home

Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane Hamsher

Joe Lieberman went on the attack today against Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher, the blogosphere's most well-known, vocal supporter of Ned Lamont. The issue is this one.

Jane is not part of the campaign, she's working on her own as an unpaid activist. After her mother died, she decided to go to Connecticut to follow the Lamont campaign rather than return home right away. Lamont is lucky to have her and the publicity and support she brings via FDL. I hope she stays right where she is through primary day.

This is a Lieberman distraction. I hope CT Democrats will focus instead on whether they want a senator who is backed by Tom DeLay.

Tom DeLay, on Lieberman: "Lieberman is a liberal. ... He is a liberal on everything but the war, and he's very good on the war. He understands how dangerous fighting the Islamic terrorists, and he's going to fight that. And it just shows you how weak the Democrats are to take on Lieberman when he supports 90 percent of what they believe in" ("Hannity & Colmes," FNC, 8/2).

Crooks and Liars has the video.

< Ex-Bush Aide Claude Allen to Plead Guilty | Court Rules DeLay Must Stay on Ballot >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#1)
    by theologicus on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 12:52:17 PM EST
    This is a Lieberman distraction. Indeed. He must really be feeling desperate. It will all blow over if Lamont ignores it and keeps his head. And as TL suggests, his focus. Joementum is circling the drain.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 12:57:07 PM EST
    now there's the kind of support that builds campaigns: kind words from a disgraced, forced out cong. from another party and state. that alone should tell the voters of CT all they need to know about the incumbant.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#3)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    From the WaPo article:
    Lamont brushed past reporters Wednesday night in Bridgeport, saying: "I don't know anything about the blogs. I'm not responsible for those. I have no comment on them."
    Somehow he's forgotten his TV ad with Kos. Also, Hamsher's "I'm not part of the campaign" seems a little thin given that she shot his first video blog and accompanied him to his appearance on Steven Colbert's Comedy Central show.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#4)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 01:16:02 PM EST
    college rethugs want joe, delay wants joe, malkin wants joe, bush loooves joe ... reason enough not to vote for him, regardless of positions on iraq, schiavo, the DMA and banking rules.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#5)
    by aw on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 01:35:22 PM EST
    Also, Hamsher's "I'm not part of the campaign" seems a little thin
    Did you read the entire post? She's an unpaid activist. She's a blogger who happens to be his biggest cheerleader. So what?

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 01:43:53 PM EST
    Poor crybaby, needs to make big bad Jane go away. Wa wa wah.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#7)
    by Pol on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 02:18:46 PM EST
    I think Jane's picture was a little over the top. Not wrong, but definitely pushing things, and certainly to cause a response -- especially from Republican bloggers out to get her.

    Dang, Joe wants poor insignificant Jane to be banned from traveling with campaign, prohibited from raising funds and ... *gasp*, delinked from his website? He stopped short of demanding that she be bound, (but not too tight), tied to the post and lashed, whacked or bonked, into submission....or maybe that's something that only I would've considered. Way to go Jane ;-) that's how you know you're making a diffetence.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#9)
    by Lww on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 03:18:58 PM EST
    Good old Joe, "the concience of the senate." Daniel Webster must be scooting over in his grave. Who are the first non-civilian victims in this imperialist move into the ME? The Pentagon employees on 9-11? The firefighters? It's the lowest ebb and TL keeps running Scooter Libby stories.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#10)
    by Lww on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 03:27:40 PM EST
    TL, so Joe lieberman has to go but the other traitors(Schumer,Clinton, all the rest) can stay? Joe's the Lamb. Biblical.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 03:52:01 PM EST
    TL, so Joe lieberman has to go but the other traitors(Schumer,Clinton, all the rest) can stay?
    the traitors are the ones who invaded a country that didn't pose a threat to us, and lied about the intelligence to convince others.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimcee on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 03:55:07 PM EST
    Not to put too fine of point on it, she did post an image of Lieberman in black face and by any standards that is way beyond the pale of good taste. If a Republican had done the same thing to a Leftist candidate TL and the rest would be howling to high heaven instead of covering for this obviously rascist and insensitive photoshop job. Racism on the Left is always pooh-poohed by the Left even when it is obvious in cases involving Black Republicans running for higher offices such as in Ohio and Maryland. If it wasn't offensive it would not have been removed from HuffPost so quickly and all of Ms Hamsher's defenders know it. I can believe that Lamont doesn't know from blogs but he has obviously depended on FireDogLake aka Jane Hamsher for a blog push for his campaign. That she was so clueless that if she posted this childish photo illustration it would raise the hackles of Lieberman's people shows not only that she lacks any sense of restraint but is foolish enough to think a half apology would make it all go away. It certainly hasn't worked for Mel Gibson. It also seems that Lamont and his handlers haven't a bit of sense about good judgment to sell the voters of Connecticut on him. If Lamont had trusted her to be his web presence then he is an idiot for allowing an idiot to represent him, paid or not. But then again how would a member of the Round Hill CC be expected to know Black from White.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimcee on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 04:06:37 PM EST
    Oh, and one other thing, Lieberman is Jewish and defended voter rights in the South during the Civil Rights Movement and Ms Hamsher depicted him as a minstral show performer. Does that put her on the same level as say David Duke or Sen Byrd? If I were to post a photoshopped illustration of Ms Hamsher wearing a KKK pointy hat would you defend me as well? Well would you?

