I Guess I’m a Hillary Supporter
Ed Brayton on Oct 15th 2007
At least according to some drooling halfwit named Richard Lawrence Poe, who says that Hillary Clinton is behind the Center for Independent Media and that everyone associated with the CIM’s New Journalist program - including me, named specifically - is on Hillary’s payroll, as she tries to “buy favorable coverage. There is so much nonsense in this screed it’s hard to know where to begin. But let’s start with the obvious: I do not support Hillary Clinton.
Not only do I not support Hillary Clinton, I was calling for the impeachment of her husband long before the right got obsessed with his getting a blowjob. I have a hard time imagining a circumstance in which I would support Hillary Clinton. The funniest thing about this clueless dolt claiming that we’re all being paid to blog on behalf of Hillary Clinton is this: his article is the first time Hillary’s name has ever come up among the Michigan CIM fellows. Ever. I checked. I’ll take absurdly false claims for $1000, Alex.
Filed in The Basement
Dear Mr. Brayton:
If you would read my blog post a bit more attentively, you would see that I never claimed that you had any personal affection for Hillary Clinton, nor that you ever praised her on your blog, nor that you would even vote for her, if you got a chance.
The fact is, Hillary does not need your affection, nor your endorsement, nor even your vote. She just needs your labor.
She needs you to carry out whatever little tasks need to be done on behalf of the “progressive” movement in your local sphere of influence, which happens to be Michigan. As long as you continue fulfilling that assignment to the satisfaction of the Center for Independent Media, you will continue to receive subsidies.
Think about it, Mr. Brayton. Are you not working round the clock to weaken the Republican apparatus in Michigan? And, by so doing, are you not clearing the way for Hillary to win Michigan in 2008?
What concern does Hillary have for your personal motivations, as long as you keep doing your job and helping her win?
The answer to this will be published on my regular blog Tuesday morning.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/
Think about it, Mr. Brayton. Are you not working round the clock to weaken the Republican apparatus in Michigan? And, by so doing, are you not clearing the way for Hillary to win Michigan in 2008?
What concern does Hillary have for your personal motivations, as long as you keep doing your job and helping her win?
First off, I trust that Brayton sleeps, at least once in a while. The overblown rhetoric here is a little hard to take, frankly.
And second, both this blog and Brayton’s Dispatches have readily criticized Republicans as well as Democrats. I think I speak for everyone here in saying that we profoundly dislike them both.
Are we weakening the Democrats? Indeed, we are. We’ve been more than willing to criticize the political left, and we have rarely if ever said anything good about Clinton. As a gay man, I view Clinton as a crass opportunist, someone who would court my vote without actually delivering marriage equality — all so she can get elected. This is disgusting to me. Disgusting.
But are we weakening the Republicans too? You flatter us when you say so, and I hope that we are. They deserve it.
See, we’re libertarians, and we are critical of the two major parties precisely because neither one of them is at all libertarian at the moment.
Mr. Kuznicki writes: Are we weakening the Democrats? Indeed, we are.
Well, that’s an intriguing claim. I’m not sure what you mean by it. In what way have you weakened the Democrats?
He means it in precisely the same way that you mean it when you claim that I’m “weaken[ing] the Republican apparatus” and thus “clearing the way” for Hillary to win. You were the one who offered the standard that if you write something that makes one side look bad, you’re weakening that side and helping the other side (if not unwittingly under their control and on their payroll). It certainly does no credit for you to play dumb now (though frankly, I don’t think you’re playing). We have all written volumes that made both parties look bad. We will all undoubtedly continue to do so. If that’s difficult for you to grasp, that speaks volumes.
Thank you, Mr. Brayton, for sharing your thoughts.
Mr. Kuznicki, would you like to add some comments of your own?
Some specifics would be helpful. For instance, can you tell me what blows you have struck — or attempted to strike — against specific Democratic politicians, candidates or initiatives in your local area?
More importantly, of all the anti-Democrat blogging you have done, which of your blogging offensives do you consider to have been the most effective — against the Democrats, that is — and of which are you most proud?
