Nixon Had A Word For People Like Jane Hamsher (UPDATE)

Jane the Hamsher is one of the cool kids, I realize; her front page status at Arianna’s place helps maintain her illusion of intellect and relevance. Yet she wouldn’t recognize progress if it smacked her in the face, and so far has achieved nothing resembling progress on any front. Indeed,  I have been waiting for someone to tell me what this woman’s “progressive” credentials are.

She is first and foremost a self-aggrandizing publicity whore whose Accountability Now PAC has so far given $0 to progressive candidates in the first two years of its existence while spending $285,272. If she ran a non-profit this way, it would get shut down. As things stand, the PAC (which also counts Kos and Glenn Greenwald as operators) has only made noise.

Accountability Now PAC started in the wake of Greenwald’s Salon eruption over Democrats voting for FISA telecom immunity. In what he aptly described as a “strange bedfellows” campaign, the PAC’s foundation came in the heady days of Ron Paul triangulation and was always aimed at attacking Democrats from the left.

This was reflected in her media appearances. Hamsher’s kill-the-bill madness included an appearance on FOX News just months after her own call to boycott the network. She later returned to that channel spouting nonsense about cap-and-trade. Her recent appearances on Lawrence O’Donnell leave me convinced progress is not her purpose.

Jane has a troubling problem with transparency and truthfulness. Her web ad company took money from BP while Hamsher simultaneously attacked the Sierra Club for doing the same. The numbers for Accountability Now complete the picture: Jane Hamsher is a for-profit fringe phenomenon.

Accountability Now PAC began with $15,841 from BreakTheMatrix, a Ron Paul organization — meaning the money trail leads to the same libertarianism that spawned the tea party. In fact, Accountability Now PAC has only ever cut one checkto Republican representative Paul Ryan, about whom one can read at the conservative American Spectator:

Those who accept the idea that entitlement reform is the third rail of American politics should have to grapple with the rise of Rep. Paul Ryan.

In the past year, Ryan has drawn a lot of heat for his ambitious plan to confront our nation’s looming entitlement crisis. Democrats from President Obama on down have eviscerated his “Roadmap for America’s Future,” arguing it would destroy Social Security and gut Medicare.

Nor does she pull the Overton Window left. Instead, she has become a divisive force within the Democratic coalition. Her ire is reserved only for Democrats at the center — and with the coordinated triangulation of such people as Grover Norquist, who wants to drown the government in a bathtub. She seems to get along with fringe right wingers very well; she endorsed Erick Erickson upon his hiring by CNN, calling him an “honest broker.”

There is nothing “left” left about Hamsher. She is known as a firebagger, after the name of her website. But in Nixon’s time, she would have been called a ratfucker.

H/t to Thurman Williams

UPDATE: Turns out the Accountability Now PAC contribution wasn’t made to Paul Ryan but Ryan Bucchianeri (you can see his one and only $5000 PAC contribution listed here). Bucchianeri went on to lose badly to an establishment Democratic candidate in the contest for John Murtha’s seat in Pennsylvania-12. My apologies for the confusion. What I find most curious about Bucchianeri is that he was picked for defending the health care law Hamsher tried to kill; the trigonometry of her triangulations usually escapes me.

ADDING: As you can see by the comments below, this post has brought the FDL chorus out in full song to accuse this blog of being a “cult” to the “dear leader.” It’s all projection: Hamsher and Greenwald are the closest thing the left has to cult figures. Regular readers will know this blog rarely posts on lefties and will recognize their behavior from my examinations of the Glenn Beck cult.

http://www.angryblacklady.com/2010/12/10/firedoglake-lying-liars-and-the-sycophants-they-breed/

About Matt Osborne

Veteran blogging the culture wars from Alabama. Video journalist, mash-up artist, aspiring novelist, and metalhead. Expect bunnies, geekery, dark humor, and snarky empirical analysis to annoy idealists of all stripes. You can follow me on Twitter, but be ready 'cause it might get loud.
This entry was posted in firebaggers and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    Matt, two words. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!

    A truly fine piece, Matt!

  • http://topsy.com/www.osborneink.com/2010/12/nixon-had-a-word-for-people-like-jane-hamsher.html?utm_source=pingback&utm_campaign=L2 Tweets that mention » Blog Archive » Nixon Had A Word For People Like Jane Hamsher – Mozilla Firefox — Topsy.com

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by nicole, Craig Ireneus. Craig Ireneus said: RT @nicole473: RT .@OsborneInk » Blog Archive » Nixon Had A Word For People Like Jane Hamsher – Mozilla Firefox http://ow.ly/3olEF [...]

  • Amadeus482000

    …Because why go after crypto-fascists like Boehner when there’s a decent, critically-thinking, pro-change liberal to aggressively smear? Talk about cowardice…

  • Amadeus482000

    …and good job trotting out Nixon’s dead body to help make your “argument” for you. The GOP could sure give us a few pointers on viciously quashing all dissent, couldn’t they?

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    Actually, the speed with which Hamsher’s partisans find negative blog posts and accuse the writers of having an agenda is positively frightening. Your comment seems more projection than substance.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    OK, Amadeus, it’s obvious this is your first visit because I deal in kulturkampf and right-wing paranoid politics all the time. BTW, I get email from people thanking me for my courage in standing up to Hamsher, so take your projected cowardice and shove it right up your anonymous backside.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    Thanks, Nicole. Guess not everyone’s cup o’tea, eh?

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    Because Hamsher is a profiteer, and she is profiteering at the expense of our party and the best damn [and most progressive] president we have had in decades. Were it not for Hamsher’s spin and outright lies, many of you would be able to see that.

    That’s why.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    Well, certainly not what her seething groupies want to hear, but Matt, I am guessing that at least some of those groupies will read this and start thinking.

  • http://ae911truth.info boloboffin

    Jane just tweeted that Congress could have allowed health insurance companies to charge back premiums on people trying to buy health insurance when sick. Not only does this negate the pre-existing condition part of the ACA, it’s intensely regressive on people at their most vulnerable.

  • http://twitter.com/BobKincaid BobKincaid

    She is most assuredly that, Matt, and likely more. Yet you may be missing the forest on account of all those trees.

    I’ve met her and the first impression I formed of her has been the one that stood the test of time.

    She’s the title of a Frank Zappa album. She’s “Only In It For The Money.”

  • Glenn Greenwald

    You’re both quite dumb and quite dishonest:

    (1) Accountability Now never gave a penny to Paul Ryan – you just made that up.

    (2) It was disclosed – and widely reported more than two years ago – that Accountability Now was teaming with Break The Matrix because the whole point of the group was an alliance between liberals and libertarians to work against the FISA bill and those who supported it:

    http://boingboing.net/2008/06/19/diverse-activists-fr.html

    Seriously: how dumb does someone have to be to excitedly announce that they’ve unearthed some secret fact that was (a) repeatedly disclosed to the group’s donors from the start and (b) widely reported in press accounts?

    Answer: very.

    (3) The purpose of Accountability Now was never to donate money to candidates. Had it done that, it would have been violating its mission as announced to donors:

    http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/03/30/greenwald-responds/

    I realize that this is just a cult site devoted to two-minute hate sessions against those who speak ill of the Leader, so none of these facts will matter.

    But now that you’ve read them, you won’t be able — as you continue to go forth and spew your lies — to claim that you weren’t aware that they’re lies.

    Glenn Greenwald

  • Amadeus482000

    If you’ve dealt with it so many times, it would be a simple matter for you to address it here and now. That you instead escape to the unscientific opinion of your fan mail as if it was a poll, while retreating into ad hominem is infinitely telling. Many thanks and kudos to you for your honesty, OsbornInk.

  • Anonymous

    Why are you wasting your time on a “cult site” (whatever that is) that supports Dear Leader?

  • Amadeus482000

    That Hamsher hits a tender nerve among anti-change liberals is hardly surprising, and it’s been documented for quite some time. What I see above is yet another poor (and already-failed) attempt at character assassination with the aim of delegitimizing Hamsher to further the agenda of status-quo Democrats and Republicans. These are politicians who can *only* benefit from the political system remaining the same, so it only stands to reason they have their paid, voluntary, and involuntary armies at the ready with poison pens– but, sadly, little else.

  • http://twitter.com/TalkieToaster2 Cú Chulainn

    “I realize that this is just a cult site devoted to two-minute hate sessions against those who speak ill of the Leader, so none of these facts will matter.”

    This is Greenwald’s version of calling someone a Nazi; he just uses North Korea instead.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    Gosh, I’m so honored that the great Glenn Greenwald would deign to visit my “little two-minutes’ hate” site that spends most of its posts on right wing culture wars whipping up hate. Who brought the assumptions?

    (1) I didn’t make that up, check the link. You’re making up that I made it up. (2) I’m not reporting an “unearthed secret fact” and I’m not the first to make these charges. The information is presented as one element of an argument. (3) The purpose of Accountability Now is to remain unaccountable while enriching you and Jane.

    Dumb? I’ve been called worse. Dishonest? That’s a projection, Glenn. You’ve been hanging out with libertardians for too long.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    For me, the final word on Jane Hamsher is the way she treated Pachacutec, an AIDS victim in her employ: she fired him and stripped him of health insurance.

