to be. But it’s still worthy of recognition and respect.

You have to wonder about those clearly over the top comments, though. Were they planted to discredit his critics?

John O @ 10

Contrarian opinion: I think the length of time the jury has been out bodes poorly for all of us. This is not a matter of deep analysis in most thinking people’s minds, and the more they think about it, the more “reasonable doubt” comes into play. We’ve heard this song before.

I totally disagree. If they were going to acquit, they would have done it quickly. He will be found guilty on some if not all the counts. There’s a lot of components to each of the five counts. It is a complex and confusing case for those who haven’t been following it in the detail we have, for four years.

Scooter is not going to walk.

short list of some of today’s fun screen names:

Mabel’s Wig Shack
porgy tirebiter
baked potato
Hilde with an e
Gnome de Plume

I gave it a quick read, and…
Joe’s analysis is too thin to merit any further consideration.
I hope that he will find some peace in this world, as I hope for all of us.

John O @ 10

Joe is a dick. Nothing else needs to be said about him.

OTOH, Jane, have I told you how beautiful you are lately?

Now that needs to be said.

Contrarian opinion: I think the length of time the jury has been out bodes poorly for all of us. This is not a matter of deep analysis in most thinking people’s minds, and the more they think about it, the more “reasonable doubt” comes into play. We’ve heard this song before.

Prepare for OJ Part 2, and hope for OJ The Movie.

I’m more worried by the day. This one, like OJ’s, isn’t that hard.

I wouldn’t panic yet.

The jurors are not in a bubble. They are well aware of the scrutiny their decision will get, and the criticism from the Right and the threat of Flying Monkeys. So they are being methodical.

Also, remember there are 5 charges. They must fill out the forms, which takes time, and most observers feel 3 of the 5 are easily proven, but two are 50-50. It may be those two that are consuming the time, and they want to get it right.

Personally I think a quick guilty verdict would lead to accusations of a rush to judgment and a biased jury from the right, which would undermine the victory. Better a well considered verdict as a sheild against the spin.

The New Republic is going biweekly.

The internet is making news analysis much more immediate and subject to immediate and ongoing criticism.

What place will be left for sheltered writers at publications like Time and The New Republic, unless they can provide the same sort of immediate and accurate service that is provided by the better bloggers?

Seems Jokeline is as thin skinned as Bill Bradley … no not that Bill Bradley, the one who used to have a column in LA Weekly

He got banned from calitics because he doesn’t play well with others. He doesn’t seem to be able to take any constructive criticism at all … because he’s one of the Ivory Tower types (Carville, Shrum, et al)

Here are some of his greatest hits

So, kiddie boys, get out of high school, get a remedial reading lesson.

Instead of the undergrad gibberish — George Lakosh — you boys trot out.

Unbelievably stupid on your part.

You boys are very slow students in the class.

[…]

Go back to school, finish your undergraduate degree, THEN start with the snarky opining about people who actually do things in the world.

Puh-leeze. Go back to sleep.

You guys are junior varsity

This is not the amateur hour, hard as it may be as a student for you to grasp.

The anti-Arnold snark of Bob Salladay and the LA Times blog is already several months past its sell-by date

For some reason he seems to focused on running school smack. Hmmmmm, what’s that about?

Oh, and btw Bob Salladay has an awesome blog at the LA Times check it out

Off to see some people

L8r

When Hamsher, and Arianna or CHS say something, I may not agree (rarely), it’s true, but I listen and take notice.

I do give him credit for accepting comments. It’s a big scary world out there.

People are not 100% good or bad. [Ok except Cheney. He’s just evil.] Many people, even most, are capable of -some- degree of insight, flexibility, and progress towards something better.

This needs to be rewarded, not scorned. As you would coax a wounded animal gently closer, be willing for people to acknowledge the error of their ways and move toward a more responsible position. We must await them with open arms.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 38

When Hamsher, and Arianna or CHS say something, I may not agree (rarely), it’s true, but I listen and take notice.

And me?

egregious @ 39

This needs to be rewarded, not scorned. As you would coax a wounded animal gently closer, be willing for people to acknowledge the error of their ways and move toward a more responsible position. We must await them with open arms.

‘Trust but verify’, E.

Some ‘Lucy’s have pulled the football away one too many times.

ifthethunderdontgetya @
30

Posted By: I.F. Thunder (1/18/2007 at 9:57:19 PM)

Comment: Howard, have you ever heard of Bob Somerby, or the Daily Howler? I’m just asking because you have just proven everything he has ever written about the pundit class (and that definitely includes yourself) is true. So very sad. Have you no sense of shame?

That was a comment I left for Howard Fineman. A week or so later, I could not log into make comment.

Considering how many hours I spend reading blogs, I’m not surprised that people like Howard Fineman and Joe Klein haven’t spent any amount of time reading them, too. They simply wouldn’t get any work done or have a life.

So, I’m not surprised that they dove into this absolutely clueless. There is a ginormous difference in the comments among the various blogs. And I’ll bet the rent they don’t know that. Just sayin’

Oklahoma kiddo

There’s a piece over at Huffpo I think you’ll like…

And while it has been a terrorizing streak, it has been easy to nail down, mostly because the too-white Republicans, the vice-president who runs the country and the puppet president who runs the liquor cabinet could care less about being accused of sheer hypocrisy. This is, after all, an administration that can’t stop crowing about how much they support the maimed troops rotting away at Walter Reed, even as they send more off to die. An administration that warns us daily about the threat of Middle East terrorism while they sell our ports off to Dubai and inflame sectarian wars across the Iraq, Iran and, well, everywhere. An administration who says they’ll fire anyone for compromising the national security of the nation, unless of course it’s one of their own that does it, in which case they’ll do nothing at all, so go fuck yourselves.

