One of the genuine joys of the crazed, often incredibly petty and seemingly unending election season has been seeing the enormous voter turn-out—at both ends of the age spectrum. People turned off to politics since the Vietnam era now feel energized. College students and 20-somethings who previously felt completely left out of the political world have suddenly become impassioned. Some of them have come out for Hillary, others for Barack.
But which ever candidate you support, it’s hard not to be heartened by the record turnouts that the two history-making Democratic candidates have inspired.
At least so one would think.
Then I came into possession of an audio recording in which, at a small, private fund raiser, Hillary Clinton expressed her antipathy toward the Democratic activists who showed up in gushers and torrents to vote and/or caucus all across America in great numbers—IF those voters and caucus-goers happened to favor someone other than….well…. her.
The story I wrote about what Clinton said, the context, and reactions from both MoveOn and the Clinton camp, is posted on the Huffington Post and it’s getting a fairly strong reaction.
But here’s the main Clinton quote in question. (The audio is also over at Huff Post.)
“Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] — which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down,” Clinton said to a meeting of donors. “We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn’t even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that’s what we’re dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it’s primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don’t agree with them. They know I don’t agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.”
This is one of the biggest problems a great many of us have with Hillary. Despite her considerable talents, there’s a With-Me-Or-Against-Me quality that never seems to go away.
By the way, yesterday I told both of my USC journalism classes about the story that might be in the offing and my students had terrifically smart and insightful things to say during a very lively discussion about how such stories should be best and most ethically handled. I’m proud of each one of them. If they are the future of journalism, we’re in very good shape.
*************************************
Here are some of the more interesting reactions to the Hillary post:
MyDD.….LA Times Top of the Ticket…Ben Smith at Politco….Raw Story, the Wall Street Journal Blog…
I understand Keith Olbermann just mentioned it, but I didn’t hear it.
******************
PS: The editors at Huff Post tell me I should encourage people to DIGG the article. So, I guess, do so if you’re over there and feel so moved.
PPS: Among the reactions that have come in so far to the Huff Post piece, I’m told that there several emails from Clinton staffers who said that, while they weren’t thrilled to see the article, that at least they felt the issue was handled fairly. Whether or not I succeeded (and despite the fact that, as is well known here, I’m an Obama supporter) I tried my damnest to do just that.
I think it may have been a mistake to put this out late on a Friday afternoon. It won’t create the shitstorm (“bullshitstorm ?”) that “Bittergate” turned into (although that was also a Friday story, if memory serves.) It will definitely turn some Dem activist types who still are trying to be “fair” – like Hamsher – so the impact on undecideds won’t be negligible. But let’s face it – “Dem activists” aren’t going to be taken to heart by the half-baked media that mostly despises folks who actuallly care about core issues the way they will embrace some crackpot who is nattering about flag pins. But what’s beautiful about this is that it helps kill Hillary with superdelegates, who are the only “voters” who matter at this point. Also at this point, it will seperate the Taylor Marsh-type maniacs from people who have been reluctant to part with their habit of defending the Clintons against their “tormenters.” In this case, it’s obvious that Hillary is showing her true DLC colors – Lieberman Lite. (Paul Krugman -eat your little technocratic, naive heart out – and 3 cheers for Robert Reich, who actually DOES have a conscience.) I would hope that the folks at TalkLeft would wake up just a little bit and quit sounding like the increasingly sad Clintonistas with Stockholm Syndrome from the ’90s when there was no way to escape from the Clintons.
We thought of waiting until Monday, but I left it up to the Huff Post folks. It was their call. I’d hoped to have it ready earlier in the day but there were delays getting all the little duckies in a row.
Oh, it’s so wrong to publish a secret tape from a closed meeting of a candidate. Just ask Mayhill Fowler.
Politico – Ben Smith
Clinton scorns the base
“In a weird mirror image of last Friday’s “cling†revelation  though perhaps without the same general election implications  this Friday afternoon brings a Huffington Post tape reportedly from a closed-door Hillary fundraiser in which Clinton scorns her opponent’s supporters  the liberal activists who make up a pillar of the Democratic party: ”
except that it isn’t. The Fowler piece was an intellectually honest bit of contemporaneous reporting from an Obama supporter who provided a personal critique of something that Obama had said at a fundraiser she attended. Fowler’s piece provides a great deal of context before she gets to the ‘controversial’ part — and it clearly is a personal critique, not a ‘hit’ piece.
The full recording was provided, as well as a transcript.
CELESTE’S* piece was NOT contemporaenous, its a two month old recording. CELESTE is not a Clinton supporter who was disturbed by something she heard at a Clinton fundraiser. Hhe’s an OBama supporter — and there is no evidence that “CEL” was at the Clinton fundraiser in question. CELESTE has given us a hit piece — not a subjective critique.
And, not only is no context provided in the audio extract presented, its sounds like CELESTE DELIBERATELY EDITED THE AUDIO TO REMOVE ANY CONTEXT.
And you know what? I don’t care that CELESTE pulls this kind of crap. All I care about is that CELESTE got it placed at “Off The Bus”, which is supposed to be about citizen’s journalism, and not be what CELESTE has done here, and mimic the most contemptible excesses of the mainstream media.
So CELESTE, how about answering a few questions, since you wnat to be considered a “citizen reporter”, and not just some slag from LA who gets wet thinking about Barack Obama…
1) Did you attend the fundraiser that you wrote about?
2) Did you make that recording? If not, who did?
3) Was the audio edited? If so, why?
4) What precise question did you ask Howard Wolfson?
5) The audio is (according to you) from a fundraiser that occurred after Super Tuesday, in which Clinton mentions the “intimidating” nature of Move-on.org supporters at the caucuses. On Super Tuesday, there were caucuses in ALASKA, COLORADO, IDAHO, KANSAS, MINNESOTA, and NORTH DAKOTA. Did you ask Wolfson if the campaign had received reports of intimidation at those caucuses from Clinton supporters?
Will you address these question’s or will you follow the example of Senator Obama, who seemed to be acting on Jay Z’s recommendation from Dirt On My Shoulder”, and as Jay Z sez “Ladies is pimps too, go and brush your shoulders off.”
And since you’re pimpin’ Obama, it would makes sense to “brush off” these question…
*(we really do have to call her CELESTE, to make sure that everyone know’s that she’s JUST A WOMAN — after all, Senator Clinton is constantly referred to by CELESTE as “Hillary”, and even “Hil”, but you don’t see a whole lot of “Barack”s and “Barry’s” in CEL’S writing. CELESTE might as well wear a sign saying “I’m a self-loathing woman, because I obviously am incapable of providing the same regard for a VAGINA BEARING Presidential candidate as I do the the PENIS WAVING male candidate that I support” )
“Senator Clinton is constantly referred to by CELESTE as “Hillary”, and even Hilâ€Â, but you don’t see a whole lot of “Barack’s” and “Barry’s” in CEL’S writing.”
As evidence of the bullshit and bitterness on display from this Hillary hack (that’s all they’ve got at this point), all one needs do is ask the question, how does the Clinton campaign refer to Hillary on their Hillary website, their Hillary buttons, their Hillary logo or their Hillary bumperstickers ?
As for the rest of it, I’ll ask the question that mostly got asked of Fowler – “Is the quote accurate ?”
Hillary’s proving herself to be Lieberman Lite. After carrying water for the Clintons in the midst of massive screw-ups and embarrassments in the ’90s Democratic activists are now supposed to kiss her and Bill’s ass. Dirt on our shoulders indeed… Wipe this shit off.
And crawling down into the “self-hatred/penis/vagina” thing is sad and pathetic. But I guess after Hillary’s piling on with half-baked McCarthyism in the debate Wednesday night, it’s no surprise that her most rabid supporters are bereft of any dignity or sense of shame.
God we’re lucky as Democrats to soon be rid of this recycled Clinton soap opera.
If I were a Hillary supporter, I’d be very, very careful about using the word “penis” in a diatribe on how unfair it is to expose Mrs. Clinton attacking MoveOn.org for their activism in the public arena.
And, not only is no context provided in the audio extract presented, its sounds like CELESTE DELIBERATELY EDITED THE AUDIO TO REMOVE ANY CONTEXT.
Proof?
CELESTE’S* piece was NOT contemporaenous, its a two month old recording. CELESTE is not a Clinton supporter who was disturbed by something she heard at a Clinton fundraiser.
I guess that depend on your definition of contemporaneous, wouldn’t it? In the same campaign a case could be made that it’s contemporaneous.
CELESTE might as well wear a sign saying “I’m a self-loathing woman, because I obviously am incapable of providing the same regard for a VAGINA BEARING Presidential candidate as I do the the PENIS WAVING male candidate that I supportâ€Â
That just says it all about you, doesn’t it? Beneath contempt. I swear to God, if this is the kind of person Hillary supports, I will donate money to whoever runs against her in the Democratic primary in 2012, assuming she doesn’t get elected.
To put the endorsement of Barack by MoveOn – a group formed specifically to defend the Clinton presidency against impeachment in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal – in perspective, first the membership was polled as to whether the group should endorse, and when a majority agreed it should, a bar of two-thirds of those voting was raised for any candidate to be endorsed. Obama won 70% to Hillary’s 30%. Might have had something to do with a 2002 vote to authorize George Bush to go to war in Iraq. Which didn’t turn out so well. Or in fairness to Hillary and New York NOW-style “feminism” perhaps it was the fact of Clinton’s vagina – since MoveOn seem more the “We voted for the Clinton penis, before we voted against the Clinton vagina” types, given the circumstances of their birth. I’m not sure exactly how these cutting-edge issues shake out. I’ll leave it to really smart people – like Erica Jonga and Taylor Marsh – to delve into in greater depth.
how does the Clinton campaign refer to Hillary on their Hillary website, their Hillary buttons, their Hillary logo or their Hillary bumperstickers ?
my button say “Clinton”.
