Is It Me, Or Are These Hamsher Threads An Early Loyalty/Purity Test

[WillyT]

Sorry for one more Hamsher Thread, but since some here have dubbed me "FDL-Willy" (which I wear with pride along with a big smile) I figure I've earned the right...

I'm coming to believe that as the next election approaches, and the economy flails around, and certain compromises may have to be made, and President Obama's Re-Election is not a sure thing...

That threads like we've seen today will become more common. We'll call it the Hamsher-Litmus Test, or HLT for short.

And the closer the election comes, the more we we'll see how loyalties are divided. The more loyalties are divided, the more people will complain about, or leave, DU.

And... fertile ground will be sowed with the seeds of blame...

Yet the divided loyalties here are NOT between Democrats and Republicans, the division it seems to me, is between loyal supporters and loyal critics.

Normally I would say that such back and forth debate is a healthy thing, but I cannot in this case.

These tests always fail, and are NOT healthy for DU.

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

1. I think hamsters are cute. What's the big deal about hamster threads?

[WillyT]

2. LOL !!! - VERY Cute !!!

;)

:hi:

[marmar]

17. Who is arming the hamsters?

nt

[slackmaster]

24. Bad kittens

[gratuitous]

3. Facts don't matter; only personalities

If you're not the "right" kind of person, your criticism or complaint is meritless, regardless of the facts.

I hope this clears the matter up.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

55. +1

A "fact free zone", here, who wudda thunk. :(

[mmonk]

4. Yep.

That's why I'm taking a break. That and the personal attacks.

[Luminous Animal]

9. I hope not too long of a break! The personal attacks can hurt but I just get up

and hug my cat and walk around the garden.

[mmonk]

18. Small break.

I'm tired of the attacks on progressives that challenge the status quo. Wasted time to make people angry instead of working for a progressive future. I'll be back when the useless smoke clears.

[Fumesucker]

12. I don't have a problem with personal attacks..

I'm more than capable of handing out better than I receive, I learned my online chops on Usenet political groups.

What pisses me off is when one side is allowed personal attacks and the other side gets deleted if they respond in kind.

[Ignis]

94. This.

[QC]

104. Bingo. n/t

[EFerrari]

5. There's a small group of people who have decided in their infinite wisdom

that the way to win elections is to beat up on progressives.

That strategy worked so well in 2010, I have no doubt it will be trotted out again. The independents that swung that election will look at these personal attacks and say, I want to be in THAT club and they'll come over in droves. If Jane Hamsher doesn't tank the republic first. :)

[Luminous Animal]

10. Hahaha!!!

[ZombieHorde]

23. Would you vote for a progressive if s/he was pro-life?

Would you vote for a progressive if s/he was for ending social security?

Some people feel as strong about war and marriage equality as others feel about abortion and social security.

[EFerrari]

30. I vote for pro life progressives all the time.

Never for anti-choice assholes.

People can feel as strongly as they like. That doesn't make them right.

[ZombieHorde]

40. I am assuming your reply is a joke and you really do understand the difference between a fact and an

opinion.

If my assumption is correct, and you really are an educated adult who understands the difference between fact and opinion, you can understand why progressives attack progressives.

On a side note, pro-life means abortion should be illegal.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pro-life

You may not like this definition, but it is proper English.

[EFerrari]

43. Not at all. "Pro life" is a hateful right wing frame and that's all it is.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Donnachaidh]

36. +100. You also have to wonder who makes up the lists of people to trash

Makes one wonder if KO says something out of line with this sort of group if he'll be next?

[ZombieHorde]

6. "Normally I would say that such back and forth debate is a healthy thing, but I cannot in this case"

I agree.

In many people's minds, Hamsher and President Obama are symbols for a set of ideas. Sets of ideas are extremely difficult to debate, as opposed to individual ideas.