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#14)
    by Lww on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 04:40:14 PM EST
    "Lieberman is Jewish and defended voter rights in the South." What the hell does that mean? Sailor, ALL of the traitors voted for it. They still do. Al Sharpton(hardball) get's the call to go on the news shows when everyone else is afraid to talk, what with Israel killing at will and Iraq in the toilet. Then again I heard black guys like the hot weather. LMFAO

    If I were to post a photoshopped illustration of Ms Hamsher wearing a KKK pointy hat would you defend me as well?
    Speaking only for myself, no, but if you post one of Jane in blackface I would probably laugh, and then be outraged, then laugh until the news is on again. I put this whole specific issue against the daily reports of countless dead civilians and it seems insignificant. I consider a vote for Lamont more likely to succeed in less killing than a vote for Lieberman.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 04:57:35 PM EST
    jimcee-are you drunk? Hamsher a David Duke? Obviously you are a bit behind with Lieberman's civil rights efforts. Why do you think Jane dressed up Lieberman in blackface? Did you ever hear of satire? Are you black? No, you are a republican lieberman lover. If you think that black democrats were offended by Hamisher's photoshop job, think again. It was a cue, a hint and quite apropos, if you ask me. Odd that the White Supremacist crowd is the one calling foul here, isn't it? Weird, no? I know that it is hard for you to think clearly when your man is being called two-faced, but give it a go. Work that grey matter. See what you can come up with.

    jimcee...political correctness is not your forte...give it up.

    Oh....Jane, what have you done? Why, oh why did you bring all of this attention to Ned Lamont? ;-)

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimcee on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 06:29:59 PM EST
    Squeaky, Drunk? No, I'm in the middle of a large painting restoration project and I can't afford the shaky hands at the moment. Being an artist you can understand my meaning. Republican? No. As far as satire is concerned, if you think that dressing up a Jew in black face is humorous then you must have loved that cantor Al Jolson. The only thing more racist than a true minstrel show is a white fellow affecting the same thing to reflect the racism that existed in the performer's assumption of thier white audience's taste. I guess that might be satire? Or racism? So what makes a Jew in black face acceptable? As far as Lieberman's civil rights record it appears that he is very socially liberal and thus he has received high marks from those that give marks for liberal voting records in Congress. I wouldn't presume to speak for African-American Democrats so why do you? Are you Black? If you think that people like me are white supremacists then you are a fool and a poor representation of the tolerant folks out there. I just think you can't help but reach for the hyperbole when you've run out of argument. As far as the 'grey matter' goes it sees what it sees and that is someone who has been linked multible times here at TL on behalf of the Lamont campaign and has made a very serious mistake in her posting. Anyone that would defend this kind of immature nonsense is less than serious and it will damage thier effectivness in future campaigns. So would you defend me if I published Ms Hamsher's portrait with a photoshopped KKK lid on her head? After all the Ku Klux Klan hates Jews and African-Americans and would laugh at her 'satire'. Wouldn't they? And since you do you are nothing more than the same as they are. Ernie of the World, I've never been PC, ever.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#20)
    by Kitt on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 06:43:49 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but the poodles will HAVE to go, Jane.
    Did you read the entire post? She's an unpaid activist. She's a blogger who happens to be his biggest cheerleader. So what?
    Oh big deal. Yep, exactly - so what?

