CDS: For Some There Is No Cure

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 07:53:32 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Naturally, HuffPo, but my good friend Al Giordano just can not give up on his dreams that Hillary at State is just a big confabulation of the Clinton Court:

Well, not to, ahem, torture any of you with the same message I've been pushing all week, but it does bear repeating: Nothing's a "done deal" until you hear it from the big man himself or his spokesmen speaking on the record.

He's still dreaming. Meanwhile, the NYTimes matter of factly reports:

Mr. Obama’s aides say Mr. Biden has backed the decision to appoint Mrs. Clinton secretary of state. “If he had made an argument against it, it would have carried a lot of weight,” a senior aide to the transition said. “He was totally in support of it.”

At some point, wishful thinking has to give in to reality. Or not.

Speaking for me only

< Report: Gates To Stay At Defense | Lord Conrad Black Phones Home From FPC >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

CDS: For Some There Is No Cure | 71 comments (71 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Digby explains the rules of the Village (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by mogal on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:22:20 PM EST

Read her post Village rules, it explains alot about CDS.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/socialDC200712?printable=true&currentPage=al l

Ya think? (5.00 / 8) (#3)
by oldpro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:23:23 PM EST

Huh.

Clinging, clinging to antipathy.

Always good for a column/post on a slow news day. When you just make it up as you go along, there is reams of material to work with! The only limits are taste and imagination...so I don't imagine CDS will end any time soon.

Kind of pathetic, though.

I do not think (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by lilburro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:29:20 PM EST

this takes Brennan's involvement in our moral slide seriously enough:

Brennan and others probably think it is terribly unfair for him to have been associated with policies he did not, in his words, create. And I'll stipulate that, yes, it's not one hundred percent fair, but appointments should never be a referendum on fairness or sympathy for the potential appointee.

That perspective on our torture regime needs to be stamped out. Maybe it was just the few defenses of Brennan I read today that argued what he argued in his letter...maybe they are making me severe. Trying to figure out exactly who created it - Bush, will no doubt be Tenet's answer - everyone who was there played a part. And my position is that if Brennan were appointed, getting a different answer than that would've been almost impossible...

BUT, I had not read this before -

The sources say that Brennan has begun to recruit a team he hopes to bring with him to the agency, and that he has been vetted. Brennan did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

That was a close one.

Unfortunately for Giordano it's likely some members of the Obama team are going to look at attacks on Clinton with a jaundiced eye.

Gawd knows what Al (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:33:12 PM EST

is thinking these days.


A deeper explanation for CDS? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by lilburro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 09:58:35 PM EST

"Not causing a media circus" is now the first requirement for anyone in public life. (It's why people like me would be bad choices even for positions that we're most qualified to do. I accept that. Brennan clearly does too.)

Al from the comments...

Not like Barack currently causes a media circus or anything.

Of all the reasons to oppose Brennan - who according to Al "through no fault of his own Brennan at CIA would cause a media circus of diversion and distrust" - that is the weakest tea. Plus Brennan never created a media circus - precious little non-editorial media coverage questioned his associations experience or business ties.

It seems like Brennan is a symbol for Giordano more than anything else. 6 hours ago Brennan was a lot scarier than that.


: Causing.... (5.00 / 8) (#45)
by rghojai on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 03:07:27 AM EST

What struck me about the circus-causing concept, as articulated well in quantity and quality with specific examples at dailyhowler... is that the media too often rents the land, raises the tent, brings in the clowns and animals, and criticizes the circus--playing innocent bystanders/reporters... on something at least largely of their own making with little or no substance.

meh (none / 0) (#16)
by lilburro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:58:38 PM EST

he didn't post about it (to my knowledge) until now when he can use it to make his point about Hillary.

I personally don't understand this interpretation:

Part of the message is probably directed at bloggers and activists that had raised a fuss over a possible Brennan appointment, simultaneously as both placation and pushback. (It may even be intended to create some backlash and sympathy to pave the way for Brennan's later entrance into the administration.)

Seperately the "Brennan was a trojan horse for Gates!" argument doesn't make sense either. He doesn't make it but I've read others worry.


The Elizabeth Drew article (5.00 / 8) (#8)
by lilburro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:40:05 PM EST

HuffPo links to is insufferable. It's like she's reviewing a book she likes:

People who fret that Emanuel, having served in the Clinton White House and on Capitol Hill, doesn't represent "change" needn't worry. Emanuel is very close to Obama, was an adviser during the campaign, understands what he wants to do--and knows that his role is to serve the President.

Obama's meetings with Hillary Clinton and John McCain about playing important roles in his presidency indicated his imagination and his shrewdness,

The wise candidate, the one who sees long, will run the campaign as a preparation for the presidency.

One could argue that's what Hillary was initially criticized for.

Plus

Clinton, in particular, had kept her constituency intact (through HillPAC) and was planning her own Senate agenda, including her own health care program, no matter what Obama proposed.

What is the frickin point of being a Senator if you don't have your own plans? Baucus, come before us, you dared to plan without permission!!!!!!

Also she's outdated as Hillary was offered a health care task force by Ted Kennedy...but nevermind, nevermind...

Huffington is a creepy figure. (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by Salo on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:56:31 PM EST

It's a bit too much to bear these historically conservative figures telling the left how to act.

I recall the docudrama aout Blair and Brown--The Deal.
Brown muttered something about Blair being a closet conservative with a doubtful socialist provenance...

"John [Smith], I didn't work in this party since I was 12 to have a Tory take over the Labour party!"

"Where the hell was Blair in the seventies? Really where was he?"

"All apologetic Tory that guff about 'tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime'!" (TLers should appreciate that sentiment.)

Huffington is like that IMHO.


Cracks me up how the young (5.00 / 6) (#33)
by Jjc2008 on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:49:31 PM EST

"progressives" love the Arianna and Sullivan types.
These are sanctimonious hypocrites who LOVED them some Reagan (remember that Union busting, despot supporting, racist code word using hero of the right) and they are aghast and accuse Hillary of being a war monger

What a joke those people are.
I challenged Arianna, bringing up her "connections to the Clinton bashing Newt" and, no surprise, my comment is NOT approved there.


Huffington was a founder of CDS (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by koshembos on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 02:20:47 AM EST

: A carrier, more likely... (5.00 / 3) (#52)
by oldpro on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 09:28:13 AM EST

Stay tuned for (none / 0) (#55)
by oculus on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 10:20:23 AM EST

Ms. Huffington's all-encompassing guide to blogging!


That front-page story is insufferable! (5.00 / 6) (#20)
by Radiowalla on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 09:43:24 PM EST

It is clear that CDS is a chronic, relapsing disease that infects the minds of certain Villagers like Arianna. Since there seems to be no cure, the only effective response is strict isolation CDS sufferers.


: But... but... but! (none / 0) (#50)
by Plutonium Page on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 09:17:13 AM EST

She said "obliterate"!!!

: I can't get on board (none / 0) (#68)
by ps911fan on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 06:40:27 PM EST

I strongly call BS on the efforts to define anyone who fails to fall into a Clinton lovefest as suffering from CDS.
My biggest problem with Bill Clinton is simple and clear. When he decided to have his personal dalliance (which was his business and not the worlds), he should have had the foresight to avoid such a problem. Anyone who was under a withering attack from the RW should have known that it could and would be used against him.
This lead to two WASTED years of his presidency where he was wounded and drained intellectual, political, and leadership capital. After his 96 victory over Newt's bungle to shut down the government and subsequent re-election, Clinton had enough wind behind him to push more of his agenda forward.
Instead, he let his baser needs cloud him and he became vulnerable and that was used against him in the most wrong way ever.....but it does not excuse him from having wasted two VALUABLE years.
During this time, he also did not look out for the party by looking to strengthen the DNC, to work with others to build infrastructure. When Clinton left office, the party was in disarray because so much energy had been expended on the table post impeachment.
It was one of the most foolish actions a brilliant man can take in a time of critical need.
Imagine what he could have done had he not been so damn foolish to squander a hard fought term in office.
I have little issue with Hillary except that she proved twice to be a lousy manager (her campaign and the healthcare 93 effort) but she has developed into an effective voice for issues.
Obama's early victories seemed to have pushed out a statesperson that was not there before or was there but had not blossomed. Her push at the end demonstrated that she could function without Bill's coattails and her "fighter" persona fits her much better.
A non-jaundiced eye can find flaws easily in the Clinton legacy but one has to accept that some of their problem are self created and they are not vicitims. However, they are strong Democrats who deserve many compliments and some brickbats as well.
That does not make it CDS as many here seem to buy into without real dissent.
I hope she will do all she can as SoS to help make this planet safer and

Drew is an idiot (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by Cream City on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:13:49 PM EST

and I never have understood why she is thought of well. Voicing the thoughts of a puppy dog taxed her abilities.


If you're going to hurl insults at your betters, (3.66 / 3) (#49)
by Don in Seattle on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 08:32:49 AM EST

as apparently you are, you might at least put forth the effort to make your insults witty.

Elizabeth Drew is 73 years old, a graduate of Wellesley, and a pioneer woman in the field of American political journalism.

Of course you have the Goddess-given right to disagree with anyone you please, but it can be done respectfully. "She disagrees with me -- she's an idiot" doesn't add anything worthwhile to the debate. It is unworthy of you.

Hey, you think it's so easy? You try voicing the thoughts of a puppy dog. Good luck!


I happen to have been (5.00 / 0) (#64)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 04:45:49 PM EST

a journalist, to have read her works, to have met her and followed her journalistic works. That stuff is not better than a lot of our works. For example, I also have written books. How 'bout you, dearie?

And the pioneering women in journalism, dearie, were in the 19th century. Many were publishers and editors, not just journalists.

So stuff it -- you don't know your stuff at all.

And since when do we not criticize journalists here? Jeez, this blog now officially is over the edge to idiocy. Or just to idiots.


Nice try, CC. You captured nicely the puppy's (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Don in Seattle on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 09:55:57 AM EST

spirit of entitlement ("It doesn't matter if I make a mess here. I'm special -- I met Elizabeth Drew! -- so people will excuse me.") But you overlooked one rather obvious point relating to puppy psychology. As a rule, puppies don't boast about how many books they have written. In fact, very few puppies write books at all.

Seriously, CC. "I happen to have been a journalist," you write, as if that put you beyond the criticism of us mere mortals. But then you contradict yourself: "And since when do we not criticize journalists here?"

You go on: "That stuff is not better than a lot of our works." "Our" works?? I'm pretty sure we never co-authored anything. Is that the royal we?

You may be a former journalist and historian. You may be the perfect Renaissance woman -- you may be the reconstituted remains of Ida M. Tarbell herself, for all I know. (On second thought, that last conjecture seems unlikely; Tarbell was in the habit of citing her sources.)

None of that matters. My comment was about your manners, not your erudition. And the fact remains:

You wrote a post that had very little substance except to call Elizabeth Drew "an idiot." That's not criticism -- criticism we can all encourage -- it's just name-calling.

It's past time you learn the difference.


Although... (none / 0) (#67)
by Dr Molly on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 12:44:18 PM EST

policing blogs to lecture commenters on their bad manners is another form of bad manners, IMO.

And some of the sentences in your post above belie the fact that you're going after CC personally, not her manners --- which is definitely bad manners.

As long as we are on the topic of manners!


And here I thought I was hiding it so well... (none / 0) (#70)
by Don in Seattle on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 08:24:54 PM EST

I mean, I didn't call her any names. I didn't in so many words tell her she was the idiot, or that she should stuff it... I didn't even call her 'dearie', or bless her heart.

You're right. I'm afraid I just don't like arrogant bullies. My bad.

Oops -- did I just break the rules, and call her a name?

Oh, good. Not in so many words.


It's no better because you think you're subtle (none / 0) (#71)
by Dr Molly on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 08:34:21 PM EST

Emphasis on 'think'.

So many arrogant bullies, so many ways for them to manifest.


: Touche. (none / 0) (#72)
by Don in Seattle on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 07:31:48 AM EST

Wow (none / 0) (#66)
by squeaky on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 12:03:55 PM EST

Must be late stage ODS. Drew notes here why McCain lost her respect. Seems right on to me.

When Bush, issued a "signing statement" in 2006 on McCain's hard-fought legislation placing prohibitions on torture, saying he would interpret the measure as he chose, McCain barely uttered a peep. And then, in 2006, in one of his most disheartening acts, McCain supported a "compromise" with the administration on trials of Guantanamo detainees, yielding too much of what the administration wanted, and accepted provisions he had originally opposed on principle. Among other things, the bill sharply limited the rights of detainees in military trials, stripped habeas corpus rights from a broad swath of people "suspected" of cooperating with terrorists, and loosened restrictions on the administration's use of torture. (The Supreme Court later ruled portions of this measure unconstitutional.)

I'm beginning to fear (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by WS on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:41:09 PM EST

for Al Giordano's health. The Clinton as SoS pick is really eating at his soul.

Gosh, it must hurt him every time he sees or hears Hillary as SoS. He should learn to accept it and move on because these types of comments just reek of denial.