Fairness Doctrime In Action

Daylight Saving Time (or the end of it, whatever) opened up a new world for me this week.  It's darker earlier which has a negative effect on what I listen to in the late afternoon driving around Toledo.

See, we don't have one of those cool Air America stations many big city folks can rely on for their daily dose of progressive propaganda.  But I can usually get my fix when I'm away from my computer streaming Thom Hartmann and Randy Rhodes by tuning into the weak signal from AA's Detroit affiliate, WDTW.

Alas, AM radio still works under quirky 1930's regulations and even more irrational physics and weather rules that require most broadcasters to reduce their signal power as the sun sets -- and this led to a pleasant discovery this week.

WNWT, 1520AM out of Rossford, Ohio (just across the Maumee River) is programming one of the most eclectic mix conservative and liberal talk radio shows I've ever heard on one channel. 

I couldn't quite pull in the last hour of Ed Schultz out of Detroit through a growing roar of static the other day as it got prematurely dark, and decided to search for something else before giving up and switching to music.  But I'm a talk radio junkie and held out hope for a miracle.  My search for something other than right wing pontificators for once was not in vain.

You'll understand my delight that I can now hear some liberal voices, loudly and in the clear, if you consider that i can get Limbaugh, Hannity, and Michael Savage on six different stations in this area.  Now they've got some interesting competition.

As I said, it's a weird mix at WNWT -- which stands for "News, Weather and Talk" as far as I can tell.  They're doing their best to be equal opportunity annoyers.  At the top and bottom of the hours, the "News" feed is from CNN, but the "Weather" comes from the local FOX affiliate (cuz you know, reality has a liberal bias, but weathermen just make shit up).

Near as I can tell, they've elected to offer the lighter side of the polarized political radio spectrum and avoiding the most belligerent voices.  No Rush or Schultz.  No Hannity or Rhodes.

Bill Press starts the morning from 6am to 9am (who seems to have the only full airing of his 3 hour show), followed by the first 2 hours of Stephanie Miller -- which dovetails nicely with my progressive wake up and drive the kids to school routine and is the same as the Detroit station without the static.  Stephanie's third hour is pre-empted by two hours of (still trying to be) funny conservative Dennis Miller.

The Millers segue into consumer finance guy, Clark Howard,  leading into CNN's Lou Dobbs at 3pm (who knew he was on the radio) then Keith Olbermann's old partner from Sports Center, Dan Patrick who's still the most entertaining sports talker since the last thing he likes to talk about is sports -- just fun.

Dr. Laura and Larry King are on in the evenings, who are innocuous enough.  Unfortunately, late night is turned over to the moron twins, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck (whose name they spell wrong), and according to their web site Nancy Grace is also on the talking sound machine from 1am to 2am.  But who listens to the radio after dinner time anyway?

Dr. Dean Edell (if that's really how the good doctor spells his name) is scheduled to be on between 5-6am, just before Bill Press, but this morning (vampire that I am) I was delighted to hear the end of Rachel Maddow's show instead -- and there's a blank bit between 3am and 5am on their program guide, so maybe that's in flux.

All in all, as an experiment in program diversity, this seems a noble and novel exercise.  Indeed, if Al Franken as the 60th Senator is given the ironic honor of introducing the return of the Fairness Doctrine, it may be the way of the future.  I hope it works, and I'll be listening.

Is It Just Me

Or is MSNBC's Morning Joe much more watchable without Joe?

The Next Best Format

So how do you know that you’re an easily manipulated right-wing tool who can be counted on to allow lying Republican guests to “control [their] message”?

Why, you get picked by Republicans to be the willing dupe to be the first to interview the lying, stealth GOP Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. Hi Charlie.

[UPDATE:] Credit where credit is due: “Charlie” gave a far better and tougher interview than I, for one (and the McCain Campaign for another, I’d bet), ever imagined. Maybe he found her smarmy use of his name unpleasant. Perhaps the “best platform” will remain MTP. Tom?