[Taverner]

7. I don't know...but you're right - they aren't healthy

The circular firing squads seem to be our downfall

[sufrommich]

8. There can be threads bashing every democrat under the sun

every day here (and there are)and that's OK, but threads fighting back against the now constant bashing are "loyalty oaths". Here's an idea, maybe some of the hundreds of people who post here daily don't really agree with the constant bashing.

[EFerrari]

16. Then the issues need to be argued on their merits

not via middle school level personal attacks that only create bad feeling.

[Luminous Animal]

31. Oh lord. Bashing. Initiating or continuing discussions about policy is NOT bashing.

It is real live politics.

I remember being labeled as a Bush basher and hater in an attempt by my opponent to turn the conversation away from policy. Somewhere along the line, I ignored the attempts to swing the conversation to defending the personal... engaging in such is for suckers.

[carolinayellowdog]

38. "bashing" is what THEY do, "fighting back" is what WE do

but there are at least two sets of THEYs and WEs here. In fact, mischaracterizing words on a screen as violent physical attacks is used as a justification for very hostile retaliation against "THEM."

[fascisthunter]

58. There is a difference between "bashing" and "criticizing"

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[WillyT]

70. Hey, Thanks For Serving !!! - 5 Kicks So Far !!!

:yourock:

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[sabrina 1]

80. No, they do not agree with bashing. But most intelligent people

do not call criticism of policies 'bashing'. There is a difference between the kind of personal attacks on people like Hamsher who has zero power to change policy btw, and genuine concerns about the policies of an administration especially when it is one people worked hard to elect and which does have the power to change the course of this country.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Second explanation

Perhaps Ms. Hamsher is just a particularly noxious asshole who most recently made yet another spectacle of herself at the Netroots conference, thereby sparking yet more debate on her dubious activities.

[EFerrari]

21. Now there is a well laid out compelling argument.

lol

[WillyT]

27. LOL... Yeah... Calling The President Out On Campaign Promises Unfulfilled Is...

SO UNFAIR!!!

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[alcibiades_mystery]

47. Yeah, wackadoo conspiracy theories about purity tests are

the Gold Standard.

:rofl:

[Iggo]

13. Early? There's 3-5 per day around here!

:rofl:

[Luminous Animal]

14. There was a bit of Michael Moore bashing today, too, FDL-Willy.

I guess it's time to line up the lefties and mow them down.

[bluestate10]

62. Moore made an ass of himself. nt

[Luminous Animal]

95. No text. Well, that is damning evidence. Kudos to you for your well presented argument.

[joeybee12]

15. Not a loyalty test, but they are certainly trying to discredit FDL and its so transparent

it's laughable.

[NorthCarolina]

45. The right is working overtime to make DU uncomfortable for Liberals. nt

[Youth Uprising]

101. Yep.

I no longer see these people as Democrats anymore, they are right-wingers in my eyes.

[aquart]

19. I don't trust anyone who tells me who I can trust.

And anyone who calls for purity tests or a version thereof is not in the right place or the right party.

[wndycty]

22. And Jane Hamsher does a good job of doing that herself

:kick:

[bluestate10]

63. Yep. And she does not disclose all of her associations. nt

[amborin]

66. take a look at DLC associations:

.... DLC - FUNDING 101

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Third_Way_Fo...

The Third Way:

The Third Way Foundation, formerly known as the Progressive Foundation, is an umbrella organization of New Democrats. The Progressive Policy Institute, the affiliated think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), is a project of the foundation.

Political Funding:

1). Bradley Foundation:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bradley_Foun...

"According to the Media Transparency web site, the Foundation's "resources, its clear political agenda, and its extensive national network of contacts and collaborators in political, academic and media circles has allowed it to exert an important influence on key issues of public policy. While its targets range from affirmative action to social security, it has seen its greatest successes in the areas of welfare 'reform' and attempts to privatize public education through the promotion of school vouchers....

"'The overall objective of the Bradley Foundation, however, is to return the U.S. -- and the world -- to the days before governments began to regulate Big Business, before corporations were forced to make concessions to an organized labor force. In other words, laissez-faire capitalism: capitalism with the gloves off.'"

