Al Giordano Says He Won't Link Here or Read My Posts

Huffington Post Page | My Books | Bonhoeffer's Ghost | The Way of Abba

Chris Matthews and his acolytes do not think Obama can control Clinton as SoS. This is a simple smear. And a failure to comprehend Obama. All the people who don't get it have little capacity to discern.

I had forgotten how sane the Daily Howler is and I've added it to my list of regularly-consulted sources. SOURCE

Apropos of the Howler piece noted above, this from MediaMatters is a reminder that the press is no friend to issue-oriented Democrats. It does not explain why but the inference must be its ownership and the salaries it pays out to its talking heads. Sort of like Murdoch and Roger Ailes. SOURCE

Reconstructing -- HC goes to Chicago, clearly invited. SoS is discussed. B is clearly open to this. HC and he discuss the vetting. Vet on! says B. That is why HC smiled when asked. Media swarm. Idiot commentary. Ink spilled. Paper wasted. Meanwhile B takes care of business. Upshot -- vetting OK she accepts. End of story. Or -- vetting done, she does not accept. End of story. Difference. NONE save in the minds of the agitated.

Chicago -- a cautionary tale. SOURCE

The Fix provides a completely reasonable explanation for all the leaking. Growing pains and a lot of vetting going on. No big deal. SOURCE

Tapping in to the anger of women regarding Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin SOURCE

Detroit Bailout on Ice ... for now. SOURCE

Al Giordano Says He Won't Link Here or Read My Posts

Graciousness is not among the expected features of blogging. And words of scorn and rejection do hurt. With that in mind, I offer the following exchange from yesterday with a link to the post I was discussing. A prelude to shaking dust from my feet.

The Importance of Having Eric Holder's Back

My initial response:

Transposition:

Al writes above

I am utterly unconcerned about Holder's past positions as US Attorney or elsewhere regarding mandatory sentencing, marijuana policy and the rest. In fact, I think his past missteps on these matters will make it more possible for progressive changes to be made regarding drug policies on various fronts. He will provide cover for them.

First, because those stances will help him gain Senate confirmation in ways that an on-the-record anti-prohibitionist would not be able to do. Second, because Obama has been quite clear about changes he would make to certain law enforcement policies regarding the drug war.

Why not apply the same logic to Hillary? What's good for the goose would apply if it wasn't so sexist.

I must say I am enjoying this.

Al's response:

@Stephen Rose

Stephen Rose - You've written me a number of times asking me to add your blog to the sidebar here as some kind of tit for tat or logrolling because you link to mine.

But your comment above and the shameless suggestion of "sexism" here give two examples of why I neither link to it nor find it interesting to read, and generally skip over your submissions when I run across them at HuffPo.

I don't think you have a clue as to the details of the work of the Secretary of State and how it differs from that of Attorney General. That's fine: I don't have a clue as to how, say, the Health and Human Services Department operates because it is outside of my areas of great interest. But I'm certainly not going to pretend to know about it or opine as if I do.

Nor are you a careful reader: The main thrust of my argument about Clinton as one mentioned for Secretary of State have been:

A. that the media circus surrounding all-things-Clinton - whether her fault or not (and she is both victim of it and enabler of it) - are anathema to the functioning of diplomacy and the discretion it requires.

B. that she's a serial mismanager of organizations and bureaucracies and,

C. there are daily tasks necessary at State to protect human rights across the globe that the White House can't possibly micromanage or even keep track of. Senator Clinton has never at any point in her career showed any consistent interest or passion regarding human rights, has used the issue selectively to demonize some governments for other reasons while covering up for such violations in Colombia and elsewhere. She is hostile to human rights and the doctrine of human rights begun with Jimmy Carter will continue to wither under her watch.

In none of my arguments have I cited her Iraq war vote or voting record, or what clients she might have represented.

The qualities needed to run State are very different than those needed to run Justice. If you can't see that and therefore want to insist that the same filter ought to be applied to both posts, I can only conclude you don't know how they work or really what is at stake in either.

My response:

Wow

Al Writes:

"But your comment above and the shameless suggestion of "sexism" here give two examples of why I neither link to it nor find it interesting to read, and generally skip over your submissions when I run across them at HuffPo."

My suggestion of sexism was aimed at me not you. It would NOT have been sexist to apply your logic regarding Holder to Clinton. I hope that's clear. It would have been consistent.

I am not in a very good neighborhood to safely deal with the rejecting part of your note. Suffice to say that I do have a very good audience of folk who read the Obama Blog and value what I say.

At least you appear to have liked my song.That assuages things a bit.

Battle Hymn of -- Lyrics SOURCE

Clinton Transposition: The following is what went through my head when I transposed Al's post in my mind.

I am utterly unconcerned about Clinton's past positions ... In fact, I think her past missteps on these matters will make it more possible for progressive changes to be made regarding foreign policy on various fronts. She will provide cover for Barack.

First, because her stances will help her gain Senate approvals ... Second, because Obama has been quite clear about changes he would make ...

Al has a background similar to mine in some ways -- with a 20 year time differential. Saul Alinsky once proposed that I write his biography, after I did the definitive article "Saul Alinsky and His Critics" on his work with Chicago Churches. I was a theological Yippie in Chicago in 1968. Al later worked with Abbie Hoffman. I was and remain a journalist-activist. That's what Al is. Our years in New England at points overlapped.

I have recently been critical of Al's language about "ownership" of Obama's forthcoming Presidency. I probably helped set up this final exchange with comments posted on a thread about Abner Mikba. SOURCE At that point, Al said there was "no problem".

Now there is. And for me the appropriate mantra is to shake the dust from my feet and move on.

Send a Personal Email to Stephen C. Rose

Links to this site are most appreciated.

YESTERDAY: Plouffe Heads The DNC -- That's Best Way Forward



obama
Hillary Clinton
Al Giordano
Source