Digby writes:

Obviously, I have no way of knowing if any of this is true and nobody else does either. That's the beauty of anonymous sourcing, right? And that leads me to believe that while it's certainly possible that an administration official said this to him about the left, it's also entirely possible that Harwood made it up.

(Emphasis supplied.) Can Digby possibly believe this? That Harwood made it up? What a ridiculous thing to write. But Digby really does not believe that. She believes the WH official said it because "the official watches Harwood saying it on TV every other week and was currying favor with him." (Note that sometimes the progblogs like what Harwood says) You see? Harwood put a gun to the WH official's head and made them do it.

Speaking for me only

Jane Hamsher writes:

[T]he White House is now openly challenging the accuracy of Harwood’s reporting. Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer emails Greg Sargent and refutes Harwood’s claims:

That sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all, we’ve held easily a dozen calls with the progressive online community because we believe the online communities can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people rather than just the political back-and-forth.

Due respect to Jane, all Harwood claimed was that "for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn’t take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult." That is certainly a sign they do not take these concerns seriously. There have been many many other signs as well. We did not need John Harwood's reporting on a comment from a WH advisor to tell us that. The quote from Dan Pfieffer is pretty meaningless dontcha in context it seems to me. What did you expect? 'We really think you stink?' So the record is there and people will see whatever they want to see. In the end, action speaks loudest. And we're still waiting on that.

Speaking for me only

Steve Benen:

I just haven't seen the evidence that the White House considers the netroots and progressive activists in general as some kind of annoying sideshow to be ignored. On the contrary, I've seen the opposite.

Heh. I would take the time to refute this, but Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher and John Aravosis prebutted Benen's silliness. I do not think Benen is a shill, in that he is not intentionally in the tank for the White House, but rather he WANTS to not see what is obvious to reasonable people. In essence, he is part of the Dem Village. There is a lot of that going around.

Speaking for me only

The only thing remarkable about the comments [. . .] is that anyone would be surprised by them. - Glenn Greenwald

The Progressive blogs scorned AGAIN by the Obama Administration:

LESTER HOLT: John what we saw in that protest today, was it simply frustration or does it represent a serious problem the President is having with an important part of his base? [. . .] [I]n general when you look at the left as a whole, have there been conversations about some things they thought would have been done but haven’t?

HARWOOD: Sure but If you look at the polling, Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the “internet left fringe” Lester. And for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn’t take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

Outrage ensues. At this point, it is rather ridiculous. Obama signalled his disdain for progressive blogs and activists who did not toe his line long ago. A new articulation of this long held view does not seem to me an appropriate moment for shock and outrage. After all, pols are pols, and do what they do:

This week's National Journal Bloggers Poll is out (here is their Beltway Insiders Poll.) I am going to present the first question (on health care reform) to you in a poll.

The second question asks "if unemployment continues to rise, should their be a second stimulus?" My answer was "They should have passed a bigger stimulus in the beginning to avoid the rising unemployment we have suffered."

What do you think?

I am in the Cult of Charlie Rangel. But even taking that into account, I think Kos is wrong - the accusations against Rangel do not amount to "corruption" even if proven. I do not believe he should step down. The allegations simply do not merit it. A reprimand? A rebuke? A censure? Perhaps. But Rangel is not accused of corruption - as the word is understood. Let me put it this way, when Tim Geithner resigns, get back to me.

As for the title of this post, I am taking at shot at BarbinMD, who has decided that thinking Obama does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize is a capital offense - and means you are a Republican or in the Taliban. Weak weak stuff from her. Hey Barb, here is another Taliban agree-er:

Nils Butenschon, director of the Norwegian Center for Human Rights at the University of Oslo and a well-known human rights champion in Norway [said] “It seems premature to me. I think the committee should be very careful with the integrity of the prize, and in this case I don’t think we are in a position to really evaluate the full impact of what this candidate has achieved. Sometimes of course the prize is awarded to people who are in the process of making history, so to speak, but in this case I think it is too early to know that.”

Speaking for me only

[. . . P]ublishing lies as a way of sucking up to Marty Peretz makes Sullivan look worse rather than better. Whether he has a place in American political discussion really depends on the depth of his repentance. And it ain't too deep. - Brad DeLong

Via Atrios and Drum, Sully says his McCaughey Moment is Hillary's fault:

Again, I take responsibility. [. . .] But look: it was one piece in a magazine. It's being treated as if it were a turning point in history. Please. There's one reason the Clinton healthcare bill failed and it isn't Betsy McCaughey. It's Hillary Clinton.

Why Andrew Sullivan fails is the issue here, not health care reform in 1994 (Matt Cooper addresses that one.) BTW, Sully still has no apologies for "The Bell Curve" and "The Fifth Column." Maybe those were Hillary's fault too. BTW, Brad DeLong is old enough to remember that in 2007, Sully was defending his McCaughey Moment.

Speaking for me only

Don Henley, 1991, The Heart of the Matter: "How can love survive in such a graceless age?"

The more I know, the less I understand
All the things I thought I knew, I'm learning again
I've been tryin' to get down
to the Heart of the Matter
But my will gets weak
And my thoughts seem to scatter
But I think it's about forgiveness
Forgiveness

...Better put it all behind you, life goes on
You keep carrying that anger, it'll eat you up inside

I wish people would withhold judgment and not put themselves in their shoes. I hope the Lettermans can forgive, forget and and move on.

If you're following the alleged extortion of David Letterman by CBS producer Joe Halderman, tune in to his show tonight. He tells the audience his wife is "horribly hurt," it's not going to be easy to patch things up, but he's going to give it his best shot. He also apologized to his staff.

"She has been horribly hurt by my behavior, and when something happens like that, if you hurt a person and it's your responsibility, you try to fix it," Letterman told audiences, according to a statement from his company, Worldwide Pants.

"And at that point, there's only two things that can happen: either you're going to make some progress and get it fixed, or you're going to fall short and perhaps not get it fixed, so let me tell you folks, I got my work cut out for me."

[More...]

Jane Hamsher writes:

I think HCAN has the wrong Nevada senator in its sights [. . .] Ensign is not going to vote for any health care reform bill, especially not one with a public option. As part of a health care reform effort, it's a complete waste of money.

I agree with Jane. But it makes me wonder why all the fundraising for Alan Grayson? He has never joined the Progressive Block in its refusal to vote for a health care bill that does not contain a robust public option. Last week, when asked point blank by David Shuster if he would vote for a health care bill without a public option, he ducked the question. So despite the liberal protestations that the GOP is the Party of Bluster, it seems clear that Democrats like their shiny objects too.

Speaking for me only

ABC News has a headline, Sex Scandal Sheds Light on David Letterman's Love Life. Why doesn't that read "Extortion Scandal Sheds Light on Letterman's Love Life?"

What did Letterman do wrong? Since when it is illegal or immoral to have sex with someone you work with, or even someone who works for you? Has our Nanny State mentality sunk to the level where it is believed that all romantic or sexual relationships in the workplace are a form of sexual harassment?

The story here is that someone who worked for the CBS network allegedly tried to extort money from Letterman and got caught on tape and taking a marked check. [More...]

Times Ombudsman Clark Hoyt:

Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, agreed with me that the paper was “slow off the mark,” and blamed “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.” She and Bill Keller, the executive editor, said last week that they would now assign an editor to monitor opinion media and brief them frequently on bubbling controversies. Keller declined to identify the editor, saying he wanted to spare that person “a bombardment of e-mails and excoriation in the blogosphere.”

Right, the problem with the ACORN story was it got too little attention. So now the New York Times will expressly take its cues from Fox News and the Drudge Report. The Media is dead. There really is no reason to pay attention to them anymore. (NOTE: I only found about this because some blogs wrote about it.)

Speaking for me only