Mike Stark has been a regular member in the liberal blogosphere for a long time and has been on the Hill with his Flip camcorder getting pols on tape to answer questions that the media somehow never seems to get around to asking.

Digby, Howie and myself have joined with CREDO and are trying to generate some cash for him. I know it's tight out there. Advertising has been down for all of us and I may have to do another fundraiser soon for C&L, but if you can please sign Credo's petition that will send a coat hanger to every member of the pro-choice party that voted yes to the ugly Stupak amendment and a dollar to Mike. Blue America is collecting the money from CREDO and we decided to give it to Mike.

Here's Mike to explain:

And you aren't the only folks noticing this work. Blue America (Howie Klein, Digby, John Amato) and Credo Action/Working Assets have also been keeping an eye on my efforts. They realize that this work cannot continue without support (I have a family to feed, student loans and rent to pay, etc. etc.), and they know a movement cannot succeed without mutual support. With that in mind, they've teamed up to raise some money for me.

Credo Action/Working Assets has a petition set up. For every signature on the petition, they'll be delivering a coat-hanger to Representatives that voted for the ridiculously regressive ant-choice Stupak Amendment. In addition, for every signature, up to 5,000, they'll donate $1 to StarkReports. Right now they are at about 1800 signatures.

If you appreciate hard-hitting and tenacious reporting... If you like seeing powerful people asked tough questions... If you want a media that works for you... I can use your help. Please sign the petition (it costs you nothing but your time). Watch my videos. Visit (and bookmark) StarkReports.com. If you've got some extra cash, drop it in the donation box on the right-side nav bar...

In the meantime, I'll be asking more tough questions this week. I've got some doozies stored away; this is sure to be a productive week.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1346)

PLAYS: (4536)

Gosh. Looks like we won't have Lou Dobbs to kick around anymore. Except, of course, for when he lands that fat Fox Business Channel gig.

In the meantime, some congratulations are in order -- and, as Greg Sargent suggests, the left blogosphere in general deserves a great deal of credit in finally forcing one of the nation's leading hatemongers -- and disinformation specialists -- out the door.

That's especially the case with Media Matters, which really led the way. (MM has great retrospective of their own.) And the campaigns that organized to compel his ouster at CNN -- including Basta Dobbs, Drop Dobbs, and America's Voice -- should take a bow as well.

While we wait for the right-wing violins to cue their usual "Mean Liberals Went On a Witch Hunt" number, we should also take special note of what this means: It means that liberal activism to force our media to act responsibly works.

I know that a lot of time it feels like we're just shouting into the wind. It's that feeling of utter helplessness that ordinary citizens always get when they pit themselves against the power of big money and big corporations. Sure, we can document all the media misbehavior we like, but it's becoming so voluminous and steady now that it's hard to keep up, and it's even harder to spark outrage over it.

But eventually, if we keep pounding and pounding and working, it works.

The biggest job of all lies ahead, of course: Confronting Fox News, whose daily deluge of disinformation and fearmongering is so immense now that it makes Dobbs' contributions shrink to insignificance.

But it's true: Yes, we can do this. And we must.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 929

PLAYS: 2067

I interviewed Michael Moore for a few minutes in between his media stops about his new movie called Capitalism, A Love Story which I reviewed here. As we discussed his film, the topic of conservatism, hate speech and FOX News came up and I asked him if he would consider going back on FOX News again. His responses were interesting and I think FOX News will go scrambling to book him after they hear what Michael had to say. I also think Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck will not be happy campers.

Amato: Would you ever go back on FOX again?

Moore: Yes,I would go back on FOX again. I would not go on Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck because they use far too much hate speech and calls for violence and I cannot participate with anyone that goes down that road.
I stayed off because somebody at the studio told me that whenever I go on their ratings go up and I'm not interested in helping them sell products and make money for themselves and having said that I'm ready to tee up (garbled audio, but I think he said Hannity) Hannity I think pretty soon.

Amato: That would get huge ratings and it's also really enjoyable to see you kick them around because you know the type of Democrat that go on most of the time that are just so weak and that's the way they like them so that they can serve them up and kick them around.

Moore: Then I will make a point during this tour to try and go on one of their shows and give them something-something...

Amato: Do it for the blogosphere! (laughs)

Moore: Do it for the blogosphere. This one's for you!

