Jim DiEugenio blasts Hamsher and Moulitsas

[streeb]

http://www.ctka.net/2009/hamsher.html

Dear Jane and Markos:

Being an avid reader of the blogosphere I could not help but note the recent round of columns that was started by Jane and taken up by Markos. I am referring to Jane's December 7, 2008 post about Caroline Kennedy's interest in the open Democratic Senate seat of Hillary Clinton. (First entered at Jane's Firedoglake and then cross-posted at Huffington Post.) Jane's post was entitled: "Caroline Kennedy: Thanks but no thanks". It essentially had two beefs about Kennedy's interest in a possible appointment by Governor Paterson: 1.) That she was not around for the last eight years or so while you and Markos were fighting the good fight, and 2.) She has never run for public office before. Therefore we do not know what kind of candidate she would be when she has to maintain the office in a primary and general election. (Hmm you didn't hold this against Ned Lamont did you?)

Your post was picked up with relish and gusto by Markos at Daily Kos on December 8th. His post was self-righteously entitled "This country isn't a monarchy." He quoted some of your original entry and then added, "I hate political dynasties. Hate them." He added that if Paterson would appoint her it would be an act of "fiat". The main concept that that you and he were touting was you were "saviors of the common man". And somehow Caroline Kennedy would be an insult to all the wonderful work you and Markos had done. Markos has now gone off almost every other day on the issue. Even once comparing Caroline Kennedy with, of all people, Sarah Palin. (Whew)

As I said, I read the blogs daily. I don't comment on them or write any "Diaries". I guess you could say I am a lurker. One of the reasons I only lurk is that I find many of the posters to be very young. Therefore they lack of any sense of history and perspective. This includes both of you. Jane was about one year old when Caroline's father, President Kennedy was elected. Markos was yet to be born when her uncle, Senator Robert Kennedy, was murdered at the Ambassador Hotel in 1968. And apparently, none of that matters to you, since you never mention any of what happened in between or afterward. Markos just says indiscriminately : I hate political dynasties! Sort of like saying: I hate three-piece suits!

The problem is that some of us were around back then. And further, some us have studied what happened in those intervening years--and afterwards. So lumping the Kennedys with say, families like the Rockefellers or Bushes in the dynasty category is, at best, indiscriminate. At worst, it is ignorant, insulting and irresponsible. (For all that it means, why not throw in the Colbys?) Yes, there are some political families that should be avoided. Since it has been proven that they have little interest in providing for the common good. But to lump the Kennedys in with them is utterly preposterous.

Let me briefly explain to you two why that is so. When Congressman John Kennedy was first running for the Senate, he took a trip to Vietnam. He quickly dumped his official French escorts to seek out the best information he could on the war then raging between the French and the forces of Ho Chi Minh. (For your information, Ho was the leader of the north Vietnamese and the rebel group in the south called the Viet Minh.) After educating himself on this, he then returned to America, and won his Senate seat. He then began making speeches in the Senate about how the USA needed to stop backing French colonialism in north Africa, i.e. Algeria. He warned that if we did back it, we would lose the allegiance of the rebel groups there. This would be unfortunate because, according to Kennedy, they eventually would triumph. One reason for this was their cause was not what Richard Nixon and John Foster Dulles (then Eisenhower's Secretary for State) said it was: communism. It was really nationalism. He actually said these words on the floor of the senate in 1957. And he was roundly criticized for it. Especially by Vice-President Nixon.

When Patrice Lumumba, nationalist leader of the Congo against the colonialist Belgians, was attempting to keep his country independent, then President Eisenhower sided with the Europeans. And Allen Dulles OK'd a CIA plot to help in his murder. The CIA hurried this plot in the interval between Kennedy's election and his inauguration since they knew JFK would not back it . His sympathies were on Lumumba's side. The plot succeeded. (Remember Markos, the CIA is the agency you wanted to join before you took up blogging. Maybe you missed this episode.) But Kennedy still supported the cause of independence for the Congo all the way until his assassination. Against Belgian advocates like William Buckley and Thomas Dodd. (This is Sen. Chris Dodd's disgraced father. You two should read up on him)

