Has AAR been given talking points....about Dean?

[madfloridian]

Today, Unfiltered really blew it and took the right wing talking points. See their blog.

I have noticed on many of the shows that even mention him as chair, that they use the words "caution" and they warn a lot.

I have never seen anything like it. It is the MSM going after him, and our left wing radio is taking their talking points.

Instead of pointing out that Dean had just become chair, as Laura said, is in transition.....one of them jumped on him for going after the NY GOP guy and then criticized him for just opening up the forum tonight in Oregon. All they had to say was that since he was chair, the format had to change. They were not informed, they misquoted, and the other lady did not even try to correct. This is an old story and our Democrats are misinformed and out of touch a lot.

Now I don't especially care about who likes him and who doesn't, but why is the word "cautious" being used so much so AAR. Why did Mike Malloy say he was not sure Dean would not Republicanize the party?

What would be wrong with using our media to defend, or at very least, not to criticize, the new chair of the party, new this week?

And why the h*** is everyone so bent out of shape about every word he utters? The GOP has been lying for years, and they have made us scared to death of them. So what if Howard Dean says something controversial? The world won't come to an end.

Dean fought back yesterday, and none of the others stood up for him.
What's wrong with this picture? I felt so hopeless listening to the last part of Unfiltered today...like what do you do when your own side goes after you.

[NYCGirl]

1. Yep, I heard that today and was pretty appalled at Lizz and Rachel. NT

[ananda]

2. sad day

It's so sad, pathetic really, when the media takes on the spots of the leopard we're trying to tame and control.

Is this like the Stockholm Syndrome?

Sue

[madfloridian]

4. Yes, indeed. Dean got that right... Stockholm Syndrome.

:hi:

[Al-CIAda]

3. Yep...heard it too -they fell for it HOOK LINE AND SINKER

[CWebster]

5. They were using all the Centrist talking points during the

campaign, and they were bound and gagged about the issue of Iraq because they don't really reflect party grassroots--but party leadership.

One day the Dems tried to paint Allawi as a good guy, I read it in the Times or something, and then I heard Franken sheepishly parroting those talking points and that was it. I tried to listen once more but it was a couple of loud and obnoxious girls sounding very piggish. I prefer Amy Goodman's style.

[xultar]

6. So let me get this straight...they've been positive about Dean and when

they say a few things that you disagree with we must now instantly hate them and accuse them of using RW talking points.

Now, lets be for real.

Everyone must say only positive things about Dean for the next 4 years or we must all hate them because they are instantly using RW talking points.

We must forget all of the positive things they have said about Dean and hate them instantly they say things we don't like. Nevermind what they are saying isn't really negative or an attack...but we must hate them.

Is that right? :crazy:

[NYCGirl]

7. No, I love Unfiltered and I'll continue to listen to them.

I don't agree with what they said today, but Lizz Winstead is one of the funniest people on earth, and Rachel and Chuck D are great.

[xultar]

11. We say things and ACCUSE people on our side of awful things for sake

of whatever...

I think we need to get away of accusing people who we know are on our side of such awful stuff.

Threads like this do nothing positive for us or our causes. It also does nothing positve for the people who are in the media who are on our side.

[NYCGirl]

12. What did I accuse anyone of doing? NT

[xultar]

14. I was just making a statement. IT wasn't directed @ you...it was WE...

us DUers as a whole.

So don't take it personally. We as an entity DU.

[Debi]

42. I'll go ahead and be me, thanks

I'm a DUer, but DU is not me.

Some people here I would be embarrassed to have represent me (as I'm sure some would not want me to be representative of them).

[xultar]

45. Well it is against the rules to call out people specifically so we have to

use we.

[Debi]

56. Or you could just not call people out.

n/t

[xultar]

71. Awww Debi, you're soooo kute! Thanks for the interesting chat!

:pals:

[madfloridian]

40. I told the truth. If the media reads it no harm done.

I don't like your implication that I am not a careful poster.

[madfloridian]

8. My point is since he was elected chair.

I am not going to argue about it, and I am not going to be pulled into a flamefest.

This week it has been that way. I wondered about the talking points.

I will not argue with you.

[xultar]

You HONESTLY think they are using talking points? I'm not arguing

I just wanted you to read what you said.

I dont' get it. They've been nothing but positive about the guy. Don't they owe us to tell us what they think instead of what we want to hear?

[NYCGirl]

13. I don't presume to speak for MadFlor, but perhaps she was using a figure

of speech? You may be taking it too literally?

[xultar]

15. Perhaps, we don't understand the power of words, David Corn was really

beat up here. People accusing him of being a RW plant and such.

Perhaps the ones who were accusing him were using figures of speech as well.

Well that really hurt David Corn, so much that he felt that he had to defend himself.

I just think we need to realize what we are saying. That's all.

[madfloridian]

39. I did not attack David Corn, ever. I posted a summary below

of what I read and heard. I don't like it being implied that I will hurt AAR by saying what I think. They hurt Dean a lot this morning, but not just Dean. It hurt us.

I do know quite well the power of words. I really do.

[xultar]

44. I was just using David Corn as an example. How can AAR have hurt

Dean alot much this morning. They've had almost 365 days of positive and 1 day of something you don't like. And all of a sudden they hurt Dean alot. Especially preaching to the choir.

Lets be for real here. If we tear the stuffin out of everyone who will we have left?

Dean's a good guy but he ISN'T PERFECT!!! I'm sure he's tough enough to take criticism. Shouldn't we be tough enough as well?

[madfloridian]

55. That does not deserve an answer.

It really does not not.

[xultar]

72. Sooooo, the answer is yes. Then we agree! That wasn't hard. n/t

[madfloridian]

87. No, we do not agree on this at all.

Sorry.

[sadiesworld]

109. Corn is a tool.

[CWebster]

10. They know what the damn climate surrounding him is

Are they with us or against us?

What do I know, I don't listen, I am just basing it on my own experience and the comments of posters on this thread whose views I respect.

[Cha]

67. If a left leaning radio station is using

"rw talking points" ..it can be pointed out.

And you're the only one who is saying anything about "hate".

[quiet.american]

9. At least Wolfson got Howard's back yesterday --

Wolfson to Minarik:

"Don't accuse the 5.5 million Democrats in this state of treason if you hope to win our votes," said Howard Wolfson, a Democratic consultant and top adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "And, if you make that mistake again, you best be prepared to make it to my face, because we love this country much too much to allow you to ever question our patriotism."