But then there are the sad-sack Democrats, who voters across the country in a fit of rage gave the keys to Congress and were rewarded with half-assed nonbinding resolutions that couldn’t even make it past the Senate. And that’s after they crowed about all they were going to do in 100 hours. After that? You’re on your own suckers!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..41980.html

egregious @ 40

Oklahoma kiddo @ 38

When Hamsher, and Arianna or CHS say something, I may not agree (rarely), it’s true, but I listen and take notice.

And me?

You betcha! ;0)

… good one Jane!

“Joe’s still full of shit”.. glad to have you back, Jane! You had to act all civilized with that TV gig, which you got very good at btw, but it wasn’t quite the Mistress of Snark we know and love.

not to parrot your basic premise simply as a chance to blogwhore, but i did make a similar point (as an ed. note on pudentilla’s post) back when joe was kind of admitting that the left maybe could have perhaps had a few valid points about being angry in today’s political climate.

even better, tho nothing to do w/joe: ana marie linked to skippy on swampland this week in her discussion of obama v. hillary.

.

.

dab_from_CT @ 43

Oklahoma kiddo

There’s a piece over at Huffpo I think you’ll like…

And while it has been a terrorizing streak, it has been easy to nail down, mostly because the too-white Republicans, the vice-president who runs the country and the puppet president who runs the liquor cabinet could care less about being accused of sheer hypocrisy. This is, after all, an administration that can’t stop crowing about how much they support the maimed troops rotting away at Walter Reed, even as they send more off to die. An administration that warns us daily about the threat of Middle East terrorism while they sell our ports off to Dubai and inflame sectarian wars across the Iraq, Iran and, well, everywhere. An administration who says they’ll fire anyone for compromising the national security of the nation, unless of course it’s one of their own that does it, in which case they’ll do nothing at all, so go fuck yourselves.

But then there are the sad-sack Democrats, who voters across the country in a fit of rage gave the keys to Congress and were rewarded with half-assed nonbinding resolutions that couldn’t even make it past the Senate. And that’s after they crowed about all they were going to do in 100 hours. After that? You’re on your own suckers!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..41980.html

Thanks! I read it because you said it was worth my time. And it was. ;0)

Dan Gerstain made it a point to not only leave all the disgusting comments on Joe Lieberman’s “blog” for the week or so it was open to comments, but then he copied a bunch of them to a document to use as proof that the anti-Lieberman crowd was uncouth, uncivil, and probably unwashed. To the tune of 15 pages worth! I still have a copy of the .pdf file; it’s a literary masterpiece, in my opinion.

So yeah, it could be a simple ploy to justify the eventuality when Joe Klein won’t allow comments in the future.

Ok, delurking.

Way to wrap a lure, Jane.

A Broken Back lure catches striped bass. Joey wears a lot of those pinstripes. Reel him back!

Think about what Jane’s doing guys. Tact and diplomacy, not pre-emptive war.

and, really, guys, if we want the mmm to change, we do have to reward good behavior. jane is absolutley correct in that joe is actually reading the comments and starting to respond in a lucid, adult way:

it’s obvious that the current level of vitriol on the left is a reaction to nearly twenty years of sewage emanating from rush et al. it’s also a product of the times: there’s a whole generation of people who believe that serious political discourse consists of pat buchanan and eleanor clift screaming at each other. the intemperance on the left has three other sources (1) justifiable fury over the bush adminstration (2) justifiable fury over the way the media treated clinton and, to a certain extent, bush and (3) ideologues of any sort tend to be obnoxious.

granted, it’s not much, and he goes on to berate ideologues and demand that the dems court the catholics…but, one day at a time!

jane’s point is well taken…at least swampland has comments, and apparently the swampers are reading them…more than you can say for most hardly-ever-right wing blogs.

.

.

egregious @ 40

oklahoma kiddo @ 38

when hamsher, and arianna or chs say something, i may not agree (rarely), it’s true, but i listen and take notice.

and me?

sure, you can listen and take notice, too, egregious!

I am worried. Has TRex heard the JK news?

Went to Klein’s blog . . . Found a lot of inside baseball, unnecessary literary allusions and a ton of pretense. The comments were good, however. I especially like this one:

“Why does Joe Klein still have a job after all his spectacular failures as a poundit?”

Because its not possible to fail as a pundit. So long as you don’t rock the establishment boat too much you can be wrong about everything (see Brooks, David or Friedman, Thomas) and still write columns for the New York Times and appear on the TeeVee. You can even shill for the DLC wing of the Democratic Party and still be one of the insiders (see Klien, Joe).

From “Old Man from Scene 24″

OT..but this is worse than the Walter Reed mess..
http://rawstory.com/showarticl…..ney070222/

I always take notice of what you’re telling me cousin.

Connecticut Bob @
49

Dan Gerstain made it a point to not only leave all the disgusting comments on Joe Lieberman’s “blog” for the week or so it was open to comments, but then he copied a bunch of them to a document to use as proof that the anti-Lieberman crowd was uncouth, uncivil, and probably unwashed. To the tune of 15 pages worth! I still have a copy of the .pdf file; it’s a literary masterpiece, in my opinion.

So yeah, it could be a simple ploy to justify the eventuality when Joe Klein won’t allow comments in the future.

CT Bob,
Did you post there? The comments section was a riot.

skippy @ 47

not to parrot your basic premise simply as a chance to blogwhore, but i did make a similar point (as an ed. note on pudentilla’s post) back when joe was kind of admitting that the left maybe could have perhaps had a few valid points about being angry in today’s political climate.

even better, tho nothing to do w/joe: ana marie linked to skippy on swampland this week in her discussion of obama v. hillary.

.

.

better hit the free clinic, skip — there’s no telling what rode along with that link from ana[l] marie!

john in sacramento @ 37

The better half of Mad Mary Matalin is an Ivy Leaguer? Love to know which one – somehow it strikes me as funny the crazy ole self proclaimed Ragin’ Cajun would find easy acceptance. Oh wait, silly me, Yale let the Decider in Chief in – clearly desperate for Papa Bush’s endowment cause at best he is semi-literate….oh never mind.

