Richard Cohen reacts to criticism of his Colbert piece

pathetic dems are the party slaves who act like nominating Hillary Clinton for anything, ever, is a remotely defensible idea

The only way I could imagine a Hillary presidential candidacy working out favorably is if she gets ganged-up on in the primaries -- but then, of course, Democrats divided with no central message OH NOES blah blah

I don't know any Democrats who don't vote.

I think we can only go so far in blaming our problems on Naderites, regardless of how annoying he was during the last two elections.

I suspect we may be closer to developing a central message than at any time in the past. I probably shouldn't be too hopeful. Please, God, don't let 2006 be the year of "We're not Republicans".

It's true, the Democrats' main concern is all the crazies on the left who have been screwing up the party. And by the way, the crazies on the left are anybody who thinks that maybe "moderate centrist" is not actually an articulate position.

So essentially you've got a framework of people who want to just win one of these years, to hell with liberal principles and opposing the ruling majority, versus the vast majority of their prospective voters, who are thinking "if you would stop bitching about violence in Grand Theft Auto and call these LIARS, ALL OF YOU, LIARS AND MURDERERS AND WAR PROFITEERS, out on their fucking bullshit that's destroying this country, you could win, but don't blame me after you nominate another indefensible, waffling bore."

to here:
All in all, I was -- I am, and I guess I remain -- the worthy object of ignorant, false and downright idiotic vituperation.

then here:
This spells trouble -- not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats.

And Tom, I was being a prick with all the antagonizing last week, I admit.

the differentiation is only clear on about one issue in this country anymore.

http://www.third-way.com/

radical new hairdos!

In a perfect world this would be the truest sentence ever spoken.

Upthread, erklie extrapolated what is probably the most pertainant quote from Cohen's article: "Truth to tell, I peeked into only a few of the e-mails."

The general consensus of most established media types is that the internet is a pandoras box of wild barbarians and dangerous lunatics. Cohen is going to believe this no matter how articulate and reasonable his critics are. All you need is a few foul-mouthed fire breathing e-mails and the concensus is maintained.

This is going to go on for years while we adjust to the fact that everybody can now be a writer, editor and publisher. It's really easy to go from that immediate reaction of "Fuck you!" to "You've got mail".

In the meantime, fools like Cohen get to dismiss their critics, smugly confident in their superiority.

The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred. This spells trouble -- not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle.

Left? Middle? Whatever. But the real knee slapper is that somehow the leadership, the powerbrokers and the messengers are not responsible for wins and losses. It's the internet. It's the public. It's me and you. And we're CRAZY.

fucking otmotherfucking$$$$$$$

they look real wounded when they come around soliciting campaign funds and you say "dude, you're running John Kerry - even the people who vote for him don't like him! of COURSE I'm not gonna give you any money, come back when you've located your testicles"

this is pretty true, I think. talking about them only magnifies their perceived "power" or "relevance" (for ex. I had never even heard of Cohen prior to this)

me too, mostly because i'm not willing to take his word for it that he has 3,000 messages of hateful bile. my guess is that there are a lot of good, articulate well-thought-out comments in there, but he's not interested in those so he scans through until he finds someone using a dirty word or calling him a lapdog, and he says "SEE?"

otoh, of all the possible political gestures in the world, writing emails to richard cohen ranks somewhere well below dressing up as a banana and protesting chiquita's labor practices. at least the banana suit might get you in the local paper.

Just had to re-chuckle.

Because at least writing on ILX gets you some applause from the ILX hivemind OThafuckingtotallymosteverlyM. Except for the badasses here who go out of their ways to be transgressive, non-denizens of any hive, they are applauding from non-corny badassville.

I'm gonna repeat myself again here and just say that take the time to excoriate powerless morons like our man Cohen here is absolutely, positively, never worth it.

But talking about it here? Pro. Duct. Ive.

I honestly can't see how backslapping on this board is ANY better than sending an email directly to Richard Cohen.

Presumed response: "But this is way more gratifying"!
Really?

Hah, of course, I sent that tool an earnest and very civil email explaining in 4 short sentences why he is utterly wrong. Took 5 minutes. I've spent 5 minutes or so here, reading about what a waste of time the former was. And yet, I regret the former a little less than the latter.

Cohen is a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post. His articles are republished regularily in newspapers throughout the country. You may not have heard of him, but you've heard what he and all the other Attack Poodles are saying over and over and over again.

It's nice to see that these folks are getting a little feedback.