[intheflow]

16. "Cautious" was the key on AAR word after the fraudulent election.

That cautious approach--not wanting to be lumped in with "conspiracy theorists" is what made me stop listening to Franken. Doesn't help for me to know my local AAR station is owned by Clear Channel.

[kamqute]

78. Malloy was not 'cautious'; most of the rest were onto it quick--'cept Al

[madfloridian]

17. Many of our Democrats are not up to date on late breaking.

They allow themselves, as Unfiltered did today, to be drawn into the talking points used by the right wing. I have Al Franken do it as well.

And yes, I do see a change this week. They are all "cautious" and using "caution" about Howard Dean this week. That makes it look like talking points.

If our side is going to use talking points, let them be our own.

And AAR should be ready to defend Dean, not apologize for him. I am getting tired of the fearful and apologetic mode we have been in.

[DrGonzoLives]

18. OK, this is getting disturbing

I like Dean, I supported Dean, I've been wanting him to chair the party for a while, but Jesus H. Christ on a Carousel, this is turning into a fucking cult. Is Dean above reproach? Can he not be criticized? Didn't we go through this with Kerry during the election?

Honestly, people, politicians are not deities. If you don't like a criticism, refute it, don't just start yelling about the evil corporate media and right-wing talking points. That gets nowhere with people. Take what they say and turn it around.

[xultar]

20. Word.................... n/t

[CWebster]

21. Within the GOD DAMN CLIMATE

why give the Right more GOD DAMN STROKES?

*&^%$^%*&*%%@@@@!

[madfloridian]

22. I am refuting it here. Our Democrats need to be better informed.

Many of us emailed them on this. If I disturb you, I am sorry. Unfiltered took the right wing points as gospel. I heard them. They were wrong. We have to quit doing that.

This is not about Dean, it is about standing up for our own.

[KittyWampus]

24. You Are Refuting Diddly Squat. You Didn't Even Provide A Quote

so we have no freaking idea what the hell you're actually referring to.

What did the two women (who aren't my favorites) say and what was the context?

[madfloridian]

28. I don't mind answering and giving details.

I don't appreciate the request in that form. Sounds like you are ready to argue before I get a chance to tell you.

I am tired of having someone jump on me when I post something. There is nothing wrong with I posted, it was quite clear that I am upset over the apologetic nature of our party and AAR at times.

The subjects were discussed here extensively last night. I am trying to compile, but I won't post it to such irritation.

[Debi]

41. Mad FLA...

Would you like one of these?

:hug:


People can be so rude!!!

[madfloridian]

43. Thanks for that.

:hug:
Back to you.

[RogueTrooper]

106. Dean can be critisized when he makes a mistake

but we should not stand idiley by when he is the subject of a partisan attack; nor should we give any credence to the substantive of the attack.

[shance]

19. Rapid response is needed here. Floridian, can you get us email addresses

and phone numbers?

We need to quit harping about it here and do something.

[KittyWampus]

25. Harping About What? YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY SAID

Damn.

[shance]

27. Easy does it Mr. BOLD letters. How would you even know what

I know about the issue and what I don't, or if I listened or if I didnt?

First off, I trust what Floridian says, and if it seemed biased, then it probably was biased and/or slanted.

The issue I'm concerned about, if you are remotely interested, but your probably not because I happen to read your posts and you are consistently the devil's advocate and Dean naysayer on EVERYTHING.

However, if you are interested, what many of us are concerned about is the harm that's done to good people when they are marginalized, unfairly targeted or scrutinized while the ones doing the REAL harm are given a free pass. I've gathered what your feelings are about Dean, however it's not as much about Dean as it is targetting those that are trying to do what is right and good. We lose our Democracy when we stop defending what is good, what is honest and what is right. PERIOD.

I don't really know what your agenda is and I don't really care, especially if your agenda is one of trying to marginalize and invalidate the good being done by those who have the guts to say and do the right thing.

I do care about defending those who are good people, and who are trying to help regain our government and country from the privatizers who believe they are entitled to everything and everyone else is essentially entitled to nothing.

[KissMeKate]

114. how exactly do you know what someone else knows? calm down.

jesus.

[shance]

23. Let AAR know blaming the good guys is bad for Democracy, and cowardly.

not to mention, bad for the world.

Here is the info where you can contact the Unfiltered show.

http://www.airamericaradio.com/shows/unfiltered/contact.asp

The 'liberal' pundits like those at Unfiltered provide alot of good coverage on issues. I love all the shows on Air America.

However, their good is overshadowed when they play it safe and join the bandwagon of other bought and paid for pundits who attempt to marginalize our leaders who are willing to confront the Administration and the Neocon agenda. When our media and we as citizens don't defend these leaders and people willing to come forward and tell it like it is, we will lose our good leaders and no moral compass will exist anywhere. There will eventually be no one to stand up for what is right if there is no one who is willing to protect and defend the truth. In other words, its important to let those at Air America hear from us because they essentially do more damage than the extreme right wingers because they are seen as being liberal.

Its not about liberal, its about letting those who are ruining the country off the hook, and hurting those who are doing the right thing.

We are dealing with a right winged media who not only is not being fair, they suppress information, lie by ommission and by lying blatantly at times as well. In other words, playing fair with those who don't play fair, is not a legitimate argument or goal. The only fairness is standing up for the truth and for those who are telling the truth. There is no grey area in these situations. They are essentially beating up on those individuals TRYING to combat what the liberal radio hosts make their money complaining about.

When we actually are LUCKY enough to have some one step up to the plate, the radio hosts who are actually concerned with the state of our country need to defend, promote and back up the few good leaders we have that could help turn this country around.

Its about protecting the voices who truly care about Democracy.

Its important they know WHY what they are doing is so toxic to our communities and nation overall.

We have to take care of those who are taking care of this country by telling the truth and speaking up in numbers and in volume. That is our greatest strength.

[lojasmo]

30. "WERD".....N/T

[Doctor_J]

57. No shit

with everything going on in the country today, there is no need for them to do Limpballs' work for him.

[DaveinMD]

26. I've heard

Franken say lots of good things about Dean in the past week.

[janx]

29. I have not heard any recent criticism of Dean from AAR. n/t

?