2). Howard Gilman Foundation:

http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/gmdisplay.asp?Org...

3). Ameritech Foundation:

(prominently listed on SourceWatch, but only gave $10,000)

http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/gmdisplay.asp?Org... 1996 Grants

4). General Mills Foundation:

(prominently listed on SourceWatch, but only gave $20,000)

http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/gmdisplay.asp?Org... 1996 Grants


5). John M. Olin Foundation:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_M._Olin...

"The John M. Olin Foundation, based in New York, was established in 1953 by John Merrill Olin (1892-1982), inventor, industrialist, conservationist, and philanthropist. 'Olin was committed to the preservation of the principles of political and economic liberty as they have been expressed in American thought, institutions and practice.'<1> (http://www.jmof.org/history_purposes.html )

"'Accordingly, the general purpose of the John M. Olin Foundation is to provide support for projects that reflect or are intended to strengthen the economic, political and cultural institutions upon which the American heritage of constitutional government and private enterprise is based. The Foundation also seeks to promote a general understanding of these institutions by encouraging the thoughtful study of the connections between economic and political freedoms, and the cultural heritage that sustains them.'<2> (http://www.jmof.org/history_purposes.html )

"In 2001, the Foundation expended $20,482,961 to fund right-wing think tanks including the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, the Hudson Institute, the Independent Women's Forum, the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University, the Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research, and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). 'The Foundation also gives large sums of money to promote conservative programs in the country's most prestigious colleges and universities.'<3> (http://www.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?fund... )<4> (http://www.jmof.org/history_purposes.html )<5> (http://www.jmof.org/grants_1996.html )"

6). Smith Richardson Foundation:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Smith_Richar...

"The Smith Richardson Foundation is financed by the Vicks Vaporub fortune. The Foundation reported assets of $494 million in 2001 and gave away $23 million.

"The Foundation became active in supporting conservative causes in 1973 when R. Richardson Randolph became its president. Forbes estimates the Richardsons to have a net worth of $870 million, which makes it one of the U.S.'s richest families.<1> (http://www.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?fund... )

"The Foundation funded the early 'supply-side' books of Jude Wanniski and George Gilder. It is also listed in the acknowledgements for Dennis King's study of the LaRouche movement, Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism (1989).

"Grantees The Foundation gave approximately $99,686,911 to a total of 266 grantees. Conservative think tanks that received substantial sums were:

Center for Strategic and International Studies, $3,135,061
American Enterprise Institute, $2,942,532
Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at John Hopkins; $2,680,334
Brookings Institute, $2,629,870
RAND Corporation, $1,854,061
Hudson Institute, $1,595,510
National Institute for Public Policy, $1,534,334
Urban Institute, $1,492,624
Freedom House, Inc., $1,109,500
Council on Foreign Relations, $883,023"

***

Progressive Policy Institute

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Progressive_...

"The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) was established in 1989 "and after the 1992 election gained notoriety as 'Bill Clinton's idea mill.'" PPI is the think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), founded in 1985 by PPI's President, Will Marshall, and counts among its past chairs former President Bill Clinton, Congressman Richard Gephardt, and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman. <1> (http://www.followthenetwork.org/groupprofile.asp?grpid=... )

"Mission **** Note influence of THIRD WAY THINKING! ****

"The Progressive Policy Institute is a catalyst for political change. Its mission is to modernize progressive politics and government for the Information Age. Leaving behind the stale left-right debates of the industrial era, PPI is a prolific source of 'Third Way' thinking that is shaping the emerging politics of the 21st century." <2> (http://www.ppionline.org /)

"Funding: **** Note the dubious "left-wing" supportive Harry Bradley Foundation! See #1 under funding for The Third Way Foundation! ****

"According to Follow the Network, "PPI receives relatively little direct foundation sponsorship: most of the money PPI has received (about $300,000) has come from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which contributes to a variety of both leftwing and conservative foundations. Additional PPI money has come from the BP Foundation, the AT&T Foundation (http://www.followthenetwork.org/funderProfile.asp?fndid... ), the Eastman Kodak Charitable Trust, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (http://www.followthenetwork.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid... )." <3> (http://www.followthenetwork.org/groupprofile.asp?grpid=... )

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php?title=Progressive_P...