Let's switch to the domestic side briefly. One of JFK's first acts as President was to increase the minimum wage. Although he wanted balanced budgets, he was a Keynesian in economic theory. And in just three years, he doubled the rate of economic growth and increased GNP by about 20%. I could write pages about his civil rights program, but just let me note the following. In 1963, A. Philip Randolph was organizing the legendary 1963 March on Washington. (You two probably thought it was Martin Luther King.) The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, King's group, signed on. But they could not get a white politician to endorse the demonstration. In July, about six weeks before it began, President Kennedy did so at a press conference. He then called in his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy. He essentially told him that he was entrusting the project to him and it had to come off very well, in fact, perfectly. If not, their enemies would use it to their detriment. It did come off perfectly.

Which leads us to Caroline's uncle, Bobby Kennedy. A man who, as Attorney General, led what was probably the most unrelenting campaign against organized crime in American history. A campaign that once started, eventually brought the Mafia to its knees. And at this time, J. Edgar Hoover's FBI would barely recognize that there even was such a thing. RFK also forced Hoover into recognizing the fact that the Klan operated a murderous terrorist group that killed civil rights workers. As Attorney General he sued the steel companies when they tried to conspiratorially rig prices to gouge the American consumer. He also actually placed the executives of electric companies in jail when they tried to cheat the government.

Now, do I really have to educate you about Ted Kennedy? The liberal lion of the senate? The man who is always there for unions, education, the mentally afflicted, the poor? The one member of a disgraceful panel who actually spoke up for Anita Hill? Surely you remember that episode?

One last mention: Caroline's cousin, Robert Kennedy Jr. He is probably one of the leading environmental attorneys in America. A man who is not afraid to take on corporate polluters no matter how big they are. Or to go on the radio to denounce the horrible things they have done. A guy who was probably too radical and militant in that regard for Obama to appoint as EPA administrator.

So my question to you two is this: Did you know any of the above? If so, did it matter to you? Markos: This is the kind of political family you hate? Hmm. Did you also hate Al Gore and his dad then? How about the Gracchus brothers? (You can look them up on Wikipedia.)

To even put Caroline Kennedy in the same sentence with Sarah Palin is ridiculous. This is a woman who helped to raise 350 million dollars for New York public schools. Who graduated from Harvard and then got a law degree from Columbia. She has co-written two books concerning serious questions about the Constitution. Do you think she would know more than one famous Supreme Court case?

While Jane was backing Hillary Clinton, Caroline Kennedy decided to back Barack Obama. One reason for that is probably something you two aren't aware of. Because of President Kennedy's interest in the struggle of African nations to be free from European colonialism, he became a hero in large parts of the continent. Many young men tried to get into contact with his office in order to study in America. Barack Obama's father wanted to do so. He got into contact with more than one agency. They turned him down. He finally contacted John Kennedy. JFK helped arrange the financing for his voyage to America.

So when Caroline bucked the Clinton Machine in January of 2008‹a machine which Jane backed--she understood the dynamics in play. And when she and her uncle set up the announcement of their support for Obama at American University, they conveyed to millions‹except maybe you two-- that they understood the symbolism of the moment. For it is there, in June of 1963, that President Kennedy made his famous, "We are all mortal " speech. The speech that mapped out his official quest for détente with the Soviets and an end to the Cold War. This is why thousands of young people slept on the grass there that night to see the rally. They instinctively understood what was happening. And there is little doubt that this gave Obama a rocket boost. Just ask the Clintons. Question: Does this count for "fighting the good fight"?

I think there is little doubt that one reason Caroline supported Obama was because he opposed the Iraq War from the start. Which Hillary Clinton did not. She understood that this was something her father and uncle would never have supported. In fact, there is a poignant story in Robert McNamara's book, In Retrospect, where Caroline's mother, Jackie Kennedy, had McNamara over for dinner one night. The widow understood that what President Johnson had done was a reversal of what President Kennedy had planned for at the time of his murder. That is, a withdrawal from Vietnam. As the dinner progressed, Jackie brought his issue up because she objected to what McNamara had done under President Johnson. To quote McNamara "Šshe became so tense that she could hardly speak. She suddenly exploded. She turned and began, literally to beat on my chest, demanding that I "do something to stop the slaughter." I can see how you two could hate people like that.

