Matthew Yglesias (April 22, 2008) - The Scumbag Line (Media)

You actually read the comments?

Posted by dry_fish | April 22, 2008 2:54 PM

Petey: It's really time for the Clintons to go

Posted by hlah | April 22, 2008 2:56 PM

among other things, I think the outcome of 2008 Senate elections will have a larger influence on the ultimate shape of health care policy than will the outcome of the Clinton_obama primary

Thank you! Jesus, I'm sick of people acting as if we're electing an absolute monarch. My own feeling is that Clinton can do more to influence health care from the Senate than from the White House, even if she were to squeak out a victory against McCain. And as her comments of the last twenty-four hours prove, she is both BushMcCainLieberman-lite and a complete panderer on foreign policy.

Posted by Jim | April 22, 2008 2:57 PM

Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.

Posted by joejoejoe | April 22, 2008 2:58 PM

Interesting post. Certainly no need to get that mad at each other. Which really begs the question, how come being so will to hurl invective about Hillary Clinton is considered fine?

I think neither candidate is very good - they are a pair of cautious Center Left candidates. I certainly do not see this big progressive win you are sure of if Obama wins. Certainly not in policy at any rate and certainly not in terms of an argument for a strong contrast with Republicans.

Indeed, Obama's central theme is his post-partisanship and how he will bring the country together, working with the GOP. It is a High Broderist message.

At least for me, I have no understanding of why Obama is viewed as the progressive savior and Clinton is viewed as the Triangulating Devil. To me, Obama resembles no one more than Bill Clinton circa 1992.

The bile towards Clinton, as opposed to the fainting for Obama, is as perplexing as anything I have ever seen.

Posted by Armando | April 22, 2008 2:58 PM

oh boy...this is going to get good. where's the popcorn???

Posted by sean | April 22, 2008 2:58 PM

Matt,

Al has suggested that Petey's bile is prompted more by you implying that he is a racist for not backing Obama. Your thoughts?

Posted by Fred | April 22, 2008 2:59 PM

I think angry Petey is a doppelganger.

Posted by bobbo | April 22, 2008 2:59 PM

Why do you like Obama more on climate change? And why do you consider this primary to be "incredibly destructive?"

Bonus: Why am I supposed to put that question mark inside the quotation marks even though you weren't asking a question?

Posted by Anonymous | April 22, 2008 2:59 PM

I like what you wrote. You addressed Petey without responding in kind with vitriol. It is too bad he has become not only so reflexive in his political outlook but so unhinged with ad hominem spew in your direction. He actually can make a good point and seems to me--prior to this electoral turn--to be a pretty principled liberal. Something too often lacking.

Posted by jeff | April 22, 2008 3:01 PM

Petey: In short, the Democratic Party are proven fools when they don't nominate Iowa's choice.

Posted by hlah | April 22, 2008 3:01 PM

I'm sort of with Armando, with the proviso that I don't think Obama is "Broderist", he's certainly more liberal than that.

But the abuse and bitterness being heaped on Hillary is very confusing to me, and a little upsetting too. Hillary and Obama are working within a very narrow range policy-wise. Most of their differences are stylistic and tactical. Obama has no shortage of flaws. This cult of personality stuff is garbage.

Matt's comment -- "it's deeply irrational for people with similar political views to get so mad at each other just because we may disagree about which politicians do the best job of imperfectly embodying those ideals" -- is absolutely right on. I hope the party can recover from this and bitterness doesn't last into the general.

Posted by mq | April 22, 2008 3:03 PM

What I'd really like is a progressive candidate, which we don't have. (I have few illusions about Obama, and I know that progressives will need to hold his feet to the fire if he's elected.) What I really DON'T like is a supposed Democrat- Clinton- campaigning like she's auditioning to be McCain's running mate. Why is that so hard to understand? seems pretty straightforward to me.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 22, 2008 3:03 PM

Matt, It is not you. you are a fine person. People have been unhinged by this primary. I love the work you do. Please do not let the unhinged get to you.

Petey:A trust fund does not make someone a scumbag.(I am not saying Matt has a trust fund. I have no way of knowing) You can easily be a scumbag without money.

Posted by cheflovesbeer | April 22, 2008 3:05 PM

I like what you wrote. You addressed Petey without responding in kind with vitriol. It is too bad he has become not only so reflexive in his political outlook but so unhinged with ad hominem spew in your direction. He actually can make a good point and seems to me--prior to this electoral turn--to be a pretty principled liberal. Something too often lacking.

Posted by jeff | April 22, 2008 3:05 PM

Petey: Senator Clinton needs to be politically slaughtered with extreme malice. I think we all agree about that.

Comity!

Posted by hlah | April 22, 2008 3:06 PM

pete's a dude?

Posted by pete-tette | April 22, 2008 3:09 PM

Matt,

I think you are brave just to allow comments on your blog. I have seen all sorts of attacks, SPAM and such in the comment sections of several blogs. I believe Megan recently had problems with her comment section also.

However your post regarding Healthcare and the current nominees got me thinking. What type of Healthcare plan do you think we will have if Senator Obama is elected president and Senator Clinton remains in the Senate? My guess is crafting a Healthcare bill will be her number one priority and it will be based on her talking points throughout the primary. It could even become the key issue that Senator Clinton wins in order to drop out of the primary.

Posted by Michael Fisher | April 22, 2008 3:11 PM

At least for me, I have no understanding of why Obama is viewed as the progressive savior and Clinton is viewed as the Triangulating Devil.

AUMF, Kyl-Lieberman, Flag Burning Amendment, federal laws about videogames, obliterating Iran, name-dropping Louis Farrakhan, John McCain is a moderate who's prepared to be commander in chief (but Obama isn't),

Like Steve Labonne, I have no illusions about Obama being a progressive hero, but I think he is more likely to try to change the political conversation (not the whole system) than Clinton. I also think Clinton is the tailor-made candidate to lose a GE against McCain.

Posted by Jim | April 22, 2008 3:11 PM

Well, now I have a question...do you have a trust fund?

Posted by curious | April 22, 2008 3:12 PM

"The bile towards Clinton, as opposed to the fainting for Obama, is as perplexing as anything I have ever seen."

Realy? After all the racial stuff the Clinton campaign played around with in South Carolina? After the Clinton campaign repeatedly undermined the legitimacy of Democratic caucuses? After Hillary agreed that Michigan and Florida wouldn't count but then ignored that promise when it suited her? After Hillary implied McCain is ready to be Commander-in-Chief but not Obama? After she criticized Obama for complaining about treatment during a debate just weeks after she whined about the exact same thing? And the list could go on and on and on.

You really can't see how the behavior of Hillary and her campaign has provoked a lot, in not perhaps all, of that bile? Really?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | April 22, 2008 3:12 PM

"Al has suggested that Petey's bile is prompted more by you implying that he is a racist for not backing Obama. Your thoughts?

Posted by Fred | April 22, 2008 2:59 PM"

If that's what Petey thinks MY wrote, then he's just plain stupid, which is a definite possibility. Pointing out that the people who said that race played an important role in their decision broke for Clinton in Ohio led to her margin of victory there isn't the same as saying all Clinton supporters are racists. Petey has become stuck in a Manichean worldview where anyone who doesn't bow down to a certain policy the working class hates just hates working people. Petey just has very little understanding of how the world works in any real way.

Posted by Reality Man | April 22, 2008 3:13 PM

Somewhat off topic but is Mr. Yglesias going to comment on the latest Israel/US spy scandal? Come on now, we really need to here from Mr. Don Williams who, I am sure will have some trenchant comments.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=4701450

Posted by SLC | April 22, 2008 3:13 PM

The bile towards Clinton, as opposed to the fainting for Obama, is as perplexing as anything I have ever seen.

Considering all the crap she pulled during the campaign, thus confirming the worst of Republican talking points about her ?

Posted by David | April 22, 2008 3:13 PM

I agree that unhinged Petey seems to be a different person from the reasonable and intelligent Petey I read so many comments by last year. But if unhinged Petey is a doppelganger, what happened to the real Petey?

That said, Matt has not always been so high-minded himself. He's posted a lot of snark-heavy anti-Clinton conspiracy wankery these past few months. Now that HRC looks like she's sure to lose (dare I hope) he seems to be laying off a bit. But, time was, the racism charges were flying fast and furious from Matt's keyboard. It would be perfectly reasonable to be bitter (to use that dangerous word) about such things and taunt Matt for a while.

Also, if Matt reads the comments, I wonder why he responds to them so seldom? Kevin Drum and Glenn Greenwald regularly respond in their (much much more active) comments sections. Some weeks back, when I called him out for calling Barak Obama a "boy" while simultaneously taking much less serious slips of the tongue by supposed Clinton insiders as a sign of some insane conspiracy, I thought surely he'd deign to mix it up with us plebes, but no such luck.

Posted by Rob Mac | April 22, 2008 3:15 PM

Lmao, in a post about how scummy Petey is, Armondo manages to find a way to say 'but Obama supporters are a billion times worser!!!!'

Fuck Armando. He's a racist who think black people shouldn't count. He spends half his time at TalkLeft(where he posts as Big Tent Democrat) arguing that nominating Obama is a terrible idea because he only gets 36% of the white vote. Nevermind that that is all ANY Democrat ever gets.

Not hard to figure out why he chooses to use different pseudonyms on different sites, he doesn't want to have to defend that shit anywhere where he can't delete opposing comments or demand that they leave.

Posted by Soullite | April 22, 2008 3:15 PM

To answer Armando's question about Obama: I'm a lot less interested in Obama than I am in his organization. I think there's a small, but not incalculable, chance that his organization will go off-program once he's in office and start directing serious anger and threat at entrenched power, including President Obama himself. I give it maybe a 1 in 50 shot. If that happens our society might actually stand a chance, or at least the rest of the inevitable spiral downward will be less humiliating and more fun.

Posted by Pesto | April 22, 2008 3:16 PM

Petey: Sure a Hillary administration will screw over organized labor, but I'm sure if she's elected, she'll make sure to take care of the leaders who've endorsed her, even if those leaders' rank and file get screwed.

Link: matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/seius_big_win.php#comment-611961

Posted by hlah | April 22, 2008 3:19 PM

To be fair, Matt, you are a trust-fund scumbag.