[madfloridian]

31. Did you listen to Unfiltered this morning.?

I wrote a good post, janx. I am right about their apologetic mode when they discuss Dean. This morning they were dead wrong.

I am pulling something together to show what they said. But I may not post it here in the midst of such anger.

I will not get into flame wars for various reasons.

Please note that I am NOT being over-critical of AAR, would you please?

[janx]

33. No, I did not listen to it, and I'm not sure it's available here.

We get taped versions of Morning Sedition and then Al Franken. Randi Rhodes comes on later.

Morning Sedition has always been behind Dean (at least when they started introducing some serious content into their program).

I don't even know what "Unfiltered" is.

Also, I heard the tail end of something on AAR today that suggested it might be pulled from the Colorado market. That would be so disappointing.

[madfloridian]

38. I posted a summary below.

I seldom catch Morning Sedition, but I listen off and on the rest of the day. I think the only Florida market is one station in South Florida, and only a shortened version of Randi. May be wrong on that.

I am terribly afraid that if AAR gets too outspoken, they will be taken off in some areas. That is very sickening to think about. I do know that Randi Rhodes was cautioned several times on some issues.

[Andromeda]

49. Please, mad,

I really want to know what they said. I listen to AAR a lot and if they said something negative about Dean I'd like to know what they said.

I really like the programs on AAR but I don't agree with everything they say -- even as much as I like Al Franken, he isn't always right IMHO. I think some celebrity hosts are kind of full of themselves and maybe there are some 'control' issues there.

The Democratic party doesn't even know that's it's "ailing" (actually, 'sick' is a better word) and some of the members (I mean prominent Dems) are grumbling because they have lost some of their influence. There's something about power and ego that corrupts and I don't say that lightly.

[madfloridian]

52. I posted a summary below. I just got slammed for that.

Someone is picking it apart. I don't know why I bother.

[madfloridian]

54. You are right about the ailing and not knowing it.

I am amazed at the outrage because I questioned what they said. I think we should most definitely hold all our media responsible.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Crunchy Frog]

34. Well, I admit that I mostly only listen to AAR

when I'm driving around, but everything that I've heard on it has been extremely positive about Dean. Ed Schultz, who has always struck me as being somehwat more conservative, was really playing Dean up the other day and skewering the MSM over their coverage of him becoming Chair.

I don't have problems if some people on AAR are critical of Dean. I don't expect an absolutely monolithic uniformity of opinion from liberals about anything. Everything that I've heard on AAR has been very positive though.:shrug:

[xultar]

47. AAR 365 days positive about Dean & on 366 they are critical and we must

now hate them.

Forget all ofthe good they have done.

That's how we work it here. Didn'tcha know that.

[madfloridian]

35. To reiterate...the issue was not Dean. It was being uninformed.

Being uninformed and then being critical by using right wing points.

I don't care if the right wing is critical of the DNC chair. I do care if Democratic radio is critical. Not because of Dean, but because we are already fighting a losing battle.

I do not think it is ok for our side to go on the air, use the skewed version of the facts and then fall all over themselves backing off and being apologetic.

[tishaLA]

But they're not "Democratic" radio

they are liberal, progressive radio and are not tied to the Democratic party, excepting that many of the hosts identify themselves as Democrats.

If they make mistakes, they make mistakes. I have made many in my life. But to say that what you consider an unfair representation of events is automatically about RW talking points is disturbing.

In your post (#36), you say "they made it sound like he was trying to be sneaky about the debate....which was the Republican talking point." So, in other words, one cannot arrive at the same conclusion without the talking point? I have often agreed with people with whom I normally disagree simply because it is the stance I find correct, i.e., Bob Barr and I agree about privacy rights but not much else.

Further, you say, "They did not investigate, and one of them said he should have been more on top of things...since he is chair...very critical." But you are silent on the nature of the criticism, except in the broadest possible terms. Is it unfair to say that a Chair should be on top of things, whether he is the CEO of a corporation or the Democratic party? I don't think so, and I think that is a fair thing to say. So what precisely was the nature of the criticism Unfiltered offered this morning (it is the one AAR show we don't get in Los Angeles, for what it's worth). Likewise, you say they did not investigate, but I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Did you ask them? Or is it simply because they arrived at a different conclusion than you did? Is it possible that two people can have the exact same information and arrive at opposite, or at least competing, conclusions?

[madfloridian]

53. No, you are wrong. They did use the same points the right wing media used

They did not have the whole story....that while Dean was doing debates as a person in private life that they were often closed.

They opened it.

I can see that I am not to criticize AAR.

I am not even sure where they got the all about Dean thing, but it was not.

You seem to think it is wrong to be critical of our "progressive" "left-wing" "Democratic" "whatever" radio. I don't.

[tishaLA]

58. I see you won't understand

So I won't try. But, just to be clear, you said AAR was "Democratic radio" and it is not. I am frequently critical of it myself. But not because they took a stand that has been mythologized as a repetition of RW talking points despite a complete lack of evidence. Not a single quotation from either of the "ladies" (sic) on Unfiltered. Not a cogent discussion about what they said other than vague characterizations. Utterly unhelpful.

[madfloridian]

61. Why don't you listen to the reruns?

I posted clearly without having the exact words available. It is in the last half hour of the show, I believe. That way you can assure yourself that I am not being unfair.

I corrected and amended the use of the word "Democratic" because it really bothered you.

I think I summarized what they said quite clearly. They sounded like rank amateurs who had not done their homework.

BTW,I reserve the right to say when something is on the air that I don't like. On the other hand, I fully realize when I am being pushed (I was going to use another word but I best not)....so I will leave this thread rather than get in trouble.

When you listen, you report back here, ok?

[tishaLA]

64. "Democratic" didn't "bother" me. It was incorrect

what the "ladies" (sic) said is not clear at all, though. I trust that those women didn't get RW "talking points," though, because they are professionals on a progressive station. Simply because they might agree with something someone in the republican party agrees with means nothing, really. As I said above, I agree with Bob Barr about privacy rights. People with divergent views 99% of the time can agree 1% of the time and it can be completely innocent. No talking points involved.

[madfloridian]

66. I don't think they were "given" rw talking points.

I think they were not up to date on info. They were just not speaking with knowledge of the facts.

I do think this week that they have been told to lowkey it about Dean. I can not prove it. They may not have been.

I would very much appreciate it if you would not act like I am lacking in intelligence. Thank you. Please read WesDem's post below before you criticize my efforts further.

