Yes indeed, what if the left blogosphere is really "just a few thousand committed Marxists in their pajamas"?

TNR: Why are you paying this guy to write for you?  He is an embarrassment.

Kirchickism: a vastly overblown snotnosed whine directed at people who hold him and his writing style in utmost contempt.

I think Kirchick is really just posts by different TNR staffers to see who can write in the most obnoxious manner just to inflame readers. I think I detect Chris Orr in this post. Well,I am on to you Chris Orr, I know you are having a piss at our expense, but you have tipped your hand with this post. Nobody living can be such a dweeb and really exist.

Don't get too excited about Jamie's post folks, Noam makes a decent case that looking like a typical pol will help Obama in the long run.

Score one for rational people everywhere.  Unless of course Obama is preening to the mainstream electorate.  Don't forget, this is a guy who used to volunteer for ACORN, that insano leftist organization.

I have my suspicions about this guy.  Never trust a lawyer, they all at some point in their lives did pro-bono work at the ACLU and the like.

I look forward to the day Jamie makes a post that isn't just a bitchy, dishonest sneer directed at one of his enemies  (or an enemy he really, really wants to make). Even in his "tribute" to Tim Russert he couldn't help but bash broadcasters he doesn't like.

I also look forward to the day I can start eating coal and shitting diamonds. That day will come first.

Kirchick would be a lot more interesting if he would just cut down on adjectives. This is substantively not an unreasonable post. But "nutroots"? Come on.  

Wow, that Eli Lake quote is fucking stupid.

So which poses the greater hazard to the Democrats this election cycle, Marxists in their pyjamas or Obama in his flipflops?

Why does TNR even publish this guy? He's terrible.

Although, in terms of the rigor of his analysis, he'd probably fit in swimmingly over at Salon.

So lemme get this straight:  Kirchick uses a <i>Wall Street Journal</i> editorial (!) as a launching point for advancing the idea that Obama -- whose belief that the Iraq War was a "mistake" has shown no signs of shifting -- is coming around to share his own neocon wet dream of endless occupation, all as a preface for flinging rhetorical poo at those crazy, radical, leftist maniacs in the "nutroots".  Someone change this man's diaper, please.

medan wrote, "Wow, that Eli Lake quote is fucking stupid."

I hear ya. I read it and I'm like, whoa! What was in that burrito I had for lunch? Marxists in pajamas! Incestuous Siamese twins, doin' the Yin/Yang symbol! Bored gorillas in cages, licking up their own puke!

Then I got to thinking about what kind of pajamas Marxists would wear. Would they have little hammers and sickles? Photos of Jesus with a Euroslash through the face?

Then there's the whole "overcompensation" + "1 percent" sentence. Me talk pundit one day!

Fortunately, mirth feeds on such inanity, much as industrious little bacteria munch happily on turds bobbing in a septic tank.

this is an embarassment. no one who would quote that Eli Lake bit in genuine approval belongs on the pages of a serious opinion journal.

Why so venomous, Jamie? You give off the impression of being quite the unhappy young man.

Oh. I don't know. I like Jamie. I even liked his ' Make my day', 'Do you feel lucky' McCain comment. He's just a bit more .....straight forward....than y'all that would like to bazooka his ass to the nether regions. " Well do ya? Punk?!

"I bet at least half of the netleft are failed professors, over-educated literary theory PHDs, who make themselves appear more numerous than they are through their anonymity and deliberate manipulation of google."

I find it disheartening to see these stereotypes amplified by TNR. Is it possible to be overeducated? What does that term mean? It's pathetic.

Following the Eli Lake link - actually an update to a David Frum blog on NRO Online - we get the originating blog by Joe Klein who writes:

-- And that is precisely the danger here. Fury begets fury. Poison from the right-wing talk shows seeped into the Republican Party's bloodstream and sent that party off the deep end. Limbaugh's show—where Dick Cheney frequently expatiates—has become the voice of the Republican establishment.

And Klein's conclusion -  "the same could happen to the Democrats."  Well, perhaps it could but populist pandering comes almost universally from the right wing with its almost total control of talk radio

Don't feed the trolls.

I'm not normally one to jump on one of these anti-Jamie pogroms that develop on Talkback each time he posts. Sure, having him write alongside Cohn, Cottle, Orr, Chait, Patashnik and the rest is a bit like putting my 9 year old little-leaguer nephew in the starting lineup for the Yankees, but the criticism he gets (Kirchick, not my nephew) is often just over the top.