Let me also try and answer the query as to why people choose to do the things they do in life. It's true that Caroline and her late brother, John Jr., did not enter the public square as far as political office went. But I think you overlook a rather important detail. If I was a young child who stood by and had to watch my father's brains being blown out‹and had to relive that moment every time someone showed the Zapruder film--I think I would have qualms about entering the public arena. But, as many know, after John Kennedy's murder, Bobby Kennedy then became a surrogate father to John and Caroline. And he ran for the presidency five years later. Something that Jackie Kennedy was not all that excited about. To then have your surrogate father have his brains also blown out in publicŠ.. Well, that might swear me off from political life also.

You two like taking credit for grappling with the forces of conservatism after the new millennium began. Yet you ignore the fact that the rise of the New Right really began in this country after that murderous night in Los Angeles which I just described. That is, when the death of RFK allowed the election of Richard Nixon and the extension of the Vietnam War. A war which RFK had pledged to halt at all costs. Many questions remain about what happened in both Dallas and Los Angeles. Questions, which you two do not debate or entertain on your sites. Because they necessitate the use of the "C" word: Conspiracy. And you want to become part of the dialogue inside the Establishment. But suffice it to say, one of the unspoken reasons as to why the New Right took over was because they shot their way into power over the bodies of that "dynastic" family. If you two don't, those forces sure understood who the Kennedys were and what they represented. And they decided to play hardball. There was a lot at stake.

The Kennedys know this of course. They can't talk about it. Because they have to play the game. Just like you two do. But as David Talbot's book Brothers reveals, RFK understood what happened to his brother immediately. He even told the Russians. And this is why I think Caroline knows also. Which is one reason I like her. See, I like people who have suffered, who have felt desolation and abandonment. To have lost first, your father, to unknown regressive forces, and then your foster father to probably the same, that to me it so understand pain. Those are the kinds of shocks that no amount of money can cushion. They are the kind of experiences that build character and empathy. It's the kind of thing that no amount of political campaigning can instill. Maybe you two have never felt that. Few have.

But that's no excuse for not understanding them. Its strange, I think, that a member of the family that fought what turned out to be a fatal battle against the forces of conservatism and regression is now being persecuted by the new Liberal Establishment . It almost makes me think that you don't really wish to replace the MSM. But just to tweak it a bit.

It's an irony you are both too young appreciate. And maybe too arrogant. You actually wanted someone who had endured all that to come to you for approval first.

Wow. We need another RFK. There's a new Mafia in town.

* * *

[chiggerbit]

Wow!

[Nordic]

Hm, heaping guilt and condescension upon your opponents always works to persuade them to come around to your side.

Not.

Maybe it's because I live in LA and work in the entertainment business, but it really rubs me the wrong way that Caroline Kennedy can just call up the governor and ask to be installed as a Senator. Why can she do this? Because of her name.

I like her. I thinks he's great. But the only reason she might be a Senator is because she has the last name Kennedy.

And that really rubs me the wrong way.

Here in Hollywood that shit is way too rampant. If people ask me how do you break into show business, I say "choose your parents very carefully". (I don't think that's original). Because it's entirely true.

[streeb]

Don't really disagree with you Nordic, but I think DiEugenio's letter is more about a continued, predictable, and illogical hostility towards the Kennedy family coming from a certain sector of the 'liberal' establishment cough** CIA** cough

I think he's just righting the wrongs he sees here.

[streeb]

The Posthumous Assassination of JFK, by Jim DiEugenio

[Nordic]

Hm, well I knew Jane Hamsher years ago, and pretty well, back when she was a movie producer. Used to hang out in her house back when she was working out of it. I kinda doubt she's *cough* CIA.

Kos, on the other hand ....... hoo boy.

[streeb]

Hm, well I knew Jane Hamsher years ago, and pretty well, back when she was a movie producer. Used to hang out in her house back when she was working out of it. I kinda doubt she's *cough* CIA.