And what we are really talking about is respecting your opponent. I’m gay. I refer to myself as “queer” all the time, and I don’t have a problem with my friends using “queer” to describe me — in fact, I prefer it.
But if someone who is opposed to gay rights calls me a queer, its a different matter entirely.
I mean, can I use the “N’ word when referring to the african americans that CELESTE is “professionally” concerned about. Of course not. CELESTE’S use of “Hillary” (and especially “Hil”) is a sign of contempt.
CELESTE has trashed Clinton for acknowledging her gender (funny how she never mentions that Clinton’s support among women is far, FAR less monolithic than Obama’s support among African Americans — and at least one can make a rational argument that Clinton has earned her greater support among women, while Obama’s 80% plus support from the black community is based solely on his race (or do you want to really argue that some white guy with Obama’s schtick and record would be getting 80% of the black vote?). That to me is a clear sign of a woman who has not merely internalized, but embraced, the sexism and misogyny that defines this culture.
As for the rest of it, I’ll ask the question that mostly got asked of Fowler – “Is the quote accurate ?â€Â
well, given that there is a very clear “CLICK” between the first and second parts of the quote provided, that is a very good question. Because “accuracy” depends upon context, and Fowler presented the EXTENDED context in which Obama’s remarks occurred. CELESTE gives us one )or two, presented as one) sound bite.
I guess that depend on your definition of contemporaneous, wouldn’t it?
yeah, it would. Contemporaneous means “as it happened”. Fowler’s report was contemporaneous — she started thinking about writing it immediately. CELESTE’S report is something that someone dug up from a few months ago, i.e. not “contemporaneous”.
********
as to the penis/vagina stuff — CELESTE has attacked Clinton based on her gender. No one seems to care about that, or CELESTE’S double standard when it comes to Obama and race.
Indeed, no one seems to care about the substantive questions — but then again, Obama supporters don’t seem to know what substance means, and prefer to ‘attack the messenger’ — when they aren’t using Rove’s #1 play in his playbook, i.e. accuse your opponent of the slimy stuff you are doing, even if it isn’t true.
Maybe someone should go over to the website with all the Hillary supporters that jammed Marc Cooper’s site and tell them that “Cel” is being mean to Sen. Clinton.
Who is paul lukasiak?
Apparently, someone who needs to get a life. I thought he might be someone famous, like reg.
To put the endorsement of Barack by MoveOn – a group formed specifically to defend the Clinton presidency against impeachment in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal – in perspective,
thank you reg. But I do think that you miss one point in the perspective (and I’m not being critical, just adding), Move-On started as an ad-hoc effort concerned with the stupid impeachment mess. When it became a “real” organization, its mission was redefined to “issues”.
By endorsing Obama over Clinton, and employing its activism on behalf of Obama, it has once again changed its mission — and I don’t think that now that Move-On his functioning like any other candidate based “527” group, that it deserves any special treatment.
CELESTE’S attempt to portray Clinton as a hypocrite for praising Move-On when it was still all about issues, and criticizing it when it got involved in party primary politics, is especially lame – and a display of the grossest intellectual dishonesty.
“my button say Clinton”
That’s queer. Must have made it yourself. Because there are no buttons for sale at the offical Hillarystore (yes, that’s “Hillarystore!”) that contain the word “Clinton.”
http://www.hillarystore.com/buttons.htm
Nor does the word “Clinton” appear anywhere on the home page of her website, except in a small “Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President” bug in the bottom left margin.
I also have to say that I don’t give a shit about your sexuality. Really. You’re clearly one of those self-obsessed “the love that dare not shut up” folks who bore the shit out of me and most sentient people in 2008. Plus you’re an idiot as in this bit of crapola: “CELESTE has attacked Clinton based on her gender.”
The equation of using the name “Hillary” to “queer” or “nigger” is just plain nuts. The Clintonistas are so far gone into mindless hysteria, it’s kind of scary. I haven’t been this embarrassed and depressed by the behavior of a bunch of Democrats since…uh…the Iraq war resolution vote in 2002.
yeah, it would. Contemporaneous means “as it happenedâ€Â. Fowler’s report was contemporaneous  she started thinking about writing it immediately. CELESTE’S report is something that someone dug up from a few months ago, i.e. not “contemporaneousâ€Â.
It’s within the same excellent cycle. It’s contemporaneous.
Make that “It’s within the same election cycle.”
An IAM (pro-Hillary machinists union) communications guy has apparently issued a briefing book on the significance of the Weather Underground to the Obama campaign. Who needs a “vast rightwing conspiracy” to slime Democrats when we’ve got Hillary’s hordes. She certainly learned the “lessons of the ’90s” well.
“CELESTE has attacked Clinton based on her gender.â€Â
Proof?
Must have made it yourself. Because there are no buttons for sale at the offical Hillarystore (yes, that’s “Hillarystore!â€Â) that contain the word “Clinton.â€Â
http://www.hillarystore.com/buttons.htm
Advantage Reg.
I also have to say that I don’t give a shit about your sexuality. Really.
I don’t either. Really. Of course, its clear that you prefer to discuss how little you care about my sexuality than anything substantive about CELESTE’S hit piece.
But that’s what you Obots do, isn’t it. Obama gets criticized for Wrights comments and rather than address the radical, anti-American nature of those comments, he makes it about “race.” Obama finally gets grilled the same way Clinton has been getting grilled for the last six months, and comes off looking like an idiot, and its all about how unfair the media is.
(And while I can’t defend George and Charlie’s moderation, I will point out that except for the really lame “flag pin” question, all the stupid stuff that Obama and Clinton were asked about happened since the last debate. There was, in fact “news value” to those questions, because it was the first time they could be asked in a debate format which allowed the other candidate to respond.
But the minute your candidate looks bad, Obama and his supporters go all Whiny Ass Titty Baby — Obama never complained about how long it took before issues were discussed at other debates — you think maybe that’s because then it was Clinton that was getting hit the hardest maybe?
“Whiny Ass Titty Baby”
I’m kind of surprised that only one of Hillary’s has landed here so far. Of course, he has the “strength” of ten.
The equation of using the name “Hillary†to “queer†or “nigger†is just plain nuts. The Clintonistas are so far gone into mindless hysteria, it’s kind of scary. I haven’t been this embarrassed and depressed by the behavior of a bunch of Democrats since…uh…the Iraq war resolution vote in 2002.
sorry reg, but its all about respect. If you have it, you show it in your language.
When I write something critical about Obama, I use “Obama” – if I call him Barry, its deliberate — a sign of disrespect. And its something that I only do when “commenting”, not when I’m writing something as a “post”.
CELESTE’S use of “Hillary” and especially “Hil” is all about not showing her respect. (Its occassionally acceptable when writing about Bill and Hillary Clinton, but only in those instances where sexist based comparisons are not being advanced — which is usually all you get from the Obots.)
I’m kind of surprised that only one of Hillary’s has landed here so far. Of course, he has the “strength†of ten.
and I’m not the least bit surprised that you just keep on attacking the messenger — WHY is there that clear click between the first and second parts of the quote?
Do you really believe that the tape wasn’t edited for maximum impact — to make it appear that Clinton was attacking Move-On, rather than making two separate and distinct observations of that organizations impact?
If the tape was edited in that fashion, do you consider it intellectually hoest?
Do you think that CELESTE recorded the tape herself? If not, why do you think CELESTE, who has access to HuffPo, was provided a copy?
If it turns out that the tape was edited, and/or that CELESTE refuses to identify its source, or it came from someone affiliated with the Obama camp, will you acknowledge that CELESTE is just anotheer media whore for Obama, and lacks anything that could be construed as journalistic ethics and intellectual honesty?
My favorite Hillary button’s at the Hillarystore:
The explicitly non-gender-demeaning “I’m your girl” button. (Too bad Obama doesn’t have an “I’m your boy” button – that would be so cool.) Then there’s the “I’m for Hillary! Ask me why!” button, which helpfully cues people to move as far as possible from the wearer while waiting at the subway platform. Then there’s the “Out for Hillary!” button that I would have assumed was generated by Howard Wolfson to surreptitously pin on the backsides of MSNBC reporters – except for the Rainbow logo which counters any ironic reading.
Do you really believe that the tape wasn’t edited for maximum impact  to make it appear that Clinton was attacking Move-On, rather than making two separate and distinct observations of that organizations impact?
Actually the question that was asked some time ago was do you have any proof that it was?
“intellectual honesty” – you’ve not set yourself up very effectively to be a participant in any discussion of that.
sorry reg, but its all about respect. If you have it, you show it in your language.
Obviously Senator Clinton has no self-respect hence her use of Hillary on her buttons.
Please, sir, quote from Fremon’s article on this at Huffington post any line wherein she refers to Senator Clinton as “Hillary.” For that matter, show me a quote in this (more personal and “spontaneous”) blog post where Professor Fremon (sorry, Celeste) refers to the candidate from New York as “Hillary.”
I’d consider you a total wackjob, but unfortunately you sound like most of the Clintonista commenters at places like Taylor Marsh, Talk Left, TPMCafe and Huffington Post. The Clinton campaign has clearly morphed into something akin to “Night of the Living Dead.” The zombies just keep coming…
P.S. I admit that Celeste often refers to the Senator as “Hillary” in random blog posts here. I’m also willing to bet a latte or a bottle of chardonnay (Charles Shaw – sorry!) that she routinely refers to this paragon of national security expertise and tested, vetted health-care provider as “Hillary” in casual conversation, possibly even with her students. So, on second thought, I call on Annenberg School and any other institutions of higher learning, as well as the LA Weekly, the LA Times and all of the other journalistic outlets she publishes in to denounce her, reject her and distance themselves from her for this obvious lack of professionalism and objectivity, not to mention the rank sexism. It’s time for this long national nightmare of Fremon’s political bias and gender bigotry to end. Has she no decency ?