The attacks on President Obama by FOX News programs have been profoundly upsetting and as much as I object at times to lefties that go on FOX, I have to say that it would be very enjoyable to see Michael smack down Roger Ailes crew. Do you think Michael will go on Hannity since he won't do they Beck or O'Reilly? Sheppard Smith might be a good choice. And you can be sure that O'Reilly will whine about this. The reason I asked the question is because I've seen Moore duke it out with Bill O'Reilly before and they were very good segments to watch.

John Amato: This is John Amato from Crooks and Liars and I am joined by the great movie maker Michael Moore and he has a new movie out "Capitalism: A Love Story." Hey Michael, thanks for joining me.

Michael Moore: Thanks for having me here.

John Amato: I just want to say one thing here before we get going. How about those Lions?

Michael Moore: [laughing] It's been two years, and if they had to beat somebody it might as well have been the Washington Redskins. But I feel sorry for the Redskins as it’s going to be a trivia answer for the next few decades.

Continue reading »

Harry Reid told the Las Vegas Review Journal that the bill coming out of Congress will have a public option.

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said today there will be a "public option" in whatever health insurance reform bill comes out of Congress.

"We are going to have a public option before this bill goes to the president's desk," Reid said in a conference call with constituents, referring to some kind of government plan.

."I believe the public option is so vitally important to create a level playing field and prevent the insurance companies from taking advantage of us," he said.

Reid also mentioned the inclusion of incentives for healthy behavior, something suggested by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.

What form of a public option is something we don't know.

dday runs down the various types of proposals that are out there in his post: What's In A Name?

Well, we'll know one way or another soon enough and although many are not optimistic about the chances of a vibrant public option the fact that Reid has injected it into the dialogue after he has been unwillingly to do so only helps our cause. And all the online activism done by the blogosphere and health-care groups has been essential or it never would have gotten this far. We will continue to push and fight and scratch and yell to save the bill from the grubby hands of the health-care industrial complex. You can count on it.
The Huffington Post updates Reid:

UPDATE: Reid's office clarifies his remarks in a statement sent over from an aide to the Senator.

"Sen. Reid believes that health insurance reform must include a mechanism to keep insurers honest, create competition and keep costs down," the statement reads. "He feels that the public option is the best way to do that. While we don't know exactly what that option will look like, Sen. Reid, working with President Obama, will ensure that whatever is included in the final bill does just that."

This seemed somewhat inevitable as Reid has largely resisted going out on a limb when it comes to the public option.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 47

PLAYS: 12

(John Daly - insisted on calling Hunter S. Thompsons writing style "Bongo Journalism")

In lieu of the recent Senate Bill that questions validity of citizen bloggers, I went back to a National Town Meeting broadcast from 1974 to hear what the status of the media was then. It wasn't that much better, particularly if you were judged to be in the "alternative media" which meant the Underground press back then. However, in all fairness, in 1974 Broadcast news departments were ten times the size they are now. The hours spent on documentaries and special news programming was huge and newspapers offered a plethora of in-depth reports and daily investigative journalism. Unrecognizable from what they are today.

The panel on this broadcast consisted of Pat Buchanan, Richard Harwood of The Washington Post, Richard Goodwin of Rolling Stone and Thomas Asher of the Media Access Project. The program was moderated (and somewhat mangled) by , former newscaster for ABC and CBS, game show host and professional personality.

The subject was "Critiquing The Media" and of course Buchanan spends much time railing against the injustices of the "librul media" and complaining about imbalance. This coming from a man who was deeply entrenched in the Nixon White House.

The subject of Hunter S. Thompson comes up and that's when Daly lets his disconnect be known. Unable to say the words "gonzo Journalism" he insists on a variation of either Bongo and Bonzo Journalism and dismisses it, as does Buchanan who dismisses Rolling Stone in general as no representation of actual news reporting - the only news to be had was from The New York Times or The Washington Post and perhaps Time Magazine.

Richard Goodwin: “I’m not in favor of fictional journalism, and the headline I gave an example, is not intended as fiction, but as fact. I think one of the problems that you have is, even use of the word fact and what constitutes a fact. You’re talking about convictions, attitudes, opinions, judgments. These aren’t facts in the sense that a glass of water is a fact. They require that you impose your own judgment. Somebody says something; is he lying, does he mean it, is it true? And simply to say that he said it, in itself is an assertion, at least to the people who read it, that perhaps or probably what he said is true. It’s a fact that he said it, but he may not be speaking facts or the truth. And unfortunately, most things, most interesting or complicated things in the world are not very, it’s not often easy to decide what the facts are without bringing to it a set of values and personal convictions. And if you withdraw from that you allow those who make the presentation to you to determine what the truth is . . .”