Pectopah @
35

Personally I think a quick guilty verdict would lead to accusations of a rush to judgment and a biased jury from the right, which would undermine the victory. Better a well considered verdict as a shield against the spin.

This leads me to wonder how we will respond here if the verdict comes back not guilty.

Will we accept that verdict as justice? Or will there be an immediate outcry of foul play?

FWIW I still believe the verdict will be guilty on most of the counts.

newspaperbrat @ 59

john in sacramento @ 37

The better half of Mad Mary Matalin is an Ivy Leaguer? Love to know which one – somehow it strikes me as funny the crazy ole self proclaimed Ragin’ Cajun would find easy acceptance. Oh wait, silly me, Yale let the Decider in Chief in – clearly desperate for Papa Bush’s endowment cause at best he is semi-literate….oh never mind.

Carville went to LSU x2, Ah bleeve.

Brava, Jane. Compliments from a strict critic are the best, and yes, he does deserve it for interacting.

At one point during his interviews with the Democratic candidates in Nevada, the crowd made some noise and George Stephanopoulos said (paraphrase): “this interaction, it’s great, very different from the studio …” I was watching on CSPAN, and thought, yes, that’s George getting a breath of the air outside his bubble, and he’s aware of it, too!

So good for Joe for daring to take direct feedback. I know that direct, unsparing criticism always did me a world of good. As an acting student, I was once dressed down by Norman Ayrton, veteran of the British Navy and the Yale School of Drama. He was so merciless he made the girl next to me cry. But he cured me of mumbling forever.

Is this the “New Hamsher?” :)

newspaperbrat @
23

Well Joe Klein – our fearless founder Jane has just handed you a rare gift and while I hope you have the good sense to realize what an honor it is she even mentions you but to listen and learn from her.

I just left a message in Joe’s comments saying much the same thing. Thought he might enjoy reading her post, especially the part about editing. God some of those comments are raw, funny, but really raw. Now let’s see if Joe is able to get the hang of this thing called blogging. It might liberate his mind.

I strongly believe that “accountability” has become a necessary and essential ingredient to good government, or ‘Democracy’, with a capital “D”, if you will allow.

I’m still wonderin’ why they mentioned Joes’ mom’s puppy.

Balrog @ 60

Pectopah @
35

Personally I think a quick guilty verdict would lead to accusations of a rush to judgment and a biased jury from the right, which would undermine the victory. Better a well considered verdict as a shield against the spin.

This leads me to wonder how we will respond here if the verdict comes back not guilty.

Will we accept that verdict as justice? Or will there be an immediate outcry of foul play?

FWIW I still believe the verdict will be guilty on most of the counts.

That’s a good question. Yes – I would be rather suspicious considering the meticulous case Fitz put together and the intelligence of most members of the jury.

But, you’re right – we should probably consider the possibility.

Dru @ 61

newspaperbrat @ 59

john in sacramento @ 37

The better half of Mad Mary Matalin is an Ivy Leaguer? Love to know which one – somehow it strikes me as funny the crazy ole self proclaimed Ragin’ Cajun would find easy acceptance. Oh wait, silly me, Yale let the Decider in Chief in – clearly desperate for Papa Bush’s endowment cause at best he is semi-literate….oh never mind.

Carville went to LSU x2, Ah bleeve.

I bleeve you. Just donated his books – the ones that he wrote w/Paul Beglaga to the local public library for their spring sale. They were amusing once upon a time long long ago.

I stay with Hamsher on this issue (Klein).

John West @ 66

I’m still wonderin’ why they mentioned Joes’ mom’s puppy.

This is exactly the kind of comment that will make me laugh all night! Silly is sooo funny.

From today’s White House press briefing run by Tony Fratto, on the AUMF against Iraq of October 11, 2002 and the possibility that it might be changed or revoked:

MR. FRATTO: Well, the authorization from 2002 says that the United Nations — that the President is authorized to use force to carry out U.N. Security Council resolutions, and it envisions subsequent resolutions.
So the resolutions that we have seen since then certainly authorize a threat to the region that’s posed by instability in Iraq, and it envisions the United States forces staying there and bringing stability to Iraq and the region.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news…..223-7.html

To be fair to Mr. Fratto, he read slightly before this the Sec.3a authorization paragraph of the AUMF:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I have written on this before so I will briefly summarize the main points.

First, the Iraq of the AUMF no longer exists. We invaded and occupied the country, dissolving the government, then reconstituting it and returning full sovereignty to it.

Second, the AUMF sanctions force against the state of Iraq, not al Qaeda, not Sunni insurgents, not Shia militias, and as I just pointed out the AUMF’s Iraq no longer exists.

Third, “all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq” referenced in the AUMF date back to the First Gulf War. There is a specific reason for this. The Security Council never agreed to the famous “second” resolution for use of military force in the Second Gulf War. In the absence of this, the AUMF had to go back to the First Gulf War resolutions where force was sanctioned. I think this point that is often overlooked when talk of “UN resolutions” is slung around.

Fourth (as in my first point), “the continuing threat posed by Iraq” references Saddam’s state, a state which no longer exists. It is a totally bizarre notion that we would reconstitute a state, restore its sovereignty, and then say, “Oh yeah, by the way, you’re still a threat.” As in my second point, this is not to say that Iraq isn’t a dangerous place, just that it is not the policy of the Iraqi state to be a threat to us.

Fifth, Fratto’s contention that the AUMF “envisions subsequent resolutions” is flat out false. He makes it because he also brings up Resolution 1723 of November 28, 2006 which sanctions a 6 month extension of the multinational force in Iraq (and with Iraq’s permission). This permission comes from the UN, not from the AUMF or the Congress.

It could be argued that the AUMF terminated on June 28, 2004 with the return of Iraqi sovereignty. At this point, the Administration should have gone back to the Congress for a new authorization. They didn’t. Instead they have made it up as they go along, much as they did with the original AUMF itself.

