JFK vs the Liberal Blogosphere

[James DiEugenio]

This is what actually happened back then, from my piece using the only really investigative article on the whole mess as started by Hamsher.

Smith also reveals something else that is disturbing. Paterson enjoyed keeping Kennedy jumping because it kept him in the limelight. For instance, instead of doing an Albany cable channel show he was scheduled for, he begged off because of -get this-stomach problems. The stomach problems cleared up enough for him to discuss the upcoming appointment with, on Monday January 19th with Larry King, on Tuesday the 20th CNN News, and Wednesday the 21st, Katie Couric. As long as the spot was kept open, Paterson was in the public eye. And the accidental governor needs to run for office next year. The clear implication of Smith's fine piece is that Kennedy grew sick of the media spectacle that Paterson had created in both the MSM and the blogosphere at her expense. She was being exploited. For instance, King's lead for his interview with him was "Can you hold out against all these Kennedy forces?" That was it for her. She called him to say she was withdrawing. Then Paterson did something that was nakedly self-serving. Yet it supports what Kennedy suspected. He asked her to "release a statement saying she'd changed her mind and was staying in the contest." He pleaded with her, "You can't withdraw, you gotta stay in this thing, and I'll just not pick you." Kennedy would not go along and sent him an e-mail certifying her withdrawal.

Now, Paterson was left without his first choice. This is when he turned to the Blue Dog, tobacco lawyering, NRA supporting upstate congresswoman Gillibrand.

But actually it's even worse than that. Because Smith reveals that Paterson now got angry with Kennedy for dropping out of his self-created sideshow. And this is where the phony personal smears began to circulate in the press: about back taxes, marital problems, nanny problems etc. He had been shirked and now he had to reverse that image.

Smith's article, a real piece of investigative journalism, makes both the MSM and especially the blogosphere look sick in comparison. Besides exposing the false attributions of Hamsher and Markos, it focuses on the real villain of the sorry affair, namely Paterson. (That enlightening essay can be read by clicking here.) And I should add, it also humiliates Joshua Micah Marshall and his Talking Points Memo site. Marshall actually wrote that the reversal of Kennedy's decision to withdraw was by Kennedy. He completely missed on Paterson's pleading with her not to drop out. Probably because he did no investigation. And then Marshall actually had his new hire Matt Cooper do a summing up story on the whole affair. With absolutely no shoe leather—or brainpower— expended, Cooper blamed the affair, in order on: Ted Kennedy (Huh!), Caroline Kennedy, and, ridiculously, Mayor Michael Bloomberg! And the former Time reporter, and Patrick Fitzgerald target, made the same error about the genesis of Kennedy's upstate trip. He says it was her idea, when it was actually Paterson's. Cooper's brief piece is almost a parody of the MSM. It's a disgrace that 1.) It's on TPM, 2.) Marshall hired this Karl Rove confidante, and 3.) the blogosphere still won't print the truth.

Edited February 9, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Now, does anyone think Caroline Kennedy would have been close with the NRA?  Hmm, after what happened to her father and uncle?

As a lawyer, did she do work for the tobacco companies?

Was she friends with Al D'Amato?

And Andrew is correct, GIlibrand then helped Roger Stone and Hannity scheme to get rid of the guy who was the most progressive senator in the whole chamber, Al Franken. To me, there is no excuse for something like that which is more or less trading with the enemy. And since Moore lost, there was no strategic advantage to it anyway.

Hannity must have been giggling the whole time.  He probably called up Stone and said, "Hey Roger, it worked.  That idiot GIlibrand fell for it."

 

BTW, in my post above, amazingly, the link to the New York magazine investigative article still works.  Its a valuable piece of actual journalism as opposed to blogging.

Edited February 9, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

32 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is what actually happened back then, from my piece using the only really investigative article on the whole mess as started by Hamsher.

...

Now, Paterson was left without his first choice. This is when he turned to the Blue Dog, tobacco lawyering, NRA supporting upstate congresswoman Gillibrand.

 

Who turned left once she got to the Senate.

32 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Smith's article, a real piece of investigative journalism, makes both the MSM and especially the blogosphere look sick in comparison. Besides exposing the false attributions of Hamsher and Markos,

What false attributions of Hamsher?

As I recall her objections to Caroline were quite specific.