***

DLC:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Democratic_L...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2445516

[LoZoccolo]

20. Jane Hamsher needs to disclose FULLY where her money comes from.

ALL OF IT!

FIRE DOG LAKE

COMMON SENSE MEDIA

ALL OF IT!

[Electric Monk]

26. Right after you do.

nt

[LoZoccolo]

29. I get no money from the Republicans; has Jane Hamsher said the same thing?

Maybe I'd settle for just her saying that.

[Electric Monk]

34. I used to get some money from Republicans. Usually $5 on Xmas and birthdays

from my maternal grandparents when I was a kid.

I don't think that makes me a bad person, though :shrug:

[Luminous Animal]

35. DU gets money from Republicans. I see the ads all the time.

[Octafish]

48. I see the posts all the time.

Dude!

[Luminous Animal]

51. !

[amborin]

69. and the DLC:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2445516


"DLC - FUNDING 101

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Third_Way_Fo...

The Third Way:

The Third Way Foundation, formerly known as the Progressive Foundation, is an umbrella organization of New Democrats. The Progressive Policy Institute, the affiliated think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), is a project of the foundation.

Political Funding:

1). Bradley Foundation:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bradley_Foun...

"According to the Media Transparency web site, the Foundation's "resources, its clear political agenda, and its extensive national network of contacts and collaborators in political, academic and media circles has allowed it to exert an important influence on key issues of public policy. While its targets range from affirmative action to social security, it has seen its greatest successes in the areas of welfare 'reform' and attempts to privatize public education through the promotion of school vouchers....

"'The overall objective of the Bradley Foundation, however, is to return the U.S. -- and the world -- to the days before governments began to regulate Big Business, before corporations were forced to make concessions to an organized labor force. In other words, laissez-faire capitalism: capitalism with the gloves off.'"

[KoKo]

91. Thanks for the links...we have to hope that the Hamsher bashers will read.

Not likely...but "hope springs eternal."

[bluestate10]

65. The poster is not a high profile person that is bashing every democrat

in sight, while taking money from unknown republicans.

[noiretextatique]

90. hyperbole

"bashing every democrat" utter nonsense.

[Luminous Animal]

32. DU needs to disclose FULLY where its money comes from.

ALL OF IT.

There is an awful lot of Republican and right wing advertising on this site.

[noiretextatique]

64. are you one of those people who believes she should not have republican clients?

that's pretty ridiculous, imho. i do taxes, and i suppose some of my clients could be republicans, but as long as their money is green, i could care less how they vote.

[bluestate10]

68. I am one person that believes that view. The republican is so far right

that any political organization that Hamsher works for is likely out to damage the very fabric of society. I would not call a person that remotely associates with modern republicans in backroom associations should be called progressive.

[sabrina 1]

82. Then you must be furious over the Obama Admins.

associations with Republicans, with the Wall St. funding of his campaign, with the cabinet filled with former, and probably future Goldman Sachs representatives directing out economic policies.

[noiretextatique]

88. you would think so, huh?

i think it's ridiculous to claim that private citizens should pass some purity test that elected democrats can't pass.

[Old and In the Way]

25. It's a binary choice facing the electorate.

Vote Republican or vote Democrat. Seems to be a no-brainer to me. When the day comes that the binary choice is between a Democrat or a Progressive, I'll be happy to realign with the Progressives. In the last election here in Maine for Governor, 62% of the vote was split between the Democrat and the Independent - we now have a Teabagger Republican in charge. In this environment, I'm totally suspect of any 3rd Party that can pave the way for a republican.

