This place has lost its friggin' collective mind

[rox63]

I can't wait for Wednesday. :banghead:

That is all...

P.S. I didn't mean the JK Forum, just DU in general.

[beachmom]

1. I think it's been crazy for quite some time. At least since

the public option got dropped from the Senate bill. Then all these "progressives" started wanting Republicans to win. Very strange.

Jane Hamsher is currently push polling districts (with negative things about the health care bill) to get vulnerable Democrats to either lose or retire. I mean, wow.

http://washingtonindependent.com/74105/did-firedoglake-take-out-vic-snyder

Then she questioned the integrity of a reporter for The American Prospect because he was granted ONE interview with a WH official.

http://twitter.com/adamserwer

TAP writer Adam Serwer is having a cow:

criticize all you want, but don't question the integrity of @theprospect or my colleagues just cuz you're mad
about 3 hours ago from TweetDeck

Maybe in the future we can leave the pseudo-McCarthyism to the GOP and the DLC, how about that?
about 3 hours ago from TweetDeck

Yes. RT @mediagadfly: So if I dislike Rahm AND disagree with Jane, do I collapse into a singularity/cease to exist?
about 3 hours ago from TweetDeck

I find it amusing that ppl crying about "stifling dissent" always assign sinister motives to those who disagree w/them.
about 3 hours ago from TweetDeck

@janehamsher is the progressive movement . Criticism of her and Matt Taibbi, along with having been to the WH once, proves Rahm owns you
about 3 hours ago from TweetDeck

@janehamsher What of it @timfernholz? Are you taking me down next?http://bit.ly/7C2AyE
about 3 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to janehamsher

ok, @theprospect is merely a front group to take down progressive messiah @janehamsher #truefacts
about 3 hours ago from TweetDeck

Sure sometimes when you call people for interviews, they give them to you. But only if you're part of a conspiracy against @janehamsher
about 3 hours ago from TweetDeck

HAHAHAHAHAH now @timfernholz has "special access to the white house" according to @janehamsher and her friend http://bit.ly/6rqWFu
about 3 hours ago from TweetDeck

So let's be clear: Jane Hamsher is actively working to help Republicans gain control of Congress. And also, I checked her Twitter account and she lists her bio as a "blogmistress" and "three time breast cancer survivor". Really? That's the two things she can think of to define herself? That's her resume? I have noticed that everytime I criticize her people bring up the cancer. You know, I don't get that. A LOT of people have had cancer and they don't make that their top identifier. I find it strange.

[karynnj]

2. Wow

She really has lost her way and is a menace. It bothers me as well that being a 3 times breast cancer survivor is so prominent in her mind as what identifies her. (Not to mention that it seems strange to call it 3 times - is she implying some people are less special having it just once?

Push polling is wrong no matter who does it and attacks on other progressives really does not to help anything. I wonder what she saw in the public option that would have been that much better.

[MonteLukast]

3. I've bookmarked the login page and the Kerry page.

I can't stand the hand-wringing and doom-and-glooming either.

And I say that as a person who has probably felt more loathing for the coercive positivity Barbara Ehrenreich described, than most people.

Probably because they're two sides of the same coin: they take away any possibility of changing our country, indeed anything but ourselves.

What goes on at DU isn't so much me-me-me, as it is a lack of patience to look at the whole story before drawing conclusions. I said a while ago that I thought maybe Obama isn't rushing to clean out the Bushies and pull out of Afghanistan yesterday, because he can't... and why can't he? Because the Bush admin may very well have changed the laws to make their extraconstitutional practices legal. And changing that is a lot tougher than changing a President.