“WHY is there that clear click between the first and second parts of the quote?
SHE was cocking her pistol ????
Actually the question that was asked some time ago was do you have any proof that it was?
not being a sound engineer with the proper equipment and an original copy of the tape, I can’t “prove” anything.
What I can do is point to the evidence. There is that click and the silence, and there is the change in the subject matter — it sounds, at least to me, that the second part was in response to another/different question.
Now, Celeste listened to the same tape. I don’t see any ellipses in her quote — and there is NO question that something else was said between the two portions she quote. After “slows down”, Clinton says “So..” which is when the tape clicks off. Celeste presents as one UNINTERUPTED quote.
That is deliberate intellectual dishonesty. It the work of a hack — someone who so completely lacks anything close to journalistic ethics that the only word for her (well, not the only word, but in this case) is FRAUD.
not being a sound engineer with the proper equipment and an original copy of the tape, I can’t “prove†anything.
Thanks. That’s all we need to know.
nd there is NO question that something else was said between the two portions she quote. After “slows downâ€Â, Clinton says “So..†which is when the tape clicks off.
You’re amazing. On the one hand you claim that without the tape you cannot prov anything, yet you state that the recorder was turned off, when in fact, you have no proof that it was turned off.
That’s not evidence, by the way. I’m not a sound engineer, either, but I have a degree in film and did analog production work and know more than what the average person knows about what can cause clicks and pops in both analog and digital recordings: old tape, an electrical surge, a defect in the machine, any number of innocent occurrences that do not add up to any nefarious or deceptive intent.
In other words: you got nothing save unsupported speculation.
Hey, Paul Lukasiak. Good to see you here. I see you’ve become acquainted with the locals. Welcome aboard. Ordinarily, it really is an excellent blog. And, Celeste Fremon really is an exceptional and accomplished reporter. I expect we’ll all be a lot saner once the silly season ends. In the meantime, you asked some interesting questions. I’d be very surprised if Celeste isn’t along shortly to answer them.
You’re amazing. On the one hand you claim that without the tape you cannot prov anything, yet you state that the recorder was turned off, when in fact, you have no proof that it was turned off.
its not a click or pop. Its the word “So”, a click, silence, and when Clinton is speaking again, it sounds like she’s answering another question entirely.
Celeste’s failure to include ellipses (obviously, SOMETHING else was said after “slows down. So” but Celeste has unetically decided to present it as a single thought.
********
Celeste Fremon really is an exceptional and accomplished reporter.
perhaps she is, but if that’s true, she really should refrain from these kinds of grossly unethical political hit pieces. Kinda messes with you reputation when you do that.
“In the meantime, you asked some interesting questions.”
But mostly just engaged in an insane, remarkably offensive tirade…
I guess this guy asked some interesting questions in the same sense that Mein Kampf asked some interesting questions about the Versailles Treaty.
it sounds like she’s answering another question entirely. [my emphasis]
Personal Computer: $800
Internet connection: $40/month
Ability to smear a journalist based on supposition and presumption without a scintilla of evidence: priceless.
Randy, there is a distinction between opinions and facts. Not everything has to be proven to the high threshold of your satisfaction to be discussed.
Woody,
A click on a recording does not prove anything.
Woody,
Just for the record, I have no problem discussing this, but I also have no problem saying that when someone accuses someone of being unethical, they should have something more substantial to go on than their unsupported presumption.
So far Lukasiak has accused Celeste of some nasty things without a shred of proof.
Paul, you’ve met the locals, all right. True to form, you’ve been compared to Hitler. (Gee, he’s the only one who ever blamed the punitively disastrous Versailles Treaty, which took away 3/4 the land and population of Austria-Hungary to newly formed states, whose reason d’etre was often based on getting even and vindictiveness — e.g. the cobbled-together Yugoslavia which finally, mercifully fell apart, and the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe — for much of the ethnic division and warfare in the subsequent European century! Most historians do, and realize that Woodrow Wilson only agreed to it because he was gravely ill near the end of negotiations, and gave in to France’s longtime vendetta against Germany. Wonder if that has something to do with the total opposite approach to how the Allies dealt with Germany and Japan after WWII: Reconstrucition instead of Destruction? Of course Hitler twisted this justified public anger for sociopathic ends and to fulfill his own failed ambitions, but he initially used this valid “excuse” to bring people along for the ride. — OF course, this is a big of tangential history, but it shows how reg loves to throw abject ignorance into the mix of his diatribes and gratuitous attacks.)
Then Hillary is compared to McCarthy, and there are more gratuitously nasty attacks on Hillary and Paul than I’d want to touch: won’t wade through that verbal manure to quote it. Paul’s plunging into the vagina/penis thing was unfortunate, but there has definitely been an undertone of misogyny to the attacks on her, and total lack of basis, other than visceral hatred: Marc Cooper’s endless hit pieces on Clinton, or those from the likes of Rosa Brooks in the Times, might as well be titled “Why I hate Hillary Clinton, the Never-ending series.” So Obama gets a taste of what Hillary’s been getting the whole time, and Paul is right, Obama deflects it to sounding like “unfair” (boo-hoo) mudslinging. If Hillary’s spiritual adviser had been a rabid racist like Wright, she’d have been gone Minute One. As Listener says, Paul does make a lot of valid points — too bad he starts with a little too much distracting verbiage, allowing reg and Randy Paul to seize on that and never address his issues. But that’s what goes on here all the time.
I do think Celeste tries to be a more balanced reporter than many on the left, and has some out-of-the-box opinions, but when it comes to Obama, she misses the mark: she might as well admit she’s a shill for the Obots. And she will ALWAYS favor the radical leftists like reg, however crude he is to those not of his own ilk, over anyone else, so don’t sweat it, Paul. They identify with the most radical left of the party, so apparently took personal umbrage against Hillary. (Who’s right that Obama can’t win the general election for this very reason, though. So attacking Hillary — it’s OK to use her first name, and she does do it, but I know what you mean: usually women are referred to by their first names and men as Mister — just means a vote for McCain. Which is why Conservatives like Woody encourage the reg’s.)
Hope you keep coming to “dodge the tomatoes” and stir things up around here. Most people give up, and it’s SO boring to be stuck with the rants of reg.
Paul,
I’d be happy to answer your genuine questions. The vagina related inquiries and personal attacks you get to keep.
1) Did you attend the fundraiser that you wrote about?
No. If I had, I would have reported it that way. This is a news story and it was treated as such. When you find evidence of a candidate who says something of relevance in private that is significantly different from their public face, that’s news. Because of the fact that I’m a very public Obama supporter, I worked to removed all spin possible from the story. However I did cue readers, as one does as a responsible journalist, as to why the story was of relevance by putting it in context. Specifically, I put Clinton’s complaint about the activists flooding the caucuses into the context of her public praise for big voter turnout.
2) Was the audio edited? If so, why?
Yes. Nevertheless, I listened to the unedited audio and was able to hear that the clips were not taken out of context. The fact that you’ve heard exactly zip from the Clinton camp about this being taken unfairly out of context, or spun in some way that is incorrect, should tell you something.
3) What precise question did you ask Howard Wolfson?
I read him the material and played him the recording and told him as much about the context of the event as I could. And then I asked him multiple questions about what Clinton had said. There was nothing GOTCHA about my approach. In fact, I feel quite sure that if you talked to Mr. Wolfson he himself would tell you our interaction was very professional, even cordial, on both our sides. We talked multiple times then he emailed me his statement, after which time I called him back and chatted again and told him that the most part of the reaction to the piece was going to be in response to what the Senator said about MoveOn and the activists and that I thought he might want to expand his statement to address that. We had a short chat about it, none of which is included in the piece as it was not on the record, and he decided to leave his original statement be. (Although we talked several times on the phone he asked if I minded that he give me something in writing. Were I in his position, I would do the same as it eliminates as many opportunities for misunderstanding as is possible.)
In the course of the calls, I asked him multiple questions and told him also the concerns that MoveOn was already expressing. Again, I think if you spoke to Wolfson he’d tell you he was treated very fairly and professionally. He has a reputation as an SOB. With me he was a total pro. And he was treated as such.
And, as I mentioned below, several Clinton staffers contact the Huff Post editors to say that they thought the issue was treated very fairly, which is what I attempted to do. Whether or not you think I succeeded, is for you to decide.
4) The audio is (according to you) from a fundraiser that occurred after Super Tuesday, in which Clinton mentions the “intimidating†nature of Move-on.org supporters at the caucuses. On Super Tuesday, there were caucuses in ALASKA, COLORADO, IDAHO, KANSAS, MINNESOTA, and NORTH DAKOTA. Did you ask Wolfson if the campaign had received reports of intimidation at those caucuses from Clinton supporters?
No. I asked him what evidence they had of intimidation at the caucuses, period. I didn’t specify which causes or who did the intimidating, but it was implicit in my question that I meant the Obama supporters of which Senator Clinton spoke.
***********************
Paul I’m happy to answer any questions of this nature. Your ad hominem attacks, however, are sorta childish don’t you think? Self-hating woman? Penises and vaginas. Seriously?
By the way, about the first names: I used “Clinton” in the Huff Post story as it’s a news story. Over here, I usually alternated between “Hillary” and “Clinton” and “Barack” and “Obama”…..just as I do with nearly any public figure. “Laura” and “Chick” “Rocky” and “Delgadillo”
When I talk about the mayor I call him alternately Villaraigosa, Antonio and AV. Chief Bratton on the other hand remands Bratton. I just don’t think of him as a “Bill.” That’s likely my problem, but whatcha gonna do. We call Sheriff Lee Baca “Lee.” But not the chief.
But I guess one sees ghosts and slights where one wants to.