Posted by strasmangelo jones | April 22, 2008 3:19 PM

Isn't Petey actually Lee Siegel's alter ego?

Posted by Sir Charles | April 22, 2008 3:20 PM

I called Petey to tell him his ice cream was cold. He wasn't happy. Turned into some big harangue about a guy with no shoes and some other guy missing his feet. I couldn't follow it all and my head started hurting. Dripping clocks and ocean waves lapping at my feet. Feet I was happy to have, let me tell you! Petey. Petey! Come back! 'Bye, Petey.

Posted by steve duncan | April 22, 2008 3:21 PM

"Indeed, Obama's central theme is his post-partisanship and how he will bring the country together, working with the GOP. It is a High Broderist message"

Well, blame the Constitution and the Senate rules. You need 60 votes to get anything through the Senate, and small-population states - mostly rural and conservative - are grossly over-represented there. That's the game. Obama is preparing to play the game to win: first by crafting his message to make Democrats competitive in the not-so-deep South, the mountain states, and the Northwest, giving a better chance to get more Dems in the Senate; and secondly by mobilizing independent and moderate-Republican voters to put pressure on Republican office-holders to offer something more constructive than knee-jerk obstructionism.

In substance, Obama's proposals - government money to make affordable health insurance more widely available; winding down our ruinous entanglement in Iraq; a solidly liberal-internationalist foreign policy; phasing out the most egregious of the Bush tax cuts - are ok, and in most respects better than HRC's. If he needs to talk nice to Republicans to make it happen, that's a price well worth paying.

On the other hand, HRC's strategy seems to be to shoot for a maximum 51% in the Electoral College with no discernible coattails, and then face a uniformly hostile GOP which has demonized her for 15 years. How does that get us any vaguely progressive legislation ? And given that this comes from the same geniuses who couldn't be bothered to organize in caucus states, and didn't have a Plan B to compete in the month after Super Tuesday, you have to have some doubts ...

I'd be more sympathetic if she would at least
promise to stop the torture. But no, she has waffled even on that simple issue.

Posted by Richard Cownie | April 22, 2008 3:22 PM

Petey: I think Mark Penn is going to discover this January that the bulk of the Democratic Party isn't partial to Liebercrats backed by Karl Rove and Rupert Murdoch. Mark Penn has his finger on the pulse of everything in America, with the minor exception of Democrats.

link: matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/the_cougar_threat.php#comment-435920

Posted by hlah | April 22, 2008 3:23 PM

The bile towards Clinton, as opposed to the fainting for Obama, is as perplexing as anything I have ever seen.

Yeah, guys. We should all embrace Democratic candidates who claim the Republican nominee would be better for the job than their Democratic opponent. We should embrace Democratic nominees who themselves embrace republican talking points. What's so difficult about that to grasp?

Posted by Seitz | April 22, 2008 3:23 PM

At least for me, I have no understanding of why Obama is viewed as the progressive savior and Clinton is viewed as the Triangulating Devil. To me, Obama resembles no one more than Bill Clinton circa 1992.

You may not have noticed this, but Obama's black. That means he can't really sell us out to the South, and thus, to the Southern Conservatives. WJC could and did, and HRC is trying as hard as hell to do so now. Selling us out like that can have bad effects. E.g.,the Iraq war and the rhetoric surrounding it.

This isn't very hard.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 22, 2008 3:23 PM

Either way, though, it's deeply irrational for people with similar political views to get so mad at each other just because we may disagree about which politicians do the best job of imperfectly embodying those ideals.

It may be irrational from our perspective, but for the politicians it's absolutely necessary. They have to make the differences between them important, and to some extent make their adversaries appear distasteful in order to lock in their support.

I often feel heavily provoked by the Clinton campaign, and I'm sure the same feelings run on the other side. Most people react relatively moderately to the provocation. But it's not surprising that a few folks like Petey get pushed over the edge.

Posted by southpaw | April 22, 2008 3:23 PM

The first mistake that you (and Ezra) have made is mentioning Petey at all. The second is to assume that he is either rational or acting in good faith.

I remember Petey from back in 2003 when he was banned from dkos. He was an instigator and nasty person back then, too--but a bit of an inside joke (does anyone remember Susan Nunes?) He especially had it out for the "Deaniacs", so it's no surprise to me that he can't bring himself to favor Obama either.

I don't know what makes Petey tick and don't want to waste any time thinking about it. However, the big mistake here is to take some sort of lesson out of this about how the primary is deranging people. Petey was already deranged. He's simply not a good example.

Posted by JMS | April 22, 2008 3:23 PM

Every time I come across Petey's comments, or comments like them, I have remind myself that I'm not in a sports forum. It feels like that - Obama vs. Clinton, Cavaliers vs. Wizards. (If you saw last night's game, the correlation could fit, I guess.) While this isn't sports, the vitriolic comments seem to have more in common with what you'd hear from an opposing fan two seats down, or in the sports bar.

Posted by Scientific | April 22, 2008 3:24 PM

Actually I am quite disheartened by this half-hearted attempt to paper over legitimate concerns.

Petey clearly feels that you cannot possibly represent his view as your perspective (purportedly a jewish, male, harvard-educated, trust fund scumbag, from New York City) is so alien from his.

Why is that? Maybe this is what is wrong with the Democratic party these days -- the party has been dividing and calculating based on class, race, and gender for so long it can't stop detailing and provide a cohesive plan for america -- everything is couched in struggle politics not winner politics. Love him or hate him, Gingrich (and Reagan) presented a cohesive marketing plan that attracted positive attention (much like the barack of, oh, say, 60 days ago).

Address that!

Posted by mike c | April 22, 2008 3:26 PM

Hmm, on second thought, I can see why Petey's vitriol stands out to the incredibly civil commenting we see in this thread.

Petey really does coarsen the discourse here, doesn't he?

Sheesh. Irony is dead.

Posted by Armando | April 22, 2008 3:29 PM

How does the fact that Matthew is the son of a very successful and talented working screenwriter make him a trust fund scumbag? Whatever my issues with his politics, young Mr. Yglesias pretty obviously earned his way into his position through being an interesting thinker and amazingly prolific blogger. I actually quite envy the man's work ethic.

Posted by Hank Scorpio | April 22, 2008 3:29 PM

Trust Fund Scumbags would be a great name for one of those hip bands that Matt likes so much

Posted by sean | April 22, 2008 3:29 PM

Hmm, on second thought, I can see why Petey's vitriol stands out to the incredibly civil commenting we see in this thread.

Petey really does coarsen the discourse here, doesn't he?

Sheesh. Irony is dead.

Posted by Armando | April 22, 2008 3:30 PM

I don't put much stock in this "trust-fund scumbag" stuff. But it does touch on some legitimate issues, as much as I find it unfortunate. What I would really like is for Matt to actually consider, in a long and thought out post, what effects his privilege has on his career on his pundit; how the Atlantic blogroll is filled with people from similarly academically and financially privileged backgrounds; and what consequences that has for the output on the blogs. I think that's relevant, connected to his progressive politics, and a very important question for the new media.

Posted by Freddie | April 22, 2008 3:30 PM

Armando/Big Tent Democrat: The bile towards Clinton, as opposed to the fainting for Obama, is as perplexing as anything I have ever seen.

Yes, yes, so very perplexing. Why would I produce bile for a candidate who slandered the activist base of the party by falsely claiming that a major organization opposed military action in Afghanistan? I mean, that's not at all similar to the kind of slander we've been receiving from Rush/Coulter/Fox News types for the last several years, right?

Feeding into the myth that the democratic base is somehow filled with weak-kneed DFHs who secretly want to hold hands with Osama bin Laden is just enraging. It's Leiberdem-tastic. And it makes me hate Hillary.

Posted by MY Strikes Again | April 22, 2008 3:30 PM

the bile and outright Obama Hate coming from Jeralyn and Armando over at Talk Left and Lambert et. alia at corrente amazes me. this primary is bitter, no doubt, but the endless parade of Two Minute Obama Hate posts from these two sites in particular have been really over the top. the low point, in my estimation, was the posting of racist songs at Corrente and the near hysteria over Obama scratching his face (excuse me, flipping off HRC) by both sites.

it will be interesting to see if they are willing to let go of their fear and hate once Obama secures the nomination. but watching Armando and Lambert make jackasses out of themselves, each and every day, sure has been instructive.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | April 22, 2008 3:32 PM

My impression of Petey has always been that he's primarily motivated by a desire to be viewed as some sort of hotshot, visionary political strategist/activist. His postings have mostly involved trying to cultivate that image, rather than any substantive ideological agenda.

His self-association with (and obsessive promotion of) the Edwards campaign, and his somewhat deranged response to its failure, can probably be best understood in those terms. Getting involved in political activism for purposes of ego gratification generally leads to bad outcomes.

Posted by N | April 22, 2008 3:33 PM

I'm with JMS. Why give any more attention to this pathetic little troll? Petey clearly isn't sincere about any of this, as Hlah shows. Or if he is sincere, he's simply lost it, which means the guy's just another psycho who, in a pre-internet age, would be burdening his family with his issues rather than unspooling his crap all over internet forums.

Posted by Ryan W. | April 22, 2008 3:33 PM

What's a "trust-fund scumbag"? Is that someone who lives off of a trust fund their parents gave them, or is it someone who believes that the Social Security trust fund is solvent and therefore the program is in no need of privatization? I assume Matthew was, ironically, being called the former, which he is not, and not the latter, which he is (I think).

Posted by Jack | April 22, 2008 3:33 PM

Petey really does coarsen the discourse here, doesn't he?

Sheesh. Irony is dead

Lick my asshole, you DLC hack.

(Mise en scene irony isn't.)

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 22, 2008 3:34 PM

The bile towards Clinton, as opposed to the fainting for Obama, is as perplexing as anything I have ever seen.

It's not a mystery. We mean what we say. Those of us who loath Hillary Monster do so for reasons other than policy (though her monstrous qualities do end up have some policy implications, such as her fear mongering regarding foreign policy, and her Bush-like beliefs regarding executive power; however, the policy differences are secondary). Not everyone has quite the same reasons for hating her, of course, but for the most part it comes down to a sincere belief that Hillary, to a much, much greater extent than most politicians, is a power hungry monster with few if any real principles who will do anything to gain power.

