[Welcome MyDD readers! Even though the MyDD folks let the inaccuracy in their post about Corrente stand, while deleting my comment pointing it out. Good luck, guys! -- lambert]
BarackBook.com (thanks to NewHampster at Alegre’s Corner)
A list of Obama's achievements (by John: south of Melrose at Liberal
Rapture)
A list of Obama's achievements
1.
Major DNC Donor to Party Treasurer: Obama is a Bad Investment (by NancyA at No Quarter)
“Andy, if I worked and served the people in the 13th District in Chicago, I would have known all of the players. And to win that district, would I have gamed the system to run unopposed? Tony Rezko would not have had a seat at my table… I would not choose Rev. Wright, Rev. Meeks, or Father Plager as my spiritual mentors, not for political reasons… Would I be hanging out with Mr. Ayers? Would you? Would you refuse to be photographed with Gavin Newsom? There is a pattern with this guy - he manipulates; and for him the ends justify the means. He lacks character.
“Getting not one bill passed in the first 6 years of his career in not inspiring. Having Emil Jones hand him the ball 26 times on the one-yard line in order to make Obama a United States Senator does not cut it either. What deals he made, he did to benefit no one but himself… Every person I have talked to who worked at the Law Review at Harvard with him, or in the latter part of his career, said the same thing: he was arrogant and self-centered… Do you not you find it troublesome that he has hundreds of paid bloggers, posting vicious attacks not only about the Clintons but her supporters as well?...
“Andy, my country comes first, not the Democrat party. Having said that, I believe that the Democratic Party has just kicked away the best candidate and our best chance to redeem our country, Hillary Clinton, a proven centrist. Given his resume, or should I say the lack of one, he is either ineffective or hiding something, neither answer gives me the warm fuzzies. If she is chosen in Denver, you can count on my full and enthusiastic support. Until then, I own my vote.”
How interesting that this person sees EXACTLY what I see in Obama. Click through for more detail.—Caro
Obama's lead narrows another point in Gallup's 'tracking' poll (On Politics, USA Today)
Another poll from Gallup that's slightly different than others it has released the past two days -- but is consistent in the sense that Republican John McCain again gained on his Democratic rival, Barack Obama.
Click here for more political and media news headlines.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
- Caro's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
Normally....
... I like this series, and watch for it, but if we're going to go snarky on the Lightbringer, could we at least be inventive and original as to the points made?
Rezko may be smoke, but hasn't caught fire, and Ayers is just wrong and a right wing trope into the bargain. Constant repetition on those two names looks way too echo-chamber-y for me.
And I already know where to find NQ, and IOMV too. Give me something I couldn't find anywhere else! And with sourcing? The sourcing on the letter to Tobias is terrible.
For me, this post is not up to the makethemaccountable standard. Sorry!
UPDATE More on the purported letter to Tobias. Not only is the sourcing terrible, the letter itself is implausible. The guy presents himself as an extremely wealthy hedge fund investor, yet writes this:
Come on. A hedge fund guy cares about that? And the language is awful -- "vicious attacks" is such a cliche. I want a critique from the PUMA folks, not poorly sourced and highly implausible letters. They've got plenty of real issues to raise on process, so why bullshit like this?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Give me something I couldn’t find anywhere else!
Well gee...
no more Talk Left re-posting for you then?
/no snark
Yeah, you're right
Then again, when you put hours, days, and years, you get more leeway. Eh?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
oh, that's not myDD...
...that's just Geekesque. good luck getting anything factually accurate out of him/her - most of us gave up long ago.
Hi campskunk!
Yeah. But deleting my comment was in poor taste, I felt.
Perhaps it was felt that my generous offer to take on the paid trolls myself when Obama's campaign wound down was viewed as de trop...
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
see, that's where you messed up.
like most in their profession, they're VERY touchy when you mention the financial arrangements.
how about the pathetic Nation begging?
here it is at TalkLeft: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/7/30/...
(i love these posts--thanks!)
How many of us
canceled our subscriptions to the Nation after their shameful coverage of the primary (or actually DURING their shameful coverage)? Show of hands, everybody?
How pathetic they are with their ridiculous letter.
Go Global!
Before - got tired of the hate.
The Nation was entertaining for a while; Cockburn and Hitchens were wittily hateful. But after a while it's just poison. Ehrenreich's writing there destroyed my former admiration for her.
The Democrats: a roach motel for progressive energies
- VastLeft
"Please sir, my I have some?"
Because, is I pointed out over at TL, you can't have "some more" if you haven't had any.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
that letter to Tobias is just excellent--
i bet there are a bunch of big donors sitting on their hands this year--not just her.