By the way, you can call me lots of names and maybe some of them are rightly applied, but self-hating woman ain’t one that you can ever even sorta make stick. Sorry.
The fact that Clinton supporters try to slap that one on anybody who doesn’t uncritically embrace their candidate is the most anti-woman, anti-feminist crap I can imagine. I get it, we’re strong women unless we have the temerity to use our brains and discernment and thus arrive at the decision that we think the guy running is the better candidate. Then we’re penis worshipers. HA! That’s a good one! I’m gonna read it to my son. It’ll get a laugh, I promise you.
Celeste writes…
Penis’s and vaginis? Seriously?
***********************
Somebody around here, is gonna be sued for copyright infringement !!!!
Thank God someone’s saving me from my egregious typos. Thanks Larry. I’m sure there’s some deeper meaning to my Freudian finger slips. (At least I didn’t say Vajayjay.)
Paul’s plunging into the vagina/penis thing was unfortunate, but there has definitely been an undertone of misogyny to the attacks on her,
It wasn’t unfortunate, it was deliberate. The whole point of being that offensive, of stepping over the line, was because Fremon has been over the line on Clinton.
As to reg being some kind of radical, well, while I’ve mellowed with age, I doubt that reg is more “radical” than I am (which is why I see virtually no significant difference between Clinton and Obama in terms of their politics — I’m further to the left of both of them than either of them is to the left of McCain). I mean, do you wanna know what my plans were for September 11th, 2000? I was supposed to go to DC to take part in a press conference about the Florida Election Fraud sponsored by Democrats.com. You’re pretty much talking the Patient Zero of BDS when you’re talking to me.
Regarding “Hillary”/”Hil”, obviously its not just that those terms are used, but the context which gives them meaning. And its glaringly obvious that Fremon has internalized the sexism and misogyny that has been the foundation of Hillary-hate for the last 16 years, and which allows people like Fremon to treat her with such contempt. Biases like racism, sexism, anti-semitism, homophobia, etc are endemic in this society — and are necessarily internalized in the process of socialiization.
Being gay doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize that homophobia is part of my subconscious make up — all it means is that I’m more aware of it. A lot of women are capable of writing about Hillary Clinton, despite their preference for Obama, without demeaning her, and that is because they recognize that there is no reason to treat Clinton in a demeaning fashion. They can disagree without bile. Fremon doesn’t/can’t — and when a woman (or a man, for that matter) is inapable of writing without bile about Clinton, we’re looking at internalized misogyny — and in the case of women who do so, internalized self-disregard/loathing because of their gender. Hillary-hate from women is ultimately just projection.
I see that Fremon hasn’t deigned to show up, and explain her methods. Jay Rosen (co-publisher of Of The Bus at HuffPo) has, for all intents and purposes, disavowed this piece, and I’d not be surprised if Fremon isn’t here because she knows she’s been caught. I also wouldn’t be surprised to find that she’s at someone’s anniversary party either — but what Fremon did is just so beyond the pale in terms of “journalism” that I doubt she’s ever going to want to answer questions about it.
But she doesn’t have to answer my questions — she can just answer the ones posed to her by the folks at the Justice and Journalism project.
“Historian” proves to be one of the dimmest bulbs on the Tennanbaum. And entire paragraph of conventional historical references devoted to proving my joke about Mein Kampf to be utterly appropriate – i.e. some elements of a potentially valid question buried in the context of a hateful, obsessive tirade. Welcome to the “Oh, I got it!” club.
What a silly, tiresome and utterly dull person.
Paul – you embarrass yourself more every time you make crackpot accusations. That “Historian” has embraced you is ironic – except that you both come off as deeply disturbed in your serial, unhinged accusations. I don’t know exactly what you’ve “internalized” but it makes you sound like a fringe, bitter crackpot. Celeste is a paragon of decency, intellecutal honesty, rigor and professionalism compared to you and your new best friend here.
So, Ms Fremon, let me get this straight.
You take two quotes that are from separate and distinct parts of what Hillary Clinton said, edit out what YOU feel is not important (unbiased my ass, btw), edit them down to a single tape designed to make a reader/listener think they are part of a continuous attack on Move-On.org — and present it as such.
You don’t even bother to use ellipses when you quote what she said. THAT is a deliberate omission. I don’t know ANY journalist that would ever try and pull that kind of crap.
No wonder Rosen is distancing himself from you…
“I doubt that reg is more ‘radical’ than I am”
Although guys like you abuse the term “radical”, in this context it’s your little fringe world and you’re welcome to it.
Celeste is a paragon of decency, intellecutal honesty, rigor and professionalism compared to you
the difference is, I don’t try and pass myself off as a professional journalist. When I do “publish” new information (see http://www.glcq.com) I do everything in my power to ensure that no bias is included — as a result, I don’t write about what I “know”, only what I can actually prove from the undisputed facts in the public record.
I’m not here as a reporter, I’m here as someone who is sickened by a supposed “progressive” who used the exact same gutter journalism tactics as Drudge. The written vomit I spewed was a reaction to the emetic of Fremon’s “reporting.”
“Jay Rosen (co-publisher of Of The Bus at HuffPo) has, for all intents and purposes, disavowed this piece”
I know it’s a lot to ask, but how about a reference or quote to back up that assertion.
You’re pretty fucking hard to take seriously. Totally off-the-hook, bitter little shit. No wonder that “Historian” can connect. So after the shower of garbage, you’d do yourself a favor if you linked or quoted when you make assertions. Cuz you’ve got zero credibility as an intelligent commenter trying to get answers to reasonable questions.
oh, and another question, Ms Fremon…
you make it clear that you did everything you could to hide where the tape came from. And you asked him “what evidence they had of intimidation at the caucuses, period.” This, of course, occurs after the highly controversial Texas caucuses… but its pretty clear from the context of what Clinton says and when she says it that SHE is referring to stuff that happened on Super Tuesday.
So, you deliberately kept Wolfson in the dark about the nature of Clinton’s remarks, asked him for EVIDENCE (her’s a clue Fremon — EVIDENCE was collected with reference to what happened in Nevade and Texas. So when you ask for EVIDENCE, Wolfson is going to talk about EVIDENCE — stuff he can take to a judge, or a credentials committee. EVIDENCE was necessary to collect in Nevada because Obama was talking about filing some kind of complaint (until someone pointed out that the rules were quite clear about when the doors were to be closed — read page 53 of the rule book) and in Texas because of severe irregularities that may well result in a challenge at the convention to caucus delegates being seated.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DEMANDED AN ANSWER TO A QUESTION THAT WAS NOT RELEVANT TO YOUR SUBJECT, THEN USED THAT ANSWER TO MAKE THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN LOOK BAD.
again — according to you, sometime after Super tuesday Clinton discussed what Move-On had done at caucuses. YET YOU NEVER CLUED WOLFSON IN ON THAT FACT?
Because if you are too ignorant to know that there were six caucuses held on Super Tuesday, then you have NO BUSINESS doing any kind of journalism on this subject.
But don’t bother explaining this all to me now. You might as well wait until you have to answer to the people at Annenberg — wouldn’t want you to get your stories mixed up.
Paul L.: As to reg being some kind of radical, well, while I’ve mellowed with age….
I’m glad we didn’t deal with Paul before he mellowed.
reg at 46 = so dull and dimwitted, doesn’t realize HE”s the joke, that there was no appropriate analogy to be made. Only that his comparing people to random historical figures or events is as stupid as it is tediously predictable.
This is one case where I have to agree with an Editorial in today’s LAT: some intellectual “elitism” is a good thing, saves us from being governed by pompous illiterates like reg. He confuses disjointed, incoherent rants of jumbled thoughts, with nuanced complexity. I wouldn’t normally care what someone’s views are on the political spectrum, but this nasty haughtiness from an insular, unjoined mind is different. Notice that his modus operendi here and elsewhere is never to address issues, but like Obama does, attack the critics and accuse them of unfairness, racism, fascism, whatever irrelevant analogy pops into his head. And one minute he accuses Hillary’s followers of being the radical fringe, next flag- and pearl-wearing conservatives in disguise… Maybe the fact that she’s issue-based and not dogmatic is her strong suit.
(And I haven’t exactly “embraced” Paul, I’m not even sure where he’s coming from, except insofar as sharing a disgust for reg’s “ad hominem” attacks and gratuitous hostility toward anyone who doesn’t embrace his narrow-minded, knee-jerk view of the world. The fact that someone like him haunts the blog to combat freedom of speech, is really sickening. Self-styled liberals or whatever he thinks he is, are often the most vitriolic censors, as bad as the Lush Rimbaughs. His constant obsession with what he finds “interesting” or witty when he has no vested interest in or knowledge about the crucial local issues that make up half the threads on this blog, yet sticks his ignorant nose into anyway to attack those who do, signifies an attention-starved fool.)
I don’t share Paul’s strong reaction to Celeste, either: but I do take his general point that personal attack couched as “journalism” is appalling and way too prevalent, especially when it comes to Hillary. Celeste normally holds herself to much higher standards.
Obama’s problem isn’t intellectual elitism/ superiority he’s being accused of, it’s the condescending attitude towards the blue-collar workers he claims to want to represent: calling them Bible and gun-toting xenophobes. He pretends sincere concern in his careful oratories, but this reveals who he really is. Admittedly Hillary used to be more like that, but seems to have acquired a genuine respect for these people and farmer types she represents in Upstate New York.
It’s hard for me to follow this because I sincerely have no skin in the game. Especially, since I think the corporate elite have pre-selected the allowable candidates for us. They might prefer that John McCain take the presidency, but if the electorate is of a mood to demand a Democrat then, Obama or Clinton will do. For me, Any D in the general…, because the alternative seems worse.