Now obviously many people disagree with those characterizations, or have convinced themselves that it doesn't matter. And I'm not going to waste time marshaling evidence; if events to date haven't convinced you of the truth of my statements above, nothing short of Hillary killing an infant and drinking its blood on national television is likely to convince you. But agree or disagree, 90% of the Hillary hatred comes from people who sincerely share the beliefs about Hillary outlined above.

Posted by LarryM | April 22, 2008 3:34 PM

For my part, Sen. Clinton's transparently false claim, during a debate, that Obama had said that Reagan and the GOP had better ideas than the Democratic Party really made me start to look askance at her.

The other incidence that everyone else here has mentioned then pushed me into CDS-land.

We need a Democratic government; we have selected a Democratic nominee; but Clinton is pursuing the "kitchen sink" strategy (her campaign's term!) to tar our nominee's name in an effort to seize the nomination over the will of the voters. Not great.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | April 22, 2008 3:35 PM

Matt: the same must be said about your negativity toward the Lakers. You are a Knicks fan (and have adopted the Wizards by virtue of the move from NYC to DC). But while your loyalties may have been distributed between the Knicks and the Wizards, your completely rational dislike of the Celtics remains firmly in place. There are only three teams with deep hatred of the Celtics: Knicks, 76ers and the Lakers. Therefore, you should lay off the Lakers (although you've been lightening up on them since the Gasol deal). Unless the Knicks are in it, then you can't really disfavor the Lakers, because their glory hacks away at the nasty bramble which is the Celtics condescension, self-righteousness and smugness. You must admit that these past twenty-something years of Celtic futility have been good ones, even if that means that the Lakers had a few championships during this time.

Posted by Cal | April 22, 2008 3:36 PM

i think N (@ 3:33pm) is right on. that is the same impression i got from Petey

Posted by sean | April 22, 2008 3:36 PM

Petey: Penn is an idiot. Bill Clinton has been stuck in the bubble for a decade. And Hillary Clinton has atrocious political instincts. They're are a horrible operation, and it's all of our duties to put them out of their misery before they're able to regroup enough to grind their way to a narrow nomination win and the disaster that would then ensure.

Link: matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/ways_of_winning.php#comment-1083430

Posted by hlah | April 22, 2008 3:37 PM

We've probably all become a little too vitriolic about this campaign. But I don't necessarily think it's our fault. When this campaign started, I was a Hillary supporter. I didn't like Edwards and I didn't think Obama could win. Now, I'm warming to Edwards, support Obama, and can't stand Hillary. It's at the point now where I hit the mute button on my television whenever Hillary is talking. I've been trying to figure out how someone like me, who was predisposed to Hillary, could end up hating her so much. No doubt some of the blame rests with me, but most of it has to rest on Hillary. For me, I really think it's her tone of voice. I hate to think that a decision like this would rest on something so trivial, but I don't really have a better explanation. The only other thing I can really think of is that, in my international travels, Obama has been the clear favorite. But that's only really why I prefer Obama. It doesn't explain why I've come to dislike Hillary so much.

Posted by fostert | April 22, 2008 3:37 PM

the bile and outright Obama Hate coming from Jeralyn and Armando over at Talk Left and Lambert et. alia at corrente amazes me.

Doesn't amaze me as much as their pearl clutching over "waffle-gate", "bitter-gate", and other trumped up "controversies" where Jeralyn and Armando gleefully join up with the right wing pundit class to predict yet another sinking of Obama. They want him to lose so bad they can taste it. Unfortunately, they've hitched their wagon to horrendous campaign that has essentially no chance of winning. Everyone sees it but them.

Posted by Seitz | April 22, 2008 3:38 PM

What's a "trust-fund scumbag"? Is that someone who lives off of a trust fund their parents gave them, or is it someone who believes that the Social Security trust fund is solvent and therefore the program is in no need of privatization? I assume Matthew was, ironically, being called the former, which he is not, and not the latter, which he is (I think).

Posted by Jack | April 22, 2008 3:39 PM

Petey really does coarsen the discourse here, doesn't he?
Sheesh. Irony is dead.
Posted by Armando

Just curious: Were you even conscious of the two gratuitous, sneering swipes you took at Obama supporters (fainting+savior=naïve cultists) in your post pleading for "civility"?

Posted by Jim | April 22, 2008 3:40 PM

Petey's a dick. Dicks with interesting things to say are still dicks and their dickery should not be encouraged.

This argument also works if you substitute "Christopher Hitchens".

Posted by schwa | April 22, 2008 3:42 PM

My impression of Petey has always been that he's primarily motivated by a desire to be viewed as some sort of hotshot, visionary political strategist/activist. His postings have mostly involved trying to cultivate that image, rather than any substantive ideological agenda.

I think that's why he's so mad. Petey always emphasized political realism and electability. He threw in with Edwards mainly because he thought Edwards was the electable white male, and then Edwards got beat - somewhat undermining that theory. So then Petey pretended it was all about health care all along, and moved to Clinton. Then she got beat. So he has double egg of his face.

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 22, 2008 3:42 PM

Nice discussion.

But as long as we're on basketball: when is Matt going to post on the fascinating Wizards/Cavs series? Isn't he finding it interesting and compelling to watch Lebron ascend yet another level on the mountain of superstardom, posterizing various overrated Wizards as he rises?

Posted by mq | April 22, 2008 3:42 PM

Matt wrote:

I don't know how many readers of this blog check out the comment section. But I think it's interesting

No it isn't. And wading into disputes with live-in-mom's-basement commentors is always a bad idea.

But clarifying if you are indeed a "trust-fund scumbag" is a good idea. Enquiring minds want to know.

Posted by Ikram | April 22, 2008 3:43 PM

Matt wrote:

I don't know how many readers of this blog check out the comment section. But I think it's interesting

No it isn't. And wading into disputes with live-in-mom's-basement commentors is always a bad idea.

But clarifying if you are indeed a "trust-fund scumbag" is a good idea. Enquiring minds want to know.

Posted by Ikram | April 22, 2008 3:43 PM

I'd just like to thank hlah for performing a public service.

Posted by live | April 22, 2008 3:44 PM

Well, a couple of years ago I made a negative comment about Petey's extolling the virtues of smoking and was called any number of names by him that shocked the other commenters with their vehemence.

I feel your pain, Matt.

Posted by Randy Paul | April 22, 2008 3:44 PM

Armando: "Interesting post. Certainly no need to get that mad at each other. Which really begs the question, how come being so will to hurl invective about Hillary Clinton is considered fine?"

There's a huge difference between attacking Clinton or Obama, politicians running for the Presidency, and going on another progressive democrat's blog and attacking them in extremely personal terms. Kind of like if I went on Talkleft and started calling you a Wal-Mart sellout racist, or something.

Clinton's running an ad in Pennsylvania that closes, quoting Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." And I think that's entirely appropriate for politicians who are putting themselves out there to get votes. It's not clear to me why Yglesias or anyone else needs to be nice to rich, powerful egomaniacs like Clinton or Obama who somehow think they are the most qualified to be the President of the United States. On the other hand, Petey's attacks on Yglesias are just rude douchebaggery of the highest order. If the guy wants to rant against Yglesias, he should get his own blog.

Posted by Korha | April 22, 2008 3:45 PM

"Scumbag" is old 50s slang for a used condom. Doesn't that make the word even more vile? Just saying...

Petey had a lot of unsavory habits before he went all deranged on Matt and Ezra. He's a conspiracy nut who relishes in ad hominem attacks and will badger any commenter who disagrees with him. I have seen many a thread go on for dozens of posts with Petey attempting to shut down anyone with a slightly different perspective. Unlike Al the Friendly Troll (whom I begrudgingly respect), he brings nothing to the conversation.

Posted by Philly | April 22, 2008 3:45 PM

I feel that I should say something, because Petey and I were on the same side of everything for so long. Given that past association, I've felt pretty bad as I've read his comments lately. And I've started writing about ten different comments to him at times, only to delete them.

I'm hoping that the end of the primary will bring back the old Petey whose comments I appreciated so much.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | April 22, 2008 3:46 PM

Rob Mac:

"Also, if Matt reads the comments, I wonder why he responds to them so seldom? Kevin Drum and Glenn Greenwald regularly respond in their (much much more active) comments sections. Some weeks back, when I called him out for calling Barak Obama a "boy" while simultaneously taking much less serious slips of the tongue by supposed Clinton insiders as a sign of some insane conspiracy, I thought surely he'd deign to mix it up with us plebes, but no such luck."

Boo F'ing Hoo. Go taunt those guys then. What I don't understand is why commenters get so pissed at bloggers. Just don't read the blog, go elsewhere.

Last fall I was torn between Obama and Edwards, before Iowa I tilted to Obama - recognizing he had a better chance and has that special something - and was ecstatic when he won Iowa and Hillary came in third.

At that point I thought Hillary would make a fine President and didn't really harbor any ill will towards her. Now after months of being insulted by her and her supporters I can't stand them. They talk to us like we're stupid and act like their shit don't stink.

Hillary has permanently damaged her reputation. Edwards too. Who knows why Petey went loco/insane in the membrane? I don't really care.

I am excited about the general election and probable Obama Presidency (possibly a year from now). Should be fun!

Posted by Peter K. | April 22, 2008 3:48 PM

Armando: "Interesting post. Certainly no need to get that mad at each other. Which really begs the question, how come being so will to hurl invective about Hillary Clinton is considered fine?"

There's a huge difference between attacking Clinton or Obama, politicians running for the Presidency, and going on another progressive democrat's blog and attacking them in extremely personal terms. Kind of like if I went on Talkleft and started calling you a Wal-Mart sellout racist, or something.

Clinton's running an ad in Pennsylvania that closes, quoting Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." And I think that's entirely appropriate for politicians who are putting themselves out there to get votes. It's not clear to me why Yglesias or anyone else needs to be nice to rich, powerful egomaniacs like Clinton or Obama who somehow think they are the most qualified to be the President of the United States. On the other hand, Petey's attacks on Yglesias are just rude douchebaggery of the highest order. If the guy wants to rant against Yglesias, he should get his own blog.

Posted by Korha | April 22, 2008 3:49 PM

JMS is right. Petey's always been a big weirdo,and what's interesting to me is how few people who've understood that. They didn't know about the Kos stuff and perhaps took his extremely categorical, dead certain statements about every topic under the sun as shtick and hyperbole, which I don't know if it was. But what about the recurring rants about Moulitsas?