I am one of the moderates here at DU, in case you were not aware. I am quite open-minded, and I always reserve the right to question. Perhaps you took my OP wrong.

[tishaLA]

88. So you'd rather assume the worst about progressives

and RW "talking points" and accuse them of unprofessionalism. Sad. Very very sad indeed.

If I want to criticize someone of something, I hope I can at least provide real proof. Sad. Very sad indeed. It's like the Stockholm Syndrome--we've become so accustomed to being attacked from without, we attack others from within and we have a dearth of evidence. Sad. Very sad indeed.

[madfloridian]

89. That is pure baloney....

If you are unwilling to read my thorough summary, and read WesDem's post here.....and then go an listen to the archives yourself...then do not pretend your false outrage at me.

I think true progressives are powerful allies, like PDA. I think some just want to hurt the Dem party because it does not suit everyone.

Backing off.

[tishaLA]

100. I've read your "summary"

It is wholly devoid of quotations and only contains characterizations about what you think about what the "ladies" (sic) said on the show. It's just sad, terribly sad that we demonize people by alligning them with RW "talking points"--as happened with Alterman and Corn, with Josh Marshall and Bob Somerby, etc, etc.--simply because they disagree with us. And it's not even about something like policy, about war and peace, about Medicare or Social Security; it's about personality. It's sad indeed.

[madfloridian]

103. They did not do their homework. They used spin to criticize Dean.

And no criticism was warranted.

My summary was quite good.

[CWebster]

95. Progressive, my ass---

--like the way they followed the party line during the elections and kept the lid on the issue of Iraq? I actually heard Franken suggest that Allawi seemed like a pretty good and decent guy. Ever hear them report on the truth regarding the I\P conflict or any other progressive issues of the hour? Hell no, all they are is a cheering team for the conventional Party to attack the Right. And I have to tell you, I heard the lesbians taunting Lynn Cheney and it was as bullying and crass as anything Rush comes up with.

They can only be considered Progressive when the rest of the right-wing media is defined "liberal".

[tishaLA]

101. I think those are all legitimate criticisms of AAR

and I agree that AAR has not done the best job with many of the issues you raise. (I am not bothered by the Chemey stuff, though, I have to confess.) I suspect that the only place to hear those views is Pacifica, unfortunately, but I join you in asking for more from Air America.

[madfloridian]

36. Here is a summary....

I started the OP this morning near the end of Unfiltered. I was not trying to be unclear, just assumed others were listening. And they were if you read some of the blog. This is the best I can summarize.

Dean is attacked by the NY GOP chair, as well as Boxer, and lumped with Lynne Stewart...implying they are supportive of terrorists.. Whether Stewart will ultimately be proved innocent is not at issue here. The GOP state chair is attempting to smear the Dean and Boxer and others.
http://www.thechanticleeronline.com/news/2005/02/17/News/Republicans.Attack.Dean.After.Election-866410.shtml
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - "New York's Republican state chairman said Monday that Howard Dean's election as Democratic national chairman shows the rival party's leaders ``have refused to learn the lessons of the past two election cycles.''
``Howard Dean is the personification of today's national Democratic Party - elite, radical, out-of-control, and sadly out-of-touch with ordinary Americans,'' said state GOP Chairman Stephen Minarik.
``The Democrats simply have refused to learn the lessons of the past two election cycles, and now they can be accurately called the party of Barbara Boxer, Lynne Stewart and Howard Dean,'' Minarik added.
Boxer is a liberal Democratic senator from California. Stewart is a New York City-based veteran civil rights lawyer convicted last week of helping terrorists by smuggling messages from one of her imprisoned clients, a radical Egyptian sheik, to his colleagues on the outside. Stewart has said her conviction will be appealed.
Minarik's Democratic counterpart in New York, Herman Farrell, was dismissive of the GOP leader's statements." ( Farrell went after him very vocally.)

Howard Dean then had words to say to Minarik, which I think was a fine thing.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--minarik-democrats0216feb16,0,1932877.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

ALBANY, N.Y. --" Howard Dean, just four days into his job as Democratic National chairman, called Wednesday for New York's state Republican chairman to apologize or resign over remarks linking Democrats to a civil rights lawyer convicted of aiding terrorists.

Calling Stephen Minarik's comments "offensive," the former Vermont governor said, "The American people deserve better than this type of political character assassination."

SNIP.." "I'm pleased that Governor Pataki publicly rebuked Mr. Minarik for his offensive comments," Dean said in a statement issued by the Democratic National Committee. "I agree with Governor Pataki and my fellow New York Democrats that Mr. Minarik was completely out of line."

"But this is not settled. Mr. Minarik has shown neither regret nor remorse for what he said," Dean added, calling on other New York and national Republican leaders to "follow Governor Pataki's lead and rebuke Minarik."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Also last night there were various discussions here about Dean's requesting that the debate with Perle tonight be close to the press. Actually this was set up months ago, and most of his speeches and debates were done that way. A lot of them were before the Nov. 2 election, and Kerry and others were watching for Dean's every word. That may be one reason why.
However, apparently they forgot when he became chair, and did not open it to press. They they did open it wide up because he was chair.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Now to put it simply, on Unfiltered they made it sound like he was trying to be sneaky about the debate....which was the Republican talking point. They did not investigate, and one of them said he should have been more on top of things...since he is chair...very critical. Bottom line, they were unaware of the whole issue, yet criticized Dean quite soundly for it.

Also, the lady who was talking...don't know which one...kept inferring that the criticism of the GOP chair was all about Dean, making it all about him and not the party. Said why didn't he stand up for Boxer? Now if you read his statement, it was not about him, it was about the party. She repeated that Dean made it about himself. No, he did not. I put Dean's quotes above in itatics. It was not about him, it was about the party and the people.

They were wrong. They should have been better informed. One was very critical of our new chair...and the other did not take up for him. They were uninformed.

I have noticed a tendency here to jump on people who are the least bit critical of the Daily Show, Bill Maher, or AAR. Frankly, I like some of what they do, but not all. I think it is fine and healthy to be critical of left wing radio and comedians. I don't why so many are threatened if they are held up to scrutiny sometimes.

[wyldwolf]

37. I don't really care for "Unfiltered"

They criticize Dems almost as much as the criticize rightwingers. I'm not saying Dems are above criticism, but I do believe our own can't be giving amunition to the right.