That said, I would like to point out that Paul Lukasiak did an interesting six part series at FireDogLake which I’m still mulling. You can find the final piece here which has links to the previous five parts of the series. I recommend it.
And, as a final “off topic” thought, I submit this bit of wisdom offered in a thread of comments elsewhere:
Resonates for me.
Frankly, Listener, having heard Paul “unplugged” I have no interest in his further ruminations. He’s a moronic piece of shit IMHO, given the bizarre nature of the assault he launched on Celeste here. What’s the cliche ? A window into the soul ?
Still waiting for any evidence of his assertion about Jay Rosen…
I know it’s a lot to ask, but how about a reference or quote to back up that assertion
ordinarilly, I provide links for everything –and alway provide them if I haven’t and I’m asked for them.
But obviously, the rules are different at Fremon’s — she can take two snippets of an answer completely out of context, edit them together and make it appear that they are one long rant — and no one thinks any rules have been broken.
So look it up yourself.
I’ve tried. Nothing.
You’re a real piece of work. Arrogant, hysterical prick.
http://www.correntewire.com/off_the_bus_goes_off_the_rails
“Off the Bus” goes “Off the Rails”
Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on Sat, 2008-04-19 12:52.
(UPDATE…JAY ROSEN, CREATOR OF PRESSTHINK AND CO-PUBLISHER OF OTB, HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT OTB HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WRITING, EDITING, OR PRESENTATION OF THE STORY IN QUESTION  and I believe him. )
END LUKASIAK CLIP.
Where’s the link in this context of your submitting a blog entry ? Or did you simply forget to add “Look it up yourself” for your readers ?
Incidentally, the two pieces of the recording – and it seems pretty obvious to me as a listener that it’s being excerpted – aren’t presented in Celeste’s text as a continuous quote.
“Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] — which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down,” Clinton said to a meeting of donors. “We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn’t even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that’s what we’re dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it’s primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don’t agree with them. They know I don’t agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.”
Unless something earth-shaking was edited out, there’s no way in hell that the long second segment – after the introductory note on MoveOn’s endorsement of Obama and their fundraising – could be misinterpreted.
You really are full of crap, buddy. A tendentious asshole with who’s got ZILCH of any substance here, other than some kind of unhinged anger. And, pray tell, what are the questions currently being asked of Celeste by Annenberg that you refer to ? Is this something else I need to simply “look up myself” (as in “Links ? Links ? Fuck you, I don’t need no stinkin’ links !”) beceause, like the ubiquitous “Clinton!” buttons, it’s part of your imagined reality ?
Incidentally, the two pieces of the recording – and it seems pretty obvious to me as a listener that it’s being excerpted – aren’t presented in Celeste’s text as a continuous quote.
I don’t know where you learned to write, but everywhere else in the universe, interjecting a “said so and so” between two quotes means that the quote is continuous.
No ellipses. No indication whatsoever that this wasn’t one long continuous rant — and when I questioned if it had been edited, the response I got here was “YOU”VE GOT NO PROOF”, rather than an acknowledgement like “yeah, its obviouly spliced together — its two distinct snippets from longer answers. Anyone knows that.”
The Obots and Fremon’s defenders would have gone to the ends of the earth before admitting that this was out of context, and spliced together.
And seriously, do you really believe that the Clinton campaign will have a hard time figuring out where and when this was done if they want to find out? That using these particular snippets will somehow protect Fremon’s source?
I mean, can we be a tad less gullible for a moment? Fremon’s story is pure bullshit. I don’t know who recorded the tape, but her story is SO much pure bullshit that anyone who speculated that it came directly from the Obama campaign would be fully justified.
Fremon is a reliable Obama slag with access to HuffPo — and this was done in retaliation for Mayhew’s piece. Rosen obviously didn’t want anything to do with it — but Ariana Huffington’s lack of ethics aren’t exactly front page news, now are they?
Unless something earth-shaking was edited out,
and, given that Fremon is clearly a completely uethical Obama partisan, do you really think she didn’t edit out anything exculpatory?
NOT telling Howard Wolfson that the tape was made “after super tuesday” (she published that info) and asking about EVIDENCE of intimidation AFTER the Texas caucuses, and then pretending that wasn’t unethical? Get real.
SIX FREAKING CAUCUSES ON SUPER TUESDAY. CLINTON IS SPEAKING AFTER SUPER TUESDAY. AN ETHICAL JOURNALIST WOULD NOT TRY TO MAKE CLINTON LOOK LIKE A LIAR IN THIS SCUMBAG FASHION.
Apparently, Hillary Clinton has sewed up the homosexual vote.
“I don’t know where you learned to write, but everywhere else in the universe, interjecting a “said so and so†between two quotes means that the quote is continuous.”
It’s not the way I write but what I read. Often. I’ve read numerous news accounts that do precisely that – i.e. pick up up the transcription downstream from the introductory line ending in “he/she said.” when I’ve gone back and checked transcripts. It may not be great form, but it’s common and, in this case, clearly not misleading. Unless you can explain how it might be. The statments are clear and obviously neither accuracy or context is being disputed by the Clinton hacks. I also don’t know where an elipsis fights into that paragraph, as a matter of simple grammar and construction. The first sentence is a “snippet” that provides context for the subject of the longer quote. It’s not “two snippets” pasted together to create a misimpression. You’ve got nuthin. You also continue with a bunch of assertions that are more indicative of your blood pressure than your analytical or evidentiary capabilities.
Listener, I think the commenter you quote at 56 is more or less right; Hillary started her campaign not that different from McCain, moved left and is even embracing some of Edwards’ ideas, but if she gets the nomination will move back to center where she will take moderate Republican votes away from McCain.
All of which makes me wonder where support for her from people like Paul, who describes himself as left of anyone on this blog or Obama — who I think is a lot more left than he’s letting on, and would do the opposite of Hillary if he gets the nom, that is, move more to embrace the radical fringe Hillary’s talking about — is coming from. Maybe it’s just that with Obama being impossible to pin down with his platitudes about Hope and Change and Progress, and comments like this one about blue collar people revealing who he really is behind the careful presentation; and with Hillary shifting left to center right during her career, now left (e.g., on illegal immigration) and I presume, would go center right again, people read into them whatever they want. Even McCain has shifted in response to being too liberal for the right wing of his party (not much different from Hillary except for Iraq and healthcare), and will shift center again in the general election. (As George H did, playing to the right to get the nod, then turning out to be more moderate than George Dubya.) No wonder people are looking at the same candidates and seeing different people.
Have a nice day, everybody — To change the subject to something much less controversial (!), really something how the Police Protective League has endorsed Zine’s motion over Bratton’s very public opposition and berating of Zine and the ignorance of his cops. This is just a small mention in the Times, though. But today’s Online (and tomorrow’s paper, 4/21) issue has a “40 on 40” about SP40, what 40 people think about it now. Significantly, Darryl Gates, who’s always referred to by Bratton, the Mayor etc. as having implemented the order, says that that was a different time, 30 years ago, when neither the country nor community were that worried about illegal immigration left, and illegals were a small minority. Now, he says the City is remiss in NOT doing anything it can to combat gang crime, which includes having cops check legal status of any gang members. Even Riordan (who cleverly sidesteps the ego war between Bratton and Zine), says cops are afraid to ask about illegal status even when they could under 40, fearing retailiation from superiors for “racism.”
Every single Hispanic politician and actor supports SP40, claiming it deters crime; many others argue with the cops that the community is much more fearful of retribution from the gangbangers on the street than from the cop. (30 years ago, there was a lot more general fear of LAPD, which had a macho, para-military rep.) One commenter says pretty concisely, “We want to tie the hands of the gangs, not the cops.” Garcetti has a short but balanced statement.
There must be major fireworks going on behind the scenes — Bratton and his allies vs. Zine and the Protective League. Keep us posted, Celeste.
Creepier with every comment…
I meant, second para from bottom above, “many others agree with the cops (not argue with them) that the community is much more fearful of retribution from the gangbangers on the street than from the cops…”
We KNOW where you stand on this (with Bratton) but hope you’ll prove to Paul that you CAN be an unbiased “reporter” not just activist, in reporting how this unfolds. (Gotta admit it’s an interesting general issue for your sponsors and class: where to draw the lines between personal activism and bias, over journalism as a teacher and professional.)
69, incidentally, was directed to Paul…
another question for Ms Fremon…
In her original piece, she writes “Howard Wolfson, communications director for the Clinton campaign, verified the authenticity of the audio…”
now, supposedly, the reason that Fremon has to go to such great lengths to hide when and where the meeting took place because if the Clinton campaign knew that, the source could face retaliation. Indeed, all we’re allowed to hear is a small snippet of the meeting—we aren’t even allowed to hear silence, so that we know that there is a gap between the two statements, because THAT would give away the source.
Nevertheless, “Wolfson verified the authenticity of the audio.”
Now, having been somewhat involved in the whole Bush/AWOL/Killian memos mess, I know a little bit about “authentication”, and how “jounalists” will take an acquiesence to the overall narrative described by the document/tape, and assume that is “authentication.” (The biggest reason that CBS went with the Killian memos is that the White House point man on Bush’s past “authenticated” them.)
So, if Fremon’s thinks the great lengths she has gone to were successful, how can she possibly tell us that Wolfson was able to “verify the authenticity of the audio?”
Either Wolfson actually did “verify the authenticity of the audio”, which he could only do if he could positively identify that it was somenthing he’d heard Clinton say on one occasion. And if he could do that, then Fremon’s source in blown, in which case, why hide the orgins of the tape, and edit it so severely.
Or Fremon lied when she said that Wolfson “verified the authenticity of the audio”, because all Wolfson did was not repudiate it as a fake. Not declaring something a fake is not “verifying the authenticity” of it, and Fremon would have to be an utterly unethical “journalist” to lie about what Wolfson had really done in order to advance her political agenda.