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

Gone to the Dogs

by shep

Fantastic! Minnesota Public Radio decides to cover the political protests in Mineapolis but in their long description of low protester turnout doesn’t see fit to mention that:

” Homes of college-aid protesters were raided by rifle-wielding police forces. Journalists were forcibly detained at gun point. Lawyers on the scene to represent the detainees were handcuffed. Computers, laptops, journals, diaries, and political pamphlets were seized from people's homes. And all of this occurred against U.S. citizens, without a single act of violence having taken place, and nothing more serious than traffic blockage even alleged by authorities to have been planned.”

or:

”This is Eileen Clancy . . . The house where I-Witness Video is staying in St. Paul has been surrounded by police. We have locked all the doors. We have been told that if we leave we will be detained. One of our people who was caught outside is being detained in handcuffs in front of the house. The police say that they are waiting to get a search warrant. More than a dozen police are wielding firearms, including one St. Paul officer with a long gun, which someone told me is an M-16.

We are suffering a preemptive video arrest. For those that don't know, I-Witness Video was remarkably successful in exposing police misconduct and outright perjury by police during the 2004 RNC. Out of 1800 arrests, at least 400 were overturned based solely on video evidence which contradicted sworn statements which were fabricated by police officers. It seems that the house arrest we are now under and the possible threat of the seizure of our computers and video cameras is a result of the 2004 success.

We are asking the public to contact the office of St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman at 651-266-8510 to stop this house arrest, this gross intimidation by police officers, and the detention of media activists and reporters.”

There was a day when a journalist (or at least his or her editor) knew the difference between dog-bites-man - a few violent protesters at a political convention - and man-bites-dog - government surveillance and harassment of political opponents, illegal searches and seizures of private homes, arresting reporters and defense attorneys without probable cause, etc. The fact that the establishment press has decided to forgo that simple analysis when observing government conduct is, perhaps, the biggest man-bites-dog story of early 21st Century America.

Thank goodness for our ever-vigilant police state and our “liberal media” . You must be so glad to not be one of those dirty effing hippies…

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

By The Way, How Was The Speech?

You know what national problem Barack Obama did not mention last night? It's a pet complaint of bloggers on the right and left every day. Our shitty corporate media.

However, faced with such an extraordinary evening culminating a week of outstanding choreography, not even the most jaded right wing tool could deny the historic nature of what they witnessed. (Note that Hannity and O'Reilly fled back to New York instead of making insta-analysis after the speech, opting for data mining and eating boogers found under their beds and waiting for Limbaugh to write their talking points for their radio hate fests in the afternoon.)

Pat Buchanan calls a Democrat's speech the best and most important political convention speech he had ever heard, going back 48 years. MSNBC to it's credit, along with CNN backed off the commentary and just let the show unfold for the most part.

David Gergan calls a Democrat's speech a Symphony and a Political Masterpiece.


WaPo/Fox's Charles Krauthammer? Obama was "Brilliant." Even the neocon's neocon can't deny what was right in his face.

"[A]wfully impressive performance," Bill Kristol.

Greta Van Sustren: "It was a great speech." "Dazzling," "Dazzling," "Dazzling," "Dazzling," but can he deliver, deliver, deliver, deliver? (She truly is awful.) Pollster Frank Luntz answered her, predicting a predictably inflated 10 point Obama bounce, that the change Barack talks about will not come from him, but from the American people. Luntz reminded us of the line from the speech that change doesn't come from Washington. Change is brought to Washington. [Ooo, make that 5 Greta "Dazzlings."]

Bubba got their notice too.

Karl Rove had enough integrity (I can't believe I wrote that) not to simply parrot Sean Hannity disingenuously trashing Bill Clinton's speech the night before, but talked about Clinton being the first to lay the groundwork for an anti-McCain argument at the Convention -- an argument Obama ran with last night. Peggy Noonan swooned for the Clenis as well.

Even some conservative commentators were impressed. Karl Rove said on Fox's Hannity and Colmes, "He gave the best argument offered thus far on the third day of the convention for Barack Obama. He gave a comprehensive view domestically and internationally. It wasn't his endorsement tonight that mattered...but what he did do is he set a theme: Restoring the American dream at home and America's leadership abroad." Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal that "halfway through" Clinton's speech "I thought: The Master has arrived. Crazy Bill, the red-faced Rageaholic, was somewhere else. This was Deft Political Pro Bill doing what no one had been able to do up to this point at the convention, and that is make the case for Barack Obama."