I heard their slam on Dean.

Fortunately, Franken praised Dean for the thing Unfiltered slammed him for.

I've heard that Unfiltered was the only show who didn't get their contract renewed when they re-upped the rest of the staff. Just a rumor, though.

[BootinUp]

60. Interesting

I don't listent to the show, but I don't understand what their problem would be with Deans statement to that RW nutjob in NY. It sounded on target to me, this was in response to an attack on key dem leaders.

Hope they either straighten up or get canned.

[Vinnie From Indy]

46. Unfiltered is the weakest show!

It makes me nuts to listen to the over talk and the twittering, squealing and other noise. I do like the rest quite a bit!

[kamqute]

79. YOU MADE ME SAD!

[wyldwolf]

116. here is my problem with Unfiltered

First - I'll give them their props. They are very knowledgeable on the subject matter they cover. Maybe too much, though. Listening to them is like reading a book. Info overload. The average radio listener (yes, even a liberal listener) lacks the attention span to ingest all that they cover.

Secondly, they seem to epitomize what the Marks on Morning Sedition make fun of with their "Liberal talking points from the Streisand Complex." (Wake up sheeple!) One person I know - a left of center Dem - thinks them to be "too left" (no, I can't define that).

Those two things alone put them in the same league with people like Amy Goodman on Pacifica radio - a style I find rather boring and one I felt Air America was trying to avoid.

Additionally, IMO, they come across as cultural elitists. I cringe whenever they make disrespectful comments about certain types of music or artists I like, or movies and TV shows I've enjoyed. Are they trying to make their mainstream listeners feel culturally impaired by touting their superior entertainment knowledge?

This comes across at no better time than on their Friday party machine segment when they play music no mainstream listener has ever heard or will ever hear, music I certainly would never play at my parties unless I wanted everyone to leave.

But the one thing that REALLY turns me off to Unfiltered is they are quick to criticize Democrats. Now, as I said above, I don't feel any Dem is above criticism - but doing so with literally millions listening won't do anything to build support for the party and get rid of the GOP. Plus, it provides fodder for the rightwingers.

Yes, I know these very reasons are why many on DU like Unfiltered. But I believe they skew their show to a very narrow audience which is probably why they aren't on in as many markets as the other AAR shows.

[TexasSissy]

48. Are they telling Dean to be "cautious"? Is that how they're using

the word? Dean can fly off the handle and say some odd things from time to time (now, come on, you know he can), so a word of caution to him is not out of line, I think. Open criticism of things he has done or said is another matter at this early stage.

[madfloridian]

51. If you had read my post, you would know that is not what I meant.

It is not necessary to caution anyone. No one is perfect, and he is no more or less than others.

Here is my summary, posted again.
I started the OP this morning near the end of Unfiltered. I was not trying to be unclear, just assumed others were listening. And they were if you read some of the blog. This is the best I can summarize.

Dean is attacked by the NY GOP chair, as well as Boxer, and lumped with Lynne Stewart...implying they are supportive of terrorists.. Whether Stewart will ultimately be proved innocent is not at issue here. The GOP state chair is attempting to smear the Dean and Boxer and others.
http://www.thechanticleeronline.com/news/2005/02/17/News/Republicans.

Attack.Dean.After.Election-866410.shtml
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - "New York's Republican state chairman said Monday that Howard Dean's election as Democratic national chairman shows the rival party's leaders ``have refused to learn the lessons of the past two election cycles.''
``Howard Dean is the personification of today's national Democratic Party - elite, radical, out-of-control, and sadly out-of-touch with ordinary Americans,'' said state GOP Chairman Stephen Minarik.
``The Democrats simply have refused to learn the lessons of the past two election cycles, and now they can be accurately called the party of Barbara Boxer, Lynne Stewart and Howard Dean,'' Minarik added.
Boxer is a liberal Democratic senator from California. Stewart is a New York City-based veteran civil rights lawyer convicted last week of helping terrorists by smuggling messages from one of her imprisoned clients, a radical Egyptian sheik, to his colleagues on the outside. Stewart has said her conviction will be appealed.
Minarik's Democratic counterpart in New York, Herman Farrell, was dismissive of the GOP leader's statements." ( Farrell went after him very vocally.)

Howard Dean then had words to say to Minarik, which I think was a fine thing.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--minarik-democrats0216feb16,0,1932877.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

ALBANY, N.Y. --" Howard Dean, just four days into his job as Democratic National chairman, called Wednesday for New York's state Republican chairman to apologize or resign over remarks linking Democrats to a civil rights lawyer convicted of aiding terrorists.

Calling Stephen Minarik's comments "offensive," the former Vermont governor said, "The American people deserve better than this type of political character assassination."

SNIP.." "I'm pleased that Governor Pataki publicly rebuked Mr. Minarik for his offensive comments," Dean said in a statement issued by the Democratic National Committee. "I agree with Governor Pataki and my fellow New York Democrats that Mr. Minarik was completely out of line."

"But this is not settled. Mr. Minarik has shown neither regret nor remorse for what he said," Dean added, calling on other New York and national Republican leaders to "follow Governor Pataki's lead and rebuke Minarik."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Also last night there were various discussions here about Dean's requesting that the debate with Perle tonight be close to the press. Actually this was set up months ago, and most of his speeches and debates were done that way. A lot of them were before the Nov. 2 election, and Kerry and others were watching for Dean's every word. That may be one reason why.
However, apparently they forgot when he became chair, and did not open it to press. They they did open it wide up because he was chair.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Now to put it simply, on Unfiltered they made it sound like he was trying to be sneaky about the debate....which was the Republican talking point. They did not investigate, and one of them said he should have been more on top of things...since he is chair...very critical. Bottom line, they were unaware of the whole issue, yet criticized Dean quite soundly for it.

Also, the lady who was talking...don't know which one...kept inferring that the criticism of the GOP chair was all about Dean, making it all about him and not the party. Said why didn't he stand up for Boxer? Now if you read his statement, it was not about him, it was about the party. She repeated that Dean made it about himself. No, he did not. I put Dean's quotes above in itatics. It was not about him, it was about the party and the people.

They were wrong. They should have been better informed. One was very critical of our new chair...and the other did not take up for him. They were uninformed.

I have noticed a tendency here to jump on people who are the least bit critical of the Daily Show, Bill Maher, or AAR. Frankly, I like some of what they do, but not all. I think it is fine and healthy to be critical of left wing radio and comedians. I don't why so many are threatened if they are held up to scrutiny sometimes.