I go with B here, with a soupcon of A.
But if Fremon can explain to me how she resolved this paradox — how someone who couldn’t identify a conversation could possible “verify the authenticity of the audio”, I’m all ears.
I’ve been gone all day and my what a lovely mess has erupted.
First things first:
To Paul Lukasiak: You came over here, and expressed a series of disagreements with my Huff Post piece. You expressed your disagreement in the form of a personal attack, but at the same time asked some reasonable questions.
SO, I pretty much overlooked the attack and took the time to answer your questions assuming that, despite the fact that you threw a few mud balls, you were an adult with whom one could honorably disagree and thus have a discussion or a healthy argument.
My bad.
Turn’s out, you’re not an adult. You’re an abusive little creep.
This is a pity because you seem intelligent enough and some of the issues you brought up are worth discussing—like the edited tape issue.
I welcome differing points of view here. Woody and “Historian” disagree with me regularly and I value their contributions.
But neither discussion nor argument are your interests. If I answer you you will continue to play move the ball and up the ante with your verbal assault.
It’s a pathology.
And I won’t play. I do not engage with abusive people at all for any reason. Ever.
If you want to continued to criticize my politics or writing, have at it—at least as long as my patience holds.
But I will no longer answer you for the reason I detailed above.
Also, fair warning: I will spike any further personal/sexual attacks on me. You’ll find that comment 67 is gone for that reason.
TO THE REST OF THE WLA COMMENTERS:
I’m going to address a couple of the attacks on my work on this thread. I do this out of respect for you, not for the attacker who has spent the day posting scurrilous little stink bombs about me on multiple websites (Taylor Marsh’s comes to mind, but there are others).
In no particular order:
1. JAY ROSEN AND OFF THE BUS: The Clinton/MoveOn article was posted on the main part of Huff Post, not in the Off the Bus section—although it also has an Off the Bus tag on the bottom (saying it was developed for Off the Bus even though, actually, it wasn’t). Frankly this is a lot of inside baseball stuff that should interest nobody—were it not for the Jay Rosen B.S. that has been posted here.
As is often true in newspapers and magazines, different sections of the publications compete with one another. This is true of Huffington Post as well. So, although I brought the piece to the main part of Huffington Post, as it seemed to fit best there. Yet I’ve written in the past for Off the Bus (at Marc Cooper’s request when the thing was first getting up and running), they wanted to get to put their stamp on it too. As a consequence, editors from both sections were involved and vetted the thing. Usually having that many editors on a news story would have been a nightmare. But it wasn’t. I didn’t get the audio clips in my hands until very late Thursday night. (Although I’d heard it earlier. It was not in my or Huff Post’s possession.) We had to move quite quickly on Friday to get the story up before the weekend (plus I had some competing professional obligations during the same time frame), so everyone was a great help. (We didn’t want to wait until Monday as that was too close to the election, thus unfair to Clinton if she wanted to respond.)
Jay Rosen, one of Off the Bus’s creators, wasn’t involved in the editing (three direct editors were quite enough) but he was aware of the piece and its content. And in no way has he disavowed it or distanced himself from it. That’s simply preposterous. (More scurrilous crap from Paul.)
2. ABOUT HOWARD WOLFSON AUTHENTICATING THE AUDIO. He asked if I’d play him some of it. I told him, Sure, and played the longer of the two clips. “Yeah, that’s her,” he said.
3. ABOUT THE TWO PIECES OF AUDIO: Upon reflection, it might have been better to make it extremely clear to the reader in the body of the piece that there were two clips, although once one listens to the audio it is unmistakably clear. I originally wrote something between the two quotes that went something like this: “After Senator Clinton chats for a minute or two with some of her donors, she continues.” And then the big quote came after. But when we were editing, I cut it as it seemed unwieldy. Instead I put the attribution between the quotes as a more streamlined way of using the two quotes. As I said, given the controversial nature of the piece, perhaps I should have erred on the side of caution, and left the explanation in. These decisions are often made in the heat of deadline pressure. Sometimes you call ’em right. Sometimes you don’t. The editors think it’s fine. I think maybe the longer version would have been better.
As for journalistic ethics, most quotes are edited—as anyone who’s every been interviewed has no doubt experienced. Sometimes an ellipsis is used when one wants to cue the reader to the edit. Sometimes not, as you’re simply cutting out the extraneous.
For the record, I listened to the full clip multiple times to make sure we weren’t cutting something crucial that would open us up to the accusation that the quotes were taken out of context. There is nothing. (If there was, someone in the Clinton camp would have called us on it, and rightly so. But they haven’t, because there isn’t anything.)
The truth is, the one-sentence first clip could have just been cut, as it’s the long clip that matters. But we left the first clip in because it gives some additional context. Sadly, in so doing it allows people like Paul extra fuel with which to manufacture ghosts and plots and journalistic malfeasance where there was none.
4. ABOUT THE TIME FRAME OF THE EVENT: The Clinton camp and everyone else with whom I spoke about the audio and the event, were told that the fundraiser occurred some time after Super Tuesday and before the Texas primary and caucus. This was not a mystery to anyone.
5. TO HISTORIAN: I do plan to follow up on the Special order 40/Zine thing as I was surprised—and intrigued—when the union favored Zine’s motion. On Monday, I’ll try to get hold of LAPPL prez Tim Sands to discuss the matter, or failing him, their attorney. I think Zine’s motion is a legal nightmare. But now I’m curious about the union’s take. (And what command staff thinks of the union’s take.)
In answer to your other question:
Conventionally, a blog generally demands that you express an opinion or take a position, as opposed to a straight news story where the reporter is supposed to keep his or her biases out of it (although, as well all know, everyone assuredly has biases). Blogging is somewhat akin to an Op Ed. This doesn’t mean its immune to the rules of journalism—but then nor is an op ed or an editorial or an essay or a newspaper column. The only difference is that in the latter group it’s okay to advocate or express an opinion, in straight news, it ain’t, although one can draw informed conclusions.
On this site, it’s a mix of opinion and original reporting, with a little bit of news aggregating thrown in from time to time. (Most of the time I trust it’s not too hard to distinguish one from the other.)
Once in a while, quite honestly, I arbitrarily take a slightly more opinionated POV than I truly have just to stimulate discussion. (Columnists often do the same.)
Because I’m working quickly and blog nearly daily without having the fail safe of an editor (and a copy editor! My kingdom for a proof reader, for God’s sake!), once in a while I make errors. And when I do, my smart commenters are quick to correct me.
With my students, I explain the differences between all those various forms, and how they all have a place in the journalistic tool box.
As to how the Annenberg Justice and Journalism folks view WLA….they are extremely supportive. I’m very lucky in that regard.
Down the line, we plan to open up WLA to more voices, particularly those of students—high school and college both. But right now, my schedule is so overjammed that it doesn’t allow for the oversight that such an expanded version would require.But we’ll get there.
(Remember, in addition to everything else, I’m writing a new book and getting an MFA….and occasionally sleep is desirable.)
Okay, that’s it. I can’t believe I just spent this much time writing all this stuff, probably way more than necessary. But there you have it.
Night all.
Excellent articles, Celeste.
PLuk, are you a paid Clinton surrogate? You pop up all over the web, spinning for Clinton, until you get laughed out of the place.
2. ABOUT HOWARD WOLFSON AUTHENTICATING THE AUDIO. He asked if I’d play him some of it. I told him, Sure, and played the longer of the two clips. “Yeah, that’s her,†he said.
that’s not authenticating an audio. That’s asking someone if they sound like someone they know.
Upon reflection, it might have been better to make it extremely clear to the reader in the body of the piece that there were two clips, although once one listens to the audio it is unmistakably clear
not to your audience its not. When I said it sounded like two different clips, proof was demanded. When I acknowledged that I wasn’t a sound engineer, I was attacked for even suggesting that it was two clips. So if your own biggest fans don’t think its “unmistakably clear”, how is anyone else supposed to think so.
I didn’t KNOW if it was two clips or not. I was pretty damned sure, after listening very closely to them. But that isn’t what someone is supposed to have to do — and like I said, I couldn’t ACCUSE you of what you did until I was sure — I could only say that it was suspect.
These decisions are often made in the heat of deadline pressure
please. its electronic media. there are no “presses” to stop. There was nothing that prevented you from doing an ethical job other than your own need to get the smear out ASAP.
As for journalistic ethics, most quotes are editedâ€â€as anyone who’s every been interviewed has no doubt experienced. Sometimes an ellipsis is used when one wants to cue the reader to the edit. Sometimes not, as you’re simply cutting out the extraneous.
this is simply not true — at least not in the way that you are implying. Quotes will be “edited” for clarity, but you don’t just cut something substantive out of a quote without ellipses… and when its a tape recording, that is especially true.
As I said before, the edits were solely because Clinton’s use of names gave away the event
that’s not what you said. What you said was that you couldn’t even include long silences. And it would not have been difficult to edit out the names that were used.
So, lets review. You take a tape of dubious origins — you let Howard Wolfson listen to a snippet, and he tells you it sounds like Hillary Clinton — and you claim that he “verified the authenticity of the audio.” He didn’t. He identified a voice on a poorly recorded tape as that of Hillary Clinton. So right there you’re shoddy and dishonest.
Then you take two isolated pieces of conversation and splice the together in a way that the listener is lead to think is one continuous answer. You provide no clue to the reader/listener that it is, in fact, two separate and distinct pieces of audio. And while you claim it was “obvious” it was anything but.
That’s unethical. I don’t care if you were “rushed” — if you haven’t got the story right, you don’t publish it.
You NOW claim that everyone knew when the tape was recorded. Yet, Wolfson’s answer makes no sense if he knew you were asking him about reports of intimidation at caucuses…UNLESS you were demanding to know about LEGAL evidence.