Continue reading »

Last night two of the blogosphere's brightest lights posted on the difficulties Obama is facing when it comes to turning around U.S. Afghanistan policy. Digby, who recounted a 1964 conversation between McGeorge Bundy and President Lyndon Johnson about the futility of American policies in Vietnam, seemed aghast that "Democratic strategist" Donna Brazile was on CNN yesterday seemingly reading some leftover talking points from Karen Hughes about the need to stay in Afghanistan and "get the job done." Then last night Daily Kos' most prescient Afghanistan blogger, Meteor Blades, highlighted the controversy over Andrea Mitchell's report on the 500,000 troops needed to do the job in Afghanistan.

But as Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), our No Means No guest today, asked me this morning, "What is the job?"

Blue America's friendship with Eric Massa goes back to the very beginning of our PAC and he was one of the first candidates we ever supported. Ultimately it was his character that moved us to endorse him, although his championing of issues impacting the real lives of working families (like "fair trade" over so-called "free trade"), his dogged support of single-payer health care, and his spot-on analysis of the war in Iraq based on experience as a Naval officer are what first drew us to him. He came close in 2006 and he triumphed in 2008-- in one of the only districts in New York that Obama didn't win! Obama tool 48% in NY-29 while Massa scooped up 51% against a multimillionaire incumbent and Bush tool.

In June, Eric was one of only 32 Democrats to vote against the supplemental war budget -- of the 90 who had pledged to vote no. It was an incredibly courageous political act, particularly in a district with a daunting R+5.48 PVI (one of the most Republican districts in the country represented by a progressive Democrat). This morning Eric told me in no uncertain terms that he would "continue to vote against any supplemental."

We're not going to fund any wars in a way that no one knows about. The Republicans gave the wealthiest Americans the largest tax cut in history and then launched two wars without any idea of how to pay for them. It was the most fiscally irresponsible action they could take-- and they took it.

Eric is fired up and full of fight, as always. He loves his job and told me he's absolutely committed to it. "I'm in the right place in my life doing the right job for the right congressional district. And I'm just getting started." Right now, you hear the lifelong military man in him when he says he's very supportive of what he calls "the president's strategic pause to formulate whatever strategy his administration will implement (in Afghanistan)."

For instance, is this about fighting the Taliban or fighting al-Qaeda -- two distinctly different groups -- or is it about creating a democracy, or is it about protecting the Afghan people? These are very different missions that require very different resources. And until we know what we're doing, we cannot begin to get it done. The first thing a military officer asks is 'What is the mission?' And as of right now, that is a very legitimate question."

As progressives and men and women of common sense, we should demand a strategy that turns the destiny of Afghanistan over to the Afghans so we can get out of there as soon as possible. If the condition of our departure is creating a Jeffersonian democracy, then we are on a fool's errand.

Eric is joining us now (in the comments section) as part of our ongoing series on Afghanistan policy at Crooks and Liars. As MoveOn mentioned in the mailing this morning, "U.S. policy in Afghanistan has reached a pivotal moment. President Obama is poised to make a critical decision about the Afghanistan war in the next few weeks. And there's a big debate happening right now about what to do. Pro-war advocates both inside and outside the administration -- including John McCain and Joe Lieberman -- are calling for a big escalation. The general in charge of Afghanistan is expected to request tens of thousands more troops, and that may just be the beginning. They're cranking up the pressure for an immediate surge."

Eric Massa is in a unique position to help us figure out a progressive strategy for dealing with this dilemma. He's adamant that if the President asks for more funds for the war, he do it through a normal budgetary process that includes a "clearly articulated strategy with an end game. The Republicans say they're all about fiscal responsibility? Then they should agree we should apply those concepts to wars."

Please take a look at Blue America's No Means No! page and consider donating to Eric and any or all of the 32 other Democrats who have already done the right thing by voting no on the supplemental budget 3 months ago and who we will be counting on to help end the occupation of Afghanistan in the coming months.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1129)

PLAYS: (1950)

DAVID GREGORY: Like the public option. You effectively said to the left, "It's not gonna happen."

