Sun, 10/11/2009 - 9:01pm — lambert
NBC's Harwood gives the views of "a White House official" -- "[T]hose bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed, and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult."*
Waaah!
If only we had a dynamic and progressive President who was a powerful orator and had mad negotiating skillz! Then things wouldn't be so c-o-m-m-m-plicated!
And who, well, didn't act like he was the titular head of a Banana Republic actually run by the banksters.
NOTE Yes, AmericaBlog. But Pam's House Blend is on it, too.
»
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
Hell hath no fury
as an A-lister scorned.
The word "pajamas" especially is like holy water to a vampire. Teh burns.
FULL DISCLOSURE!: My advocacy for a better world may benefit me personally!
Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....
See this interesting thread
Read all the way down.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
LMAO
Well, what did they expect when they turned their blogs over to the Obama campaign and then to the Obama White House without demanding anything in return? Respect? Ha! Ha!
Although it's kind of bizarre that the WH person tied the protests to the blogs. The gay rights movement is a real movement, unlike the "progressive" one, and isn't dependent on the A-listers. My guess is that's a bone to the media, who hates the blogs, to get them interested in running the rest of it. So, once again, the blogs are being used against progressive interests. And I wonder how many of them will end up giving more time to this dis than to Obama's lack of action on gay issues?
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
how do we know that Harwood had a source?
how do we know he didn't just make it up? Maybe he is playing a game of let's you and him fight.
That's a Good Question
Although Obama has never been reluctant to dis blogs. He treats them the way Bush treated the mainstream press and gets about the same results, which is to say mostly positive coverage. A dynamic (big important guy, kicks people in the teeth and they love him for it) that I've always found odd, every time I've seen it.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Glenn Points Out Why This Behavior Is Consistent for the WH
in the way that only Glenn can.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
I'm not wearing that foil
I don't think Harwood has any reason to lie about that quote, since I'm sure it was quite easily manufactured by him. All he had to ask was something like "Aren't you guys worried about all the complaints from left-wing bloggers that you aren't progressive enough? They are really complaining alot!"
Bingo.
Which is not to say that I believe Harwood wouldn't lie to support a two-fold agenda to damage both blogs and "progressives". Asking a question in a way that illicits a response like that proves it.
FULL DISCLOSURE!: My advocacy for a better world may benefit me personally!
Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....
Logic Alert!
how does wearing (or not) a specific item of clothing impact one's ability to "realize" and reason?
just wondering.
ah, hatred of the bloggers. it amuses me to no end. i'm with Lambert: i welcome their hatred. i would be very upset with myself, on ethical grounds, if members of the Village
did *not* hate me.
Well, this C lister...
... thinks:
1. It's an interesting remark for the White House to have made. Because if it's what the source really believes, why say it in the first place?
2. Good point on ethics, there, CD (though it's tiring being hated, as I'm sure I don't have to tell you).
3. And again, see this fascinating exchange. Search on "power." It's all there...
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Very Interesting Exchange
I tie it in with the new "progressive right." And what's interesting about that is: 1) liberal became unpopular because of the things liberals actually did and so conservatives had to destroy it; 2) conservative has become unpopular because of the things conservatives did and destroyed their own brand; and 3) progressive has been a wildly successful marketing ploy because - as with its current WH leader - it isn't based on doing anything, it permits people to project onto it whatever they want and, hey, who isn't for progress, whatever that means. In fact, progressive was adopted by the "left" for this very reason, so they wouldn't have to take ownership of everything the liberals did. The problem is that the result is that there is no "there" there when it comes to modern progressivism (sp?) and so anyone can appropriate it.
The lesson, IMO, is that if you aren't willing to take the heat for what you believe in, you won't actually accomplish very much. And, I predict, the term progressive will be devalued more quickly than liberal or conservative precisely because it doesn't mean any tangible thing.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Logic Alert II:
and since when has the gay rights movement been made up entirely of pajama wearing bloggers? that should be news to the 250K who marched yesterday. last time i checked, the gay rights movement (and it is a movement, much more than can be said of bloggers) was made up of people who have been active, to the point of actually getting things done, like passing legislation and successful court challenges. the gay rights movement was around way before the blogosphere, and the vast majority of my gay friends and acquaintances don't read blogs, let alone write them (altho that's slowly changing).
it'll be highly amusing to the ACT-UP and GMHC folk to learn that there have been demoted to the status of lowly, cheeto eating pajama bloggers. and really, what self respecting gay person even sleeps in pajamas? that's so Het. when we're not sleeping naked but for the drying juices of our loveplay, we're sleeping in fine silken teddies or binding BDSM gear. get a Clue, anonymous WH source.
That was my reaction, too, CD
As I noted above, the reason 250,000 people showed up is because, IMO, the gay rights movement is a true movement. Bloggers so far have shown little interest and even less ability to organize any kind of actual protest (although the internet has shown great promise in this regard).
And to be fair, CD, the WH source didn't say you slept in pajamas, just that you blogged in them. Heh.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Obama did this during the campaign so it shouldn't surprise
I'm assuming this is true since it fits with the pattern Obama showed during the campaign. Past is prologue. Why is that so hard for them to understand? They're intentionally blind.
Worse is when they pretend that their political judgment should be taken seriously, rather than scoffed at. They not only wouldn't see Obama for what he was, they made him out to be a "game changer!" Hell, many of them were just defending Obama's Nobel Peace Prize! (Have you seen Rachel Maddow's segment?)
How could anyone not see Obama for what he clearly was last year? How could anyone believe he'd be any different as POTUS? Jesus. And it's not like C-listers simply said, "Obama bad!" You (plural) were rather specific about legitimate concerns and predicted what would happen.
WH distances itself from remark
Plum Line:
not much distancing going on there, IMHO
here's what i said over at OL about that:
If there were no back and forth...
... there would be no Inside Baseball, and there would be no A list.
Of course (and how predictable this is) the White House regards it as the highest calling of bloggers to accurately convey The Message Du Jour ("can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people").
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Bashing the medium
not the message (or messengers). That was where the anonymous quote strayed from the party line. If straying is what happened....
Bashing:
All those little people = ok (tiring)
Internet = not ok (can come in handy)
Lefty bloggers = ok (pesky)
"Blogs" = not ok (can disinform and reinforce corporate agenda)
FULL DISCLOSURE!: My advocacy for a better world may benefit me personally!
Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....