Jane!

hmmmmm

Hey! I got the 404 hook on this post and was delayed getting here. CTuttle, you old sneak! :-)

Bob in HI

The money quote from this article

Sending the wrong message to politicians who respond positively and do what you ask them to do makes it difficult for online activists who are going to keep doing this long after this election is over. If politicians are going to be greeted like this for their efforts, what’s the upside for them?

The Republicans will freak as they always do.

Jane !!!

it is so I’ll echo it
(after I say Yayz!)

Sending the wrong message to politicians who respond positively and do what you ask them to do makes it difficult for online activists who are going to keep doing this long after this election is over. If politicians are going to be greeted like this for their efforts, what’s the upside for them?

Got your message.

Scahill was out of line…!

What the timing makes it look like is that Hillary is looking for any leverage she can find to show herself in a better light than Obama– which is not a bad thing, in this case, and she deserves applause for it.

But I must be somewhat dense.

Sending the wrong message to politicians who respond positively and do what you ask them to do makes it difficult for online activists who are going to keep doing this long after this election is over. If politicians are going to be greeted like this for their efforts, what’s the upside for them?

Will someone please explain to me why this is a poison pill greeting? I must be missing the subtleties.

Bob in HI

New to this site but it’s become one of my favorites. I’m delighted that someone was able to nudge a politician to do the right thing!

This is the time that they are trying to be all things to all interest groups because they want all the support they can muster. Once they are in office they only listen to the influential voices who usually can afford access.

Presidents are not doing town hall meetings are they?

Hi janicen!

Shorter MSM Conventional Wisdom “Hillary can do no right, Obama can do no wrong.”

A politician getting “criticized” for being political?

Stating this is the “Silly Season” is a serious understatement.

WTF?

Is it required that we trust every politician equally with respect to campaign statements and actions? Are authors of articles in the Nation required to trust every politician equally?

Welcome to the Lake! Always nice to see new faces…! 8-)

Welcome.

Nice straw man. No, they will do well to be skeptical and make sure people follow through on their promises, but calling them politically calculating for doing exactly what you’re asking them to do is deeply cynical and counter-productive.

Is it really that complicated?

Hillary = damned if you do….

If the guy writes and article criticizing Obama for not ruling out using mercenaries and Hillary turns around and says “I’ll try to pass legislation to outlaw the use of mercenaries”

and instead of say “attagirl” that’s the spirit, the guy attacks her for waiting until now to do it.

She did what he wanted. He shouldn’t dump on her for doing it.

Maybe he’s pissed that she seized the opportunity to do the right thing before Obama could and thereby stole his thunder?

I prefer to focus on the Clintons’ ludicrous and crass “red phone” ad in Texas; this has got to be fodder for a SNL skit. Who gets to answer the Red Phone? Hill or Bill?

I guess Hillary would be entitled to applause if, as Jeremy stated, she OR Obama did the right thing when the issue was at hand.
Why is it impossible for a politician to only do the right thing when they are being pressed.
This same kind of thinking is why Nancy Pelosi is an ineffectual leader.
I don’t, and won’t “applaud” my party when they finally catch up to the issues that are important to me. It’s what we deserve, and should expect from our elected officials.

Think of it as a behavioral-conditioning experiment: when they do what you want, you must reward them.

Why crass? it is a remake of the famous “daisy” commercial which is an icon of American political advertising. Taught in political science courses all over the US.

As George Steph. pointed out it is essentially a remake of an ad George McGovern used in a primary against Gary Hart

Here is Scahill’s final paragraph:

The senior adviser said, “Senator Obama is concerned that Blackwater remains in Iraq, and he’s concerned that they remain in Iraq and other countries totally unaccountable to US law and totally unaccountable to the law in the country in which they are operating.” Which raises the question: If he’s so concerned, why not throw his support behind a ban on the use of these forces in Iraq?

Exactly!

Biodun,

Jespère que ton voyage dans la ville lumière t’illumine.

But if his political opinion is that Senator Clinton is not authentic or trustable, he can’t say it? He simply seems to be expressing his opinion here.

From: http://www.civic-strategies.co.....uotes.html

I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Comment to a group of reformers. His point: Until they lead the way, they shouldn’t expect leaders to follow.

Maybe he’s pissed that she seized the opportunity to do the right thing before Obama could and thereby stole his thunder?

Maybe! He should be concentrating on getting Obama on board, instead of denigrating Hill…!

Uh, I think that would be a Walter Mondale commercial against Gary Hart. Hart was McGovern’s campaign director IIRC in ‘72 and ran against Mondale in ‘84.

