WH Thinks Demonstrators “Internet Left Fringe” Who Need to “Take Off The Pajamas”

Which advisor said that?

I guess this is supposed to be the latest outrage for those willing to be used by the corporate media.

Wow, you're linking a BS rumor to Obama?

FAIL!


Edited because the article linked to in the OP actually cites it as a bullshit rumor.

The only change was to shorten "White House" to "WH" in the title.

Really?

People are going to get all outraged based on this shit?

Really?

Barack Obama has some assholes working for him. Just like every other major employer in the country.

a RW tool. I wouldn't believe ANY of his anonymous sources...

It was probably Dick Armey.

Nobel Prize committee "lunatics" for giving it to Obama on Friday. He kept spouting on about it while Nora O'Donnell smirked.

HE IS A TOOL, that is for sure.

handle the fact that Obama was awarded the prize, calling it a shame for previous winners and for the Nobel panel.

and that was his own comment, not the quoting of a source. Kinda makes me doubt the claim that he's a "RW tool."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/4/776928/-John-Harwood-nails-it-on-MSNBC-:They-are-just-stupid

poutraging but a lot of posters are on to this kind of divisive shit from the corporatemedia.

But, if it makes people rage at PO on DU..what the hay?:silly:

But I'm counting down until the usual crew storms into this thread and has verbal diarrhea all over it.

At one point in time, it wasn't something to be ever mentioned, only something to be eventually discovered.

It took me many months to realize how many folks I knew understood the shibboleths of "/b/".


edit: spelling

aimed at today's protest as a whole. Still offensive, but whatever. Advisors have made comments like this before. I don't agree with it, but I think all of this interpretation is just shit stirring.

"Bloggers" not "Demonstrators" as you claim. Why the hell would demonstrators be in pajamas anyway?

At any rate, Harwood references a single anonymous who supposedly declared a "virtual" truism anyway.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Harwood was spinning so fast I think he got dizzy...
How does hundreds of thousands of people coming to Washington DC for a gay rights march equate to an "internet fringe" or "bloggers in their pajamas".

Corporate shill "journalists" like to attack bloggers as not real journalists. But many bloggers are real journalists, and most of the real news gets reported there, not by corporate media propagandists like Harwood.

"Sure but If you look at the polling, Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats", with 90% of the Democrats who were polled.

Me, I want to see a poll where they actually ask 90% of the registered Democrats this question, not 90% of 1000.

Maybe you, and the person who started an OP on the same subject, only with a different title, should get together and possibly, the two of you could come up with one single title.

I mean, it would still be bullshit but hey, at least people wouldn't have to wade through the shit before realizing they're reading the same garbage.

"I think it's insanity on the Nobel Prize's part." Then he said it's a disservice to past winners as well to Obama himself since he now has expectations to live up to. He also said the Repub. criticism is understandable.

stir up the crowd. Ridiculous :eyes:

"...UPDATE: You wouldn't believe some of the excuses flying around on FB and Twitter saying "oh, you shouldn't pay attention to anon sources" or "the WH wouldn't say that" or that this statement somehow is NBC reporter John Harwood making the sh*t up, or that "he didn't say LGBT bloggers" (ok, that one is just lame -- I said in the headline "part of pajama-clad 'Internet fringe'" - AND the reporter's filing a report about NEM, for god's sake, lolol).

Well, sitting in this chair, SOMEONE needs to take responsibility for the statement because it is someone's POV, one believed to be widely held by insiders about progressive bloggers, but never articulated so boldly.

The remarks are an insult to people like me (and readers), who know how complicated governing and legislating are, and many of us do this from a perspective of 1) being in a state where waiting DOES matter and, in my case 2) I blog and work a full time job, at the expense of my own health, not to be a muckraker, but to make a difference. If someone has a different perspective and dismisses me outright, I do have a right to be angry and demand someone own their statement. When I say something it's straight up, you mean to tell me no one has the stones to own their opinions up there? That's pathetic. Anonymous or not, the statement's out there now for all to see.

