Who is Taylor Marsh? An update for the bio... A tall tale, part two...

If you missed the bio of Taylor Marsh, the self-professed "talk radio" host, Huffington Post blogger, successful polisite operator and crazed hack for Hillary Clinton, you can read it here.

Here's an update relating to the LA Weekly portion of the tall tale. Marsh claims to have written for the Weekly, but also admitted that her columns appeared with the word ADVERTISEMENT on top of them. That's not what one generally does with their paid columnists, of course. We knew that much already.

I'm still not sure why Taylor Marsh stories were considered advertising, but I have some interesting additional background about her "experience" with the LA Weekly.

A reader emailed me a few links to websites that date back to the Taylor Marsh era at the paper. Apparently, Ms. Marsh worked for LALoveseat.com, which was an "adult" and/or "personals" site operated by the free alt weekly. I'm wondering if the journalistic experience Taylor Marsh had at the paper was actually writing materials for LALoveseat. Just an idea, but it matches up with an iHollywood Forum update that describes Marsh like this:

Taylor Marsh, former editor-in-chief of Danni's Hard Drive, a popular adult site that brings in $6 million a year in revenue, now a featured columnist on LA Weekly's LALoveseat.com

Interestingly, if you search the LA Weekly archives for other articles under the name Taylor Marsh, you get nothing.

LALoveseat had detractors, which isn't a big surprise. Anything involving boobies, butts and genitals has detractors. Let it be know that John Brown is not an anti-porn crusader and that Marsh's experience in porn as an employee at Danni's Hard Drive and elsewhere shouldn't be held against her. If anything, I'm sneakily pro-porn.

One may, however, question if that time with the adult site really qualifies as relevant experience for hackery, er, political punditry.

Anyway, now that the disclaimer is out there, here's how one dude characterized LALoveseat in a letter to the paper by someone named Bill Cody:

I long ago mourned the death of the progressive media in this country, but whenever I think I’ve finally found the subbasement and cannot possibly go any lower, you folks at the Weekly/Village Voice find another hidden stairwell.

“LALOVESEAT.COM,” the ad screams. “Adult Services — massage — escorts — dancers — clubs.” Why not tell it like it is? The Weekly is now pimping for prostitutes. I know none of you oh-so-talented writer types want to get day jobs, but really, how low can you go? ... You should be ashamed of yourselves.

I'm not arguing that LALoveseat was porn based on that letter, though. I'm making the assumption that we're talking about relatively "blue" material on the fact that Taylor Marsh took the time to appear with a collection of other porn website operators in the aforementioned panel discussion.

All we really know about her comments at the discussion are that she didn't mention whether LALoveseat (a free site that probably sought to generate revenue via advertising) was profitable and that she thought porn studios could do a better job with their sites via increased interactivity. According to Taylor Marsh:

When you go to an adult site, you get to see people. With other sites, too often you feel like there is too much facade and no human interaction...Movie studios in particular are underutilizing the Internet...If I was the head of a studio, I would have all my hot, young stars online doing chats. Fan clubs are tremendously valuable on the Web.

Her observations about interactivity and websites makes sense, by the way, on a general level. It also seems to be one of the reasons her current site attracts a large group of regulars. It may seem weird to think about the pro-Hillary, Reagan Democrat member of a lunch-bucket family talking about getting young and hot talent to chat with porn fans to increase sales, though.

I'd be happy to judge Ms. Marsh's efforts purely on the quality of her analysis and writing. If I did that, I'd come down on the side of "just another not-so-bright person with typing skills". However, Marsh consistently reminds the world of her "qualifications" in hopes of advancing her agenda and station in the world of punditry. The more we dig into that admittedly well-spun background... Well... I think she'd be better off without the tall tale backstory.

WONDERING ABOUT THE CARTOONS? READ THIS...





Technorati Tags: author, bloggers, blogging, hillary clinton, Huffinton Post, lies, marsh, mushy, Porn, spin, talk radio, taylor marsh Del.icio.us Tags: author, bloggers, blogging, hillary clinton, Huffinton Post, lies, marsh, mushy, Porn, spin, talk radio, taylor marsh Furl Tags: author, bloggers, blogging, hillary clinton, Huffinton Post, lies, marsh, mushy, Porn, spin, talk radio, taylor marsh

Fraud or legitimate pundit... Taylor Marsh biography... Who in the hell is this woman and what does it mean?

(NOTE: The saga continues)
(NOTE: Additional information available at this update)
(NOTE: I've also read and reviewed her book)
(NOTE: Find out about the Taylor Marsh cartoons here!)

A few days ago, I read a confused and silly piece at The Huffington Post by Taylor Marsh.

Taylor Marsh. She's all over the place these days, it seems. She's shown up on TV shows. She's a regular contributor at HuffPo. I see links to her blogs all over the place. I don't think you can call Taylor Marsh one of the great opinion shapers of our time, but she's definitely making an impact in certain circles.

She seems to have a lot of oomph among Hillary supporters. Her blog offers a daily dose of crazed Obama bashing and gets hundreds of comments from Clinton true believers who echo her sentiments as if they were gospel. Compared to little ol' John Brown, Taylor Marsh is BIG TIME.

I've been wondering. Who in the hell IS Taylor Marsh. I decided to find out. Strangely, this talk radio host and published author doesn't have a Wikipedia entry. Although I found several people wondering who she was, I found no bio outside of the one she's provided at HuffPo and the one on her own website. I figured it was time for someone to find out something more than that about Taylor Marsh and/or to collect available information in one place.