Posted by David Weman | April 22, 2008 3:49 PM

Korha:

I accept that point. I get called that at other blogs, including this one. But I do not allow it at the blog I post at.

If that is Matt's point, taken.

But if it is broader than that, then I do not take the point and I think this thread pretty much demolishes that point.

Clearly calling everyone but Matt everything under the sun is considered good discourse.

Posted by Armando | April 22, 2008 3:50 PM

The real question is whether Petey makes an appearance on this thread....

But yes, it would be interesting to hear thoughts on the Cavs-Wiz series.

Posted by MY Strikes Again | April 22, 2008 3:50 PM

Poor Petey.

Posted by Freddie | April 22, 2008 3:50 PM

JMS is right. Petey's always been a big weirdo,and what's interesting to me is how few people who've understood that. They didn't know about the Kos stuff and perhaps took his extremely categorical, dead certain statements about every topic under the sun as shtick and hyperbole, which I don't know if it was. But what about the recurring loopy rants about Moulitsas?

Posted by David Weman | April 22, 2008 3:52 PM

P. S. If Hillary Clinton had a blog, it would be probably just as rude to go there and attack her in extremely personal terms as it is on any other blog. There's a certain presumption of guest privilege that is involved in commenting on someone else's blog. Minimum standards of decorum ought to be observed.

Posted by Korha | April 22, 2008 3:53 PM

There is one key empirical point you disagree on: whether Hillary Clinton has a relevant chance to win the nomination.

To people who support HRC, they probably feel suffocated not just by supporters of a candidate they oppose, but by people who deny their very legitimacy by saying she should drop out.

To people who support Obama, they are desperately afraid that this primary won't just be about picking a nominee, but could rip the party apart, embarass our already-chosen nominee, and ruin this perfect chance to get the presidency.

Most of the real bitterness in the Democratic primary can really be charted to mid-February, when 70% of the blogosphere woke up and realized HRC couldn't win the nomination anymore.

Posted by Shock Mouse | April 22, 2008 3:54 PM

I am waiting for Petey to come bitching with bated breath

Posted by bend | April 22, 2008 3:56 PM

I concur with those above who say Petey has always been abusive.
I have been an Obama supporter since the get-go and I remember full-well the torrent of insults and delusional proclamations Petey made after the Des Moines Register poll signaled Obama was about to win IA.
So when Edwards withdrew and I read people like Ezra Klein say "Well Edwards brought a lot to the race including wonderful commenters like Petey", I was like WTF ?
It is nothing new but I guess you only notice when you are the brunt of his abuse.

Posted by Benjamin | April 22, 2008 3:56 PM

Armando/BTD -- are you now suddenly some kind of fainting GOP prude, sickened by the garden variety comments in this thread in the manner of theocons fainting at the sight of Janet Jackson's nipples or the thought of BJs in the oval office?

What, exactly, has so troubled your delicate sensibilities in this thread?

Also -- I'd love to hear a defense of HRC's outrageous comments regarding MoveOn & Afghanistan...

Posted by MY Strikes Again | April 22, 2008 3:57 PM

Indeed, Obama's central theme is his post-partisanship and how he will bring the country together, working with the GOP.

No, Bringing People Together (tm) is his tagline. His "central theme" is that Americans actually prefer core Democratic positions on most issues.

Sheesh... it's kinda hard to respect the political assessments of people who not only don't understand marketing, but are iffy at best on narrative and character development. The first weakness is natural, given that cynical commercialism is more a GOP thing, but I used to think that liberal-arts-lovin' lefties would at least get the latter two.

Posted by latts | April 22, 2008 3:57 PM

Petey's actually mad because--despite being a trust-fund scumbag, you never bought drugs. Not once.

Posted by nitpicker | April 22, 2008 3:59 PM

I concur with those above who say Petey has always been abusive.
I have been an Obama supporter since the get-go and I remember full-well the torrent of insults and delusional proclamations Petey made after the Des Moines Register poll signaled Obama was about to win IA.
So when Edwards withdrew and I read people like Ezra Klein say "Well Edwards brought a lot to the race including wonderful commenters like Petey", I was like WTF ?
It is nothing new but I guess you only notice when you are the brunt of his abuse.

Posted by Benjamin | April 22, 2008 4:00 PM

"The bile towards Clinton, as opposed to the fainting for Obama, is as perplexing as anything I have ever seen."

Well, I pretty much look at that quote and see exactly where my bile has come from. Again, we have someone saying that, since I support Obama, I must be some sort of fangirl, fainting teenager who is too stupid and self-centered to understand I should support the candidate the "grownups" (apparently like the poster who wrote this) tell us to.

I hate to tell you, but the bile spewed by Clinton supporters and the candidate herself at me has created a deep distaste and distrust of them. I am 50 years old. I am not a giggling teenager nor have I drunk Kool Aid in the last 40 years or so. I'm intelligent, I'm well informed, and I make my decisions based on the facts, often having to compromise some points in order to come to a decision that has the best chance of coming to fruition.

I had nothing bad to say about Clinton and her supporters until I started having those sorts of oh-you're-obviously-too-naive-to-know-better interactions on a daily basis. That began in late January. And nothing Clinton or her followers have said since has been a bit less insulting to Obama or to people like me.

Posted by geg6 | April 22, 2008 4:01 PM

The primary season has dispelled any notion I had that people on the left are more rational than people on the right. If your views differ from someone by even a fraction, prepare for the ad hominem insults to fly. In a primary where the white guys (several of them very well qualified) all went home early leaving a black man and a woman, many people argue with a straight face about how racist and/or misogynist Dem voters are. It's just sad.

Posted by Jack H. | April 22, 2008 4:01 PM

"Armando/BTD -- are you now suddenly some kind of fainting GOP prude, sickened by the garden variety comments in this thread in the manner of theocons fainting at the sight of Janet Jackson's nipples or the thought of BJs in the oval office?"

Hardly. I can dish it out with the best of them. I am responding to the post's concerns.

Posted by Armando | April 22, 2008 4:02 PM

"The bile towards Clinton, as opposed to the fainting for Obama, is as perplexing as anything I have ever seen."

Well, I pretty much look at that quote and see exactly where my bile has come from. Again, we have someone saying that, since I support Obama, I must be some sort of fangirl, fainting teenager who is too stupid and self-centered to understand I should support the candidate the "grownups" (apparently like the poster who wrote this) tell us to.

I hate to tell you, but the bile spewed by Clinton supporters and the candidate herself at me has created a deep distaste and distrust of them. I am 50 years old. I am not a giggling teenager nor have I drunk Kool Aid in the last 40 years or so. I'm intelligent, I'm well informed, and I make my decisions based on the facts, often having to compromise some points in order to come to a decision that has the best chance of coming to fruition.

I had nothing bad to say about Clinton and her supporters until I started having those sorts of oh-you're-obviously-too-naive-to-know-better interactions on a daily basis. That began in late January. And nothing Clinton or her followers have said since has been a bit less insulting to Obama or to people like me.

Posted by geg6 | April 22, 2008 4:03 PM

The danger is looking at Liberal A, Liberal B, Liberal C and concluding since they roughly all have the same platform, there would be no difference in how they lead the nation. Akin to saying no difference in results would happen if either Conservative A or Conservative B is elected when one is Reagan, the other Dubya.

People with reservations about Obama base that on concerns that he is smoke and mirrors and lacks executive decision-making ability...most recently charged by those noting Obama melted down and failed to make decisions in a nuclear crisis wargame he was part of, and his decision to associate himself with some very unsavory people in Illinois. Fear that Obama is cocky, arrogant, and lacking in ability other than appealing to black voters, youth, and giving good prepared speeches in his "Black Reverend speechifying style" - and when he is vetted, he might be another Kerry disaster.
So it isn't a case that Liberal A, B, C, or Kucinich "D" is "just as good" because they want the same programs...and the important thing was to have picked one last February.

And the Democrats did not field their best governors because the govs saw no opening with the Senate Candidates using their clout to scoop up all the money donors beholden to the Senate's whims....Kane, Bayh, even Rendell would have been better than Hillary or Obama. Certainly better than "Slick".

Posted by Chris Ford | April 22, 2008 4:04 PM

I'm hoping that the end of the primary will bring back the old Petey whose comments I appreciated so much.

Me too. Even though I disagreed with most of what he said (true of 95% of commenters, probably), even on the basketball threads, at least it was often interesting and substantive. But the trust fund stuff is repetitive and boring.

Also, I agree with Korha that there should be a standard of decorum vis-a-vis the host. The problem is that it's difficult to know what that standard is (I think that "scumbag" crosses the line in a way that, say, a comment that Matthew is lying about something doesn't - but that's debatable on both ends, I suppose).

Posted by Al | April 22, 2008 4:05 PM

I can't believe we're discussing polite discourse with Armando here.

Hey, did he just flip me the bird? Roll that fabulous bean footage!

Posted by Davebo | April 22, 2008 4:06 PM

You know who almost no one can get mad at?

Turd Ferguson.

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | April 22, 2008 4:06 PM

Anonymous asks: "Why do you like Obama more on climate change?"

I think Sen. Clinton answered that question by agreeing with Sen. McCain's proposal for a gas tax holiday. We're on track to have a rare down-turn in driving in 2008, but a gas-tax holiday designed to lower the price of gasoline will result in more CO2 released than need be. She's too quick to respond to a bad idea that sounds attractive as a marketing idea with agreement. She knows better, but does it anyway.

Posted by Lukeness | April 22, 2008 4:07 PM

Watching Petey over the years I lean towards the hurt ego theory but the volume and craziness of it make me think maybe he seriously got his ass in a crack with intrade. He seems to have a sort of magical thinking about the power of blog comments and maybe the only thing that can save him financially is a Hillary win.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 22, 2008 4:07 PM

Believe me Davebo, nothing strikes me quite so funny as that. But I have had to give up my old ways at the blog I post at.

Posted by Armando | April 22, 2008 4:09 PM

She’s the most effective individual to deal with foreign affairs, which will be the most important issue of this race in the end. How can we fix our economy without better foreign relations? Clearly, we cannot. Globalization insists upon improved relations and returning the US to it’s pre-Bush standing.