[Cliff Varnell]

32 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

And Andrew is correct, GIlibrand then helped Roger Stone and Hannity scheme to get rid of the guy who was the most progressive senator in the whole chamber, Al Franken.

More progressive than Bernie?

I don't think so.

Franken screwed up, and was quoted as saying that his celebrity entitled him to certain transgressions.

Gillibrand conspired with Roger Stone and Sean Hannity?

Prove it.

She condemned Bill Clinton as well.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Gillibrand conspired with Roger Stone and Sean Hannity?

Prove it.

That's Jim conspiracy talk. I think he just means that all of them ended up in their own pursuits bringing Franken down.

Obviously there's a double standard between the Republicans (and their sexual predator President) and Democrats over this issue. It is too bad, a Progressive Senator had to go.

Cliff,I  think you overestimate Gillebran as a Presidential candidate. Don't let the current climate fool you. I don't think a strident feminist will work. I don't like Clinton, but I wouldn't have wanted  him removed from office  for the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Bernie's old, but he did have the simple platform that did cut through and will work. I get the East West, black woman thing, but Harris turns off some of the middle. Could be branded as angry. If it's a woman, I say Gabbard. If it's a man. Newsome. In fact maybe either of them, at the top of the ticket. New blood.

I don't think Carolyn Kennedy had the heart for politics, but she is a beautiful babe! Oh sorry Cliff, what am I saying?!

[Robert Harper]

6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

She condemned Bill Clinton as well.

Well after the fact she jumped on the accuse wagon. She was appointed by a Lt Governor after the Gov (Spitzer) had to resign. In 1998 she didn't say anything.

In 2008 she didn't say anything. Now, she's leading the pack of so-called "feminists" to look like she is sensitive. B.S.

[David Andrews]

10 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Are you swallowing Jim's characterization of Hamsher's argument against Caroline Kennedy getting the NY Senate gig?

I was a regular commenter on FDL in those days and I recall the debate well.

Hamsher never attacked JFK or RFK, and yet DiEugenio conflates her with others who do.

No way Caroline was ready for that seat.

This is the "celebrity culture" which gave us Arnold Schwarzenegger and Donald Trump.

 

I just haven't cared for Hamsher as a political journalist, period - having piggybacked a career as a pundit atop a career as a film producer.  Too easy to get visibility, too easy to rise above one's talents, too easy to co-opted into the conglomerate homogeny of the "left."  Jane Hamsher speaks for Jane Hamsher's career.

I don't wear blinders where Caroline Kennedy is concerned.  She should have started in city politics some time ago, where she could have toughened up, made connections, and learned.  Her Senate bid came too late in a life without political foundations.

Edited February 9, 2018 by David Andrews

[James DiEugenio]

1.)  Does Kirk ever get anything correct about what I write?  This is what I said:

"Hannity must have been giggling the whole time.  He probably called up Stone and said, "Hey Roger, it worked.  That idiot GIlibrand fell for it." "

To any objective person,  the meaning is clear.  Hannity and Stone created a pile of smoke.  Gilibrand then jumped into it with both feet.  

Why?  Can she really be that stupid? Those are the two questions we are left with.

2.) As per the original argument Hamsher put out, it came down to two points which I mentioned in my essay: First, that somehow Caroline had not been around like Hamsher had been for the last eight years. And second, she had not held an elected political office before.  

The first argument really came down to:  the liberal blogosphere has not been able to measure her.  Which shows you how shallow and ahistorical they are. I mean talk about ignorant. Per the second, where was that argument when Hamsher was going gaga over Ned Lamont as a candidate against Lieberman?

The bottom line is this:  there is little or no doubt that Caroline Kennedy would have been a first rate senator. But beyond that, she would have been a  powerful counterweight because of all her connections through her family ties.  And she would have attracted a lot of talented people because of who she was.

What Hamsher and Moulitsas did was to create a controversy, which ended up being doubly bad because Paterson then tried to use it to his political advantage.  As Chris Smith shows in his excellent article,  Caroline understood what he was doing, and she dropped out.  Paterson, as I note above, then went a little batty and tried to salvage what he had done--which had now blown up in his face --and ended up looking even worse. He now began to lose popularity at an alarming rate. TO the point that he withdrew from his re-election race and is now out of politics altogether.