So, how did Rove assess Obama's acceptance speech? "Clintonian." High praise, at least in what passes for gray matter between Rove's ears. Rove mostly played the role of wonk instead of speech critic, examining the argument Obama make that he saw coming from the Bill Clinton preview, and advising how to counter it. I think he knows there's just no use fighting rhetoric and symbolism against our guy with their guy, who just isn't up to the task.

They're all putting a happy face on everything, but you can just tell the GOP punditocracy is freaked. It must be even worse in the lobbyist encrusted trenches of McCain Central.

Lone Fox nay-sayer Juan Williams was unsatisfied that not enough inspiration, not enough emotion, not enough MLK (even though having MLK,III and his sister speaking should pretty much cover that). Williams felt Obama didn't take advantage of the moment, not giving us enough of the stuff McCain and Co. says is the reason Obama is all fluff.

To Williams, I say: ENOUGH.

...Shame On You

Mike Murphy, “GOP consultant and former senior strategist for John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign,” was on MSNBC’s panel last night to discuss the effectiveness of the Democratic Convention and Obama’s campaign and choice of speech venue where he was nearly shouted off the stage by the nearby audience for repeatedly stating that Bill and Hillary Clinton were going to vote for John McCain.

That was shortly before publishing more GOP concern-troll hackery on Time Inc.’s blog Swampland (Apropos, no?)

Here’s little piece of news for all of you whiz kids in the nooose bidness: if you want to know something about Democrats, NEVER ASK A REPUBLICAN! They’re stone-cold liars. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

If you want to keep looking like idiots by being fooled time and time again by people who repeatedly lie right to your face (and then laugh at you behind your back), don’t say you haven’t been warned

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

Right From the Horse’s Ass

AP’s Charles Babbington says “McCain's 'celebrity' taunts are bugging Obama” and he’s got the quote to prove it: “"If the celebrity issue were not hurting them, they would have ignored it."

The quote comes from…wait for it…Republican strategist Terry Holt.

My god, how do these idiots keep their jobs as political analysts. Maybe the better question is, why must you be an idiot to keep a job as a political analyst? (Why, Cokie?) Not like it isn’t an obvious GOP zombie, brain-eating talking point.

Quite clearly, to anyone whose objectivity and intellect and hasn’t been turned to mush from living in the media elite bubble, the Obama Campaign used the “celebrity” meme as a backdoor to wrap President Bush and the entrenched Beltway rot around John McCain. Obama’s people realize that, for normal people (i.e., not Republicans), it’s not really much of a sin for a US presidential nominee to be popular but it sure is a one these days to be to seen as part of Washington’s corrupt, out-of-touch, self-serving elites ($500 shoes anyone?). Babbington babbles: “For weeks, Obama has tried to frame the election largely as a referendum on President Bush, using every chance to tie McCain to the unpopular incumbent.”

Well, yeah, ya think? And you didn’t notice the six separate scenes of McCain and Bush practically ejaculating on one another? Of course the GOP lie factory will try to make any Obama ad, no matter how effective, somehow a problem for Obama. The only question is why anyone with his or her head outside his own or the GOP’s ass would believe a word of it. Oh, right.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

Truism Of The Day

Bob Somerby @ Daily Howler:

When a candidate makes “repeated pledges that he will never question his rival’s patriotism,” he’s questioning his rival’s patriotism!

Somerby dissects Dana Milbank for "feasting on narrative" as is all too common among the Village Courtiers enjoying cocktail weenies and bar-b-qued Democrat at Versailles on the Potomac; documenting as always a press corps so wrong, so often, and so predictable the word "dishonest" is hardly adequate.

Glenn Greenwald takes off in a similar vein, tracing the latest poison to it's usual source, high level GOP operatives, namely Karl Rove . . .