I have little faith in any Biden led initiative to rescind or modify the 2002 AUMF. It will most likely be a vague, non-binding effort lost in parliamentary maneuvers. The more important point here is that a prima facie case can be made that the AUMF against Iraq hasn’t been valid for a long time now, not that this Administration of Bush and Cheney is going to be overly concerned by a matter of law. For them, the law is a nuisance or what they say it is. And if they want to put 150,000 American soldiers in harm’s way without any legal sanction, they will. Who is going to stop them?

Pectopah @
35

John O @ 10

Joe is a dick. Nothing else needs to be said about him.

OTOH, Jane, have I told you how beautiful you are lately?

Now that needs to be said.

Contrarian opinion: I think the length of time the jury has been out bodes poorly for all of us. This is not a matter of deep analysis in most thinking people’s minds, and the more they think about it, the more “reasonable doubt” comes into play. We’ve heard this song before.

Prepare for OJ Part 2, and hope for OJ The Movie.

I’m more worried by the day. This one, like OJ’s, isn’t that hard.

I wouldn’t panic yet.

The jurors are not in a bubble. They are well aware of the scrutiny their decision will get, and the criticism from the Right and the threat of Flying Monkeys. So they are being methodical.

Also, remember there are 5 charges. They must fill out the forms, which takes time, and most observers feel 3 of the 5 are easily proven, but two are 50-50. It may be those two that are consuming the time, and they want to get it right.

Personally I think a quick guilty verdict would lead to accusations of a rush to judgment and a biased jury from the right, which would undermine the victory. Better a well considered verdict as a sheild against the spin.

As I recall, the defense took pains to find jurors who knew almost nothing whatsoever about the Plame scandal. So some of these folks started from ground zero. Don’t neglect the social and group dynamic that needs to work itself out as this group of 12 relative strangers grapple with some weighty issues. It takes time.

As for the prospect of a not guilty verdict, I think it unlikely. A hung jury maybe, perhaps a not guilty on one or two counts, but not guilty on most or all counts is, IMHO, unlikely.

I wonder how heavily the fact that this case involves one of the White House’ own weighs on the minds of the jurors? If they come in with guilty verdicts, they will want to be sure of the evidence. I hope they are a courageous lot.

I think this would an appropriate time to shout out a HUGE THANK YOU to all the mods here-I don’t know that the likes of you are matched anywhere…don’t know how you all do it,or even how many of you there are, you are just angels of civility and I am just so grateful for all that you do…

I Love Jane Hamsher @ 57

Connecticut Bob @
49

Dan Gerstain made it a point to not only leave all the disgusting comments on Joe Lieberman’s “blog” for the week or so it was open to comments, but then he copied a bunch of them to a document to use as proof that the anti-Lieberman crowd was uncouth, uncivil, and probably unwashed. To the tune of 15 pages worth! I still have a copy of the .pdf file; it’s a literary masterpiece, in my opinion.

So yeah, it could be a simple ploy to justify the eventuality when Joe Klein won’t allow comments in the future.

CT Bob,
Did you post there? The comments section was a riot.

I didn’t post there, but I reposted quite a few lively threads in my blog, and started a mirror blog for Joe’s blog that allowed comments after they shut them off.

The “Joe Lieberman beats his wife!” thread was hysterical; those people were relentless!

http://ctbob.blogspot.com/2006…..-wife.html

Ah, what wonderful memories!

ruffian @ 74

I think this would an appropriate time to shout out a HUGE THANK YOU to all the mods here-I don’t know that the likes of you are matched anywhere…don’t know how you all do it,or even how many of you there are, you are just angels of civility and I am just so grateful for all that you do…

I’ll second your thoughtful words! woo hoo mods!

Boudica @ 73

I wonder how heavily the fact that this case involves one of the White House’ own weighs on the minds of the jurors? If they come in with guilty verdicts, they will want to be sure of the evidence. I hope they are a courageous lot.

You said that. After learning that the WH had no regard for undercover people anywhere and some may have died, yes. Being on this jury took more courage than these jurors were imagining.

I think I’m going to go and spend the night with the Auntie at her place. She gets nervous about wind and hail and so forth. She’s 99 and the best FDR Demo you could want to meet (whisper: this woman is a radical), and sharp as a tack. She never completed 3rd. grade. She had to help Mama and Papa pick cotton. We have a wonderful storm cellar; wall to wall carpet, beds, fridge, TV, laptop, food and a pool table. The Aunt tells me which balls to sink and where, and I do it. Mostly.

OKiddo-sounds like a grand time~be safe out there

I heard part of that Fratto briefing; thanks for the summary Hugh; I missed some for hooting and hollering.

So now the US is going to start enforcing UN resolutions!?

I bet I can think of a bunch those troglodytes will never envision pursuing.

Our leaders certainly like picking those cherries.

Connecticut Bob @
75

I Love Jane Hamsher @ 57

Connecticut Bob @
49

Dan Gerstain made it a point to not only leave all the disgusting comments on Joe Lieberman’s “blog” for the week or so it was open to comments, but then he copied a bunch of them to a document to use as proof that the anti-Lieberman crowd was uncouth, uncivil, and probably unwashed. To the tune of 15 pages worth! I still have a copy of the .pdf file; it’s a literary masterpiece, in my opinion.

So yeah, it could be a simple ploy to justify the eventuality when Joe Klein won’t allow comments in the future.

CT Bob,
Did you post there? The comments section was a riot.

I didn’t post there, but I reposted quite a few lively threads in my blog, and started a mirror blog for Joe’s blog that allowed comments after they shut them off.

The “Joe Lieberman beats his wife!” thread was hysterical; those people were relentless!

http://ctbob.blogspot.com/2006…..-wife.html

Ah, what wonderful memories!

I know it sounds cruel, but I loved how that turned into a “Dan Gerstein beats his wife” hysteria fest.

Ct Bob @ 49, remember this?

What’s next, you want us to provide evidence that Joe Lieberman doesn’t beat his wife?