Its pretty obvious what happened here — you knew that Wolfson was talking about “evidence” in the former sense, but twisted his words to make it appear that Clinton lied. Unless you asked him specifically about reports that would have been consistent with what Clinton said (which you obviously did not), you acted unethically.
This was a hit piece. A smear. And don’t try and tell anyone that there is no editorial bias that would allow you to get away with shoddy, unethical journalism at HuffPo. There is less bias at Drudge — the fact that I’m a progressive, and the bias is designed to pander to progressives, doesn’t mean its not biased.
You actually manage to make Drudge look good. Hell, you make the national enquirer look good. Maybe not National Examiner. You haven’t managed to reach that depth yet. Not that you don’t seem to have tried.
The “big lie” is that you tried to keep spin out of it. Obama supporters do tend to see the world through “Hillary is the Anti-christ” glasses, but even they must realize that you just flat out lied when you said that Clinton contradicted previous praise for high turnout. She did not such thing. She spoke about people who had turned out in large numbers thanks to Moveon.org, and intimidated people who had come to support her.
Do you not even recognize the difference there? Between complaining about abuse, and complaining about turnout?
Clinton never said that too many people turned out. Never. Not once. But you said she contradicted previous statement praising turnout. That’s a lie — because if it isn’t ‘spin’, and it ain’t true, its a bald faced lie.
So why did you choose to lie? Why did you choose to deceive the audience (other than the fact that they wanted to be deceived — big audience for anti-Clinton hit pieces out there.)
Of course, the really funny part is that the only votes you might change with your dishonest “advocacy” journalism are middle-class and working class voters who think Moveon is just a bunch of DFHs, but who were thinking about supporting Obama. If they hear about this, they might vote for Clinton.
Its the lack of journalist standards at HuffPo, and the lack of journalistic ethics in “reporters” like you, that could hand John McCain the Presidency. You and your Obama-supporting friends have made it impossible to have a consistent critique of mainstream media bias, because you’re as bad, if not worse, than they are.
So when the next Wright smear comes along, remember that you have no right to complain. Because you’re piece was no different that a Wright smear — it had nothing to do with issues, it was all about Clinton’s character.
And that is where you really reach your deepest depths of jounalistic malfeasance. You’ve just given Freedom Watch the right to splice together unrelated Obama comments in their ads — you do it, why shouldn’t they? You just made photoshopping two separate and distinct images into one — Obama and Farrakhan smiling next to each other? Never happened — but its simply the visual equivalent of your splicing two separate and distinct audion snippets together. (Oh, I can hear the right wingers say. Its so OBVIOUSLY photoshopped.)
So congrats. You got what you wanted — the further debasement of political discourse. Right now the only thing that I’m mad about is that I might to wind up with a Republican President for the next four years — that’s something you deserve, but not me.
Ms. Fremon,
Why get upset?
Just focus on the next big story.
Obama is going to be our next President…how are we going to keep him alive?
American radicals and bigots are going to want him dead and six feet under.
We are going to have a repeat of the 1960s, unless someone speaks out and addresses the issue.
Thanks, Poplock. Good advice. (I should never read blog comments before I’ve eaten, which is what I did tonight. Low blood sugar is not pretty thing around our house.)
About the Obama assassination threat. You know, everybody I know whispers about it. By the way, when I get collect calls from prison and the like (I get wa-a-ay too many for the health of my phone bill), lately I always ask the guys who of the three candidates they prefer. Most (but not all), say Barack Obama. But they always follow that admission with the words, “…if he doesn’t get shot.” All of them say it.
Can we all go take a shower now ?
This idiot has a long post belaboring this – “Anatomy of a Smear” – over at…yes, you guessed it…Taylor Marsh’s blog. That’s Hillary Hysteria Central and the folks there will lap it up. Of course, given the sick shit that this idiot posted here slamming Celeste in the most vicious, sexist tone possible, Taylor Marsh and her lovely little Obama-hate-fest have lost any credibility on the “sexist” front (as if they already hadn’t run that tired rant into the ground.)
Obama did the party a huge favor by isolating and (inadvertently) exposing the Clinton personality cult. Time for sane progressives to Move On as they say.
Now there’s a story!
MURDERERS, RAPISTS, THEIVES, MUGGERS, GANGBANGERS ALL FOR OBAMA
While much has been written about various votes — the Woman’s vote, the Black vote, the Hispanic vote, the Nascar-dads vote — one group of Americans is seldom mentioned– the Criminal vote.
But in an informal survey taken among her many friends, acquantainces, and contacts serving time, reporter Celeste Fremon has found that despite the tensions that exist in many of our prisons, the inmates agree on one thing — they want Senator Barack Obama to be President.
While all categories of criminals overwhelmingly support Obama over Senator Hillary Clinton, the Illinois Senator does especially well among rapists (87% say they support Obama), terrorist (85%), and drug dealers (85%), and less well among those convicted of fraud (67%).
A recently released audio-tape, in which Obama described criminals as “bitter and clinging to their guns, their ho’s and their 40s” does not seem to have hurt Obama with this constituency. When told about Obama’s comments, most of the inmates said they were not bothered by the reports. Most had heard of Obama’s recent speech, in which he explained what he really meant, and said “My mother committed welfare-fraud, and I can no more disavowel career criminals than I can my own mother”.
According to Fremon, its not just the criminals behind bars that support Obama. “The pimps, the prostitutes, the muggers, they’re all solidly for Obama” said Clemons. “They identify with him.”
Obama strategist David Axelrod said that Obama’s efforts to reach out to criminals have born fruit. “Obama has let criminals know that he is one of them, and that shows up in the polling. Senator Clinton hasn’t been able to connect with the felon class, which shows that she’s less electable.”
Axelrod also pointed to a recent poll conducted by the campaign showing that while Obama’s strongest criminal support is among African Americans, Obama does surprising well among lower-middle class white male criminals. “Hillary Clinton wants you to believe that Barack Obama can’t attract working-class white voters. But according to our internal polling, Obama carries 60% of white working class males convicted of property crime, and 55% of those serving time for murder, attempted murder, and rape.”
C’mon Celeste, this story (like all your stories) practically writes itself. I mean whose going to check it?
And could you put a rush on it? Clinton’s reported criticism of Moveon.org is doing wonders for her in key constituencies, like the 90% of Americans who supported the war in Afghanistan. Its probably too late to have much impact in Pennsylvania, but reporting on Obama’s broad appeal among criminals will put Clinton over the top in Indiana, and give her a big boost in North Carolina as well.
🙂
I see that Fremon hasn’t deigned to show up, and explain her methods. Jay Rosen (co-publisher of Of The Bus at HuffPo) has, for all intents and purposes, disavowed this piece, and I’d not be surprised if Fremon isn’t here because she knows she’s been caught.
From the comments thread at Jay Rosen’s Press Think
I believe your pants are on fire.
Now, aren’t you glad to have me for arguing?
In fairness to lukasiak, he mad the claim regarding Jay Rosen before Rosen set him straight.
That being said, it speaks of a tendency to jump to conclusions; conclusions not supported by any evidence.
That being said, it speaks of a tendency to jump to conclusions; conclusions not supported by any evidence.
when i raised the issue with Rosen, it was clear that I was asking why there was a double standard at OTB — one for a piece like Fowler’s, the second for Fremon’s. Here is the essence of what I wrote http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2008/04/15/mayhill_fowler.html#comment51232:
Fremon’s piece reads like it could have come straight from an Obama campaign blast fax. Its exactly what, IMHO, Off the Bus should NOT be doing, and raises no interesting questions like Fowlers piece does.
The only question it raises is about the integrity of Off the Bus itself.
So, Jay, I really think you need to address this issue — because, especially after the Fowler episode and the care that was taken with that report, this steaming pile of anti-Clinton bullshit looks really, really bad.
Jay’s response (in its entirety, with emphasis added)
Paul: This piece was published by the Huffington Post, not OffTheBus. The editorial product–from headline, to the story as written, to the way it was framed and promoted–was in their hands. I saw it when it was released to the Web.
In that sense, it is not our story. It is our person–a volunteer contributor–who obtained the tape and did the story for Huffington Post. OffTheBus editors Marc Cooper and Amanda Michel were not the decision-makers and they did not edit the story. Comparisons to the style we used for Mayhill Fowler can be made, as long as you realize that it is not the same people making those decisions, or the same section of the Huffington Post. The Huffington Post employs editors and reporters and they took this on.
Compare the presentation on the page and you can see what I mean. Fremon’s piece is the product of the politics section of the Huffington Post. Mayhill’s piece is the editorial product of OffTheBus.
I am not saying we had nothing to do with it, however.
The connections to OffTheBus are three: 1.) the writer, Celeste Fremon, is part of the OffTheBus network and thus came from our pool of people; 2.) I am sure the huge public attention that Mayhill’s story got played a role in this fundraiser tape emerging; and 3.) we cooperated with Huffington Post in the sense of turning the writer and tape over to their staff, which would mean politics editor Nico Pitney, editor Roy Sekoff and editor in chief Arianna Huffington.
Thus, at the bottom it says, “This story was developed in cooperation with OffTheBus to which reporter Celeste Fremon is a regular contributor.” It also ran in our section because Fremon is an OffTheBus-er, though almost no one accessed it that way. Instead they got there through the front page.
I do not know where the tape came from or how it was gotten. Had it been our story I would have had to consider that and all the other decisions to which you refer. As it happened, I was alerted Friday afternoon that the Huffington Post was going to do a story based on a tape that had surfaced from one of our contributors. That meant they would do it in their way. I found out what Hillary said when I read the story online.
Now, I take Jay’s word for it that he was not “disavowing” the story. But given the tone of the question I asked, and his complete and utter denial of any OTB involvement in the production of the story in response to that question, I think that the conclusion I drew was the right one. It may have not been what Rosen intended — but it is what (IMHO) an unbiased reader of his response to me would think.