This is what happens over and over and over. Media stars love to be used this way. The themes never change and neither does the process. Still, it's amazing how fast it travels from Karl Rove's lips and then out of the mouths of the vast bulk of "journalists" covering the presidential race for establishment media outlets. The fact that they all say the same thing at once -- all of which originate with GOP operatives -- doesn't strike any of them as evidence that they're mindless spouters of conventional wisdom. They think it shows the opposite -- that it's proof that they are political sophisticates plugged into the important election issues ("Obama is arrogant and presumptuous").

The most inane part of it all is that even as they willingly serve as the GOP's attack amplifiers, they simultaneously and openly fret that they're being unfair to Republicans and too biased towards liberals -- a message that they also get from the same GOP operatives who so transparently write their script. Thus, without any recognition whatsoever of how contradictory they are, the two predominant themes from our establishment journalists are now this: (1) Obama is an arrogant, presumptuous, effete liberal and (2) we in the media are far too enamored of Obama and unwilling to criticize him.

Facts be damned, even scientific analysis that it is Obama, not McCain who is being hammered by negativity in the press, this zombie narrative thrives among the pampered plutocrats who are all too aware that the term "liberal media" is a myth, but one that could devour them whole if it every actual manifested itself.

UPDATE: MyDD's Johnathan Singer looks like he's figured it out:

But the more I have thought about it, the more it seems to me that McCain's efforts do have a unifying quality to them, even if a misguided one: Influencing those inside the Beltway. These ads aren't directed at Missouri or Ohio or Pennsylvania, or voters in the other key states who will help decide the outcome of this election. Instead, they are directed at the political establishment, and the establishment media in DC, in particular.

I Gotta Give Up "Morning Joe"

While there some benefit to hearing MSNBC's Joe Scarborough mouth off in the morning, kinda like a quick bout of mental calisthenics that gets your blood moving -- this guy shoves my brain into fight/flight mode better than a jolt of double espresso ever could.

But it's got to be just plain bad karma to start your day pissed off. GOS diarist Muzikal203 captures today's episode of bullshit and blather.

And right now, Joe Scarborough is on Morning Blow Joe raging about Obama's ego because he dares to say he has good chances, and that if he is elected the world will look at him as a symbol of the "old" America to come back. Perhaps they want Obama to just not be confident, and not be who he is. Obama is comfortable in his skin and doesn't really pander (which I love), but now he's "uppity." Johnathan Capehart literally just said he's "bumping up against that uppity line" on TV. I suppose Capehart will get away with it because he's black too. And now they are pulling the Michelle "proud" quote back up.

Uppity? Really guys?

Did we really have to go there? Dickheads.

Joe was miffed that Obama had the arrogance and hubris (adjectives I've never heard him use against anyone in the Bush Administration) to suggest he's become a “symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.” That statement was similar to how he described Berlin to Der Spiegel, a "symbol of the Victory of Hope."

Mind you, this was actually a quote from one of the participants to the meeting, and not a direct quote of Obama himself (since now I see where Joe got his info, Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal of course). But since Joe saw an opportunity to take the quote of the paraphrase of the quote of who knows what Obama actually said, and put it in the worst possible light to match his ready-made narrative, Scarborough dished up the "uppity" meme for all to consume. Here's what actually appeared in the WSJ. Pay particular attention to where the quotation marks begin and end, and who actually said what to whom about whom.

Sen. Barack Obama paid an upbeat visit to House Democrats, his first meeting with the full group of lawmakers whose fortunes are tightly tied to his this fall. “This is your moment,” he told them.

The Democratic presidential candidate told the group that the positive response he received in Germany and the rest of Europe was “not about him,” said House Democratic Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina. Rather, Obama said he was a “symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.” Lawmakers gave that remark a standing ovation.

Did Obama actually say "He" had become a symbol? Was he talking about the campaign? The trip abroad? Do we really know? Does it really matter one damn bit? Isn't it clear anyway you splice it, Joe Scarborough's agenda it to put these n#$%@rs in their place?

What gets me is that he gets people like Johnathan Capehart and Harold Ford to play along, giving this fucking racist cover, acting like the fact that we're talking about a black politician has nothing to do with the conversation. They're just "analyzing" a politician and holding him to the same standards they would anyone else running for high public office.

Uppity.

Nuff said.

Move on.