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 06:49:22 PM EST
    she did post an image of Lieberman in black face and by any standards that is way beyond the pale of good taste.
    Ahh, jimcee apparently forgets that not just wrongwing blogs but MSM wrongwing pundits, (see o'reilly, coulter, malkin et al constantly call for judges, reporters, all mulims and 'leftwingers' deaths ... but golly, that's just A OK with hypocrites.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimcee on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:32:25 PM EST
    TL: Deleted. Jimcee you've made your point and you won't be allowed to post insults to Jane here. No name-calling, remember?

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:33:53 PM EST
    So would you defend me if I published Ms Hamsher's portrait with a photoshopped KKK lid on her head?
    Knock yourself out, jimcee. It would be right up your alley, and, unlike the Lieberman parody, your kkk fantasy would only reveal something about you and not Hamser. I think you may be suffering from breathing too many paint fumes. And as I said before, it is rather weird that all the White Supremacists are running with this story big time. Probably because the are jealous of the double standard. Hamsher can get away with depicting Lieberman as a minstrel but they can't depict Jessie Jackson hanging by his neck on a tree. Must make 'em steaming mad. Guess the world is just unfair to all the racist bigots out there.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 07:35:44 PM EST
    jimcee, all those folks did call for death, and all of them appear regularly on TV. FDL is a blogger that very few had ever heard of before this ... and no, I don't equate a pic from a blogger with a call for my execution. Your side wants me dead, and they get a chance to say so on TV ... over and over. Pardon me if I don't get upset because you're offended. I'm threatened with death, told I'm a 'terrist sympathizer', told I hate America, told I should be tortured ... sorry, 'fraternity pranked' in gitmo, and I should apologise for a person I never met!? Dude, check your log before you try to see my mote.

    Although I have on occasion read stuff by Malkin, O'Reilly I can't recall anytime they have called for the death of thier political opponents.
    No, of course none of them have directly called for the deaths of their opponents. They're 'way too smart to do that. However, they're very good at implications. "Five robes. Five ropes. Five trees. Some assembly required." Also, note the continual accusations of "treason" -- a death penalty crime. Frankly, if I had said some of the things I've seen on "serious" right- wing discussions, reversed left- to- right, I'd confidently expect a visit from the Secret Service and/or the FBI.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimcee on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:29:05 PM EST
    TalkLeft, I apologize if I caused offense to anyone here. Yes TL I do remember and I'm sorry. Squeaky, My question was an honest one and it wasn't answered except with invective from all. Sailor, I only knew about FDL from my visits here because TL has been refering to her of late although I came across this particular story via Instapundit which is listed as a recommended weblog here at TalkLeft. I'm not sure who 'your side' is but I'm pretty sure they don't want you dead. I know I don't want you dead if that's any consolation. Nice straw man by the way. Lightning, You and Sailor have to get on the same page, you say they only implied death threats and he says they outright said it. So which is it? Neither of you have given any examples either way. And what is this log and mote that Sailor speaks of?