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well what I — no, no, that's not true. What I — what I've said is the public option, I think, should be a part of this but we shouldn't think that, somehow, that's the silver bullet that solves health care. What I've said, for example, on — what's called an individual mandate. During the campaign I said, "Look, if — health care is affordable, then I think people will buy it." So we don't have to say to — to folks, "You know what? You have to buy health care."

And — what — when I talked to health care experts on both the left and the right what they tell me is that, even after you make health care affordable, there's still gonna be some folks out there who — whether out of inertia, or they just don't want to but — spend the money — would rather take their chances.

Unfortunately, what that means, is then you and I and every American out there who has health insurance, and are paying their premiums responsibly every month, they've gotta pick up the cost for— emergency room care when one of those people gets sick. So what we've said as long as we're making this genuinely affordable to families then you've got an obligation to get health care just like you have an obligation to get auto insurance in every state.

The media shifted their narrative last week as I heard Villager after Villager say the public option was dead. We've been fighting for the public option tooth and nail in the blogosphere and also by strong progressive members of Congress.

Obama indicated in a Roll Call article today that it's not dead.

Obama maintained that while the centerpiece of his healthcare reform effort, a public (or "government-run") option, is absolutely not dead, it also is not the "silver bullet" that would instantaneously repair the nation's healthcare system.

"I absolutely do not believe that it's dead," Obama told Univision's "Al Punto" of the public option's fate. "I think that it's something that we can still include as part of a comprehensive reform effort."

But the president still signaled that the public option, a key reform for which he has pushed for months, would not serve as a panacea for healthcare problems.

"What I've said is the public option, I think, should be a part of this but we shouldn't think that, somehow, that's the silver bullet that solves healthcare," Obama said on NBC's "Meet the Press" with David Gregory, rejecting the idea that he'd effectively told liberals that the public option will not be included in reform.

You can look at his statement about it not being the holy grail of health reform as either a way to not back the American people's support for the public option or a way to keep it alive and then have it come in after the House and Senate join their bills.
He could also be telling the naysayers that since it's a small part of the plan---stop fighting it and get on board. We're still speculating and reading the tea leaves at this point until we do have a real bill to analyze, but I think we know that he's going to try and get a bill passed at all costs. The fact that he's still backing the public option is good news at this point.
ON CNN's State of the Union, a quick search reveals that John King didn't even ask the president about the public option which shows the state of the media. Why was the public option barely mentioned today? Has the media spoken?

Here's Ed Henry's speculation.

HENRY: But here’s what’s also going to worry the unions, is, if you read between the lines, when you ask, would you sign the Baucus bill if it came to your desk, he said it’s too hypothetical.

But then he walked through -- there were some of the things he likes about the Baucus bill. But I never heard -- if you read between the lines -- “I’m really upset that there’s no public option in the Baucus bill.”

He didn’t really get into that. He’s not fired up about that. And so, when you read the tea leaves, again, he’s not adamant about what the unions want, which is that public option.

KING: He did say in some other interviews that he hopes it’s there in the end and he believes it’s possible to still get it in the end. But he’s not -- you’re certainly right. He’s not saying it has to be there in the end...

HENRY: Right.

KING: ... which is what the unions are saying.

ABC's George Stephanapoulos didn't ask about the public option either.
Here's the only mention I found for it on ABC's THIS WEEK:

BRAZILE: But -- but let me just say this. Bipartisanship was always the goal. When you accept Republican amendments in the House and the Senate and try to bring Republicans aboard, as Chairman Baucus has tried to do, look, he took out the public option to gain Republican support. He -- he gave them interstate marketability.

Nancy Pelosi stays strong on the public option.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters at a Thursday briefing that she was glad to see the Senate making progress on its version of health care reform but she emphasized that the House plan would look markedly different - by including a public option.

"I fully support the public option. The public option will be in the bill that passes the House," Pelosi (D-Calif.) said purposefully.

By including a public health insurance option in the House version, Pelosi will set up a confrontation between the House and the Senate when they meet in conference committee to hash out the differences between the two bills.

We have a long way to go, but the blogosphere is keeping up the pressure on the public option and it's helping.
And Cilizza has some new polling numbers on health care, but Digby is puzzled by his framing.