In response to bobschacht @ 10

If the guy writes and article criticizing Obama for not ruling out using mercenaries and Hillary turns around and says “I’ll try to pass legislation to outlaw the use of mercenaries”

and instead of say “attagirl” that’s the spirit, the guy attacks her for waiting until now to do it.

She did what he wanted. He shouldn’t dump on her for doing it.

Maybe he’s pissed that she seized the opportunity to do the right thing before Obama could and thereby stole his thunder?

Thanks for the explanation. I guess it rates a bit worse than “Damning with faint praise,” eh?

Bob in HI

I’m uploading my version of the ad to Youtube right now. Should be done cooking in a few minutes.

You know what, just knock it off. Seriously. This is what we do here. If you don’t like it, I don’t know why you stay, because this is the goal. This is why we write, and get up in the morning, and do all of this. If Rahm Emanuel wants to sponsor good immigration reform legislation, I’m his girl. I’ll sing his praises all over the place, and wait until he fucks me over to accuse him of doing it.

I’m not interested in having politicians read this thread, throw up their hands and saying “why bother.” So if any of them are — don’t worry, we’re well well aware that this is extreme fanboy pinheadedness.

From: http://www.civic-strategies.co…..uotes.html

I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Comment to a group of reformers. His point: Until they lead the way, they shouldn’t expect leaders to follow.

Is this essentially what Conyers is saying to the impeachment crowd?

Bob in HI

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Comment to a group of reformers. His point: Until they lead the way, they shouldn’t expect leaders to follow.

Franklin had Eleanor constantly beating the crap out of him to do the right thing.*g*

Clap! Clap! Clap!!!

Sending the wrong message to politicians who respond positively and do what you ask them to do makes it difficult for online activists who are going to keep doing this long after this election is over. If politicians are going to be greeted like this for their efforts, what’s the upside for them?

Does it send the wrong message? When evaluating candidates for an office shouldn’t the voter (or activist) evaluate not only if it required an immense outcry and public pressure to get them to act but if the alternative candidate responded earlier and without requiring such pressure.

Seems to me that a more responsive candidate allows the activist to put their energies into other campaigns and issues and problems that need to be addressed.

IT’s a bit patronizing when a politician, or their spokespeople, say…well we expect your support because we eventually listened to you. Such people should realize that their support was grudging, and not heartfelt, so why should our support be any more easily obtained?

I cancelled my subscription to The Nation for all of the Hillary bashing. Good for Naomi, though.

(I also got a call from senior management at Fidelity!!!) See dailykos.

This is what we do here. If you don’t like it, I don’t know why you stay, because this is the goal. This is why we write, and get up in the morning, and do all of this.

I, for one, greatly appreciate your efforts, Jane! Keep fighting the good fight! *g*

Sorry, you are right. Was in the middle of sqabbling over something stupid with my law partner while typing (yes, multitasking is the source of some of my most famous typos and gaffs).

At least both names start with M?

I’m with Jane on this, I’m happy the legislation is coming. so yeah, yay.

I understand that response. But there comes a point when I don’t trust certain politicians anymore, due to their history. When I reach that point, I give up on trying to reform them and push for their defeat.

Well that goes without sayin’ ;-)

George Steph is not on his game (as usual). McGovern never ran against Gary Hart. Gary Hart was the campaign manager of the McGovern campaign. I believe Gary Hart ran against Mondale and Mondale used a similar ad against Gary Hart.

When evaluating candidates for an office shouldn’t the voter (or activist) evaluate not only if it required an immense outcry and public pressure to get them to act but if the alternative candidate responded earlier and without requiring such pressure.

AM I confused or were you speaking hypothetically? If I read the post correctly, the alternative candidate did not respond earlier and w/o requiring pressure. the alternative candidate is still on the wrong side of the issue leaving Hillary, late but at least arriving at the correct destination.

OT - for what it is worth:

Northrop Grumman and the maker of Airbus planes beat out Boeing Co. to win a $35 billion government contract to build military refueling planes.

What CT said.

Although I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that legislation from Rahm.

One of the reasons we haven’t endorsed during the presidential primary, as we’ve said often times, is because we want to be able to push candidates on issues that are important to us.

Jane…excuse me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the reason FDL doesn’t endorse candidates is because of your charter or tax status? I always thought you guys were a not-for-profit organization or something…not a political action committee?

Have I been wrong all this while?

I’m just not crazy about Democrats using those kinds of ads against other Democrats. That’s what we got Republicans for.

Here’s my response to Hillary’s ad.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=99oat5t-w9w

CTBob–Hilarious redo of the ad.