They were talking about Michelle Obama and her "Proud" quote when I turned off the idiot box and left the room, deciding to do something productive with my morning. I didn't see them put up Michelle's quote like Muzikal203 did, but it looks like that's where s/he stopped too and couldn't take any more. Shocking that they had that quote ready to go, cued up at all times on the "Joe" show whenever necessary to remind viewers just how hateful and unpatriotic the Obamas can be.

Anyone been watching Regis and Whatsherface lately? Cuz as much as I kinda like Mika Brezinski, she's no better than Alan Colmes getting rolled over every night by Hannity when she sits there in Joe Scar's shadow, fuming but getting paid too much not to put up with the garbage. I think I'm pretty much done with MSNBC for anything but Olbermann's Countdown.

Stunning McShills

Fox Noise started the their fair and balanced morning talking about media bias everywhere but their own network, insisting that the Village "Media has a crush on Obama" -- no, they really said that.

Then there was the yucking it up over Obama insisting that he would not have supported the surge even knowing what he knows now. How lame, how stupid. And that everyone was making way too big a deal over those silly little errors McCain sometimes makes ... hourly ... and fundamentally wrong, wrong, wrong on so much so often. No. Big. Deal.

Oh, not just Fox, but MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, and his guest DLC Chair Harold Ford.

That's Ford the Democrat. He's was agreeing with every anti-Obama talking point Joe Scar could spew.

That McCain changed history by saying the Anbar awakening was a product of the Surge and that Obama was the one who was at odds with history (in some alternate universe) ... No. Big. Deal. Right Harold? ... Right.

That Katie Couric drilled Obama about his opinion on the Surge but edited out McCain's unbelievably wrong, wrong, wrong answer to Obama's defense of his opinion that the tactics Bush/McCain have employed would not fit within his strategic vision of the entire region ... No. Big. Deal. Right Harold? ... Right. Those network anchors do it all the time.

Olbermann went after McCain for this last night, I'm not sure about Abrams, but Joe Scar, with Harold nodding right along said anyone on TV, including those on his own network who kept this up was "stupid."

The Surge worked, the Anbar Awakening wouldn't have survived without it, Basra (which was abandoned by the Brit and quelled by the Iraqis, not Surge troops) wouldn't be peaceful without the Surge . . . Do. Not. Question. The. Great. All. Powerful. Surge. and the Great Bush/McCain wisdom in all things Surg-ee.

By the way, let's also ignore what Couric did put up instead of McSurgishness's actual answer which was so wrong, wrong, wrong it's unfathomable -- which was to flat-out say a sitting U.S. Senator and Presidential Candidate hates America so much and is so blinded by ambition that he would rather lose a war if he could win the election.

Pig.

I might put up some links to this travesty later, but if you don't know what the hell I'm talking about, go read some more blogs cuz you'll never get the real story if you watch the idiot box with the cable thingy attached.


[Okay, too early to be too pissed or to put too many links in a post, so here's a bunch. Read Spencer Ackerman and Yglesias first. More Ackerman and then Ambinder to prove all the quotes are correct and put in perspective after a breath and a beer. Big Media Think Tank Matt has even more on the McCain Time Warp and Greg Sargent slows down time itself so you don't miss the lie for all the spin or what Joe Klein's pissed about.

If you're don with all that, or just don't care enough to click through and are up to speed on all the "news," then take a gander at McCain's revised submission to the NY Times editorial board, comedy gold.]

Half Wit

It’s hard to know what was in the head of the illustrator who drew Barack Obama as a sly-looking Muslim terrorist (with Osama bin Laden’s visage hung over the mantle) and Michelle Obama as a gun-toting, camo-clad, fist-bumping, smirking radical with the American flag roasting in the fireplace – artists are strange people – but The New Yorker’s editors must have known that to be satire, it must expose ludicrousness.

American Heritage Dictionary - sat·ire (sāt'īr') n.
1. a A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
b The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.
2. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

Or, as BagNews Notes puts it more succinctly:

“…satire isn't satire if it has to be labeled as such.”