Chris Cilizza writes that the numbers on health care haven't actually changed much over the past two months in spite of the August hoohah. And then he sagely notes:

The Gallup numbers provide a worthwhile reminder that even while Washington is consumed with the daily back and forth over health care, the public at large is less invested in the tit for tat inside the Beltway. And, they also suggest that for all the doom and gloom talk regarding how Americans view Obama's health care plan, there may well be room for the White House to pull out a victory on the legislation.

A signing ceremony in the Rose Garden -- and the resultant favorable media coverage -- could well be the last (only?) time some Americans pay close attention to the health care debate and give the president a chance to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Well isn't that good news. But I'm a bit puzzled. Cilizza himself writes in the same piece that polls show that a majority support Obama on health care reform --- and always have. Why in the hell should there need to be "room" to "pull out a victory?" And what "jaws of defeat" is he pulling victory from?

This is typical beltway narrative building. Despite the fact that the teabaggers have done everything in their power to change public opinion, it hasn't worked. Despite the fact that the Republicans have vowed to do everything in their power to kill health reform, it hasn't worked. Despite all the "doom and gloom" talk in the media, people still support the bill and every vote in the congress that has been taken thus far has advanced the bill. But apparently all of this shows Republican strength and it's the Democrats who will be snatching victory from the jaws of defeat if they manage to pass the bill. Same as it ever was.

The teabggers have shown a dark side in America that was being hidden by the right and America is turned off to it. They have lost the debate, but they still have their Beck.

How we wish we could quit you, Mrs. Palin. But the right wing blogosphere is celebrating the First Annual Sarah Palin Day, the anniversary of the glorious hour she was announced as McCain's running mate.

No. Really. I am not making that up. Honest. Look at the Google Blog Search yourself.

PS. Anyone who brings up "Obama Derangement Syndrome" after looking at those blogs can smooch my Left-of-Barack Socialist butt.

Open Thread below...

The progressive blogosphere is rocking D.C., and we really want to thank our readers for their support in our drive to reward the supporters of the public option. Progressives in Congress are learning what it means to do the right thing by your actions. Please donate if you can.

And Digby reads the NY Times and gets annoyed because they can't frakkin' read.

This NYT story indicates that it comes as some sort of surprise that progressives have just suddenly decided to hang tough. That's just not true. I first wrote about this back on June 3rd:

Darcy mentioned to me that this week is an important moment in the health care debate, in which it might be helpful for members of the netroots to weigh in with a little positive reinforcement to the progressive caucus, which has been holding the leadership's feet to the fire on the public plan option. Everyone pretty much agrees that if that goes down, health care reform will be a meaningless shell game.

I was somewhat surprised frankly (in a good way)to hear the the progressives caucus had pulled together on this one and was actually wielding some clout. They represent over 70 m4mbers of congress, which is a big bloc of votes. If they can stick together on the public plan, it will happen.

If one of these House members is your Congressional Representative, all the better. But contact one or more of them even if they aren't. They need to know that people other than lobbyists and big donors are engaged and informed on this and that we know what's at stake with the public plan.

The Village seems to have just awakened to the fact that the progressives are holding the line, but they've been organized around this for months.

Digby is usually ahead of the curve when it comes to matters of intelligence. There are so many people that have helped in "holding the line," but if you read the MSM you'd never know it.

Blue America, CPC, PCCC, DFA, C&L, Hullabaloo, Howie Klein, KOS, the Courage Campaign, Calitics and FDL -- to name a few -- have been targeting the House and the Baucus Dogs in the Senate for months now. Kudos to all. You know that the Ben Nelsons are dying to get their grubby hands on some of our money, but they'd have to act like real Democrats for that to happen.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (737)

PLAYS: (1602)

Bill Moyers interviewed health care experts Marcia Angell and Trudy Lieberman about the Obama healthcare reform proposals this week, and their remarks are being quoted all over the blogosphere this weekend. Sounds like pretty depressing stuff - it has many bloggers upset. (Complete transcript here.) But read it carefully:

BILL MOYERS: Given what you've said, why the rush? Why not slow this down and give this very big issue more due deliberation?

TRUDY LIEBERMAN: It's really a political calculation. And I think that they believe that they have to act quickly, because it might not happen. Because the sooner you have the special interests going back home, during the August recess and holding town hall meetings and talking to people in coffee shops, they're going to find that maybe this isn't something that people really want or have doubts about.