He strikes me as an honest guy who's a little bit too intense, a little bit too rigid, and not quite mature enough for the company he keeps (or, rather, for the company that keeps him - paging Canadian overlords.) His posts seem generally to be built around the sophomore's indignation that the insights that seem so unquestionably right and good to him aren't universally shared. It's the sort of thing you're supposed to get over by the time you get out of college - hell, we pay professors perfectly good salaries so they carry the burden of having to wade through reams of this stuff so we don't have to shovel through it in our magazines!

So, obviously, not the best writer here, but generally not a total disaster either.

This post, on the other hand, really is in the outer fringes of acceptability. Pointlessly confrontational, probably wrong, petulantly flame-baiting, it ticks off all the boxes of what an engaging blog post must never be.

I fear the time is drawing near when TNR staff really will have to put together some kind of intervention here. Unless Blackton's theory pans out, which I wouldn't even discount at this point.

There's no way there's a 'netroots consensus' on NAFTA, or even 'trade' in general, it's a wide ranging and trenchant debate (which I won't get into here). By definition, Obama didn't 'turn his back' on the 'netroots' wrt NAFTA, because the 'netroots' has no specific NAFTA position.

Iraq? Obama and 'the netroots' were against it in 2002. What to do now? Most 'netroots' want to get out, as does Obama. Obama might want to get out a little more slowly and 'carefully' than some members of the 'netroots' (but not others). If Obama keeps 100,000+ troops in Iraq until 2013, he'll have 'turned his back,' I don't think he'll do that though.

FISA? Kirchick's right, everyone's pissed at Obama's flip flop here. I find it interesting that Kirchick can't engage Greenwald's actual arguments (Greenwald regularly kicks his ass, so I don't understand).

As for the issue itself, 'the netroots' see FISA as a combination of a basic 4th amendment issue as well as the principle of 'the rule of law.' It's weird that Kirchick would see these positions as 'radical.'

You know, 'radicalism,' that's a funny word.

On each of the 3 issues Kirchick listed, (Iraq, NAFTA, FISA), 60+% of the american public supports the 'netroots' position. Radical indeed.

It takes only a little bit of critical thinking to realize how ridiculous that Eli Lake quote is.  "What if the netleft, that has created the impression that there is a rising plurality that would like to abandon Iraqis to Qaeda, Quds and the Ba'ath, are just a few thousand committed Marxists in their pajamas?"  So not only have these nefarious literary theory PhD's been tricking google, they've been tricking every pollster who has asked about Iraq in the past few years.  Now if the netroots movement is indeed a "vocal 1%," their likelihood of being polled in appreciable numbers is vanishingly small, so they must have used their literary theory skills to figure out some way to skew polling so dramatically in their favor. With this kind of influence, it's a wonder that political campaigns don't all hire failed lit profs to work their magic.

mealy: ROFLMAO

Actually I have independent evidence that Jamie Kirchick actually exists, in the alumni newsletters of Roxbury Latin School in Boston, which we both attended.  I think he's been bringing our school considerable embarrassment.

Apart from this evidence, I like Blackton's theory better than Alterman's (that "Kirchick" is a sockpuppet for Marty Peretz to allow him to post outside his personal blogspace of exile).  

Every village needs its idiot.

The most unhappy political journalists, the ones who seem to exist only to rage and sneer and abuse, are the ones who are defined by their resentments.

I blame peretz. This talented, eager young man worked for him and what did the old fool do? He taught him to pursue the same rotted hate addled path that has defined his sorry and laughable "journalistic" career.

It is sad. The question is, can the damage, inflicted by peretz upon this young man, be repaired? I hate to sound too pessimistic but I think the answer is no. This is truly what this poor young soul believes is the Gold Standard for political journalism.

This, to my eyes, represents the absolute failure of leadership. When you have people who respect you and come to you and want to learn, and then you teach them to go out and do this kind of shit, then you have failed as a leader and mentor. It is a shame.

"I look forward to the day Jamie makes a post that isn't just a bitchy, dishonest sneer directed at one of his enemies  (or an enemy he really, really wants to make). Even in his "tribute" to Tim Russert he couldn't help but bash broadcasters he doesn't like.

I also look forward to the day I can start eating coal and shitting diamonds. That day will come first."

Well, we wouldn't want to sneer, would we?

I don't understand how it feels appropriate for all of you to publicly berate someone for how they do their job. If you object to the way Jamie writes, send feedback to TNR. He's a real guy and you're probably really humiliating him.

jaunty - you seek to blame Peretz for Kirchick's manifold shortcomings.  So who then is ultimately responsible for choosing his or her mentors and role models?  Kirchick has received millions of dollars worth of feedback and has proven himself impervious to all of it.  It's not good to be making rookie mistakes when you're no longer a rookie.  After a reasonable time with no improvement, someone ought to put him out of our misery.