I'll be honest with you, though. I wasn't motivated by pure curiosity. I had an ax to grind. Day after day, I find the ramblings of Taylor Marsh and the ass-kissing dittoes of her Hillary-backing fan club more and more irritating. Her remarks are, in my estimation, another sympton of Hillary-induced soul cancer. I think Taylor Marsh sucks.

Thus, I was sort of hoping to find out that Ms. Marsh is a completely unqualified, unimportant, silly hack who just happened to fall into an audience because she decided to pledge an undying allegiance to The Monster during a contentious primary process. Hey, like I said, I had an ax to grind.

Guess what? I did discover that Taylor Marsh fails to meet the Pundit Worthy of Attention Threshhold. She is a wee hack with an audience. She does suck--at least on some level. However, she's also interesting. Believe it or not, I now have an admittedly bizarre newfound respect for her.

The Taylor Marsh story has two parts. First, it cautions us to remember that having a slick blog and a knack for PR doesn't make someone smart, qualified, or credible. Second, it teaches us that anyone can command an audience for his or her opinions. The Taylor Marsh story is about fame for the foolish, attention for the mediocre, and how a kid from Missouri can somehow grow up to be an oft-cited resource among those with an interest in serious matters--even if she might not have any business sharing the stage with serious people.

The Taylor Marsh story is at the intersection of Horatio Alger and Clifford Irving.

It starts with Michelle Marshall.

MICHELLE MARSHALL...

Michelle Marshall was a Missouri girl from a conservative family who entered beauty pageants to earn money for college. She ended up winning the Miss Missouri title in 1974. Even though she didn't take home the big Miss America tiara in Atlantic City, pageant circuit winnings helped her pay her way to Stephens College. Stephens is an all-female college in Columbia, Missouri. Michelle Marshall graduated, receiving a BFA.

She left Columbia (and if you've ever been there, you'd appreciate the decision) and went to New York. Her good looks, grace and talent landed her on a few Broadway stages. For whatever reason, Michelle's Broadway career was brief.

That's where Michelle Marshall vanishes. We don't hear from her again. Michelle Marshall becomes Taylor Marsh.

TAYLOR MARSH IN LA...

Michelle Marshall/Taylor Marsh went to Los Angeles. She found herself acting as a "relationship consultant" for the LA Weekly, a free alternative newspaper. Maybe. Sort of. She claims that experience today, but the details are cloudy. An interview with Marsh indicates that she wrote more political pieces. Marsh herself says she wrote relationship columns, but tried to sneak politics into them until someone in the editorial department made her stop. The interesting part of that comment is that Marsh said her future columns ran with an announcement of ADVERTISEMENT above them. Usually, if your colum is labeled an "advertisement" it's because it's not really a column at all. It's an ad.

Who was running the ad? Who was paying her to write the ad? Was it really an LA Weekly article and they just randomly slapped "advertisement" on top of it? I have no freaking clue. I'm a blogger in Kansas. I'm not Mike Wallace. What I do know is that Judith Proffer (Jablonski) was one of the publishers of LA Weekly. I also know that Proffer would later become a Marsh ally when Taylor decided she should be a radio host. I also believe that Proffer's role at the LA Weekly was concentrated on advertising issues.

All I'm saying is that it seems pretty likely that Taylor Marsh was never a paid columnist for LA Weekly. Columnists aren't labeled "advertisers" and would be far less likely to develop a close and lasting relationship with the people in the ad department than a regular columnist might. That's just a guess, but I think it's a pretty good one.

Before we move on with the Taylor Marsh biography, I want to mention an old post from Taylor Marsh. It's a review of a musical about Deep Throat porn star Linda Lovelace. Marsh gives an enthusiastic and positive review of Lovelace: The Musical. She even gives props to its executive producer for doing such a damn good job. She doesn't mention her friendship with the executive producer and future business partner, though. The backer? Judy Proffer.

TAYLOR MARSH IN PORN...

A review of Lovelace: The Musical isn't the only Marsh foray into the pornography and sex industries. Somewhere along the line, Taylor Marsh developed a keen interest in the topic. She claims to have extensively researched the field for several years. Part of that research involved working with/for Danni Ashe. Ashe, a porn star, was one of the pioneers of making shitloads of cash by peddling porn online. Marsh was there with her, serving as the editor-in-chief for Danni's Hard Drive.

That year in the field served as the basis for Taylor's book, My Year in Smut: The Internet Escapades Inside Danni's Hard Drive.

We'll talk more about that book and Taylor's claims about it later. Here's what I'm interested in knowing, though. Was the year with Danni Ashe a "research thing" from the beginning or was it a job with a porn outfit that turned into a book later? I could buy a copy of My Year in Smut to find out, but I'm not really THAT interested. I have a feeling Ms. Marsh will eventually fill us all in if people begin asking for answers, anyway. By the looks of this Marsh post, it was a gig. Nothing more.

I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that someone was writing relationship and sex advice pieces that appeared in an alt weekly would hook up with a porn company to serve as an editor. I don't think Taylor Marsh was going deep undercover when she was working with Ashe. I think she was just working a job. That guess fits nicely with the record of some Taylor Marsh appearances in LA that were focused on erotica and sex.

TAYLOR MARSH THE AUTHOR...

My Year in Smut is THE Taylor Marsh book. I don't mean it's the best. I mean it's the only one. I mention that because she likes to occasionally mention her status as an author. Her background as an author and her "research" for the book create a kind of implied credibility. They probably shouldn't.