MARCIA ANGELL: Well, I think we are in a hurry. I think that President Obama's worried, that what happened with the Clinton plan can happen with him. And I do have a feeling of déjà vu all over again. That this is like 1993. That the opposition is having a chance to mobilize. To march out these Canadians who say they had brain tumors and had to die. Or these ads that say 20 percent of Europeans drop dead.

TRUDY LIEBERMAN: And Harry and Louise are back.

MARCIA ANGELL: And I think he does. He is right to worry about that. And he is right to want to do it in a hurry. The problem is he is not doing the right thing.

BILL MOYERS: Because?

MARCIA ANGELL: Well, the plan is not for all the reasons we've said. It leaves the bad guys in place. And it tries to kind of make concessions. And what the Clintons found out is they too wanted to keep the private insurance industry at the table. And maybe regulate them a little. And what the private insurance industry decided was, "Why should we take half a loaf when we can have the whole thing?" And that's what I'm seeing happen. Happening now.

TRUDY LIEBERMAN: We are having the same debate, almost, that we had in '93-'94. And it's something I've written about for the Columbia Journalism Review. It's actually the same debate we've had decades before. And it's the unwillingness to look at what we could learn from other systems. Single payer, multiple payers, as they have in Germany and Japan. Or even in the Netherlands, where there are private payers. What's really happening there?

So, I think there's an unwillingness on the part of politicians-- on the part of advocacy groups, some advocacy groups, to really educate Americans on what the possibilities are. And we at C.J.R. have been saying we really have not had a vibrant discussion about other possibilities.

MARCIA ANGELL: I think we have to start all over on this. I really do. I think we have to go for a single payer system. You could institute that gradually. You could do it state by state. You could do it decade by decade. You could improve Medicare. That is, make it nonprofit. But extend it down to age 55 and age 45 and age 35. It would give the private insurance industry a chance to go into hurricanes, earthquakes or something. To get out of the health business. It could be done gradually. I think that has to be done. And it's the only thing that can be done.

Okay, so the experts have looked at what's happening and they have their own recommendations. Now, let's look at this comment at Open Left in response to the Moyers piece:

And now, besides "starting over," what is the difference in the approach suggested by these policy analysts? "You could institute that gradually. You could do it state by state." I thought the gradualism was awful? And I thought the most vibrant version of the Bill moving out of the House HELP committee had an Amendment, passed bipartisanly, that makes provision for, makes the rules allowing, gives permission to: States Implementing Statewide Single Payer Systems.

They continue:

"It could be done gradually. I think that has to be done. And it's the only thing that can be done."

So except for "starting over" - they are in complete agreement with the present process. I think they want a title on the final Bill that says "We are moving to Single Payer, don't be too patient or in too much of a hurry." But otherwise, despite their trepidation, they have a descriptive laying out of congress's and the administration's arm-twisting, panderer-molifying, greed distracting, regionally diverse and constantly-attacked plan of action, as it appears to be moving through the tunnel of that resembles Hunter S. Thompson's description of "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."

What they want is so close to what is happening as to be merely a description.

Liberal Values: Fomenting fear and defending the rich

Submitted to a Candid World: NYU Law hires a true homophobe - to teach Human Rights

Bildungblog: Clown

3quarksdaily: The Israeli thought-police is here

Deltoid: Warbloggers' predictions of coalition casualities

Oliver Willis: This is your right blogosphere on...the natch

Blue America's Campaign For Health Care Choice has been awesome and I want to thank so many of you for donating and taking part in our latest campaign to expose Blanche Lincoln's non-support of the public option. You can still participate.

The liberal blogosphere is rising up against the Democratic Senators who up to this point are blocking any kind of health-care reform in America. Adam writes in Open Left: Progressives Got Our Mojo -- Holding Senate Dems Accountable

Fortunately, the public option is not muddy at all. It appears to be one big sweet spot for progressive activism -- with movement actors fighting on Obama's side (and on the side of 76% of Americans) against lame corporate Democrats who are standing in the way of Obama's agenda.