The bottom line is that it's one of three things -- 1) Harwood is lying or 2) The White House is playing two-faced; or 3) they've got a lunatic loose high level advisor who is off message.

The WH needs to clear it up pronto.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/13468/

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This information was presented on a major news organizations cable program. It was then picked up by prominent bloggers on the left. I have shared this information with the community here as is standard DU behavior. If you don't believe Harwood, or have a beef with the bloggers in question, that is understandable, but your anger seems to me to be misdirected.

If an aide actually said this he/she should be held to account, if untrue Harwood has some explaining to do.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Who do you think altered it?

Do you dispute that some bloggers were demonstrators?

?

It would shake certain DUers paradigms if the WH was talking like this. I think we should take it at face value for all the reasons you stated in your above post. Not shoot the messenger.

:rofl:

usually think he's even-handed, but he is doing the m$m's corporate bidding with that quote and his surmising in the OP.

If someone said what he claims, he should come out and say who. Why is that standard no longer applicable? For anyone?

:banghead:

Really quoting the White House as having an opinion, if anybody really asked the White House I am sure that it would be generally uncommitted except for possible opinions it has about Bo peeing on the floor.

Its surprising really that we waste our time with an anonymous source that is completely unqualified.

Normally they will atleast give it a little try like saying a "senior White House advisor".

Some people will grasp at any straw to stir the shit pot - oh look that's the money that you could have saved if you didn't waste your time with idiotic sources and called GEICO.

Nice. I know that guy.

I just love how these threads get ramped up on ignorance. "Internet left fringe" is Harwoods' characterization and it's being attributed to the WH.

That's a reading comprehension problem there.

As for what he actually attributed to the WH source, I'm on board with that. I think there are some people out there who have a very oversimplified view of what it ought to take an administration to solve certain problems.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Jesus.

Isn't this already debunked in LBN?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4099462

edit: add forum

Is an essential skill. I suggest you brush up on those skills. I find the title to be insulting because you seem to think that most of us are too stupid to read. I'm sorry but your lack of reasoning, critical thinking, and basic comprehension is not contagious. Unrec for misleading title and tomfoolery.

"..too stupid to read." may actually apply in your case.

The subject title is from the blog post.

:banghead:

willing to spill their guts when Bush was in office?

At disrupting.

Unrec'd.

:hi: :beer:

but, others may..

babylonsister (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-12-09 12:01 PM

Original message
White House Disavows Report That It Disdains Gay Critics, Bloggers As “Internet Left Fringe”
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/white... /


'White House Disavows Report That It Disdains Gay Critics, Bloggers As “Internet Left Fringe”


The White House is strongly denying a report making the rounds that it views gay critics and bloggers as part of an “Internet left fringe,” with a senior adviser asserting to me that this sentiment “does not reflect White House thinking at all.”

Yesterday, CNBC correspondent John Harwood set off a min-firestorm on the left after he claimed that the White House views gay and blogospheric criticism of the administration’s foot-dragging on gay rights issues as part of the “Internet left fringe.” Harwood claimed that an anonymous adviser said that “those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.”

Asked for comment, White House senior communications adviser Dan Pfeiffer emailed:


“That sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all, we’ve held easily a dozen calls with the progressive online community because we believe the online communities can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people rather than just the political back-and-forth.”


Whatever you think of the White House’s record on gay rights issues or the respect it does or doesn’t have for the blogosphere, paraphrased second-hand claims from a single anonymous adviser don’t really seem like grounds for sweeping conclusions about the White House’s alleged disdain for the online community.

You can debate whether the White House has been solicitious enough towards the issues that matter to the online world. But it seems clear by White House actions — the hiring of Internet outreach staff, the frequent blogger conference calls, the elevation of Huffington Post at press conferences — that the White House sees the blogosphere as playing a valuable role of sorts.

********************************************

"Update: I should add that it’s entirely legit to be concerned about the administration’s gay rights record and the disregard some White House advisers (albeit anonymous ones) hold for the “left.” My point is that this quote, given the sourcing and second-hand nature of it, doesn’t seem like enough to get upset about."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8697898