This place is the left-wing equivalent of a Sarah Palin rally, folks — mindless followers cheering on an anointed queen who pursues her own ambition as single-mindedly and viciously as Sarah does. Lucky she’s on “our” side, huh?

I am disappointed in your research abilities. The very quotes from me which you dug up illustrate that my comments are substantive and they document and back up any snark I throw in.

On this “troll” name-calling. I think you and others have wrung all you can from that ambiguous term. I believe it originally referred to folks who were not regular commenters on blogs, but who would pop up with vicious comments calculated to either divert the debate or inflame the debaters. But the way you use it now is redolent of simple name-calling against those who substantively agree with you. Maybe we can get back to when trolls were those hideous little dolls with straight red hair, and use this forum to engage in real debate. Shall we try?

That over with, many of us are waiting for your comments on the serious calling-out and thrashing administered to you by Apphouse50 (#184). What rational point are you attempting to make when you compare Caroline Kennedy seeking office to wanting a pony, or when you refer in a sexist manner to her getting her nails done?

I was a strong Hillary supporter during the primaries, and some of that was based on admiration for her and some of that was based on a fear of what the Republicans would do to Obama in the fall campaign (24-7 Reverend Wright film clips, anyone?). Obama one and I immediately switched my allegiance, my money, and my time to him. Either because McCain is a better man than I thought, or because it just was not gaining any traction, McCain did not engage in a scorched earth campaign against Obama and Obama displayed masterful campaign skills. I watched the inauguration in tears with millions of others. I guess the point is, my candidate lost and I supported the winner with no whining and no vitriol. And now we have a really really good shot at getting things right in this country.

p.s. I have a very good friend in Maine, a long-time divorced bachelor in his early 60’s who is financially independent, active, smart, on our side of issues and social policy, and supportive. I don’t know if you are looking…..

I agree with Jane that CK was not a good choice, but that doesn’t mean Gillibrand was the only choice left. And just because Gillibrand may have been a poor choice doesn’t mean CK should have been supported.

Patterson and the Dem elite who promoted this decision (most likely Rahm Emanuel) are the ones to blame if Gillibrand bucks any needed legislation, such as an economic stimulus.

At this point, I’ll keep my fingers crossed that somehow Gillibrand changes her stripes.

Talk of oozing entitlement. Ponies. “I guess it was either that or get her nails done.”

‘Scuse me, but when has Caroline Kennedy been so belligerently indolent and trivially “entitled” that she deserved this kind of hash slung at her? I’m not talking about legitimate questions about her positions on issues and a suggestion that going out and talking to the public would be called for. Those things made all kinds of sense. But that stuff about “You know, those little people whose ordinary lives she hopes to enrich by her presence?” suggests some sort of “let them eat cake” attitude I’m more inclined to attribute to Barbara Bush than Caroline Kennedy.

It didn’t take long before this kind of talk evolved throughout the blogosphere as “She didn’t write those books. She’s done nothing of substance,” quite often accompanied with “hats off to Jane Hamsher” for showing this woman for what she is: a spoiled brat.

You asked, so I’m answering. I think a lot of the irritation that’s been expressed over all this comes from a) what seems to many as gratuitously insulting to someone a lot of people like (whether or not they have a position on her candidacy), and b) having anyone who disagrees lumped into some monarchy-loving swarm who drank the Kennedy Kool-Aid a long time ago and still yearns for a return to Camelot (which most of us know never truly existed).

For the record, I’m also appalled about what I keep seeing as support for her because she was wealthy enough to have no campaign financing concerns down the road. I’ve seen comments by some that this was, for them, the deciding point. Yet in other conversations I’m sure a lot of the folks expressing that sentiment about CK now have at other times in the past griped about the Senate being a millionaires club.

Caroline herself derailed her appointment through lack of preparation, lack of skill in dealing with the media, and a remarkable inability to speak well and defend her — generally fine progressive — positions.

Caroline was ill-advised to attempt to gain a Senate seat in this manner without thorough preparation, including intensive training in how to speak convincingly on the teevee. That’s just basic skill-set for a Senator, and she couldn’t do it.

Ill-will toward dynasties likely had nothing at all to do with her ultimate failure, despite the fact that the dynastic aspects of her potential appointment were heavily featured in the anti-Caroline blog posts here and elsewhere. Since it is an appointed position, it’s hard to tell how much her declining poll numbers among the public played in Paterson’s decision. But her polling declines came after she botched her public appearances and press availabilities (or lack thereof.) She just wasn’t ready to deal with that side of public service.

We’ll never know whether she would have been a good appointment (despite her disabilities).