I give up on trying to reform them

No one is trying to save her soul, just get her to be responsive to our policy agenda. She was responsive. You “authentic, trustworthy” candidate wasn’t; at least not on this issue.

You might notice that instead of bashing him for not even bothering to respond on the issue with a positive action of his own, all Jane did was point out how counterproductive, in a Pavlovian sense, it would be to bash Hillary for doing the right thing.

Unless you would like to start a discussion of why Obama seems to think mercenaries are OK? Cause as Dem who is voting for the dem nominee, no matter who that is, I don’t think we want to start those kinda pie fights.

Heh, Rahm is certainly on the wrong side of the Immigration issue…! ;-)

I think it was me who was not on her game, not poor George who I have evidently misquoted.

George, I humbly apologize.

Yeah, but if you don’t want to despise Mondale, you can figure it was the young Bill and Hillary who must have used telepathy to put the evil thought in Mondale’s mind. Come to think of it, I think they probably started all the stuff with Richard Melon Scaife, Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Jerry Falwell and a host of people I had mistakenly blamed.

That is really witty. LOL

Exactly! You’re correct… barring the inherent typos…! ;-)

LOFL!

It is crass because it seems, to me, grossly stupid. Why would I trust the Clintons to be truthful about their experience when HRC will not release her appointments calendars when she was “First Lady”. The sad truth is she likely did nothing interesting as First Lady as she has done nothing interesting as a US Senator. In fact what she has done is incompetent, as exemplified by her failure to even read the NIE or challenge any of the assumptions advanced by Bush pertaining to Iraq. So I think it is a grossly stupid proposition that the Clintons should be allowed to take phone calls in the White House of an emergent and important nature and make the appropriate judgments. And it is even more crass for HRC to assert she has “experience” when she will not release the records underlying that purported experience.

I was referring to CtBob’s funny You tube. “Answer the phone!”

Tres cute

The Blackwater North Training facility is in Illinois..unfortunately it isn’t in Rahm’s or Lapinski’s district.

w00t 4 the Nation!

Sometimes it seems the only ad that would be acceptable for Hillary to run would say: Vote For Obama.

Come on. Let her run her campaign. This is getting way beyond ridiculous.

Rewind: Blackwater: Shadow Army

The Nation’s Jeremy Scahill describes the rise of Blackwater USA, the world’s most powerful mercenary army.

I was speaking hypothetically.

More specifically, if Obama has taken a sit-on-his hands position on this issue (and I haven’t looked deeply into his actual support or rejection of particular legislation on this topic) he should be criticized. And Clinton should be grudgingly applauded (provided the legislation actually does what she states it does).

Conversely, if Obama tries to pass legislation dealing with land-mines and cluster bombs and Clinton falls short then she should be critiqued for her stand. In either case the ones that don’t respond without (or respond at all) heavy pressure, impair efforts to move forward on other progressive issues that THEY might feel are important.

I guess I’m grown up enough to realize that there is no candidate out there with any sort of legislative history that will be “the Messiah”. We’re gonna have to weigh records, judge what we consider the most important actions, and determine whether we’re supporting someone that can get elected against worse opponents ad move our “partial” positions forward.

If you are looking for someone who agrees with all your positions today, vote for yourself. But don’t expect even that person to be consistent. ;-)

Heh…

thanks for the link Lou

LOL Bob

Occasionally, there have been close issues when the stridency of one side caused me to align with the other. I voted early for Obama in the Texas primary, but the continuing assault on the Clintons, by Obama supporters, is about to cause me to negate the vote by caucusing for Clinton. I mean, I really haven’t read attacks on Obama from Clinton support on anywhere near the same level. And it’s not as if Obama hasn’t been handling the thing well. From what I can see, he can’t lose the nomination.

Jane, I love when you get feisty!

And, of course, you are absolutely right. There have many many teachable moments during this campaign:

Will you stop American intelligence organs from spying on Americans?

Will you abide by the laws Congress passes, even if they are over your veto (no signing statements)?

Will we immediately begin abiding by the Geneva Coventions?

And so forth.

This is a two-fer - we condition candidates to respond to our needs (just as the fundamentalists have condidtioned the GOP - you don’t see the GOP establishment pissing on their base, do you?).

Plus, it draws a clear bright line between us and goopers.

The corporate media ain’t gonna do it, so it’s up to us DFH’s. We’re not fully effective yet, but much better than 2004 and 2006, and going from strength to strength.

Obama’s explanation on use of Blackwater in Iraq makes sense to me.

No, No, No. Bill and Hill are postives, you think?

It has nothing to do with “reforming” a politician. Okay I’m sorry if my language is intemperate, and I apologize for taking it out on you, but there really is an important point to be made here.

When Bill Richardson said that he was willing to withdraw all residual forces from Iraq, we applauded him for it. Now I personally didn’t believe him for a minute, I think he’s an idiot and felt instantly that he was just saying it for political effect. But that was really beside the point, I was happy to have him promoted on the site for saying what he did because it put pressure on everyone else to escalate their promises to withdraw from Iraq too, which they did. Now if we’d all said Bill Richardson was irredeemably full of shit from the start, that might not have happened.

We’re never going to be a fanboy site. We’re always going to use carrots and sticks. We’ll work with whoever wants to work with us. That’s what activists do.

lol, jujitsu ad

I have no problem with her campaigning and running ads but it’s over-the-top to play on the fear factor. I, personally, have had enough of that under Bush and would much rather she just play up her attributes/accomplishments and talk about what she wants to do.

Well said, Jane. I think Dodd is another example of the type of positive feedback FDL can help amplify.

Make sure you get to the caucus early…apparently the Clinton camapign wants to prevent caucus participants from being able to move to larger rooms if the crowd gets too big. They also are challenging the right of those whose registration status is challenged from casting a “provisional vote” in the caucuses (that would predominantly impact new registrants and non-Democrats, which are legally allowed to vote in the Democratic Primary and Caucuses).

I’m not sure what your asking. I will say that, if there were anyway I could obliterate the acts of the last 7 years and put the Clintons in charge, I surely would have done it. If I didn’t despise the Clintons, do you think I’m rare among Democrats?

CT Bob, could you edit in a shark dorsal fin and this music?

Yeah, I heard that. I’ve been a registered Democrat at the same address for the last 19 years.

Agreed. And I think that was part of Jane’s point

Sure is!

I disagree, the Army was capable of cooking their own chow, build schools, et al… Nowadays, the leaner Army has simply ceded over those responsibilities to contractors…

Heh. Yeah, that would have been perfect.

I am not going with the Clintons because they are better than the Bushes, if that is what you mean. We can jump over a higher and better bar than that set by the Clintons and the Bushes. At least I hope so. So, I hope you do not take me the wrong way.

You are ever so right! Now it seems that they are only combat soldiers and do not learn all the other skills that they used to. And this is supposed to help prepare them for life?

I still haven’t decided who to vote for after my choice left the race. Sigh..if only he would run as an independent. John, are you hearing me?

Heh. Yeah, that would have been perfect.

absolutely. genius!

Alright I will bite:

1. As you know I am a professional soldier and have served in both Irak and Afghanistan.

2. I have nothing but contempt for mercenaries and would lift a finger to save them if they got into trouble. (Which they routinely do in Irak, they then squeal like stuck pigs for the real professionals to come and rescue them.

3. This is one of the (very rare) occasions on which I completely agree with Jane.

BUT, but, but, but … I can understand where Scahill is coming from here. We post stories that are way ahead of the pack. There have been frequent occasions where our coverage has been cited in sites such as sotaliraq.com and we’ve been known to scoop Aswat Al Iraq. Not bad for a pack of amateurs who work for relief organisations (and yes a more than half of us are women, and yes they set the policy and what’s covered - don’t believe for a second that all Iraki women are helpless victims.)

So much for the Arabic press - don’t even get me started on the English language press. As our reaction to their coverage tends to be

finally those `*?=)(/&%¤#”! have finally §!”#¤%&/()=? noticed!

It’s intensely irritating - you work and work and work at it and push and push and push - and eventually people do notice, but you are so caught up in the topic that it is natural to feel:

why the hell didn’t you do this when it could have done some good!!!!

You’re right but I understand why he did it.

Dubhaltach.

Maybe I’m misreading this legislation but it seems that Sen. Obama and Durbin introduced their own legislation regarding blackwater back in September of 2007, just as the evidence of Blackwaters involvement in the shootings in Fawtha Square came out.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP030

He also tried again to pass legislation in February to force contractors to submit to oversight and accountability:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN006 …

Sen. Obama presses Bush on Blackwater Sept 25th:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/sen.-obama-pre …

Just love this comment!!! So in your face to boink brain. RZ does enjoy snipping. “Now is the time when candidates are most open to pressure.” says Naomi. So Naomi rocks as per usual. Go Jane hope the poodles are being nicer to you today. The short hair looks a little ‘pixie’ and a happy face. You been doin one hell of a lot of posting lately…amazingly prolific.
Hat Tip
OT would Impeachment be suggestable? If people can believe in religion I can believe in impeachment.