[TexasSissy]

110. I read your post. You did not state explicitly how the word

"cautious" was used. Please re-read your own post from the vantage point of someone who is unfamiliar with what was said.

Then don't ever reply to me again, please. You have been placed on "ignore," which is only fitting for someone who replies with such antagonism to a simple, respectful post that doesn't even argue a point with you. "ignore" is now on.

[tishaLA]

111. I'm sorry you're upset, TexasSissy

:grouphug:

I understand what you mean.

[mzmolly]

50. Democrats are friggin stupid.

No wonder we lose.

Dean is doing a great job, and we as his supporters should organize and let the leftist media know when they fail us darnit!

[Adelante]

59. Minarik is trying to hook Dean (and Clark)

to Lynne Stewart, the so-called "Terrorist Lawyer," by implying he was at a meeting he didn't attend.

Here are two stories I know of, probably they've already been posted on DU.

"He said Democrats are trying to run from their close ties to Stewart.

"He provided a photo of her standing between the Rev. Jesse Jackson and liberal filmmaker Michael Moore at a rally and released a 2003 newspaper article about Stewart being scheduled to speak at a Staten Island event with Dean and former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark."

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050216/NEWS01/502160331/1002/NEWS

"He said Democrats are trying to run from their close ties to Stewart. He even gave out a photo of her standing between the Rev. Jesse Jackson and liberal filmmaker Michael Moore at a rally and released a 2003 newspaper article about her attending and speaking at a Staten Island event with Dean and former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark."

http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/021605/a0516nyminarik.html

Two articles in two different newspapers, the first way upstate and the second just north of New York City, by the same reporter, Jay Gallagher, are essentially the same except for the parts I have put in bold. "Scheduled to speak" becomes "attending and speaking."

Dean and Clark were not at that Staten Island meeting, although Lynne Stewart was there. I don't have a link to the article Minarik is passing out, but I have seen the article in the Staten Island Advance reporting on the event, which took place November 18, 2003, and where Dean won a straw poll. There is no mention of Howard Dean or Wesley Clark being there at all, not even by The Wall Street Journal, which commented on the Advance article two days later.

Clarkies have written both newspapers telling them Dean and Clark were not there and citing the Staten Island Advance report. Wesley Clark, I know for a fact, was in New Hampshire morning til night. If Dean were there it would have been the headline. So this is the ordinary bullshit where the RW puts out a talking point and the whore press prints it.

I realize this is a bit off-topic of the OP, but it is connected. I don't listen to AAR, so I don't know what was said, but surely if they realized this is all another drip drip drip against Democrats orchestrated by the GOP and the media, they might take it to heart and not be so quick with the lip.

Dean, and at least in this case, Clark, but certainly Dean moreso, are caught in the crossfires of a GOP crusade against Hillary Clinton in New York State. We must defend ALL of our Dems against the GOP/Mediawhores Combine that is out to destroy our party.

[madfloridian]

62. Thanks, I had not seen those articles.

I go and read more on this. Thanks again.

[madfloridian]

65. I did find a little from 2003, but Dean and Clark not mentioned attending.

You are right. I see now what is really going on. So when the AAR hosts said Dean was making this about himself, they really really were wrong. They implied he was pumping himself up. They need to correct themselves. This is a smear campaign. Whether Stewart is proven guilty on appeal or innocent, then someone needed to speak up. Dean and Farrell did, and they did it well. I saw a couple more things. Will check.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004326

A snip from the very long page, Nov. 20, 2003.
SNIP..."Dems Fete Terror Lawyer
Remember Lynne Stewart? She's the "civil rights" lawyer who represented terrorist Omar Abdel-Rahman, the "blind sheik" doing life for plotting terror attacks in New York. Her aggressive representation of her client has gotten her into some legal trouble of her own, the Associated Press reports:

Prosecutors say she, former U.S. postal worker Ahmed Abdel Sattar and Arabic translator Mohammed Yousry helped relay messages from the cleric to a radical terrorist group based in Egypt. They have pleaded innocent.

The government earlier had charged Stewart, Sattar and Yousry with conspiring to support a terrorist organization, but a federal judge dismissed the two most serious terror counts in the original indictment.

U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl said then that it was unconstitutionally vague to prosecute the three based on the mere use of telephones and other devices to help the sheik communicate with his followers.

The new indictment alleges the same facts but brings charges under a different section of anti-terror law--suggesting Stewart and Yousry used the sheik himself as "personnel" to carry out their conspiracy.

The Staten Island Advance reports that Stewart was a guest of honor at a Tuesday meeting of the Staten Island Democratic Association, a political club. (New York's smallest borough, although it has almost as few people as Pittsburgh, lost 221 residents in the Sept. 11 attacks.) Stewart "updated the group on the government's case against her," the Advance reports. How lovely.

The association also conducted a presidential straw poll, which Howard Dean won with 12 votes to six for second-place Dennis Kucinich."

[Adelante]

70. This is about the Democratic Party

"I see now what is really going on. So when the AAR hosts said Dean was making this about himself, they really really were wrong. They implied he was pumping himself up."

It is about Hillary Clinton. This Minarik has sworn a blood oath to get her. He will smear any Democrat and all Democrats in order to take her out. All of what's happening now stems from this. Dean as the party chair is an ancillary target, because the GOP in New York State can spread this disinformation about Lynne Stewart and the press will swallow it, as we've seen, but their real target is Hillary and the New York Dems overall. I am sure Dean knows the scoop, and he should kick their asses from here to Sunday, as far as I'm concerned.

The problem lies in not connecting the dots. Progressive media should be connecting the dots. It's about the Democratic Party he leads much more than it is about Howard Dean. But they don't seem to be seeing this.

[madfloridian]

104. Here is more about Minarik's possible reasons.

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wxxi//news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=740021
ROCHESTER (2005-02-16) SNIP..."As Monroe County political followers ought to know, Steve Minarik knows how to make himself the center of attention. Often it is done for a reason.

And Minarik's latest rant lumping Democrats in with an attorney convicted of aiding terrorists shows that the Monroe County GOP chair hasn't changed since taking over as state party chairman.

The New York City press jumped on Minarik's assertion Monday that the Democratic Party is out of touch because it named Dean as its national chair and allowed Boxer a forum to challenge the result of 2004 presidential election.