Actually, that would be great.
NTodd, Blogsatz Eliterach | Homepage | 09.06.06 – 8:40 pm | #

Ntodd the ubiquitous, lol!

Oklahoma kiddo @ 78,

Bless you, OK kiddo. My dad grew up in Grandfield, OK. He would have been about your Auntie’s age.

Sorry all – hit the wrong key.

Lieberlogic, courtesy of Ionesco via a DKos diary:

Logician: Here is an example of a syllogism. The cat has four paws. Isidore and Fricot both have four paws. Therefore Isidore and Fricot are cats.

Old Gentleman: My dog has got four paws.

Logician: Then it’s a cat.

Old Gentleman: So then logically speaking, my dog must be a cat?

Logician: Logically, yes. But the contrary is also true. . . Another syllogism. All cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore Socrates is a cat.

Old Gentleman: And he’s got four paws. That’s true. I’ve got a cat named Socrates.

Logician: There you are, you see . . .

What a minute, Dan Gerstein beats his wife?

legaleze @ 86

What a minute, Dan Gerstein beats his wife?

no, no, no! he beats Joe Lieberman’s wife.

punaise @ 85

Lieberlogic, courtesy of Ionesco via a DKos diary:

Logician: Here is an example of a syllogism. The cat has four paws. Isidore and Fricot both have four paws. Therefore Isidore and Fricot are cats.

Old Gentleman: My dog has got four paws.

Logician: Then it’s a cat.

Old Gentleman: So then logically speaking, my dog must be a cat?

Logician: Logically, yes. But the contrary is also true. . . Another syllogism. All cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore Socrates is a cat.

Old Gentleman: And he’s got four paws. That’s true. I’ve got a cat named Socrates.

Logician: There you are, you see . . .

This logic gives me pause. I just don’t know if it gives me four of them.

Punaise. Right, that’s what I thought. But then whose wife is Liberman beating?

If I were a jury member, what would I be thinking? Are they able to compartmentalize their role as jurors or is with them every minute? What ordinary citizen ever expects to play such a role in our nation’s history? I don’t think anyone can prepare for such a burden. Yet, they wore the Valentine shirts. Indicating, that at least on Valentines Day they didn’t seem to be obcessing about the trial.

Thanks for this post, Jane. I’ve worked with a number of corporations trying to step into online communities, and they’ve been uniformly bad at it. Encouragement is good, especially for someone we’ve all bashed at times.

The more we can all find at least some common ground, the better.

Joe Lieberman is beating every wife of a man in the military.

newspaperbrat

Just donated his books – the ones that he wrote w/Paul Beglaga to the local public library for their spring sale. They were amusing once upon a time long long ago.

I have a couple too; one didn’t stink and I haven’t read the other. The most amusing thing he ever did was anger Novak into storming off in a huff. For that I will always be grateful.

punaise @
87

legaleze @ 86

What a minute, Dan Gerstein beats his wife?

no, no, no! he beats Joe Lieberman’s wife.

Yes, but who beats her puppy?

Hugh @ 88

This logic gives me pause. I just don’t know if it gives me four of them.

pattes de probleme

Boudica @ 92

Joe Lieberman is beating every wife of a man in the military.

when will he stop?

U S S !

punaise @ 95

Hugh @ 88

This logic gives me pause. I just don’t know if it gives me four of them.

pattes de probleme

are you giving me griffes?

Lieberlogic: Cat, dog, donkey or elephant, what’s the difference? I just want to keep my Senate seat and make sure we win that war in Iraq. And Iran . . .

I’m from PA and Joe is starting to make Arlan Specter look . . . Well I almost typed “good”, but let’s settle for “better”. Maybe the Dems should trade Liber for Specter and a player to be named later.

mack @
96

Boudica @ 92

Joe Lieberman is beating every wife of a man in the military.

when will he stop?

When he needs glasses.

#96, I don’t know if he will ever stop….he does it to their children and parents too. It must be making him sad though because he’s always crying.

my contempt for the
Madness! Madness! Madness!
that is Joe Lieberman knows no bounds and will never abate.

John O @
10

OTOH, Jane, have I told you how beautiful you are lately?

Hear, hear!

Contrarian opinion: I think the length of time the jury has been out bodes poorly for all of us. This is not a matter of deep analysis in most thinking people’s minds, and the more they think about it, the more “reasonable doubt” comes into play. We’ve heard this song before.

This jury has quite a few charges and sub-charges to consider. It’s my understanding (corrections, please) that they have to render a separate verdict on each charge, and they also have to fill out special-verdict questionaires. Doing so conscientiously is bound to take some time and probably a fair number of votes.

To me this seems nothing like the OJ trial. That case was all circumstantial, which doesn’t necessarily mean it was weak, but only that there were no direct witnesses.

The Libby case, by contrast, features an impressive number of direct witnesses. To conclude that Libby was telling the truth, one would have to conclude that Russert, Miller, Cooper, Grossman, Grenier, Schmall, Fleischer and Martin were all lying.

I think Joe has colic, he’s always whining.

CT needs a do over or a recall.

punaise @ 98

punaise @ 95

Hugh @ 88

This logic gives me pause. I just don’t know if it gives me four of them.

pattes de probleme

are you giving me griffes?

Me give you a hard time. Naw, I’m just here for the chat.

legaleze, it seems that only Lieberman gets a do over in CT.

Ralph @ 103

John O @
10

OTOH, Jane, have I told you how beautiful you are lately?

Hear, hear!

Contrarian opinion: I think the length of time the jury has been out bodes poorly for all of us. This is not a matter of deep analysis in most thinking people’s minds, and the more they think about it, the more “reasonable doubt” comes into play. We’ve heard this song before.

This jury has quite a few charges and sub-charges to consider. It’s my understanding (corrections, please) that they have to render a separate verdict on each charge, and they also have to fill out special-verdict questionaires. Doing so conscientiously is bound to take some time and probably a fair number of votes.

