Jane Hamsher's myopia...

FDL has done some good work for the progressive side, and is still doing it. Kudos for that.

But the problem I have is that some of the bloggers (and sexist pig/misogyinist that I am, they're usually women...:o)) turn into an Einsatzgruppe, when it comes to people criticizing Hillary.

In the debate about why Obama should or should not, have put her up as Secretary of State, posting the youtube clips of Clinton diligently attempting to triangulate her way to the nomination, as well as reminding people of the simple fact that she and Joe Lieberman share the same "Property of AIPAC!" tatt on their asses, will get you banned instanter, at places like FDL and Hullabaloo...which I am. :o)

Today, December 7th, Hamsher has a thread up at FDL, titled:

"Caroline Kennedy? Thanks, but no thanks."

Kennedy may or may not be worthy of being appointed to the NY Senate seat being vacated by Clinton. As Jane points out, she's never run for elective office in her life. But she seems like a bright, articulate woman, and certainly, the name recognition of being John Kennedy's daughter, wouldn't hurt her. I don't know her position on many of the issues, but she DID come out for Obama, in the primaries. Whether or not that played a part in Hamsher's knock on her, I don't know.

What I do know, is that Jane, in her screed against Kennedy, wrote THIS paragraph:

"Her leadership could have been really helpful when the rest of us were getting the stuffing beaten out of us by a very well-financed rightwing for the past 8 years. But when things were tough, she was nowhere to be found."

It was instructive that Hamsher, always ready to do rehab on the Clinton's or to second the motion of someone else doing it, had not a clue to the brutal irony of herself speaking those words about Caroline Kennedy, while, more often than not, for at least the duration of Clinton's run for the presidency, she and most of her staff were blatantly ignoring the fact that Hillary never risked a micron of political capital on behalf of progressives. Instead, Clinton was brazen (and politically stupid) enough to regularly demonstrate the moral gangrene that infected she and her campaign staff for both the primaries and the general election.

I say again: It was the progressives who ruined Hillary Clinton's chances to become the democratic nominee; NOT the conservatives. When she climbed on board bush's war wagon (and later, in the primaries, scorned Obama for the great speech he made 8 days before SHE voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq) and then proceeded to throw the progressive wing of the party under the bus, it was the beginning of the end of her candidacy. We had emdured a decade or more of Karl Rove's "Campaign Playbook for Sleazes"; watching Clinton put it to use was not something we were going to tolerate.

Speaking for myself, as someone who voted for her husband twice and who was delighted when she won that NY Senate seat, it was a joy to watch progressive groups like MoveOn.Org, and The National Organization for Women, help with the payback, with their prodigious and critical help in tearing up the tracks ahead of the Coronation Express. :o)

I've never been prouder of the progressive wing of the democratic party. :o)

And, Jane, if you're reading this, since you have been...on-board...with Obama's first major mistake, of re-inflating the Clinton legacy, you really need to be careful when you talk about Caroline Kennedy's lack of "leadership", as well as how, "when things were tough, she was nowhere to be found."

YouTube Clips of Hillary's "leadership" and political "courage", as she was exchanging ass-rubs with the people most responsible for the situation we're in, are all over the internet. That you seem unaware of the irony of the words of criticism you levelled at Caroline Kennedy, is a little scary, in their dishonesty.

Can you not do better?