So I know it’s fruitless, and maybe a little pathetic, to even take notice of the endless, wild-eyed allegations of media bias from candidates supporters’ in comments and email. For much of the 1990s, and even last cycle, allegations like these came mostly from conservatives; now they come mostly from Obama supporters, though Clinton backers’ get their bites too. (My favorite recent thread focused on whether I have a “gay lisp.” There was also one today arguing that I should “rot in jail.”)

This (far politer) Kos diary called attacking Greg Sargent (“the new Matt Drudge,” to the diarist) of the left-leaning TPM is particularly ripe, though, for the shape of its argument.

Greg, who has a sideline of his own in liberal media criticism, and in criticizing Drudge, is being attacked for reporting (as I did) that Obama said he went to Pakistan as a student. It was a piece of new information about a likely president of the United States, delivered by the candidate himself.

You should read the whole diary, but here’s a great bit insisting that we report both facts and spin, as offered:

[S]ome have claimed that Greg is merely reporting the truth. I beg to differ. The general idea being conveyed by Obama is those statements was not that he went to Pakistan. His statements were aimed at allying concern that he is inexperienced in the foreign policy arena.

Anyway, I don’t mean to suggest that anything but a vocal minority of Obama supporters act this way, or that it should reflect much on the candidate, though it inevitably will to some; those attacks (like the recent Clinton-backer emails to Donna Brazile) do have a way of alienating the middle.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?videoId=1fd1c0cf-5c80-4d75-996f-bd53b2461ae0&sMPlaylistID

I’ve found that if I type “jackandjillpolitics.com” without the “www.”, I get that bogus page.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BvNVtxFw8t4

Hillary Rodham Nixon is a dominionist, through and through.

It’s all about empire in the name of Jesus.

She’s not interested in leading. She’s interested in ruling.

Leaders have followers. Rulers have subjects.

I couldn’t have said it better.

That last part is not quite right

It is more accurate to say “not from ‘reality-creation’ down”

Because the “reality-creation” actually works in that it affects people’s lives and the world in very real ways. It’s not just fantasy, it is the real dynamic and operation of this empire.

There’s a New York Times magazine article from Oct 17, 2004, about GW Bush, that this pattern and discussion reminds me of. It’s from a 2004 article by Ron Susskind in New York Times Magazine that I recently saw mentioned in a book.

Here’s the quote:

The [Bush] aide said that guys like me [author Susskind] were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Source here

I see Hillary acting squarely in that same space of empire-fueled reality-creation. She wants to be one of these “history’s actors” in creating reality as empire.

In that discussion over at The Field, the superdelegate Deb wrote in the comments about party loyalty. I’ve been thinking really hard about this. I didn’t understand something key previous to reflecting on this.

It’s not insane (by their logic) that the Democrats are allowing Hillary to do what she is doing. It is something about her representing a certain kind of acceptable power that is totally logical in this society, and that Senator Obama is challenging in a real way.

In this logic, Party leaders would test our loyalty by saying that we should vote for Clinton out of Party loyalty and if we won’t, then Obama’s organization is somehow suspect. But the way I see it, the actions of the Democratic Party demonstrate something about what the party is, which in turn offers information about whether or not I would vote for its candidate.

It is true that in this empire, being one of the actors in creating a false reality is a concrete goal for those who find such a goal appealing. I don’t have to guess where Clinton stands on this issue — as discussed already, it is clear from her actions that this is what she wants and this is what feels like “home” to her.

Sen. Obama, now — I recently read Dreams From My Father and it got me thinking … from that book and his actions in the campaign that I have observed, what I see in him is someone who enacts and displays deep understanding that reality comes from the ground up (including experience — his own and others), not from fantasy down.

I don’t really understand how people could say there’s no real difference between these two candidates. To me the difference is so huge and so striking — so visible in an in-your-face kind of way.

Spike Lee Says the Right Thing

I think I chose two good photos to make a larger point.

Go Spike….LOL

truthseeker,

You speak the truth.

One of the huge differences between her and Obama is that Obama would rid us of The Imperial Presidency.

Hillpatine sees nothing wrong with The Imperial Presidency, as long as SHE’s the one who is President.

Huge difference between the two.

If Hillary was POTUS, by the time she got through with America, none of you would know anymore what the truth is. She would wear you down with the lying, emotionally exhaust the country. People naturally think Bush Jr. is rock bottom…but they have no idea it could get much worse, that there could be someone more sinister, calculating and destructive.

Maybe, just maybe, it might reveal her nature to those who support her though.

How in the world could you support a willful liar? How could you trust her as POTUS?

The behavior I seen her exhibit throughout this election cycle reminds me of the manner in which Bush has acted throughout his presidency. He lies, then he ignores the lie, then he says so what I lied.

I just think a Hillary presidency would be another Bush presidency.

I think Tapper must have gotten so much grief over his “super sense of smell” story, that he felt that he had to redeem himself.