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:36:07 PM EST
    Racism dosnt exist anymore and is just a convenient excuse for one's personal shortcomings, unless the target is Alberto, Condi, and now "Scatman" Lieberman singing "gwine to run all night, gwine to run all day" for Mista George..Then we're full of faux indignation at the injustice of it all.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 11:03:12 PM EST
    Jane Hamshire had nothing to apologize for. Lieberman is frighteining to me in his RESPONSE to this, as if someone had simply slurred him independent of any obvious politically satirical legitimacy, as if Hamshire had just said he was a filthy kyke. His posturing is sickeing for anyone who wants to be considered an intellectually honest person. Or imaginatively and creatively able. I mean, gimme a break: The offensiveness of blackface is one thing to Lieberman, but a MUCH different thing to most black folk, a much more complex thing. In a similar, tho not precisely, manner that the word "n*gger" is. More so when it's used, as blackface obviously was here, to make a satirical comment about a politician hustling for their vote. Spike Lee made a pretty damn satirical (and political) film about the topic back in 2000, called BAMBOOZLED.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#29)
    by Aaron on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 11:12:37 PM EST
    Maybe I'm just slow, or maybe it's because I didn't see the original post over at firedoglake but I don't really understand the context. What exactly was that picture supposed to mean, maybe someone can explain it to me? What does Lieberman in black face with Bill Clinton signify? I know that Jane Hamsher's mother recently died, perhaps that's affecting her judgment. Whatever she was trying to say, I think it was ill-conceived and in very poor taste. Many bloggers should have an editor reviewing their pieces before they post them, kind of like LaShawn Barber has now. So they can avoid doing stupid things. It's worked out well for Queen LaShawn, I haven't seen her do anything stupid in a while.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#30)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 11:25:04 PM EST
    Aaron, In Hamsher's own words, as linked above by TL: ...But perhaps it's also time people started asking why the Republicans suddenly feel they have a dog in this fight in the first place. First David Horowitz, then the College Republicans and now the rightwing blogosphere are all championing a particular Democrat in a Democratic primary. Perhaps they have come to admire what seem to be ever increasing Rovian tactics, such as that flyer accusing Lamont of being a racist (which inspired the satirical graphic in the first place.) Her intent was clear. If people don't appreciate her satirical point or style, that's their right, but attempting to paint it as some generically racist slur is intellectually bereft and disturbingly reactionary.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#31)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 11:27:46 PM EST
    Shoulda paragraph'd after the italics. That last bit was my commetary, not part of the italicized quote from Hamsher. Which might seem obvious, but I just wanted to avoid any confusion. So sorry. Time for bed.

    What is wrong with you people? It was tasteless and crass, at the very least. Defending her and splitting hairs about how close to the campaign she is, is just laughable and nonsensical. Just what we don't need at this time. Stupid, amateur mistakes.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 07:14:02 AM EST
    et al - My hope is that Jane continues. I don't read her, but she certainly has managed to hurt Lamont. Will she do it again? Probably. Good deal for my side.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 07:55:04 AM EST
    London_Man-
    What is wrong with you people? It was tasteless and crass, at the very least.
    Crass? Seemed to me quite sophisitcated and right on. Maybe it was over your head. Maybe you are worried about offending someone else. Were you actually offended? Why was that? Guilty about something? You wanna talk about it, get it off your chest? Amateur mistakes? hahahah... How did it exactly hurt Lamont? Can you articulate that. Anyone you know switching to Lieberman because of it? As I mentioned up thread, the majority of people, besides you, who are spinning this are White Supremacists and White Supremacists lite. Why do you think that is?

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#35)
    by orionATL on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 08:10:36 AM EST
    talk left, about that graphic here we have 3 1/2 of american's finest patriots gathered together and this angry crackpot leftist blog mocks them by showing them in white-face. it's definitely time for another blogger ethics panel or at least a good scolding from michelle malkin.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#36)
    by Sailor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 08:36:04 AM EST
    This is just the standard wrongwing attempt to swiftboat Hamsher, especially considering the standard rhetoric of MSM rethugs. Michael Savage
    I don't know why we don't use a bunker-buster bomb when he comes to the U.N. and just take him out with everyone in there.
    Coulter
    U.S. Rep. John Murtha is the reason soldiers invented fragging, that it "would be fun to nuke" North Korea and that someone should poison Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens' creme brulee.
    Mike Reagan, son of ronnie
    "Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!" Reagan told his Radio America audience on Monday.
    horowitz
    I have long warned that the peace movement is not about peace, that it is a fifth column communist movement to destroy America and give victory to our totalitarian enemies.
    Misha of The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler on the Supreme Court: "Five ropes, five robes, five trees. Some assembly required." [7/11/06]
    BC of The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler on John Kerry: "Rope. Tree. Justice. The only three things that Qerry [sic] deserves for his 'service'." [10/28/04]
    Dean Esmay on New York Times reporters: "Exposing such a secret program is not whistle-blowing -- it is high treason. When I say 'treason' I don't mean it in an insulting or hyperbolic way. I mean in a literal way: we need to find these 21st century Julius Rosenbergs, these modern day reincarnations of Alger Hiss, put them on trial before a jury of their peers, with defense counsel. When they are found guilty, we should then hang them by the neck until the are dead, dead, dead." [12/18/05]
    Megan McCardle (who uses the pseudonym Jane Galt) on anti-war demonstrators in New York City: "I think some in New York are going to laugh even harder when they try to unleash some civil disobedience, Lenin style, and some New Yorker who understands the horrors of war all too well picks up a two-by-four and teaches them how very effective violence can be when it's applied in a firm, pre-emptive manner." [2/13/03]