  • JordanRules

    (1) a link was included, if it’s wrong, just say so damn
    (2) Okay, strange bedfellows can lead to accusations of alliances where they may not exist, calm your ass down
    (3)Your link and your next sentence start down the ‘Leader’ path and that’s when you lose people and it’s a damned shame. (P.S. he is your President too — I just had to remind you of that for fun LOL)

  • Amadeus482000

    So two wrongs make a right, then? And I’m not the one who projected the imprimatur of Nixon onto the debate. You did that, @OsborneInk, in the title of the post on the page we are looking at right now.

    Given the severe economy and the gaping hole between campaign promise and self-styled “pragmatism,” one would have to be very naive indeed to think that a Jane Hamsher wouldn’t come to light. In fact, one would have to be very naive to think that a thousand Jane Hamshers wouldn’t come bobbing to the surface.]

    The Jame Hamshers of the world today are not, and will not go away any time soon– I absolutely, 100% guarantee.

  • Mark Brooks

    Thank you, Greenwald’s handkerchief.

  • http://twitter.com/BobKincaid BobKincaid

    Glenn,

    You make Matt’s case for him when you admit that AccountabilityNowPAC took libertarian money. Regardless of your excuses for doing so, it’s not a lie. You just admitted it to be fact. In an honest world, you wouldn’t be able to call something a lie when you admit the allegation’s factual basis.

    By the by: “excitedly” isn’t exactly the nature of this post. “You just made that up.” The point is that Ms. Hamsher is a mercenary, willing to say just about anything, to ally with just about anyone, for the sole sake of self-aggrandizement and a nice payday along the way.

    As far as being a “cult site” that attacks “those who speak ill of the leader,” you’ve let your ignorance get out in front of actual facts. I’ve yet to see Matt delete a post for criticizing Obama. I know that because I’m one of the people who criticize him regularly and with whom I disagree with Matt about such things as the current tax cuts appeasement.

    Finally, nice anonymity there. A greyed-out name that may or may not be the “real” Glenn Greenwald. Who knows?

  • Anonymous

    HUZZAH!!! bravo sir, bravo.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    What’s “infinitely telling” is the way you return and return to this post, desperately looking to get the final word in. I’ve seen this behavior before…from wingnuts.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    As Shania Twain might say……”you don’t impress me much”. Actually, at all.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    I know all about that idealism-pragmatism debate. I’m aware the president is a terrible sellout for not farting a socialist green-energy gay marriage paradise from his armpit. What amazes me is that anyone could think the problem is wrapped up in one man, or that giving money to tea party candidates is a triangulation solution for the problem.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    Boy, are you deluded.

  • http://twitter.com/LftHndMn LeftHandMan

    Dear Mr. Transparency: How about you just reveal what work you did for Hamsher? Let’s see the strategy memos, etc. Why not? Could it possibly lead to the (obvious) conclusion that you two have been plotting to line your pockets by attacking POTUS from the start?

  • Amadeus482000

    If you honestly and in good faith think this (the United States of America in 2010) is a great political climate for uncritical acceptance of one particular leader’s whims, then I wish you all the best of luck and Godspeed.

    If you reject the manner in which the policy- and polity-makers get criticized, then it stands to reason you have a counter-measure of more “reasonable” criticism to offer up for comparison. Hear those crickets?

    You “lose people” quite quickly and easily when your only counter-”argument” to those like @Glenn is sloppy backpedaling with a side of venom and bile.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    “anti-change liberals”? Really? I don’t think you’d recognize change if it knocked you down in the street.

    I live in Alabama, which hasn’t changed in 109 years. No one has cut me a check for this post, no one has called for a volunteer, and no one has pressed me into service. That’s paranoid projection again. Are you sure you’re not a teabagger?

  • http://twitter.com/LftHndMn LeftHandMan

    BTW Glenzilla (that your rage issues resulted in that moniker is not good), a PAC expert I discussed your PAC with described it your spending as “egregious” and “If I had donated I’d be up in arms.”

    You are a shrill schill, an hack outed as such, and probably as grifty as Palin. And the evidence is all over the Internet. You’ll find that’s harder to remove than piss from a swimming pool.

  • http://twitter.com/all_a_twitt_r ôl ə twit′ər

    Regrettable and revealing that Osborne hits Jane with a gunnysack – a stack of complaints about her …wait for it… hypocrisy and character. This post reads like an “justified” attack on character not meritorious arguments about policy disagreements. I wonder if Osborne would take a do-over and dig into the disagreements on the merit, or whether he’s pretty happy with the result as it stands.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    Whims? So now Obama is, what, Kim Jong-Il?

    Yep, you’re a teabagger. Your only argument is that the president is an evil dictator, therefore those who disagree with his critics are paid shills. I think Greenwald and Hamsher are your “dear leaders:” your comments here remind me of North Korean propaganda tracts about Kim Il-Sung.

  • JordanRules

    He started the venom and bile, it was gratuitous and unecessary as a response in both the link and this piece. He just looks petty IMO.
    I have no problem with criticism and his ‘dear leader’ act dismisses so many of us who have no problem with it; we have a problem with the ‘dear leader’ schtick he loves and employs so much.

  • Amadeus482000

    Wow, how funny that all disagreement here gets labeled by @OsborneInk as “projection.” If all detractors are by default “projecting” what does that say about the original messenger, I wonder?

    I will say it’s an honor, though, to be lumped in with Mr. Greenwald as one who engages in “projection.” For a pro-Change liberal, no higher compliment can be paid. Thank you once again.

  • Amadeus482000

    Wow, we’ve got conspiracy theorists on here, too. What a great site they’ve been curating here…

  • JordanRules

    Is he your leader? Do you mind criticism of him?
    ;)

  • http://topsy.com/trackback?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.osborneink.com%2F2010%2F12%2Fnixon-had-a-word-for-people-like-jane-hamsher.html%23comment-111227758&utm_source=pingback&utm_campaign=L2 Tweets that mention Osborne Ink » Blog Archive » Nixon Had A Word For People Like Jane Hamsher — Topsy.com

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Suzanne Munshower, Danielle Blake, JessicaHusseinObama, stephanie, Matt Osborne and others. Matt Osborne said: In which the great @ggreenwald deigns to visit my website and criticize it from his mighty perch http://disq.us/upido [...]

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    No. Just people who aren’t Hamsher-Greenwald-Green sycophants.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    That whole group makes me think of teabaggers. Their positions, and attitudes seem to be closer to the right wing than the left.

  • http://www.facebook.com/civilizashum3 Jan Civil

    “uncritical acceptance of one particular leader’s whims” = pure straw man argumentation. you appear to be up Greenwald’s ass a ways to echo his ‘concerns’ so faithfully.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    Irregardless if one disagrees with her stand on issues, one can certainly disagree with her methods which resemble those of our deeply flawed right wing.

  • Amadeus482000

    True to form, @OsborneInk whips out the (t)rusty GWB-era “with us or against us” cudgel.

    Remember folks, you can’t question criticism of a commentator who (rightly or wrongly, correctly or incorrectly) questions the administration. And if you dare do so, you’re obviously a teabagger, or Kim Jong-Il, or Kim Il-Sung (wow, 2 generations of Kims!).

    And what a relaxed an non-contentious political climate to be speaking in such doctrinaire absolutes about Party and Country! I only hope you hit the $200,000 cut-off to be able to continue to bask in that luxury behind the barbed wire…

  • Amadeus482000

    So you can speak to @LeftHandMan’s “(obvious) conclusion,” then?

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    “They” are me. You can stop with the paranoia.

  • Amadeus482000

    What’s your pragmatic solution to deal with folks like Hamsher, then? Like I said, with the outrage that’s out there, she’s not going anywhere any time soon…

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    Form? I have a form?

    I make my own criticisms of the president. I welcome any criticism that’s grounded in analysis rather than ideology or projection. Questioning the administration is fine; actively attacking and undermining that administration for the sole purpose of self-aggrandizement is not. Where I come from, we call that “two-faced.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/civilizashum3 Jan Civil

    that isn’t what happened as I read it. it used Nixon’s epithet as a punch line.
    the argument was made before this occured.
    you seem a little desperate at this point.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    That’s because I’ve come to the sad conclusion her policy disagreements are driven by something that isn’t character.

  • http://www.facebook.com/civilizashum3 Jan Civil

    you have the received idea that Hamsher wants you to have. we already know this. if you think there is a smear, demonstrate that.
    what you have in lieu of this is an aggressive approach in making assertions and not more.

  • http://www.facebook.com/civilizashum3 Jan Civil

    “anti-change liberals” is a phrase that pretends to say something but it’s strictly from reactive, and again is straight up straw man argumentation.
    Hamsher has pushed views more than once which are anything but progressive. this thread actually reveals some things along this line. your reaction to it reveals your lack of finesse making an argument, and that you think to put aggressive tactics in its place.

  • Amadeus482000

    Painting everything in these extremes – e.g., “You either support the President’s policies or you’re a ‘wingnut’” – won’t help or work towards advancing any cause. That sort of *literal* child-like thinking didn’t work for Bush with his “with us or against us” claims, and they won’t work for you or me, either.

    Adults who make political arguments recognize the need and benefit of analyzing all the nuance in between, and can do so without getting offended. For example, an adult can express criticism of a leader or a commentator without facing admonishment from another adult that they’re directly kowtowing to their opposition. A child, however, cannot.

    But hey, if keeping everything black and white is what fires up the hit counter, then by all means. After all, it works for the mainstream…

  • Anonymous

    OOooweee…the cult of Hamsher and Norquist is out? Have they been indicted yet?

  • http://twitter.com/all_a_twitt_r ôl ə twit′ər

    Osborne —– I’m confused by your response. You say “her policy disagreements” by which I presume you mean ‘your policy disagreements with her’ or perhaps ‘her policy disagreements with Pres. Obama’ are “driven by something that isn’t character,” while your critique is replete with judgments on her character.

    What in your judgment are ‘her policy disagreements’ driven by?

    And if its something other than character, why do you impugn her character in your post?

  • Anonymous

    So what is the purpose of Accountability Now? A Two-minute hate and race-baiting session against a single scapegoat who just happens (wink wink) to be a black guy?

    To me it looks like another way for parasite lawyers to sponge money for doing nothing. Have a happy tax cut, Bubbles. It was meant for you.

  • Anonymous

    So it’s OK for your cult to do criticize dishonestly, but it’s not OK for you to get called on the carpet for being a completely reactionary cult.

    Your organization is worthless.

  • http://twitter.com/AlanFors Alan Fors

    If you had bothered to ever read any of Matt’s other posts here, you’d see that he’s very much NOT a “with us or against us” supporter. In fact, he’s pointing out how ridiculous it is for Hamsher, et al, to be exactly that – and most insidously, for thier own glorification and profit.

    The views I’ve read expressed here are very much pragmatic. Give the President credit when deserved, point out his mistakes when he makes them, and opine on how it might otherwise be done. But don’t abandon the man and the party because he hasn’t single-handedly fixed every single problem immediately exactly the way it has to be done (or I’ll hold my breath until someone else is elected!!!).

  • Anonymous

    The Jame Hamshers of the world today are not, and will not go away any time soon– I absolutely, 100% guarantee.

    When will the Jane Hamshers of the world say anything useful without feeling entitled to hundreds of thousands of dollars? How different are they from Bill Donahue, anyway?

  • Amadeus482000

    That’s fine, but if that’s your starting point you need to have clear definitions of what you consider “questioning” and what you consider “attacking and undermining.” Where exactly do you draw that line, Osborne? And is it drawn with regard to policy, or personality?

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    Personally, I believe that many of her policy disagreements are driven by two main factors.
    1. self-promotion. the squeaky wheel gets the grease, or in this case, the attention.
    2. $$$$$$

    Hope that helps. Isn’t it time for you to run along and report to your Dear Leader, Jane?

  • Amadeus482000

    LOL, the “FDL chorus.” Made up of myself and Glenn. I hope two-part harmony will justify a verbal flourish better meant for the other ten folks who are defending and agreeing with you.

    And I wonder how you’d be moved to update if you had a real, large-in-number, pro-Change “chorus” on here…

  • mk3872

    Kind of makes one lose any iota of respect to come here use North Korea references and just throw angry names around

  • Amadeus482000

    lol, what “organization?”

  • http://twitter.com/AlanFors Alan Fors

    Qustioning = “I sure wish the White House could have convinced congressional Democrats to deal with the tax issue before the midterm elections, so the President wasn’t forced to bargain with the Republicans.”

    Attacking & Undermining = “He bargained with the Republicans! He didn’t keep his promise! Primary him!”

  • Amadeus482000

    I don’t know, @drsquid, but I guarantee you they are not going away…

  • Mark Brooks

    “This post reads like an “justified” attack on character not meritorious arguments about policy disagreements. ”

    Your words. Thanks for playing.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    She created much of the outrage. Now we are pushing back. And we will continue pushing back.

  • Amadeus482000

    There’s that extreme either/or thinking again, even as you claim to eschew it. Who’s “ABANDONING the man and the party” for NOT “SINGLE-HANDEDLY fixed EVERY SINGLE problem IMMEDIATELY EXACTLY the way it HAS TO BE DONE,” Alan? [my emphasis in caps]

  • Amadeus482000

    That’s why I said paid, voluntary, and involuntary, Osborne. You might want to read the comments before you respond to them- might save you some humiliation. Just some advice. :)

  • http://twitter.com/AlanFors Alan Fors

    Hamsher, Greenwald, etc. have all threatened to “primary” Obamy in the 2012 elections. That seems like abandonment to me.

  • http://twitter.com/BobKincaid BobKincaid

    That’s why they’re refered to as “Fire” “Baggers”

    QED

  • MrB

    I think Greenwald is still feigning outrage and hyper-indignation at “The Professional Left’ remark and he’s now trying to earn it through overcompensating Earth-scorching retribution.

    I’m seeing a little of that Sarah Palin Twitter-magic in his appearance, here. Can you feel that? It’s kind of chilling.

    Glenn seems to still be pissed the administration didn’t nominate his choice for the Supreme Court after all the wordy legwork involved with discrediting Justice Kagan. The ensuing new police state that’s about to happen in light of this blight on Greenwald’s judge-picking credentials(who knew?) should be worth a real ‘told-ya-so’ post with an update or two any day now!

    But Glenn’s totally cool with the Citizen’s United decision!

    The President calls out the decision, in front of the whole country, Justices present, and Greenwald shrugs.

    ‘Dumb and dishonest’ is exactly how I’d describe Greenwald– a disgruntled foot-shooting bomb-lobber fearing the decline of his own relevance.

    Who knew Greenwald was such a down-punching coward who trolls an honest blog with the emotional clarity of a serial killer, too?

    In the spirit of full disclosure, I kinda did.

    To quote ‘The Dude’: “Everything’s a fucking travesty with you!”

    Indeed, The Dude. Indeed.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    you are just so good, MrB. :)

  • http://twitter.com/BobKincaid BobKincaid

    Cue Cuba Gooding, Jr.: “Show me the MONEY!!!!”

    Ask the people who’ve worked for her.

    As Daffy Duck would say, “Character, shmarachter.” That’s what drives her.

  • http://muttlikme.wordpress.com Mutt Like Me

    Suck it Greenwald, you’ve been busted. Now take your L back to baby Jane and have a hot cup of STFU.

  • http://twitter.com/BobKincaid BobKincaid

    Because a person who plays as low and base a game as Jane does solely for reasons of self-aggrandizement and money pretty much puts her own character under the microscope, thereby betraying base motives that flow from a lack of character.

  • Amadeus482000

    Oh, but “anti-change liberals’” presence is an on-the-ground political reality. One needs only look at some of the Democrats on Capitol Hill to see that it exists.

    Make no mistake, we voted for real change in November 2008. We knew this change would be difficult, and the President stated during the campaign that some of his own party would come out against it. We’re only just beginning to implement the real change we voted for. Those Democrats and Republicans who choose the pre-2008, status-quo, anti-change way of the past, if true to their convictions, must think they have a future within the party. But what future– whose future– is it?

  • Amadeus482000

    So you fight fire with fire? Um, ok….

  • Amadeus482000

    That’s exactly what I see too — an impugning and dressing down of character for personal or political purposes. It’s completely unfounded and devoid of documentation except for links to more kicking and screaming about whoever it is on more blogs… Misery does love company, I suppose…

  • Amadeus482000

    …And of course it’s just happenstance that OsborneInk stridently “disagrees with her stand on issues,” making the attempted character assassinations against Hamsher’s ilk– which fail every single time, by the way– somewhat disingenuous, to say the least…

  • Amadeus482000

    LOL, it’s funny, Alan, that your example of questioning isn’t even a question, but a “wish.” And once again, infinitely telling of what “questioning” really means here, and what it will never mean….

  • sistermoon50

    Thank you, thank you, a thousand times thank you!!! I’ve been disgusted by Jane Hamsher since the ’08 primary. She’s the embodiment of the stereotypical “Limousine Liberal” who gives less than a tinker’s damn about the working class and poor in this country. I’ve enjoyed watching Lawrence O’Donnell make toast of her.

    And, speaking of “cults”, FDL is beginning to resemble Wing Nut Daily…

  • Amadeus482000

    Really? Because to me it sounds like democracy.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    Whose Democracy? Sitting pesidents who are primaried don’t win elections.

    The Hamsher-Greenwald cult are a small percentage of the party. The rest of the Democrats do not want Obama primaried.

    The audacity of the few and determined to profit at all costs.

  • Kscoyote

    Glenn, do the people who donate to the PAC know that it’s all going to you and your businesses? That all the support is moral?

  • Kscoyote

    If you are modeled after Club for Growth

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cycle=2010&cmte=C00485011

    How is it that their expenditures are so much more efficient than yours?

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    We are not “anti-change”. We are for the recognition of Obama’s accomplishments, and we think your cult needs to gain an understanding of the political realities of the day.

    You are NOT Obama’s base. Far from it.

    http://www.politicalruminations.com/2010/12/firebaggers-are-not-the-base.html

  • Kscoyote

    The closest PAC to yours is Sarah Palin’s in terms of efficiencies.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cycle=2010&cmte=C00458588

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    ya know, you people [Hamsher Cult copyright @ggreenwald] think you are so superior it would be funny if it weren’t so damn pathetic.

  • Kscoyote

    How is it that Glenn & Jane can work with the Tea Party AND Grover Norquist to attack Dems, but O can’t work with elected members of Congress?

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    Oh please. As if Hamsher, and her seething supporters do not defame Obama at every turn.
    Also. Matt posted sourced information. That is not character assassination, but the outing of Jane Hamsher, the phony profiteer.

    Get over yourselves already.

  • http://twitter.com/all_a_twitt_r ôl ə twit′ər

    Thank you nicole473 for your perspective on what Osborne meant. I’m still hoping he’ll answer my question.

    Regarding your suggestion that I “run along,” it strikes me that you don’t want to have this discussion, not that I asked you to have it with me, I asked to have it with Osborne but nonetheless, you took it up and I have responded so why would you suggest I should stop having it now?

    Are you trying to protect something? Do you consider me an enemy in some way? I have no grievance with you other than your attempt to shut down my discussion with Osborne.

    You could hold an opinion, say that Obama’s tax deal is a good bill and I could disagree and hopefully that disagreement would end on that issue and not spill into other things, such as a discussion about this post by Osborne. See what I mean about holding a discussion about a point of disagreement without turning it into a discussion between enemies?

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    “Democracy” would be the majority of Democrats, including key demos like African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos, who will see a primary challenge as an attack on their candidate. What you’re talking about is actually “factionalism” and is best exemplified by the fissiparous left of the Spanish Civil War, which lost by infighting.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    silly remark.

  • http://twitter.com/all_a_twitt_r ôl ə twit′ər

    I used the air quotes around ‘justified’ to indicate I didn’t find the justifications just but I don’t think you’re really interested in what I think anyway, which is fine.

  • Kscoyote

    Actually, he GAVE them money, they are listed as Expenditures.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cmte=C00452177&cycle=2008

    I wonder what Glenn would say if O had done the same?

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    The only “army” I see is a sycophant of the Dear Leaders Hamsher and Greenwald hanging around in my blog comments with remarks about poison pens.

  • Anonymous

    So youreally say it’s ok to take money to do nothing of substance and take no real political action as long as the people doing it are Glenn Greenwald or Jane Hamsher.

    You’re the definition of a cultist.

  • http://twitter.com/all_a_twitt_r ôl ə twit′ər

    Hi BobKincaid, I think the following is a reasonable thesis as long as you (or Osborne really) finishes the argument by making a compelling case:

    “Because a person who plays as low and base a game as Jane does solely for reasons of self-aggrandizement and money”

    How do we know Jane’s motives are “solely for reasons of self-aggrandizement and money.” I just don’t see a reasoned case to draw these conclusions.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    See, you’re wrong. I’ve advocated single payer and the public option here. The difference is that I understand the math of Senate cloture; I would gladly have joined Greenwald and Hamsher if they had brought rhetorical and monetary guns to bear on Lieberman or Ben Nelson. But that’s not what they did. This blog has featured dozens of posts about Republican intransigence, but instead of trying to replace Republicans with Democrats I only see them undermining Democrats. Whether by intent or happenstance, the effect is still ratfucking.

  • Kscoyote

    It seems your PAC is All Talk and No Action, Glenn!

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    My “pragmatic solution” for Hamsher is to report and move on to other topics. Hamsher doesn’t need a “solution,” final or otherwise. Let her stew.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    I have made the argument that FDL is the WND of the left.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    Amadeus, I *DO* have a real, large-in-number, pro-change “chorus” going on here today. I accept incremental change and the extreme difficulty of major change; my readers generally agree because a majority of Democrats agree. At FDL, OTOH, there is a loud, small faction of people who want to go 100 mph when it’s hard enough getting reform out of first gear. To date, neither Hamsher nor Greenwald has done anything but scream and try to shove the process into reverse.

  • Anonymous

    Because loudmouthed limousine liberals never go away.

  • http://twitter.com/all_a_twitt_r ôl ə twit′ər

    I see people on the left demonizing other people on the left primarily because the later disagree with Obama on issues and the former thinks their disagreement is cynical polemic not sincere policy differences, or motivated by character flaws such as self-promotion or greed. And I wonder if, in addition, the former fears the latter’s criticism will weaken Obama.

    I’ll suggest the demonization of the left by the left will weaken Obama’s support more in the long run …I’m thinking 2 year time frame.

    Plus, keeping our disagreements focused on discreet substantive issues might lead to a better debate.

    Anyway, Osborne, if you have a moment, can you answer my question below?

  • Kscoyote

    All Talk and No Action is the definition of his PAC it seems…

  • Mark Brooks

    You need better mind reading lessons. You will think what you want about what I say anyway, so go play in traffic.

  • Mark Brooks

    This is an open forum. You don’t get to decide who talks to you. However, you have the option of not saying anything else because you are clearly on the defensive here.

  • Mark Brooks

    I’ll be right back, I need to go to the store. I am out of ilk.

  • Amadeus482000

    LOL, “you people”…

  • Amadeus482000

    In American elections, the Democratic party has primaries to determine what candidate will go on to the general election. For good or ill, this system will be used and abused again and again for this purpose– once more you have my 100% guarantee. Is the system perfect? No, but it’s the system we have.

  • Amadeus482000

    The rest of the Democrats, or the rest of the people? There’s a difference, you know. And once you clarify the data please back it up with a link.

  • unaccounted for

    It’s all right there on the Accountability Now website:

    http://accountabilitynowpac.com/

    Note: Link is dead.

    Just out of curiousity, Glenn, the ActBlue page for Accountability Now says “Accountability Now PAC will recruit, coordinate, and support primary challenges against vulnerable Congressional incumbents who have become more responsive to corporate America than to their constituents.”

    Exactly what “support” do you purport to provide to primary challengers?

  • Kscoyote

    Moral support, apparently!

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    “I’ll suggest the demonization of the left by the left will weaken Obama’s support more in the long run …I’m thinking 2 year time frame. ”

    I’m thinking not. I’m thinking that as long as Firebaggers continue to demonize Obama, talk about primarying him, we will be pushing back. And, I would imagine that support for this pushback will continue to grow.
    You see, those of you who are Jane cultists fail to understand that you have gone too far.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    I agree, Matt.

  • JScott

    Reads like something you might find on World Net Daily, disgusting and completely inaccurate piece. Democratic Underground and other gatekeeper sites are really seeking to upend the liberals at any means necessary even if that included using the same tactics that the right wing employ. What a waste.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    Responding to you is an “attempt to shut down your discussion with Osborne”?

    LOL. Get over yourself.

  • Kscoyote

    Hamsher and Greenwald’s demonization of Dems gave the House to the Repubs, with the largest majority in decades.

    I’m sorry, this is ratf*cking at its best.

  • http://twitter.com/AlanFors Alan Fors

    I was going to say: “I wonder why the President didn’t tell congressional democrats…”, but you know what? He did tell them. Multiple times. Though they weren’t convinced. Congress is where I put the blame.

  • Amadeus48200

    The President has made many positive accomplishments. And the truth is that some Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill want the change mandated in 2008, and some do not.

    As Democrats we shouldn’t be fearful of reading any of the criticisms of our party and President. They only make us stronger. But the reality is that some of the criticisms– whether made in good faith or not– about the status quo of our party are just not easy to take.

    IMO we all have some entrenched and doctrinaire views that we’ll need to shake off if we really want to work for the change we envisioned in 2008. The question is, do we? (Nicole seems to say no, above.)

    Another big problem is that the Democratic Party is flush with Big Money, something that conflicts many of us… I see many defensive and territorial pissings over what amounts to the campaign sponsors and lobbyists barking around their pile of dough. Many of these folks are still at heart threatened by Obama and carefully put down money to make sure certain parts of the government-nanny state contract do not get upended. Party of that propaganda goes into– yes– attacking popular critics to try to divide the party. This is what we most have to worry about.

    But if we can’t deal with some of the more uncomfortable and conflicted aspects of our party, we will not only not have the change we voted for in 2008, but much less indeed. One need only look at the state of things in 2010. And to refuse to look at these aspects outright, in the context of the USA in 2010, is–yes indeed– anti-change.

    And, Nicole, you don’t own the President. He’s not your slave. You don’t get to tell him who he represents and who he doesn’t. No single interest group can make a hegemonic pronouncement that he belongs to some but not all. He is the President of the United States of America. We elected him popularly and by a wide margin based on his campaign. We pay his salary. He is of the people, by the people, and for the people as mandated by the Constitution.

    But make no mistake, the vote was for real change.

  • Kscoyote

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cycle=2010&cmte=C00466201

    Here is a PAC several times smaller than Hamsher’s and Greenwald’s. Notice the difference.

  • http://twitter.com/all_a_twitt_r ôl ə twit′ər

    This, “Isn’t it time for you to run along and report to your Dear Leader, Jane?” is what I was referring to when I said, “I have no grievance with you other than your attempt to shut down my discussion with Osborne.”

  • Amadeus48200

    Nope – not the point I was making. Go back and read.

  • http://twitter.com/all_a_twitt_r ôl ə twit′ər

    Go play in traffic?

  • http://twitter.com/all_a_twitt_r ôl ə twit′ər

    Osborne doesn’t seem to want to have this conversation:

    Osborne —– I’m confused by your response. You say “her policy disagreements” by which I presume you mean ‘your policy disagreements with her’ or perhaps ‘her policy disagreements with Pres. Obama’ are “driven by something that isn’t character,” while your critique is replete with judgments on her character.

    What in your judgment are ‘her policy disagreements’ driven by?

    And if its something other than character, why do you impugn her character in your post?

  • Kscoyote

    The Problem, is reality. Hamsher LIED about what Rahm Emmanuel said. Saying he called Progressives “idiotic” when he was talking about a tactic. People WERE AT THE MEETING and HAMSHER LIED, and GREENWALD REPEATED it. To make money.

    She has been caught in SEVERAL lies, and her website contains Glenn Beck and Sorcha Faal hoaxes.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    Goading people is your forte, apparently.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    You should work on your comprehension skills. I was being facetious, implying that you are a Jane Hamsher cultist.

    Nothing more, and nothing less.

  • Amadeus48200

    The reality is that “shutting down” is exactly what’s being attempted in the constant ad hominem and “cult”-baiting being doled out who those who don’t march in lock-step agreement with the blogger.

    So the question really does become, “Do you in good faith want to talk about tax cuts, 2008, 2010, etc.” The blogger’s post hangs on the premises of these historical moments and yet he exchanges addressing them (difficult) for trashing a blogger (easy). So easy, in fact, a teabagger could do it.

  • Amadeus48200

    In justifying his tone of discourse @OsbornInk said: “That’s because I’ve come to the sad conclusion her policy disagreements are driven by something that isn’t character.”

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    Honestly, some of your statements are just ignorant, and silly.

    “As Democrats we shouldn’t be fearful of reading any of the criticisms of our party and President. They only make us stronger”

    Grow up. We are in the midst of a crisis in this country, and it isn’t about Democrats. It is about the Right Wing, which would like nothing more than to depose the democratically elected president, and impose upon us yet another idiot Republican. The enemy is not Obama, it is the GOP. The fact that you and the other cultists fail to understand this makes you dangerous.

    Then you go on to say:

    “And, Nicole, you don’t own the President. He’s not your slave. You don’t get to tell him who he represents and who he doesn’t. ”

    First of all, you are so transparently projecting. Your group is NOT his base. That is the American people telling you that, read the polls.

    You are a group of individuals who seems to think that THEY own the president, they their wishes are the last word.

    Newsflash. You’re wrong.

  • Amadeus48200

    Unless you’ve been completely immune for the last 2 years as a result of some secret luxury, the Democrats have done a lot to directly and materially undermine the material interests of Americans who work for a living. If you’re still scratch your head as to why bloggers are “undermining” him, you have a lot to catch up on. But rest assured: This WILL continue as long as he continues to sell out to the obscenely wealthy back away from campaign promises.

    The question is, Osborne, what is to be done about it, apart from kicking and screaming about bloggers you don’t like? You’ve been a failure at keeping dissent deemed out-of-bounds from entering into the sphere of debate in the Democratic party. So where to now?

    Dare I suggest you take the high ground and argue the issues?

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    You are unbelievably arrogant and obtuse.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    Are you not an American? Do you not understand that expression?

  • http://twitter.com/all_a_twitt_r ôl ə twit′ər

    Were you being facetious when you wrote, “Goading people is your forte”

    Both you and Mark Brooks have given your best efforts to be hostile. You might want to rethink that approach if you want to have conversations with people other than those who agree with you.

    Its a poor reflection of a left blog that people from the left cannot discuss an issue if they disagree.

    Osborne, if you wish to discuss your assertions, you will ind my questions in a comment above.

  • http://twitter.com/BobKincaid BobKincaid

    Personally, I’m not at all convinced that WAS Glenn Greewald. If it was really him, why not sign in with FB or Twitter for at least SOME level of verification.

    The langauge seems much more like a typical FireBagger. Greenwald has been capable of some excellent writing/reporting. I see nothing of that in “his” little hissy on this thread.

  • Amadeus48200

    “Plus, keeping our disagreements focused on discreet substantive issues might lead to a better debate.”

    I take it that is different from “finding a left-wing blogger we don’t like to blame for all our problems and hang him/her from the highest tree,” ôl ə? :)

    What I’m learning most here is how truly threatened some parts of the Democratic establishment are to other parts of the left-wing blogosphere.

  • Amadeus48200

    In that case you’ll be “pushing” forever, because there will always be primary challengers. Always. Why not show some courage, Nicole, and take the pragmatic step that needs to be taken on these Democratic primaries: Ban them! I’m sure you’ll be hailed as a “true progressive” for doing so…

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    Indeed, MrB, indeed. Well met sir.

  • Amadeus48200

    All abstract, opinion-based claims that you cannot back up with data. What are you, Osborne, an ad copywriter?

  • http://twitter.com/angrygeometer Angry Geometer

    No, he called pro-Obama blogger blackwaterdog the equivalent Leni Riefenstal.

    Greenwald knows almost as much about fascism as Jonah Goldberg.

  • http://twitter.com/angrygeometer Angry Geometer

    Oh jeez, there you go dragging the facts into this. Greenwald has something better than facts: an ideology. Wait, scratch that. He has something better than facts or ideology: a massively expensive drug habit he needs to keep feeding by embezzling money from an ironically-named charity.

  • http://twitter.com/angrygeometer Angry Geometer

    Cui bono?

  • http://twitter.com/all_a_twitt_r ôl ə twit′ər

    I’ve been accused of being un-American by RWNJs before. This is the first time I’ve been accused of that by a person who is not a right winger.

    Your hostility persists Nicole, despite your alleged facetiousness.

    Why don’t you just own up to your hostility and face the fact you do not want to discuss the assertions put forth in Osborne’s post?

  • http://twitter.com/all_a_twitt_r ôl ə twit′ər

    I didn’t know there was an authoritarian left that assumes other people on the left are by necessity part of an organization that has a leader.

  • Amadeus48200

    He comes up short when it comes to the actual policies, I’m afraid…

  • Amadeus48200

    There is a name for these partisans of the status-quo: May I introduce you to the Anti-Change Liberal?

  • Amadeus48200

    So nasty. And for what?

  • Anonymous

    (facepalm)

    I shouldn’t have to explain why, so I won’t explain why you’re so damn stupid that you can’t tell the difference between “not an American” and “un-American”.

  • Amadeus48200

    nope, not who I was talking about. go back and read.

  • Mark Brooks

    There’s an old saying – “Politics ain’t beanbag” I suggest you grow up and think for yourself. To be a sycophant is highly unbecoming.

    I am not being hostile. I am merely calling bullshit where I see it.

  • Mark Brooks

    No, he is the owner of this blog. He is entitled to his opinion, as are you, as long as it is not whole cloth wish fulfillment.

  • Amadeus48200

    Sorry, Nicole, but you’re now making huge leaps in imputing my view of the President. I suppose you would ask but your too busy putting words in my mouth. The cult-baiting is hilarious, BTW, if a little sophomoric.

    Are you sure you know what you mean when you use the word “projecting?” Or are you tacitly agreeing to Osborne’s group-thought comment-sourced definition of the term?

    And you’re right: Cultists and people who think Obama are the enemy are not his base. Duh. I doubt you really want to know what I think of the President, anyway.

  • Kscoyote

    What is this “a Lot?” Please explain.

  • Anonymous

    Why are you avoiding my comments Amadeus? Rock me Amadeus!

  • http://twitter.com/BobKincaid BobKincaid

    The polling data are fairly clear. Most dems don’t want him primaried. I’m one of the people who are largely disgusted with him, but even I recogize the stupidity of primarying him. It’s a matter of history. I don’t know anyone who does want to primary him outside of the “I-want-a-pony” crowd.

  • http://twitter.com/AlanFors Alan Fors

    …Who achieves his goal of anti-change by ensuring that the conservative party regains control. So we’ve been introduced Mr. Amadeus. Keep up your antagonism to ensure the GOP rules the day – because you certainly are not helping the liberal or progressive agendas by constantly criticizing every inch of progress made because you demand a foot instead, and anything short of your selfish demands is a cop-out.

  • http://twitter.com/BobKincaid BobKincaid

    “anti-change?”

    May I sincerely suggest you kiss my liberal ass? I want change the FireBaggers can scarcely imagine.

  • Anonymous

    If there is no compromise, it is Authoritarian.

  • Anonymous

    Name calling is what Primates do when they have no other intelligible argument.

  • Anonymous

    So you agree Hamsher is lying when she claims she is his base?

  • http://www.angryblacklady.com/ Angry Black Lady (also STM)

    The FDL chorus should be the most angry at Der Hamsher. She lies to them to prop herself up as some progressive goddess.

    http://www.angryblacklady.com/2010/12/10/firedoglake-lying-liars-and-the-sycophants-they-breed/

    Silly firebaggers. Clean out your ears and think for yourselves.

  • meepmeep09

    Do you have any links or further information on Pach’s firing? Back when I was a regular reader a couple years ago, he was a regular front-pager. Not that I had strong feelings about Pach, one way or the other – he seemed decent enough – but this comes as a surprise to me, and my marginal intertubes searching powers have failed me on this one.

    Thanks in advance, for whatever further information you are able/willing to offer.

  • http://twitter.com/all_a_twitt_r ôl ə twit′ər

    “Jane the Hamsher is one of the cool kids” <- I must have missed this earlier. Osborne wants to eat his lunch at the kewl kids table too, as does the Heather Nicole473 and the Nerd Mark Brooks. Go ahead, no one is stopping you. As a sign of good faith, I promise I wont be seen trying to talk to you savvy policy wonks. Let's finish with a song, Obama Uber Alles.

    I'll leave you with this to discuss among yourselves: Poll: Republicans, Democrats and Independents Oppose Social Security Payroll Tax Cut

  • http://twitter.com/all_a_twitt_r ôl ə twit′ər

    I should also say, I plan to come back and do some bomb-throwing myself because that’s what passes for discussion at OsborneInk. Tootles.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    First, awesome icon. Second, everything I got was internal. Never, ever have so many former insiders of a “progressive” organization opened up so much about a movement leader. I’ve confirmed the basic story on Pach from former FDL’ers (they are legion) but have not spoken with him.

  • meepmeep09

    Thanks, both for the compliment on the icon – I loved The Prisoner when it first came out, and still do – and for the response to the inquiry. I wonder if comments containing inquiries about Pach have been largely scrubbed from the site; I found surprisingly (to me) few of them over there.

    Last actual sighting I could find in a quick search of the site was in comments at CHS’ subsite, in March 2009.* Maybe I’m reading too much into the text, but he “sounds” a bit stressed out over fundraising for the site.

    Damn shame.

    *http://christyhardinsmith.firedoglake.com/2009/03/14/pull-up-a-chair-6/

  • Glenn Greenwald

    One other lie that requires retraction which was just brought to my attention (there were so many that I missed some).

    This is totally false: “Accountability Now PAC began with $15,841 from BreakTheMatrix, a Ron Paul organization — meaning the money trail leads to the same libertarianism that spawned the tea party.”

    Accountability Now never received any money from Break the Matrix. It *paid* Break the Matrix $15,841 as a fee for the “money bomb” which Break the Matrix programmed and organized: a money bomb that raised close to $200,000 and provided a bulk of the group’s original funding.

    So that’s another lie in your post — that “Accountability Now PAC began with $15,841 from BreakTheMatrix.” It received no money from Break the Matrix.

    You managed to pack in an extraordinary amount of retraction-worthy falsehoods into such a short post. Congratulations.

    Glenn Greenwald

  • Anonymous

    Well, I am sure plenty of Republicans would like to see Obama primaried so that they have a better shot at the White House in 2012.

  • Anonymous

    My response over at OpEdNews –

    Jane Hamsher is No “Ratfucker” (And She Shouldn’t Be Required to Show Progressive Credentials Either) at http://bit.ly/fkjnjq

  • Kscoyote

    You gave money to a right-wing organization, but not to Progressive Candidates?

  • Amadeus482000

    LOL, are you his bouncer?

    Groupthink much?

  • Amadeus482000

    That these always end with a nasty ad hominem from the anti-change Osborne cabal is no surprise…

  • Amadeus482000

    Does Kscoyote not realize there is a severe economic crisis going on? What caviar and satin pillow-filled bunker has he entombed himself in?

    “A lot?” Let’s take the 50 million unemployed, for starters.

  • Amadeus482000

    LOL. Are you sure it’s Congress and not Hamsher?

  • Amadeus482000

    “She created much of the outrage.” – Yeah, it couldn’t be the loss of tens of millions of jobs that caused that. What an insult and slap in the face to the unemployed. Are they truly that invisible to you?

    Data doesn’t seem to be a strong point here on OsborneInk…

  • Amadeus482000

    Depends what she really said and when she said it… Do you have a quote and a link? Context– I know, it’s such a bear…

  • Amadeus482000

    I was only asking for the data to back up your claim, Nicole. Sorry if you found that over the line, but when you make an assertion, you need to be prepared to back it up with data.

  • Amadeus482000

    Another lap-of-luxury pro-corporate Democrat, it seems… What a surprise… :)

    Unfortunately, Alan, these aren’t any one person’s selfish demands. 10s of millions of jobs have lost. 25% of American children are hungry and thirsty. Poor people are getting fraudulently kicked out of their homes. And your response is to declare it “selfish” for American wage-workers to “demand” a decent living?

    No, Alan, these are things that people NEED to survive– literally. I’m not sure the pro-corporate, anti-change wing realizes just how desperate things are getting out there.

    Or perhaps the anti-change cabal takes pride in standing on the backs of working Americans in order to quash dissent. If so, I can point to many Democrats and Republicans who, for this, will gladly give you a pat on the back.

  • Amadeus482000

    “Hamsher and Greenwald’s demonization of Dems gave the House to the Repubs.”

    Prove it. (Don’t worry, I’m not holding my breath…)

  • liberalrob

    “She agreed with Grover Norquist on that one thing! Burn her!”

  • liberalrob

    You are assuming that the “sole purpose” is “self-aggrandizement.” That is your opinion; I could as easily say that your whole purpose is self-aggrandizement, trying to pump up your “street cred” by cutting down someone else. This post was a waste of electrons, serving no real purpose except to fan the flames of division within the progressive movement. The Republican Party thanks you for your service.

  • http://twitter.com/all_a_twitt_r ôl ə twit′ər

    Shania Twain is the first person who comes to mind when I’m looking for a snappy retort. Don Rickles is another.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aisha-Galt-Theis/1033042877 Aisha Galt-Theis

    I believe Hamsher’s deep down intentions are good ones. I think she sincerely cares about the working class and those less fortunate. I think she truly wants those who started the Iraq war, drop bombs on innocents and outed Plame held accountable.

    But she seems to be so wrapped up in her own ideas and importance that she is completely unable to reflect, be sincerely challenged based on good reasons, or negotiate. Her un questioning, blindly devoted, are on bended knee over at Firedoglake. If you are not on bended knee kissing her ass..she and her moderators will throw your ass off.

    She challenges our leaders ,our Reps etc (which is a good and healthy thing) but can not take a challenge.

    Ask her why this is the case? Ask her why when she is in the MSM’s spotlight allegedly representing progressives and their views that she will not touch the Israeli Palestiniian debate? Ask her why that debate has almost completely disappeared at that site?

    Now no one has asked her to take this one as one of her issues. But “whispering” about it when she is on WAshington Journal or elsewhere when she is supposedly discussing why progressives are upset with the Obama administration is really not too much to ask.

    Jane is as unable to look at her own weaknesses, holes in her arguments, as the radical right

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aisha-Galt-Theis/1033042877 Aisha Galt-Theis

    Don’t question Jane over at FDL you will be attacked and possibly banned. The lefty zealots will try to take you out

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aisha-Galt-Theis/1033042877 Aisha Galt-Theis

    Greenwald represents the lefts outrage better than any other lefty blogger. He goes where no one else goes. On the Dylan Ratigan show she and Ratigan wiped Cliff Mays lies up with their accuracy and laser like intellects. (at Salon “The Ahmadenijad Game)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aisha-Galt-Theis/1033042877 Aisha Galt-Theis

    Glenn do you think those on the left can become as radically unable to look at their own stands, attitudes, challenges of others as the radical right? I think there is some serious evidence of this on the left. I think Jane Hamsher is one of those radical lefties who is incapable of looking at her own actions, contradictions, inability to be challenged without throwing a tantrum or absolutely shutting down.

    Do you think that danger lies as much on the left as on the right?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aisha-Galt-Theis/1033042877 Aisha Galt-Theis

    Over at Mondoweiss

    More on the ‘Firedoglake’ controversy

    by Philip Weiss on August 30, 2010 · 68 comments
    Like 6 0 Retweet

    Send to a Friend del.icio.us Digg Furl

    A few more thoughts on the Firedoglake controversy I initiated. First the mea culpas.

    My post on Saturday lacked context. I should have mentioned Siun’s fine work on Israel/Palestine, including the Al-Arakib demolition. I should have mentioned Spencer Ackerman’s tough columns on Israel’s behavior. Both these writers have prominence on FDL. And as Philip Munger and CTuttle point out in comments on that post, they have had platforms at the site, to do work that is critical of Israel. I should have mentioned FDL founder Jane Hamsher’s own progressive stance on the issue, for instance this 2008 Gaza-war piece celebrating the fact that people were no longer getting fried on the third rail for criticizing Israel, and pointing to folks like Ezra Klein, J Street, Joe Klein, Glenn Greenwald and Matt Yglesias.

    If I had it to do over again, I would have been more positive, too. I would have congratulated FDL on its great record in progressive politics and its achievements, going back to Valerie Plame and Libby and on feminist issues too. They certainly deserve credit, notably Hamsher, notwithstanding the vicious character of many of her tweets in the last couple days.

    But let me get to what I think was right about the post, and why I don’t regret it, and why this is such an important conversation.

  • http://www.angryblacklady.com/ Angry Black Lady (also STM)

    Any person who uses blackface as a punchline most certainly does have to show her progressive credentials. AT LEAST TO THE BLACK COMMUNITY. But I keep forgetting how inconsequential we are, and how oversensitive I must be if I am one of those people who was a big enough asshole to actually get offended by her fuckery.Why do none of you fire baggers give a shit about the blatant racism she has displayed? And how can none of you see how that might — just might — mean she’s not ad much of a progressive golden child as you think? Are you one of the people calling POTUS “Mr. Presnint” or “chocolate Carter” or “weak” or “inadequate”? Do you know what a dog whistle is?Because we do. And trust me, we are not fucking amused and we will not forget. Hamsher and Adam Green are racist shits, and will be called out as such as long as my fingers are attached to my body.

  • http://www.angryblacklady.com/ Angry Black Lady (also STM)

    Any person who uses blackface as a punchline most certainly does have to show her progressive credentials. AT LEAST TO THE BLACK COMMUNITY. But I keep forgetting how inconsequential we are, and how oversensitive I must be if I am one of those people who was a big enough asshole to actually get offended by her fuckery.Why do none of you fire baggers give a shit about the blatant racism she has displayed? And how can none of you see how that might — just might — mean she’s not ad much of a progressive golden child as you think? Are you one of the people calling POTUS “Mr. Presnint” or “chocolate Carter” or “weak” or “inadequate”? Do you know what a dog whistle is?Because we do. And trust me, we are not fucking amused and we will not forget. Hamsher and Adam Green are racist shits, and will be called out as such as long as my fingers are attached to my body.

  • Kscoyote

    Ratigan is a Conservative.

  • Kscoyote

    Ratigan is a Conservative.

  • Kscoyote

    What Progressive Movement? They all lost. So far as I can see, EVERY ONE of Hamsher/Greenwald’s candidates LOST.

    That track record is WORSE than Sarah Palin.

  • Kscoyote

    What Progressive Movement? They all lost. So far as I can see, EVERY ONE of Hamsher/Greenwald’s candidates LOST.

    That track record is WORSE than Sarah Palin.

  • Kscoyote

    So, in essence you gave money to a Ron Paul organization to raise money for yourselves.

    This LIBERTARIAN organization PROGRAMMED AND ORGANIZED a fundraising event -from which you gained $200,000?

    No Progressives are able to organize and fund raise?!

  • Kscoyote

    So, in essence you gave money to a Ron Paul organization to raise money for yourselves.

    This LIBERTARIAN organization PROGRAMMED AND ORGANIZED a fundraising event -from which you gained $200,000?

    No Progressives are able to organize and fund raise?!

  • Kscoyote

    And when did the economic crisis begin?

  • Kscoyote

    And when did the economic crisis begin?

  • Kscoyote

    What will ending their unemployment benefits do for them Amadeus?

    Please explain how Hamsher/Greenwald’s strategy will benefit them. Because from where I’m sitting – THEIR strategy will do A LOT to undermine the material assets of working Americans.

  • Kscoyote

    What will ending their unemployment benefits do for them Amadeus?

    Please explain how Hamsher/Greenwald’s strategy will benefit them. Because from where I’m sitting – THEIR strategy will do A LOT to undermine the material assets of working Americans.

  • Kscoyote

    Are you able to discuss a matter without name-calling? What will Hamsher’s strategy do to fix the matter?

  • Kscoyote

    Are you able to discuss a matter without name-calling? What will Hamsher’s strategy do to fix the matter?

  • http://www.angryblacklady.com/ Angry Black Lady (also STM)

    You would like to think it is only 10 people who agree with me. You should head to the back of the Internet where the black people are. There’s a lot of us, and we are fucking pissed. A lot of POCs are pissed, but you’re too busy doing Jane’s bidding to let it sink in. I understand. Finding out that the woman behind the curtain has no real understanding of politics and just wants to be the next Maddow must be disheartening to you.

    But you may continue to bask in your own awesome and your text speak if you like LOL. Doesn’t change the facts OMFG.

    Groupthink. Ha! The FDL comment section rminds me of Hot Fuzz. You all are spending every waking minute spinning BS about POTUS for the greater good.

    (The greater good.)

    Limousine liberals piss me off.

    You want to lob a silly “anti-change liberal” moniker at me? Go for it.

  • http://www.angryblacklady.com/ Angry Black Lady (also STM)

    You would like to think it is only 10 people who agree with me. You should head to the back of the Internet where the black people are. There’s a lot of us, and we are fucking pissed. A lot of POCs are pissed, but you’re too busy doing Jane’s bidding to let it sink in. I understand. Finding out that the woman behind the curtain has no real understanding of politics and just wants to be the next Maddow must be disheartening to you.

    But you may continue to bask in your own awesome and your text speak if you like LOL. Doesn’t change the facts OMFG.

    Groupthink. Ha! The FDL comment section rminds me of Hot Fuzz. You all are spending every waking minute spinning BS about POTUS for the greater good.

    (The greater good.)

    Limousine liberals piss me off.

    You want to lob a silly “anti-change liberal” moniker at me? Go for it.

  • meepmeep09

    Update – according to a well established commenter over at Kevin_K’s place, who has met Pach several times, he has been – and presumably continues to be – successfully employed outside the realm of FDL:

    “In those days I would run into Pach occasionally. He has a business with actual clients in a field that he said he didn’t want disclosed. From what I gathered he’s pretty successful. So, he was always afraid his FDL life would somehow catch up with his professional life. I’m sure that had something with his withdrawal from that scene.”

  • meepmeep09

    Update – according to a well established commenter over at Kevin_K’s place, who has met Pach several times, he has been – and presumably continues to be – successfully employed outside the realm of FDL:

    “In those days I would run into Pach occasionally. He has a business with actual clients in a field that he said he didn’t want disclosed. From what I gathered he’s pretty successful. So, he was always afraid his FDL life would somehow catch up with his professional life. I’m sure that had something with his withdrawal from that scene.”

  • http://www.rumproast.com Tom65

    Oh, that’s COMPLETELY different…

  • http://www.rumproast.com Tom65

    Oh, that’s COMPLETELY different…

  • Anonymous

    67 % of Dems agree re the tax deal. This is not uncommon knowledge.

  • Anonymous

    They did NOT attack the Dems and encourage them to stay home?

  • Anonymous

    noooo! that’s not an ad hominem attack.

    Namecalling means you have nothing meaningful to say.

  • Anonymous

    Greenwald never responds to my questions….

  • Anonymous

    Then why does she attack EXCLUSIVELY Democrats and PARTNER with Repubs?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aisha-Galt-Theis/1033042877 Aisha Galt-Theis

    You are so wrong on that one. He has focuses much more on the facts about Iran and not unsubstantiated claims the way RAchel Maddow does and repeats. Ratigan is the only THE ONLY MSNBCer to address the Israeli Palestinian conflict honestly. With Glenn Greenwald on his program. Jane Hamsher will not go near that issue. She is way too chicken shit or is really a Israel firster as Grayson, Weiner and Barney Frank are.

    Glenn Greenwald is the most balanced, willing to go where Jane will not on many issues. Greenwald is the best person to speak for progressives in my opinion. Will go where Jane will not go

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aisha-Galt-Theis/1033042877 Aisha Galt-Theis

    Are you saying that Hamsher has nothing to look at? Examine, Consider. Look making her out to be a saint or the devil is ridiculous. But can the lefties be as shut down to honest challenges and get big heads? Absolutely. Hamsher could grow from some honest reassessing.

    Her site is all devotees. She and her devotees attac you if you challenge her. a And that is the truth

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GEWCRKWNCMRUT7GQ6GCKQSMYV4 Carlton

    ‘Ratfucker’? You pretend to be some sort of mainstream incrementalist mushie who likes compromise and being nice, but then you come out with ‘ratfucker’? That’s way over the line, nobody should listen to your argument if you can’t even be respectful. No wonder you Democrats got “shellacked” in the midterms, you people are just plain mean. And besides, whomever told you that Democrats can build coalitions and become a stronger party by savaging those you disagree with has left you misinformed. It seems you only disagree over political strategy, not even issues. You act like there is no greater sin than disagreeing with you favored tactics, what the hell is wrong with you?

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    Jane Hamsher serves the purposes of oligarchy. She in fact divides the left in the very way you project on me.

    Your comment has the whiff of boilerplate about it. If so, then you should check spelling. Carbon-copy commenting is bad enough without that.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GEWCRKWNCMRUT7GQ6GCKQSMYV4 Carlton

    Ahhh, those who throw stones should not live in glass houses, “ratfucker”.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GEWCRKWNCMRUT7GQ6GCKQSMYV4 Carlton

    Laughable. I wish I could take this whole thing seriously. What do you guys call yourselves? The progressive-reactionaries?

    So your mass movement will grow and you will push and push, and then what? Do you really think you are going to have an effect? How far are you willing to take your Firebagger opposition? Also, are you so sure of yourself that you don’t think there is any chance you are doing more harm by alienating Democratic voters than helping? If so, who is the extremist exactly? But if you are willing to concede that there is a chance you are alienating Democratic voters then aren’t you just as bad as you claim Hamsher is?

    I just don’t get your distracting nuttiness, just like I don’t get your utter rejection of dissention. You people are funny and curious, and don’t seem anything like liberals to me. I have never seen a liberal energized by such hatred of criticism, especially valid criticism. In fact I think it’s easy to draw parallels to reactionarism, and that’s why I think you all should call yourselves progressive-reactionaries.

  • Unwelcome guest

    Nixon Had a word for people like osbourne too. He called them “staff, paid off the books”. He had few words for the common personality cultists (not also staff, paid off the books), when he liked them it was “sucker”, when was angry at them it was “rube” or “cocksuckers”.Reply or not to this in like kind, in like kind, as you wish (cocksuckers).I wont be reading it. This site is one of those sleazy kind of crash-the-browser-downloading-bots to your machine pieces of shit i avoid like the plauge at ALL other times.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GEWCRKWNCMRUT7GQ6GCKQSMYV4 Carlton

    The “whiff of boilerplate”? Wow, you are nutty. Nope, those are my own words from my own mind.

    I don’t possibly see how Hamsher could be construed as serving the “purposes of oligarchy”. Also, I said calling Hamsher “ratfucker” is uncalled for and that kind of disrespect can’t do anyone any good, not you “serve the purposes of oligarchy”.

  • Unwelcome guest

    LOL all i can say is YOU FUCKING MORON. and i am proust so, i am smarter then you, and can call you a moron my freind mickey mouse is giving you the finger right now and my OTHER freind, gandhi says he wants to kick your fat ass.

  • Zirgar

    And meanwhile, in the darkest depths of Mordor, the GOP is laughing its ass off at all of the infighting going on amongst those on the left. The Hamshers and Greenwalds have a right to hold the POTUS responsible for things they see as deserving of criticism, but not at the expense of sacrificing the left’s overall position to the GOP. I can’t comment to Hamsher’s or Greenwald’s motives, only their actions, and those actions are seriously aiding and abetting the real enemy. Obama isn’t perfect, but if you expect immediate and complete and total change (which seems to be position of Hamsher and Greenwald) then you have unrealistic expectations, and have only set the POTUS up for failure from the get-go. You can close your eyes, make your fists and stamp your feet all you want in true tantrum fashion that the POTUS has betrayed his base (a nebulous concept at best), but in doing so you seem to have no idea about what is really goes on in DC. Personally, I hate compromise, but sometimes it is necessary. Politics is utilitarian (doing he best for the most), and pragmatic (doing what works), and sometimes that means our little pet legislation gets watered down, or has things added we don’t like, but that’s no sin. It means the process is working, because there are two parties at odds in Washington, each working to best the other, with our lives in the balance. Change always takes time and if you think the POTUS should move at the unreasonable pace you set then you show a lack of understanding of the way in fact the political process works. I for one will not sacrifice Obama on the altar of purist ideology just to make a political point, when the real world repercussions of that action will harm real, flesh and blood people. If you ARE willing to sacrifice Obama for that purity, then if and when the GOP regains power, be prepared to reap the whirlwind. It’s not always about us on here on the left, but about EVERYONE, and we’re no better than the GOP if we can’t see this fact, because that mentality should be the one we’re fighting.

  • Unwelcome guest

    Bitch, moan, piss. i’ll even hold it for you. wont change the fact that without the prog base, the dems are fucking squid meat. fini. hold on to the senate? me and scott brown laughing-out-fucking loud,forget about it. see you at the polls. but hell. you will be happy with republicans right? this is basically a right center blog correct?

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GEWCRKWNCMRUT7GQ6GCKQSMYV4 Carlton

    No, keep reading. There are some good comments here, real entertaining stuff. I think this guy Osborne has a paranoid streak. His regulars call themselves liberals, but really seem to have more of an authoritarian-to-reactionary bent. Don’t like criticism in the ranks much, that kind of thing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aisha-Galt-Theis/1033042877 Aisha Galt-Theis

    Hamsher is great at criticizing in fact bashing, beating people to a pulp. Without really offering real solutions. She is often unable or refuses to actually count the votes in many cases. Would really like to see her run for office and would support her. Not only because I think she sincerely cares about the working class and those less fortunate but I think she needs to deal with the reality of the numbers..the vote count on many pieces of legislation.

    I do know that she and her moderators have extreme difficulty in fact s serious disability at Firedoglake to accept or allow opposing opinions or views at that site. Now that is not the case at Salon or Greenwalds blog but it is absolutely the case at Firedoglake

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aisha-Galt-Theis/1033042877 Aisha Galt-Theis

    And helped take out Blanche Lincoln. Which I am still confused as to whether that was a good or a bad thing. Seems like it will end up being bad

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aisha-Galt-Theis/1033042877 Aisha Galt-Theis

    On the public option issue Hamsher was part of the base. The majority of Americans supported the public option. Obama and team never even attempted to put the public option on the table because the top insurance lobbyist (go watch “Obama’s Deal) said at the beginning that the public option was a non starter. As well as demanding the public mandate.

    Single payer is on the left, the free market ( greed run amok ) is on the wrong (right) and the public option was the compromise. Obama and team would not maybe could not even get close. On that issue was part of the base

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aisha-Galt-Theis/1033042877 Aisha Galt-Theis

    Hamsher is far more radically and uncompromising than Greenwald. Would not put those two together in any way shape or form. Greenwald can handle opposing views, opinions,etc. Hamsher can not.

    Greenwald can discuss the Israeli Palestinian issue and the race towards a confrontation with Iran in detail when he is in the national spotlight and all other progressive stands on issues. Hamsher will not even “whisper” about the I/P issue when she is the national spotlight. Not even a whisper. Hamsher is very similar to the MSM on this critical issue. Shut down

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aisha-Galt-Theis/1033042877 Aisha Galt-Theis

    I think lining up Greenwald with Hamsher as always on the same page and advocating the same methods is false

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aisha-Galt-Theis/1033042877 Aisha Galt-Theis

    They do they do. I would say Emptywheel (Marcy Wheeler) is very committed to principles (rule of law, treaties etc) more than party. Hamsher often seems unable to face the reality of the numbers the vote count. Although I do agree with her that if you do not go for it (whatever principle you are pushing for) how will you ever know what could have been if Obama and team do not fight or try. Roll over before they have to

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aisha-Galt-Theis/1033042877 Aisha Galt-Theis

    Encourage her to run for office. So it forces her to deal with the count of the votes

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aisha-Galt-Theis/1033042877 Aisha Galt-Theis

    You have a point.

  • Kscoyote

    Amadeus, you’re the one throwing around labels. The only change Hamsher has produced is a Change in the House of Representatives.

  • Kscoyote

    How are you being shut down, when you continue to post? All of the shutting down occurs at FDL.

  • Kscoyote

    She was outrageous BEFORE the loss of jobs. When did she post the blackface photo, again?

  • Kscoyote

    Sorry, the results are in. O retains an 87% approval rating among Liberals. It’s some sort of mental disorder that makes you think you are his base.

  • Kscoyote

    Who’s Mondoweiss?

  • Kscoyote

    I’m sorry, I’ve actually won a race. How about you or Jane?

  • Kscoyote

    Sorry. Polls show 87% support for the President among Liberal Dems. That leaves you the strange and curious one.

  • Kscoyote
  • Kscoyote

    esterday Dylan Ratigan may have surprised his audience when he announced that his political leanings were conservative, and not progressive or liberal like many on the right consider anything related to MSNBC to be. While wrapping up a panel discussion on Obama’s relationship with John Boehner and today’s GOP primary in Delaware with Jonathan Capehart, Alicia Menendez and Matt Lewis, Ratigan let loose his political stance which is certain to color how his future commentary is viewed. .

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/msnbcs-dylan-ratigan-i-am-a-conservative/

  • http://ohcrapihaveacrushonsarahpalin.blogspot.com OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

    Delusions, coupled with ownership mentality. That’s exactly how the post-PUMA progs behave.

  • http://leftblogtweets.com/2010/12/jane-hamsher-is-no-ratfucker-and-she-shouldnt-be-required-to-show-progressive-credentials-either/ Jane Hamsher is No "Ratfucker" (And She Shouldn’t Be Required to Show Progressive Credentials Either) – Left Blog Feeds

    [...] founder of Firedoglake, deserves to enjoy the status she enjoys in progressive circles or not. In a recent post, he calls her a “ratfucker” and says there is nothing “”left’ left of [...]

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com nicole473

    Typical comment from a Hamsher-Greenwald sycophant. meh.

  • http://twitter.com/liberalcrone Ruthanng Fubbles

    well said.

  • http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/06/22/jane-hamshers-afro-american-reeducation-program-rolls-through-washington-d-c-and-other-ratfucking-tales/ Balloon Juice » Jane Hamsher’s “Afro-American” Reeducation Program Rolls Through Washington, D.C. (and Other Ratfucking Tales)

    [...] Osborne of Osborne Ink and Crooks and Liars wrote about Hamsher’s ratfuckery months ago—“Nixon Had A Word for People Like Jane Hamsher”—and drew this response from Kevin Gosztola: “Jane Hamsher is No “Ratfucker” [...]

  • http://twitter.com/sandinbrick Sandy Dover

    I’m just finding out about Hamsher, I would never donate to her so-called progressive group again. 

  • Dorothy Rissman

    Thank you for your work on this.  The Obama Diary and Extreme Liberal have articles up that deal with jane and adam.  I have been sending their reports to the media.

    It think we must spread the word on these two grifters.  Neither of them gave any money to candidates last year.  Nada.  They are raising money by going after Obama.

    The Obama Diary led me to this site.  I will put the site on my favorites.

  • Byo

    I quit Greenwald at Salon and FDL a long time ago- when Hamsher was railing against the Health Care Bill on FOX, and when GG became a one-song pony- civil liberty or die.

  • Anonymous

    The urge to photoshop rats ears and a tail on that face is growing second by second…….

  • http://relajacionmental.com/meditaciones-diarias/ Relajacion Mental

    Relajacion Mental…

    [...]Osborne Ink » Blog Archive » Nixon Had A Word For People Like Jane Hamsher (UPDATE)[...]…

  • http://www.goodforyou.biz/fast-cash-club.html free ways to make money online with no investment|how to make money online with no investments|how to make money online with affiliate programs|make money online with affiliate programs|make money online yahoo article|make money online yahoo forum|make mo

    free ways to make money online with no investment|how to make money online with no investments|how to make money online with affiliate programs|make money online with affiliate programs|make money online yahoo article|make money online yahoo forum|ma…

    [...]Osborne Ink » Nixon Had A Word For People Like Jane Hamsher (UPDATE)[...]…