Why are liberals so defensive about Joe's server issue?

It always amazes me how quickly we run out to proclaim our innocence about something like this. I realize that we are not the party that does this, but why go to such great effort to try and prove "we didn't do it". Hell, if its up to me I stay quiet, I might even :evilgrin: .

The truth is everlasting. It doesn't change. We're not going to be indicted for something we didn't do. We need to stop being so defensive and SCREW 'EM if it makes them think that we can play dirty.

How about, "i'm a uniter, not a divider"
or
"Here's to the haves and the have mores"
or
"we don't want the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud"

Rove and his crew lie, cheat, steal, destroy and then rewrite history. For them to engineer a Lieberman web failure for political gain is not just understandable, but predictable.
of course we are defensive, especially when you realize who is running the opposition and understand their modus operandi

What's the great effort you're talking about, anyway? It's my understanding that it's in FBI's hands.

You could almost smell this Rovian trick coming down the pike...and all the echo chamber features were there (Democrats take note!).

It was interesting...the server goes "down" during the night...so that first thing on election morning the story is about the "hacked" website rather than the strong possibility Joe was going down or that he'd jump ship like a spoiled child. This was a distraction in the classic Rovian sense as by morning it was "Liebermann's site get hacked" as the banner headline everywhere...only the NYT seemed to do some actual fact checking here.

Kos, Duncan and the others have been through this drill before. They've been under constant attack by both the RNC and DLC...which always includes a distortion of something they wrote or posted and they've become a story rather than the election or issue at hand. Liebermann's people were trying hard to do that to Jane Hamsher and Chris Bowers during this primary...hoping to find a face to tatoo as the evil, "radical" blagofascist. It didn't work...but don't expect that we won't see Rove pull this trick out of his book again...demonizing may not work with Democrats, but it sure does with angry wingnuts.

Just the fact the word "internet" is the headline, two images immediately come to mind...blogs and hackers. Sine it had been portrayed in the corporate media that Lamont was getting a lion's share of his support from "the internet" (ya know, that thing that's made of tubes) like it was some nebulus conspiracy...and obviously, if Liebermann's website had gone down, it had to be the work of those radical "librul" bloggers since they live in computers and thus also must be hackers. :crazy:

Last night, Tweety called Sean Smith, Liebermann's scummy campaign manager, a "bright star" and was giving him a shoulder to cry on. Not only didn't they show Tom Swan...Lamont's truly brilliant campaign manager, but there wasn't an interview with the winning candidate...not even any excerpts of his victory speech (since he didn't bite Liebermann's head off).

Cheers...

I am thinking about hitting Recommend just so some other folks can read your rap...

That's definitely what I was thinking...servers go down ALL the time, especially lately.

But you nailed it when you point out that there has been a strong Media 'meme' where internet activism when done by progressives is viewed as sinister attempt to undermine democracy, whereas the MSM doesn't seem to see much of a threat by the other side's much larger 'echo chamber', rightwing think tanks, astro-turfing or the occasional bravado of rightwing 'blogs' when they brag about the influence and money they raise.

Great points!!

Those right wing hate mongers live and make money for the same corporate parents that run the cable networks. They are "conventional media"...radio, TV and print...mediums that require vast amounts of money to own and operate and thus limits who gets to speak into the "golden megaphone".

We are the anthithesis of this control. For whatever we pay for web access (and a few sheckles to the fine folks at DU) we can reach a worldwide audience with our thoughts and words...albiet smaller...but the little chunk we take away from the corporate media is a hit in their pocketbook...and that's where the buck ultimate stops.

Thank you for your recommendation. I just sit here and observe most the time, but I've seen this media game played so many times, it's blatant when it occurs. Hopefully others are picking up on this as well.

Cheers....

:hi:

Right said...

The 'rightwing' blogs and 'experts' are simply content feeders to MSM -- The MSM takes the 'impartial' neoliberalist POV and then debate with these extremists.

Not just this site -- there are many little 'pebbles' making waves and engaging in critical analysis --for many there is the process of disentanglisng what they 'believe' from what they are told to 'believe' -- that's the contradiction in a corportist society. We consume ideas, we are not allow to produce them.

The MSM is losing credibility on all sides -- I notice even their hamfisted attacks on such 'people' concepts like Craiglists is part of the same pathetic pattern -- 'average' people can't be trusted.

Despite the tax breaks and "deregulation", broadcasting is facing a major threat from "non-conventional" media. For decades, the large corporates controlled the flow of information through a finite number of papers, radio and television stations. Just like how Napster broke that control by the recording industry, the same is now happening to corporate media. They've already alienated the younger generation (as they think they're too "impulsive" and stupid to care about news) and they've circled the wagons to portray the internet as some evil conspiracy. It's like the movie theaters in the 50s trying to scare people away from watching or buying TVs. As the tide continues to flow against them, they fight back by catering to the smaller audience they have and dismissing those who are outside their walls.

Radio is even worse. Young people have tuned to their IPODs and radio has lost that generation entirely. Companies like Clear Channel now own hundreds of radio properties that have been downsized and automated into irrelevence. One of the few shining lights for these companies is hate radio. Its what draws advertisers and a major reason why we see so many right wing asshats on these talk shows and why they can say the bullshit they do with little accountability. As long as they bring in whatever coin they can to the corporate masters, they're an asset, not a liability.

Losing credibility means little to corporate media...only money. They feel they are above reproach in the credibility area; using the old chestnut that since they piss off both sides, they must be "fair and balanced". Of course there's no proportionality to how this is done, it still fits the meme the corporate media plays with to attempt to fool some of the people most of the time.

The netroots took a major step last night. After several close calls, they now can claim a victory of substance and significance. Today, we're watching a corporate media attempting to ignore the obvious in hopes to prolong their control just one more day.

Cheers...

Where have you been?

Even now the "blogosphere" is being accused of destroying the Democrats chances in November by assisting in Lamont's win..

If every mal-informed American turns off their TV from now til the election maybe we won't be indicted for something we didn't do....

Frank Zeidler, who was mayor of Milwaukee from 1948-60 and who recently died at age 93 said that if you don't correct a lie within 3 days that people believe it. Not responding to a lie may appear to be noble, but it is probably a mistake in this day and age.

Is that what you're trying to say burythehatchet?

Must we always fight with our hands tied behind our backs?