    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#37)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 09:19:31 AM EST
    LondonMan, You seem to have no understanding of satire (it CAN be crass, it SHOULD be at times, and that's the friggin' POINT when it is -- ever seen Monty Python???) or of blackface as an American tradition and device. You're a reactionary here, and it's disturbing, since you are pretending (either purposefully or ignorantly or both) that Hamsher's intent and message were simply that of a person, as I said above, calling Lieberman a slur completely independent of his cynical political hustling to the African-American community. Consider, just for one second, that perhaps your reactionary response is way off the mark and the result of a lack of desire to think beyond the surface image. Just for a second.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#38)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 09:23:30 AM EST
    Add London, And the amateur mistakes are made by folks like you on this one, whose inability to think beyond the surface, beyond the reactionary, is simply childish. Go ask some black folk what they think of blackface being used to lampoon a white politician speaking out the both sides of his mouth while trying to get their vote. They'll laugh, they'll get it, since blackface speaks to THEM and THEIR history of discrimination, NOT yours.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 09:32:18 AM EST
    Add London, And the amateur mistakes are made by folks like you on this one, whose inability to think beyond the surface, beyond the reactionary, is simply childish. Go ask some black folk what they think of blackface being used to lampoon a white politician speaking out the both sides of his mouth while trying to get their vote. They'll laugh, they'll get it, since blackface speaks to THEM and THEIR history of discrimination, NOT yours. The comprehensive inabilility white people have to make any rhetorically and intellectually and experientially informed judgements about the satirical use of blackface is staggering. And yet you'd think the white community WAS the black community here. So many folks just don't get it, don't have the ability to, and don't have the desire to get past their own reactionary nonsense. The right bemoans PC and it's supposed restrictions on free speech, and here they are being utter hypocrites about it.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#40)
    by Kitt on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 10:01:04 AM EST
    If people don't appreciate her satirical point or style, that's their right, but attempting to paint it as some generically racist slur is intellectually bereft and disturbingly reactionary.
    Right on. I particularly like this phrase "intellectually bereft".

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 11:17:59 AM EST
    Lieberman hires ringers to shout down Lamont at a burger joint. It is bad enough to sic lieberkidz on Lamont while he is campaigning but to hire lobbyist in DC for the chemical and health supplies industry in order to shout at your opponent at small public campaign events, is not gonna win you any friends. Lieberman has to hire thugs to harass Lamont. What does that say about him? He is a republican. I fully expect him to lose the CT election and run with Jeb Bush in '08.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#42)
    by Aaron on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 12:18:14 PM EST
    Intellectually bereft, I guess that's me and many other Americans, don't worry I'm not offended. Disturbingly reactionary I can't help but see elements of this syndrome in the posting of that picture. I suppose I'm starting to get a handle on this now. Maybe the lesson here is that there are some images that you just can't appropriate, and if you choose to do so, you'd better expect those images to be misconstrued, either as a result of a lack of information, misperception or intentionally misinterpretation. Also perhaps there is some degree of insensitivity happening with Miss Hamsher, and while that insensitivity does not amount to Mel Gib-sion levels of rancor and race hatred, it is indicative of a similar problem. I find myself wondering, would Jane Hamsher have been so comfortable appropriating images that are perhaps more sensitive to Lieberman or herself. For example would she have placed a swastika on Lieberman's head, given him an iron boot, and had him kicking Jews into an oven? Or would she have portrayed Lieberman as a slave master holding a whip over cowering black folk? I doubt it, and I guess that's why you need to be careful with these type of things, especially when it comes to politics, and taking a political position. Politics after all is just as dangerous as war, and people will pounce on any perceived weakness or slip in an instant. I myself have gotten into trouble with "inflammatory" rhetoric in the blog sphere, as some may recall. But of course I'm not a part of any particular political movement at the moment, so the consequences are mostly limited to myself. That is not the case in this instance. That's why if you decide to join a political campaign, you'd better think long and hard about every emotionally charged reaction you're tempted to make. In politics, amateurs get eaten alive. But on top of that, the consequences of your reactionary response can swing an election on misperception or misrepresentation. So this is a warning to all of you out there, if you want to play in the big game, you'd better have your head straight, and be thinking clearly and dispassionately every moment, because this game is for all the marbles, and nobody's going to give you a break. Think before you act... or post... lest you damage the thing you support... I'm going off to ponder my own advice now. But probably the only lesson in reactionary-ism I'm going to take from this is how I can cause as much rhetorical trouble as I possibly can in the coming elections. As I watched the Republic being dismantled by fools, ideologues and their sycophants, I feel I've got no choice but to make all of you pay, and pay dearly for what you're doing with my country. When your children's children grow up, and the United States has spiraled into some Stygian pit of our own design, where we've become nothing more than a third rate power sucking the teat of other nations for sustenance, while they struggle annoyedly to throw off our yoke and leave us to wallow in our decadent political decay, y'all think of me now ya hear? I'm just glad Teddy (Theodore) Roosevelt is not alive to see these shameful times, he would most assuredly hurl, and immediately proceed to dish out some well-deserved ass kickings to the dominant political parties and corporate interest in this country. Partisan hacks be warned, I've decided to resurrect The Bull Moose Party Up the Republic, up the Moose! Down the Donkeys and Elephants!

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 12:35:21 PM EST
    Aaron-
    ....For example would she have placed a swastika on Lieberman's head, given him an iron boot, and had him kicking Jews into an oven? Or would she have portrayed Lieberman as a slave master holding a whip over cowering black folk?
    All of your examples are a far cry from painting Holy Joe as a minstrel. If you think that your examples are analogous to Hamsher's it is no wonder you get into trouble. BTW- Who are you defending here. Your black friends? Or you just projecting? I have seen no outrage by the black democrats Jane has supposedly offended. Why do you think that is?

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#44)
    by Lww on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 01:07:44 PM EST
    Sailor, great quotes. These people can't seem to get enough death and destruction. Michael Savage, the bogus Bronxboy, calls arabs "towelheads and cameljockeys." Aaron, you're a devoted Zionist who feels a little guilty these days? Maybe Joe needs a little of your shame.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 01:17:24 PM EST
    Aaron, Squeaky is right, your generalizations of racist images are simply not on logical point or accurate. None of them represents any pandering Lieberman has done and they WOULD be offensive and pointless and simply hurled prejudices invective. The minstrel image DOES represent a level of pandering, which is why it was perfectly satirical. What is Spike Lee doing in his film BAMBOOZLED, as I posted a link to above, if not skewering the same empty corporate power you (and I) loathe, and which Lieberman certainly represents in the Democratic party? You're parroting the shallow level of intellectual discourse that the right loves here. Tho I agree that you have to watch yourself when expecting too much savvy thinking by the mass market. Or any. And we're on the same side, largely, since I'm done with the two-halves-of-the-same-party garbage as well. But Teddy Roosevelt??? Nah, I prefer to look forward with imagination. The Art Party sounds good to me.

    I found an excellent, imo, page that explores Spike Lee's Bamboozled in ways that put this issue in perspective and should further open eyes. His vision of the public's perception was far too generous. The Controversy of Race in Spike Lee's Bamboozled As to the general subject, there is a mention of Andre Braugher's character on an old favorite Homicide: Life On the Street and how even that was an inherently negative portrayal of a black character. I mentioned that because Braugher's newer series Thief on basic cable FX is an odd portrayal of a positive image in a classic negative and stereotypical role for a black character. He rises above the standards and seems to live a genuinely sincere dedication to a higher morality even if it is in an illegal occupation.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#52)
    by Sailor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 05:37:43 PM EST
    Yours being specifically partisan, as you mention black Democrats, while my thoughts were tending more along the lines of Black people
    Dude, you kinda blew the gaff whan you didn't cap 'black dems' but capped 'Black people.' Give it up, you have no idea how 'Black' people feel anymore than you have an idea of how 'black' people feel. But it seems certain that you, like lieberman, would rather change the discourse from what lieberman stands for, and why folks won't vote for him, to an attack on a post made by someone not paid by Lamont. swiftboating won't work this time.

    Will she do it again? Probably. And you know this because? Good deal for my side. If 'your side' is the same one that's down 12 points, then I've a bridge for you to take a look at...... Face it, PPJ, this won't make a difference in the election, but dream on, you do so a lot here anyway........

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 06:22:32 PM EST
    Squeaky - Nonsense. Lieberman, according to Jane herself, is a terrible person for a variety of reasons. By the very act of depicting him in black face she is saying that those with the color black are a terrible people. Simpler. She is using skin color to say the person is bad. Anyway you cut it, that is racist.

    Uh oh, looks like Lamont lost the extreme rightwing PC crowd. The good news is that they aren't an actual voting bloc, though...only a bunch of talking head blowhards.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimcee on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 07:19:39 PM EST
    Aaron, Your last few posts said what needed to be said and I agree with you. Squeaky, There is a certain kind of prejudice that often exsists in people's souls. And those people know it when they see it. They just don't recognise it when it is in thier own soul. Some are so partisan that they can't see racism when it looks them in the eye if it comes from thier side of the aisle. Oh, and Aaron, BULLY!

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 08:14:27 PM EST
    Jimcee - Weren't you one of the ones that made a point not too long ago of telling us all that the Urban League and NAACP were now obsolete; more or less continuing to exist in order to offer excuses for those who have fallen behind in our meritocracy? Now one of your favorite members of the power elite is the apparent victim and the issue of the perrennial ugliness of racism in America is once more on the front burner. Interesting.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimcee on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 09:18:55 PM EST
    Jondee, Although I rarely reply to you it wasn't me who mentioned the Urban League or the NAACP. Perhaps in years past I thought that prehaps thier tax-exempt status should be under review after Julian Bonds' political partisan attacks or the reprehensible ads that were run against Bush, the "chain ad" if you remember. As far as having prejudice against the NAACP I have none when they do what they do as an honest non-profit organisation. I take acception when they abuse thier non-profit status by participating in rank political pandering that is disallowed under the aegis of non-profit, tax-exempt organisations. Other than that you must have confused me with some other poster unless of course you can supply links to my supposed comments and prove me wrong. Link up and look as even I can't recall everything I've said here over the last few years. Jondee you always demand links so link away to my past anti-NAACP or Urban League comments. I'll check back on the morrow.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#63)
    by roy on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 10:40:12 PM EST
    Jim, Not kidding. I simply don't believe that a rational adult who points his eyes towards the modern world, whether paying attention or not, could so completely miss the point. You don't seem crazy, and you don't seem to be a child.
    She is using race/color to define someone's character. There is but a short hop from there to every red neck that ever lived.
    As a redneck, I take offense. And I'm done helping to deflect discussion from how Hamsher's behavior reflects on Lamont, and Liberman's response. Sorry, all, but sometimes I just have to peel back the guise of credibility.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 10:51:32 PM EST
    Roy - It's willful ignorance in an appeal to the ignorant. One of Jim's fortes and an FNC staple.

    Jim, I've been offline all day, but we don't call people racists on TalkLeft, it's not allowed. And I've previously said that any name-calling of Jane will be deleted. So if you see some of your comments gone, that's why.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 11:00:09 PM EST
    deleted

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 11:01:04 PM EST
    jimcee - Just for starters. March 30, 06 "Focusing on the Family" thread jimcee: "The Urban League is just struggling for relevance (emphasis mine)in the 21st century with this so-called study.." "I believe economics is colorblind.." (but the people who create economics and who criticize Joe apparently aren't) Im sure I could come up with more, but you get the idea.

    Re: Lieberman Demands Lamont Sever Ties With Jane (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 07:14:27 AM EST
    Is there a euphemistic term for people who are only concerned about "racism" when a member of the elite that they support is under attack?