It's excellent as prose
but it's not excellent as reporting. I don't believe for a minute it's real, and it's running around as if it were.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
well, google her--
she commented at No Quarter, if this is her...
Comment by Monica A. Graham | 2008-07-30 10:17:42
Thanks for pointing out I did not say Democratic Party.. an over sight.
By the way I am a woman.
-- http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/29/...
-- http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_deta...
-- http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neigh...
Yes, I am aware of the Google search engine
And, as I pointed out above, this donor letter is an echo chamber-y thing that goes back to IOMV, is unsourced, and isn't internally consistent, either. In other words, for those who have been following all this stuff for years, it has the stink of propaganda. Show me some evidence this Monica is the author of the letter! That's the point at issue here, and a Google search bringing up Monica's name doesn't show that.
I have no issues in principle on the content, but there's also no reason for Corrente to become part of that echo chamber for content that purports to be one thing and is another.
Language and content being truthy and purely instrumental is exactly what drove me away from both parties, and there's no place for it here.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
VP trial balloons-all truthy/instrumental too--
yet you post about them here alot. You and others here post many truthy/instrumental things all the time.
And don't knock me because i saw that someone had taken ownership of that letter in a comment--or purported to.
I went to see if that Monica is real and her donor history--it's not smart to dismiss everything right away--ever.
Well, amberglow...
... if you don't or won't understand what I'm trying to say here, there's not a lot I can do for you.
Alas, there is a difference between a letter from a purported donor on a random blog, and a trial balloon about the VP.
Unless, of course, there is no difference, in which case we're no better than they are. Eh?
Finally, if you can't distinguish between being personally knocked and having your argument questioned, perhaps you'd be happier elsewhere.
Where's your proof this Monica wrote that letter, and why the heck wasn't the original at IMV sourced that way? So far as I can tell from wasting my time over at NQ, this Monica is just a random commenter. Sheesh!
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
i understand you differentiate from one and the other
but if you see this letter as fake and purposely spread to knock Obama, and don't recognize all the things the campaigns themselves are spreading as equally if not more truthy and instrumental and worthy of the same treatment, then it's not me who's not understanding, i don't think.
I don't know why me following up on the letter is such a problem for you at all.
--i didn't post that letter here.
--i found a comment that took ownership of the letter and followed up--it wasn't hard.
--i found out that there is a Monica A. Graham that donates to DNC/DSCC/candidates in big amounts.
--we know for a fact there's donor resistance--from Hillary supporters and others.
--because Obama is not doing public financing, all donors are now way way more important.
that's enough for me.
"Take ownership"?
This is the comment, in its entirety:
Yes, I know that's "enough" for you. Precisely my point!
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
for content that purports to be one thing and is another.
IOMV states that they can't verify with 100% certainty that it's for-real for-real...
so...
No one passing it along, as far as I can tell, is claiming to vouch for it's authenticity, or presenting it as anything more than an anonymous letter posted in an online newsletter.
Are we arguing over nothing?
Well, that would depend on how we define nothing
Would it not?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Amberglow is consistent
On truthiness.
However, I agree with Lambert.
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
-----------------------------
I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.
Thanks for the link, herb
One obvious conclusion to draw would be that "Monica" is amberglow. That would be one weapon in the vast arsenal, as it were....
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
No Time For Meta
If your complaint is that people are spreading 'truthiness' as if it were 'fact'...
then I think you're reaching Lambert.
Who said the letter is 100% real?
Not IOMV.
Not NQ.
Not Caro.
If your complaint is that some kind of disclaimer is needed, fine okay. Maybe a giant "THIS ISN'T VERIFIED" would help.
Urban Legend at this point, fine.
But if you think it's completely false, dig.
Debunk.
Put PB 2.0 into action. A test run.
PB 2.0 test fully performed
I did debunk, in fact, Willy.
Both the poor sourcing, and internal evidence of the letter. Hedge fund maven my Sweet Aunt Fanny.
On the sourcing, I get the response: "Somebody posted a comment on LQ!"
And the second line of defense is "Nobody said it was true, we're just passing it along."
Which is exactly what the A list did with, e.g., the War Room video.
So, yes, I'd say the PB 2.0 testing has been well and truly performed.
Unfortunately.
And so, at this point, given both the weakness of the original post, and the shoddiness of the arguments presented here, I'd say it's a fake.
Personally, I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but there it is.
Well done, all!
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I'll stand corrected
On saying IOMV isn't claiming verification.
Someone claiming to be from IOMV says Andy Tobias responded to questions regarding the letter? FWIW.
I know YOU don't care lambert.
Oh you twist.
The secondary sources of the War Room video were claiming it was "true". And it wasn't done all that anonymously either. IIRC.