Kos, on the other hand ....... hoo boy.

Fair enough, though I was actually thinking abouts Kos when I **coughed**, and DiEugenio makes explicit reference in his letter to Kos and CIA... not that I would want to accuse the man of being something he isn't, or wasn't, or ever will be. Coz I don't know. But it's a good letter.

[Nordic]

It's a good letter, but I've seen several similar diatribes, all of the "mighty high-horse" variety, trumpeting why it's shameful to oppose Kennedy's ascension to the Senate.

It seems to be a PR push, and it's probably bought and paid for, like Obama's 400 paid bloggers.

I'm really tired of being on the receiving end of bought-and-paid-for "PR".

[barracuda]

Many questions remain about what happened in both Dallas and Los Angeles. Questions, which you two do not debate or entertain on your sites. Because they necessitate the use of the "C" word: Conspiracy. And you want to become part of the dialogue inside the Establishment. But suffice it to say, one of the unspoken reasons as to why the New Right took over was because they shot their way into power over the bodies of that "dynastic" family. If you two don't, those forces sure understood who the Kennedys were and what they represented. And they decided to play hardball.

I like this part, but I wish he'd just come out and say it: the Bush family profited immensely from the assassinations of the Kennedys and continues to do so.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Jim DiEugenio is solid. What he said.

CIA-Hollywood is just evil. You're working in a psyops sewer, Nordic.


Poster motto: "Be careful what you wish for."



Coraline is an animated stop-motion horror fantasy film based on Neil Gaiman's novella of the same name. Directed by Henry Selick, it is scheduled to be released in theaters on February 6, 2009.

Plot

The film is about a young girl, Coraline (Dakota Fanning), who unlocks a mysterious door in her new home and enters into a parallel reality, a fantastical and thrilling imitation of her own dull life.
.....
Characters



Coraline as depicted in the film.

Coraline Jones – Coraline is a self proclaimed explorer who is young, clever, and curious. Coraline is often aggravated by rain, crazy grownups (as they all seem to be), and not being taken seriously because of her young age and quiet demeanor, though perhaps her biggest pet peeve is that everyone mistakes her name for Caroline (everyone in the real world at least, except the mice and her parents).

[JackRiddler]

.

Kos is a famously raging asshole for many obvious reasons, but already for the fact that even if his relationship with the CIA ended after his summer internship, which we cannot know, he now defends this organization, in full neglect of its long fascist history, as a liberal institution. And keep in mind, he has said he intended to work for the CIA at the end of the internship, but was inspired just then to instead go attach himself to the Dean campaign. Fuck him.

That being said. The governor's appointment of a Senate replacement for Clinton, as mandated in the New York constitution, is not an election. I invite Caroline Kennedy to actually run in one.

We're also not talking about RFK Jr., the guy who actually risks himself and makes courageous stands on issues like the 2004 election fraud, and whose name was briefly advanced and withdrawn. Caroline Kennedy has been known until now only for her behind the scenes money work on behalf of the Democratic Party, especially Obama. I am less than impressed, and have been writing against the PR campaign on her behalf for weeks.

From Dec. 15th:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 89x4657975

Mon Dec-15-08 06:23 PM

Poll question: Is being rich & connected a good reason to get a free Senate seat?

The celebrity-worshipping media's ongoing seizure of a Senate seat on behalf of Caroline Kennedy is an insult to the voters of New York. The nearest parallel that comes to mind is the way the media performed the same service of "bestowing inevitability" on behalf of Schwarzennegger (incidentally also a member of the Kennedy dynasty, by marriage).

This isn't to denigrate Caroline K., or for that matter her family. In terms of her intellect and commitment, I have the impression she is amply qualified to serve in the Senate -- as are many thousands of other New Yorkers.

That's the point: New York is home to a dozen Nobel Prize winners (most of them likely Democrats) who would never even conceivably get consideration for a Senate seat by appointment. They would have to run for it. So should Caroline Kennedy, if she wants it.