This will be the fourth attempt for Obama to knock Clinton out of the race. He’s been incapable of doing so, which demonstrates his lack of feasibility as a candidate.

There are good reasons why the superdelegates should ignore the Obama Campaigns cries for all Superdelegates to swing for Obama and instead endorse Mrs Clinton. There’s no question that superdelegates will consider electability as a factor in deciding whether to vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Clinton CAN beat McCain in November. Obama cannot if he is on the ticket as President. Him as VP is a different story: http://clintonista.wordpress.com/

Posted by The Clintonista Post | April 22, 2008 4:09 PM

I concur with those above who say Petey has always been abusive.
I have been an Obama supporter since the get-go and I remember full-well the torrent of insults and delusional proclamations Petey made after the Des Moines Register poll signaled Obama was about to win IA.
So when Edwards withdrew and I read people like Ezra Klein say "Well Edwards brought a lot to the race including wonderful commenters like Petey", I was like WTF ?
It is nothing new but I guess you only notice when you are the brunt of his abuse.

Posted by Benjamin | April 22, 2008 4:10 PM

She’s the most effective individual to deal with foreign affairs, which will be the most important issue of this race in the end. How can we fix our economy without better foreign relations? Clearly, we cannot. Globalization insists upon improved relations and returning the US to it’s pre-Bush standing.

This will be the fourth attempt for Obama to knock Clinton out of the race. He’s been incapable of doing so, which demonstrates his lack of feasibility as a candidate.

There are good reasons why the superdelegates should ignore the Obama Campaigns cries for all Superdelegates to swing for Obama and instead endorse Mrs Clinton. There’s no question that superdelegates will consider electability as a factor in deciding whether to vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Clinton CAN beat McCain in November. Obama cannot if he is on the ticket as President. Him as VP is a different story: http://clintonista.wordpress.com/

Posted by The Clintonista Post | April 22, 2008 4:10 PM

I like what you wrote. You addressed Petey without responding in kind with vitriol.

Roger that.

In online discussions, "return good for evil" can be good practical advice.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | April 22, 2008 4:14 PM

Interesting discussion, I guess. Just as I don't think the Clintons are any more unprincipled, opportunistic, or dishonest than they were 16 years ago, I don't think Petey is any more dishonest or insulting than the day I first noticed him. I first noticed him while reading a reply that Matt posted in the comments here asking Petey why he couldn't disagree without personalizing the issue. Since then, Petey's never-ending exaggerations, bullying, and really offensive insults have simply made me sick. I agree that he does have some interesting things to say because he stays well informed about politics. But wisdom does not consist of copious information, and this guy's wisdom isn't even at the How to Win Friends and Influence People level. My advice is: learn how to act like a adult or go away.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 22, 2008 4:15 PM

When Mr. Obama does eventually capitulate and wear a flag lapel pin, won't that demonstrate he is insecure about his patriotism? After all, you don't see McCain wearing a lapel pin.

Posted by Adam Nagourney | April 22, 2008 4:21 PM

Although nitpicker, above, wins the thread, my 2 cents...

Matt, I appreciate the post. Never thought you were a scumbag and am both agnostic and indifferent on the issue of whether or not you are a trust-fund beneficiary.

I too have enjoyed Petey's insights, until the the last couple months, as he became increasingly unhinged, to the point where I simply shake my head and wonder if, indeed, the new Petey is a doppleganger.

Posted by McKingford | April 22, 2008 4:23 PM

This post has made me feel all powdery blue inside.

Posted by MP | April 22, 2008 4:25 PM

If universal healthcare primarily benefits people making less than $200,000 a year, aren't we leaving the middle class behind? Wouldn't they be able to buy more health insurance with a Capital Gains tax cut?

Posted by Charlie Gibson | April 22, 2008 4:26 PM

He threw in with Edwards mainly because he thought Edwards was the electable white male, and then Edwards got beat - somewhat undermining that theory. So then Petey pretended it was all about health care all along, and moved to Clinton. Then she got beat. So he has double egg of his face.

Ok, I'll throw in my 2-bit psychoanalysis of Petey.

I thought he supported Edwards most strongly when it became clear that Edwards had no chance. Then his support for Clinton grew as it became more and more clear that she had no chance. This, it seemed to me, was his way of setting us all up for: "See you stupid bitches, you should have listened to meeeeeee, but you didn't and now (bad thing x) has happened." You can't do that when you back the winner.

-S

Posted by Strega Nona | April 22, 2008 4:27 PM

Is Petey Real?

Posted by M | April 22, 2008 4:31 PM

I believe you crossed a line around here, and gleefully never looked back.

Your coverage of the nomination race since then has been shameful in a way that makes Disney's folks look like saints in comparison.

You have crossed the line from reality based candidate advocacy (an honorable thing to do) to something immensely less honest.

You have decided to treat Clinton by the rules of intentional intellectual dishonesty that you would normally reserve only for a Republican.

And that decision is the source of my "rather narrow disagreement" you refer to.

I've been troubled by your royalist economic attitudes since I first read you, but your general intellectual honesty covered a multitude of sins for a blogger. It took your dishonest primary campaign coverage xeroxed right from Marty Peretz to get me calling you names, not your ideological deviations from core progressive values.

But I expect you are reasonably aware of this already.

Posted by Petey | April 22, 2008 4:35 PM

This will be the fourth attempt for Obama to knock Clinton out of the race. He’s been incapable of doing so, which demonstrates his lack of feasibility as a candidate.

Ok, this illogic cannot stand.

For all intents and purposes, Obama *has* knocked Clinton out of the race. She's so far behind that she cannot conceivably win. That she chooses to continue campaigning is her prerogative, but is entirely divorced from her chances or likelihood of winning.

Moreover, even assuming the illogic of this theory, I'm not sure how the "failure" of the leading candidate to knock the trailing candidate out of the race somehow enures to the benefit of the trailing candidate. To accept this logic, one might as well endorse Edwards...

Posted by McKingford | April 22, 2008 4:36 PM

Yes, Hillary Clinton suffers from ED (excessive dishonesty), but there are promising new treatments. However, should the Bill & Hillary show play through June, as she predicts, it could damage the DNC, to put it mildly. As Howard Dean is beginning to suspect (as I think we all are), Hillary could put the party out of business altogether. I hope Pennsylvanians will send the Clintons a clear edict; take the money, and leave 'em laughing. Hillary has always treated working class Americans as a species apart, and that very treatment may destroy the DNC: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | April 22, 2008 4:37 PM

latts, if Obama's marketing isn't getting his central theme across, how is it the audience's fault?

Posted by AlanC9 | April 22, 2008 4:38 PM

Good post. I basically agree with Megan McArdle on a bunch of things - not the war, mind you, or Bear Stearns bailout. But I have absolutely no patience for her. I guess, in part, I think she should know better, which is probably how Petey regards Matt Y.: Matt should know better.

I guess I should say that Megan isn't a very interesting thinker in my estimation, nor does she really know economics - which is what she claims is her bailiwick. So I prefer to read Yglesias even though the only thing I really agree with him on is foreign policy.

Posted by Joe Strummer | April 22, 2008 4:43 PM

Matt: "I don't know how many readers of this blog check out the comment section."

How many check out your posts is the real question.

Given how many posters agree with you when you're wrong and disagree with you when you're right (rare though that is), I'd say not many. Either that or none of them can read, but they can type (and with less typos than you.)

"But I think it's interesting." - the last Matt read the comments, to paraphrase Catherine Dent, "Hoover was cross-dressing at Quantico."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 22, 2008 4:44 PM

Royalist economic attitudes...ahhhhhhh SNAP!

what does that even mean.

Posted by MP | April 22, 2008 4:44 PM

Royalist economic attitudes...ahhhhhhh SNAP!

what does that even mean.

Posted by MP | April 22, 2008 4:46 PM

Petey: intellectual honesty

See my posts on this thread.

Posted by hlah | April 22, 2008 4:49 PM

SLC: Another Israeli spy surfaces!

It must be Tuesday.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 22, 2008 4:50 PM

I believe you crossed a line around here, and gleefully never looked back.

Please. The same people who argue that Obama can't win b/c America is too racist argue that the Obama campaign plays the racism card too much, acting as if the country is racist when it's not. There's a contradiction. Which is it, is the country racist or not?

What's interesting is that Krugman shared the same descent as Petey. My charitable take on Krugman is that his classes are full of intelligent Obamafanbois and girls who bugged and insulted him until he went off the deep end.

Posted by Peter K. | April 22, 2008 4:50 PM

What McKingford said. Also, it's fun that this bit of blogospheric navel-gazing (as John Cole would say) has garnered way more replies than any post today on an issue external to this blog.

Posted by Kraz | April 22, 2008 4:52 PM

Royalist economic attitudes...ahhhhhhh SNAP! what does that even mean.

It's a polite restatement of "trust-fund scumbag".

Posted by Kevin | April 22, 2008 5:00 PM

As for Matt being a "trust-fund baby", I really don't care. Matt's problem is he's just out of college and like most college graduates these days is frickin' clueless about just about everything outside of his own immediate circle of concern (which is politics and sports, mostly.)

Matt has serious confusion and ignorance about foreign policy, military conflict, economics, technology, and probably a host of other things. Worse, like many twenty-somethings, he thinks he knows it all about these subjects and is prepared to dominate the conversation while spouting utter inanities.

What Matt needs is a bit more humility about what he doesn't understand. He also needs to be more cautious about hooking his wagon to "Big Dog Liberals" like he did with his initial opinion on Iraq.

Today he's hooked his wagon to "liberal internationalists" - which basically means a confrontational American-centric approach to the world, the same approach that has produced numerous mistakes over the last century. No matter how often he talks about "international institutions", he STILL views those institutions as existing to fulfill the concerns of the US state and the US citizen. His inability to deal with Iran openly clearly demonstrates this.

As for others who have gone off the rails in this primary, one could count ex-CIA Larry Johnson, who posted numerous anti-Obama tirades over at TPM over the Rezko controversy and other matters, none of which have proven to have any legs.

The real reason we have this post today from Matt is that yesterday's posts were boring and didn't stimulate many comments. So today Matt upped the ante just to get more hits.

Which is unfortunate since The Atlantic servers are now generating "Internal Server Errors" more frequently than ever. Somebody needs their IT staff replaced. (By the way, most of the time, you can ignore those errors. Your post probably made it in.)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 22, 2008 5:09 PM

I sware I recall Yglesias supporting the death tax because of his experience at school with trust fund types. No?