"... hell, we pay professors perfectly good salaries so they carry the burden of having to wade through reams of this stuff so we don't have to shovel through it in our magazines!"

Marking papers ... head hurts ... I'm thinking, "One of us was not in class when I taught that subject"; I know I was there, and I know all my students were there as well, so back to square one ... "Where did I go wrong?" ... anonymous marking: is this the guy who was playing baseball when I was talking about ***?  Or the one who was playing Spider Solitair, in the front row?  Or the girl chatting on Facebook?  Was I not stimulating enough, amusing enough, interesting enough?

Trying to hold the Fort, but losing ground ... ah yeah, a new generation of Kirchicks coming out of our Universities.  Don't blame us.

"wow, that Eli Lake quote is fucking stupid."

You said it medan. This post is one of the most simplistic I've ever read on the plank. How in God's name did you get hired?

forrestnash: "If you object to the way Jamie writes, send feedback to TNR. He's a real guy and you're probably really humiliating him."

Four points.

First, one function of Talkback is to criticise not only the content but also the writing style of the author, the two being almost always linked, especially in a magazine that is aimed at the relatively better educated and modestly more intelligent and slightly more amply read crowd.  An author writing for this group needs at a minimum to respect the audience; if he or she does not, then, he or she should expect the odd rotten tomato landing on the stage.  Remember, we pay for reading the drivel Jamie writes; he gets paid.  It is he who has the responsibility to write well, not us.

Second, ever since Kirchick starting writing, through his style (not to mention the substance) he has been actively offending the readership of the magazine.  I used to defend him against outright insults; we all used to offer suggestions on how best he could improve his writing - we don't always disagree with what he writes, but almost always with how he does it - and some were even encouraging.  Mr. Kirchick, however, has elected not to heed advice by well-wishers (such as emigdio, above), has been rebuked and "humiliated" for his selective quotes and sneer-ridden posts by his own colleagues, and continues to post material that, even where substantively sound, are so far beyond the pale that are embarrassing to read.  If he chooses not to learn, he ought to pay the consequences.

Third, whether we like it or not, humiliation is a time-honoured and quite appropriate method of social control and discipline - better, at any rate, than public lashings, which James might well deserve for insulting the English tongue (though he would probably enjoy it).  In litigation, we have the "red face test" - whether I can make a legal argument before a panel of appellate judges without the risk of embarrassing myself - and without the threat of a rebuke or a sneer from the Bench, counsel would make a lot more silly arguments than they already do.  Not bad, that.

Finally, Woody's post was funny.  Chill. :-)

Cookie: Nah, I blame the Roxbury Latin School.  JackR is right.  I used to write paragraph after paragraph of "advice" - literally two cents worth, not more, but still - to this "bright young man" on how to improve his writing - alongside many others.  I never liked the Mini-Me moniker, if you recall.  He is impervious to improvement; shows bad judgement and demonstrates a not-so-bright future.

JackR,

Yes, JackR, you are correct, ultimately, the individual is solely responsible for the chosen path. Still, I have learned that those of us who are privileged to lead, can - and do - have a strong influence, for better or worse, and that the right kind of guidance can help someone self - emphasis yes on self - correct.

Hey, when foer puts that October gig together, I will buy the first round and we can start to peel this onion. Influence of leaders, inherent propensity for good or bad, whether someone's internal compass is static or malleable...

"put him out of our misery"...I laughed out loud. Hey, Yard may be more flamboyant but JackR can Rablelais with the best of the Rabelaisians...

Let the healing begin! Why Democrats have ever listened to these people is beyond me. Let's applaud Barack Obama for ignoring the nonsense wing of his party. If Hillary's centerist views were nothing more than "Bush in a Pantsuit", what can we say about

Wonderful job, Jamie! Pay no attention to those people with torches and pitchforks.

I think James is very jolly here, as am I. As an Obama supporter and contributor from Day 1, I am delighted to see evidence of his cleverness and common sense as laid out in this post and its links. Gun rights, FISA,        Iraq...so far, this is going just as I'd hoped it would. If Goolsbee has already been rehabilitated from his crime of telling the truth in public, can Samantha Power be far behind?