To me this seems nothing like the OJ trial. That case was all circumstantial, which doesn’t necessarily mean it was weak, but only that there were no direct witnesses.

The Libby case, by contrast, features an impressive number of direct witnesses. To conclude that Libby was telling the truth, one would have to conclude that Russert, Miller, Cooper, Grossman, Grenier, Schmall, Fleischer and Martin were all lying.

Ralph, I hope you’re right. I guess I lost a lot of faith in the justice system when the OJ verdict came in.

I agree with you 100%. It’s just that Johnnie Cochran moved the bar on “reasonable doubt.”

At least in my head.

I lost faith in the justice system when the Supreme Court annointed W.

I always think of the cowardly lion from “Wizard of Oz” whenever I see either Joe Klein or Joe Lieberman. They both look like the cowardly lion in their own ways.

Boudica @ 107

legaleze, it seems that only Lieberman gets a do over in CT.

Best two out of three!

dab_from_CT @
32

John O @ 10

Contrarian opinion: I think the length of time the jury has been out bodes poorly for all of us. This is not a matter of deep analysis in most thinking people’s minds, and the more they think about it, the more “reasonable doubt” comes into play. We’ve heard this song before.

I totally disagree. If they were going to acquit, they would have done it quickly. He will be found guilty on some if not all the counts. There’s a lot of components to each of the five counts. It is a complex and confusing case for those who haven’t been following it in the detail we have, for four years.

Scooter is not going to walk.

Two thoughts: the only indicator of speed is if a verdict is returned in very few minutes, it’s likely to be acquital. The prosecutor just hadn’t made the case. Other than that I don’t think lenghth correlates with guilt or innocence.

That said, I think they have already found him guilty on several counts. The extra time is just to be clear about the 4th or 5th count.

Hugh @ 88
This logic gives me pause. I just don’t know if it gives me four of them.

punaise @ 95
pattes de probleme

punaise @ 98
are you giving me griffes?

Hugh @ 106
Me give you a hard time. Naw, I’m just here for the chat.

This turned into quite a queue of puns. I think I got it straight.

Biggus Diggus @ 110

I always think of the cowardly lion from “Wizard of Oz” whenever I see either Joe Klein or Joe Lieberman. They both look like the cowardly lion in their own ways.

Good observation; they do! Lieberlogic: So you are saying they are both cats then?

#110, Let’s face it the whole cast of the Wizard of Oz is inhabiting our government. Fitz is doing his part to expose the Wizard. Maybe if we get the verdict we want, we’ll all be that much closer to going home.

Regarding the jurors:
I’m not worried. They have an enormous amount of info to process, debate, and categorize.

I might be concerned if they started a sweatshirt design business; ‘Libby Jurors Inc’ but until then…

Had my share of jury trials but never been put in the box.

what would i do as a foreman. had plenty of experience on a planning board and city council trying to get people to make decisions.

first thing. Briefly go around the table and get a quick sense of where everybody is at. Second, like a poster has suggested put the counts up on the wall and stake straw polls. Third, let the majority convince the minority. Or in the alternative let the better view convince the less right view.

Obviously, they are at the third stage. The weak link in the chain is Bob Woodward guy. Woodward had expressed opinions previously that the whole affair was a tempest in a teapot b/c Armitage was the the leaker. Fitz tried to counter that by saying the interest violated was not supplying Novak but throwing sand into the FBI’s eyes.

The “sand in the eyes” argument is what i would use on the holdout/holdouts if any.

if they don’t reach a decision by Tuesday, then the judge will read them the dynamite instruction: “Although you have a duty to hold to your principles, you also have a duty to consult and talk to each other,” or words to that effect.

if there’s a hung jury, hell yes they will try it again.

different juries= different results

that’s a great principle in law, no absolute truth. Every jury is different. Once you pick the jury, 90% of the case is over.

Boudica @ 115

#110, Let’s face it the whole cast of the Wizard of Oz is inhabiting our government. Fitz is doing his part to expose the Wizard. Maybe if we get the verdict we want, we’ll all be that much closer to going home.

Excellent! And just like OZ, the Wizard is not the cat on the throne but the bald guy behind the curtain of the OVP.

You are all wrong.

Joe Lieberman is Alf’s dad writ important.

It was really fun during the runup to the ‘00 election to tell my friends, “No one is going to vote for Alf’s dad.”

Until I was right.

Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 116

Regarding the jurors:
I’m not worried. They have an enormous amount of info to process, debate, and categorize.

I might be concerned if they started a sweatshirt design business; ‘Libby Jurors Inc’ but until then…

“I helped to expose a Government Conspiracy and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.” ;-)

Kristine @ 120

Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 116

Regarding the jurors:
I’m not worried. They have an enormous amount of info to process, debate, and categorize.

I might be concerned if they started a sweatshirt design business; ‘Libby Jurors Inc’ but until then…

“I helped to expose a Government Conspiracy and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.” ;-)

Or maybe it will be Libby saying, I did the dirty work of the VP and all I got was this orange jump suit!? And free room and board for the next thirty years.

First, Joe Lieberman does NOT beat his wife. Second, I will personally look into whether or not Joe’s campaign has taken a significant amount of money from registered Republicans. I don’t think so. But I can make sure. How’s that for transparency?
Dan Gerstein | 09.06.06 – 8:55 pm | #

OMG – Thanks, CT Bob for that stroll down memory lane. I’ve been laughing so hard my sides hurt. Gerstein and Lieberliar were made for each other. Two total asshats.

Yes, Lieberman ran a very transparent campaign – except for that missing $295K

This from Thinkprogress:

Cheney in 1991:

“For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who’s going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.” Cheney today: “I stand by what I said in ‘91.“

dab_from_CT @ 122

Yes, Lieberman ran a very transparent campaign – except for that missing $295K

Lieberdweeb was pretty transparent to anybody here–but Republican voters, in Connecticut or elsewhere, can’t see anything past what they want to hear.