Posted by MP | April 22, 2008 5:11 PM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | April 22, 2008 5:17 PM

Matt was a trust-fund scumbag, but now he wrote a book, so he's an ink-stained wretch.

Posted by Jon H | April 22, 2008 5:18 PM

latts, if Obama's marketing isn't getting his central theme across, how is it the audience's fault?

It is getting his message across; he would have long since been forced out of the race if it wasn't.

Political-junkie Dems aren't regular consumers, you know-- we're the obsessive label readers who probably don't understand what the ingredient names mean, but know we sure don't like the sound of them. IOW, there's not much point in marketing to overly attentive, highly critical consumers when really the only thing that needs to be done avoid egregious offense.

Posted by latts | April 22, 2008 5:21 PM

And Mr. Yglesias has still not answered the following questions:

* Do you have a trust fund?
* How do you respond to those who say you are a scumbag?
* Do you now, or have you ever associated with, people who have trust funds?
* If you have ever met a scumbag, and did not immediately knife him or her in the groin, how can we be sure that you are not, in fact, a closet scumbag?

The American people deserve to know!

Posted by George Stephanopoulos | April 22, 2008 5:23 PM

Er, lost in all this is the notion that HRC has ANY INTENTION WHATSOEVER of actually pushing a healthcare plan.
She could promise to make us all invulnerable immortal beings made of pure energy with as much credibility relative to actual execution in my book.

Obama's plan, flawed though it may be, has the bonus of being politically actionable and backed by someone plainly serious about its pursuit.

Posted by Eric | April 22, 2008 5:24 PM

A particularly sad thing about Petey is that his invective has become reduced to rote repetitions of "trust-fund scumbag" in much the same way that SLC can be relied upon to splutter about 'heroes'. Petey used to be lively and fresh, albeit predictably pro-Edwards. If Petey wants to bash MY, at least he should bring his best game.

Posted by otto | April 22, 2008 5:25 PM

Thank you idiotic.

It doesn't matter where, when or how how often I read that line, I can't help but laugh out loud.

Posted by McKingford | April 22, 2008 5:25 PM

Anyone who thinks that Edwards "GOT BEAT" is an ignorant fool.

Edwards, JUST LIKE BIDEN, DODD, RICHARDSON, etc, got all of the life SUCKED OUT OF THEIR CAMPAIGNS by the constant media INFATUATION with Clinton and Obama.

82% of Democrats knew Clinton was running...BASED ON MEDIA COVERAGE, according to the Pew Research Center.

68% of Democrats knew that Obama was running.

31% of Democrats knew that Edwards was running...BASED ON MEDIA COVERAGE. The others were all in single digits.

No candidate can overcome the level of FREE PRESS PROMOTION that the media gave Clinton and Obama simply because that's who the media/GOP coalition wanted the Democrats to nominate because neither HAS EVER had any chance of getting elected in November, as Dumbocrats will soon find out when McCain is President and the GOP controls the House and Senate again after November, thanks to DUMBOCRATS giving the GOP the candidates they wanted to face.

It had ZERO to do with Clinton being a female and Obama being black, or else the media would have GIVEN BILL RICHARDSON'S HISPANIC BEHIND as much coverage as they gave to Clinton and Obama, and Ambassador Carol Mosely-Braun would have received a lot more attention in 2004 than she did, since she was both black and female and she and Richardson both had a lot more experience than either Clinton or Obama.

Mosely-Braun and Richardson were a lot more "CREDIBLE" than Clinton or Obama, but the media didn't SAY THEY WERE, so Dumbocrats couldn't see it, since they can't see anything but shiny objects dangled in front of their faces by the media.

Edwards didn't get BEAT, just like Richardson, Dodd, Biden, and Kucinich didn't get BEAT.

The only way you can GET BEAT is if you are operating on equal terms, which they weren't because the media PROMOTED "CLINTON V. OBAMA" from day one, and all other candidates be damned.

Posted by framecop | April 22, 2008 5:28 PM

I've finally made up my mind on MY: he's full of shit. He fancies himself a policy wonk (politics, mua? you crazy); when he's really just another political junkie, like the rest of us.

How is Barack better on climate change after voting for the 2005 Energy Bill? His Health Care plan sucks compared to hers? How is Barack more progressive? You're so full of it dude. Cognitive dissonance, indeed.

Just admit it, you like Obama's dimples and he gives you the chills. That's fine. Just be honest.

Posted by Israel | April 22, 2008 5:31 PM

If someone will please give *me* a trust fund, I'll support whichever candidate (and NBA team) you prefer.

Posted by Anderson | April 22, 2008 5:32 PM

One more thing. You want a good example of how you know the media CHOSE the final two Democrats based on PROMOTION AND COVERAGE of those two and ignoring the others?

Ask yourself, who of the top 3 Democrats are the MOST LIKED by Democrats, if you ask them?

The answer in order would be:

Barack Obama
John Edwards
Hillary Clinton

And there's a HUGE GAP between Edwards and Clinton.

So, why is it that the final two Democrats standing weren't Obama and Edwards?

You think it's money? Well, PRESS COVERAGE equals EXCITEMENT which leads to more DONATIONS. You can't separate the two.

If so many Democrats DESPISE Clinton, then the final two Democrats SHOULD HAVE BEEN OBAMA VERSUS EDWARDS, but the process doesn't work out that way.

More Democrats HATE CLINTON than any other Democrat WHO RAN, so why was she always out front in 2007?

BECAUSE SHE GOT MOST OF THE PRESS COVERAGE, and it was favorable to her frontrunner status.

Now that the media has gotten EDWARDS OUT OF THE WAY, since he is the one that Rove feared in 2004 and 2008, AND SAID SO, they turned on Clinton first, and now they are turning on Obama, after protecting him in 2007 to make sure that Edwards never became the #2 option.

F*** the media and any ignorant Dumbocrat who is too clueless to know the truth.

Media promotion wins. The media wanted Clinton to be one of the last two standing, so even though so many Democrats despise her, the fact that the media pushed her bandwagon was enough to get her over the hump.

Posted by framecop | April 22, 2008 5:35 PM

Framecop, you're hilarious.

We dumbocrats are sure in for a wholloping this fall, and will certainly face a GOP Congress & President.

After all, something like 81% of Americans think the country is on the right track and 69% of Americans approve of the GOP President.

Oh, wait. It's "wrong track" and "disapprove."

Posted by MY Strikes Again | April 22, 2008 5:41 PM

Petey is a troll. Sometimes he posts interesting or controversial comments, sometimes he calls Matt a "trustfund scumbag" for a few months so that he can feel that tingle in his loins as he announces to Matt, on his own blog, that he has been google bombed; whatever he does, it's always for the response he gets. I have no general problem with trolls, even ones as tireless as Petey, but I do generally lose patience with trolls that are so unimaginative and unskilled at their work.

As for Clinton, aside from the vagina litmus testers, it seems her supporters are almost totally ones who ignore the effect of racial constraints on the public discourse, and/or view politics as little more than a morality play, where the guilty must always be punished and those who fail to agree practice High Broderism, and are therefore some kind of dilettante--or sucker.

Those two beliefs are very related; Obama, as a black man, simply can't express outrage in the same terms as a white male can. Hillary faces her own (gender related) rhetorical/political constraints, but it seems to me that Obama's difficulties, while superficially talked about, are rarely noted. He could never take the Edwards line--if he did, he'd be the "black candidate"; indeed, with the Clintons' help, he nearly became so deemed anyway.

Many take his less confrontational (and less retributive) rhetoric as indicative of High Broadersim, but there is a curious double standard there; they take his banal assurances as dispositive proof of his diffidence, and then look for evidence to back up this assertion, something they never do to Hillary. Many of her sins were noted upthread, but one in particular has largely escaped notice in a way I find vexing.

Last week, I noted in a thread here that she implied that social security was in a "crisis"; one of the supposedly unforgivable sins that Obama commited... and nobody noticed. Paul Krugman didn't care--or probably even notice--he was too busy fixing the facts to fit his unimpeachible ideological narrative.

When you examine the completely opposing degrees that the two respective campaigns value progresive goals like truth, honesty, transparency in government, accountability, building sustainable progressive institutions, public involvement in governance, competence, etc.--it's amazing that people view the candidates as similar. They may have similar policy goals, but since only one of the two even has the chance to be president, and therefore enact progressive laws, Hillaryland's last throes need to accept reality; your gal did what she always does: she fought hard...and lost.

Posted by Client #11 | April 22, 2008 5:42 PM

So that's it. Weeks of complaints that Matthew called Clinton voters racists, and the only example Petey can cite is a post that refers to people who openly admit that race is a major factor in their voting decisions as racists and notes that these voters broke strongly for Clinton.

That was probably not one of Matt's finest hours. And I don't think considering race in your voting decisions makes one a racist, per se. But I think we can safely say that the category of people who freely admit that they won't vote for Obama because he's black does, in fact, correlate strongly with the category of racist scumbags.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 22, 2008 5:49 PM

Framecop, you're hilarious.
We dumbocrats are sure in for a wholloping this fall, and will certainly face a GOP Congress & President.

After all, something like 81% of Americans think the country is on the right track and 69% of Americans approve of the GOP President.

Oh, wait. It's "wrong track" and "disapprove."

MY Strikes Again,

You won't be laughing in November. MOST AMERICANS thought the country was headed in the wrong direction in November 2004, as well. Some good that did, because DUMBOCRATS wouldn't listen.

Like I said all of 2003 and 2004, Dean and Kerry were both losses waiting to happen.

Dean, like Obama, guaranteed a BLOWOUT DEFEAT.

Kerry, like Clinton, I said, guaranteed a CLOSE ELECTION, which meant a loss because anything close would be stolen.

Edwards would have won in a ROUT both times, something that PBS By the People PROVED in November 2003, when they release the results of a DETAILED, DELIBERATIVE RESEARCH PROJECT that matched all of the Democrats against Bush to see who was the strongest against Bush.

Dean lost by more than Kerry, though I don't remember Dean's actual numbers.

Kerry and Bush were tied 47 to 47 in that study, predicting a CLOSE ELECTION, like I said. Close = GOP favored.