OOPS! for 2 above please read:

2. I have nothing but contempt for mercenaries and would NOT lift a finger to save them if they got into trouble. (Which they routinely do in Irak, they then squeal like stuck pigs for the real professionals to come and rescue them.)

We have a Engineer(Heavy)Battalion, trained to build installations etc… That was sent to Kuwait, all they did was pull guard duty and build some buildings on the Kuwaiti base…!

Hey Du! Great to see ya again at the Lake!

Our youngest has been very ill cTuttle he’s now out of hospital and recovering nicely - family comes first :-) Also the timezones can make things awkward.

O/T blogwhoring but I think you would like to read an appreciation from Baghdad of somebody who was an honourable American soldier.

Lurch

A mercenary army, by definition, is controlled by Money Trusts.

Why do Money Trusts need armies? In America?

We’ve certainly lost a true patriot! I’m glad to hear your son is recovering! 8-)

You are ever so right! Now it seems that they are only combat soldiers and do not learn all the other skills that they used to. And this is supposed to help prepare them for life?

It almost seems like a classic case of projection that Bush has subcontracted everything that our armed forces do that doesn’t involve killing, so that our armed forces now specialize in killing– which is exactly the label he uses with such contempt against our enemies. Oh– I guess its OK to kill if you’re killing the infidelterrorists or people who might be terrorists or people who are aiding and abetting terrorists, or people who happen to be standing within 10 feet of a terrorist or Arabs who don’t stop if you shout at them in English or people who are living in a building that a sniper is using or people who are in your way when you’re driving like a bat out of hell to keep from becoming a target of people who are fighting against an army of occupation or….

{sigh} You get the idea.

Bob in HI

Yup, that’s also what I’m talking about! Training not used is a waste of training and becomes forgotten.
I strongly support the troops - its the leadership I usually can’t stand!

Are authors of articles in the Nation required to trust every politician equally?

Very funny. The Nation, in its treatment of Obama and Clinton, has become the echo of HuffPo and TPM: Obama, noble visionary statesman. Clinton, corrupt, calculating pol.

If, hypothetically, Clinton were to find a cure for lung cancer tomorrow, these outlets would complain that (1) she actually found it years ago and withheld it for political advantage; or (2) an anonymous doctor found it and she’s stealing the credit; or (3) Obama would have found it first if he weren’t so busy campaigning, and his cure would be cheaper, faster and more spiritual.

If, hypothetically, Obama were to be caught on an amateur video beating his children with a Louisville Slugger, these outlets would explain that (1) he caught the children stealing the last first-aid kit from Wal-Mart; or (2) he has always opposed pedophilia, not corporal punishment; or (3) if YouTube had been around when Chelsea was growing up, then you’d really see what cruelty to children looks like.

Hi Jane,

Re:

but calling them politically calculating for doing exactly what you’re asking them to do is deeply cynical and counter-productive… Is it really that complicated?

Actually, it is. Hillary’s veering campaign tactics tend to give a sense of vertigo to a lot of us who are actually pretty clear on where we stand on the issues.

In 1993 I opposed NAFTA because it was going to hurt unions. Hillary was in favor of it because it was going to top up the wealth of many Clinton donors. Today, for the sake of her base, she’s opposed to NAFTA, though in favor of an even more odious agreement being negotiated with Peru.

In 2002 I was adamantly opposed to the AUMF and the eventual immoral and illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq in violation of all sense of decency and copious volumes of international law. Hillary cowered and cravenly voted in favor of AUMF using the lame excuse that she could not foresee George Bush actually invading Iraq. And that she could not see through Bush and Cheney’s lies. What rubbish.

As far as Clinton coming out this week in favor of a new proposed piece of legislation to limit contractors in Iraq, I’ll tell you that her triangulation on this one was to grandstand the issue as a safe bet that will never be effectuated. Either the bill dies in committee, on the floor of the Senate, in the House or via Presidential veto. This Clinton initiative is DOA and Hillary knows it. That’s why she’s proposed it. It’s just Potemkin Village eyewash for “the base”. I’m not buying it.

Hillary reminds me of that old George Burns line, “sincerity is the key to success in life. If you can fake that, you got it made.”

Hey Ray!

Good to ’see’ ya again.

I don’t, and won’t “applaud” my party when they finally catch up to the issues that are important to me. It’s what we deserve, and should expect from our elected officials

.

Well that’s a pretty self-defeating attitude. Why should we expect our elected officials to do the right thing if we don’t let them know that are doing the right thing when they do it? And are they supposed to read to your mind and discern what you think you “deserve” and then do it unbidden because they should just “know” that that’s what’s expected of them?

That makes no sense at all.