Gillibrand, however, doesn’t seem to be anything close to a progressive- ideal appointee.

This is where “be careful what you wish for” enters the picture.

Gillibrand has many of the skills and experience Caroline so badly lacks, but her policy positions are hardly progressive at all. To someone like me, they’re reactionary. Why would anyone who claims to be progressive want that instead of Caroline?

Clearly somebody did want that and not what Caroline had to offer, regardless of what Jane or other blogospheric advocates wanted or didn’t want. It was Paterson’s choice to make, he made it. Oh well.

There’s a lot of bile and venom — plenty enough to drown in — being spewed around the blogosphere because this whole affaire de Caroline K started ugly and ended ugly here and elsewhere. Not wanting Caroline — for whatever reason — is one thing; but who is ultimately going to be in the Senate is the important thing, and I, for one, have no reason to believe that Gillibrand is going to be a more progressive Senator than Caroline would have been.

****

“Agent provacateur?” My God man, you sound like one of the Trotskyite sects of the American communist party in the 30’s; so eager to label and drum out of the organization anyone who disagrees with you, especially when they write with the wit and intelligence of someone like Juno. Why don’t you give a substantive points that Juno and I are making in this thread about how much Obama still needs to explain, and how this mess is not just going to go away by Obamaites stomping their feet and holding their breath.

****

My God, the level of hatred and pure anti-semitism in these responses is exceeded only by the ignorance displayed. The Israelis are fighting people who have the declared goal of driving them into the sea, in short, exterminating them and taking over all of their land. The Israelis have taken a barren, arid desert, and turned it into a garden. Israel is the only real democracy in the region. Every time Israel gives back some land taken when it defended itself against sneak attacks by its Arab neighbors, the occupants start firing rockets indiscriminately at Israeli towns. Yes, many civilians are dying in Gaza, but the difference is that Israel is not deliberately targeting them. Heard of any Israeli suicide bombers lately? Months of indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel by the occupants of Gaza, and I have not seen any great public outcry. Sarkhozi was not hitting the limelight in defense of Israel or in an effort to stop this barbarism. Damn it, sometimes there is a right side and a wrong side, the Palestinians are on the wrong side of this one.

****
KayinMaine, So many of us are tired of the namecalling. “Racist” is a big flaming rocket, and you really should be careful at whom you launch it. Even Obama has denied that he believes Ferrarro’s comments were racist. And to call Hillary a racist is to discount her entire life of public service, as well as that of her husband. Disagree with them; point out where you think they are wrong. But for Gods sake leave the juvenile and inciting insults behind.

****

Jane, just curious if you knew half of what Ann in AZ wrote in her comments before you decided to whale (and wail) on Caroline. We won, take a breather, go ogle Barack in Hawaii.

While I’m happy to have people here arguing alternative points of view, and value the time and effort you put into commenting on the site, it is a bit much to stomach lectures on decorum from a troll.

When Caroline Kennedy announced she wanted to be in the running for Hillary’s seat, I’m sure Hillary Clinton was miffed because CK backed Barack Obama over her during the campaing. The CC contacted the governor to express their views and told him to hold on in announcing his pick (which it’s rumored that Hillary wanted Gillibrand from the start) until she was confirmed as the SOS. When she was confirmed as the SOS that is where the ball started rolling….

There was rumors out there about CK that were boiling.

The New York Post reported the next day (after CK announced at midnight that she was officially out) that CK had tax/nanny issues and was having an affair with Arthur Sulzburger of the NY Times. I was listening to Howie Carr out of WRKO/Boston on the radio when he reported the same thing shortly after the story appeared on the New York Post. Within minutes, Howie announces that Arthur’s name has been scrubbed from the original post on the NYP.

Someone wanted these rumors to get out to drive the final nail in Caroline Kennedy’s coffin.

Who was the unnamed source who started the rumor (which, they could be true…that’s not the point)? I bet it was Hillary’s Camp who told the governor, who in turn told the NYP in a coordinated effort to get Kennedy out, so the governor could pick Gillibrand who was Hillary’s first choice to begin with.

So, you see, it wasn’t Jane’s comments about Kennedy that got Kennedy to drop out. It was Hillary’s camp who did. Many of us in the left blogosphere were upset with Jane’s vicious comments about Kennedy, but in the end, her comments didn’t have the weight or was the reason as to why CK was sent packing.

This is how I see it. Anyway…

We’re stuck with Gillibrand in the Senate now. She may be great or she may be meeting Carolyn McCarthy in 2010 to fight to keep her seat. We don’t know at this point.