And I used to think that reg was paid by the word.
Paul Lukasiak loves Clinton because he is secretly getting paid to run an internet political blogger spam network.
Once the Demos refuse to open the White House doors to the Wicked Witch of the East, that’s when all the money will come to a halt for little cry baby Paulie. He usefulness will become obsolete.
I really find that being pimped by a women is worst than being pimped by a man. Did someone say the word, “my little bitch?”
Just as I suspected….
CHELSEA STOPS TRAFFIC ON GAY BAR CRAWL
I just got another collect call from prison. Sadly I forgot to ask the guy (whose nickname is Crook) whether he was for Obama or Clinton. (I’m falling down on the job, clearly.)
But in this same vein, a lot of former homegirls I know are for Clinton because the thought of a woman in the White house makes them feel great.
I kinda suspect that neither candidate has gone out of their way to court the former gangster demographic, but most that I know are watching the election with as much interest as anybody.
wow – I need to play catch-up – somehow -go away for the weekend to a cabin with slow dial-up makes that difficult though…still, at least she didn’t call us “bitter” right?
“I really feel that being pimped by a woman (The Wicked Witch of the East) is worst than being pimped by a man…Did someone say the word ‘my little bitch?’ (about the gay Paul).” Segue to next comment re: Chelsea walking around in gay Philly. — Very persuasive and civilized critique of BOTH female Clintons now, mixing misogyny with homophobia.
Look, Hillary has bigoted and sophomoric opponents as well as proponents — as does Obama. You can’t judge a candidate by who does and doesn’t support them and why. Same for McCain.
BTW, I’m watching C-SPAN’s coverage of Obama’s rally in Penn… This is the first time I’ve ever listened to a whole hour of his pep rally, uncut, untinged by editing and spin.
He’s SO clever, the way he’s parroting back to the people in hard-hit, former manufacturing town Redding exactly what he thinks they want to hear: the current ills of the economy, how they’re being shortchanged by spending on Iraq, how they’re getting less for more taxes, nice little touches like seniors breaking pills in half to save money (HUGE applause) so he’d give tax breaks to those earning less than $75K, and “real change” etc. Touches on needing more money to train engineers and scientists, to compete with China and India, while penalizing out-sourcing…
Quoting: “Real change doesn’t lead with calculation, it leads with conviction. (WOW, what a clever way to minimize “experience” and policy and specific plans, and make a virtue of lack of it)…
“Not with why we shouldn’t win, but why we should…It goes back to the Founders 200 years ago (he’s linking himself to THEM again)…”
Cut RIGHT TO talking about “a guy who can’t afford to fill up his gas tank…He doesn’t need more politics…He needs more reusable energy…He needs more roads and bridges and Broadband lines so everyone can have access to the Internet. If someone tells you we can’t do it, if we can spend $10 billion a month in Iraq, we can do that!” (That one’s for Woody!)
“As for that 3 a.m. phone call (audience laughs)…you can decide for yourself who you want answering that phone. With the 3 candidates left, you’ve got 2 who got it wrong, one who got it right…” (Yeah, ‘cuz Obama wasn’t in the Senate then, again, inexperience/ being untested as a virtue. So CLEVER! Yet illogical, since he never “got it right,” he just wasn’t there!)
First commenter, female: accuses Bill Clinton of taking people off welfare, so “now we have people eating out of trash, poor, poor people.” Obama’s answer: Admits Bill had to take some off, the budget was too big, but the government “didn’t give people enough tools to get off welfare.”
Talks about giving free childcare to working mothers, transportation assistance and mass transit investment, expanding earned income-tax credit (a non-partisan strategy), healthcare for entry level jobs (by lowering premiums, “and if you can’t pay the premiums, we will subsidize you…And finally, education and job training.”
(TRANSLATION: Hugely expensive nanny-state programs, but hey, look what happened when Big Bad Bill tried to balance the budget by cutting some of this spending! And we’ll have all that extra money from Iraq!)
He adds a final, very positive comment (concerning welfare and poverty): getting fathers to be more involved in child-care (“and I speak as someone’s whose dad left when I was a child…” — good touch — “being a father doesn’t mean just ‘donating.'” (He never says HOW, though, and admits government can’t legislate this — but SOUNDS good.)
The way this whole question- answer was posed is BRILLIANT. The commenter (who just happened to be sitting up front and pre-screened) asked about welfare, accusing Bill Clinton of being so miserly (moderates read: trying to balance the budget) that people are reduced to eating from trash cans, giving Obama a chance to benefit from being portrayed as the Savior of the People from the Evil Clinton Administration.
Foreign Policy: A Venezuelan woman asks about his policy toward Latin America and her country. A: He’d talk directly to Chavez (“nothing is gained by not talking to our adversaries” — later Obama talks about Middle East in the same way, suggesting he’d follow Carter’s example in talking with Syria AND Hamas) and take away his (Chavez’) “power over us” by developing renewable energy… “expanding our foreign aid, not just focusing it on Iraq,” targeting Latin America, so Chavez “won’t look so good” to the people there. (So, WE in the U. S. need to “Fix” Latin America by financial aid — he never mentions the role of private investment or the financial role of the Latin American governments themselves.)
None of his “prescriptions” add up in any dollars-and-cents way, and every one of them require enormous amounts of money. But they stir up the emotions, and who could argue with these goals in an IDEAL WORLD? As he led off, his motto is: “Real change doesn’t lead with calculation, it leads with conviction…” Because the “calculation” would shock people into reality.
“I really feel that being pimped by a woman (The Wicked Witch of the East) is worst than being pimped by a man…Did someone say the word ‘my little bitch?’ (about the gay Paul).â€Â
Historian, with all due respect, I’ve earned that kind of stuff here — if I was just you’re average Clinton supporter and got that kind of treatment, there would be good reason to bring it up. But I’m not. I’ve been extremely offensive — not saying that I regret a word of it, just saying that if someone wants to treat me the same way I’ve treated others, its not something to attack that second person on.
Paul, I wasn’t intending to “defend” you at all, and if your aim was to be “extremely offensive” and have others treat you “the same way I’ve treated others,” that’s your call. You gave it and got it.
I’m speaking for ME, as someone who generally finds the level of vitriol and gratuitous name-calling and tone that factors into “progressive” arguments to be very disturbing, and it reflects very badly on the Democratic party in general. You rarely saw supporters of Huckabee and McCain going after each other this way.
In fact, the fact that Celeste doesn’t personally engage in it — her outbursts beyond “oh, piffle!” are fairly rare — is largely what endears her to those of us who might disagree with her, and I just wish more people would follow suit. (IF that makes me sound “prissy” or whatever you want to call it, fine.)
“it speaks of a tendency to jump to conclusions”
To put it mildly. Also “in fairness to Lukasiak” isn’t a caveat I would even bother with at this point after his display of vitriol, misogyny, dishonesty and extreme bias. The guy’s a jerk.
It’s equally pointless to wrestle facts with “Historian” BUT – exactly how does Clinton come up with precise figures to justify her proposals, most of which are bigger-spending schemes than Obama’s ? And where does Clinton come across as not pandering to her audiences ? No presidential candidate gets out of this without major pandering, unfortunately, bu she’s worse than Obama. In particular, on one of your alleged “core” issues – education – she’s much more in the pocket of the teachers unions. There’s not an inch of daylight between her and the AFT. Obama has told teachers that they are going to need to re-think things like merit pay. He’s even suggested being open to more data on vouchers – although he’s not going to run with that in Democratic primaries. Obama also talks “Cosbyesque” to black audiences in a way that Hillary wouldn’t dare – even at this late stage. Hillary has the biggest hacks among the Black Caucus behind her. Obama is allied with “new generation” black politicians like Corey Booker much more than the old black Democratic political guard. You are making a bundle of assertions that obviously have some truth and could be applied to all three candidates (McCain’s fiscal plan is by far the least realistic and biggest “pander”, of course.) But to take Obama to task as the worst offender – when he’s arguably the least of the panderers of the three – is dishonest. (Why am I not surprised. And why did I bother to risk triggering another as hominem hissy fit with this person ? Obviously I never learn.)
To clarify – and “in fairness” – I’m putting your comments on Obama into the larger context of how you’ve compared him and Hillary in various discussions. Maybe I’m reading too much into this particular post and you’re actually rethinking your negativity, but you’ve seemed to continually dismiss Obama and treat Hillary as though she’s the more “realistic” of the two. I don’t think that’s an unfair reading of your general attitude recited here numerous times.
I think that the conclusion I drew was the right one. It may have not been what Rosen intended but it is what (IMHO) an unbiased reader of his response to me would think.
I think that the prudent thing, especially given the fact that you have been hectoring Celeste for any number of horrid sins in your eyes, would have been to ask Rosen first before claiming something that was clearly your inference, wishful at that.
Make that before claiming something that was clearly your inference and not true.
In a slightly different vein, let me point out that in both of these instances of guerilla journalism (I don’t have to use Jay Rosen’s terms just cause he’s usually the smartest guy in the room) the campaigns have reacted pretty rationally and it’s only the supporters that have gone wacko. I have to wonder whether this kind of totally baseless, vociferous, mean-spirited, kill-the-messenger/journalist type of attack is a product of the blogosphere’s vitriol, the modern conservative movement’s very succesfull “media is out to get us” campaign, or some timeless psychosis that one never used to encounter thanks to the general politiness of persons when speaking face to face.
As to one commenter’s assertion that Jay Rosen disowned, disavowed, or otherwise dissed Celeste’s scoop, I can find no evidence of that on the Huffington Post or his site, Pressthink. It’s not exactly treading on the moral high ground to attack the credibility of a respected journalist with phony evidence.
clean tom canada see right university black site white australia