I know, I know.

I can’t stand the waiting. And I’m a very reality based person. Reality tells me I could be crushed like an insect on a windshield.

Gotta prepare emotionally for that.

I KNOW the mofo is guilty of, at the very minimum, diving on the grenade for his chums. Only a moron doesn’t think that.

But sowing reasonable doubt has proven to be very easy in the last decade or two.

Forget OJ. “Twinkie defense,” anyone?

Come on in Joe, the Water is Fine…

Dru @
93

The most amusing thing he(Carville) ever did was anger Novak into storming off in a huff. For that I will always be grateful.

I’m of the opinion that he did that as a courtesy, so as to give Nofacts a cheap excuse to cut and run from the set, rather than face cursory but uncontrolled questioning regarding his role in Plamegate on camera.

Sad that I hold such a dim opinion of punditry, but ‘By their fruits ye shall know them’.

Any chance FDL will interview one of the jurors in the case? Whatre the media rules after the verdict comes in?

twolf1 @ 126

Come on in Joe, the Water is Fine…

My brain hurts!

Good post Jane. In addition to the fact that Klein has comments on his blog, Peter Beinart just fessed up to just how wrong he was about Iraq. Both of those guys have taken a real hammering from our side (and they deserved every bit of it,) but it would be both ungracious and foolish of us not to applaud them when they get it right. My hope for the blogosphere is that we impact the MSM in a productive way, as opposed to just being a bunch of armchair pundits who see ourselves as way too cool to ever nod approvingly when a mainstream journalist is on the right track. I don’t have any interest in being part of some marginal cult.

GamePlayer @
128

Any chance FDL will interview one of the jurors in the case? Whatre the media rules after the verdict comes in?

I’d like the non-tshirt-wearing juror interviewed, please….

uh my gawd

twolf, they are laying out the welcome mat for hojoe

Jane,
Remember how much you were worried the little schmuck would do a hatchet job on Ned Lamont when he came to Ct,LOL.

When it was all over and we asked Ned “What questions did Joe Klein he ask you?”

“He didn’t ask me one question,He just kept telling me how much he loved Joe Lieberman and how he agreed with him on every other issue except Iraq” Ned answered.

Poor Joe Klein,Even he had to face up to the fact that Joe Lieberman was NOT the man he had pretended to be for all those years.

Suzanne @ 132

uh my gawd

twolf, they are laying out the welcome mat for hojoe

Good – If he accepts, we can start calling him a ‘DeLay Republican’ then.

;>)

twolf1 @ 126

That piece by Delay was too funny. The comments are pretty funny, too.

Joe: I now know what John Kerry meant when he was saying “colossal mistake”. Thank God. Thank God I switched to the Republican Party before I left this earth. There is a way to heaven, and it is through the gate of the Republican Party.

February 23, 2007 | TopGun

[FYI - although Top Gun quotes John Kerry as saying voting for Joe would be a colossal mistake, it was actually Wes Clark]

darkblack @ 134

Suzanne @ 132

uh my gawd

twolf, they are laying out the welcome mat for hojoe

Good – If he accepts, we can start calling him a ‘DeLay Republican’ then.

;>)

…as someone in the comments said “You can have droopy, he is a joke.”

Perhaps there is hope then, Darkblack. I’ve heard DeLay Republicans come with an Indictment – something I do wish on HoJo.

twolf, that was too funny. And OMG, the comments! Very scary. But the “You can have droopy, he is a joke” was priceless.

global yokel @ 130

Good post Jane. In addition to the fact that Klein has comments on his blog, Peter Beinart just fessed up to just how wrong he was about Iraq. Both of those guys have taken a real hammering from our side (and they deserved every bit of it,) but it would be both ungracious and foolish of us not to applaud them when they get it right. My hope for the blogosphere is that we impact the MSM in a productive way, as opposed to just being a bunch of armchair pundits who see ourselves as way too cool to ever nod approvingly when a mainstream journalist is on the right track. I don’t have any interest in being part of some marginal cult.

You run the risk of being co opted!

twolf1 @ 136

…as someone in the comments said “You can have droopy, he is a joke.”

‘Laffs galore’

;>)

fresh TRex upstairs

One might do well to point out to Klein the joys of having a comment section–the new leads, insights, high quality research, and fact-checking that come with having a well-tended comment section.

I don’t know if the lack of moderation is intended as a setup for an excuse to shut it down later–but if so, why not try to make the case for comments up front?

more impressive language than
“I was wrong on Irak’ or
“they lied us into Irak”

is

“we ain’t going to be stampeded into another war like the last one- No War in Iran!”

“You Dumbya/Pumphead are not authorized to Bomb Iran w/o an explicit Congressional Authorization!”

This is one reason why I am not impressed with Edwards He says the right the right things about Irak, but it’s deja vu when it comes to Iran. Ditto for Clinton and for a lot of the rest of them.

Lessons learned for purposes of retrospective conduct are worthless. The past is done, the future is coming at you.

I am not impressed with Edwards He says the right the right things about Irak, but it’s deja vu when it comes to Iran. Ditto for Clinton and for a lot of the rest of them.

Ditto. They were cowards. At least droopy Joe is consistent. Consistently wrong, of course, but we know where he stands.

https://www.intrade.com/aav2/trading/tradingHTML.jsp?evID=37596&eventSelect=37596&updateList=true&showExpired=false

Best to Sell

Best to Buy

Contract BQty Bid Offer AQty Last Vol Chge
Trade LIBBY.GUILTY.LYING
12 76.0 83.9 10 85.0 3302 4.0
76.00 83.90

Click on Contract Rules for lifetime graph

it appears that at this limited market is bullish on a guilty plea.

I just posted on his blog under the name:

Joke Line, which of course sounds exactly like Joe Klein.

