s skippy the bush kangaroo: wh: dfh? bfd!

skippy the bush kangaroo

Thursday, September 23, 2010

wh: dfh? bfd!

susie madrak confronted david axelrod about the white house's penchant for punching hippies. greg sargent heard it all:
top obama adviser david axelrod got an earful of the liberal blogosphere's anger at the white house moments ago, when a blogger on a conference call directly called out axelrod over white house criticism of the left, accusing the administration of "hippie punching."

"we're the girl you'll take under the bleachers but you won't be seen with in the light of day," the blogger, susan madrak of crooks and liars, pointedly told axelrod on the call, which was organzied for liberal bloggers and progressive media…

that tension burst out into the open when madrak directly asked axelrod: "have you ever heard of hippie punching?" that prompted a long silence from axelrod.

"you want us to help you, the first thing i would suggest is enough of the hippie punching," madrak added. "we're the girl you'll take under the bleachers but you won't be seen with in the light of day."

axelrod didn't engage on "hippie punching," but he said he agreed with the blogger. "to the extent that we shouldn't get involved in intramural skirmishing, i couldn't agree more," axelrod said. "we just can't afford that. there are big things at stake here."

madrak replied that axelrod was missing the point -- that the criticism of the left made it tougher for bloggers like herself to motivate the base. "don't make our jobs harder," she said.

"right back at'cha. right back at'cha," axelrod replied, a bit testily, an apparent reference to blogospheric criticism of the administration.
it always amazes us that the folks in power continually find other people to blame for their lack of progress on any given subject (see here).

addendum: here's our buddy d-day's account of the call over @ fdl.

double addendum: shorter axelrod (if we may paraphrase the venture brothers from last sunday):

"you're just minions! when obama says jump, you say, 'which shark?' !!"
posted by skippy at 5:33 PM |


Republicans fear their base and will almost always try to placate them. Democrats despise their base will almost always try to ignore them.
commented by Blogger Zandar, 3:55 PM PDT  
They're complacent enough to think we have no where else to go. Of course when I have no where to go, I stay home. Am I going to feel that way come November?
commented by Anonymous sean, 4:33 AM PDT  
I was just starting to think I would vote in November after all and then I saw Axelrod's "Right back atcha." Those assholes could, just once, say something like, "We shouldn't have done that. We need your votes and we respect your opinions too," but they can't say that because they view their base with contempt.

I'm back to staying home. Thanks, Axelrod. Hope you enjoy your four years in the White House, because it isn't looking like you'll get eight.
commented by Blogger DBK, 5:58 AM PDT  
Mr. DBK, I love you like the guy who helped me read air conditioner instructions (yep, really happened), but I'm afraid your staying home sends a message other than the one you intend. In other words: your reason for not voiting could be anything from hostility to a lengthy dentist appointment.

Two things:
1. Always vote;
2. Vote for the candidate that most closely mirrors your own view, even if you have to write in Pat Paulsen.

This way, your non-vote cannot be misconstrued as anything other than what you mean to say.
commented by Anonymous tata, 11:29 AM PDT  
No ma'am. Thank you, but no. The long and the short of it is that Nader was right. Had this president and this congress ridden into washington and driven the money-changers out of the temple, as the voters had wanted them to do, I would think otherwise. They didn't and I don't. And the White House has made it exceptionally clear: there is nobody anywhere who supports what I support and they don't care about me, they just want me to vote for them because they think there is nowhere else for me to go. There is. I have a home. I'll stay there and, if I haven't finished it by then, I'll finish Chernow's biography of Hamilton, although I already take exception to his characterization, in the very first pages, of Burr's motivations for shooting Hamilton. Ellis's account makes more sense and is more academically rigorous.

Love has nothing to do with it.
commented by Blogger DBK, 1:27 PM PDT  

Add a comment