I was responding to the assertion that writing Cohen was the least effective thing one could do. My response: no, you could talk about it on ILX. The people who wrote to Cohen got a response. They kept that jerk writing about the issue. They kept TOMBOT pissed off.

Look, this is the most narcissistic of small differences. I agree with you guys pretty much completely on the larger issue.

You've successfully refuted an argument that no one made.
Next time I'll do it with a Questions Presented section so it doesn't get by you.

You can't spell Hunter w/out "UH".

Try not to do that ever again.

Presumed response: "I like monkeys!"

Really? I like monkeys too. I love monkeys. (this no longer has anything to do with the above thread. Monkeys are friggin' cool.)

Monkeys!

(I had to google the DC thread to find out the deal with the drawring- I didn't realize its instant iconic status.)

The Dem leadership is bad, but the KOS crowd is so desperate and often stupid, I don't know what other options logically exist except to support someone or something else, or just ignore electoral politics completely.

I like visiting dailykos because it makes me feel like I'm not totally insane (wait, that is also why I live in Northfield). But I don't participate in threads there because of what you guys are describing.

With regard to what milo z is saying about "other logical options," in my experience there is plenty of say to be had by people at the local level in politics. Eventually if enough Dems do that, the leadership should change as well. (Confession: I just resigned my post as secretary of our county DFL unit because I'm hoping to do other stuff next year. But I'm totally sick of the gutlessness as well.)

I don't get the logic of "some people sent me nasty emails, they must all be hateful Democrats who will hatefully choose a bad candidate for 2008..." Possibly because there isn't any logic there.

contrarian smacktalking? what the hell are you going on about? these boards were put up for different opinions. maybe when you do growz up a bit, you'll see that the stating of an opinion that's different than yours is nothing more than that, an opinion that's different than yours. If you never put down anybody or anything that's popular, then what are you doing here? Or is it just alright when you do it?

What bothers me is when people complain about the candidates that win nominations as if the candidates themselves appear out of nowhere. Last year I met a lady who told me that she wished that the parties would have picked different candidates. Of course, she had not been part of the process in any way.

Is he really passing as a "liberal" in the media? (That is another thing I don't understand. I've been looking for this "liberal mainstream media" I've heard so much about for years. Could someone direct me please?)

Cohen is a "Liberal". This is why I'm a Tigger.

So you're not planning to run yourself then? ;)

Caucus night 2004 was completely insane here in Northfield and across Minnesota and I missed a lot of it (extenuating circumstances with my son starting to go to school full time the very next day for some "special ed" - he has a very mild autism disorder). I was really bummed to miss it even though the nominees here were pretty well locked in already (not to mention that Kerry's nomination was about inevitable by then). But I did make it to part of caucus night and then volunteered at the county convention. Then I wound up organizing the election night party and then I got elected Secretary.

I'm a backstage sort of person, but there is plenty to be done and if you get involved on that level you quickly get sucked in, in my experience. (I suppose this might not be so true in larger cities?)

Being a deligate was pretty interesting. Being involved in a campaign was fun, too.

Also, for the majority of states without a caucus system, I bet if you showed up at party headquarters, you would be surprised at how much influence you could have.

Also, while I'm not a "netroots" triumphalist, I think we've seen the beginnings of a more interactive political and media arena.

That said, I totally empathise with the frustration with the Democratic Party leadership, especially on the national level. These people need to lead. They need to synthesise.

I hope you're correct about the interactiveness improving with politics and the media. I've finally given up on watching any sort of political news show because they just make me see red.

Back to the dailykos thing, I remember the nastiness of the posts from the day after the election and, even though I totally understood the venting, I was really upset by that. (Not to mention that I was upset by the election results. I couldn't sleep for a couple of nights and I think I cried for about 3 hours straight. I don't even remember the last time I was that upset about anything.)

Lately I've been blocking out almost all news forms because I'm just exhausted with the mindbending f*cked-upness of our government. And it just doesn't stop. I think of the current Republican party line as similar to a diet that says you can have your cake, eat the whole thing twice, and never gain an ounce. Maybe you can do those things, but the reality is that the cake is going to taste like sh*t.

Jeff, circa 2012: "Ooooooh, I realy told ya so. I did." aka. QED.

I felt even better a week later when I went out for margaritas with my book club. I honestly never understood the whole "drinking is fun" thing until that night. It was like... OMG, I'm laughing! We were all pretty upset, but somehow having margaritas and singing "Let the Eagle Soar" a la John Ashcroft helped. (In retrospect, we're probably lucky we didn't get kicked out of the restaurant.)