When your research is actually your job working for a porn site that's an issue. When you're book is printed by AuthorHouse, that's another issue.

AuthorHouse, previously known as 1st Books, served as publisher for My Year in Smut. Do you know what it takes to get AuthorHouse to print your book? Do you need a good literary agent who can sell them on your manuscript? Do you need a track record as an author? Do you need a knockout manuscript they just can't resist? No. No, you don't. You need a check. Or a major credit card.

AuthorHouse is a self-publishing vanity press. You pay them, they print your book. That's about it. I could take my four-year-old's assorted scribblings and Crayola pieces and transform them into a coffee table book, complete with glowing reviews of each drawing written in the tone of a serious art critic. I could do that for around $500. Would that make John Brown's daugher a serious artist? Not really, huh?

Vanity publishers are, generally, where you go when you can't get a real publisher to take your book. Yes, there are exceptions. There are always exceptions. However, if you take a tour around the AuthorHouse site and look at the kind of stuff they're publishing (oh, and they aren't editing this shit, either, you just give them the goods and they create books), you'll get a pretty good idea of what kind of stuff comes out of the self-publishing world. If you're interested in learning more about Author House specifically, here are about 8 million observations about it from writers of all sorts.

Look, My Year in Smut might be awesome. However, it's almost disingenuous to play "I'm a published author" when the very reason you're published is because you coughed up the cash. That's all I'm saying. Take it for what it's worth. Taylor Marsh mentions her book fairly regularly. You don't hear her mention the fact that she paid for it instead of getting paid for it.

That's not the World's Biggest Deal, but it is sort of interesting with respect to Taylor Marsh because she likes to build credibility via My Year in Smut and by describing herself as a radio host. She paid for the "author badge". Turns out she paid for the "radio badge", too.

TAYLOR MARSH IS ON THE AIR... SORT OF...

Taylor Marsh is a radio host. She says so. Everyone says so. It's all over the fucking place. However, you probably haven't heard her in your car on the radio while commuting to work or going to the store. You see, Taylor Marsh isn't on the radio. No one has actually paid her for being on the radio at any time, based on what I can find.

Taylor Marsh has a website that looks like it belongs to a radio show host. It's illusion. She's a podcaster. She records a show like the ones they actually broadcast on the radio and makes it available for download.

I have nothing against podcasting and I listen to a few semi-regularly. Many of the "big names" in radio make their real radio shows available via podcast. There's nothing inherently silly about podcasting.

There is something inherently silly about calling yourself a radio host and garnering credibility as a media figure from it when all you're really doing is taking a few calls from ass-kissing blog readers and converting results into MP3 format. That isn't a radio show.

Radio shows are broadcast. Radio shows, in most cases, have advertisers. Babbling into a $15 Radio Shack microphone in your basement and uploading the results to your website isn't running a radio show. Sorry, it just isn't. You are not a radio host if you do that. You're a podcaster.

But she DID have a radio show at one time, right? Well, sort of. I can understand the confusion. Occasionally she mentions wanting to find a "new home" for her radio show and she discusses her status as a screwed-over radio host when she makes crazily shallow comments about the Fairness Doctrine. Clearly, she had a radio show. Right?

Here's the deal. In 2002, Taylor Marsh went to Las Vegas and became a radio host... Sort of. Judy Proffer (Magpye Media) and Marsh came up with the cash to buy time on KLAV, a Las Vegas AM radio station. That's right. They bought time.

KLVA is to radio what Author House is to publishing. If you can't really get a job on a real radio station, you can go to KLVA and buy blocks of time. They give you the studio, provide production assistance, and you're on the air! Instant radio host status. If you'd like to become a talk radio host tomorrow, call your local AM vanity station and offer them some cash. That's all it takes. You can stutter. You can whine. You can say outrageously stupid things. You can be boring. It's on your dime. I could put my four-year-old in front of a mic and have her sing variations on "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" for two hours a day and, voila!, she'd have a claim equivalent to Taylor's as a "radio host".

The little group that funded the project didn't sustain it very long. It looks like the Marsh plan was to buy time on KLVA and to put together a show that was good enough to attract some attention from other media types. They could then syndicate the show and turn in into a profitable enterprise instead of a pay-to-play operation. That never happened. Taylor's foray into the real world of actual broadcast radio consisted of being a self-proclaimed hour-long "antidote to right wing talk" that never found backing beyond incubation.

So, Taylor Marsh is a pocaster who took a shot at becoming a radio host once upon a time. That's the bottom line, as I see it.

IS TAYLOR MARSH A FRAUD?

A lot of people would look at her authorship and radio host claims and say, "Hell yes, she's a fraud". Originally, I was sort of thinking about saying that, too. I'm going to stop short, though. She isn't a fraud. She's just good at making things sound better than they actually are.

She can take a self-published workplace story and spin it into being a respected author, buttressing her grandiosity because some other author just happened to mention her book in another book. Taylor Marsh can take her work experience in online porn and transform it into research for her book. She isn't a former porn employee, she's an expert.

Taylor Marsh can buy radio time in a gambit to get a paying job, fall flat and then spin that into being a talk radio icon. She can take what might have been little more than writing advertisements in an alt weekly and create a background in a print journalism.

Now, I don't want to pretend like she's a complete fabrication that suddenly emerged, fully formed, out of nowhere. If you start digging, you'll find that Taylor has been prolific on the web for a long time. She writes, writes and writes some more. She's blogged all over the place, including pro-Kerry work and Patriot Project efforts during the last election cycle. Blogging regularly, however, doesn't make one a genius. Otherwise, the guy from icanhazcheezburger.com would be on TV in place of David Gergen.

Taylor Marsh isn't a fraud. She's a spinner. A dedicated spinner.

This is the weird part of this post. Every time I read a Taylor Marsh post, I make that face usually reserved for sniffing a pot of human feces. I think she's a buffoon with a website, undeserving of an audience. I find her analysis feeble and obvious. I find her writing amateurish and her weirdly unrelenting support of Hillary Clinton suspicious. I think her blog is a bad thing. I want to say she's a phony. Hell, she might be. But in the end, I'm going to tip my hat to her more than I'm going to mock her. I'm leaving this foray into Taylor Marsh biography with a newfound respect for her.

She's found a way to go from being a regular person with a strong interest in politics to having a voice, an audience and some impact. She might be full of shit, but she's slinging it to people in numbers I can't imagine. Taylor Marsh might be part of the political soul cancer that's been killing our liberal democracy, but she's good at creating a reputation, credibility and an audience. The spin is Clifford Irving. The success story is Horatio Alger.

I'd like an audience, too. Right now, this little new free blog brings me about 30-50 people per day. She gets 10X that many comments on every post because she's willing to pitch herself like crazy.

I could do that, but I don't. Now I'm wondering why.

You see, I am the author of countless published pieces (many ghostwritten for others, but what the hell). I'm an award-winning blogger (not this one). I'm an accomplished public speaker who has given literally hundreds of presentations. I'm a published academician in the communications field. I am a legal scholar and a former recipient of an American Jurisprudence award for the study of criminal law. I am a former PAID radio personality. I've made multiple television appearances, including one just last weekend on Easter, discussing matters related to a specific aspect of the economy. I've successfully operated my own copywriting firm, successfully represented the downtrodden in administrative proceedings and have inside connections at both the state and federal levels of government.

If I wanted to Taylor Marsh myself, I could be the next big thing at HuffPo. Yeah, I'd have to cut out a lot of the "fuck" and "shit" you find here. I'd need a proofreader, too. I'd have to sacrifice anonymity and just go nuts with it... That'd be tough...

But if I was willing to be as brazen and audacious as Taylor Marsh, I'd be big time.

Maybe I'll do that. Maybe I'll make this blog disappear, buy a new domain, put together a hot looking site with a few glossies of me, write a check to Author House, upload a few "radio shows", shine up my resume and go Big Time.

Maybe not.

Taylor, if you're reading this...

Your punditry sucks ass, but you're one helluva self-promoter. Use your powers for good instead of evil and you might just have a fan in John Brown.

I suppose the other Marsh lesson is even more important. If you're listening to someone and taking them seriously, you might want to make sure they're worth taking seriously. Am I? Is she? It's worth some thought.

CLEARING THE AIR RE: TAYLOR MARSHGATE
UPDATE

And WHO IS JOHN BROWN, anyway... And why did her review Marsh's book?






Technorati Tags: marsh, taylor marsh, blogging, bloggers, Huffinton Post, talk radio, author, lies, spin, mushy, hillary clinton, clifford irving, horatio alger, KLAV, Porn Del.icio.us Tags: marsh, taylor marsh, blogging, bloggers, Huffinton Post, talk radio, author, lies, spin, mushy, hillary clinton, clifford irving, horatio alger, KLAV, Porn Furl Tags: marsh, taylor marsh, blogging, bloggers, Huffinton Post, talk radio, author, lies, spin, mushy, hillary clinton, clifford irving, horatio alger, KLAV, Porn

Remember that one time? Real solutions for fishing...

Hey, remember that one time? The time I went fishing in Minnesota and I caught that record walleye? You remember. I had light test weight line on my reel and was just jigging the rocks for perch when I landed that monster. Almost fell off the boat. Crazy stuff. Remember how everyone was clapping for me when I finally brought it in? Took me the better part of an hour to reel it in, but that party in the lodge later was worth every minute. Man, that was AWESOME.

What? Oh yeah.

It was a baby bullhead. That's right. I caught it off the dock? Oh, right. Well, it did struggle. And that kid did clap. We did buy a six pack at the lodge later, too.

The important thing to remember is that I am an experienced angler who knows what it takes to land the big ones. I have experience with Minnesota lake fishing and can deliver real answers for your bait questions. I have REAL solutions for fishing.

That record walleye? Sorry, I'm sleep deprived. I was up late last night. People keep calling me at 3 a.m. with crises. I guess I misspoke.







Technorati Tags: hillary clinton, Clinton, campaign, lies, fish story, bosnia, identity politics, monster, monster clinton Del.icio.us Tags: hillary clinton, Clinton, campaign, lies, fish story, bosnia, identity politics, monster, monster clinton Furl Tags: hillary clinton, Clinton, campaign, lies, fish story, bosnia, identity politics, monster, monster clinton

Why Geraldine Ferraro should go away...

Go away, Geraldine. Not because you're a racist or anything. Go away because you've gone sour and are bad for everyone.

I know you watched it and have probably read it again, too. Play along with me, though. I want you to read an excerpt from Barack Obama's "race" speech. You don't have to study every word carefully. Just read it and pay a little attention, okay? Great. Thanks. Here we go:

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

See? I told you it wasn't complicated! Very easy to understand, actually.

For those who need extra help with interpretation, allow me:

It is wrong to simply dismiss everyone who says something controversial about race as a crazed racist. That kind of simplification is silly and its not very helpful.

Just in case you need even more extra help, I'll simplify again:

We shouldn't call people racists every time they say something about race. That is bad.

Still having problems? Okay:

No call everyone racist. Bad.

That last "level of help" was written with Geraldine Ferraro in mind. I used to think of Ferraro as a relatively harmless relic from the Democratic party's bygone days. She had a landmark moment, served her constituency, and moved on. The end. I didn't dislike her and I certainly admired her willingness to be the first woman VP candidate. Beyond that, I didn't really think too much about Geraldine Ferraro.

I now realize that Geraldine Ferraro is a fucking moron of the first order. She is stupid. She lacks reading comprehension skills. She is a fool. I think you get the idea.

Wait! How can it be that this woman, a former vice presidential candidate, can be a complete dumb-ass? It seems impossible! How could an elected official with a long track record in Washington, DC be functionally illiterate?

I don't know. I really don't. But that's exactly what's going on with Geraldine Ferraro. Well, either that or she really isn't stupid and she's just saying stupid things for the sake of some political objective. I'd rather believe she's a Grade-A dummy than to think she's a conniving piece of shit, though. Wouldn't you?

Any way, she's either stupid or full of crap. We know that because she recently reacted to Obama's speech.

Just in case you've lost track, revisit the comment he made that referenced Geraldine. He said it was wrong for people to simply dismiss Ferraro as a bigot. He said that throwing people overboard on the basis of comments about race was short-sighted and foolish. He basically told the people who called Geraldine Ferraro a racist to stick it up their asses. Barack Obama stuck up for Geraldine Ferraro and cautioned those who'd call her a racist because of her "Barack is lucky to be a black dude" comments.

So, how do you think Geraldine Ferraro reacted? Do you think she thanked Obama for recognizing that she wasn't a racist? Do you think she applauded his willingness to explore what her comments and motivations really meant, instead of painting her as a crazed bigot?

Hell no. Geraldine Ferraro did exactly what you'd expect an idiot who can't understand simple sentences would do. Or, you could say she did exactly what you'd expect a sick, twisted political manipulator would do.

She became indignant!

To equate what I said with what this racist bigot has said from the pulpit is unbelievable...


It also didn't happen. Nonetheless, that's what Geraldine told the now-halfway-famous Daily Breeze. She was pissed off that he somehow equated her remarks with Wright's yammerings. So what if he didn't actually do that. So what if he did something approximating the opposite of what seemed to piss her off. She's either too stupid to understand Barack Obama or she's intentionally faking rage to serve some other end.

Either way, she sucks. Big time. She's pure evil and her reaction to the speech is far more sinister and malignant than her earlier fool-talk about Obama's luck at being a black guy running for president.

Geraldine Ferraro mind has rotted. Or her political soul has gone rancid. You pick. I don't give a shit. Either way, she's bad.

The funny thing is that I sort of stuck up for Geraldine after her controversial remarks made headlines. I reasoned that her comments were less a product of racism than of her own involvement in women's issues and the context-built prism through which she might view the world. I thought she was wrong, but I didn't think she was a racist.

Well, no more sticking up for Ferraro. She is infected with either the stupid bug or the most dangerous political disease imaginable.

The latest round of Ferraro vs. Obama is sickening. Geraldine is pissed off at Obama for doing the opposite of what he did. That's bad enough. She's also hacked that he failed to criticize Jeremiah Wright.

Yeah, you read that right. She's all hacked off that Barack didn't come down on the pastor. Here's an example of her fucked up (non)insight:

(Obama) gave a very good speech on race relations, but he did not address the fact that this man is up there spewing hatred...

WTF Gerry? Does this ring a bell?

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Apparently, Barack Obama must kill Jeremiah Wright, urinate on his corpse and then go on SNL and tear up a photo of him after singing a capella in order to "address" the matter to Geraldine's satisfaction. Fight the real enemy, Barack! What a load of shit. She's either beyond stupid or she's faking. We all know it.


And it really comes as no surprise. The "lucky black guy" stuff was followed by Geraldine making these weird accusations that they Obama campaign was calling her a racist. Of course, that never happened. They called her remarks "divisive" and "polarizing" but they never categorized the comments as "racist". They certainly didn't call Gerry a racist. That reality didn't phase her, though. She claimed it was true anyway. Then, Obama says that those who did call her a racist were wrong. That pisses her off even more, apparently. Idiot or liar. Your pick.

I guess there's a third choice--psychopath. I don't know which of the three options best fits Geraldine Ferraro, but I do know one thing. America better damn well be done with folks like her. Otherwise, we deserve every bad thing that comes our way.

If you want to know what a new politics should look like... If you're really interested in bettering the USA and its governance... If you want to know why people seem to love the idea of "change" and why hope is an increasingly popular antidote to the status quo... If you want to do any of those things, you can figure it all out by studying Geraldine Ferraro's behavior over the course of the past month.

She is bad. End of story.

Go away, Geraldine. Not because you're a racist or anything. Go away because you've gone sour and are bad for everyone.





Technorati Tags: ferraro, geraldine ferraro, barack obama, barack obama, Racism, race, identity politics, elections, campaigns, lies, stupidity, Del.icio.us Tags: ferraro, geraldine ferraro, barack obama, barack obama, Racism, race, identity politics, elections, campaigns, lies, stupidity, Furl Tags: ferraro, geraldine ferraro, barack obama, barack obama, Racism, race, identity politics, elections, campaigns, lies, stupidity

The unstoppable monster ticket... Hillary Clinton with special guest star, Vice President Barack Obama...