Mr. Poe,
For one thing, I seldom blog about local issues. I tend to blog about history, religion, economics, and philosophy in a general sense, or with reference to national current events.
For another, I deeply resent your showing up here, making a ridiculous charge, and then demanding proof that I’m innocent. You’re conducting a witch hunt, and you’re engaging in perhaps the lowest and crudest form of politics around.
I would be fully justified in asking you to search the archives yourself. If you’re so very, very concerned about my blogging activities, then the effort would seem worthwhile, no?
But since you’ve asked, here are some posts I’ve made in which I have been critical of Democratic initiatives:
I’ve within the last few weeks criticized hate crimes laws, earmarks, carbon offsets, and public schools. One of my favorite posts of all time was solidly in the “conservative” (that is, free-market) camp of American politics. It’s about not bashing Wal-Mart. Keep looking and you will find even more.
Other points you should keep in mind:
I have not accepted any money from anyone to write on any blog. Even the tip jar has received exactly one donation in its entire existence, and this was from a friend of mine to test whether it worked.
I haven’t written much about the presidential election yet, and I don’t intend to. The ideas interest me, not the personalities. I may write in the future about it, but I will not do so for pay and I will do it solely as a private citizen, not as the agent of anyone else.
I don’t like Republicans, either. If I write more about them, it is because they have held more power lately. They’re getting a lot more of what they want done.
There are people (and I know this is a surprise) who don’t agree either with you or with the Democrats. Life isn’t black and white, and it’s sure as hell not red and blue. Here’s my suggestion: Do your homework before making accusations. Then grow up and quit being such a whiner.
Mr. Kuznicki writes: I have not accepted any money from anyone to write on any blog.
Oh! Well, in that case, my blog post doesn’t even apply to you.
I was writing about people who had received cash subsidies, free legal advice, free access to LexisNexis and so forth from the Center for Independent Media.
If you have received none of the above, then I was not writing about you. Why then are you taking my article so personally?
Jason, you obviously don’t get it. I have a fellowship from an organization that is run by people who once worked for another organization that Hillary Clinton spoke well of. And you work with me. So you’re tainted by your association with me, just as I’m tainted by my association with someone who is associated with someone Poe doesn’t like. We’re all part of the vast left wing conspiracy to destroy God, grandmas and apple pie. I mean, come on - you’re gay. What more proof do you need of your own evil?
What I find amusing is that the moment Jason points out positions he takes that are contrary to the Democratic party, Poe immediately backs off and says this has nothing to do with him. Yet I listed many of the same positions and others in the response on my blog to him and he ignored them completely. Hey, if it doesn’t fit your preconceived ideas, just ignore it. We wouldn’t want reality to intrude on our preferred fictions, would we?
Mr. Poe,
You write,
I was writing about people who had received cash subsidies, free legal advice, free access to LexisNexis and so forth from the Center for Independent Media.
If you have received none of the above, then I was not writing about you. Why then are you taking my article so personally?
I take the charge personally because you included my blog under a large banner reading “Hillary’s Army of Paid Bloggers.”
Given my profound mistrust of the woman, I do not want any association, however vague, to go unchallenged. I presume that you would feel likewise, were I to associate you with her in a similar manner. I presume you’d be less than happy, just as I am right now.
I feel I should also repeat, however, that not only has the Center for Independent Media given me no help whatsoever, it also does not seem to fund only pro-Hillary bloggers. At least one person it pays is decidedly anti-Hillary, namely our own Ed Brayton.
I am sick to my stomach at the level of criticism that has been hurled at Hillary Clinton. Even Oprah, who I once admired, seems to put the blame for people’s ignorant opinion about her endorsing Barack because he’s black or turning their back on Hillary as a woman, on Hillary. Yet, in the face of the general public’s negative opinion, I saw Hillary Clinton remark that she liked Oprah and felt that she had the right to champion for whomever she believed in. This negativism also goes beyond Oprah, but to those that seem to believe that she is responsible for this war and every other ill that is plagueing our society. I have looked long and hard at her record and I believe that she will make an outstanding President. As for any future hanky panky in the White House, she wasn’t the cheater, so I’m not worried about it.