Edwards defeated Bush by "ELEVEN POINTS" in that study, with undecideds leaning in his direction because of higher appeal to moderate Republicans and Independents. Edwards defeated Bush 48% to 37%, with 15% undecided. Most of those undecideds would have broken for Edwards (likely 9% to 6%), meaning Edwards would have won in a landslide close to 57% to 43%.

But, the media PROMOTED DEAN, then turned on him and started claiming that "KERRY WAS THE MOST ELECTABLE," even though all of the media knew about that PBS By the People study.

They still LIED and said that Kerry was the most electable.

But, hey, Dumbocrats believed them, as usual.

If you want the PBS study, you'll have to CALL THEM FOR IT because they took that particular study off of the website after the 2004 election.

Posted by framecop | April 22, 2008 5:57 PM

On the Obama side of things (where I sit), I think a lot of the anger about this campaign has to do with the war. Bear in mind, even in 2004 with Dean, a lot of Democrats were really pissed to be told that being right on the war made a candidate unelectable. So we went along with the candidate who took the more "electable" stance, and guess what, he lost anyway!

So this time, we really didn't want to get fooled again. And therefore, Clinton was a nonstarter for a good number of us. And it happened that the anti-war candidate was also a very popular black Senator who could pull black votes away from Clinton, which gave him a possibility of winning.

On the flip side, I think Clinton supporters are sincerely convinced of Obama's unelectability. Rather than seeing an analogy to Kerry taking the party down with his support for the Iraq War, they see an analogy to McGovern and Dukakis and Mondale taking the party down because they were seen as too liberal and with their heads in the clouds.

Actually, I think Petey fits quite well in this model. Petey supported Edwards in part because Edwards seemed really electable to him, as a white Southerner like Bill Clinton and Carter and LBJ. He had serious concerns about Hillary Clinton. But when Edwards lost, and Obama turned out to be the challenger for Hillary Clinton, he turned around because he didn't buy Obama's electability at all.

To me, we have vehemence because we have a wing of the party REALLY pissed off about the Iraq War going up against a wing of the party REALLY convinced that candidates like Barack Obama can't win. And the election is so close that there is no reason for people to unify. So the vehemence just increases over time.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 22, 2008 6:00 PM

I thought Petey went off the deep end more or less when Marty Peretz started shilling for Obama. And I kind of get that - Marty is a pretty loathsome guy and you have to wonder about anyone Marty professes to like. So I expect by October when Marty is licking McCain's boots and trashing Obama, Petey will become one of the staunchest Obama supporters around.

Posted by vanya | April 22, 2008 6:02 PM

"That was probably not one of Matt's finest hours. And I don't think considering race in your voting decisions makes one a racist, per se."

Why and why not? I'm an Obama supporter, and I have no problem admitting that sexists are voting against Hillary (though that would be more of a problem for her in the general than in the primary). Ignoring uncomfortable truths doesn't make them any less true.

Posted by Client #11 | April 22, 2008 6:02 PM

I always thought of Petey as a bizarre photo negative of Steve Sailer. I basically agree with Petey on 95 percent of his political leanings, yet he manages to come across as insufferable and abusive in his argumentation. As opposed to Sailer, who has a lot of truly horrifying political opinions, but states them in the most genial way possible.

Posted by Hank Scorpio | April 22, 2008 6:15 PM

Yes, I agree that the rich southern white male candidate in this election was marginalized, as they so often are, and that is why he blown out early and often.

Paranoia ("any close election would be stolen") and the usage of terms like "dumbocrats" do not make a persuasive argument.

Posted by JoePo | April 22, 2008 6:17 PM

I want to be commemorated, too.

GO SUNS!

Posted by Suns Fan | April 22, 2008 6:45 PM

By the way, has anybody else noted that Petey can't stop calling MY a trust fund scumbag, but he supports a candidate who's daughter could have almost any job in the free world, and who's not only going to inherit more than a hundred million (which I'm pretty sure is a little more than matt will end up getting), but also has chosen to work at a *gasp* hedge fund!

Petey, I don't understand how you could endorse someone who so clearly is a terrible mother. I mean I guess I could understand if Chelsea found a way to work at a Stalinist hedge fund like Edwards did, but glomming onto a...trust fund?

Petey, you are a vile douche bag that comments on a trust fund scumbag's blog AND supports a trust fund scumbag birthing faux wench that has seduced her elderly lesbian bourgeois feminist coterie in her narcissistic attempt to destroy the only American proletarian political party and hand over the presidency to John McCain because of the vanity and racism inherent in second wave feminism. Your deliberate association and collaboration with trust fund scumbags because of your valuation that trolling is superior to economic justice is indicative of your false ideology and addiction to decadent bourgeois art at the expense of Socialist Realism.

Shame on you, Petey, shame on you.

Posted by Client #11 | April 22, 2008 6:48 PM

Armando/BTD: Of course you're perplexed by the bile directed against Clinton. That's because you haven't been on the receiving end of everything the Clintons and their supporters (which includes YOU by the way) have done to dismiss, insult, or render null and void the votes and opinions of everyone who does not support or agree with them. Only in your bubble of Clinton-mania and enthusiasm could you possibly make such an uninformed statement.

Posted by firebrand | April 22, 2008 6:52 PM

Petey's "trust-fund douchebag" comments are hilarious and I commend him for being able to command this much attention.

Posted by John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are poor homeless people | April 22, 2008 7:02 PM

Framecop: "Dean, like Obama, guaranteed a BLOWOUT DEFEAT. Kerry, like Clinton, I said, guaranteed a CLOSE ELECTION, which meant a loss because anything close would be stolen."

I have to agree somewhat with Framecop on this.

If Bush and Cheney launch an Iran war - as Josh Bolton predicted in 2006 - both Clinton and Obama will be seriously hamstrung against McCain.

Both have supported aggressive policies toward Iran. And that means the difference between them and McCain on the CURRENT most serious issue of the day will be negligible - just as Kerry vs Bush on Iraq.

What are either of them going to do? Denounce an attack on Iran when the justification is "Iranians are killing US troops in Iraq"? Does anybody really believe that either Clinton or Obama would risk that?

Add in the "war bounce" the Republican candidates will get from an attack on Iran just before the elections and it doesn't look good for the Democrats.

This election is not going to be a slam-dunk for Democrats when you have one candidate a female, one a black man, one a "war hero" - and a serious war (Iran, not Iraq) going on.

This is not to say that a Democratic candidate couldn't win. But for either of THESE candidates to win against McCain with a "hot war" going on against Iran is at least questionable.

And once again, just like in 2006, I haven't heard ONE Democratic supporter address this issue. It's all "heads in the sand" and Iran war denial.

Sure, the Republicans couldn't pull it off in 2006 - perhaps it seemed too risky to start a new war then two years before the Presidential elections - giving the new war too much time to go bad. But Bush and Cheney have absolutely nothing to lose in 2008 by doing it. If the war goes bad and a Republican gets elected, well, he's elected - suffer with him for the next four years. If the war goes good, the next election is in the bag. If a Republican doesn't win this year, the Democratic administration is going to be hamstrung by a new war it can't afford to lose.

There is no downside for an Iran war this year for the Republicans.

Mind you, I'm not saying that either the Iraq war or the Iran war is being prosecuted strictly for domestic political reasons. The real reasons are as always the military-industrial complex, hegemony, oil, and Israel. But the timing of the Iran war is critical for the Republicans, if not the neocons and the Zionists.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 22, 2008 7:03 PM

Richard Steven Hack, considering how popular and trusted this administration is, there's just as much chance of a response of throwing the lying bums out, as the Spanish did, than electing McCain.

And Hillary has pledged to pay for Hillarycare 2K9 by garnishing people's wages. No way the gop can demogague that, no sir. The mere thought of her presidential campaign has been the primary mover of Grover Norquest's wet dreams for the past 15 years. Obama may well lose, but I'm tired of nominating uninspired hacks who have no noteworthy skills aside from an aptitude for conforming to conservative generalizations.

Hillary got off easy in the primary because she never got called on her constant lying and inept pandering, but it wouldn't be the same in the general. They're both gonna get smeared, but Obama, unlike HIllary, has shown an ability to remain popular after getting the scandal de jour treatment.

Posted by Client #11 | April 22, 2008 7:25 PM

I'm glad that Matt has finally addressed the "trust fund douchebag" comments and that he has done so in a way that is not a personal attack on the writer.

Matt has shown a greater degree of tolerance than some of the commenters deserve. I don't care in the least whether Matt comes from a rich family. I also don't care if he occasionally misspells a word or writes a badly constructed sentence. Neither the personal attacks nor the pedantic picking on Matt's writing add anything in the least bit interesting or useful to the discussion.

Apparently some readers of this blog are seriously jealous of Matt's youthful success. This reader wishes those people would just go away.

Posted by Sherry | April 22, 2008 7:26 PM

Now when will Matt make a blog post about SLC or Trevor?

Posted by Another Eric | April 22, 2008 7:52 PM

SLC got called out in a post for using some uhhhh.. colorful phases to describe Arabs. I think he's the only person who ever got threatened with a ban.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 22, 2008 7:57 PM

Dilan, your points are well taken, but in this case, I believe it is Hillary who is more like Mondale-- the "establishment" candidate that people just "know" is a better choice against the extremely strong insurgent running on a platform of offering something new. Seriously, in 1984, the Democrats should have gambled on Gary Hart.

The difference, of course, is that the 2008 insurgent managed to grab the African American voters as well as a whole new set of unions that didn't have as much power in '84 as 2008 to outflank the establishment candidate.

The thing is that Petey is REALLY invested in this belief that the Mondale/Dukakis/Johnson electoral base of Democratic voters is the one that has to be followed at all times and under all circumstances. He hates, hates, hates the activists who rebelled in 2004 to get behind Dean, and he's never gotten over it. Once it became clear that Obama was going to get nominated by using the activists, rather than the conservative whites, to outflank Hillary, his entire world came crashing down.

I suspect that Petey's background is more white-young-professional-yuppie than working-class-hero. He's just full of self-loathing and chasing after the holy grail of the "candidate of the southern whites" because of a deep sense of self-loathing combined with a desperation for a sense of authenticity. The problem I always had with him is that he never realized the importance of the war. He was desperate to shill for the capitulating-war-supporter-wing of the Democratic party if it meant that his identity-politics would be validated.