It's depraved.

The Monster known as Hillary Clinton argues that Barack Obama is an inexperienced, unrealistic, plagiarizing, Ken Starr-imitating, scandal-linked empty suit who would be ill-prepared to answer late night phone calls when "something happens in the world".

Hillary Clinton spends every day arguing that Barack Obama isn't ready for the White House. Hell, if you have to choose between Barry O and John McCain, Monster Hillary Clinton recommends considering McCain.

Well, no matter how much crap they try to pile on the Obama candidacy, he keeps on trucking. Clinton needs votes and apparently the pool of dumb-asses willing to believe the shit she spews and/or ready to overlook her insane web of hypocrisies and lies is running dry. The only place left to secure votes? People who dig Obama, but who have a few reservations (maybe inspired by the Monster's fibs).

The Clintons long ago mastered the art of political triangulation. It worked well against Republicans for Bill. Now their testing the techniques within the Democratic party.

Hillary can't just straight beat Barack Obama. Thus, she has decided to sneakily try to tack him onto her campaign.

That's right, if you vote for Hillary, you'll get Obama as Vice President. Maybe. Well, at least that's what she's saying. Witness this little bit of campaign nonsense as reported by the AP:

Speaking to voters in Mississippi, where Sen. Barack Obama is expected to do well in next week's primary, Clinton said, "I've had people say, 'Well I wish I could vote for both of you. Well, that might be possible some day. But first I need your vote on Tuesday."

It is the second time this week that she has hinted at a joint ticket with the Illinois senator...

Bill Clinton plays along with this notion, too. WNBC notes:

Former President Bill Clinton, his wife's most prominent supporter, can't contain his enthusiasm for the Clinton-Obama idea. He said the ticket would be "almost unstoppable." And he explained that Obama "would win the urban areas and the upscale voters and she wins the traditional rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president. If you put these two things together, you'd have an almost unstoppable force."

It's pure genius. If you love Obama but worry about his ability to win against Hillary or are stupid enough to think that the Clinton experience argument makes a shred of sense, it's the perfect compromise. You can swallow a little bit of vomit and vote for the known commodity, the Monster. The kid comes along for the ride as Veep.

It's a two for one deal, and Americans love bargains. Vote for Hillary, get Obama! The unstoppable ticket.

And you KNOW it only runs one way, because Hillary is such a "fighter" ("fighter" is the new "bitch", by the way)that she'll never take the co-pilot position.

A Clinton/Obama ticket is also a sneaky form of blackmail. We all know that Hillary will fuck things up until Denver burns to the ground if people let her get away with it. She's a Monster/Fighter with no concerns for any greater good and will go down swinging, failing, screaming, kicking and lawyering while trying to call in every favor even potentially owed to anyone with the last name "C".

Many within the party are downright nervous about how this whole thing is going to play out. They don't like the increased ugliness coming from Monsterland and they don't like the idea of squandering resources, time and candidate images with prolonged party infighting.

That makes a Clinton/Obama ticket even more attractive. If a ton of Obama backers jump ship for Hillary (especially in Pennsylvania, I suppose), one can at least imagine a compromise solution with Obama on the bottom of the ticket.

If you vote for Hillary, she'll bring Obama along for the November fun-fest and you don't have to feel guilty about your vote. Plus, it creates at least some little sliver of hope that she won't go completely ape-shit in the face of defeat.

Like most things out of Hillary's lying mouth, however, the idea has problems. Three of them come to mind immediately.

1. It's an overstep. Hillary is in no position to argue that Obama should be her VP. I know Hillary doesn't like to have that reality thing drag her down, but she's losing. Losing. Losers don't pick. It's silly.

2. It lacks internal consistency. That's a nice way to say that it makes absolutely no fucking sense if anything she's said in the past month about Obama is true. Remember, Barack sucks ass and isn't fit to pick up a phone, according to Hillary. He's Ken Starr in blackface, committed to destroying those nice folk from Arkansas who only want to help the rest of our national village. He's not ready. He's unqualified.

If that's true, why on God's green earth would anyone want to have Obama as VP? Why would Hillary want to put such an inferior politician on her ticket? Why would she let the guy who hasn't passed the Commander in Chief threshhold sit one heartbeat away from the job?

It makes no sense. You can't have it both ways. He can't be a VP option if he can't wipe his own ass, right?

Well, Hillary is now out there dangling the possibility of Obama joining her team in front of crowds as she begs for votes. There are only a few possible conclusions we can draw from this.

• Hillary really doesn't believe Obama is unqualified. That would, obviously, be another tally in the "Hillary is a big fucking liar" column and would be an admission that her whole campaign is substantively bankrupt.

• Hillary does believe her anti-Obama stances, but is willing to sell out to win. This option is just as sickening. If she really does think Obama is a mere empty suit, it means she's willing to compromise the fate of the nation to score a few more votes. If she believes her own arguments, putting Obama on the ticket would be wholly unacceptable.

• Hillary just makes shit up as she goes along.

None of those options really make her look like less of a Monster, do they?

3. Obama isn't interested. Whoops. Bill and Hillary want people to believe Obama could be part of the Clinton legacy. Someone should've talked to Barry first. He's not applying for the job. It ain't gonna happen, Hillary.