The only reason Kennedy has been raised as a possibility is because she was born rich and has a famous name, and thus was in a position to raise a lot of money for the party. This is a perverse reinvention of "pay-to-play" for hereditary aristocrats. (There's some fitting irony in there somewhere, as Blago of the humble roots and vulgar manners is forced out the door for being too explicit about business as usual.)

If Caroline Kennedy wants the seat, let her run at the next election. Someone who has never even been bothered enough to run for any seat shouldn't get an appointment because television calls her a star. I'm not the biggest fan of a Maloney or a Cuomo, but at least they worked to make political careers and thus do not represent a fuck-you to the world of those not born rich.

---

Lots of mostly outraged responses followed on that & the other threads I've done about this, starting with the very first reply:

"She deserves it. For being Caroline. And I mean that."

To which I responded: "Thanks for illustrating 'celebrity worship.'"

Another poster asked, "who do you think should get handed the seat then? SOmeone is going to be appointed. Do you have some objective measure by which there is a clear and obvious person to pick?" I replied:

Mon Dec-15-08 06:59 PM

20. Resisting the corporate media's call is an excellent rule of thumb...

When a PR campaign is this obvious and gets this much traction with the corporate media, that should earn a veto up-front.

Otherwise I'd argue there are two valid standards:

1) Pick a politician who's actually gotten votes in a real election and thus has some form of democratic imprimatur.

2) Pick someone of absolutely extraordinary intellect, moral courage, achievement, and political integrity.

Caroline Kennedy fails on number one, obviously. It's possible she makes the top 10,000 New Yorkers on number two, or even better. If the selection should be opened up to anyone, then I daresay there are whole departments at Columbia and SUNY and CUNY that should get the call before her.

I'll go with Joseph Stiglitz as my example.

Hey, it's Patterson's call. That's the state constitution.

Therefore I wish the corporate whore media would shut the fuck up with their preemptive politicking on behalf of someone they only like because she fits their definition of a star.

More of my ranting:

Experience in elected office should obviously not be a requirement to run for an office. In fact, it obviously could not be, or no one could ever run for an office. And of course I said nothing of the sort, not even remotely.
We are not talking about an election.

We are talking about an extraordinary appointment to what is otherwise an elected office.

Normally, such appointments go to people who actually received votes from at least some voters in the past. That's not a requirement, but it is how things are usually done.

If, however, the criteria for appointment are to be expanded to include people who "will make a great Senator," then there are at least 10,000 of those in New York state.

So why Kennedy?

I don't think you are stupid. You know that Kennedy wouldn't conceivably be in discussion if not for her name, her family money and her status as a fundraiser for Democrats. You can see that Kennedy is being promoted by a massive corporate media campaign that has given her the bogus "inevitability" and "electability" blessings.

With the above, I hope at least after 100 posts we can establish the easiest, most self-evident and basic parameters of this case.

And my question has been, roughly:

Why do you want the corporate media and their idea of what makes a good dynastic soap opera defining reality for you? In this case, I shall express my preference for the smoke-lit backrooms of political fixers who, at the very least, include actual elected representatives of the people.

Thank you.

The very fact that Kennedy publicly announced her "candidacy" as though this were an election would, in all history until now, be understood as an attempt to strong-arm the governor and constitute an immediate disqualification.

Of course, the media and Kennedy cheerleaders in the party are trying to make it look like a popular groundswell.

It's unfortunate that this will end with widespread cynicism about the process and, likely, a resounding Republican victory in the 2010 Senatorial election.

Most recent...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 89x4757008

It's Official: The Caroline Kennedy PR machine knows no shame...

Sat Jan-03-09 12:04 AM

Even to the point of advancing pieces declaring her appointment "official" when in fact it is nothing of the sort. Hillary Clinton has not even yet resigned her seat!

The shameless campaign on Caroline Kennedy's behalf is a case of what we might call "inevitability marketing." In the last couple of days it has run into new obstacles and shifted into a shrill and mildly desperate register. Assembly Speaker Silver put a knife in her and then, in the classic mode of Albany and Brutus, made sure to tell us how he loved her more than any other. Bloomberg's backing off, perhaps realizing that he himself is a billionaire seeking to appoint himself to a third term. People may notice too many parallels between him and Kennedy for his endorsement to do either of them any good.