Off Topic: See this article from Newsweek laying out the plan to stay in Iraq for 10 years of more.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17…../newsweek/

Asks if the presidential candidates know about Petraeus plans? We’d better be asking that of all our reps. There were several responses to Scarecrow’s post earlier today asking a variety of questions that should be asked of the candidates. This article makes me sicker with growing disgust and rage. What liars there are throughout the administration’s leadership for the perverse plans that will continue to rape the US and Iraq and other countries. They must be stopped now.

I just had nightmare that Scooter, Shooter and Looters were one and the same. God, I hate reality based nightmares.

Thank You for the post. The Link is posted under humor (comment section, highlighted). Goodnight.

I smell a wingnut on the jury, maybe the MIT PhD. The smarter someone is, the better they are at rationalizing their preconceptions that otherwise don’t coincide with reality.

ifthethunderdontgetya @
82

Ct Bob @ 49, remember this?

What’s next, you want us to provide evidence that Joe Lieberman doesn’t beat his wife?

Actually, that would be great.
NTodd, Blogsatz Eliterach | Homepage | 09.06.06 – 8:40 pm | #

Ntodd the ubiquitous, lol!

Haven’t you heard, NTodd is now out of the good graces of Atrios.

Connecticut Bob @
75

I Love Jane Hamsher @ 57

Connecticut Bob @
49

Dan Gerstain made it a point to not only leave all the disgusting comments on Joe Lieberman’s “blog” for the week or so it was open to comments, but then he copied a bunch of them to a document to use as proof that the anti-Lieberman crowd was uncouth, uncivil, and probably unwashed. To the tune of 15 pages worth! I still have a copy of the .pdf file; it’s a literary masterpiece, in my opinion.

So yeah, it could be a simple ploy to justify the eventuality when Joe Klein won’t allow comments in the future.

CT Bob,
Did you post there? The comments section was a riot.

I didn’t post there, but I reposted quite a few lively threads in my blog, and started a mirror blog for Joe’s blog that allowed comments after they shut them off.

The “Joe Lieberman beats his wife!” thread was hysterical; those people were relentless!

http://ctbob.blogspot.com/2006…..-wife.html

Ah, what wonderful memories!

I liked this exchange better ;-)

As I’ve said, we will look into whether or not serious Republican contributions have been made to Joe’s campaign. I don’t think so. It may take a few days (I’m very busy), but we will post our findings on the blog. I promise.

We all wait with bated breath.

I also want to know if Joe has accepted any contributions from kitten-eating cyborgs.
NTodd, Blogsatz Eliterach | Homepage | 09.06.06 – 9:16 pm | #

That was not funny. You can disagree with Joe on issues, but it is ludicrous (and imature) to continue in this vein. To keep this up, is to stoop to the level of ridiculousness to which Dan himself has sunk.

Dan brought it up. I was merely picking up the ball and running with it. And I never, ever claimed to be mature. I’m actually here because I heard there would be better snacks than over at Eschaton. I was misinformed.

And for the record, I don’t beat my wife (well, she’s now my ex, but we’re still friends and my claim stands!).
NTodd, Blogsatz Eliterach | Homepage | 09.06.06 – 9:20 pm | #

Connecticut Bob @
75

I Love Jane Hamsher @ 57

Connecticut Bob @
49

Dan Gerstain made it a point to not only leave all the disgusting comments on Joe Lieberman’s “blog” for the week or so it was open to comments, but then he copied a bunch of them to a document to use as proof that the anti-Lieberman crowd was uncouth, uncivil, and probably unwashed. To the tune of 15 pages worth! I still have a copy of the .pdf file; it’s a literary masterpiece, in my opinion.

So yeah, it could be a simple ploy to justify the eventuality when Joe Klein won’t allow comments in the future.

CT Bob,
Did you post there? The comments section was a riot.

I didn’t post there, but I reposted quite a few lively threads in my blog, and started a mirror blog for Joe’s blog that allowed comments after they shut them off.

The “Joe Lieberman beats his wife!” thread was hysterical; those people were relentless!

http://ctbob.blogspot.com/2006…..-wife.html

Ah, what wonderful memories!

I liked the kitty eating cyborgs part too. ;-)

here’s a comment you can take out Jane: stop being so impressed with yourself just because you “blog WITH COMMENTS” ooooooooooo. If you do that, you might not be so susceptable to slobbering over condescending, wingnut meme enabling, progressive undermining idiots like Joke Line just because he’s doing the mostest hardestest, bravestest, gutsiestest thing in the world: “blogging with comments” just like you.
.

Say it ain`t so Joe!

John Tierney has a blog w/ comments too.

When I saw the title of this and the picture underneath I thought Klein had composed a complete apologia pro vita sua. Yeah, right. That’ll be the day.

A blog with a comment section is nice providing you have something to say. But as we all know, Jane, what Mary McCarthy said about Lillian Hellman goes double for Joe Klein.

I’m waiting to hear from the People’s Front of Judea. cf Judeanpeoplesfront at 19. We do SO need to be fair and balanced.

This comment relates to a different website but speaks to Jane Hamsher’s excellent good point.

On 2/6/07, after a fifth try, I still could not get HuffPost to post my comment about Arianna’s incredible omission of Kucinich in her piece about Obama’s advantage over candidates who are finally having to live finally with their previous vote for Iraq invasion.

She also had another piece about Joe Klein’s revisionist history of his own stance in favor of the war early on. I posted a comment to it, noting that I appreciated HuffPo’s exposure of duplicity by members of the mainstream corporate press. I also said that I have always disliked Klein but that after reading his idiotic rebuttal of her earlier criticism of him I could offer one thing in his favor. His TIME website does not appear to censor critical comments posted by on-line readers. Something HUffPo might want to consider.

While I was awaiting the appearance of my comment about censorship, my Kucinich comment finally appeared (albeit a day too late for anyone to ever run across and read it).

Shortly thereafter my Klein comment appeared but when I checked back later in the day, to see if it had generated any supportive comments, it had been removed. Perfect example and very much proving my point.

There is simply no way the post can be construed as being in violation of HuffPo comment rules. Very bad practice.