The good news for Monster fans is that none of this really matters. Nothing every really matters when Hillary says it. It's said in the moment, for the moment, and has no connection to the greater reality.

She and Bill mentioned the joint ticket idea, hoping to carve off a few of the moron votes who don't realize how stupid the idea really is. Now that the idea is out there and those who happen to have functioning cerebral cortexes will expose it for more Monster Crap, it will disappear into the dustbin of history. She will have lined up another handful of dim-witted voters and things will roll on to whatever bizarre one-day trick she uses next.





Technorati Tags: barack obama, Bill Clinton, campaign, Clinton, Election, hillary clinton, lies, Obama, Politics, vice president, vp Del.icio.us Tags: barack obama, Bill Clinton, campaign, Clinton, Election, hillary clinton, lies, Obama, Politics, vice president, vp Furl Tags: barack obama, Bill Clinton, campaign, Clinton, Election, hillary clinton, lies, Obama, Politics, vice president, vp

Monster Hillary Clinton hypocrisy... Tax returns show a monstrous disregard for consistency...

Hillary Clinton, monster? That's up for debate. Here's a certainty, though.
She is a Hypocrite with an intentionally capitalized H.

TOP SECRET

With the exception of Bill Clinton back in '92 (if I remember correctly), every serious presidential candidate has ponied up his (or, in the case of this year, her) income tax filings.
Barack Obama put his out there months ago. Hillary Clinton has not.

She won't show all of those hardworking folks who are worried about their kids' safe slumber while Hillary works the night shift answering phones at all hours of the night how much money she and Bill made.

We're not just talking about last year, either. She's mum on everything for the last seven or eight years. It's been top secret shit. Either that, or she needs to find an accountant to help the one who managed to work with her on that $5 million dollar campaign loan. Maybe she lost them. Regardless of the reason, she's been stonewalling on her returns for a long time now.

Gay Species put it thusly:

She can answer the telephone at 3 a.m. in a string of pearls, but she cannot operate a photocopy machine? Xerox must be a "monster" that Hillary cannot handle.

Finally, one of her crew has decided that Ms. Solutions will make the info public "around" April 15. That's conveniently after Ohio/Texas Tuesday, but potentially before Pennsylvania. Potentially, I say, because Terry McAuliffe did say "around". Who the hell knows how close one has to get to qualify for "around" status?

THE LIKELY TRUTH ABOUT THE RETURNS

Here's the crazy thing, it probably doesn't matter all that much in the bigger picture. I doubt we're going to learn anything too wild and crazy about the Clintons that we don't already know. Whatever lurks within those income tax statements is unlikely to change anyone's opinions about the monster. Did I just say "monster"? Whoops, I meant Hillary.

Personally, I don't really give all that big of a hoot about the contents of the tax returns. I can also understand why Hillary has probably been reluctant to release them.

They make a lot of money and some of it undoubtedly comes from people that Democrats don't really love. We know that already, but the release party for the returns will undoubtedly result in about 98,982 news stories about Clinton money.

It will also cause millions of "regular folk", the "real Americans" to whom Clinton is targeting her campaign to say, "Holy fuck, these people make ALOT of money. How many god-damned zeroes is that on the end of that number?"

The filing statements she's compelled to provide as a Senator and another statement released as part of the presidential candidacy process gives us a ballpark assessment of the Clinton family fortune. Nonetheless, it will all be treated like NEW news when she turns over the returns.

She still has an ass-load of Wal-Mart stock? Wow, I wonder how those union people will respond to that when they hear about it ad nauseum.

She has BP and Amoco stock? Wasn't she the one who talked about sticking it to big oil? That will be contentious, too.

All of those individual investments, along with money Bill's been making in and from countries who aren't on most Americans' list of favorites (you know, like China, Saudi Arabia, and Ihateamericaland) can only result in negative press for Hillary's campaign.

Some of the criticism will be fair. Much of it will be stupid. I'm guessing none of it will be that important, in the big picture.

So, I can understand why Hillary doesn't want to open up the books for us. I get it. I don't blame here.

WHY IT STILL MATTERS

Even though I think Hillary Clinton is a symptom of a cancer that is slowly killing almost everything good about liberal democracy, I doubt she has anything BIG to hide in those returns. So, why should she subject herself to scrutiny and the inevitable negative attention by releasing the documents so that assholes like me can read them and beat up on her?

Here are a few good reasons...

1. Obama. He released his early and he's been arguing that one of the big problems in America is a lack of transparency in government. Every day Hillary spends hiding her returns merely increases the persuasiveness of his candidacy.

2. Assumption. I'm a reasonable guy. I don't think Hillary's tax returns include massive payouts from the KKK or a write off for a donation to the Suicide Bomber Family Remuneration Fund. Other people, however, aren't so generous. The longer she sits on the documents, the more traction the psychos get on their "she MUST be hiding something" argument. It looks suspicious.

3. Example. I think it's probably a good thing for people to know who's buttering whose bread. That's why this whole "releasing your tax returns" thing has caught on over the years. The governed deserve to know who's paying the governing. Stunts like Hillary's record hiding are a poor precedent. It can be used by those who truly are nefarious to avoid scrutiny in the future.

The advantages of these three reasons SHOULD be enough to neutralize the negative press stories that will follow the release for a few days. Unless she does have something to hide, I suppose. Plus, it would just generally be a good thing to do.