So it's time for some PR shill to threaten the governor with "political malpractice" if he doesn't do exactly what the corporate media consensus demands of him and give them their royal darling. Some HuffPost blogger today declares the decision has already been made, and this prompts calls of "it's official."

Well, it's not, and I'll say it again: Fuck appointment by corporate media (even with cheerleaders at the HuffPost and DU). The constitutional process says it's still entirely the governor's decision. I hope Paterson shows courage enough to reject this unprecedented usurpation of his role.

Fact is, the waging of a relentless daily professional PR war on behalf of someone who never before campaigned for a single vote should be an automatic disqualification.

Pro-Kennedy trollers, we know your talking points, so please note: This isn't about her qualifications. She's at least as qualified as most of the idiots in the Senate, and probably one of the 10,000 most qualified people in New York State. Why aren't the other 9,999 being given the inevitability factor?

This also isn't about her supposed politics - conveniently a mostly blank slate. I'm sure they're just wonderful.

It's about the process by which the corporate media gets to crown the new junior Senator from New York.

Kennedy would never conceivably be considered for the post, if she weren't a) a Kennedy, b) rich, c) an automatic darling of the media, and d) getting her quid pro quo for raising massive funds for politicians.

"Please, all powerful television, tell us what to do!!!"

Okay, I do have a hate on aristocrats going. Not that I'm wrong, but why should I care about this minor side-corruption barely a molecule in the Corruption Ocean, during the ongoing stealing of 10 trillion dollars and everything else from all of us by the machine in open daylight?

Sports, I guess.

.

[IanEye]

Hm, well I knew Jane Hamsher years ago, and pretty well, back when she was a movie producer. Used to hang out in her house back when she was working out of it. I kinda doubt she's *cough* CIA.

Hamsher has a pretty large presence over at firedoglake and that site can get pretty pro-CIA at times. During the whole Scooter Libby/Plame/Fitz thing if you were at all critical of the CIA it was seen as being Pro Bush/Rove. As if you couldn't despise both factions of Fascism....

[sunny]

Caroline Kennedy has enough money and influence to initiate a PR campaign on behalf of her Senate ambitions, but it's not as if the media has fallen all over themselves to toe her line. The overall impression one gets from watching/reading the mainstream coverage is essentially the same attitude of Hamsher and Kos, as pointed out by DiEugenio. Which is exactly the reason for the raging controversy.

[JackRiddler]

Caroline Kennedy has enough money and influence to initiate a PR campaign on behalf of her Senate ambitions, but it's not as if the media has fallen all over themselves to toe her line. The overall impression one gets from watching/reading the mainstream coverage is essentially the same attitude of Hamsher and Kos, as pointed out by DiEugenio. Which is exactly the reason for the raging controversy.

Then really the point is, she's a fool for having tried to snatch this as a newcomer by appointment, and the corporate media have absolutely fallen all over themselves to give unwarranted attention to this idiocy.

I could totally see voting for her in an election, if she had announced a candidacy for an actual election, rather than pretending to be running a "candidacy" for what is entirely a choice in Paterson's brain.

Safe to say, my definition of "progressive change" is not
A Process In Which
The Accidental Governor, Son-of-Basil Paterson,
Appoints Daughter-of-JFK
As the replacement of Wife-of-Clinton
With the blessing of Billionaire-Owner-of-the-New-York-Media-Machine
Who Bought City Hall and Is Now Appointing Himself to A Third Term
Contrary to the People's Vote in the Term Limits Referendum,
As the Corporate Media Monopoly Oozes With Daily Over-Coverage
Eating the air from My Brain.
Sorry.

.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Funny how when I post obvious psyops umpteen times people ignore it yet still ask how such things could possibly be done and to what ends.

That was negative framing of Caroline Kennedy. hint hint

Because when the Kennedy name is visible in public, the USG's skeletons are right out in plain view. The name evokes all the memes the USG has been trying to bury since WWI.

So discouraging people from voting for her or giving her any credibility at all with that crappy film is a USG meme containment strategy.