Those comments weren't what touched off the criticism.
Why would Minarik do it? There are many possible reasons. But try this one.

Last week stories in the press continued about how the state party had, since the 1990s, been paying people to be personal assistants to Gov. Pataki's wife, Libby. This made an easy target for Democrats in the state. But it also made some Republicans question what the state party had been doing with donations.

The latest Minarik salvo could certainly serve to push that issue aside, at least for awhile.

It could also distract from a New York Times poll that showed Pataki at his lowest approval ratings since he first took office.

Minarik's take on the flap: "It's my job to go out and rally the troops. I'd like to think that this is still a conservative party and that the other party is moving left."

[madfloridian]

105. They had the wrong picture as well. This is becoming a joke.

It was not Lynne Stewart in the picture.
http://www.wnbc.com/politics/4211567/detail.html

ALBANY, N.Y. -- Call it a photo faux pas.

"State GOP Chairman Stephen Minarik has been peddling a photograph purporting to show a civil rights lawyer, recently convicted of helping terrorists, hanging out with top Democrats during demonstrations at last summer's Republican National Convention in New York City. The problem is, the woman in the photo is not the lawyer, Lynne Stewart.

State GOP officials had been touting the photo -- showing the woman with Jesse Jackson, filmmaker Michael Moore and others -- as evidence Stewart was a Democratic Party activist.

The New York Post, however, after checking the photo out, reported in its Friday editions that the woman was not Stewart, but Leslie Cagan of United for Peace and Justice, which organized the rally. There is a resemblance between Stewart and Cagan.

Minarik touched off a firestorm Monday by saying that in electing Howard Dean as national party chairman on Saturday "the Democrats simply have refused to learn the lessons of the past two election cycles, and now they can be accurately called the party of Barbara Boxer, Lynne Stewart and Howard Dean."

Stewart was convicted last week of helping terrorists by smuggling messages from one of her imprisoned clients, a radical Egyptian sheik, to his terrorist disciples on the outside. Boxer is a liberal senator from California."

[Adelante]

107. Hilarious!!

HAHAHA

That is priceless. Thanks, MF.

[sendero]

63. Dean is a double-threat..

... he's a thread to the GOP, and he's a threat to the DLC wing of the Democratic party.

He is not going to have an easy time of it. Forces are arrayed against him on both sides.

I think he is up to the task, and I guess we should man the emails and do what we can to support him.

[Mich Otter]

68. Let's get this in balance...

how many stupid things have we heard the repukes say?
How many times have they repeated the same lies over and again?
How much will the repukes damage Americas reputation around the world?
How badly will they damage our economy?
How many children are in poverty due to the beliefs of the repukes?

We have serious issues to discuss, forget about Howard Dean making a joke in poor taste. His joke will rub some people, of all races, the wrong way, but will not do any of the kinds of sorry, reprehensible damage that the repukes are committed to enacting.
It is time, as the wise people at that web site say, for us to move on.

[madfloridian]

69. Not about a joke. About his fighting back as he did yesterday.

And no, I think they should examine what they said this morning, that he was making it "about him", and that he did something wrong about the debate and the media...I think they should examine and correct.

I would expect that of any media. I don't move on without questioning anymore. We have done too much of that. I am thankful for AAR, but they have a responsibility to be accurate and fair.

[xultar]

73. Agreed!!! n/t

[madfloridian]

74. Not agreed. We have "moved on" too often.

That was our heritage from the DLC. From now on we question.

[Mr_Spock]

75. Is this thread as pointless and unproductive as it reads?

HAHAHA! just kidding...

[madfloridian]

76. My parts of the thread aren't.

LOL, just kidding as well.

:hi:

My parts of the thread are well-thought out. :hi:

[Mr_Spock]

83. Mine response required no thought at all

So there :D

[madfloridian]

86. Many others in the thread required less than that. LOL

:evilgrin:

[kamqute]

77. "Goes after you"--how so? Dean is not "us"..he is accountable to us

I was glad to hear someone voice my feelings about Dean on Unfiltered. I have been concerned as well. I am not sure how many people are aware of various issues in his background, not to mention his political positions, that are cause for some significant concern, but nonetheless, a criticism should be permitted. Personally, I fear for my progressive community not when a series of statements (possibly related, since they broadcast on the same channel) made throughout the day by people on a radio network assail the leader of my party--I fear when the idea of questioning or disagreeing with or even being pissed at an aspect or member of that party is seen as unacceptable or suspicious. I'm not suggesting this post is anywhere near that, but rather to suggest that it is the opposite of that to which we should be aligned. Moreover, I think there is a huge amount of legitimacy to these fears. Dean, for all his firmness and his charisma, is a 'moderate'--he does not represent the type of politics I see expressed frequently on DU, certainly not mine, and not those of most of the people on AAR (at least those outside of center-of-daytime broadcasts). Lizz's and Mike's concerns echoed my own exactly..Lynne Stewart is a hero, and for Dean to have distanced himself from her frightens me. I am hoping against hope that he can salvage our party, but he is an unlikely one to do it. Those in search of info might do well to start here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/colby02222003.html


Anway, if the MSM is criticising him (from the right, presumably), does it not make sense for we on the left to criticise him from the left? Anyone entering a position of authority deserves a disproportionate share of criticism anyway--I have never seen similar defensiveness with respect to Kerry. I have been thinking 'caution' for a long time now..my party is leaving its roots and it is leaving me.

[DaveinMD]

80. how about

criticising Republicans instead of fellow Dems. A novel thought I know. But let's give it a try.

[madfloridian]

82. Well, there we do agree!

:hi:

[DaveinMD]

85. we agree on a lot more than you think

I actually backed Dean for chair and am close the guy who headed his campaign in Maryland. I think he'll do a great job because he'll go after the Republicans. This is what other Dems should do instead of undercutting him and our other leaders. We are all in this together.

[madfloridian]

81. Counterpunch is not much respected here for its attacks on all Dems.

Do a search there, and they are probably our worse enemy.

Do not start on the innocent thing. Even if she is, and I hope so, she was declared guilty by a jury.

Dean was standing up for the party against attempts to smear by association. There is no time to wait for the appeals. It is not his job to say to her innocence.

I suggest you do a search at Counterpunch for sources used, and then think about using them.