You know who else used to argue that releasing tax records was a good thing to do? A senate candidate named Hillary Clinton. That brings us to the fourth reason she should release the returns ASAP.

4. Hypocrisy. If she doesn't hand over the goods, she's a complete hypocrite of the worst kind.

WHY THE CLINTON STALL IS ANOTHER PUTRID ACT OF HYPOCRISY

Before Hillary started her run for POTUS, she had to beat a Republican to win a NY senate seat. Remember Rick Lazio? That's the guy Hillary beat.

One of her arguments during the campaign was that Lazio was being a prick for NOT RELEASING HIS TAX RETURNS.

No, really. The same woman who is holding her documents close to the chest jumped Lazio's shit big-time for the very same offense. Sherman, set the wayback machine for the year 2000. Clinton vs. Lazio.

If you showed up for a Lazio campaign event back then, you might run into Tax Man. Tax Man was a Clinton campaign staffer, dressed up like Uncle Sam. He was sent to Lazio events to draw attention to the fact that the Republican candidate was keeping his tax records a secret. That's right, Clinton's campaign actually disrupted an opponent's events with a dude in a fucking costume holding a sign and actually YELLING at Lazio to hand over the IRS forms!

She said that Lazio's failure to engage in full disclosure was "disturbing". Her words.

She once had one of her campaign staff show up at a Lazio function to demand, in person, the release of his tax returns. You see, Hillary was FULLY CONVINCED that candidates should provide voters with this valuable information and was so pissed off at Lazio's refusal to abide by that unspoken rule of good conduct that she dispatched one of her henchmen to emphasize the IMPORTANCE OF RELEASING TAX INFORMATION.

She sent none other than her current communication czar, Howard Wolfson. Wolfson showed up to bug Lazio.

Howard Wolfson? Tax returns? Why does that ring a bell. Oh, I know why... Because of YESTERDAY...

Howard Wolfson, Clinton's guy, was on TV talking about tax returns yesterday. Barack Obama said that Hillary should release her tax records. Obama didn't have a guy dressed in a costume yelling at her or anything, but he did indicate that people might want to take a peek at her 1040. Howard Wolfson handled the official campaign response.

Wolfson's response: "I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president".

Obama asked about Clinton's tax returns and gets compared to Ken Starr. What the fuck does that make Hillary circa 2000, Howie? What's worse than Ken Starr? Maybe a monster?

It seems really weird that Hillary Clinton would pretend like 2000 didn't exist when she's simultaneously reminding us of her 35 years of public life every 20 seconds. But that's Hillary for you. I like this little summation from NewsDay:

Principled people would reason as follows: "Since we made a huge fuss about Lazio's returns in 2000, to be consistent we should be very diligent about being just as transparent as Obama and releasing our own returns this year. Otherwise, we would be behaving like hypocrites."

But that's not what they're doing. So the reasoning is apparently this: "We acted like Lazio's tax returns were a big deal in 2000 because it was in our self-interest to do so, and this year we'll act like our returns aren't a big deal because it's in our self interest to do so. We don't act on principle, and we don't care about being consistent, and we don't care about being hypocritical."

Hillary Clinton replaces principle with convenience. Hypocrisy substitutes for consistency. It's okay to beat the shit out of your enemy for keeping his returns under wraps, but when someone asks you about YOUR returns, it's perfectly reasonable to smear him all to hell? Wow.

Bill in Exile asks:

"So why was it "frankly disturbing" that Lazio refused to release one years worth of tax returns but when HRC refuses to release six years worth, not so much?"

Good question.

Here's the answer:

Hillary isn't about intellectual honesty, fair play, quality debate, answering the phones at 3 a.m. or doing what's best for the hardworking people of the USA. She's a fighter, but she's fighting for herself. Period.

You can call it anything you'd like. I call it being a monster.

I'd love to see one of the pro-Hillary geniuses who vomit forth praise for The Monster explain to me why this income tax thing is anything short of pure political hypocrisy. Maybe one of the rocket scientist Hillary lovers from Taylor Marsh can explain this whole thing to me. Nah, they're all over Rezko and Power calling Hillary a monster, having forgotten all about Whitewater and ignoring the accuracy of Samantha's comments in the process.

Someone, please... Tell me why it's all good for Howie Wolfson to bug Rick Lazio over tax returns when a comment from Barack transforms him into Kenny Starr?

Answers?

Apparently, enough heat has been applied to the ass of Senator Clinton that she will reveal her tax documents around April 15. I wouldn't hold my breath.

The horrible irony in all of this is that she's gone out of her way to be a sack of crap on an issue that really isn't THAT big of a deal. Why be a monster hypocrite and a slimeballer on something that is, in the big picture, relatively trivial? Why create character mountains out of personality molehills? The only thing I can come up with involves things like narcissism, self-centeredness and an inability to see or do anything that can't be gnarled and twisted into a bullshit hit and run political point.

Monster.





Technorati Tags: monster, hillary clinton, Clinton, Obama, barack obama, , taxes, irs, disclosure, transparency, dishonesty, lies, hypocrisy, campaign, Election, Politics, howard wolfson, Del.icio.us Tags: monster, hillary clinton, Clinton, Obama, barack obama, , taxes, irs, disclosure, transparency, dishonesty, lies, hypocrisy, campaign, Election, Politics, howard wolfson, Furl Tags: monster, hillary clinton, Clinton, Obama, barack obama, , taxes, irs, disclosure, transparency, dishonesty, lies, hypocrisy, campaign, Election, Politics, howard wolfson,