[JoePhilly]

33. +1 ... Progressives who do nothing but bash the Dem president

aren't helping anyone.

Its tough to fight the enemy in front of you when your supposed allies are constantly hitting you with a stick from behind.

Maybe Jane should run for office.

[Le Taz Hot]

107. "Progressives who do nothing but bash the Dem president. . . "

Absolute statements like that don't do much for your credibility as, realistically, you have no idea what DUers do in when they're not posting here.

[snooper2]

28. Damn it all you smart folk keep figuring out our strategies..

I need to sit down and stratergizer some more tonight... :)

[struggle4progress]

37. I lost any taste for Hamsher after she began a post "Today, Grover Norquist and I are calling for"

Thanks, but -- no thanks!

[EFerrari]

39. Did you lose your taste for the administration when they invited him to testify

about the health care bill? I see a lot of selective loss of appetite around here.

[struggle4progress]

41. Norquist has been reliably on the side of evil before the Reagan era:

... Norquist was one of the co-authors of the 1994 Contract with America ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist#Influence_in_national_politics

Sowing the Seeds of GOP Domination
Conservative Norquist Cultivates Grass Roots Beyond the Beltway
By Laura Blumenfeld
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 12, 2004; Page A01
... Norquist, 47, is known for his weekly strategy sessions of conservatives, a Washington institution. But quietly, for the past five years, he also has been building a network of "mini-Grover" franchises. He has crisscrossed the country, hand-picking leaders, organizing meetings of right-wing advocates in 37 states ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8423-2004Jan11?language=printer

[struggle4progress]

53. It wasn't that long ago that Hamsher was calling for somebody to primary Bernie Sanders

[sabrina 1]

81. So how did you feel when he was asked to advise Obama's

Devicit Commission?? That to me was a shocker frankly, since I thought we voted Republicans OUT of positions where they could influence policies such as on the economy.

[struggle4progress]

87. I think you're just confused about what happened:

Obama appointed a bipartisan commission to make recommendations; the commission naturally called a variety of witnesses representing various views, and so the Republicans demanded Norquist; the commission afterwards couldn't really reach any agreement; the co-chairs of the commission then tried but failed to strong arm the commission by falsely publicizing their personal views as consensus view; and the commission "report" finally crashed in flames

Good faith effort by the President. Early superficial bipartisanship from the commission. Expected intransigence from Republicans. Amazing idiocy from Bowles who (as far as I can tell from his two Senates runs) doesn't have a lick of political sense. And then yet another dead-on-arrival "bipartisan commission report" in DC -- a rather common event there

You gotta get your ticket punched if you wanna ride the train: Obama's gotta be able to say I made a good faith effort, and nobody with any integrity says that without making a good faith effort -- so Obama got his ticket punched

[Angry Dragon]

42. I posted this earlier today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1338758

[WillyT]

49. Thank You For That !!!

K & R'd it!

:hi:

[amborin]

46. K&R definitely agree!

[Raine]

50. Agree nt

[G_j]

52. I saw a similar attack on Kucinich the other day

perhaps you're right.

[KoKo]

92. Kucinich has constant bashing...then there's Glenn Greenwald, Michael Moore, Paul Krugman

who are bashed constantly when anyone posts something they said or a link to something worthwhile they've done.

It's like Rahm is still out there...bashing and calling names to those Democrats who aren't his kind of conserva-dems...

[CrossChris]

97. I think you're barking up the right tree--message discipline.

Message Discipline hasn't gone anywhere.

[KoKo]

102. What saddens me is that our Democrats STILL have problems with "Message Control"

after all these years and even when we heard that Harry Reid was getting training from that guy who was supposed to be the GURU of MESSENGING. I can't remember his name but he was a FAVE of DEMS/DU'ers during Bush Years who wrote books and did "Trainig Sessions for Senate and House over how Dems were "losing message control."

It didn't seem to work and the guy was obviously some person hawking his wares to defeated Dems hoping to make a buck...but Dems and some here on DU took him VERY SERIOUSLY.

It was a "Crash & Burn" IMHO...but what the hell...maybe it was so bad when he got there that NO ONE could have fixed it all for our Democrats. They might not have needed to listen.. :-(

[CrossChris]

108. No one wants to put any real money into "the people's message." The only real message discipline...

is bought and paid for.

Even if we the people did have good messaging, the corporate media would never repeat it.

Their side has thinktanks full of linguists & psy-ops experts thinking about messaging 24/7. Then they have a friendly media who will dutifully repeat that message. What does our side have that's comparable to that? The internet---and that's why corporate trolls are attempting a hostile takeover of that ground, as well.

[noiretextatique]

54. but...she has republican clients!

:scared: how do you explain that fdl willy :loveya: :hi: time to a meetup soon. you know cass is gone, right? she moved to guatemala.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

56. Smells like a touch of obstinate fear.

Remember the study that was posted here, about how certain kinds of folks -- even when presented with the verifiable facts on a topic/situation -- would refuse to let go of their belief and just dig their heels in even further in defense of their position?

It's kind like that.

[WillyT]

57. Yep...

How ya doin???

:bounce:

:loveya:

:hi:

[bluestate10]

59. Questions about Hamsher are legitimate. nt

[MineralMan]

61. Hamsher is actually not that important.

She runs a website that is read by a tiny minority of Democrats. She's vocal and sometimes strident, but not all that influential, really.

That's my assessment of her, in terms of her influence on politics. I'm not that fond of her site's constant assault on President Obama, but I don't consider her a pivotal voice. I do not use her site for anything, and the only thing I read from FDL is what's posted here.

[slipslidingaway]

67. But look at the recent posts ...

worthy of discussion IMO.

Competing Resolutions Seek to Codify Congressional Authority for War in Libya

Tim DeChristopher at NN11: Obama Administration Pursues Activists Like Previous Administrations (VIDEO)

Thigpen Failed to Meet with President, Economic Advisers on WH Visit

Majority Want All American Troops in Afghanistan Home Now

National Credit Union Administration Sues JPMorgan Chase for Misleading Offering Materials In Sales of RMBSs

Tell Attorney General Holder: Keep Obama’s Promise and Respect State Medical Marijuana Laws

[MineralMan]

71. I have no doubt that there are issues raised on FDL that are

worthy of discussion. That's not my point at all. My point is that FDL's and Jane Hamsher's influence are both very small in terms of national politics.

When stuff from FDL shows up here, I read it and, very rarely, comment on it. Nothing from FDL will actually influence any election for federal offices.

Her website is not where it happens. It's peripheral.

If 1 million people read her site, I'd be surprised. That's less than 1% of the voting public. There are much more influential venues than FDL. That's why I pay only minor attention to FDL and Jane Hamsher. She just doesn't matter that much, really.

Firedoglake.com ranks #19,880 on Alexa.com for websites. DU ranks #4584. The New York Times site is ranked at #87.

Those rankings show how many people are reading the site, how many sites link to those sites, and how influential those sites are.

FDL barely raises the needle off zero. DU is much more influential and widely read, and it's not that important, really, in terms of influencing the vote.

Rankings matter. Eyes matter.

[WillyT]

72. Well Tell That To You Buddies Upthread, Because They Sure Seem To Care...

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

74. I'm sure whomever you're talking about are capable of reading

for themselves. I don't have "buddies" on DU. I'm here all on my own. What I write is my opinion, and my opinion only. As far as I'm concerned, everyone speaks for him or herself.

I recognize a lot of screen names here. I know not a single person here personally. I speak for myself.

[mvd]

76. I read her because I really like to read sites that have..

viewpoints not often seen in the media. It's also why I watch Keith. I hardly ever get progressive politice off of DU and select websites, plus MSNBC and left talk radio. The Philly Inquirer is even centrist (the primary stance) and right. She might not be for everyone, but since I think Obama's been disappointing, I don't stay off because of the bashing.