Better news -- progressives aren't missing this opportunity! We're going for it! We're fighting hard and strategically. Check out these five TV ads by movement actors...read on

Hullabaloo found this gem of a report from The Urban Institute:

The Urban Institute has released a study on the public plan option that should be of interest to those who are following this debate. They focus on the competition factor, particularly on the fact that consolidation and concentration have already made any complaints on that count moot, something we've written about here a few times:

This paper makes the argument that a public plan is important to health reform because it will contribute to cost containment, primarily by addressing problems caused by increased concentration in insurance and hospital markets. We describe how the public plan might be structured, how many people might be expected to enroll, and how much money the public plan might save. We discuss the most frequent arguments that are made in opposition to the public plan. We conclude that the private insurance industry would survive at about the same size but be more efficient and more effective in controlling health care spending.

Continue reading »

It's day two of our C&L '09 fundraiser. We're reaching out to our readers and asking for your help so that the MSM and Corporate media do not overrun the blogosphere with Villagers. With ad revenues way down and the corporate elites funneling in millions of dollars to compete with us, it's going to be hard for all blogs to thrive and survive.

David Neiwert, who is the best expert we have today on right wing hate talk radio and hate groups, has become the managing editor of C&L.

Jane Hamsher writes:

There are lot of people on TV saying irresponsible things about the shooting at the Holocaust museum (one mentioned the "Obama effect," as if this was something that Obama's election precipitated).

If any TV bookers are looking for someone knowledgeable to speak on the subject, they should call David Neiwert. David blogs at Orcinus, he's the managing editor of Crooks & Liars, he's an expert on the subject and the author the new book The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right.

David actually predicted something like this in the book. You can find more on the book here on David's book salon, which was hosted by Digby.

If any media folks need contact info for David, drop me a line.

Thanks, Jane, for your kind words about David. He'll be on the air this morning on MSNBC and has been a great addition to the site. Our initial goal is to reach at least $50,000, and the target is to get up to and beyond $100,000. Day I of the donation drive: C&L's Donation Drive '09: Please help save blogs before we're overrun by the corporate media was awesome. Yesterday we had over 200 people donate and hit the six thousand dollar mark, which was really a great start. I know this will take time and energy. I'd like to pay more money to the people that help make C&L a good blog and I do need to hire a few more bloggers and staffers because the workload is so tremendous.

I'll write more about this in the next posts, so please, donate if you can. You can also use snail mail to make your donation.

For Snail Mail:

Crooksandliars.com

P.O. Box 66310

Los Angeles, CA 90066

We're reaching out to our readers and asking for your help so that the MSM and Corporate media do not overrun the blogosphere with Villagers. They are funneling in millions of dollars to compete with and ultimately drive away independent bloggers so that they can rule the Internet. And the kind of cash they are pouring in is staggering.

It's hard to compete with that since the economy is way down, and I think what we've accomplished is in jeopardy if the Internet doesn't step up to help us all, including other blogs that you like. So please donate what you can.

As you've seen, C&L has been expanding and improving the site and we need your help to continue to make more improvements and add more bodies to keep it going. We've released a host of new sites, including our Supreme Court blog Third Branch, the excellent Video Cafe, an expanded LNMC that is breaking new music and bringing music stars to our pages and finallythe very cool Newstalgia--which is posting the most extensive historic audio and video content on the web today. We've also released our first embeddable video player that now lets you embed all videos you see on C&L. This has taken a lot of time, effort and money to do, but we're succeeding. The economy is way down and it's affecting the blogs as well.

Our initial goal is to reach at least 50,000 dollars and the target is to get up to and beyond 100,000. I know this will take time and energy. As you've seen we're also reaching into the blogosphere and hiring bloggers to make C&L an even better site and to reward some of our own. The workload is tremendous. David Neiwert is now the managing editor and Susy Madrak has become a valued front-pager. Max Bernstein is handing the Late Nite Music Club and Gordon Skene is digging into his amazing time vault to bring us historical content that is relevant to today's news and Heather is leading the charge at Video Cafe. Now we're looking to hire video bloggers, a researcher, extra site monitors and an investigative journalist, but we can't do it without your help.

The money is going to be poured right back into C&L and into the hands of our own. It's a daunting task to keep the content flowing, even the MSM has recognized our efforts:

It's wild knowing that we've had over 200 million visitors and growing, so won't you please help us? You can also use snail mail to make your donation.

For Snail Mail:

Crooksandliars.com

P.O. Box 66310

Los Angeles, CA 90066

Continue reading »