New Yorker editor David Remnick reveals his understanding of the genre:

What I think it does is hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama's — both Obamas' — past, and their politics. I can't speak for anyone else's interpretations, all I can say is that it combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama's supposed "lack of patriotism" or his being "soft on terrorism" or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow all this is going to come to the Oval Office.

The idea that we would publish a cover saying these things literally, I think, is just not in the vocabulary of what we do and who we are...

It is now, dipshit. How do you suppose that the 12% of knuckle-dragging American cretins who believe that Obama is a practicing Muslim and the prominent neoconservative bedwetters who insist that Obama was a practicing Muslim will get the satire? And what about the many Americans who are simply oblivious to the entire story? For them, these smears will not be “misinterpreted or taken out of context,” because you didn’t provide any context at all, you just repeated the smears.

Ohhhh, I get it. It’s not about Obama and the right-wing smear machine at all. It’s about the context-free, valueless “journalism” practiced by you and your colleagues in the establishment press. Too clever Mr. Remnick…by about half.

UPDATE: Speaking of knuckle-draggers, here's how G Gordon Liddy appreciated the "satire" on air: "Yeah, I don't suppose you've, by any chance, have seen the cover of the latest issue of The New Yorker magazine, which is, you know, a huge thing. It's got Obama in his Muslim dress with a turban, and he's there with his wife. His wife has a "mad at the world" afro, circa 1968, she -- she's got bandoliers and an assault weapon, and there in their fireplace is burning the American flag. The New Yorker finally got it right."

Heckuva job, Remmy.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

Two Faces and No Brains

I wonder if the Village Gasbags will be able to figure out who is demeaning whose service?

“I can't speak for them, but we all know that General Clark, as high-ranking as he is, his record in his last command I think was somewhat less than stellar."
-- Orson Swindle, John McCain Campaign

Just in case there’s still some question what actually demeaning a war veteran’s service looks like:

Louis Letson: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury."

Van O'Dell: "John Kerry lied to get his bronze star...I know, I was there, I saw what happened."

Jack Chenoweth: "His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day."

Admiral Roy Hoffman: "John Kerry has not been honest."

Adrian Lonsdale: "And he lacks the capacity to lead."

Larry Thurlow: "When he chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry."

Bob Elder: "John Kerry is no war hero."

Grant Hibbard: "He betrayed all his shipmates...he lied before the Senate."

Joe Ponder: "He dishonored his country...he most certainly did."

Bob Hildreth: "I served with John Kerry...John Kerry cannot be trusted."

The plain fact is, the Gasbags have no moral or rational authority to judge the matter, they relinquished their credibility and responsibility to do so four years ago.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

Playing by the Rules

I’ve always thought that one of the main reasons the Village Press hated the Clintons and Al Gore was because it was so obvious that Bill, Hillary and Al were much smarter people than them all. With egos at least as ginormous as any politician, that cleverness gap had to stick in their craws in a way that it never would, for obvious reasons, concerning any Republican. But, smart as they may have been, the Clintons and Vice President Gore never understood the new rules that were being invented just for them. They were playing a fool’s game – and the Clintons still managed to beat the Village at it – because they were playing as though there were still liberals in the corporate press and that reason and truth would prevail.

Which brings us to today’s campaign. Am I the only one who thinks that the Obama campaign is winning big here and that the media is being played badly? The conversation has begun – “it’s out there” as they say – does McCain’s record as a (not-very-good) fighter jock and POW more than thirty years ago in some way qualify him to be Commander-in-Chief? At the same time, Obama “rejects the statement” and “honors and respects Senator McCain’s service.” How is Obama hurt by this? How is McCain?

And now we can let the bloviators compare this honest question to what was done to John Kerry. Remember how Kerry’s record was fair game because he brought it up and Bush and Rove pretended like they had nothing to do with the SBVT? Democrats didn’t make them up but Obama seems to have learned the new rules. As Ara likes to say, if I were having any more fun, I’d have to be twins.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

Poor, Stupid Joe

“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”
-- Gen. Wesley Clark

"Clark is just plain wrong when he says that "getting shot down" doesn't qualify as foreign policy experience."
-- Joe Klein

I’m not sure what to comment on here, that Joe Klein thinks that getting shot out of the sky and imprisoned in another country counts as “foreign policy experience,” or that he thinks that “experience” is the same thing as the qualification to be president.

Same result, I guess.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

Ain’t Nothin’ But a…

Last week on NBC or MSNBC (or possibly even CNN – they’re practically indistinguishable at this point) someone marked the moment where – one week prior, “we learned of the death of Tim Russert”.

It struck me odd. Who receives that sort of recognition in our culture? In the past, I could remember only people of immense importance and accomplishment and often only if they had died in some tragic circumstances such as a plane crash or assassination. An FDR, a JFK, a Buddy Holly or an Elvis (though we don’t know for sure he’s actually dead).

Apparently, Gene Lyons had a similar reaction [H/T Bob Somerby]:

Few events so reveal society’s unacknowledged values as a royal funeral. So it was following the untimely death of NBC newsman and “Meet the Press” moderator Tim Russert. We have no formal aristocracy in the United States, but Washington has a selfappointed media peerage. Russert was a political celebrity / courtier of exalted rank. [snip] On “Hardball,” they held an Irish wake for several days. All that was missing was a bottle of Jameson’s, and that may have been under the table.

Of course, Russert was of very modest importance or accomplishment:

To his grieving colleagues and many viewers, Russert embodied the best of TV journalism. Others think very differently about his legacy.

Lyons explains why Russert’s colleagues liked him, because of his apparently genuine warmness. My son met Russert by chance one day and confirmed that widely shared impression of him. But being a nice guy is a dubious asset when your job is to reveal the truth about the politics and the powerful that surround you.

Back to Russert and Washington journalism: In the sport of beagling, two bad faults can get a hound disqualified. One is “cold-trailing.” I had a beagle named Leon who’d hoot down scent trails so old the rabbits that left them were probably being digested by coyotes. Leon made so much noise about nothing that my pals dubbed him “The Journalist.” Then there’s “ghost-trailing.” Unable to keep up, a hound will sometimes invent a fictitious rabbit and make a great show of running it. Other dogs learn to ignore him. Washington courtier-journalists have done plenty of both recently. Russert was among the worst. Like most, he obsessed over Bill Clinton’s sexual sins, but handled the Bush administration’s Iraq war propaganda like the Baltimore Catechism: Memorize, regurgitate. Linda Hirshman nails it in The Nation: “The political leaders who did the best answering Tim Russert’s questions in the last seven years—Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell—are the authors of the most disastrous American foreign policy since the Vietnam War, and maybe since 1776. The Russert Test was a disaster because it rewarded people willing to lie unabashedly on TV.”

Russert’s colleagues are of course free to mourn the death of their friend - I’d bet Russert is about as good as it gets in their world – let’s just not get carried away about his “journalism”. Tim Russert was no Elvis.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

Shut Up

You can always change the channel, so John, Marcy, TBogg, Oliver, and you too Avedon, if you don't have anything nice to say and you're unsure about the timing of speaking ill of the dead . . . don't.

I agree with absolutely everything you guys have to say, and I'll agree with it later, at a slightly more appropriate time.

But I'm reminded of something said when we had wall-to-wall coverage of a diaper-wearing astronaut driving cross-country with murder in her heart, or when a doe-eyed bride disappeared that engendered 24 hour coverage. If the front page of every paper carries the same story and the cable news outlets devote hours and hours and hours to the same subject -- that IS the news. Deal with it.

Respectfully if you can.

It's their network, it's their friend who passed away right in front of them. He was their leader, mentor, and- often their conscience. The shock hasn't worn off, let alone have they had adequate time to morn. They can express their feelings anyways they want, engage in a week-long cathartic group hug if necessary. Don't be petty. Go read something else if you don't want to watch.

Tim Russert fell over dead right in the middle of the most historic presidential campaign ever, and he had placed his team front and center of it all. He was an institution that built an institution. Maybe he wouldn't have wanted all the fuss and would have told them all to get back to work, but he's not there.

Was there much to criticize there, you bet. Was he emblematic of many of the problems with the Village and the Versailles Press, of course. Did his gotcha style leave much to be desired, well nobody's perfect. Were there times when he let the powerful off the hook too easily and enabled events with tragic consequences, I cannot argue with that.