[MineralMan]

78. I watched Keith. Now I can't since Current TV is in a higher cable

tier than I pay for. I read FDL stuff when it's posted here. I don't look for only progressive points of view. I'm a pragmatist who's interested in results of elections. That's my focus, and that's what I get involved in. FDL doesn't really influence elections much at all, so I don't follow it closely.

My activism is primarily local, in my own congressional district, state legislative districts, and statewide. That's all I have time for. I'm interested in national politics, but only when something actually influences it. FDL doesn't qualify. Jane Hamsher's a minor player, frankly, so I pay little attention to FDL.

[mvd]

84. I search for progressive points of view because IMO..

the corporate power brokers are trying to silence them. I feel the progressive views get to the truth a lot. I don't mind FDL and wish progressives would have more influence. First I have to support the progressives I see - or else I can't complain about the lack of influence sites like FDL have.

[slipslidingaway]

83. We have different views on what is important, personally I find the issues matter more ...

than the page views ... but you are right that eyes matter as well.

[mvd]

85. I'm also an issues-oriented person

:thumbsup:

[slipslidingaway]

89. As it should be :) n/t

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[MineralMan]

75. Uff da! What a screen name.

...

[WillyT]

77. LOL !!! Welcome To DU, Hamsher litmus test !!!

:bounce::toast::bounce:

Glad ta have ya aboard!!!

:hi:

:evilgrin:

:rofl:

[gkhouston]

86. And...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=272567

No idea why, unless it was a sock puppet.

[krabigirl]

79. don't know/don't care/other :)

[SoDesuKa]

93. Hamsher's Loyal Following

Jane Hamsher has loyal followers, and I'm one of them. Year after year she's consistently right on so many issues that if I find myself in disagreement with her I tend to revisit the issue to see if I've missed something. I thought she went out on a limb in supporting Ned Lamont, but he did actually win the Democratic nomination for Senate.

Learning that her media company has Republican clients doesn't bother me at all. She's entitled to make a living at what she knows, the same as any lawyer who takes on clients without endorsing their clients' goals or values.

I love Firedog Lake, especially Marci Wheeler. If they bash Democrats it's not out of disloyalty, it's that the Democrats in question need bashing.

[sabrina 1]

96. She committed the ultimate sin in the eyes of some, although

not a majority of democrats. She revealed and I am very grateful to her for doing so, that Rahm Emmanuel was brow-beating Liberal Organizations into to 'leaving the Blue Dogs alone'. She was absolutely right to let us know what was going on otherwise we would have wondered why suddenly, Moveon et al had gone silent on the OP and those we were told were responsible for blocking it.

That told us an awful about the real agenda of the WH and for that she will not be forgiven by those who prefer to remain ignorant of these things. But a majority of us want to know what they are up to, so that's all that matters really.

[ProfessorGAC]

98. They Certainly Reflect A Cult Of Personality

From both directions. People are awfully obsessed with someone that 90% of the country has never heard of.
GAC

[GeorgeGist]

99. this is the first hamsher thread I've noticed.

I unrec your thread.

[AsahinaKimi]

100. I for one ...

Think Hamsters are cute..


um..(what? ..oh! upthread? oops)... sorry. nevermind..

[madinmaryland]

103. Actually, I think primary season and the run-up to the Election will be mild

compared to the last two elections on DU. Obama will not be primaried anywhere.

Should be interesting if the Teabaggers form a third party and run someone in the GE.

[WilliamPitt]

105. What did I miss?

[alarimer]

106. The purists pile on Glenn Greenwald all the time too.

Largely because of the criticism he levels at Obama, rightly, for his Bush-like policies. I am not voting for Obama for that reason alone (although there are plenty of others- the guy has been the biggest disappointment politically in my life).