And the letter doesn't suggest anything nefarious regarding Obama personally.
You have a woman's name...contact her. Put it to bed for real. You're guessing as much as anyone else, Lambert.
?
Feh
You're better than this, willyj.
As far as "twist," how is my summary:
from what you said:
The burden is on the poster, not on the readers, or me. I don't have time to do other people's work for them, and I especially don't have time to filter content for propaganda. I've already done that for five years with the Republicans, and I don't need to start over again with a new crowd.
Read the entire thread, and you'll see my comment on the stylistics of the letter. Hedge fund manager, which is what IOMV claimed they were, my Sweet Aunt Fanny.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Context Context Context Lambert.
Your original complaint was
Well, it's anonymous. It's been presented by Caro as anonymous...exactly what other 'sourcing' would you require for a letter where all involved admit it's anonymous? Aside from someone from IOMV now claiming Tobias responded? What was Caro supposed to do.
You telling people to ignore what you personally don't think is 'sourced' well enough is fine and dandy, your blog. But you at the same time seem to suggest that with nothing more than a hunch, you know in your heart of hearts this is 'propaganda'.
The context:
My words
No one passing it along, as far as I can tell, is claiming to vouch for it’s authenticity, or presenting it as anything more than an anonymous letter posted in an online newsletter.
You jump to equate this letter with the War Room video, when IMO it's not even the same type of situation.
Is Caro purposefully pushing questionable materials in an attempt to smear someone?
The sourcing
I trace it from Caro to IOMV, where the sourcing is indeed awful.
I ask for sourcing. The answer I get is that one
"Monica" in email at NQ, who could be anyone -- you, I, amberglow, Caro -- "took ownership" of it, and then there's the further claim that because a real Monica is a donor, and a donor wrote the letter, that the donor who wrote the letter is the Monica who took ownership of the letter. If I want sourcing like that, I can go read Judy Miller.
The context, to restate what I should have thought was obvious, is that the letter reinforces the narrative that big donors are turning away from Obama -- first thing amberglow points out. Now, this may or may not be true, but this poorly sourced letter and rather implausible doesn't show that.
The situation is the same as the War Room video in that an extremely poorly sourced story is being propagated all over the blogosphere by people who either didn't bother to check its provenance, didn't care to, or had its provenance attested to by someone that they, wrongly, trusted. Exactly the same, from the blogging standpoint.
Sweet Jesus, it has nothing to do with my "heart of hearts."
And I didn't say it was part of a third rate disinformation campaign using Corrente as a vehicle. In fact, I'm not saying it now. But given the shoddiness of the arguments in favor of this thing, I'm getting ready to.
We're supposed to be better than this. You too, willy.
NOTE Still waiting for an answer on how I twisted your words. Still waiting for an answer on whether truthiness in service to a greater good is OK, and if so, when. Can we get some answers on the stacked up questions before introducing new points?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Say Whut?
I didn't take ownership of anything...
I simply suggesting following up.
If you're unsatisfied that "Monica" is the source of the letter, you could dig. Disprove it, or add weight. All you've done is dismiss it.
Really necessary?
Didn't you just do a post about Obama's prayer letter the other day? How much 'checking' did you do before you ran with that?
I'm not arguing in favor of the letter. I'm simply asking how it is that you can proclaim something as propaganda, then chastise others for linking to it when you also have no real idea if it's actually real or not. Given that you admit you've simply made your mind up about it already.
**UPDATE**
You were waiting because I was writing. Jeez.
The other day
I did, in fact, check the other Israeli newspapers, and I'm not certain the TNR "vindication" is legit; see comment thread on sock puppetry. In any case, the letter should never have been made public, regardless. Perhaps I should have framed the story that way.
You write:
Je repete, that it's the posters burden to do that. Otherwise, we'd open the door to, well, third rate disinformation campaigns and propaganda.
I mean, if I understand your argument correctly, we could run "Mickey Kaus fucks goats" stories as if they were legit, all the day long, and as long as nobody disproves them, everything is jake with the angels. Your cue, now, is to complain that I'm twisting your words. Have at it!
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Why is it so difficult to understand?
Truthiness=dishonesty=not progressive=we are better than that=why propogate unsourced truthies when the sourcable TRUTHS are both more powerful and bad enough already = no reason for truthy to exist except to make people gloat = no reason for truthy since it can also be relatively easily debunked = if you use the truthy rather than the truth, all the rest of your arguments and "evidence" are thrown into question regardless of how well-sourced or true they may be since the only thing you have that no one can ever take away but you can give away for nothing is your integrity.
Is anything starting to click here?
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
-----------------------------
I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.