Obama will probably be more deliberate and careful (read "slow") in pulling back from Iraq than Hillary, and for that matter maybe even McCain.  He will be under much more pressure not to appear "weak"; and he won't have an opposition-led Congress to unduly limit his maneuver room. He knows that if he gets Iraq and Iran right, he'll be toasted at the UN and in cheese-eating capitols around the world while shoring up his re-election prospects. But if he gets it wrong, he's Jimmy Carter II and the Dems will roam the political wilderness for another generation. It's not to hard to guess what he'll do--hint: he's called for increasing our infantry strength by 90,000, probably not to shore up our defenses in Germany.

And look, 'yard, you know damned well that those pajamas are the black VC model.

[Blame Roxbury Latin or Peretz for Jamie's foolery?]

I looked at Jamie's history in Google, which is complicated by the vast number of references to attacks on him from followers of Ron Paul angered by the TNR story linking Paul to old-fashioned racist groups.  Here's a snippet from a Yale Herald story from 2003:

www.yaleherald.com/article.php

<i>

Perhaps more than anything else, this politicized sense of conviction characterizes Yale's neo-conservatives. It's a belief in taking a stand coupled with an intense aversion to moral relativism. It's in the YCSD mission statement—although many members would say the YCSD doesn't take enough of a stand—and it's in every op-ed that promotes Bush's foreign policy. And according to YCSD webmaster Robert Spiro, TD '06, a lot of students, whether they vocalize it or not, agree. "I think that people like me—who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and patriotic—are gravitating toward the GOP."

Jamie Kirchick, PC '06, very nearly personifies the gravitation Spiro speaks of. Raised by Massachusetts Democrats, he says he "kind of woke up" as he got older. Like Louchheim, he calls himself a moderate liberal whose views on international affairs and America's role in the world ally him with conservatives. He believes that national security is the most important issue of the day. "A lot of students have not fully grasped what America is up against in the War on Terrorism," he says. "It really is a fight of good versus evil."

Kirchick is also gay, a reality many of his peers find difficult to reconcile with his politics. To him, it's a non-issue. "Essentially, 'the gay issue' is going to whither away in 20 years," he says. "Gays will be able to marry, adopt kids, and have all the same rights as straight people. Simply look at our generation." Beyond that, he believes that his sexual orientation makes him more conservative on foreign policy issues. "I think it's clear that gay people, and any minority for that matter, do best under the watch of a liberal democracy," he says. "It's all tied into my belief that the world needs to look more like America for there to be any sort of social progress."

</i>

Kurchick's blogs here are to Glen Greenwald's well-reasoned and beautifully argued columns as the copy on Campbell's Soup Cans is to the writing of Shakespeare.

I would love to see Jamie and Glen on a stage arguing their respective views...Glen would stomp Kirchick into a flattened pile of excrement and flush him down the rhetorical toilet.

The New Republic has evolved from an excellent progressive magazine to a pathetic porridge of pro-war views and ever shifting political perspectives...

If I want to read an excellent progressive magazine, I go to The Nation.

davemb,

I have no doubt that the hothouse nature of political dialectic could have pushed kirchick towards his current state of near marginalized tomfoolery for sure...

but really, I think no one here at tnr cares one whit that the lad is gay. I am glad to read that the stripling agrees. As I said, kirchick is smart and talented, of that I am convinced; he just needs to realize that his approach to political journalism - a weird and off putting amalgam of marty peretz/andrew sullivan & rex reed - is a sure path to the margins and a massive premature stroke before he reaches 30.

<<"I think it's clear that gay people, and any minority for that matter, do best under the watch of a liberal democracy," he says. "It's all tied into my belief that the world needs to look more like America for there to be any sort of social progress.">>

This is what is so infuriating about Kirchick: his first sentence is absolutely, 100%, completely, totally, undeniably, unreservedly, fully, demonstrably true. (Sorry for the truckload of adverbs; making a point ....)  Speaking as a multiple-front minority (even in my homeland, let alone in Canada), as someone who has first hand experience of a theocracy and the modern birthplace of Islamic radicalism, I am unrepentant about considering Western liberal democracy the only guarantee of my sanity and even less shy about denying relativism on this score.

BUT, it's one thing to say liberal democracy is good for gays and women and blacks and minorities (and even Muslim minorities) that "the world needs to look more like America for there to be any sort of social progress", or advocating that this replication/refashioning should be done at the point of a Howitzer.  We in Canada already have gay marriage - legislated gay marriage - universal health care, no second amendment, and no legalised torture.  We're happy about not being more like the US, though we thank you for your generosity and hospitality and your good neighbourliness.

In response to my post about Barack Obama&#39;s rush to the center, Josh Marshall asks : There&#39;s