Posted by Tyro | April 22, 2008 7:58 PM

Petey's explanation is actually really interesting, and illustrates a major problem with the state of the party -- and the state of race relations -- right now.

There is a major part of this country that believes that there's no difference between race consciousness and racism. Merely mentioning the EXISTENCE OF RACISM out there is itself taken as evidence of racism. Someone who is really "not racist" is supposed to see the world as rigidly egalitarian. Matt chose to note a verifiable fact -- more people who admit to voting on race vote for the white candidate -- that happens to challenge the careful blind spot we're all supposed to have on race. And that's supposed to justify the intense level of personal attacks Petey has leveled at him.

In a way this is the best argument Petey could make for his candidate. If this kind of attitude is bouncing around inside quite liberal heads in the Democratic Party, how the hell does a black candidate ever get ahead against Republicans?

Posted by NS | April 22, 2008 8:02 PM

Matthew, some guys in South Philly say they can take of your Petey problem. Cheap.

It's an old tradition in Italian politics for handling hecklers. Check out the first season of Rome -- when Julius Caesar elevates a Roman centurion (Lucius Vorenus ) to the Senate.

When Lucius tries his hand at public speaking in his plebian neighborhood, Caesar sends along his assistant Posca to show Lucius the political ropes. Notice how Posca handles the heckler who keeps interrupting Lucius.

Posted by Don Williams | April 22, 2008 8:21 PM

81% of framecops statistics are GUARANTEED made UP.

Posted by ed | April 22, 2008 9:50 PM

Edwards had no chance because a bunch" I don't know what I am doing" first time voters voted for
Obama, the fake candidate. The media was anxious for big ratings and a black man as candidate would assure them of that, especially since each and everyday since Obama announced he was running he became the authomatic front runner as the media mentioned him each and everyday giving subliminal messages to the soon to be followers of the do nothing Senator, using the words copied from 2004 former Presidential runs hope and change. Hillary Clinton was a known entity, so naturally she would get their attention as the wife of the former Democratic president, and the Junior Senator from NY who was elected twice and won by a large margin..

The best candidate white or black, women or man and the perfect candidate was John Edwards and it's too bad the American public drank the Kool Aid and will try very hard to seat another GW Bush. Good luck with that, you idiots.

Well at least HC is ahead of Obama Hussein in Pa.

Posted by Lee | April 22, 2008 10:19 PM

Poor Petey.

Posted by Freddie | April 22, 2008 10:23 PM

If MY had a trust fund then I'd actually be pretty impressed. The guy produces blog posts as if he doesn't know where his next meal is coming from and he gets paid one spoonful of porridge per post. He also complains about his salary more than any trust fund person, scumbag or otherwise.

As for blog management advice I'm continually amazed at the restraint of bloggers regarding trolls. It's a horrible saying in real life but when referring to banning people it's seems a really important truth: "no person, no problem". One could fairly easily (with a little time spent, I admit) make one's comment thread appear as if only intelligent sane people with a life frequent one's blog.

Posted by Colatina | April 22, 2008 10:44 PM

"I suspect that Petey's background is more white-young-professional-yuppie than working-class-hero."

I suspect Petey is a corporate librarian with an ass the size of two chairs.

Posted by Kyle | April 22, 2008 10:58 PM

"I suspect that Petey's background is more white-young-professional-yuppie than working-class-hero."

I suspect Petey is a corporate librarian with an ass the size of two chairs.

And I will say that twice if necessary.

Posted by Kyle | April 22, 2008 11:01 PM

and the perfect candidate was John Edwards

You got a problem with Obama's legislative record and John Edward's was the perfect candidate? I have no idea what your idea of perfection is but if that's the metric you are using perfection equals militantly DLC. I wish I could say Obama's record was sterling acording to my lights (it's not), but unless you are a blue dog you aren't getting a bad deal out of Obama.

I listened to this sort of bullshit when Edwards and Obama together represented the anti-Hillary front and I nodded along but Edwards is gone and it was always bullshit.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 22, 2008 11:13 PM

Colatina, banning people only works if you have enough flunkies to monitor the threads to make sure the same people don't come back in with new IPs and handles and if the software supports it.

This blog doesn't even require registration. How the hell can anyone be "banned" here?

Sure, Matt could introduce registration and start banning people every time his "hot buttons" are pressed just like his mentor Josh Marshall did.

Look at Marshall's blog. Gone WAY DOWN in significance - at least as far as the comments are concerned. Start trying to be Adolf Hitler on your blog and people dump you as being an asshole.

Nothing wrong with deleting posts that are offensive, seriously off topic in an offensive way, or simply don't contribute to the thread. But again, you have to have somebody monitoring who can tell the difference. Josh has Andrew Golis.

Matt can't even spell. I doubt he has any interns watching over his threads if he has no one proofreading them.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 23, 2008 1:25 AM

Armando --

I get called that at other blogs, including this one.

And rightly so in my opinion.

But I do not allow it at the blog I post at.

Well, if you can't maintain the illusion of being a well-regarded blogger without censoring your own comments section, that reflects poorly on you , not on your commenters.

My advice to you: respect is earned, not coerced by censorship and threats (as you did at dKos, before they rightly kicked you to the curb over there).

If you want people to listen to what you have to say, you should start by not being such a pompous, hypocritical blowhard.

Posted by moron | April 23, 2008 6:45 AM

81% of framecops statistics are GUARANTEED made UP.
Posted by ed | April 22, 2008 9:50 PM

91% of ed's braincells are useless.

Posted by framecop | April 23, 2008 7:22 AM

matthew, you are fantasizing. Most Americans are moderate / conservative (not progressive)and will vote that preference. If you look at recent history, why do you think Clinton was the only successful democrat since FDR? It is because they are pragmatic and willing to sometimes make concessions to Republicans. While that is not ideal, it is better than nothing...some gains were made that way. If you want progressive, why not just vote Green?

Posted by Blaine | April 23, 2008 9:05 AM

One could fairly easily (with a little time spent, I admit) make one's comment thread appear as if only intelligent sane people with a life frequent one's blog.
Posted by Colatina

I think that parenthetical remark is doing a lot of work, there. Pseudonyms can be changed, multiple accounts can be created, cookies can be deleted, IP addresses can be spoofed and sometimes change naturally on their own. I'm not an expert, but I think the only way to keep out a determined troll is active moderation. And the problem with that is the old slippery slope concern about censorship and conflating offensive ideas with personal attacks and stuff. I don't think banning someone who acts like Petey has in recent weeks would be too far down that path, but I can't blame a blogger for not wanting to get started on it at all.

Posted by Cyrus | April 23, 2008 10:35 AM

Got insurance, Matt? Not going naked? Thought so.

Universal Health Care not a matter of serious untreated illness for you, or anyone you know? Thought not.

Thanks for your input on what it means to be a "progressive."

Posted by lambert strether | April 23, 2008 5:04 PM

I was laid off once and working as a quark monkey for a publishing firm. I'm court ordered to carry health coverage if it's available. Well, it was technically available but the company didn't provide any portion of the price if it was your first year so at $10/hr my take home pay for two weeks was about $350. I had to quit because obviously you aren't getting anywhere that road.

That's Hillary's version of "universal health care". It will be like auto insurance and maybe everyone noticed the price didn't move an inch with a larger pool. Her promises to fund the tthing won't pass and might not even be attempted.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 23, 2008 5:14 PM

Obama '08 and Clinton '92 are similar sounding campaigns, but Clinton was moving to the left from his natural centrist position to take on Tsongas, while Obama was moving toward the middle from his natural more left positions to appeal to moderates and independents.

Posted by dbt | April 24, 2008 10:24 AM

To note - do people really think that Edwards would have easily beaten Bush in 2004? I think that's highly, highly doubtful.

Bush won on foreign policy. Edwards, so far as I can tell, had exactly the same positions on foreign policy that Kerry did, and the same problem in that he voted for the Iraq war. But he also had no comfort in even talking about foreign policy, whereas Kerry at least was willing to take on Bush about foreign policy fairly strongly (even if those criticisms were not made in the most effective manner). From what I understand, Edwards' position during the campaign was to discourage Kerry from moving any further towards an anti-war position.

Edwards did terribly in his debate with Cheney, and I think throughout his years in the public spotlight, he has always completely lacked any kind of presidential gravitas. Kerry came very close to winning the election. My general sense is that, for all that Edwards looks like a better candidate on paper, he would not have been able to deliver on that promise in the general election, and would likely have lost to Bush by a slightly wider margin than Kerry did.

Dean would have been slaughtered. My feeling still tends to be that, for all his (numerous) flaws, Kerry probably was the best of the (very weak) field in 2004. Incumbent presidents are difficult to defeat. In the 20th century, we have only the examples of Taft in 1912 (who suffered a disastrous split of his own party, with the popular former Republican president running against him, thus guaranteeing that the Democrat would win); of Hoover in 1932 (in the midst of the worst economic depression in modern history); Ford in 1976 (after Watergate, and with Ford himself not actually an elected president, and with the economy kind of shitty, and only in a very close race); Carter in 1980 (with a terrible economic situation and the hostage crisis in Iran); and Bush in 1992 (with, again, a bad economy and a very uninspired campaign, after twelve years of Republican rule.)

On the other hand, such weak incumbents as Woodrow Wilson (who had only won in the first place, as we've seen, as a result of the split in the Republican party, which was clearly still at the time the nation's majority party) and Harry Truman (never very popular, facing a strong challenge from a popular New York Governor who had run strongly against FDR four years before, and weakened by third party candidacies that were taking away both from his liberal base and from the Solid South) and Bill Clinton (first two years in office a total disaster that led to Republican conquest of congress, widely declared "irrelevant" in the aftermath of that, and conducting an utterly uninspiring campaign that largely focused on "triangulation" and tiny micro-initiatives that nobody cared about) got re-elected.

Posted by John | April 24, 2008 2:45 PM

First of all, most AVERAGE AMERICANS who WATCHED THE DEBATE, thought that Edwards won it against Cheney.

Besides, Edwards would have been debating BUSH, had he been the nominee, not Cheney.

Americans would have overwhelmingly preferred Edwards to Bush, and they never preferred Kerry to anyone.

Posted by framecop | April 25, 2008 10:42 PM

The Scumbag Line

Comments (170)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories