Malice, Spite and An Eye To The Bottom Line

UPDATE:

Shortly after I posted this Edwards released a statement:

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

Mealy-mouthed, but Malkin loses as it seems they’re not fired after all – advantage liberal blogospshere. And my comments below still stand – the right set the agenda again, and the Democrats were caught on the back foot, again.

— ———————————————————————

Leaving aside the fact I consider Amanda Marcotte a friend (though I disagree with her on many things) the vicious public attack on the Edwards bloggers, led by rightwing media-slime Michelle Malkin, is interesting both as an object lesson for political campaigns on how not to handle bloggers and as an insight into the pathology of right wing female pundits.

This story has been all about how personal spite, a minor media figure’s fading popularity and a last desperate attempt by Malkin to get hers before it all goes to shit for the Republicans have co-incided, to produce the early derailing of the Edwards campaign amongst its own supporters.

It couldn’t’ve worked better had it been planned.

First a little backstory. It seems Ms. Michelle “I resent women unless they’re me” Malkin is not unaquainted with the indignity of being let go herself.

A Virginia newspaper recently got rid of her from its pages because she has, according the paper’s ombudsman“…a long history of poorly supported polemic” and because of her propensity to spout rubbish “…regardless of its factual basis or lack thereof”. Nicely and politely put, but the meaning’s clear. Malkin is a proven liar and bigot and was fired for it, simple as that. The difference between her firing and that of the Edwards bloggers is that Malkin got the boot for barefaced, easily debunked lying and no hysterical whipping-up of bloggers by liberals was required whatsoever. It was all her own work.

Malkin’s words spoke for themselves, and they screamed “Liar!”

Wherever did this harpy come from and how did she get to be so prominent? David Neiwert of Orcinus knew Malkin professionally in her early career; she left Seattle under a cloud after issues with her reporting. Her trademark viciousness was apparent even then. This is her parting shot to the city:

The Cattle In Seattle: You Guys Had It Coming

Michelle Malkin

Creators Syndicate Inc.

WASHINGTON – As I watched fire, tear gas and mass chaos consume Seattle last week, one wicked little thought crossed my mind: It couldn’t have happened to a more deserving city.

Nice.

Read More

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Idling through the webstats earlier, as one does in these paranoid times, I noticed that in addition to the US Justice Dept’s visit a few days ago and the couple of hits from the US House of Representatives on my Pelosi post, there was another visit from the US government, this time from the Defence Techinical Information Centre in Fort Belvoir.

Click For Screenshot

Ooh, I thought, they’re on to us. Fly, all is known!

But no, not unless the NSA is using the Google search string “bull+semen+hairi” to snoop it’s not. Phew, safe from the gauleiters foir another day!

Heh. Right blogs p4wn3d By Left Blogs, says Tom Delay

[…]

And former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay felt right at home Friday at a conservative members retreat in Baltimore, giving interviews with other conservative bloggers and chatting excitedly about the medium’s political potential. DeLay said conservatives have been “outranked by the left” in the blogosphere, a place where he can communicate directly with his audience without the mainstream media “pounding the crap out of me.”

[My emphasis]

Inside The Tent Pissing Out

Inside the big tent

Best wishes in her new job to Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon who is (like her predecessors at the blog, Ezra and Jesse) moving on to pastures new, specifically to work as web supremo for the John Edwards’ Democratic presidential; nomination campaign. The blog of course carries on – Pam continues as senior member and a new roster of writers has been added.

I’n very pleased for Amanda and that her career is going so well: it’s always nice when nice things happen to nice people and I’m sure she’ll be an asset to the Edwards team. And I’m glad she’s not working for Hillary.

But.

I’ve been very favourably inclined towards Edwards so far, because he at least had something to say for the poor, and I’ve been insisting in argument that an Edards/Obama ticket could be a real possibility and perhaps something that wouldn’t be too bad. I had thought both were the perhaps least venal possibilities of a Democratic party that really is no better than the Republicans when it comes to being beholden to big money and special interests.

Even socialists can see the pragmatic value of opting for the lesser evil.

Bur recently Edwards showed he’s right up there with Lieberman when it comes to supporting Israeli and neocon – and therefore Bush’s – interests in foreign policy.

During a speech via satellite at a security conference last week in Herzliya, Israel, Edwards joined the chorus of those threatening the Iranian government. “Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world,” Edwards said, echoing a line peddled by many neoconservatives. “Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons.”

A few moments later, he strongly hinted at the need for possible US military action. “To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table,” Edwards said. “Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.”

Oh. Right. So it’s fine by him if Bush attacks Iran. He’s just another corrupt chickenhawk then. But why sabotage his carefully calculated, champion-of-the-little American and the netroots-choice image like that?

Thinkprogress:

There’s a few possible explanations. One, Edwards sincerely believes in a more confrontational Iran policy. Two, he’s pandering to win the support and money of hawkish “pro-Israel” voters and donors. Three, he’s trying to impress the foreign policy intelligentsia by talking tough.

Any of those is enough to make me drop him like a hot brick. But let’s name the real reasons: greed and ambition. Self-interested politrcal triangulation and a willingness to sacrifice lives for his political career. Remind you of anyone?

How could any self-respecting leftist support such a person, let alone work for them?

This goes directly to what I was writing about yesterday, the whole shift in blogging as the presidential campaigns and lobbyists co-opt the power of bloggers:

Power is very seductive, so I’m not at all surprised by the continuing co-option of the big blogs into the political establishment. It’s the way elites always work: co-opt, absorb and neutralise. Just so long as those bloggers co-opted remember that that they are no longer outside the system but within it we’ll all get along fine.

Still, we must all make our own decisions and lets face it, other people’s career decisions are not really my business. From the little personal knowledge I have of Amanda she doesn’t strike me as someone who’d make frivolous decisions. I’ve no doubt she’ll have weighed up the pros and cons of this move before making it. On a personal level I will never wish Amanda anything but well, no matter how much we disagree on politics.

But Edwards and his campaign, after his self-exposure as yet another Democratic stalking-horse for AIPAC, are another matter entirely.

Now Shakespeare’s Sister has joined the campaign too as netroots co-ordinator. Nailing political colours to the mast, (or at least getting paid for blogging) seems to be quite the fashion. Who will be the next to put a paycheck over principle, I wonder?

And if anyone thinks that’s harsh or uncivil, I can only repeat what I said in my previous post.

Liberal blogging is already producing its own insider elites even though it’s that which brought us to this pass in the first place. Although they’re much less well-paid (if paid at all) than the right bloggers, the money is coming. With the ascendancy of the Democrats in Congress and a record-funded presidential race on the way, bloggers are no doubt already anticipating a tasty slice of the ad-spending and political-consultancy pie. The Hillary blogads are all over the place already.

I suppose they might argue that that’s the way the system works and what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander., t’was ever thus, blah blah blah, don’t blame us, a blogger’s got to live and so on. Fine, make your living from politics if that’s what you want to do. I’ve no problem with that, it’s your choice.

But remember that the moment you start to make your living from politics you are part of the political establishment, not the counter-establishment, on the inside not the outside, and expect to be treated accordingly

Was That A Paradigm Shift, Or Is My Underwear Just Bunched Up?

Sometimes I loathe blogging and I hate blogs. At the moment I can’t stand all this waiting, it’s driving me absolutely, nailbitingly nuts. My refresh button is wearing out.

Although nemesis is approaching both the Blair and Bush governments in the form of prosecutions for corruption and for perjury respectively, it’s taking it’s own sweet bloody time about it.

I want poodle and chimp blood and I want it now!.

Maybe I’m projecting my own feelings about the endless grey tedium of January but the UK and US news media and punditerati seem to have gone oddly quiet of late. I don’t mean there’s no news, that’s patently absurd what with wars and massacres and plagues all over the place – but there’s a faint whiff of tense anxiety emanating from the political reporters and commentariat. I wonder why?

They do have cause to be tense: both the accelerating Cash for Honours and Plame investigations and subsequent prosecutions will result in large part from the persistence of bloggers on both sides of the Atlantic. Unpaid citizens have been doing the job that the pampered, self-perpetuating mediocracy should’ve been doing. The media’s passive collusion in propping up illegal government and facilitating the obstruction of justice is about to be exposed and it won’t be pretty; no wonder they’re nervous. (Or maybe they’re just desperately trying to catch up on the story. That’s why they’re quiet – they’re reading blogs.)

That doesn’t mean there are no bright, persistent reporters on the big papers, it means they are exceedingly rare pearls of rare price amongst the cosy insiderdom and casual venality that are the modern Cranfords of Westminster and Washington, those murky little worlds of interlocked party-politics, thinktanks, op-ed columns and off-the-record-socialising, where political reporters and pundits work, go to the same schools, live in the same neighbourhoods, go to the same dinner-parties and social events and help each others children do the same in their turn.

That this state of affairs exists is due both to the way patronage, largesse and plain access has been managed by political parties on both sides of the Atlantic in modern times, most recently and blatantly by Blair and Bush. But it also testifies to the media’s willingness to be patronised and managed by politicians, providing there is sufficient personal advantage.

It’s been a long comfortable ride for the pundits so far, but the papers they write for are losing circulation and profits as fewer people turn, not to the papers or tv for news and political analysis, but to the internet and bloggers.

The trouble is that the small world of political blogging is, though supeficially wide-open, actually self-regulated and just as parochial, narrow-minded and self-interested as any other self-selected grouping.

Liberal blogging is already producing its own insider elites even though it’s that which brought us to this pass in the first place. Although they’re much less well-paid (if paid at all) than the right bloggers, the money is coming. With the ascendancy of the Democrats in Congress and a record-funded presidential race on the way, bloggers are no doubt already anticipating a tasty slice of the ad-spending and political-consultancy pie. The Hillary blogads are all over the place already.

I suppose they might argue that that’s the way the system works and what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander., t’was ever thus, blah blah blah, don’t blame us, a blogger’s got to live and so on. Fine, make your living from politics if that’s what you want to do. I’ve no problem with that, it’s your choice.

But remember that the moment you start to make your living from politics you are part of the political establishment, not the counter-establishment, on the inside not the outside, and expect to be treated accordingly. (I think finding yourself on a Murdoch paper like the Times’ list of 10 bloggers most likely to sink Hillary Clinton signifies that you are indeed, Established.)

Athough superficially separate, the walls between the big liberal blogs. Democratic party politics and paid opinion, already paper-thin, are crumbling. What does this mean for smaller, less exalted left political blogs?

It means that their role as political samizdat is even more important than ever.

US Democratic bloggers argued recently in criticism of the US antiwar march on Saturday that the left is dead, ineffectual and out of date and that party politics, not protest is where the actions’s at. Other big blogs have bought into this too. Observer journalist Nick Cohen has argued the same thing, though from a different perspective ( that of someone who supported the invasion of Iraq and now must spend the rest of his life justifying it by attacking the war’s opponents).

It is not novel to say that socialism is dead. My argument is that its failure has brought a dark liberation to people who consider themselves to be on the liberal left. It has freed them to go along with any movement however far to the right it may be, as long as it is against the status quo in general and, specifically, America. I hate to repeat the overused quote that ‘when a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything’, but there is no escaping it. Because it is very hard to imagine a radical leftwing alternative, or even mildly radical alternative, intellectuals in particular are ready to excuse the movements of the far right as long as they are anti-Western.

Of course the ‘left ‘, at least as Cohen defines it – in terms of the Labour and Democratic parties – is dead: modern party politics is now merely a televised battle of who can raise most to spend on advertising, and electoral platforms are informed by market research, not political principle. Left? What left?

Those allegedly lleftist parties that liberal media and the big blogs argue and raise money for are all in thrall to to the free market. It’s the baseline from which all their political argument springs and it may not be gainsaid. Only in that sense is Cohen’s point valid; the Labour party left, that wanted to change the world is dead and gone, as are the New Deal Democrats. What remains is a bunch of middle-class policy wonks who beleive they can both simultaneously enjoy the fruits of the free market and assuage their liberal guilt by tinkering around the edges so things are a just a little nicer for the poor folk overseas and the blacks and the gays at home and they don’t have to feel so bad that they live so well.

But there is a another left – that’s iinternational and internationalist, that doesn’t trust any existing party, that’s comprised of people who would not necessarily call themselves leftists but who loathe injustice and lies (local or global) who abhor hypocrisy, cruelty, corruption and greed, who see that the free market as a panacea for all social ills doesn’t work and who are not afraid to say so, loudly and often, through any means they can find. They’re not seduced by power because they know they are powerless.

Blogs have given them a voice.

They might forget it now but that’s how the big blogs started too; Kos is only as big as he is now because of all the diarists. That made him and his site dangerous. That he’s now lauded in the media as a Democratic power-broker is the political establishment using the old ‘inside the tent pissing out’ strategy. By neutralising Kos they neutralise the his readers and diarists too, goes the thinking.

Power is very seductive, so I’m not at all surprised by the continuing co-option of the big blogs into the political establishment. It’s the way elites always work: co-opt, absorb and neutralise. Just so long as those bloggers co-opted remember that that they are no longer outside the system but within it and we’ll all get along fine.

But back to my original point, the current nervousness of the media. I may be entirely wrong about the reason why they’re so subdued. Maybe this is all an excuse for self-absorbed metablognoodling and they’re all just waiting for Bush to drop the Big One on Iran.

Now that really would be a paradigm shift
.

An attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would signal the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably grow to involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, as well as the USA and Iran. The report concludes that a military response to the current crisis in relations with Iran is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further. Alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be.

Yes, that might certainly make the subject of the co-option of liberal blogs somewhat irrelevant.