After all this nuttiness, as I  wrote in my original three part article,  that circus showed me the shallowness and vanity of the vaunted "liberal blogosphere". Exemplified by that idiotic charge by former CIA applicant Markos, "this country isn't a monarchy". (Does the guy even know what a monarchy is?)  And the dumb so called Kossacks who then forged letters from France and manipulated polls etc. Yep, that is what they did, if you can believe it and I noted all of it.  Which is why the article ends up being in three parts. It was all a stupid and egotistical sideshow.

The net impact of the "liberal blogosphere" has been, at best, politically marginal.  And, as exemplified by this outburst of mania, even worse than that journalistically. There very likely will be a wave election this year, but that will not be due to them.  It will be due to the revulsion against Trump. Just like their rise was due to the revulsion against W.

Edited February 10, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

4 hours ago, David Andrews said:

I just haven't cared for Hamsher as a political journalist, period - having piggybacked a career as a pundit atop a career as a film producer.  Too easy to get visibility, too easy to rise above one's talents, too easy to co-opted into the conglomerate homogeny of the "left."  Jane Hamsher speaks for Jane Hamsher's career.

You didn't care for Firedoglake's work on the Scooter Libby Scandal?

How about the FDL-fueled "WAPO blogswarm" of 1/15/06 when the comments section on the Washington Post site was inundated with criticisms of "ombudsman" Deborah Howell for making false equivalencies between the Democrats and Jack Abramoff?

Organizing against Joe Lieberman, depriving him of the Dem senate nomination in 06?

Just Say Now cannabis legalization?

Hamsher was an activist first, rather than just a pundit.

4 hours ago, David Andrews said:

I don't wear blinders where Caroline Kennedy is concerned.  She should have started in city politics some time ago, where she could have toughened up, made connections, and learned.  Her Senate bid came too late in a life without political foundations.

That was Hamsher's argument, exactly.

[Cliff Varnell]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

1.)  Does Kirk ever get anything correct about what I write?  This is what I said:

 

Quote

"Hannity must have been giggling the whole time.  He probably called up Stone and said, "Hey Roger, it worked.  That idiot GIlibrand fell for it." "

To any objective person,  the meaning is clear.  Hannity and Stone created a pile of smoke.  Gilibrand then jumped into it with both feet.

Any objective person would have noted that Franken was under fire from a lot more people than Hannity, Stone and Gillibrand.

Btw, the ultra-conservative Freedom Works gives Gillibrand a 12% life-time rating -- they give Bernie Sanders 11%.

Quote

 Why?  Can she really be that stupid? Those are the two questions we are left with.

Are you incapable of tolerating any view that contrasts with yours, such that you have to personally insult anyone who dares disagree with you?

Quote

2.) As per the original argument Hamsher put out, it came down to two points which I mentioned in my essay: First, that somehow Caroline had not been around like Hamsher had been for the last eight years.

No, Hamsher argued that Caroline had no appreciable record of activism, and that her name alone did not entitle her to the seat.

Quote

And second, she had not held an elected political office before. 

She'd shown no interest, but then she's entitled to a Senate seat because of her bloodline?

Wrong in so many ways...

Quote

The first argument really came down to:  the liberal blogosphere has not been able to measure her.

Caroline Kennedy was measured and found lacking in political chops.

Ya know...

Quote

Which shows you how shallow and ahistorical they are. I mean talk about ignorant. Per the second, where was that argument when Hamsher was going gaga over Ned Lamont as a candidate against Lieberman?

Lamont was running for the seat, not seeking an appointment.

Lamont was willing to pay his dues, Caroline was not.

Quote

The bottom line is this:  there is little or no doubt that Caroline Kennedy would have been a first rate senator. But beyond that, she would have been a  powerful counterweight because of all her connections through her family ties.  And she would have attracted a lot of talented people because of who she was.

The bottom line is this:

Gillibrand has political chops; Caroline Kennedy doesn't.

Quote

What Hamsher and Moulitsas did was to create a controversy, which ended up being doubly bad because Paterson then tried to use it to his political advantage.  As Chris Smith shows in his excellent article,  Caroline understood what he was doing, and she dropped out.  Paterson, as I note above, then went a little batty and tried to salvage what he had done--which had now blown up in his face --and ended up looking even worse. He now began to lose popularity at an alarming rate. TO the point that he withdrew from his re-election race and is now out of politics altogether.

After all this nuttiness, as I  wrote in my original three part article,  that circus showed me the shallowness and vanity of the vaunted "liberal blogosphere". Exemplified by thatidiotic charge by former CIA applicant Markos, "this country isn't a monarchy". (Does the guy even now what a monarchy is?)  

Do you?

You're telling us that a Kennedy is entitled to high political office no matter what.

As far as Joe K 3 goes -  I thought his response to the State of the Union was great.

Joe K 3 has political chops -- his cuz Caroline does not.

Quote

And the dumb so called Kossacks who then forged letters from France and manipulated polls etc Yep, that is what they did, if you can believe it and I noted all of it.  WHichis why the article ends dup being in three parts.It was all a stupid and egotistical sideshow.

Looks like your beef is with DailyKos, not Firedoglake.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

6 hours ago, Robert Harper said:

Well after the fact she jumped on the accuse wagon. She was appointed by a Lt Governor after the Gov (Spitzer) had to resign. In 1998 she didn't say anything.

At the time the Republican Party was trying to over-throw an election by criminalizing adultery.

Clinton's transgressions were nothing compared to the GOP assault on our democracy.

6 hours ago, Robert Harper said:

In 2008 she didn't say anything.

Bill Clinton didn't run in '08.

6 hours ago, Robert Harper said:

Now, she's leading the pack of so-called "feminists" to look like she is sensitive. B.S.

Sexual harassment is a hot topic these days.

I'm sure you've heard about it -- it's been in all the papers...

[Cliff Varnell]

13 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Cliff,I  think you overestimate Gillebran as a Presidential candidate. Don't let the current climate fool you. I don't think a strident feminist will work.

You mean a keen legal mind like Kamala Harris? (btw, I didn't weigh in on Kirsten Gillibrand as a prez candidate...)

If single women vote en masse all the people they put off will be overwhelmed by 2020.

I love the way Harris tore into Jeff Sessions without raising her voice.

Former San Francisco District Attorney.

Can't see her at the top of the ticket because then The San Francisco Girls Harris & Pelosi top the government, assuming a Dem re-take of the House by 2020.

That's a tough sell.

Pelosi would have to bow out of the Speakership for Harris to succeed, same with Gavin Newsom.

I'm a Bernie guy -- age ain't nothin' but a number -- and I dig his foreign policy.

 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Bulman]

Regarding "recent hit piece that uses Joe Kennedy III's State of the Union reply".   The only thing I saw on the MSM about his reply was about too shiny chap stick and drool.  Next to nothing about the reply itself.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-02-01/joe-kennedy-iii-reaction-to-state-of-the-union-chapstick-is-disappointing

The last paragraph, quoting Joe is good.

 

[Ron Bulman]

The full text of Joe Kennedy III's reply to the State of the Union by the current president.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/01/30/read-joe-kennedy-iii-full-democratic-response-trump-state-union/nU2uaP79IBETRaMge9jvsK/story.html

Maybe I'm reading what I want or wish to hear but it sounds pretty good to me.  Maybe he has been studying the speeches of his forefathers.  

"This administration isn't just targeting the laws that protect us - they are targeting the very idea that we are worthy of protection".

"Our country will be judged by the Promises we Keep.  That is the measure of our character.  That is who we are."

 

[James DiEugenio]

It was pretty good I think.  Thanks Ron.

 

BTW, this is really rich from CV "Lamont was running for the seat, not seeking an appointment."

This is a distinction without a difference.  See, no one would have been running for Clinton's seat.  And several people sent Paterson letters saying they were interested. Ned Lamont had been something like a local alderman before.  But Hamsher went absolutely batty about him.  I don't know, maybe she thought he was cute or something. 

But returning to the latest, I think I am correct about the liberal blogosphere being a real disappointment.  And I don't really miss it very much at all.  I think that what it has become is sort of like a trendier echo of the MSM giving people the illusion of both democracy and involvement.  But its really the same old racehorse mentality about politics. Which is why many of them made appearances on the MSM, like that is where they wanted to be.

 And they were as long as they kept certain subject completely off limits.

Except it so happens those subject are the most important ones there are.

 

Edited February 10, 2018 by James DiEugenio