You folks didn't know him. I get the feeling he's someone I would have like to have known.

What the Heck Is Wrong With AP?

The Associated Press, a news outlet that permeates our information consumption, badly as I pointed out the other day, has just reach a new low.

AP, or as skippy properly calls them, AssPress, is going after lowly bloggers at the Drudge Retort (not to be confused with the fedora wearing rumor monger who runs Drudge RePort), including commenters for Pete's sake, for copyright violations -- for simply duplicating a headline linking back to the original article and running the minimum of excerpts.

Read more about it here.

This is a cautionary tale to those who would try and become "successful" bloggers. The Old Media won't go away without a fight.

Discrimination

Now that Hillary Clinton has “suspended” her campaign for the Democratic nomination for president, millions of angry, white women are turning their disappointment-led ire toward Barack Obama and assuming that it is his responsibility to heal the party:

Obama is the victor, now let's see what he does. The burden is on him as it should be.

Now let's see if Obama can deliver. He has much to do and undo. Yes, his unfortunate comments "Hillary, you are likeable enough" spoke volumes. He was some work to do.

First, let’s get one thing straight: Barack Obama did nothing to Hillary Clinton or her supporters that he should or could undo.

• One Democratic candidate said that the Republican presidential candidate was obviously qualified to be president and suggested that the other Democratic candidate was not.

• One Democratic candidate repeatedly claimed that the other Democratic candidate might not be able to beat the Republican.

• One Democratic candidate derided the other Democratic candidate’s capabilities (and, by extension, that candidate’s supporters) as nothing more than empty rhetoric.

• One Democratic candidate’s campaign was dismissive of the other Democratic candidate’s numerous state primary/caucus wins.

• One Democratic candidate’s campaign implied that racial bias was behind their successes and failures.

• One Democratic candidate tried to change the party’s rules mid-race to boost their campaign.

• The other Democratic candidate said that candidate one was, “likable enough”.

In fact, Obama only brought up his opponent in response to the most unfair and divisive rhetoric (see above), rhetoric that is dangerous to the party and the country come November.

This TPM reader and Hillary supporter at least gets it half right:

She did so much "just right" and could have won it had she not had the rough treatment from the media.

This person at least understands who was unfair to Hillary. But it is a wild stretch of the imagination to say that she “could have won it” if not for the misogyny and Clinton-animus displayed by a number of prominent media gasbags. In fact, backlash against this unfair treatment may have been a driving force behind Clinton supporters and is widely credited for her late, come-from-behind victory in the New Hampshire primary. Her campaign might have been over many months ago had she not won that contest.

Finally, this Clinton supporter lobs one additional insult at Obama supporters:

If there are those Democrats who still feel it is necessary to denigrate Senator Clinton and her run for the Presidency, I would ask them to think about the change they advocate and the no more politics as usual. The only way to say no to the Washington politics of the past 20 years is to stop hating and start moving forward.

Every man that has lived with a woman knows about resentment built on perceived slights. And it isn’t surprising that this Clinton supporter should project her resentment on Obama supporters. But the truth of the matter is that most Obama supporters seem heartsick (perhaps I’m projecting somewhat here), not hateful, about what the Clinton campaign did to the Clintons and yearn for the party to unite against our common enemies.

And, incredibly, this last Clinton supporter seems to think that saying “no to the Washington politics of the past 20 years” requires Democrats to “stop hating” when it should be obvious, particularly to a Clinton supporter, that the politics of the past 20 years has been all about Republican hatred of liberals and Democrats and the abject failure of the corporate media. It will take everything liberal Democrats can do to overcome this deep ignorance and mass media turpitude and teach even many Democrats who our real enemies are.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

Drive By Thought

When did the Stalkerazzi replace Britany, Lindsay and Paris with Ted Kennedy?

Helicopters outside the guy's home? Really?

The great question of the day being, "Can he go sailing?"

Ugh!

Just Brilliant

The essence of the problem with our superficial media's political discourse.

The Cult of the Offhand Comment

Phrase coined by Somerby via Digby