So, in 2012 we can have an "I told you so" chorus, I guess. (One possible motto: "drinking, bitching, and sometimes singing.")

George W. Bush is cuter than no one. (I've never understood people who find bad public speaking attractive). As for the abortion/stem cell thing... aaaaaargh. So. Much. Wrong. Can't. Talk.

My friend Cathie's brother Pat and my friend Jeff G.'s twin brother Jerry are both in Iraq right now. Cathie and Jeff G. are both shit-scared for their brothers and pissed as hell about the whole war. I don't know when Jerry comes home; Pat has 5 more months in Baghdad. His unit just had injuries again this week. Cathie drives around with "My heart is in Baghdad" and some kind of anti-Republican bumper sticker on her car. (She says she likes to confuse the Republicans...).

Dan, your former co-workers make me not want to go out and interact with the public in any way.

Seriously, it cheers me to read stuff by "right-wingers" who actually still have a modicum of sanity left.

The power of black humor in the face of moronicism is deeply undervalued.

No, just about 50.2%. The right is simply very vocal.
I'm very much appreciative of the fact that gas prices have made it cool again to talk openly in the office about what a stupid evil douchebag we have in the White House. Whatever it takes, people.

Of course, Tom is right about gas prices, which are going up no matter what, which makes my eyeballs hemmorrage.

That's why I say 4 more years: I want people to understand, fully, that it's not about gas prices.

Related: standing out by smokers corner not too long ago, dude mentions New Orleans/Katrina, and this woman just rolled her eyes.

And then I return to my mansion and Audrey Tautou and Franka Potente feed me strawberries.

Dan, I'd like to comission a poem.

I think we need a moderate Republican as president more than a Democrat; I don't know what a Democrat is these days (it's partly why I left the party). Trouble is, there ain't many moderate Republicans around, not w/the likes of Sensenbrenner, George Allen, and Frist prowling the countrside.

In short, we need a Benjamin Harrison.

i was working at sears when katrina went down (my first american job - woo!) and those middle aged, mininum wage, bush loving bitches were whining and complaining (as loudly as possible - bye bye customers!) about how the victims have no right to whine and complain because THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN.

I think there is a serious level of reality-denial in some people. Some of them just have no concept that Bad Things can happen to them, too. In my less-nice moments, I wish Bad Things on those people...

-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (soto.alfre...), May 12th, 2006 12:17 PM. (Alfred Soto) (link)

Yes, we need an uninspiring Republican president who's (grand)father previously held the office, who will lose the popular vote but win in a narrow electoral college victory, and who will leave a once abundant treasury depleted after he leaves office.

Yes, where can we get one of those?

OK, but other than the Sherman Anti-trust Act, what's he got going for him? He wasn't malignant?

GEORGE W BUSH IN '08!

Hmmm, couldn't we run Herbert Hoover? (Or hey, how about Calvin Coolidge. He was famously silent and maybe then people would learn to spell that part of my name correctly).

Was Stephen Colbert funny?

Best typo ever?

LOL, I just had a funny flash of the era in college when my mother thought I was a lesbian. (Her timeless question, "do lesbians have periods?" dates from this era.)

'Cuz most all y'all have no idea how much fun that would be.

(Fluffy Bear, who else but me would post on that thread?!)

Sullivan wonders a bit about Mr. Cohen.

That was a stupid Cohen column

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRw8zvgWUAA8QEK.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRw8zv8WwAAC3-y.png

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-defense-of-tipping/2015/10/19/16f1cd36-768c-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html

So many bad Cohen columns. I blame the Washington Post's editorial page editor who loves neo-con knuckleheads like Cohen writing for him.

the op-ed page is a rogues gallery of thugs and war profiteers

This guy also a regular contributor:

http://ooyala.fairfax.tv.edgesuite.net/M0dWN4NTqF6V6hXrJb_UCYvxp_ZPU_ow/dC9YmUV2gYCgMiZn5hMDoxOjBzMTu354

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbALxp2XkAAAAJ8.jpg

They hired a qualified woman for a job, even though he wanted it. So unfair.

"It took everything I had, but I remained cordial toward her for the length of our shared tenure at the company."

cohen out

https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/09/23/richard-cohen-leaves-the-washington-post

inability to simply disagree with people anymore on politics

which future alt-right guy used to post as "mitya"