Yes, Dean will be attacked by the right wing, the center, and sadly mostly from the left. The left can be more dangerous at times. The far left that is.....they are equally trying to bring down the Democrats.

I am a moderate, I am glad he is one. I respect him, and I will stand up when anyone on AAR or anywhere distorts the truth.

Most of here have agreed not to use Counterpunch as a source, and I hope they like I refuse to follow the link. Some of the articles there are great, but they make no effort to help along our causes...just bring people down. I hate that.

[marcologico]

93. Counterpunch rocks. Even Krugman reads it! (see below) :)

[CWebster]

96. So, ya think so?

Would you be interested in any of their exposes on Kerry?

I'm going to have to remember this.

BTW, you know how we always hear about what a hero Kerry was getting those Iran-Contra bad guys... Except he voted repeatedly to confirm Negroponte. Harkin didn't, Durbin didn't, Dayton didn't. Kerry did.

[marcologico]

97. Read 'em, liked 'em, discussed 'em here. At least he's an EO crank! n/t

[madfloridian]

84. Oh, and how long have you given him to be "accountable" to you?

He recognizes the greatest danger for him will come from the left. He is where many of us are...moderate to centrist. Sorry fellow, he does not just speak for you. He speaks for moderates as well.

Go ahead, attack, destroy. That is really good for all of us.

[marcologico]

92. Paul Krugman (NYT) cited CP on Tues. to argue Dean is a "safe" moderate.

Which did go not unnoticed in Counterpunch:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cp02152005.html

p.s. great post!

[quaker bill]

99. So much for left-wing hand wringers

I am over it with them.

Krugman's article was supportive of Dean as Chairman. He is correct, Dean was poorly described by the term "liberal".

Accomplishing "liberal" things requires winning elections. Call him whatever you will, but with Dean as chairman there is at least some hope we can get back to doing that.

[KissMeKate]

115. "I have never seen similar defensiveness with respect to Kerry" BULL.

Kerry can do no wrong is all over the place.

I dont know where youve been but There is PLENTY of "defensiveness with respect to Kerry."

[Carolab]

90. Apparently they didn't read Dean's comment about hating repukes

and everything they stand for. "Republicanize" the party? WTF is wrong with these people?

The right wing says he is "too left" and the left wing says he is "too right"?

Well, where does that put him? In the center? Just as he ALWAYS describes HIMSELF???

[itzamirakul]

91. The point is...did you DO anything about it?

Yes, I heard it also, and I was appalled, but I immediately emailed the station with my disagreement. Sometimes, I can take the hosts at AAR and sometimes they make me sick.

[mandyky]

94. I was so mad I turned off the real player

I posted what they talked about in the "Mary Cheneying Dean" thread.

[CWebster]

98. MadFla, here is something from a real progressive,

John Nichols in "The Nation":

But where Dean could cause the greatest stir is in championing bold new approaches that will again make the Democrats a party of ideas. He still converses with the wide circle of academics and activists who, during the 2004 campaign, transformed an initially cautious candidate into a champion of innovative proposals to create a national commission on how to restore democracy, break up media conglomerates and force corporations to provide not just a full financial accounting but also a social accounting of their adherence to environmental, labor and community standards. After the campaign finished, Dean kept talking to public intellectuals like Benjamin Barber, who introduced him to progressive leaders from around the world on a trip to Rome last year, and whose ideas about how America can relate to the world offer the party a framework for a positive internationalism.

What's genuinely exciting about the Dean chairmanship is the prospect that the party might come to mirror its new chief's enthusiasm for bold stances and strategies. Dean's best applause line in the race for DNC chair was, "We cannot win by being Republican-lite. We've tried it; it does not work." For all the important talk of rebuilding state parties and using new technologies, what matters most about Dean's election as DNC chair is his recognition that Democrats have to be serious about holding out to Americans the twin promises of reform and progress, and that they are not going to do that by tinkering with the status quo. "We just can't let the Republicans define the debate anymore. We have to be the party of ideas," Randy Roy says from Topeka. "Dean understands that we have to be the party that shakes things up."




http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0217-21.htm

[PROGRESSIVE1]

102. "Unfiltered" is AAR's "Alan Colmes"!

We need to cut them out!

[Fleshdancer]

108. Did Terry get this treatment his first week on the job???

How about whoever is now the chairman of the RNC? It would be interesting to research the differences in the reporting and throw it in their faces.

[Crunchy Frog]

112. Does anybody know where I can find a link

to either an archive of this show, or a transcript of it? I would really appreciate it if there is one available.

[madfloridian]

113. There is a website that archives them...I can't find it.

On the front page of AAR if you scroll down, there are some archived segments. I can not find a site that archives the whole shows. I thought it used to be linked from the main page. I have listened to Randi's archived shows before...I thought they all were. Maybe someone else has the link.
http://www.airamericaradio.com/

[pinellas]

117. AAR Archives

Hi

FYI - you can listen to/download virtually all of AAR archived shows @ Air America Place

<http://www.airamericaplace.com/archive.php>

P.S. I heard the program in question - Unfiltered is just about my fave.Rachel Maddow was critical of the comment by Dean because she thought it wasn't strong enough & it seemed to play into the idea that Stewart & Boxer are figures to be shunned.She objected to "the party of Boxer & Lynne Stewart" being labelled as an insult.


@ least that's how I heard it..........

I listen to AAR on the net, BTW

[madfloridian]

118. See post about Minarik and the picture, and comments before it.

Then the story gets bigger. There is a lot of depth to the story. She said Dean made it just about himself, and that was just not true at all. Minarik has hit the news by identifying wrongfully the person as Stewart. Diarists at Kos and other places have been on top of this all along, but I am still having to present the case here. I wrote a summary which I thought fair.

She also did not seem to understand or have the full story about the reason the debate was originally closed back last year. She was saying he not organized, should have been on top of things. There is more to the story. Before he was chair, many or most of his speeches were closed to the media for official comment. They seemed unaware of this at all, though it was in the original article.

The NY thing is not over yet, and though the media that is supposed to be on our side does not have to like or defend the DNC chair....I do think they should not speak out until they are aware of the whole story.

I will say again, my post was not just about Dean. It was about not being informed and taking the news spin as gospel.

As Wes Dem says, the NY GOP is going after Hilary with the big guns. This was just a part of that scenario. They owe it to us to present all of the picture.

[Crunchy Frog]

119. Thank you,

and welcome to DU.:hi: