Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 19, 2008

She can not run against the "activist base"

Hillary Clinton just shot herself out of the race by repeating Karl Rove's false talking point about

If she is too elite or bitter to endorse the "activist base of the Democratic Party," she will not get their vote. That settles the electibility argument she tries to make to the superdelegates.

The Pennsylvanian primaries, three days from now, seemed to trend in her direction. This will likely turn that around. A loss or only narrow win there will be another point against her electibility.

Meanwhile Obama managed to get over 30,000 people to a rally in Philadelphia.

Impressive ...

Posted by b on April 19, 2008 at 13:57 UTC | Permalink


Hillary is a DLC democrat. Bashing the base is holy writ with this group that is Democratic in name only. Maybe when (if) the Clintons finally exit the stage, the DLC's influence on our party will wane.

Posted by: susan | Apr 19 2008 15:35 utc | 1

Maybe when (if) the Clintons finally exit the stage, the DLC's influence on our party will wane.

They'll (the Clinton posse) will have Obomba shot before that ever happens. But your right about the DLC, this government is a bird with two right wings pushing supermarket beliefs, while it flies in Sisyphus circles...

"This country is going to move so far to the right, you won't even recognize it." Spiro Agnew, 1972

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 19 2008 15:50 utc | 2

She is taped admitting to her war mongering differences.

Posted by: Jake | Apr 19 2008 15:55 utc | 3

Here's a link to a YouTube vid, "Bosnia and back again" from the Jed Report." Devastating expose of her duplicity. The case against her goes way beyond the MoveOn remarks. There's also a lot of stuff to the effect that both she and Bill made comments just like the ones they tried to slam Obama for as being elitist, the "bitter" narrative. Unlike Debs is Dead, I try and keep him alive, if only in my heart, and of course Obama is no Debsian is he? But the best I'll get in this lifetime on the US side of the Big Water, so he'll have to do. A bas, Hillary! A la lanterne.

Posted by: John Shreffler | Apr 19 2008 16:18 utc | 4

Just a bit OT, but part of the larger HLC dialogue, and **now it must be said**!
There is STRONG word-manipulation going on, since, "it depends on what 'is', is."
Probably the most despicable in pol-speak, is their use of 3rd-person passivation.

I'll give you an example:

"Allied warplanes bombed an undisclosed location shielding radical terrorists"

First of all, "warplanes" don't "bomb" anything. They are passive. Deus ex machina.
Pilots acting under orders from their superiors release their weapons when told to,
and they and their superiors are there because corporate interests put them there.
Put them there to murder indigents for their land and natural resources. Truth!

Second, that "location" is not some arbitrary X-Y coordinate in cyber space. It's
a sleeping rural village where the loudest sound is a goat bleating, or a clay pot
being filled by the well, maybe high overhead, a thin white noise of jet contrails.
That village is not just an S-V-O. It's a collective of living breathing humans
of all age-groups, an elderly father who fought against the Russians, an older son
who fought with the Northern Alliance, younger sons playing up in the hills, some
with only one leg from stepping on a land mine, wives, infants, goats. Truth!

The "radical terrorists" is the worst diversion though. After passivating their
deliberately murderous actions into an anti-liability, anti-criminal 3rd person,
Neo-Zi's need to punch it up, to make it appear to be 1st person and real. Fear.
Look around, deliberate 3rd person passivation is their pheromone, predominate
pol meme in use. You can smell karl rove from afar, like stink on shyte. Truth!


Ethanol's a Big Scam, and Bush Has Fallen for It!

First part, correct, but let's look at it how the pols's have spun it.
Second part is the big fraud. Honestly, someone needs to address these
commonly used easy debate tactics! This is classic con-artist language!!

"Look, nothing up my sleeve (diversion), here's a quarter in your ear (fraud)"

The setup. Standard debate tactic, go over the top on "ethanol's a scam",
that's called the, "straw man" gambit. Another term is a, "red herring".
There exist legitimate arguments that corn ethanol is a net BTU loser
compared to gasoline, (and never mind the overweening criminality of food
commodity diversion as 3W crime against humanity deliberate genocide.)

Ignore all those arguments. Go over the top with "it's a scam!", giving
a voice to your opponents, but defining them as RADICALS in that revoicing.

Never say, oh, "scientific analysis shows ethanol may not be a "green" fuel
after all", say instead, "aliens made me drink ethanol!" Something wack.
Now you've polarized your audience, before they've even thought to think.
55% of American's will drift right when polarized, because 55% of Americans
work for government, or as government contractors, and are trained to.

That's the setup. Nothing up my sleeve. Programming attention, in other words.

"Bush has fallen for it" is the quarter in your ear. Saying, "fallen for it" reinforces the 9/11 Republican meme. Circle the wagons. But most importantly,
there's that 3rd-person passivation again. Somehow a force larger than Bush,
some mysterious straw man dubbed Corn Conspiracy, arose out of pocket lint and
spider webs, and good golly gosh almighty, our poor, "Bush has fallen for it"!!

Brer Bear-ization. Uncle Remus classic, Newt Gingrich worked with magic.

What do you get out of this, (without having once thought for a microsecond?)
1) Those who say corn ethanol is negative BTU are radicals ("it's a scam")
2) George Bush is just an all right guy, trying to do good ("fell for it")
In other words, awe shucks, fool me oncet, laugh it off as a joke.



(I feel better now.)

We will win by sheer force of truth, like pressing the devil to death with stones.
Read through their spin. Learn debate tactics. Dissect their diversions, and just
keep piling on those stones of truth, clearly, succinctly, without punching it up
or sales gimmicks. Crush these Neo-Zi's under a mountain of tiny pebbles of truth.
Then climb that mountain and plant humanity's flag on top.

[Back to b's TP's: I went to high school with Hillary. She's GWB in a pants suit.
She's that R/E broker who sold you a resetting ARM in 2005, 'Such a deal you got!'
She's QVC Shopping Channel. She's melamine in your pet food. Hillary Mequiladora.]

Tiny pebbles of truth.

Posted by: Helen van DeCamp | Apr 19 2008 17:34 utc | 5

I don't know what shakes me more, the madness of the machine that smashes people down, or their ability to endure it...

Certainly it not over, -- the unravellings-- I mean...

More to come so says Dante'.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 19 2008 19:20 utc | 6

@Helen van DeCamp

Indeed, your comments remind me of how We've become complicit in our own subjugation...

Teller Speaks!: The usually silent half of Penn & Teller speaks at a conference and shows how magicians use psychological principles to create magic.

Yeah, the work of the pioneer semanticists, CK Ogden, Alfred Korzybski, and others, wrote of the magic of words, in their non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics theories. In particular, Korzybski's NLP-style language tricks are used to manipulate people in many different ways and genres. I think it is crucially important to understand the cognitive dimensions of politics – especially when most of our conceptual framing is unconscious and we may not be aware of our own metaphorical thought.

They are masters at the science of semantics developed in lue of and as rapidly as psychodynamics and its implementing arts of propagenda and mob psychology...

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 19 2008 19:57 utc | 7


In the late 70's my then girlfriend worked for noted psychologist/researcher>Charles E. Osgood at the Univ of Illinois. It was a running joke for years that Osgood was subject to paranoid delusions (of grandeur), in that he always claimed, without any tangible evidence that the C.I.A. was shadowing all of his research. But as it turned out he had the last laugh, because after his death in 91, it was discovered that indeed much of his research was not only followed closely by the C.I.A. but was actually funded by their front organizations and foundations.

At about the same time a philosophy student friend showed me a phone book sized document of all linguistics/philosophy of language research grants for that particular year. It was just stuffed full of defense dept. defense industry and other military related grants. I remember being floored that so much of what I thought to be esoteric or neutral philosophic muse-ings would be under the spell of the military/industrial complex.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 19 2008 21:06 utc | 8

The Atlantic reported it as such:

PHILADELPHIA -- It wasn't so much that Barack Obama had real fight in him tonight, or that more people attended his rally in front of Indendence Hall than any other event since he announced his candidacy. It was the spontaneous demonstration of support that happened when it ended.

5,000 people (at least) had nowhere to go but up Market Street. Obama's charge of the night: "Declare independence!" was with them. They started with the familiar "O-Bam-A." By 7th and Market, they had graduated to "Yes we can!" By 10th and Market, with hundreds streaming in between cars on the road, they were just cheering. At first, a few Philly cops, killjoys, tried to rough the crowd to the sidewalks. It didn't work. The cops retreated to the sidewalks. By the time I ducked into my hotel, a full mile away from Independence Park, the Obama crowd was still marching.

Posted by: beq | Apr 19 2008 21:41 utc | 9


linguistics and the philosophy of language was of great interest to the military back then because they were trying to come up with machine translation.

There were great stacks of (mainly) Russian intercepted communications to be translated and they lacked trained linguists.

Not to mention the security risk of having thousands of people working on your secretly intercepted transmissions.

So linguists were heavily funded in the hope that they would be able to break down language to a simple set of coded symbols that could be run through a machine to produce useable results.

Well surprise - machine translation is still pretty useless for all but the most basic messages because we don't think and express ourselves in mathematical formulae; we use images, references to experience and non-verbal cues to express ourselves.

It will be a while before machines are are to cotton on to them. All I can say is that if the snake falls in love with the spaghetti, it's time to get a new hat...

Posted by: | Apr 19 2008 22:41 utc | 10

link to NYTimes

Somewhat off-topic, this, but I didn't know where to put it.

Let's just say that Hillary Clinton, like the NYTimes, backed the wrong horse, and that "winning" isn't easy when you make mistakes of that kind.

Posted by: alabama | Apr 19 2008 22:48 utc | 11

I think there is more to it than that - a sign at Ft. Bragg says: bullet kill, bombs destroy, words conquer .....

so keep using your words!

Posted by: Susan - NC | Apr 19 2008 22:58 utc | 12

excellent link alabama (#11)

He urged a radically new approach to psychological operations in future wars — taking aim at not just foreign adversaries but domestic audiences, too. He called his approach “MindWar” — using network TV and radio to “strengthen our national will to victory.”

Posted by: | Apr 20 2008 0:34 utc | 13

sorry, that was me quoting from Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

Posted by: annie | Apr 20 2008 1:04 utc | 14

I'd repect MoveOn more is they were against the Afghanistan invasion. what are we doing there anyway, besides murdering tons of civilians and creating new enemies faster than we can kill them?

Posted by: ran | Apr 20 2008 1:28 utc | 15

If we trained Afghan commandos to fight the Taliban, which they want to do,
unlike that $B's for Bonzo dog-and-pony show in Iraq, then we offered the Afghan
commandos mere $30,000 riser after their first tour, if they would fight in Iraq,
just one-tenth of what we're paying for the US:UK mercenaries, and with the
markup, overhead and profit to Blackwell, probably one-thirtieth
, we could
field 30 Afghans into Basra, for every US:UK mercenary or US Marine we pull out.

There are 25,000,000 Afghans, ~20% of military age, so even if we only trained
1 in 10, it's a "surge" of 500,000 Afghan commandos, for a cost less than Bush's
current surge costs US every single day. 500,000 Afghan commandos, and US out.
And don't say that's never been done before in military history.

Then when Iraq is finally pacified, their oil fields being developed, those
Afghans become an affordable security force, like the Gurkahs. Ahh, but that
would be an intelligent and winning strategy, instead of a forever egregious
profit engine, and Neo-Zi's can't have that. It's about shackles for shekels.

Biggest corporation in the history of the world, ostensibly 'NFP' corporation
makes the greatest profit of all. Pentagon would never outsource Iraq.

It's interesting that Don Rumsfeld gave a speech saying the Pentagon had "lost" a
TRILLION bucks, just the day before the NeoZi's closed out that argument on 9/11.
That tells you who's really running the Pentagon profit engine. Ahh-ch(heny)oo!

Teller's right. They get you used to observing the reach, then steal your quarter.

Posted by: Tiny Tim | Apr 20 2008 3:25 utc | 16

There's no profit in peace. Never has been, never will. Until something really earth shattering happens to this world we inhabit, it will never change. I kind of look forward to 12/21/2012. It may be the only chance we have. Of course, it could be just another day like any other.

Posted by: mikefromtexas | Apr 20 2008 4:58 utc | 17

@alabama -11 - thanks - must-read piece: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

Posted by: b | Apr 20 2008 5:51 utc | 18

thank you b. there were so many defining paragraphs in that 11 page report (plus accompanying docs 'n video) .. anyway thanks for highlighting and thanks again alabama.

The strategic target remains our population,” General Conway said. “We can lose people day in and day out, but they’re never going to beat our military. What they can and will do if they can is strip away our support. And you guys can help us not let that happen.”

“General, I just made that point on the air,” an analyst replied.

“Let’s work it together, guys,” General Conway


Posted by: annie | Apr 20 2008 7:05 utc | 19

Interesting no? That the same fish wrap that gave us Judy Judas Miller, with blood on her hands, a cheerleader of occupation and genocide, but every once in a while, the NYT's throws one out to the hungry masses, I suspect it all works psychologically in the same way and, has the same effect as the "good cop/bad cop' routine.

If we were a nation of laws, this article would mean something.

Just as by federal law, programs such as the VOA cannot broadcast within the U.S. itself.

Legal restrictions on executive branch agency use of funds for public relations activities and propaganda can be found in statutory law, appropriations law, and federal regulations. Nevertheless, executive agencies frequently expend public funds to promote aggressively the agendas of presidents. The legal restraints against propaganda have proven ineffective for three reasons: first, agencies do not track spending on public relations activities, which makes congressional oversight difficult; second, the line between appropriate public relations activities and propaganda is blurry; and, third, enforcement of the laws against propaganda runs headlong into the separation of powers.

found via, Presidential Studies Quarterly.

There are laws against using mass propaganda on U.S. citizens. However, it means nothing here because, "when the law breaks the law, there is no law, only a fight for survival" ~Billy Jack. ;-)

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 20 2008 7:24 utc | 20

p.s. Thanks so much for your highlighting of alabama's article and pointing that excerpt out annie, I would have missed it if not for you as I merely skimmed it at first... and to bama, for posting it. Round for the house!

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 20 2008 7:25 utc | 21

thanks uncle, a toast (whiskey natch)to you and the gang

Posted by: annie | Apr 20 2008 7:33 utc | 22>Pat Lang weighs in on the story, as those who watched the newshour remember, he was a regular commenter on the invasion of Iraq. Seems he was not invited back to the pentagon briefings after asking some pointed questions.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 20 2008 7:58 utc | 23

link to emptywheel

Here's a chaser for Uncle's round.

The NYTimes occasionally purges itself in silence (by firing folks who screwed up)--which is neither obvious, instructive, or amusing to the general reader.

But when (once or twice every decade) it tries to purge itself in print (the "Pentagon Papers" being an instance of this), the effects can be rather powerful ("Emptywheel" has been touched by this one).

The Times is tired of dying; it certainly doesn't want a healthy WSJ standing vigil at its deathbed!

Posted by: alabama | Apr 20 2008 8:05 utc | 24

It is fine for the Times to publish the piece. But they certainly miss the legal point of this as Uncle points out and of course the don't really look into their own complicity.

Over time, the Pentagon recruited more than 75 retired officers, although some participated only briefly or sporadically. ... At least nine of them have written op-ed articles for The Times.
What nine? What op-ed's? Why are there no links to these? Where is the public editor on this? How much was paid for these? By whom?

Why, btw, is Michael Gordon still writing for the NYT - distributing Petraeus talking points from Baghdad.

The paper, while publishing this, hasn't even started to look into the mirror.

Posted by: b | Apr 20 2008 8:11 utc | 25

Like chashing a good malt with

WHISKEY ON BEER, Never fear, But BEER ON WHISKEY, Pretty risky."

"We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
John Swinton, former New York Times editor, in a speech during a banquet with colleagues (c. 1880)

same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was...

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 20 2008 9:28 utc | 26

The comments to this entry are closed.